TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @RedactedNews

RedactedNews
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 6:51 PM
Saved - July 11, 2026 at 12:54 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I see Trump and Zionist neocons as sabotaging peace talks with claims Iran is racing toward a nuke. Scott Ritter argues Iran has never run an active nuclear weapons program and the scare is political, not factual. He points to prior Israeli “Iran nuke” dossiers, including a 2018 forged one, as pretext-making. Israel remains undeclared, un-NPT, and still decides who can have nukes.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Iran’s Nuclear Program Is the New WMD Lie. ft. Scott Ritter Trump and the Zionist neocons around him keep blowing up peace talks by alleging that Iran is racing toward a nuclear bomb. The question is simple: are we actually facing an Iranian nuke threat, or are we watching a reboot of the Iraq WMD scam? Former UN weapons inspector @RealScottRitter reports Iran has never run an active nuclear weapons program, and that the nuclear scare narrative is political, not factual. Israel had previously rolled out dramatic “Iran nuke” files before, including a 2018 forged dossier that was more about manufacturing a pretext for war than revealing any real, ongoing weapons program. Israel itself sits on an undeclared nuclear arsenal, has never signed the Non‑Proliferation Treaty, and still claims the right to decide which countries are “allowed” to have these weapons.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 argues that the president is “screaming” that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and that there is no proof Iran has a nuclear program. Speaker 0 responds that there has been “no proof” Iran did anything, while Iranian officials say Iran will not accept being told what it can do regarding nuclear power. Speaker 0 says Iran has offered that if the other side is uncomfortable with Iran’s uranium, it can come inspect it, and claims the negotiation continues without resolution. Speaker 1 states that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and that there is no evidence supporting allegations Iran had one. Speaker 1 claims that evidence presented in this regard was fabricated, pointing to events starting in 2018 involving Israelis breaking into a Tehran facility, stealing documents, and providing them to Donald Trump as proof Iran was cheating. Speaker 1 says Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and alleges the documents were previously submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2004 and were forgeries. Speaker 1 concludes that the Israeli case against Iran consists of forged or contextually altered documents. Speaker 1 also claims Iran does not want a nuclear weapon and that this is tied to religious beliefs, including fatwas or religious edicts from the first two supreme leaders. Speaker 1 cites that even when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, Iran did not respond in kind and framed chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction as incompatible with Islamic jurisprudence, presenting this as consistent behavior rather than contradiction. Speaker 0 says 60% enriched uranium is a provocation and that the Iranian president was asked why it happened. Speaker 0 reports Araghchi’s explanation: Iran did it to gain negotiating leverage because the United States would otherwise dismiss them as “zero, zero, zero, zero,” while Iran says the U.S. does not get to impose “zero.” Speaker 0 says this was intended to allow Iran to retain enrichment while not enriching to a level Iran has demonstrated it has. Speaker 0 further claims that before a conflict began on February 28, Iran met extensively with Jared Kushner and Steve Wyckoff and agreed to remove 60% enriched uranium, never enrich again, and accept inspections limiting enrichment to 3.75%, described as the level needed for fuel used in Iran’s Bushehr reactor. Speaker 0 says the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives Iran the right under Article 4 to possess the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, and that the U.S. and Israel should not dictate terms that deviate from the treaty. Speaker 0 asserts Iran would close higher-enrichment pathways and accept limitations without sunset clauses, making them permanent. Speaker 0 concludes that Israel refuses to allow Iran an enrichment program, despite Israel not signing the NPT and possessing nuclear weapons, and argues that the negotiation’s “easiest part” would be letting Iran enrich to 3.75% under IAEA supervision while shutting down higher-level pathways, which would eliminate a pathway to a bomb and allow Trump to claim a better deal than the JCPOA.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: The president just keeps screaming Iran can never have a nuke. Speaker 0: I mean, we never had proof that they did. But Iranian officials are saying, we just are not going to let them tell us that we can't use nuclear power. We are not going to let them tell us what to do anymore. If they're uncomfortable with our uranium, they can come and inspect it. This has always been the case. But we continue to move the football. So what is the stage of the negotiation about nuclear power? A nuclear weapon. Speaker 1: Well, sure. We know that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. They never had a nuclear weapons program. There's no evidence to sustain any allegations that they've had a nuclear weapons program. All evidence that's been put on the table in that regard have been shown to be fabricated. Remember in 2000, was it? In 2018, the Israelis launched some sort of famous attack, a raid on Tehran where they broke into a facility and stole documents. And then they did that in early 2018. And then they went to Donald Trump and they showed Donald Trump the documents. And Donald Trump said, this is proof they're cheating. And he withdrew from the JCPOA because he only takes instructions from Israel. But the interesting thing is... when these documents, some of them were made public, it turns out that these documents had already been previously submitted by the Israelis to the International Atomic Energy Agency back in 2004 and were shown to be outright fabrications, forgeries. And that's the reality of the Israeli case against Iran. It's 100% fabricated, consisting of forged documents or documents that are taken out of context. There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program, never has been, and there never will be because Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon. They've made that quite clear. It's not just that they don't want it, but it's also incompatible with their religious beliefs. There are fatwas or religious edicts that have been passed by the first two supreme leaders that said no to this. As you pointed out, the Iranians are serious about this, because even when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops, inflicting serious casualties on these troops, Iran never responded in kind, saying that chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction in general, are against Islamic jurisprudence. So it's not that they say one thing and do another. They're consistent all along. I have pointed out that 60% enriched uranium is a provocation. I asked the Iranian president straight to his face, why did you do it? Because it makes it look like you're moving towards a nuclear weapon. And what his foreign minister answered after talking to him, Araghchi said, We're doing it so that we have negotiating leverage. The world has to take us seriously, because right now the United States doesn't. They just say zero, zero, zero, zero. And the Iranians are saying, you don't get to say zero. So the idea was to have this so that there would be a card to play so that they can retain enrichment, but not enrich to a level they've demonstrated they have. And this seems to be backed up because prior to this most recent round of conflict starting on February 28th, the Iranians had met extensively with Jared Kushner and Steve Wyckoff, and they where they basically agreed to get rid of their 60% enriched uranium and also agree that they would never again enrich, that there would be inspections that would limit the enrichment to 3.75%, which is the enrichment level needed for fuel used in the Bushir nuclear reactor. Iran has an inherent right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to possess the totality of the nuclear fuel cycle inclusive of enrichment. The United States and Israel do not get to dictate things that differ deviate from the treaty. And this is what Iran is saying. There will be no Iran exception to the treaty. Iran will do what Iran is allowed to do under Article 4 of the NPT. But Iran will agree, I believe, and the United States would agree to low levels of enrichment, Iran would agree to close the door on higher levels of enrichment to limit the number of cascades they have to limit the amount of nuclear material that would be accumulated and do so without any sunset clauses so that these limitations would become permanent. And that's how you get out of this nuclear issue. But the problem is Israel refuses to allow Iran to have a nuclear enrichment program. It's somewhat ironic since Israel is neither a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they possess nuclear weapons. So, you know, it's stunning that the United States and the world continues to even listen to what Israel has to say on this issue. This is the easiest part of the negotiation if the United States would just use common sense. allow Iran to enrich uranium to 3.75%, to so under the supervision of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. And Iran will agree that all pathways to enrichment at a higher level will be shut down. Therefore, there is no pathway to a bomb. Therefore, there is no potential of a nuclear weapon. Therefore, Donald Trump gets to say that he has a better deal than the JCPOA. This is how you get out of it.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 10, 2026 at 12:33 AM
Saved - July 10, 2026 at 4:18 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I’ve learned that days before the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, U.S. Air Force U‑2 spy missions were canceled over the exact sea area where the ship was later bombed. Sgt. Bryce Lockwood says U‑2 flights were barred between June 3 and June 9, leaving the Liberty effectively unwatched. He now believes it was a false flag setup to pull the U.S. into war with Egypt.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 USS Liberty Survivor: U‑2 Flights Were Grounded Before the Attack In the days leading up to the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, U.S. Air Force Lockheed U‑2 spy plane missions were suddenly canceled over the exact stretch of sea where the ship would later be bombed. One of the last surviving crew members, Silver Star recipient, U.S. Marine Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, reveals those U‑2 flights were explicitly barred from the area between June 3 and June 9, 1967, a blackout window that left the Liberty effectively unwatched from the sky. Sgt. Lockwood now believes the USS Liberty wasn’t just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but was being set up as part of an international false flag operation designed to drag the United States into a full-scale war against Egypt.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript discusses the June 8, 1967 USS Liberty attack and claims that U-2 reconnaissance flights were intentionally disrupted around the time of the incident. The host says there are “no coincidences” and points to U-2 flights being canceled or postponed, including not flying over a designated area until a specific date—one day after the USS Liberty was to be bombed—framing this as a “new revelation” learned from Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, a United States Marine Corps survivor of the attack. Lockwood describes the USS Liberty as a US Naval intelligence ship operating in international waters during the Six Day War when it was attacked by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats. The transcript states that 34 Americans were killed and more than 170 wounded. It says Israel described the attack as mistaken identity, but that survivors have disputed this explanation for nearly six decades, and that declassified documents also dispute it. It adds that Lockwood was badly burned and still saved three shipmates trapped below deck, earning the Silver Star for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity, as referenced by Military Times. The host asks Lockwood about new information regarding U-2 spy planes. Lockwood says a friend sent him documents from the U.S. Intelligence Board. He reports that, on 1 June, the USIB formally approved the transfer of SIGINT (signals intelligence) and overhead reconnaissance functions over denied areas to a new committee structure, “effectively institutionalizing controlled imagery exploitation in the Middle East.” He then reports that on 3 June a separate directive explicitly barred U-2 flights until no earlier than 9 June, citing “sensitive diplomatic negotiations.” Lockwood says the result was a “reconnaissance blackout” for conventional overhead platforms during the precise window of the Liberty incident while new bureaucratic systems were being implemented to manage signal and imagery from denied zones, and that this stands in direct contradiction to existing narratives and other contemporaneous documents. When asked what he thought on hearing this, Lockwood states, “We were set up,” adding that, in his view, they were sent with a direct purpose to establish an international false flag operation: “Save the shit, kill everyone aboard it, blame it on the Egyptians, get the United States involved on the side of Israel.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, we don't believe in coincidences here on our show, here on Redacted. And when U-2 flights are suddenly canceled or postponed, not to fly over a designated area until a specific date, one day after the bombing of the USS Liberty by the Israelis, it's all very interesting. Why would U-2 flights be postponed specifically over the area until where the USS Liberty was to be bombed. This is a new revelation that we're just learning about. We learned about it from Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, United States Marine Corps, one of the last living survivors of the June 8th, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. The Liberty was a US Naval intelligence ship operating in international waters during the Six Day War when it was suddenly attacked by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 Americans were killed, more than 170 wounded. Israel, of course, said the attack was a tragic case of mistaken identity, but that's not the case at all. Many survivors have disputed that explanation for nearly six decades. And by the way, declassified documents also dispute that. Bryce Lockwood was badly burned in the attack, still risked his life to save three shipmates trapped below deck. For that courage, he received the Silver Star for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity. according to his citation in the Military Times. So, Sergeant Lockwood joins us now. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your service, and thank you for your bravery in speaking out about this. Speaker 1: My pleasure. Speaker 0: So, at the beginning, I mentioned perhaps a new revelation. You know, much has been written and said about the USS Liberty attack, but you just learned about... some new information that came to light about these U-2 spy planes. Maybe before we get into the details of the attack and everything that you experienced, can you talk about this new revelation? Speaker 1: A friend of mine sent me some documents from the U.S. Intelligence Board. And this document states, on 1 June, the USIB, the U.S. Intelligence Board, formally approves the transfer of SIGINT signals intelligence, overhead reconnaissance functions over denied areas to a new committee structure, effectively institutionalizing controlled imagery exploitation in the Middle East. On 3 June, a separate directive explicitly bars U-2 flights until no earlier than 9 June, citing sensitive diplomatic negotiations. The net result was a reconnaissance blackout for conventional overhead platform U2 during the precise window of the Liberty incident while new bureaucratic machinery was being stood up to manage signal and imagery from denied zone. This stands in direct contradiction to the narrative and other contemporaneous documents. Speaker 0: What did you think when you heard that? Speaker 1: We were set up Not that we didn't already suspect that. We believe that we were sent there with a direct purpose, setting up an international false flag operation, if you like that term. Save the shit, kill everyone aboard it, blame it on the Egyptians, get the United States involved on the side of Israel.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 9, 2026 at 12:42 AM
Saved - July 9, 2026 at 4:11 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I argue that generation after generation of war normalizes cruelty and dulls our response to suffering, making once-unthinkable policies feel routine. History shows wartime power grabs: mass surveillance, limits on speech, labeling dissent “unpatriotic,” and expanded police and intelligence powers. With AI and digital tech, these tools only intensify—and may never end.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Tucker Carlson Warns: Endless War Is the Perfect Excuse for Total Surveillance Generation after generation of conflict makes cruelty feel normal, dulls our reaction to human suffering, and turns once-unthinkable acts into everyday policy. History shows the pattern: in wartime, governments rarely give up power. They grab more. They roll out mass surveillance, tighten controls on speech, smear dissent as “unpatriotic,” and expand police and intelligence powers in the name of security. Now, with AI and digital tech layered on top of that, those same wartime tools are being supercharged. From algorithmic monitoring to automated data tracking and new systems of social control that don’t turn off when the shooting stops. So the real question isn’t just what war does abroad, but what it does at home: how much freedom are people willing to trade for the promise of safety, and what happens when “temporary” emergency powers become the permanent operating system? We dig into all of this, and what it means for the future of civil liberties in an age of endless conflict and AI surveillance, with @TuckerCarlson.

Video Transcript AI Summary
War accelerates social change, with major shifts in attitudes and tolerance developing rapidly during wartime. In Israel, the situation described as Israel in 2026 having little resemblance to earlier Israel is attributed to ongoing conflict, including a “seven front war,” which hardens attitudes: people become more tolerant of brutality, anger at opponents intensifies, and tolerance for atrocities and for harming one’s own citizens who disagree increases. The transcript argues this pattern appears historically in Great Britain during World War II, citing Winston Churchill’s imprisonment of opposition party members and their families for the duration of the war, without charges, for being opposition and disloyal or unpatriotic. The opposition party is described as led by a First World War war hero, with internment including the hero and his wife and compatriots and their wives. The transcript also references FDR’s internment of Japanese people, “including American citizens,” presenting these as examples of wartime practices. The speaker connects these dynamics to the claim that “rule by technology” is a goal. The argument presented is that if governments do not spend time improving the lives of the citizens who fund them, citizens may revolt or resist payment and compliance. The transcript frames three possible “end game” options: improve citizens’ lives in good faith; use technology to enslave and shut down dissent so opinions do not matter; or accept a cycle of discontent leading to revolt. A related claim is that incentives exist to use technology to stop Americans from complaining, with an example mentioning Ben Shapiro and criticism that he calls people who disagree with him “left and right.” The transcript references a “horseshoe theory,” and mentions Ben Shapiro’s and Bill Ackman’s Harvard background, asserting that they are part of the ruling class that lectures others to stop complaining. Speaker 0 responds by discussing compliance and the lack of outrage over central bank digital currency and data handover to “big tech oligarchs,” framing the expectation to stay compliant. The transcript concludes with the speaker’s longer reflection: the U.S. has a ruling class in every era, but the key difference over roughly the last 60 years is described as leaders’ increased dislike and contempt for the population. This is tied to declining life expectancy, degradation of physical health, and the claim that 20% of white girls are on OnlyFans, which the speaker describes as intentional degradation and abandonment. The speaker states that people who hate the population will predispose to hurt them if they can, and if they have technology to constrain speech, expression, thoughts, or places people can go, they will likely use it—adding that goodwill cannot be assumed.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: War changes societies faster than anything else. It's a great accelerant of social change, and a lot of the big social changes in our society over the past couple hundred years grow out of the changes during war, and some good, some bad, but always big. And one of the changes you see in every society, you've seen it in Israeli society, the Israel of 2026 bears no resemblance as a visitor to the Israel that I visited in years past. It's just a different, seems like a different country, different attitudes, different people. One of the reasons for that is a seven front war. You know, if you're constantly fighting wars and people are dying, you know, your tolerance for brutality, your anger at the people you're fighting, everything about your attitudes changes very, very fast. They harden and you become much more tolerant of atrocities than you would be in peacetime. That's just a fact. And you become much more tolerant of hurting your own citizens, people who disagree. I mean, you saw this in Great Britain during World War II. Winston Churchill, who I know were required to, you know, deify, presided over the imprisonment of his opposition party during the entire length of the war and their families and their wives. They're rotting in prison away from their little kids, in some cases their infants. And their crime was being the opposition party and being disloyal and unpatriotic. They weren't. The opposition party was led by a First World War war hero who fought not just... as, you know, a pilot in the sky, but and in the trenches, like one of the great war heroes for a member of parliament, the country ever produced. And he and his wife and his compatriots and their wives were interned without charges by Winston Churchill for the duration of the war. And that happened in Britain, which is like much more humane than a lot of places. So, you know, we should not, FDR interned the Japanese, including American citizens. That stuff happens during war. And so I think we should be on guard for sure. I don't wanna be paranoid or creeped out or inspire paranoia or fear in other people, but I think it's worth worrying about it. And rule by technology is clearly one of the goals. I mean, what else is the end game? If the US government doesn't spend, relatively speaking, much time trying to improve the lives of the people who pay for it, like the citizens of the country, You either get some kind of revolt or people are like, this isn't working. Why would I pay my taxes? Why would I put up with this? Or you respond to people's legitimate concerns, make a good faith effort to make their lives better. Or you use technology to enslave them and shut them down so their opinions don't matter. Those are kind of the three options. I'm hoping for number two. But you can certainly see the incentive to use technology against Americans to stop their bitching. I saw today... who's the guy with the eyebrows on Facebook? Oh, Ben Shapiro? I'm so sorry to be mean. Yes, Ben Shapiro was calling everybody who disagrees with him left and right because it's a horseshoe theory. He's sort of right about that, actually. But the party of discontent or the party of complaining, you're complaining. Yes. Why are you complaining so much? The guy's like got 105 IQ and he got into Harvard. So it's like, hmm. I'm thinking he might have been the beneficiary of some special treatment. He and Bill Ackman both went to Harvard. They're both kind of dumb. So it just tells you that this is, you know, these are the people who run the country. This is the ruling class. Every nation has one. But to get a lecture from them about how you've got it easy. Stop complaining. Speaker 0: Yes. Right. And I'm supposed to I'm supposed to be compliant because there's no outrage from Ben Shapiro or the others about. that we're, you know, handing, we're turning into, you know, with the central bank digital currency or as Catherine Austin Fitz is so rightly put about the control grid and we're handing over all of our data to these big tech oligarchs and no one's speaking out against it. We're supposed to just be compliant and not complain. Shut up, you little, you know, I mean, really? Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think I've thought a lot about it over the, I mean, I wrote a book about this almost 10 years ago. Like what has gone wrong in the United States? in my first thought was well the you know we have a ruling class is supposed to be egalitarian country will there's no egalitarian country there's a ruling class in every country always from the beginning of time to the end of time so the question is not to have a ruling class you do the question is how they feel about the people they rule and i think the key difference between the people in charge now in the people in charge six sixty years ago is the people in charge of really dislike the population and i think it's obvious in the results in declining life expectancy in the two degradation of physical health, and 20% of white girls are on OnlyFans, or just name your measurement, it's like there's an intentional degradation, an intentional abandonment of the population that can only be attributed to loathing and contempt. And I think that's really scary. And so people who hate you probably predispose to hurt you if they can. And if they have the technology to make it easy to do that, to constrain you from talking or expressing your opinions or having certain thoughts or going certain places like they'll probably use that technology in order to do it. Right. I mean, you can't assume any goodwill from people like that. Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: You just can't.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 7, 2026 at 11:43 PM
Saved - July 8, 2026 at 2:55 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
As U.S.–Iran peace talks unfolded, I’m told American intelligence grew alarmed that Israel was spying on senior Trump administration negotiators. The espionage risk was escalated to “critical,” yet nothing meaningful was done: Israel wasn’t held accountable and Washington kept funding. The ODNI knew and blocked release until after Congress voted on the NDAA tying the U.S. military to Israel.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

U.S. Intel Flagged Israeli Spying as “Critical,” And Washington Looked the Other Way. As U.S.–Iran peace talks were unfolding, American intelligence officials grew alarmed that Israel was spying on senior Trump administration negotiators. The espionage risk tied to Israel wasn’t downgraded; it was escalated to “critical.” Col. Daniel Davis (@DanielLDavis1) reports, despite this, nothing meaningful was done. Israel was never held accountable, and Washington kept the money and weapons flowing, all on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime. The most explosive detail? The Office of the Director of National Intelligence knew about these threats and still blocked the report from being released until after Congress voted on the NDAA that further tied the U.S. military to Israel.

Video Transcript AI Summary
NBC News reports that U.S. intelligence is worried about Israelis spying on top Trump administration officials, a concern the speakers say has long been known and reported. One speaker says they spoke with or communicated with an individual named as being among those targeted for espionage and that there is “a lot of anger in the Pentagon” that the government is not doing more. The speaker says at least one report indicated the concern had been elevated to critical after initially being high, while “nothing has been done at all.” The speaker adds that they are “lucky we’re even getting the reports out.” The speaker cites names allegedly involved in the espionage targeting, including Steve Witkoff, saying it is striking because Witkoff is described as being on the phone during negotiations with Benjamin Netanyahu. The speaker also references other Pentagon officials mentioned in the reporting, including officials characterized as “pro-American” and “America first folks,” stating this is “not a surprise.” The speaker emphasizes that the reported activity goes beyond spying and is “espionage,” describing it as the kind of action that would prompt immediate crisis-level response if conducted by another country against senior U.S. administration officials. They say no action has been taken to stop it, and that this is contributing to a narrative about who is “calling the shots.” The speaker also highlights a detail of timing and suppression: the information “apparently … hit the office of the Director of National Intelligence,” but was reportedly suppressed until after Congress voted on Section 224 of the NDAA, which the speaker says would link and codify the American military with the Israeli military. The speaker says it was released after that vote. They further claim that Congress is portrayed as willing participants in the arrangement, implying that the priority is linking Israel into the U.S. military structure. The speaker attributes to Benjamin Netanyahu personal priority for such a partnership, saying Netanyahu has stated that the U.S. funding of $3.8 billion is not necessary because the militaries will be linked and that the U.S. would wean off due to the partnership. The speaker concludes by arguing that such a military linkage should not occur, asserting it benefits Israel at America’s expense and saying U.S. blood has been shed because of the war they associate with Netanyahu, which they describe as directly against American interest. The speaker calls for the arrangement to end.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: NBC News reports that US intelligence is worried about Israelis spying on top Trump administration officials. This feels like the no duh of the century. Now, we have known this. We have reported this. Speaker 1: I've actually spoken to one individual or communicated with one that was named as one of the people that it was being espionaged against. And there's a lot of anger in the Pentagon that the government is not doing anything more. And at least one of the reporting I saw said that it had already been high and was upgraded to critical. And of course, no, nothing has been done at all. We're lucky we're even getting the reports out. But I mean, some of the people that were mentioned were Steve Witkoff even. And I'm like, you've got to be kidding me. This is a guy that during negotiations is on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu. Why do they need a spy on him? And yet... Apparently, that's what's going on. And many other officials in the Pentagon that were named in some of these, and some of them were people who were pro-American, America first folks here. Now, that's not a surprise, I guess. But the question is, and what is is, well, maybe it's not a surprise, but what's angering, why isn't the government doing something about it? they're not just spying, it is espionage. They use that word very carefully. If any country on this planet was conducting espionage against senior administration officials, we would be going crazy about it and taking immediate action to stop that. And we have literally taken no action to stop it. At least nothing that's being reported and to such that it's going to continue to be a problem. And man, I mean, that just really feeds this whole narrative of who's calling the shots. And there was one other important part of that story I think is important to point out. is that apparently this hit the office of the Director of National Intelligence Office at a certain point, but it was suppressed to be released until after Congress had voted on Section, I think it was 224 of the NDAA, that is going to link together and codify the American military with the Israeli military. And then it was released afterwards. It is. Yeah. And what a surprise that Congress apparently is willing participants in the espionage. I don't know if they care about the espionage. They just care about Israel getting linked in and locked in with the U.S. military. And that's something that is a high priority for Benjamin Netanyahu personally. He's been bragging about that to people. He's saying, you know what? We don't need this $3.8 billion from America. We're going to wean ourselves off because we're going to get a partnership, his word, and linking in the militaries together. And I'm like, hell no. We don't don't even do that for Great Britain, our best ally that we've had for a century, and we're certainly not, we shouldn't do it for the Israeli side, which is all a drag and a negative. All of the benefits go to them. At least with the UK and stuff, there's mutual benefit. There's none here, friends. This is all for the benefit of this other country at our expense to include our blood. We have shed blood here because of this war that Benjamin Netanyahu won, which is directly contradictory and antithetical to American interest And this needs to come to an end.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 6, 2026 at 11:42 PM
Saved - July 7, 2026 at 1:00 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I explain how governments and intelligence agencies allegedly run false-flag operations: conducting covert actions, then directing public attention toward a chosen villain to shock people, steer opinion, and enable wider political objectives. I also break down the mechanics—intelligence tradecraft and how public narratives get constructed—especially when inconsistencies and unanswered questions are overlooked.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

False Flags 101: A CIA Whistleblower Explains the Playbook Governments and intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Mossad, have long been accused of planning covert operations and then steering public attention toward a single designated villain. These events are engineered to shock the public, shape opinion, and build momentum for broader political goals. So how do these operations actually work? And why do so many people miss the inconsistencies, contradictions, and unanswered questions that tend to surround these high-profile incidents? CIA whistleblower @Kevin_Shipp breaks down the mechanics of false-flag operations, intelligence tradecraft, and the construction of public narratives in the aftermath of major events.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on how the CIA allegedly carries out “false flag” operations and how they are meant to be understood by the public. Speaker 0 brings up the idea that Google searches in Israel occurred before a shooting, specifically searching for the name of the shooter, and asks whether these operations are becoming sloppy. Speaker 0 also asks how false flags “unfold” and how long beforehand they are prepared before being carried out. Speaker 1 says these operations are planned “for months.” They reference the events of 9-11 and argue that “a legitimate criminal investigation was never done there,” disagreeing with the 9-11 report. Speaker 1 describes a CIA planning pattern: operations are said to choose a “boogeyman,” always one person, so that it is framed as not a conspiracy. They claim that if the target can be selected, then authorities can later point to that single individual as the explanation—“There is the boogeyman… We got the boogeyman… No conspiracy, nothing to see here.” Speaker 1 also claims that these chosen individuals are often portrayed as having had “no indication previously” of criminal tendencies, and that, in their view, evidence in later cases supposedly does not align with the official narrative, but is still dismissed because the individual is presented as the “boogeyman.” Speaker 0 then argues there is “very little daylight” between the CIA and Mossad, stating that when “Mossad” is mentioned, it “really” means CIA and MI6. Speaker 1 agrees, claiming the CIA considers Mossad its “chief intelligence asset in the Middle East,” and that they are “woven in” together with “sister organizations” that share intelligence at “massive high-level scale” with high-level clearances. Speaker 1 also describes a “frenemies” element, saying Mossad sometimes targets the CIA to steal information, and concludes they are “joined at the hip.” Speaker 0 asks whether these narratives still work, suggesting mainstream media coverage—citing CNN and Axios—links anti-Semitism to attacks, and they wonder if the “false flagship has sailed.” Speaker 1 responds that the agency conducts psychological studies and understands that the average American is exhausted and mostly receives information from news programs, implying the public is more likely to accept repeated claims without critical thinking. Speaker 1 gives an example from 9-11, saying the Bush administration claimed a paper passport could be recovered despite the plane being incinerated, calling it “stupid… disinformation.” Speaker 0 adds that they believe “nanothermite” and “lava” were involved in the controlled demolition of the towers, contrasting that with paper passports. Speaker 1 says the passport claim was repeated enough for many Americans to accept it and argues that people need critical thinking rather than passive consumption of televised narratives.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Google searches in Israel before the shooting happens for the name of the shooter. Like, okay. Um, are they getting sloppy? I mean, I, but anyway, I just, that's just why one high level thought process here, but maybe you can talk about how these like false flags actually unfold. Maybe how long and months ahead of time are these things being put together, uh, before they're actually carried out. Speaker 1: Oh, they are planned for months. And if you notice, uh, Going all the way back to 9-11, and I have my own thoughts about that, an investigation, a legitimate criminal investigation was never done there. So I disagree with the 9-11 report. But one of the things when the CIA plans these operations is they always choose a boogeyman. It's always got to be one person, because if it's just one person, it's not a conspiracy. And law enforcement or Congress can't go into the conspiracy of more than one person if there's just one boogeyman. So if you can select your boogeyman and you can hit him with chemicals or directed energy weapons or something to derange his mind, and the human brain is all electric and is very easily programmable, sadly, but it is. So you find your boogeyman and you program that boogeyman to kill. He or she goes out and does the dastardly act. And then immediately, like Osama bin Laden, the agency will say, ah, We got him. There is the boogeyman. We got the boogeyman. It's all over. No conspiracy, nothing to see here. That's how they do it. And if you look, it's always one person, one boogeyman who had no indication previously that they had any murders or even criminal tendencies. And all of a sudden, like Tyler Robinson, despite all the facts that don't add up with Charlie Kirk's murder... There is the boogeyman. This is the guy who did it despite all the evidence that how could he possibly have done this with dismantling his rifle and putting that together and all that stuff. No, no, no. He's the boogeyman. He did it. We got him. No conspiracy. Nothing to see here. That's how they do it. Speaker 0: And, of course, there's very little daylight. As you and I have talked before, there's very little daylight between the CIA and Mossad. So when these operations are being carried out, when we say Mossad, what we really mean is the CIA and MI6. Really? I mean, they're all in cahoots, right? Speaker 1: They are. They are. Yeah, they're brothers and sisters. No question about it. Especially the Mossad and the CIA. The CIA considers Mossad its chief intelligence asset in the Middle East. And they're woven in with Mossad, like I said, like sister organizations. Well, they are sister organizations. And so when the Mossad does something, many times the CIA is involved. except for when Mossad actually targets the CIA itself to try to steal information from the agency. So it's a frenemies kind of relationship where they both connect with, they share intelligence on a massive high-level scale with high-level clearances that the US doesn't do with any other country. So essentially they are joined at the hip. Speaker 0: Are they just getting so careless now? I feel like we're able to see it. I mean, if you watch our show, we're not falling for this BS. But do they work? Because you see the mainstream media, see CNN, you see Axios. They're like, the rise in anti-Semitism led to this attack, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So they're pushing this narrative on all of us at the mainstream media level. But I feel like maybe that false flagship has sailed. What do you think? Do they still work? Speaker 1: Well, I mean, they know. They've done a lot of psychological studies on this in the agency. They know that your average American... is sitting on the couch watching this tired and exhausted from working all day, and they're just trying to provide for their family. And the only information they get is from these news programs, from these pipelines. And I'll give you a prime example. And this is just in my view regarding 9-11. After the attacks happened, The Bush administration comes out and they said, we can prove that one of the terrorists was on the plane because we found his passport two blocks away from the World Trade Center. The plane was incinerated. Everything on the plane was incinerated. Above and below the plane was incinerated. But this paper passport managed to float down over to where it could. There's a prime example of a stupid... Piece of disinformation. Speaker 0: There was lava. There was literally lava from the nanothermite that was used in the controlled demolition of the towers. Like nanothermite, like lava flowing. But these paper passports, these things are, man, I want to build my house out of these passports. Speaker 1: That's right. Exactly. Apparently they're like some sort of new material or something. But they repeated that lie enough that most Americans are like, oh, okay, we buy it. Because, frankly, Clayton, they don't teach this in high schools and universities anymore. Most people don't practice critical thinking. And that's what we need is for people to start understanding. They need to critically think about this. A paper passport on the street, that's impossible. So don't buy it. But programs like yours and others that are bringing this critical thinking into these things are what people need because they're not doing it on their own. They're just sitting in front of the TV and being fed this stuff.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 3, 2026 at 8:28 PM
Saved - July 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
As Ukraine steps up strikes on Russian civilian infrastructure, including targets inside Moscow, pressure mounts for Putin to retaliate. Russia has warned Western governments, including the U.S., to pull diplomats and military personnel from Kyiv, hinting at major escalation. I’ll break down what a large Russian response could look like and how far the conflict might spread.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Putin’s Next Move Could Redraw the Entire Ukraine War As Ukraine escalates its strikes on Russian civilian infrastructure and targets inside Moscow, the pressure on Putin to retaliate is building fast. Russia has now warned Western governments, including the United States, to pull diplomats and military personnel out of Kyiv, signaling a potential major escalation on the horizon. If Moscow goes big on retaliation, what does that response actually look like? And just how far could this conflict spread from here? @DecampDave joins us to break it down.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Russian officials, including the Russian Duma and Sergey Lavrov speaking on behalf of President Vladimir Putin, said violent and massive attacks will strike Ukrainian targets. The Russian Duma also called on Putin for a massive response. The discussion focused on how Ukrainian drone attacks inside Russia increase pressure on Putin and the Russian government to escalate further in Ukraine. Over the past few months, there have been major Ukrainian drone attacks, with civilian casualties rising in Luhansk, where a college was hit and 21 students were killed last month. In response, Russia ramped up bombardment of Kyiv and said it would do more. A new attack was described as having psychological impact, with “black smoke” and “black rain” falling on Moscow. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, a total of 555 Ukrainian drones were shot down across Russia, and at least one person was killed in Rostov in the south. The attack was described as major and particularly large. The expected next Russian escalation was linked to discussions after the Luhansk attack last month: firing the Ereshnik hypersonic missile. It was stated that Russia may have fired one or two recently, including at underground military headquarters in Kyiv, where it is described as known that US and NATO military officers help Ukraine direct the war and carry out drone attacks inside Russia. The transcript also stated that Russian authorities frame this as not only Ukrainian attacks but also NATO involvement, noting Lavrov’s comments about strong responses. It was said Lavrov is usually relatively measured, but the current rhetoric appears bigger. After the Luhansk attack, Russia issued a notice telling Western countries not to evacuate diplomats and other personnel in Kyiv, which was interpreted as a warning to withdraw military personnel from underground military headquarters. Russian officials were also said to discuss targeting decision-making centers, described as referring to underground military commands rather than the parliament or Zelensky’s residence, implying the need for major missile strikes to hit underground targets at a larger scale, particularly in strikes on Kyiv.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, you're hearing from the Russian side now, from the Russian Duma and Sergey Lavrov speaking on behalf of the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, that violent and massive attacks will strike Ukrainian targets. And the Russian Duma also calling on President Putin for some kind of a massive response here. Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I think that's an important point when it comes to these Ukrainian drone attacks inside Russia. It really increases the pressure on Putin and the Russian government to escalate even more in Ukraine. And we've kind of seen this pattern over the past few months of pretty major. There's been a lot of big Ukrainian drone attacks. Civilian casualties have really gone up in Luhansk. There was a college that was hit and 21 students were killed last month. And in response to that, Russia really ramped up the bombardment of Kiev and they've been saying that they're gonna do more. And then now we see this today and you see kind of the psychological impact of this black smoke and there's black rain falling on Moscow, on the capital of Russia. So I think we should expect to see another escalation in Russia's attacks. And you mentioned the attacks on the Moscow, capital and the Moscow region, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, a total of 555 Ukrainian drones were shot down across Russia. At least one person was killed in Rostov in the south. So this was a major attack. And we've seen similar scale, but this one is particularly big. And I would expect the next big potential Russian escalation, something that they talked about doing after the attack in Luhansk last month is firing the Ereshnik hypersonic missile. I believe recently they fired maybe one or two, but using those to go after the underground military headquarters in Kiev, where is known to be US and NATO military officers helping Ukraine direct this war and carry out these drone attacks inside Russia. That's another key detail here is that this is all supported by the US and NATO. And to the Russians, you know, they're not just under attack by Ukraine, but also NATO. I've heard Lavrov say, you know, there's going to be strong responses before, but he's usually relatively measured in his kind of rhetoric. And this does seem to be like something bigger here, what he is saying. And I mean, you know, one thing that happened after that attack in Luhansk last month, Russia put out this notice telling Western countries not to evacuate their diplomats and other personnel in Kiev. And what I think that really was, was a warning to get their military personnel out of these underground military headquarters. And they also talk about targeting the decision-making centers, though I've seen Russian officials say that doesn't mean like the parliament or Zelensky's residence or anything like that. What they're talking about are these underground military commands. And I mean, This, I guess, would involve pretty major missile strikes to try to get underground targets. I think we would see some serious destruction. I mean, we've already seen some of that, but I think just at a bigger scale when it comes to the strikes on Kiev.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 3, 2026 at 7:04 PM
Saved - July 5, 2026 at 6:14 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Your body may be designed to heal with light, and they buried that truth for generations. Mitochondria, tumor cells, cancer prevention, and a system that never wanted the public looking in this direction. Jonathan Otto joins us. https://t.co/wwpTChGHnw

Video Transcript AI Summary
Clayton says he learned that the CIA knew about a “parasitic infection of cancer in the body” as early as the 1950s and helped suppress information about it. He argues that claims about sunlight or red light therapy—such as sitting in a backyard—help ward off macular degeneration and other issues happened more than 100 years ago, and that people are now “maybe just learning about it.” Clayton also discusses a framework for why light therapies might work. He says mitochondria make up about 25% of cells and contain mitochondria chromophores, described as light receptors biologically designed to receive light. He connects this to observations of nature, where plants and animals receive both the Earth’s magnetic field and “grounding,” and he pairs those ideas with therapies including a pulse electromagnetic field and light therapy. He states that nature provides multiple light components at the same time, including red light (especially during sunrise and sunset) and UVB during the day, along with full-spectrum light ranging from red to near-infrared, infrared, and far infrared. He explains that light enters mitochondria through mitochondrial chromophores and generates reactive oxygen species, alongside adenosine triphosphate, described as cellular energy. He then states that reactive oxygen species and the ATP response include “specific aspects that target circulating tumor cells,” whether those cells are already circulating or are going to become problematic cancers. He adds that preventative studies of red light therapy on cancer have been done, particularly in animals, showing it is preventative. He also cites cancer incidence statistics: one in two males are getting cancer during their life, and one in three females.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I learned, I didn't know it at the time, that the CIA knew about this, knew about the parasitic infection of cancer in the body as early as the 1950s and basically helped suppress this information. So the idea that you could go out and get sunlight or red light therapy or just sitting in your backyard could help ward off macular degeneration, all sorts of issues. And that happened more than 100 years ago. And we're now maybe just learning about it. Speaker 1: Exactly. And once you get this, you get a little obsessed in a good way, I think, Clayton, where if you look at your mitochondria, which equate to about 25% of your organ cells, they contain something called mitochondria or chromophores, which are light receptors. They're biologically designed for it. And you look out the window and you look at the plants growing, you look at the animals in nature, and they're getting two things at the same time, which is the Earth's magnetic field and which is grounding, which is really fascinating when you stack those therapies with a pulse electromagnetic field with light therapy, and they're getting light, both the red, particularly in the sunrise, sunset, and the UVB during the day and all spectrum, full spectrum of light, both red, near infrared, infrared, far infrared. What's happening when it goes into the mitochondria through the light receptors, mitochondrial chromophores, they're generating reactive oxygen species, So it's adenosine triphosphate, which is cellular energy and reactive oxygen species. They're the specific aspects that target circulating tumor cells. So whether it was a circulating tumor cell or something that was going to become a problematic cancer, because preventative studies have been done on red light therapy on cancer, particularly in animals, showing that it is preventative, which is fascinating in and of itself, considering that one in two males are getting cancer during their life, one in three females.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 4, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - July 5, 2026 at 4:30 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

TAPPED OUT: America's Emergency Oil Reserves have been drained, and no one wants you to know about it. https://t.co/bkJ5z1mbHp

Video Transcript AI Summary
Chris Martenson explains that the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is being drawn down and is at its lowest level since 1983, when it was still being filled. He describes the SPR as oil stored in salt caverns on the Gulf Coast, with four major sites and 60 smaller caverns, topped up before the first major drawdown in 2022. Martenson says the 2022 drawdown was ostensibly connected to controlling oil prices amid the Ukraine-Russia war and also tied to election season. He adds that subsequent events—including the Iran war—led to more draining. He argues that while the SPR may still provide enough for the American people “to make it through October” on the basis of total storage, the military has “first dibs,” so stock could run out earlier for the general public. He calculates that if the military gets oil first, the reserve could be depleted by July. He outlines constraints on how far the SPR can be used. A statutory minimum of 243 million barrels must remain unless there is a declared emergency. He says that after last week’s draw, there are only “another 80 million barrels to go,” implying only “a few weeks” at the current rate before the reserve is effectively gone. Martenson also notes that extracting oil from salt caverns involves pumping salt water in and drawing oil out, and not all of the SPR can be taken without affecting cavern stability. Addressing the gap between falling crude futures prices and higher gas pump prices, Martenson separates oil prices from the “crack spread,” the difference between what refiners pay for crude and what they can sell refined products for. He says the crack spread is priced as if oil were $100–$110 per barrel even though open futures are around $68. He also points to tight inventories of gasoline and diesel, with refiners running near maximum capacity, and retail margins being low; he argues that retailers are price takers, not price setters. Martenson claims wholesale crude markets show “sustained bearishness” and selling pressure even though downstream physical products are tight. On consumption and policy messaging, Martenson says supply and demand are linked by price in a physical commodity market: keeping prices low can increase demand, and he cites May U.S. gasoline petroleum consumption being 2.6% higher than the year before. He warns that if demand stays high while supply dwindles, the U.S. risks an actual supply shortage. He also says disruptions could re-emerge through the Strait of Hormuz, which he describes as having recently shown signs of thawing but could “blow up at any point.” Martenson explains a change in how SPR releases are handled. Instead of auctioning barrels with upfront payment into the treasury, he says the current approach authorizes releases with a requirement to replace the barrels later with an 18% or 20% premium. He argues this creates extra future demand to replace what was released, and he says about half of released barrels have gone overseas, helping reduce prices in Europe. He emphasizes that Europe may receive SPR-supported supply while the overall U.S. reserve is being depleted. He further distinguishes between “early strategic reserve” (ESR) caverns that are “single-cycle” and collapse after drawdown—about 130 million barrels out of roughly 700 million total—and caverns designed for multiple cycles. He says once the single-cycle caverns are drained, the system cannot return fully to capacity, requiring creation of new caverns. He estimates that depletion could reach “tank bottoms” between July 10th and October. Finally, he discusses above-ground storage constraints, including tanks and infrastructure. Using Cushing, Oklahoma as an example, he says tank farms have a minimum volume tied to sludge and tank outlet placement; he cites roughly 18 million barrels as “tank bottom,” noting that going below that minimum would require filtering, treating, and complex blending.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are burning through our emergency oil cushion and pretending everything is just fine. According to our next guest, America's strategic petroleum reserve is now at its lowest level since 1983. Essentially, back to what it was while it was still being filled to begin with. He calculates that we have enough for the American people to make it through October, except the military has first dibs with military requirements, so... If they get the oil first, we could run out by July, he says, this month. Meanwhile, oil prices have fallen. Markets are celebrating. President Trump is demanding that gas stations lower their price. But are we creating the illusion of cheap energy by draining the stockpile? And if we have another shock tomorrow, how much? protection do we actually have? Chris Martenson joins us. He just read this 123-page government report, so you don't have to. And he's here to explain why he believes the numbers are far more alarming than the headlines suggest. Chris, welcome back to the show. Speaker 2: Well, thank you, Natalie. And Clayton, good to be here. I also am a Virgo, so this will all just fit right in. Speaker 1: That makes sense. I mean, I'm just going to say, Chris, I already knew, I already knew, I already knew. I'm the Capricorn here, so I'm like, I don't know what you guys are talking about. But no, when I saw Chris's tweet about this a short time ago, he's like, I read the 123-page report on the petroleum. I'm like, that's a Virgo. That's got to be a Virgo for sure. Speaker 0: So, okay, break it down for us. You've done a beautiful job of looking at what the government has actually said that we have, how much we have drained. Can you let us know how this works and what the numbers actually say? Speaker 2: well sure so you know every nation needs oil and smart nations keep a strategic stockpile of it and so we got caught short in nineteen seventy three seventy four with the arab oil embargo and congress got together and said let's do something about that so we started filling holes in the ground with oil and we call it our strategic petroleum reserve now there's other ways you can do that some countries put it in tanks above ground but we found the salt caverns that were left over from you know morton salt taking salt out that you know went on our table and they had these big holes in the ground so they build them up with with oil and um... when they bring out of spaces for that they started making new salt caverns and so there are four big strategic petroleum reserve sites all on the gulf coast across all four of them they're actually sixty of these little holes in the ground they were all topped up right before two thousand twenty two when of course there was the first big drawdown of the s p r under biden because of the well i think I called it the strategic political reserve at that point. Ostensibly, the reason was they wanted to control oil prices because of the Ukraine-Russia war. But, of course, it was also an election season. So we really tapped into it then. Trump started to fill it back up a little bit, not too much. And then, of course, the Iran war, and now we've just been draining it down again. And as you mentioned, Natalie, we have... The last time we were at this level of storage was 1983, and that was when we were on the upswing. We were... filling it at that point in time. We filled it for, I don't know, 12, 15 years. Speaker 0: And so I did find a picture of what you were talking about, these salt caverns. You say, if we actually want to get it out, we have to pump salt water in and then bring it out. But we can't bring all of it out. We have to leave some in or else the cavern collapses. And also, the military has first dibs. So that's why we can't rely on what we have in totality, even though what we have in totality right now is still quite low. Speaker 2: Well, it is. So there's a level, there's a statutory minimum. And under, there's a couple of, there's some rules around all of this. Of course, Washington, everything's got a policy or rule. But the rule says that unless it's like some declared emergency, which we're not in right now, you have to leave 243 million barrels in there. And you can't, that's the floor. You can't go below that unless the DOD comes in and signs off and says, okay, you know, they have, they have, They have right of first refusal on that. So it's kind of unlikely to me that any clear-headed military person would say, sure, go ahead, just tap that all the way down. We're fine. If something happens with China, don't worry about it. We'll run our tanks on electricity or batteries or something. I don't think they would do that, but they always could. But if we draw that line at 243 million barrels, we've only got another 80 million barrels to go after last week's draw. So that gives us just a few weeks here. at this current rate before it's completely gone. Speaker 1: That's crazy. So the idea is then that, well, I mean, I don't want to be cynical, but is it the idea that President Trump can send out these tweets for the 4th of July holiday when everyone's going to notice this at the pump, this idea of this sort of artificial shrinkage on the price and like, oh man, Trump got it down. We're fine now. We're fine. This Iran war, not a big deal, nothing to worry about here. But is this all an illusion? Speaker 2: Well, it is an illusion. We're going to get wonky here just for a second. There's the price we see at the pump, and then there's all this intervening stuff in between, refiners, distributors, all this that goes on in between. And right now, a barrel of oil on the open futures market is, I think, about 68 bucks, right? It's cheaper than before the war, right? So, okay, so Trump can crow about that, but we're still seeing kind of high prices at the gas pump. Why is that? And the reason is that when a refiner buys that barrel of oil... They then take it into this very complex piece of machinery we call the refinery and they crack it and they turn it into different products, right? So a barrel of oil can be turned into so many gallons of gasoline and so many gallons of diesel and so many gallons of jet fuel and so on. And so the spread between what they can sell those barrels for and what they had to buy the oil for is called the crack spread because they're cracking it into different chunks. And that crack spread right now is as high as it's ever been. It's priced as if oil was at $100, $110 a barrel. So how do we make sense of that? Why are refiners gouging us? Well, no. The problem with this is that refiners, they're not price setters. There's people bidding for those products out there, and those would be the middlemen. And they have to bid for against each other, and they pay whatever price they have to pay. So If we look at how much of the stuff we have in actual inventory right now, gasoline, never been lower at this time of the year over the past 10 years, as far back as my data on my one set of charts goes. Diesel, right at the bottom of that range. So we have very tight inventories. The refineries are running flat out, max capacity. They're just doing everything they can to create everything they can. But it's that inventory level that drives the price. And so that's why when Trump, I think he's, I'm sure you saw a couple of days ago, he said, Gasoline retailers need to bring it down to 250 gallon. He's pounding on the lectern But they're not price Setters either. They're also price takers your local gas pump. They're making a few pennies per gallon You know this very low margin said but they take whatever price the distributors are giving it to them for so there's this whole very complicated chain in between but those prices that we're seeing in between the refinery and the pump tell us it's actually a very tight market and And what we're seeing over in the wholesale crude price is a very bizarre thing. I'm puzzled by it. Most oil experts are puzzled by it. It's a weird thing to see so much sustained bearishness and selling pressure in crude itself when the downstream physical products are pretty much as tight as they've ever been. That's a huge disconnect. One of these two things has it wrong. And I always go with physical inventory over market prices. Speaker 1: Let's be honest, most coffee gives you like a quick hit. It leaves you feeling jittery. It leaves you feeling foggy. And then you're reaching for another cup or two before lunchtime even comes around. But what if your coffee actually did something for your health? Wouldn't that be novel? Well, Rejuvenate Coffee is science-backed coffee with real Arabica beans infused with C-A-A-K-G, a compound shown to support cellular energy, metabolism, even healthy aging. It's not a gimmick and it's not trendy. It's built for people who take their health seriously, who want to show up with focus and strength every single day. If you care about how you feel and how you feel 10 years from now, this is your coffee. So go to 1775coffee.com and use the code REDACTED right now to order your Rejuvenate Coffee today. Speaker 2: Fuel your body, protect your future, rejuvenate. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great point. Just look at, I mean, yeah, don't pay attention to what they're saying. They're putting on theatrics. Just look at the raw data. And you can say that, oh, we got Trump derangement syndrome or whatever. But if you're just looking at the actual barrel numbers, they're not lying. Speaker 2: They never do. I love the data. Speaker 0: So then why would President Trump encourage more consumption? Does he not know this? Speaker 2: Well, this is where things get a little bit dicey. Well, he may not know it. I don't know what's going on. I'm not sure he's getting great advice from people. I've seen our energy secretary say some bizarre things that he should know better as a former oil and gas executive. But whatever's going on, it's this simple. Supply and demand are married by price in a physical commodity. So right now we're keeping the price low, so demand is high. So the May numbers just came in. United States total gasoline petroleum consumption for May was 2.6% higher than the year before. So it's actually higher. And what we actually need is for demand to be a little bit lower. And that way, you would have demand and supply get matched. Now, what happens if you carry that on too long? Demand keeps going, supplies keep dwindling, and you run the risk of running into an actual supply shortage at that point. And so that's point one. Point two would be, look, we're starting to see some movement in the Strait of Hormuz. It's nice. We're seeing what looks like thawing. It looks like the two parties are sort of, you know, thrumming their way to some sort of a conclusion. But it could blow up at any point in time again. And if it does, we'll be entering that with ultra-thin reserves, almost nothing left in the strategic petroleum tank in this case, and with demand at all-time highs. And to stop that suddenly would be actually... very expensive for the nation and pretty damaging economically and very harmful to households. Speaker 1: What do you make of the price gouging question? Because you'll see like the sort of pro-MAGA crowd on X saying, see, this is all price gouging. A number of like, you know, kind of Trump supporter MAGA accounts that parrot everything he says saying, see, big oil is robbing us. Gas hasn't even dropped 10 cents in a week. But What's going on here? So our average price is about a dollar higher than the New York Stock Exchange. That's gouging. That's theft. So that's what's really happening, according to that crowd. What do you make of that? Speaker 2: Well, it's always a case of supply and demand. Let's take aside states levy different taxes. So that's the thing. But California is a lot higher than Texas. And the reason for that is that California has its own sets of rules. It doesn't have any pipelines that connected to the bounty that's in Texas. They set up all kinds of crazy laws and rules for themselves, blah, blah, blah. It means that California has much tighter, more constrained supplies. They have lower, you know, less inventory. So because of that, their prices are higher in this, in this physical commodity market. Listen, if somebody could find a way to find the gas or diesel cheaper, they would do that all day long in truck into the place where they could make a profit that this whole thing is just profit driven so if there's really actually gouging gouging gets taken out of the mix really quick you have ample supply somewhere else we don't have that right now i've been studying this market a really long time it's a it's complex but it's also supply and demand and what we have an inventories and that's how it's worked for a long time unless trump wants to nationalize it and and and do price setting but now we're talking Now we're into sort of Nixon territory. I'm going to set prices. Remember that? How well did that work out? Yeah. Not well. You know, you get shortages when you start setting prices. Speaker 0: I'm so curious how we got here, because the president had to authorize tapping into this reserve, which means someone had to tell him how much was there, how long we could do this. Now, you said this may account for why there's such an urgency there. to open up the global market through the Strait of Hormuz because you know the war what it's done to all of us but can you walk us through how that happens the president has to tell someone to do it and then it starts to be filtered into our economy how well this is this is this is an important detail thanks for the question because it every time passed prior to this one set of releases around the Iran war what happened was they would announce an auction Speaker 2: Companies would show up, they would bid for barrels. Say if you're buying a million barrels and just, you know, if it was $100, well, okay, it's 100 million bucks you're going to spend. That money would go into the treasury. And that was that. Sale complete. We're all done. This time they did it differently. Now what they've done is they've authorized releases and you have to put those barrels back at some point in the future with an 18% or a 20% bump on it. So let's use 20%. if we borrow that million barrels now we have to put one point two million barrels back at some point in the future and the reason this is important is because while the s p r s providing extra cushion to keep prices down now create extra demand in the future when those barrels have to be returned with that premium and then the second point i make about that is that half of all the s p r barrels that have been released have gone overseas so this is trump using america's s p r to help keep price is a little bit cheaper in Europe, and last I checked, Europe doesn't even like us that much. Speaker 1: I mean, that's the absurdity of it, right? We're sending, and Germany, which of course we now know, trying to go after the Nord Stream pipeline. Speaker 0: Wait, he just made a point there. Can I just... Speaker 1: I was commenting on his point as well, but you're a Virgo, so just go ahead. Speaker 0: Okay, because he had said in his analysis that once you empty these salt caverns, you can't reuse them, even if you keep, right? Because... It's salt. It degrades. So where is it going to go? You said we have made a deal with ourselves. We will replace it and then some with interest. Where? Speaker 2: Well, now it gets interesting because there's two types of caverns. One's called an early strategic reserve, an ESR. The government loves acronyms, right? Those just happen to be the holes that were in the ground after the salt mining companies were done with them. And so these holes are whatever shape they were. They didn't care much about them. They didn't care if they collapsed. They didn't care about anything. They just pushed water down and sucked brine back out and then dried it and sold us table salt. Because of that, these caverns are shaped like whatever they're shaped like, and they're called single-cycle caverns, meaning once you draw them down, they collapse, can't use them again. So you would only use those in a super-duper emergency, I would hope, because to your point, Natalie, once you draw them down, you can't fill them back up again now that's about a hundred and thirty million barrels out of the total brown seven hundred million barrels of the entirety of this thing said if we draw those down about eighteen percent of our storage capacity is just and we would have to then make new holes in the ground for these the rest of the caverns were made specifically for this they're long in ones they don't have like weird cavern roofs and stuff like that and they're supposed to be able to go five six cycles and i don't know how many cycles of the gone through everyone You ever want to see a 1990s website? Go to the DOE's SPR website. It literally looks like it was coded by some kid in 1996. It's awful. It is very hard to find information on. So I don't actually know how many of these individual caverns have gone through their cycles, but you're right. If we draw it all the way to zero, we can't go all the way back to full again because we're going to be missing 130 million barrels of storage because it's gone. Speaker 0: And we can't just do that. Speaker 1: And then on top of that, shipping of this oil supplies to Europe, to Germany, to these other countries that now have, after we helped destroy their Nord Stream pipeline, we can sell them at three times the price that they were able to get it from Russia. So that makes a lot of sense. Glad we can help the Europeans at this moment. So your estimations then really are about July 10th. somewhere in that window between July 10th and October that we would hit sort of, I don't know, tank bottoms in the SPR. And we've already heard, you talked about some of these structural stuff that Natalie's talking about with the salt caverns. The same thing is happening with, in Cushing, Oklahoma and these other areas where they can reach tank bottom and the infrastructure themselves, the actual holding tanks can also experience the same destruction if there's no pressure, if there's no oil actually in these tanks. Speaker 2: they can't just like sit there empty well that's absolutely right to the above-ground stuff we have to worry about the tanks in the pipelines pipelines you can't train them so whatever the volume of the pipeline is that doesn't doesn't really count as as inventory right even though it is oil but you can ever actually access it same thing in Cushing Oklahoma if you go there that's a tank farm we've all seen oil tanks big above-ground things with the floating tops go up and down as the oil fills and retreats and And those are pretty much at tank bottom right now. They're about 18 million barrels. I think we saw in the last report they went up 500,000 barrels because that's about the bottom. Now, why is that bottom? Well, if you have a tank of oil and you're constantly putting oil in it for years and years and years, this stuff came out of the ground. And sometimes it's got sludge in it. Sometimes it has precipitates and there's things. And anyway, sludge ends up forming at the bottom of the tank. So When you have a big tank, they never put the outlet pipe right at the bottom. They put it up a little bit, because you don't want to be drawing that stuff off, like decanting wine. You don't want that sediment, you know. So somewhere around 18 million barrels is tank bottom. If we go lower than that, I think it's technically possible, but now you're going to have to filter it. Now you're going to have to treat it. Now you're going to have to figure out how you're going to blend it. Certain refiners are going to say, no, we don't want that stuff. It gets complicated quick. So, yeah, we have a minimum there that we're kind of at that minimum at this point. Speaker 1: Unbelievable. Yeah, I mean, it's it's crazy to think that we're sitting at this moment and there's this like propaganda that's being foisted on the American people as they head out to, you know, to drive their cars over the holiday weekend and fill it up. And I see it on Twitter. People like, look, Trump did it. Gas prices are low. And they're just like living in this propaganda moment. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 3, 2026 at 8:23 PM
Saved - July 4, 2026 at 12:39 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
Trump says gas is cheap for July 4th, but I’m told the Strategic Petroleum Reserve shows a different reality. @chrismartenson argues the SPR is at its lowest level after repeated drawdowns tied to the wars in Iran and Ukraine, warning it could be fully drained within a month if another conflict erupts.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Trump Says Gas Is Cheap for July 4th, But the Oil Reserve Tells a Different Story. President Trump is telling Americans gas prices are low heading into the Fourth of July. But look past the pump, and the real picture of US oil supply gets a lot more uneasy. @chrismartenson argues that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at its lowest level, drained by back-to-back drawdowns tied to the wars in Iran and Ukraine. His warning: if another military conflict erupts, that reserve could be fully drained within a month.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on whether President Trump’s Fourth of July-era claims about lower gasoline prices create an “illusion,” given that gas prices remain high. The explanation given is that pump prices are influenced by a complex chain between crude oil futures and retail: refiners, distributors, and the refinery process itself. A barrel of oil trades on the open futures market at about $68, which is described as cheaper than before the war. Trump can “crow” about that, but the gas pump still shows high prices because refiners buy crude, process it in refineries, and “crack” it into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other products. The key metric is the “crack spread,” defined as the spread between what refiners can sell the products for and what they paid for the oil. The crack spread is described as “as high as it’s ever been,” priced as if oil were at “a hundred [or] hundred and ten dollars a barrel.” The transcript says refiners are not price setters, because product prices are set by bidding among market participants. It also claims that inventories are extremely tight: gasoline inventory is “never been lower” for the time period referenced, and diesel is “right at the bottom” of its historical range. Refineries are described as running flat out at max capacity to produce as much as possible, but the inventory level is said to drive the price. Retailers are also described as price takers, earning only a few pennies per gallon and passing through prices from distributors. A “huge disconnect” is described between downstream physical tightness and the behavior of crude oil, which the speaker says many experts find puzzling: sustained bearishness and selling pressure in crude while physical products remain as tight as ever. The speaker says they “always go with physical inventory over market prices,” implying that inventories better explain what prices consumers face. The transcript then addresses why Trump would encourage more consumption. It argues that supply and demand are linked by price in a physical commodity: lower prices raise demand. It cites a data point that in May, U.S. total gasoline/petroleum consumption was 2.6% higher than a year before. It says what is needed is for demand to be “a little bit lower” so demand and supply match. It warns that if demand stays elevated too long, supplies could dwindle into an actual shortage, especially with “ultra thin reserves” and “almost nothing left” in the strategic petroleum tank. The potential consequences described include very expensive costs for the nation, damage to the economy, and harmful effects on households.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 2: Is it the idea that President Trump can send out these tweets for the Fourth of July holiday when everyone's going to notice this at the pump, this idea of this sort of artificial shrinkage on the price and like, oh, man, Trump got it down. We're fine now. We're fine. This Iran war, not a big deal, nothing to worry about here. But is this all an illusion? Speaker 1: Well, it is an illusion. We're going to get wonky here just for a second. There's the price we see at the pump. And then there's all this intervening stuff in between, refiners, distributors, all this that goes on in between. And right now, a barrel of oil on the open futures market is, I think, about 68 bucks, right? It's cheaper than before the war, right? So, okay, so Trump can crow about that, but we're still seeing kind of high prices at the gas pump. Why is that? And the reason is that when a refiner buys that barrel of oil... They then take it into this very complex piece of machinery we call the refinery and they crack it and they turn it into different products, right? So a barrel of oil can be turned into so many gallons of gasoline and so many gallons of diesel and so many gallons of jet fuel and so on. And so the spread between what they can sell those barrels for and what they had to buy the oil for is called the crack spread because they're cracking it into different chunks. that crack spread right now is as high as it's ever been it's it's priced as if oil was at a hundred hundred and ten dollars a barrel so how do we make sense of that what why are refiners gouging us well no the problem with this is that refiners uh they're not price setters there's people bidding for those products out there and those would be the middlemen and they have to bid for against each other and they pay whatever price they have to pay so If we look at how much of the stuff we have in actual inventory right now, gasoline, never been lower at this time of the year over the past 10 years, as far back as my data on my one set of charts goes. Diesel, right at the bottom of that range. So we have very tight inventories. The refineries are running flat out, max capacity. They're just doing everything they can to create everything they can. But it's that inventory level that drives the price. And so that's why when Trump, I think he's, I'm sure you saw a couple days ago, he said, Gasoline retailers need to bring it down to 250 gallon. He's pounding on the lectern But they're not price Setters either. They're also price takers your local gas pump. They're making a few pennies per gallon You know this very low margin said but they take whatever price the distributors are giving it to them for so there's this whole very complicated chain in between but those prices that we're seeing in between the refinery and the pump tell us it's actually a very tight market and what we're seeing over in the um in the wholesale crude price is a very bizarre thing i'm puzzled by it most oil experts are puzzled by it it's it's a weird thing to see so much sustained bearishness and selling pressure and crude itself when the downstream physical products are pretty much as tight as they've ever been that's a huge disconnect one of these two things has it wrong and i always go with physical inventory over market prices so then why would president trump encourage Speaker 0: more consumption. Does he not know this? Speaker 1: Well, this is where things get a little bit dicey. Well, he may not know it. I don't know what's going on. I'm not sure he's getting great advice from people. I've seen our energy secretary say some bizarre things that he should know better as a former oil and gas executive. But whatever's going on, it's this simple. Supply and demand are married by price in a physical commodity. So Right now we're keeping the price low so demand is high. So the May numbers just came in. United States total gasoline petroleum consumption for May was 2.6% higher than the year before. So it's actually higher. And what we actually need is for demand to be a little bit lower. And that way you would have demand and supply get matched. Now what happens if you carry that on too long? Demand keeps going. Supplies keep dwindling. and you run the risk of running into it actual supply shortage at that point and so that's point one point two would be uh... we're starting to see some movement this river moves it's nice for seeing what looks like buying it looks like the two parties are sort of you know running their way to some sort of a conclusion but it could blow up at any point in time again if it does will be entering that with ultra thin reserves almost nothing left in the strategic petroleum tank in this case and and with demanded all-time highs into stop that suddenly would be actually very expensive for the nation and pretty damaging economically and and very harmful to households
RedactedNews
Posted - July 1, 2026 at 11:26 PM
Saved - July 3, 2026 at 2:59 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I argue that the end of US hegemony in the Middle East is unfolding in real time. For once, America’s regime-change effort isn’t working. With depleted oil reserves, a crumbling economy, and bases across the region being destroyed, allies are pushing US bases out. The conflict has strengthened Iran regionwide while making the US look weaker.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

The End of US Hegemony in the Middle East Is Happening in Real Time For the first time, America’s attempt to impose regime change and topple a government is not going its way. With depleting oil reserves, a crumbling economy, and military bases across the region being destroyed, longtime Middle Eastern allies are now pushing US military bases out of their countries. Instead of weakening Iran, this conflict has made Iran stronger across the region, while the US looks weaker with its own allies. @WeTheBrandon joins us to discuss.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion argues that the U.S. Middle East policy has “bitten back” and that, unlike past efforts, the U.S. is not able to destroy Syria or Libya “Bob our way out of the situation.” Speaker 0 says it feels like seeing the U.S. “have egg on our face,” and Speaker 1 agrees, noting that the U.S. has had failures since the Iraq war and that they are now “really pronounced.” Speaker 0 says that Hillary Clinton still “destroy[ed] Libya,” and Speaker 1 responds that the U.S. has become depleted. Speaker 1 claims oil reserves are depleted and that Iran is allowing only a handful of ships through—enough “to get the things moving” but not enough to restore the problem. Based on this, Speaker 1 concludes that the U.S. capability for regime change is “off the table,” and that any conflict will likely be more limited and “indirect” than before. Speaker 1 highlights Northern Iraq and the Kurds, saying there is talk of reopening that front after an earlier attempt “a couple of months ago” that “did not go well.” Speaker 1 then argues that the “American empire in the Middle East is going to… not last much longer,” describing it as “a dead man walking.” Speaker 1 points to establishing a deconfliction line in the White House as indicating that Iran is being elevated and normalized. Speaker 1 also claims this suggests reintegrating Iranian (and possibly Russian) energy sources in the long run, interpreting this as evidence that the U.S. cannot bomb its way out and is “vamping and buying time.” Speaker 1 adds that the Saudis are “turning on us,” claiming they did not want the U.S. using their bases and that they have a 9–10 month plan to extricate the U.S. entirely from Saudi Arabia “forever.” Speaker 1 says similar plans are being heard from Bahrain and possibly Qatar, presenting this as “really the end of the American military footprint in the long run,” with uncertainty about whether there will be “another bloodbath beforehand” or a rapid extrication. Speaker 2 says some previous guests believed the situation is part of an Israeli plan: to ensure the U.S. is “truly unfettered” by having fewer constraints from U.S. troops and bases in the region, citing Netanyahu’s statements about not wanting U.S. aid and the idea that this was meant to prevent a greater-Israel project into Lebanon, Syria, and other areas. Speaker 2 calls this a “dark rabbit hole” but raises it as a proposed framework.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It does feel like it's the first time that in decades our Middle East policy has bitten back and we weren't able to just, you know, destroy Syria, destroy Libya. Bob our way out of the situation. We are not able to do that. And so as pissed off as I am about it, it does sort of feel good to see us have egg on our face. Speaker 1: We certainly do. We certainly do. And we've had that egg on our face really since the Iraq war, though. I mean, that didn't go very well for us and the world knew it. But now it's really pronounced our failures. Speaker 0: But it didn't stop Hillary Clinton from destroying Libya. Speaker 1: No, it didn't. But now we are depleted. and the oil reserves are depleted. The Iranians are coyly letting only a handful of ships through, enough to get the things moving, but certainly not enough for us to restore the problem. With that in mind, to me, it looks a lot like The U.S. capability to regime change is certainly off the table. And it looks to me like whatever we do in the form of conflict, it's going to be a lot more limited than what it was before, indirect, certainly. I would be watching out, though, for what's going on with the Kurds in Northern Iraq, because I keep hearing that there's this talk about reopening that front. We tried it a couple of months ago, it did not go well. But ultimately, I just don't think that the American empire in the Middle East is going to last much longer. It is pretty much a dead man walking. Especially if they are establishing a deconfliction line in the White House. That, to me, indicates we're elevating Iran. We're normalizing them. And then, we're talking about reintegrating not only Russian, but possibly Iranian sources of energy in the long run. That, to me, indicates that they're at an impasse, because they can't bomb their way out of this situation, and they don't know what to do. So, they're vamping and buying time. The Saudis are turning on us, guys. I mean, the Saudis, they didn't want us using their bases. And I am hearing that they have a 9-10 month plan for ultimately extricating us entirely out of Saudi Arabia forever. Same thing I'm hearing from Bahrain. Same thing I'm hearing from possibly even Qatar. So, this is really the end of the American military footprint in the long run. It's just a question of how we get there. It's a question of, is it going to be another bloodbath beforehand? Possible. Or are we actually going to be able to extricate ourselves quickly? I don't know. But it does seem like a diminishing of the U.S. empire forever. Speaker 2: And this seems like, you know, we've had guests on who've believed that this was all part of the Israeli plan. That to have the United States, to be truly unfettered, you hear from Netanyahu saying, I don't want aid anymore from the United States. You can't have us in your backyard. You can't have 50,000 American troops and bases right in your backyard constraining any sort of greater Israel project into Lebanon, into Syria, into other areas, that this was all part of the plan. I know that's a really dark rabbit hole to think about.
RedactedNews
Posted - July 1, 2026 at 7:03 PM
Saved - July 2, 2026 at 1:00 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 The Ukraine winning narrative is pure theater. While TV generals sell “turning points,” the battlefield reality points to collapse, exhaustion, and a war machine in Washington that cannot admit the truth. @DougAMacgregor joins us. https://t.co/o0QvfrdY7O

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript discusses a perceived opportunity for President Vladimir Putin to end the war after abandoning a negotiated outcome, and it references U.S. media commentary such as statements from Fox News. It then focuses on an interview in which Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg argues that Ukraine’s performance improves after winter. Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg says that after Ukraine “got through the winter,” the spring, summer, and fall would “turn to Ukraine as an advantage” because Ukraine no longer faces “winter pressures.” He claims that starting to “change for the first time since 2023,” Ukrainians are gaining ground and are able to “fight off the Russians,” which he calls “a turning point.” He adds that he believes “most people” are beginning to realize this, including “hardcore opponents of Ukraine.” He further states that Ukraine has “held their own” and is “starting to strike deep within Russia,” including attacks on “targets that are important.” In response, Speaker 1 asks what Speaker 2 thinks about Kellogg’s claim that “Ukraine is winning.” Speaker 2 responds by saying that when “globalist voices” are brought on, they have heard Neil Ferguson discuss something similar, which Speaker 2 describes as “absurd” and says “there’s no basis in fact whatsoever.” Speaker 2 then states that people in academia and politics will “end up in mainstream media,” and that they “all saying the same thing,” asserting that Kellogg “isn’t a standout by any means.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: think there's an opportunity here for him to end the war but it has taken this long for president putin to finally give up on the negotiated outcome and give up on president trump and his good will well to listen to the americans and the shills that pop up on fox news or other channels ukraine is winning here is lieutenant general keith kellogg try to keep your water in your mouth colonel if you can uh here is general keith kellogg this is his voice in an interview basically saying Once Ukraine got through the winter, they are winning. Now, take a listen. Speaker 0: And once they got through winter, I had said repeatedly on public TV as well that the spring, the summer and the fall would turn to Ukraine as an advantage because they don't have the winter pressures on them. And I think that you're seeing that it started to change for the first time since 2023. The Ukrainians are gaining ground. I think they're able to fight off the Russians. So I think there is a turning point. I do think that most people are starting to realize that. Even the hardcore opponents of Ukraine now realize that they've held their own and are starting to turn that and are starting to strike deep within Russia, which is important, and attack targets that are important. Speaker 1: What do you think about Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, Ukraine's winning colonel? Speaker 2: Well, whenever you bring on the globalist voices, I heard Neil Ferguson talk about something similar, which is absurd. There's no basis in fact whatsoever. You listen to the various people in academia, in politics, they're going to end up in mainstream media. They're all saying the same thing. He's not a standout by any means.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 30, 2026 at 11:05 PM
Saved - July 1, 2026 at 3:21 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I report that a massive explosion hit Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon. Israel said it destroyed a 200-metre Hezbollah tunnel buried under civilian homes. The blast follows a US-mediated ceasefire framework meant to stop cross-border fighting and de-escalate the conflict, raising questions about the deal, regional stability, and US diplomacy, as discussed with Col. Douglas Macgregor.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Huge Blast in Southern Lebanon Exposes a Fragile Ceasefire! A massive explosion rocked the southern Lebanese village of Majdal Zoun after Israel’s military claimed it destroyed a 200‑metre‑long Hezbollah tunnel buried under civilian homes. The blast comes despite a US‑mediated ceasefire framework between Israel and Lebanon that was supposed to end cross‑border hostilities and de‑escalate the conflict. What does this mean for the peace deal, regional stability, and US diplomacy in the Middle East? We break it down with Col. Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor).

Video Transcript AI Summary
Israel is saying it will continue to stay in Lebanon, even though Speaker 0 says this is not part of the memorandum of understanding. Speaker 0 describes recent actions in southern Lebanon, saying Israel used a massive explosive to destroy a southern Lebanese town. Speaker 0 claims Israel is now saying there was a 200 meter long tunnel that “we had to blow it up,” and notes that this is described as one of the largest non-nuclear bombs used in modern history, with “astounding” images. Speaker 0 asks what the bomb could have been and what it indicates militarily. Speaker 1 responds that the device looks similar to the “mother of all bombs” (MOAB) and suspects it is a fueled air explosive, described as very powerful, possibly in a very large version. Speaker 1 says people online speculate it is a tactical nuclear weapon, but Speaker 1 states there is no evidence and says they lack access to data collection that could confirm radiation detection. Speaker 1 concludes that, from where they sit, it appears to involve a lot of fuel or explosive and is very devastating, while emphasizing a separate point about political messaging and troop morale. Speaker 1 says Benjamin Netanyahu is telling people, “we’re there, we’re staying, we’re not leaving,” and that listeners must listen to Netanyahu and believe him “from his vantage point.” Speaker 1 says Netanyahu spoke to a gathering of officers who had been fighting in southern Lebanon, encouraging them by telling them they had done great things and that they were “roaring ahead.” Speaker 1 says the officers’ reaction in the room was “very similar to Sersky,” describing heads down, no response, exhaustion, worn-out conditions, heavy losses, and doubt that Netanyahu would achieve what he said they would achieve. Speaker 1 also claims the war with Iran is not over, just as the war in Ukraine is not over, and predicts a shift in emphasis from the Persian Gulf region (the Gulf of Oman) toward Syria, Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon to do damage to Iran. Speaker 1 says the approach includes “going to the Kurds,” hoping they help against the Iranians, trying to enlist support of Islamist “murderers and killers” in Syria under the command of Mr. Erdogan, and “bribing him” to go along while he “murders Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs in Gaza.” Speaker 1 further claims the United States or its allies have “bribed and essentially bought the government of Lebanon,” which “effectively said we'll cede southern Lebanon to the Israelis.” Speaker 1 adds that northern Iraq and Syria are being watched for offensive action against the Iranians. Speaker 1 states the MOU “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on,” and says if Iran hasn’t figured that out, then they are not the “smart people.” Speaker 1 finishes by stating that, instead of responding to weekend attacks, Iran should have waited until Monday morning and “tanked the markets.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Israel's now saying we are going to continue to stay in Lebanon. That's not a part of the memorandum of understanding, but we're going to do it. Over the last few days, Israel used a massive explosive to destroy a southern Lebanese town. Now they're saying there was a 200 meter long tunnel. We had to blow it up. But this is one of the largest non-nuclear bombs we've seen used in modern history. The images are astounding. What do you think that was? What could that have possibly... Tell us, militarily, what are we looking at here? Speaker 1: Well, I think you're looking at something similar to our mother of all bombs, you know, the Moab. I suspect this is fueled air explosive, which is very powerful. And this might have been a very large version of that. Now, there are people on the net saying, oh, no, this is a tactical nuclear weapon. The Israelis have this capability they're using. You know, I don't have any evidence for that. and I don't have access to people that could have collected data. Because if it were a tactical nuclear weapon, then I think you would see radiation, and we would have sources in space quite capable of detecting that and reporting it. So we'll have to wait and see. But from where I sit, this looks like a lot of fuel or explosive, and it's very devastating. But the more important point that you're making, Natalie, is that Mr. Netanyahu is saying, look, we're there, we're staying, we're not leaving. You have to listen to Netanyahu and on occasion need to believe what the man says. He is telling you the truth from his vantage point. He spoke earlier today to a gathering of officers who had been fighting in southern Lebanon. And he was very encouraging to them and telling them, you've done such great things and we're roaring ahead and all this kind of business. But the attitude of the officers in the room where he was sitting listening to him was very similar to Sersky. Everybody's sitting with their heads down. There was no response. They're exhausted. They're worn out. They've taken heavy losses. And there was a sense that people really didn't believe that he was going to achieve what he said they were going to achieve. But we have to understand this war with Iran is not over, just as the war in Ukraine is not over. Now, what happens next? I think to some extent, you're going to see a shift in emphasis from the Persian Gulf region, the Gulf of Oman, north to Syria, Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon, because we are desperate right now to do damage to Iran. And how can we do damage? Well, we're going to the Kurds. We're hoping that they'll help us against the Iranians. We're trying to enlist the support of the Islamist murderers and killers in Syria. who fall under the command of Mr. Erdogan. We've been bribing him to go along with whatever the Israelis want and to sit quietly while he murders Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs in Gaza. We have bribed and essentially bought the government of Lebanon that has effectively said we'll cede southern Lebanon to the Israelis. And we're watching northern Iraq, where the Kurds are operating, as well as in Syria, once again trying to stir up some sort of offensive action against the Iranians. We're desperate. We pulled out all the stops. We failed it down in the Gulf. Does it mean that we will never strike down there again? Absolutely not. And I think the MOU isn't worth the paper it's written on. And if the Iranians haven't figured that out yet, then they're not the smart people that I think they are. Because thus far, I think they've handled themselves well. The only thing they should have done, and this goes back, I think, to something you said, Clayton, is instead of responding to our attacks over the weekend, they should have waited until Monday morning and tanked the markets.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 29, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - June 30, 2026 at 2:46 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 Big Pharma is not the only problem anymore. Now the natural health backlash is colliding with a medical system that keeps pushing risky synthetic fixes while safer long term alternatives get mocked, buried, or ignored. https://t.co/aWxWyvAoPV

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on NASA funding of Redwire, a company formed in 2020 through the combination of ad-col space and deep space systems, which expanded by absorbing Made in Space and grew from space infrastructure into capabilities spanning spacecraft components, deployable structures, robotic manufacturing, mission systems, and space research platforms. By 2025, Redwire described itself as an integrated space and defense tech company emphasizing multi-domain operations, autonomous systems, AI-enabled platforms, and defense contracts. It completed the acquisition of Edge Autonomy and began delivering drone systems connected to U.S. and allied defense programs, including support tied to the U.S. Army and NATO. Redwire’s public identity is framed around convergence of space systems, airborne platforms, autonomy, and warfighting capabilities. A key claim is that Redwire has launched a pharmaceutical venture called SpaceMD, announced in August 2025, described as commercializing pharmaceutical development in space by growing seed crystals in microgravity for use in new or reformulated drugs. The effort is said to be built around Pillbox, short for Pharmaceutical In-Space Laboratory. Pillbox is described as an orbital pharmaceutical platform that Redwire says has flown repeatedly to the International Space Station, with 28 Pillbox systems having flown in space and 17 crystallized compounds already produced on the International Space Station as of the SpaceMD launch announcement, including insulin and other critical molecules. In March 2026, NASA awarded Redwire an additional $4 million to continue drug development in microgravity using Pillbox, under a contract with a ceiling of up to $25 million over five years. SpaceMD is described by Redwire’s CEO Peter Canito as a wholly owned subsidiary focused exclusively on commercialization of Redwire’s proven on-orbit drug manufacturing capability. He explains that crystals of molecules are used to study efficacy, delivery methods, and molecular attributes, and that Pillbox takes molecules into space to grow their crystals. The conversation then questions why NASA would fund this approach. A senior health advisor, Ellie Hirsch, says public money is being used to help powerful corporations move drug development into a domain where oversight is weaker, control is tighter, and the public has even less say, and argues that moving drug development into space makes it harder for the public to question, verify, and fully understand what is being created. Hirsch also highlights perceived risks from vaccines and other pharmaceuticals created on Earth and argues that transparency and long-term monitoring should not be optional when deploying medical policies. They discuss potential jurisdiction and oversight issues tied to International Space Station operations and frame concerns about accountability if things go wrong. Hirsch also describes Pillbox-related “crystals” as laying “foundation” for vaccines and claims that past mRNA vaccine effects are still being seen, with severe side effects experienced by people. A separate segment describes Juanita Gant, who struggled with weight and at age 62 was prescribed Wegovy and later Ozempic, both GLP-1 drugs made by Novo Nordisk. In October 2023, she was found unconscious, and doctors found parts of her large intestine had died and it had to be removed; she later went into cardiac arrest. She is said to be suing Novo Nordisk for allegedly inadequate label warnings about potentially serious side effects, including gastroparesis (stomach paralysis) and bowel obstruction. The advisor and host also contrast pharmaceuticals with natural approaches and discuss immune system concepts centered on T cells, describing killer T cells, helper T cells, regulatory T cells, and memory T cells. Hirsch claims T cells defend against pathogens and also against dangers of synthetic health threats and frames fermented foods as supporting immune function. She emphasizes kimchi as “king of fermented foods,” claiming kimchi improves microbial diversity, cites a comparison of “over 900 strains” in kimchi versus “28 strains” in sauerkraut, and asserts research shows kimchi reduces obesity by 31.8%. Hirsch argues that pharmaceuticals should be a last resort rather than a first resort and claims kimchi—requiring daily consumption—can help balance the gut microbiome and reduce inflammation-related issues such as brain fog and chronic fatigue.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 5: Well, they say the future of medicine is being built to save lives. That's the spin they give us. That's what they always tell us. But what happens when it's being built in space 62 miles above Earth? NASA is now funding a company called Redwire. And at first glance, that might not sound alarming at all. Redwire presents itself as one of the polished faces of this new space economy, right? A company built to supply the machinery, platforms, infrastructure for the next era of orbital industry. It was formed back in 2020 with the combination of ad-col space and deep space systems. And then it started rapidly expanding by absorbing companies like Made in Space, the on-orbit manufacturing pioneer. And then in just a few years, Redwire grew from a space infrastructure roll-up into this sprawling aerospace force with capabilities that span spacecraft components, deployable structures, robotic manufacturing, mission systems, and then space research platforms. But Redwire is no longer just a space company. By the year 2025, it was openly describing itself as an integrated space and defense tech company, leaning into multi-domain operations, autonomous systems, AI-enabled platforms, and defense contracts. And then it completed the acquisition of a company called Edge Autonomy, which is a company that's tied to field-proven, uncrewed aerial systems. And soon after... It was delivering drone systems connected to U.S. and allied defense programs, including support tied to the U.S. Army and NATO. Drone systems? On its own website, Redwire now says its identity, frames its identity around this convergence of space systems, airborne platforms, autonomy, and warfighting capabilities. That's what you want from a medicine company. They're also involved in war. And this is what makes the next part interesting. feel less like a biotech story and more like the beginning of something much harder to categorize and explain because this same company, this defense-linked orbital infrastructure contractor with deep roots in mission-critical aerospace hardware has now launched a pharmaceutical venture called SpaceMD. It was just announced just a short time ago back in August 2025. SpaceMD was created to commercialize pharmaceutical development in space. They do this by growing seed crystals in microgravity that can be then used on Earth to create new or reformulated drugs. So why wouldn't you just develop these drugs on Earth if you're going to use them on Earth? Something doesn't make sense here. So according to Redwire, the entire effort is built around a flight-proven technology platform called Pillbox, and that's short for Pharmaceutical In-Space Laboratory. So Pillbox is where the story stops sounding like science fiction because it starts sounding fully operational. It's not a vague concept. It's not a futuristic theory. Pillbox is functioning as an orbital pharmaceutical platform that Redwire says has already flown repeatedly to the International Space Station. And as of SpaceMD's launch announcement, Redwire said that 28 Pillbox systems had flown in space. and had already crystallized 17 compounds on the International Space Station, including insulin and a whole bunch of other critical molecules. Then in March 2026, NASA awarded Redwire an additional $4 million to continue drug development work in microgravity using pillbox. And under a contract they received with a ceiling of up to $25 million over five years. Listen to the Redwire's CEO. Speaker 4: REDWIRE, NEW COMPANY, RELATIVELY NEW, OPERATES IN A CIVIL, COMMERCIAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE. THE COMPANY IS POSITIONING ITSELF TO BE A LEADER IN ADVANCING THE FUTURE OF SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE. RIGHT NOW THE COMPANY IS BREAKING MAJOR NEWS RIGHT HERE ON MAKING MONEY. I WANT TO BRING IN REDWIRE SPACE CEO PETER CANITO. PETER, I KNOW PART OF YOUR MODEL IS TRANSFORMING THE FUTURE OF SO MANY THINGS, INCLUDING THE FUTURE OF PHARMA. ON THAT SCORE, YOU'VE GOT SOME MAJOR NEWS. Speaker 0: Yeah, that's right. Today we're announcing the formation of a venture company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Redwire called SpaceMD. SpaceMD is going to be exclusively focusing on the commercialization of our proven on-orbit drug manufacturing capability. Speaker 4: What's the advantage? I mean, I remember as a kid that every now and then one of these flights would take a plant with them or something. But is there an advantage to actually developing drugs in outer space? Speaker 0: Yeah, absolutely. So when you're first starting to explore the molecules that are identified for prospects in the drug pipeline, you use crystals of these molecules in order to study them, to understand their potential efficacy, to understand the different ways you can deliver these drugs, to really understand all of their attributes. So what Redwire does is we have a proprietary technology called Pillbox that takes these molecules into space and grows their crystals. Speaker 5: Okay. By the way, my old colleague Charles there, Charles Payne, he's like, what is the benefit of this? Why take these things to space? So first of all, I want to point out that there's something absurd about the fact that this conversation is happening on a show called Making Money on the Fox Business Network. NASA is not just funding a launch, it's also funding a science experiment. It's not just funding a science experiment, it's funding a platform for orbital drug development. Okay. Built by a for-profit company that sits at the intersection of space infrastructure, autonomous systems, defense technology... And according to Redwire's own public statements, the point of SpaceMD is not simply to observe crystals in space for curiosity's sake. The point is to grow seed crystals and microgravity that can then be licensed, sold, and used to pursue entirely new therapeutics or reformulations of existing drugs here on Earth. In other words, Redwire has already signed a royalty-based agreement with major pharmaceutical companies tied to this model, so the government is like picking a winner here. meaning this is not framed as pure science, it's framed as a commercial pipeline. And this is where things get stranger, because in pharmaceuticals, crystal structure is not some minor detail. It can absolutely influence stability, solubility, absorption, manufacturing, shelf life, even whether a treatment behaves the way that researchers want inside the body. Change the crystal, and sometimes you change the entire medicine. Which means if microgravity allows scientists to grow seed crystals that are extremely difficult or in some cases potentially unattainable under Earth conditions, then space is no longer just a laboratory, it becomes a gatekeeper. And it's a perfect place to hide what they're doing away from your prying eyes. I mean, that's where my cynical mind goes immediately. It's also a place where the next generation of medicine may have to be born before it can ever reach the patient. Oh, it's in space. We developed it in space. And once you follow that logic, then the implications get darker fast. Because if orbital crystallization becomes essential to tomorrow's therapies, then access to medicine starts depending on access to space. Space stations. Oh, you can't afford to launch on a SpaceX aircraft? Sorry. You need private aerospace contractors. You need access to these government institutions funding them with these big contracts. And then the little guy gets squeezed out of the picture. What about these no-bid contracts, right? Are there a bunch of companies competing to go to space? Probably not. And then health stops just being biology and chemistry and starts becoming a matter of infrastructure, logistics, and, by the way, total control. The government's funding you. They have the control. So that opens the door to something even bigger, perhaps the future development of the next frontier of mRNA vaccines, developed off-planet in a space away from people and journalists trying to get answers. even as we have lawsuits moving through like the state of Florida as mRNA vaccines as a bioweapon. And in the Netherlands, by the way. So, you know, get away from the lawsuits by not being in Florida or the Netherlands and just go to space. That's how you avoid that. So right now, much of the grand scheme of intentions of entities like Redwire remain totally in the shadows. The general direction is obvious. Once space can produce molecular arrangements... Earth struggles to make every field that depends on precise structure starts paying attention. But the real question is, why a company with roots in space systems, defense technologies, war technologies, and funding by NASA is helping to build the future of pharmaceuticals in space? Something doesn't add up, in my opinion. Maybe I'm being cynical, or maybe this is just the dawn of a medical revolution, or maybe something totally different that I'm just too stupid to understand. you know, maybe big pharma is moving to space and that's what's happening here. Again, something very strange about all of this. So I wanted to ask today, Senior Health Advisor of BrightCore, Ellie Hirsch is here. She's been tracking this very closely, watching this story very closely. Great to see you, Ellie. Welcome to the show. Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. Speaker 5: So I'm just curious, why in the world would NASA fund something like this, do you think, in your estimation? Speaker 1: I mean, they're using public money, right, to help powerful corporations move drug development into a domain where oversight is weaker, control is tighter, and the public has even less say, right? And secondly, we already know the damage that vaccines and other pharmaceuticals have done that are created here on Earth. So now we're supposed to trust the ones they're creating in microgravity conditions in space? If trust is already fragile on Earth, moving the drug development into space, it just makes it harder for the public to question, verify, you know, really fully understand what is being created. Speaker 5: Well, when you hear like the CEO there on TV saying that, you know, it's because we developed this technology called pillbox and we need to be in space to be able to pull it off and create these crystals. But then we're going to be using them here on Earth. Like, I don't know, my Spidey sense goes off. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, we know enough about NASA to assume nefarious intentions, right? We've all seen the recent stories. People are missing. You know, NASA scientists are dead. Why? What is happening, right? And given NASA's scale and their influence, it's definitely reasonable to question transparency and demand clear accountability for how all these programs work. are being run. You know, we're watching two super villains team up, right? It's a marriage of big pharma and NASA, right? And when industries this powerful overlap, the real concern is who's accountable to the public when things go wrong, right? That's my concern. Speaker 5: Right, because if they're in space, and we've seen obviously the problems with like mRNA technology, as I mentioned, you know, in my intro there, we're already seeing these lawsuits moving through like the state of Florida. I just interviewed- a gentleman who's one of the plaintiffs in this case in Florida a few weeks ago, you know, as mRNA technology in these vaccines as a bioweapon here on Earth. So if you go to outer space, what jurisdiction are you, you know, at the International Space Station? Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, these crystal proteins that Red Wire is talking about, you know, with their pillbox, it's basically laying this foundation for the next generation of untested, unproven and unsafe vaccines. vaccines. And like you said, look what happened with the first generation of mRNA through the COVID vaccines. The effects are still being seen today. We deal with people all the time who are still suffering from severe side effects. And it shows why transparency and long-term monitoring should never be treated as optional when we roll out certain medical policies and procedures. And, you know, there are things like the DNA origami-based vaccine, like you said, the universal mRNA vaccine, one-shot cures it all, and the cancer vaccine tech, right? It's all completely dependent on the work that Redwire and NASA are collaborating on. And, you know, they come with bigger promises and bigger problems and more danger. Speaker 5: You know, and it's not just about these vaccines, right? Because... I'm just worried that, like, other pharmaceutical companies who are making medicines... I mean, first of all, I have a big problem with a lot of these pharmaceutical companies, but, you know, it seems like they're pushing each other out so that you're not going to have competition in this space, so that other companies who are trying to make pharmaceuticals maybe don't have the... aren't able to grease the elbows, so to speak, of Washington and be able to go to the International Space Station. Like, who... you know, they're picking winners and losers here, it seems. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, the question is who benefits, who bears the risks, right? And you know, it's not just about vaccines. Many pharmaceuticals in general can and should be avoided, right? And this is why informed consent and individualized medical decisions matter more than ever. I mean, here's a fun fact for you. Pharmaceuticals are now ranked as the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. And it's not because of overdose or acute toxicity. It's really what it's doing to our bodies over time. And that's a scary statistic right there. Speaker 5: It's terrifying because the government, we thought like with this Maha movement that we would hear a lot of push for like natural curatives. But it seems like there's a big pushback. We just had Dr. Robert Malone on the show a few weeks ago, and he talked about, I mean, there's actually movement inside the administration to scuttle the Maha movement. You know, the representatives basically from Big Pharma who are trying to scuttle this move towards natural remedies, natural curatives, really pushing us back towards pharmaceuticals. I mean, this is not what people voted for. Speaker 1: No, I mean, one in five Americans are now using a Zempik, GLP-1 drugs. And like you said, there's thousands of lawsuits that are mounting against these pharmaceutical companies because they have crazy side effects. vision loss, gastrointestinal complications, extreme vomiting, chronic acid reflux, stomach paralysis, which is really when your stomach just stops emptying food, basically stops working. And there's even total organ death, neurological damage. And situations just like this show how widespread adoption can outpace the full understanding of risks and making vigilance essential to everybody. Speaker 3: Juanita Gant struggled with her weight. At age 62, she weighed 242 pounds. Yet the most she could lose trying various diets, she says, was about 20 pounds. Speaker 2: I almost felt defeated and humiliated. I mean, why couldn't I lose this weight? Speaker 3: Then she saw ads for drugs, including Ozempic. Speaker 2: Oh, oh, oh. Speaker 3: Her doctor agreed that because of her diabetes risk, she was a good candidate for one of those drugs and prescribed her Wegovi and later Ozempic, both GLP-1 drugs made by Novo Nordisk. But several months later, in October 2023, Gant's husband found her on the floor unconscious. This photo was taken by her daughter, a nurse at the hospital where Gant was taken. Speaker 2: I had no idea what had happened to me. Speaker 3: Doctors found parts of her large intestine had died. It had to be removed. Then while recovering from surgery, she went into cardiac arrest, prompting the hospital to call her daughter to warn her her mother could die. Speaker 2: I had no warning that this was even a possibility. Speaker 3: She's now suing drugmaker Novo Nordisk, claiming its drug labels do not adequately warn patients and doctors about potentially serious side effects, including gastroparesis or stomach paralysis and bowel obstruction. Gantz says she wants others to know about her experience. Speaker 2: This should not have happened to me. It just should not have happened to me. If it happened to me, it could happen to you. Speaker 5: Geez, I mean. It's just terrifying. My wife and I were watching Top Chef the other night, which we like to do every season, and couldn't help but like looking at one of the hosts of the show and who just looked like he's on Ozempic now, like lost all this weight. And then there's all these ads for Ozempic during Top Chef, like you're watching a food show and there's all these ads with all of these disclaimers. And they have a guy there at a microphone reading all the disclaimers for like two minutes. And there's a guy behind him eating popcorn. Like he's sitting there eating popcorn while the guy is at a microphone. He's like, you know, clay colored stool, permanent diarrhea. Like it's just like a whole laundry list of horrible things. Who would take this stuff? Speaker 1: Yeah, it is really scary. And that case is just one of so many. And that is why I have and continue to preach all I have learned, because I want to raise awareness. And when you take a drug-based approach to health and wellness without enough information or you ignore the information, you don't understand the risks involved, it can have dire consequences. I mean, listen, there are two schools of thought when it comes to health, right? You're natural versus synthetic. I'm turning 50 this year, and I have been doing this long enough to know that the natural path is not only safer, but it's more effective in 99% of the cases. Speaker 5: You're turning 50. You look like you're turning 30. I look like I'm turning 50. Speaker 1: You made my day. Speaker 5: Thank you. So maybe you could explain how this all breaks down separately here and why... understanding like taking like the synthetic route versus like taking the natural route here. Speaker 1: Sure. So when I talk to people who don't understand health on a very sophisticated level, my first step is to really explain how the immune system functions. So many diseases, ailments, whether acute, so like having the flu, or chronic, whether it's diabetes, obesity, they arise due to the lack of knowledge about how to take care of your health naturally. And one of the most critical elements of every immune system is something called T cells. They're specialized white blood cells. They act as the body's security force. They are crucial for detecting and fighting infections. They influence the immune system because they directly destroy infected or cancerous cells, and they send chemical signals to orchestrate really the broader immune response. So without them, the body has no ability to fight off pathogens, infections, and there's a really long list of other serious threats. It is really fascinating how this works in your body. So there are four types of T cells. They all work synergistically. They all work together, but they each serve a different purpose. So you have your killer T cells. These are also known as the assassins. They hunt down, they destroy your cells that have been hijacked by a virus or turn cancerous. So they kill the factory, right? They stop the threat from spreading. And then you have the helper T cells. These are considered the generals. They don't do the fighting themselves, but instead, They release chemical signals to wake up other immune cells, like B cells, which make antibodies, or macrophages, which eat germs. Then you have your regulatory T cells. These are called the peacekeepers. They tell the immune system to pipe down the fights over and prevent it from accidentally attacking your healthy tissues. And then lastly, you have your memory T cells. So we call this the library. They remember exactly what a specific germ looks like. So if it returns, your body can crush it before you even feel sick. I'm fascinated by this. Call me a science nerd, but it's pretty incredible what your body can do for your health. Speaker 5: A memory T cell. So it like stores it like in a, in basically in a library. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's pretty insane. And T cells not only protect you from, like I mentioned, pathogens and viruses and parasites, but from the danger of exposure to synthetic health threats like mRNA, right? And keeping this in mind, whether or not you receive the vaccine, you're still exposed to it through other forms of contamination like shedding, right? whether it's respiratory droplets, somebody coughing, sneezing, skin contact, all those other type of things. So keep that in mind. And, you know, I see studies all the time, but this one in particular, I was so excited to read and I have always, and will always be a strong advocate for kimchi and its health benefits for such a long time. Speaker 5: So what does this mean? So this about a thousand year old fermented food is, and what it's doing to your immune system. I mean, we are big fans of kimchi around here, but how exactly is this doing this and rewiring your defense system? Because I think people think they have to rely on, like, pharmaceuticals for that, but you absolutely don't. Speaker 1: No, you absolutely don't. This study proves it. So this study was groundbreaking, and it really uncovered something remarkable about kimchi, which is a thousand-year-old fermented superfood. So it doesn't just strengthen your immune system, which we just talked about how important it is, but it actually rewires the way your natural defense system operates. So when you consume kimchi, it transforms those T-cells from basic guards into, like, elite, high-intelligence commanders. And so... When those cells are upgraded, they become masters of search and destroy. They hunt down viruses with terrifying precision while keeping your body calm and inflammation-free. And all this is happening inside, right? And when you consume kimchi every single day, what you're doing is essentially building an impenetrable cellular fortress, ensuring that your T cells are always on high alert and ready to crush any threat before it stands a chance. Speaker 5: So, and our producer, Philip, he eats like kimchi, like I think he eats a vat of it every day. So why is, you know, I've heard the story about like kimchi versus like, oh, if you've got other fermented foods like sauerkraut or things like that. Because, you know, I was saying, oh, I was eating some sauerkraut and people are like, people in the comments were like, that's not as good as kimchi. Like you need to eat, you know, I'm like, why is that better than just other fermented foods? Speaker 1: Yeah, your audience is right. So kimchi is known as the king of fermented foods, and it's superior to any other fermented food and synthetic probiotic supplements because microbial diversity, that's the key to good health. And we know this because when they studied people who lived to be over 100, known as centenarians, they discovered something pretty incredible, right? They all had in common, incredible microbial diversity, in their gut microbiome. And this is because kimchi has over 900 strains of beneficial bacteria, which is far more unique than any other fermented food. You brought up sauerkraut. You know, it's a fermented food. It's not bad for you, but it only has 28 strains as compared to the 900 strains of kimchi. And, you know, there's studies all over the place about how kimchi actually slows the aging of human cells. Speaker 5: So what exactly are we seeing here? Really an anti-aging effect? Because people think, oh, we've got to take all these other medicines and all these other pharmaceuticals. But if at the heart of aging is inflammation, like I look at my mom who had really debilitating arthritis, which is really just an inflammation, right? Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, what happens is when you slow the aging of your cells, you slow the aging of your tissues. And therefore, you slow the aging of your entire body, which is pretty incredible, naturally. And these are the type of claims that big pharma makes with products that have a ton of negative side effects, like we saw in that video before. That's the great thing about natural approach. It doesn't come with all these nasty side effects. And we talked a little bit about Ozempic and weight loss. Did you know that research shows that kimchi in your diet reduces obesity by 31.8%? That's pretty incredible. Speaker 5: It's remarkable. And you can feel it working in your body. I mean, I've been a big fan of it for a long time. So 31% people think that they need to go on a Zempik. You need to take these pharmaceuticals in order to do that. So when you're actually naturally healthy, you can actually eliminate all of this additional weight on your body. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, when you are truly naturally healthy, your inner health reflects on the outside. So you'll have better skin. better hair, lower rates of obesity, better fitness and ability. You don't only feel kimchi work, right? You can see it in the mirror. And the takeaway here is that pharmaceuticals should be a last resort, not a first resort. Natural remedies like kimchi, it's safer, more effective, and really provides long-term lasting results. But, you know, we have to, you know, remember big pharma wants a sick care system, not a healthcare system. Right. It's something that keeps you coming back again and again because they're driven by profit. So when you fix health problems or prevent them by addressing the root cause, you are healed as opposed to being perpetually dependent. Speaker 5: So can you get all of these benefits from it, from eating it like once a month or like how often are you eating it? Like, you know, like fill up on our team who eats it every day. How often do you have to eat kimchi in order to get these benefits? Speaker 1: It's a great question, and here's the important part. All the health benefits of kimchi are only realized when you consume it daily. But the only problem is it's not easy to consume every day. It's not part of our diet here in the US. In the Korean culture, they live six years longer, by the way. That is their staple. And so that is why we created Kimchi One. And I get so excited about this product because it is a convenient capsule for daily use, We use a cold process drying method, so it retains all the fiber and nutrition of actual fermented kimchi. There's virtually no sodium, unlike store-bought kimchi, which if you're having too much sodium, that's a whole other problem. It's 100% made in the USA. It's all natural, non-GMO. But what I love about talking and being able to deliver this incredible product are the success stories that I hear from people. So let's take people who had problems with digestion. Right. They're bloating. They feel terrible. Now they're finally regular. Right. Big difference. How about people who had problems with their immune system? They're getting sick all the time. They're not getting sick anymore. Chronic fatigue and brain fog. Right. We all know walking into the pantry, you can't remember why you're there. So now these people, me included, by the way, you know, we're thinking clearly we have energy again. And also, you know, there are those symptoms from post-vaccination, right, that people are still dealing with. And no one can identify what's going on or what the cause is, but they're feeling better after using kimchi. And that's what's important. Speaker 5: So I know we just put up a graphic here on the screen. And people, viewers who want to take advantage of this, I mean, so many of our viewers do. You can get 25% off. Can you tell people what they can get here if they want to try some of this kimchi one? Because it is hard. Like in America, we don't have a taste for it. Like in Korea, you're eating it every day as part of a meal. But in America, it's very rare. And so to be able to have it. Speaker 1: That's why we created this. So you can get 25% off your order today by clicking the link below and using the code REDACTED. But I have even a better deal for everybody because you can get up to 50% off and free shipping by calling REDACTED. and that number, and write this down, 888-404-6312. We want you to call, right? We wanna talk to you, make sure this is the right product for you. We wanna take that health journey with you. And the first 100 callers, they're gonna get a free bottle of Fortify, and Fortify contains all nine essential amino acids. It protects against cellular damage, it retains muscle mass, boosts hormone production, and supports brain chemistry. But remember, you only get the best discounts and the free bottle of Fortify when you call. And that number is 888-404-6312. Speaker 5: What is the kimchi doing in our gut bacteria? What is it doing that would clear brain fog, would enable us to reduce inflammation? Why is this fermented cabbage or your kimchi one so powerful? Speaker 1: Well, I don't know if you know the statistics, but 70% to 80% of our immune system is housed in the gut. right? And you have your gut brain access. Everything is connected to your gut, your skin, right? It's the biggest organ that we have. And so kind of similar to what we talked about with the T cells, your immune system, what's happening in your gut, you know, it's about the balance, right, of good and bad bacteria. And when bad bacteria takes over, that's when you start feeling that chronic fatigue, the brain fog. But when they're balanced, everything in your body is balanced. So that's what kimchi helps do. It helps balance your gut microbiome, which is really important. People don't, they've heard about the gut microbiome, but they really don't know the importance of it and it affects your entire body. Again, 70 to 80% of your immune system is housed in there. And so that's really important. That's why kimchi is so amazing, and it does so many different things throughout the body. Speaker 5: Well, I love your mission over there because, again, people are relying on Ozempic, relying on all these other things. And I see friends of mine who are natural, who do this every day, take kimchi. They exercise. They get out in the sun. They get vitamin D. And they're losing weight, and they're healthy. Their skin looks great. And then you see these other people with Ozempic face, and they're like – I don't know. They're just we have a family friend, actually, who I mean, she's now she's her bones are now breaking. I mean, we grew up next door to her. She's been taking Ozempic. She's one of my dear friends of my sister. And she has like brittle bones problems now. She has they said basically her bone structure is equivalent to like an 80 year old woman because she's been on this on Ozempic now. And it's just like, what are you doing to yourself now? Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not, I mean, there's one thing about losing weight and being skinny and you're like, yeah, I feel good, but you don't look good, right? Your health on the outside should reflect your health on the inside. And that's why Kim Chi Won is so important. I mean, you're gonna notice it in your skin, your hair, everything. And I take it every day and I'm telling you it works. I have less bloating, less brain fog. And it's something that we must share with everybody and share the statistics and get it out there. Cause it's important. Speaker 5: I agree. I agree. Thank you, Ellie. So again, we'll have a link in the description below. People want to take advantage of that and make the phone call, get 50% off and all that and all the free stuff that you're giving away. So thank you so much, Ellie. Great to see you. I really appreciate it. Speaker 1: Great being here. Thank you.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 26, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - June 28, 2026 at 1:28 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 The Palantir lawsuit may be the most important tech case in America right now. The complaint states that AI systems were turned inward on the public to surveil, profile, censor, and manipulate Americans without consent. @Ronjamesfilms joins us. https://t.co/PSWIDSSdnE

Video Transcript AI Summary
A new 43-page verified lawsuit was filed in federal court against Palantir Technologies, co-founder and billionaire Peter Thiel, CEO Alex Karp, and COO Shyam Sankar. The complaint lists the plaintiffs anonymously as John Doe and Jane Doe. It alleges that Palantir has crossed a “constitutional Rubicon” by using its artificial intelligence systems to surveil, profile, and manipulate the American public without consent. The lawsuit claims Palantir software—described as used by the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and intelligence agencies—is being deployed domestically to monitor U.S. citizens, harvest biometric data, censor online speech, and interfere with elections. The plaintiffs also accuse Palantir of developing “synthetic intelligence,” described as merging machine reasoning with human behavior prediction (“pre-crime,” Minority Report–style), which they say trespasses into the human mind. The complaint alleges violations of privacy, free speech, and “cognitive liberty,” a term promoted by digital privacy advocates. James Martinez, an MKUltra whistleblower, says states are beginning legislation to protect brain data, while Palantir is portrayed as collecting and synthesizing data to create a picture of a person, place, or thing. Martinez argues the company is “slowly preparing the public” for these developments and describes how technology “media ecological effects” can alter sensory balance and reality. He claims such systems will reduce privacy, increase paranoia, and violate cognitive liberties by enabling predictive profiling and potentially creating legal consequences based on algorithmic intention. Martinez also discusses a “Brain Data Protection Act” being drawn up by Democrats, arguing that existing laws and contract structures do not stop data collection or misuse. He describes a broader pattern of “voluntary compliance” through long terms of service and consumer habits, and says people must “rebut” agreements rather than passively accept them. The allegations in the lawsuit, as discussed in the conversation, include Palantir-enabled systems enforcing health mandates, controlling access to services, and influencing beliefs through algorithmic nudges—framed as toggling belief systems on and off. Martinez links this to behavior modification and cultural control, extending it into concerns about legislation on speech and enforcement through technology. The conversation further connects Palantir’s role to brain-computer interface (BCI) advances. Martinez says companies are moving from wearable interfaces (headphones, earbuds) toward body-level tracking and eventually toward brain-related tools, arguing that this changes legal and spiritual territory and creates liability problems because systems will not “run smoothly.” He also claims warfare could become “non-human,” with robots and drones, and says access to human data and biological information could alter modern conflict strategies. Martinez addresses consent, arguing that citizens are frequently tracked via systems like geofencing and that courts may treat participation and agreements as consent. He also argues that lawsuits will proliferate as the issues affect daily life, and says legal practice may be changed by AI-assisted synthesis of cases by judges or attorneys. In the closing, Martinez frames the lawsuit as forcing public examination of what it means to be human, warning about the loss of rights—especially cognitive rights—over thinking, emotion, and interpretation of reality. He also argues that digital ID and biometric requirements in Europe could expand a “digital prison,” and says people who refuse technological changes could be left behind or punished.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But we told you about the extinction level event that is coming, and now we have our clearest sign yet that it's being accelerated. But some brave individuals are trying to stop it. A new groundbreaking lawsuit, arguably one of the most important lawsuits in history, has just been filed against one of the most powerful and secretive technology companies in America, Palantir Technologies, along with its billionaire founder, Peter Thiel. CEO Alex Karp, and the COO Shyam Sankar. Now, the plaintiffs are listed anonymously in this complaint as John Doe and Jane Doe, but it's way bigger than just these names. They allege that Palantir has crossed a constitutional Rubicon, if you will, using its artificial intelligence systems to surveil, profile, and manipulate the American public without our consent. According to this 43-page verified complaint that I've read in federal court, Palantir software, the same tools that are used by the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and intelligence agencies, are allegedly being deployed domestically to monitor U.S. citizens, harvest our biometric data, censor online speech, and even interfere with elections. And it goes much deeper than that. than all of that. The plaintiffs are accusing Palantir of developing what they call synthetic intelligence, technology that merges machine reasoning with human behavior prediction, pre-crime, minority report style stuff, effectively trespassing into the human mind. They claim it violates basic rights in privacy, free speech, cognitive liberty, cognitive liberty. It's a new phrase. a term gaining traction among digital privacy advocates. And I'm glad we're going to have this discussion. James Martinez is an MKUltra whistleblower. He received information about this lawsuit a long time ago. And we had him on to discuss this extinction level event that is coming. And I was just speaking to James a few minutes ago who said this is an accelerant. This is speeding up this extinction level event and james joins us once again here on the show james great to have you back on the show thank you so much and i have to say your first appearance on our show was mind-blowing people around the world millions of people have seen that interview and are just stunned by what you revealed but this takes it to the next level no with this lawsuit yeah it does um because of Speaker 1: certain technological advancements in the brain computer interface community. What we're seeing now is multiple states are starting to begin the legislation to protect brain data. Now Palantir is a collection company. It basically surveils and checks and takes all your data and synthesizes it to create a picture about a person, a place or a thing. Now, since this is now very public in terms of what the company intends to do, it's been slowly preparing the public. And that was quite apparent when the presence was known at a very well watched event that happened recently. during the Charlie Kirk funeral where Palantir was on the wall right next to the stage as if they were sponsoring the event, which I found, I saw that as, yeah, it's a funeral. It's a funeral for everybody based upon the media ecological effects of what technology does when you insert it and begin to use it. And when I'm talking about media ecological effects, that's a word that came from, was kind of coined by Marshall McLuhan, which basically says what happens when you introduce technology and how it affects the sensory balance in the brain between the senses and how you create your reality. Like for instance, the media ecological effect of, A fork would be to accelerate the amount of food you could get into your mouth. That would be an effect. With this technology, its effects will basically, they'll have access to all your data and then begin the model of who you are. You won't have authority over it unless you've done some very serious things in the courtroom. And it's going to eventually create complete paranoia because you'll have absolute zero privacy. We haven't had privacy for a while because of Google. But this, at this time, is an accelerant on top of all of it that is going to violate most of, if not all, our cognitive liberties because now we're into... predictive models of behavior, of human behavior. And what does that kind of mean in court? What's it going to mean when you create the data off of somebody that's profiling that is a criminal? And the data, which is digital, can be broken into and changed. You have all these ethical problems and legal potential problems that are going to exist as an effect of this technology. There's just been recently a bill I was made aware of that the Democrats have drawn up to protect the first, it's a Brain Data Protection Act essentially. And the point of this is this, when I came on and spoke about the extinction level event because of the fusion of brain and computer and quantum and what that does, what that ultimately is going to do, this the acceleration of this company as it was as i was contacted from people that are out there that are under already suffering enough from um weapons neurocognitive weapons being used against the public in the us right now i get more email about that than you you would ever imagine and we have this is one of the effects is from this company as it accelerates you're gonna see the biggest mental health breakdown in the history of history. Because people won't know what's real and what is not and what can be faked. Because when you're screwing around and creating future predictive models on human behavior, now you can be charged by intention of the algorithm that says you hate your neighbor because they're some color. and you can be profiled. Not to mention that all this data, they claim with all these gigantic bills that they're having in multiple states, that they're gonna protect your brain data. Really? They're gonna protect their brain data? No, no, no, no. No bill law has ever been made that stopped anybody from doing anything. So this lawsuit here is an invitation for the entire human civilization to have a very serious talk about its future and the cutting off of our human spiritual component that makes us human. And we're not turning into machines until we have the big talk with everybody, because that's what really all of this is about. This lawsuit brings up all sorts of legal issues having to do with just privacy, not to mention theft of data. And they're presuming with all the data that they're stealing are going to be stealing and spying on everybody, that that data is theirs. When they're going to argue that we voluntarily comply to go for all this. This is the problem with these big technology companies that are just way out of hand and who these guys are working for. Because it's already become highly politicized because of what's happened in Israel, where they were using Palantir technology there with the genocide and everything. So what does this mean? We've got people testifying about extraterrestrials in Congress. You've got genocide going across another side of the world. You've got a complete riots all over the United States right now. You've got, I mean, a whole ton of major activities are going on whilst the real end of the show has to do with free speech because they're already starting to legislate that. And this is going to be part of a tool that makes that legislation enforceable. See, it's over. It is over unless people get involved with this because the plaintiffs may be John Doe, Jane Doe. but it's you, you, the person that's watching this, you, the host, everybody, because this is, this is the one battle that you can't walk away from and just like, Oh, it'll take care of it. He's doing it over there. No, no, no. You, you gotta be prepared for this because in Europe right now, now they're requiring biometrics to go anywhere. So the digital prison coming down and this is, And this is part of it because this is going to be used as a behavioral tool to control populations because they don't really want you here anyway because the World Economic Forum, as many of your people in your audience know, this is just a tool to take down humans and put them into the fusion basis with machinery. And essentially, that kills you. You're no longer human. So that's the issue with this. Speaker 0: Well, and people, I think, are becoming far more aware of this now when they're seeing the chaos, they're seeing the discontent, they're seeing people fighting each other online, they're seeing people fighting each other on the streets in Portland or wherever it happens to be, sowing this discontent. And we've been trying to point out here on the show, we had Colonel Towner Watkins on the other day, and she's making the point that people are missing the 30,000-foot story here, is that this is all in an effort to sow discontent And of course, to bring us, as you point out, under this biometric surveillance state that controls everything we do. So while we're down here fighting over little things, they're up here with a sort of master plan to move us into this. And I think this is what some of the lawsuit says. And there's some big allegations in here. I want to go through the allegations in this lawsuit against Palantir. The Palantir-enabled systems are being used to enforce health mandates, control access to services, influence beliefs... through algorithmic nudges, basically. So control our beliefs, influence our beliefs, so that the government, I guess, presumably, has control. Hey, flip this switch on, flip this switch off. Control our belief systems. Speaker 1: Yeah, because you can do it through the electric environment, through the internet. It's already been demonstrated very well in the last three weeks. We saw one thing, but it actually wasn't. And then we were lied about it. I don't even need to explain what that is because everybody knows what that is. It was one of the biggest psychic events in U.S. history and most examined. But now that there's cameras everywhere, it's going to be more and more difficult for people to have a sense of cognitive privacy of paranoia. This is going to... if you have a problem with somebody, you can go think about it in your house and yeah, I'd love to shoot that guy, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna shoot that guy or commit a crime. You'd like to commit a crime, but something takes over and you don't. This was the basis of Minority Report, the film, the legal argument about that. And basically building a, data stream on a person that may be a criminal or not, and then by predictive algorithm and their behavior, tying them or accusing them of a crime. So all these effects are going to happen. It won't run smoothly. Speaker 0: Maybe we can even step back a little bit. So if someone's new to this, they're like, I thought Palantir was just a technology company. It seems fine. They cavort with President Trump, Peter Thiel's friends with President Trump, and they've donated to J.D. Vance's campaign and all of that. It's all fine. So what specifically is this lawsuit really alleging that Palantir has done here? Speaker 1: They've kind of stepped over the line into an area where they're going to be using the tools— and the effects of this to induce cultural control and behavior modification. Same thing, it'll be used in conjunction with Larry Ellison's statements about making people behave. Because all this is a tool for the real agenda behind the scenes is depopulation and get everybody out of here. But it makes it a lot easier if you can control the behavior of mass amounts of people and psychology as well. Speaker 0: And they've told us that the lockdowns and COVID was a trial run, basically. They've told us that this was the test. How can we control everyone, keep them locked inside? You're not driving cars. You're not using any kind of carbon-based automobiles, anything like that. You're at home. You're ordering all of your food. You're compliant. we can do it all. And it was really a test for that. Do you see it that way? Speaker 1: Uh, yes, but things are so far advanced, uh, now, um, but that was like prehistoric. Speaker 0: That was like the stone age. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, actually. Yeah. I mean that, that, that we're, we're at such a, uh, crossroads for the human race. as a species because of all these advanced technologies coming in on us, as well as new realizations and other things that have never even understood is going on. They're being revealed now. So most people know that we're way past the technological advancement that we've been told. And all of that veil is going to be lifted. It's starting now because of what's happened kind of behind the national security line that was put in place in 1947. So all of these technologies are going to collide while they're creating agitation, warfare, and violence. And everybody's been misdirected, all that. That keeps everybody really occupied. Meanwhile, they're doing this and encroaching in... a right to exist, essentially. When they talk in public, they talk about their technology as a commercial service and what they're doing, but they don't talk about the effects of the technology. That's the key, because nobody called you or me when they decided to put these cell phones out about what the effects were going to be. They were just saying, this is a phone, you can Now you can be mobile and call your wife whenever. They provided a service and sold it as a service. But they never talked about the technological and media ecological effects on the brain and culture. They didn't say it would destroy social space. It didn't say it would change your central nervous system. It didn't say it would ruin your sleep at night. It didn't say all these things. Technology companies and inventions and things like that, they never talk about the effects of the technology before it comes out. They just put it out, right? They don't talk about what the effects do. And these are some of the effects that are going to happen. Nobody's going to trust anybody with anything. It'll create hyper paranoia and distrust of all institutions. Period. Speaker 0: And, you know, I just saw this I want to get more back into all the details of Palantir here and what this lawsuit says, but I don't know if you've seen this over the past couple of weeks, it's becoming more and more apparent, all these NFL players that you would normally see them running on the sidelines wearing Bluetooth headphones, they'd wear the wireless Bluetooth headphones and they'd be warming up before the games or they're showing up off the buses wearing all these Bluetooth headphones and earbuds. Now they're not. They're all wearing wired headphones now. And This is very strange. Like it's they're not wearing those. Speaker 1: That's what they've done is the micro escalation. Micro escalation is the key to self-suicide. The cell phone with the step prior to the cell phone being put in your hand was get getting the public to put something on their body. Long ago, the first step to the mobile phone was actually the pager. People had pagers, call me on my pager, and you'd have that thing attached to your device. So that was training wheels for having a mobile hand unit. So when these companies do things like this, they've already pre-trained their culture, all their buyers, to interface with machinery on the body already. And now it went from headphones to buds to And now it's turned into the next thing. And eventually they'll go right to the brain. I mean, now that X has put out tools to do that, they've already advertised it. Something that is calculating between the mid here. They're going to be, they'll start to legislate consciousness. That's what they're doing at the same time. That's why the big issue is about freedom of speech and whether or not you can talk about somebody or not. They're going to legislate all that stuff, but they can do it technologically onto you without your permission. And they are, if you participate. Everybody's going to have to rebut, and they're going to have to completely re-declare who they are related to the courtroom. And there's going to be, if they think this is the only lawsuit they're going to get, there'll be loads more when people figure out what the situation is. This has gone way over the line. way over the line because just the way the uh founders are speaking about it as a political tool with israel which they've done frequently uh the founders of palantir yes mr carp did he was quite vocal about it and now you've got uh peter thiel um who's in crisis in my opinion if you're going to advertise yourself talking about the Antichrist to a Christian nation, and you're not sure your role in that, but people are saying, well, aren't you and your relationship between Palantir now going to become something of like the Antichrist and him having a deep moral issue with the concept. And now he's put on, I think four or five speaking engagements about this. It's about him and the effects of this company. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: Before he even got into it. Yes. Yes. Yes. Speaker 0: People can... Should they change their name from Palantir to Mark of the Beast? I mean, that's really at the center of this. Speaker 1: Yes. It's a lot of it. And they are discreetly... Discussing that, but the problem is the public is not fully engaged with the situation yet because they're totally misdirected and their attention has been put elsewhere. One of the things they've done when the internet came through and everybody started to have a screen in front of their face for eight hours a day is the total attention economy. It's more important to get attention. You have to. Your digital node is your money now. And all these algorithms that are controlling your digital node, as you spend eight hours a day in front of a screen, that's all part of this too. Because people are already, they're already almost merged with computers already. It's there already, but the public hasn't totally moved into it. When you mentioned the NFL thing with players, that's the first time I've heard that, but it doesn't surprise me. they'll be the first to suicide out. Meaning they get up there. They're moving away. Speaker 0: They're moving away from this Bluetooth technology on their heads. Like Aaron Rogers has openly talked about it and having this, you know, electromagnetic technology right in your head. So they've moved back to like wired earbuds. Now you're seeing all of them getting off the buses now using wired earbuds again, which is a technology we basically gave up, but I don't know. That might just seem like a bandaid on a, on a gaping wound at this point, given the fact that they still have a phone in their pocket, and I mean, who knows? But I just thought it was interesting. Let's get back to the lawsuit, James, if we can, because the complaint uses this phrase, I mentioned it off the top, this synthetic intelligence. Can you explain what this means, how it differs from what we know of as regular AI? Speaker 1: Is AI synthetic intelligence? It's an extension of human creation, but we're using AI which is a creation and it's digital, and their live human intelligence is quite different. I think synthetic intelligence refers to AI and its effects. Speaker 0: They also say that these systems, in the complaint specifically, are being used without public consent. So what evidence points to that? I mean, is... is an example like the Charlie Kirk Memorial where people showed up at this event and they were being digitally tracked. We know the company TPUSA has admitted that they were being digitally tracked, 277,000 people digitally tracked and monitored and all of that with this massive like geofencing operation. So what is it, how often are we publicly consenting to this? And does that get them off the hook? I mean, these long terms of service agreements that people sign up for, But they don't even read them because they're hundreds of pages long. Speaker 1: Well, that's the problem. Nobody rebuts anything. I mean, I confess I've done all of the mistakes. And when everything goes to a court of law, everything goes into basic contract law. And if you're agreeing to all of these things, tacit agreement, whatever written or any of that in a court of law, you've agreed to it. You have the choice of reading all the updates on all your apps, but nobody does. And it's the same thing with credit card agreements. Nobody reads those. So we're not even versed in basic contract law in this country at all as consumers because we've voluntarily complied to agree to all these shitty contracts that we get all the time that are not for us, really. They're too... distort our perception. So people need to rebut all of this stuff. Now there's going to be a huge wave of people in the future. They're going to just start dumping all their phones. They're not going to have any mobile devices. It will be fashionable not to have them soon. It's already started. Speaker 0: I know I get your feeling on this. I really do. And it's, I think it's going to, I think you're right about this. I just got chills on, to be honest with you. That's like spirit. That's like God telling me you're right. Like this is coming. And this is perhaps, and I'm feeling like overwhelmed. Like I hate to be like kind of cheesy about it, but I just got like, I don't know. I just, something hit me just now when you said that. And I, you know, again, I'm not trying to be cheesy or dramatic here. I just, when you said that, I just got like an overwhelming, like spiritual hit in my body. when you just said that I almost, I almost wanted to cry. Like I just got tears in my eyes about it because I feel like we're heading there. People are going, this is, this is like they were burning records back in the day. They were burning, but people are going to take these phones and they're going to throw them away and they're going to be done with it. And they're going to say, you know what? You're going to, you can reach me on my landline going forward. If you want to call me. Speaker 1: I've already had people call me about getting rotary phones, getting ham radios, CBs, They've had it. And these are people that are fairly informed, that have families and businesses, and everybody is planning on decentralization in some form, because this technological crossroads that we're at, it's a crossroads. And the conversation about the people at the crossroads that are creating the crossroads, like Palantir, and other companies like them. We haven't really had the proper discussion in public yet, really. We see little promotional pieces on the internet all the time and news stories about Palantir, et cetera. But the bottom line is that the Constitution is how we structure our freedom in this country is It's gone now already, but this will permanently alter it entirely. And there needs to be extensions to the Constitution, in my opinion. And that should be a primary directive of the White House to introduce this because they're going to hear about this lawsuit. I can assure you that they'll know about it and other people are going to know about it as well. Because it's going to, it's basically an invitation for this company to have a more grounded talk about the effects of what they're doing. Since most of their clients are, it's defense industry related and CIA related. That's where their basis, their government version and they have a public version. But it's all contract law and nobody's rebutting anything. Speaker 0: So I want to maybe drill in a little bit more deeply here on the violations of cognitive liberty. We've kind of touched on it a little bit, but maybe we can be just concise here. Essentially, your freedom of thought, how can this Palantir technology and what they're doing basically trespass into the human mind so that we don't have any liberties left? Speaker 1: Because people are already hooking themselves up to the internet through the brain anyway. That's already started. All the health companies, when they bring out their BCI technology, now we're in a completely different territory of law. And Palantir will have access to all that information if they want it. They can get it if they want it. They're going to try and protect all these brain data rights, but they have intrusion rights onto you. And what does that mean legally? What does it mean spiritually? What does it mean liability wise? Because none of it's going to run perfect. And there's going to be this lawsuit is nothing. It's going to be loads. It's going to be loads. It's going to be nonstop because this is really going to affect people's lives now at this point. So it interfaces with somebody's data that's already online in a server being saved or being utilized for something. not to mention what it's going to do in warfare. It renders warfare kind of obsolete at this point because you can't really do anything except fry the servers of everything to deal with this type of thing. It's really nothing to brag about. Speaker 0: I was thinking about the future of modern warfare. I mean, what is it going to look like? We talk about drones. Speaker 1: Well, it's non-human. It's all going to be robots. and drones, and that type of thing. It's already interfacing with all of that anyway, and using enhanced forms of warfare with the brain already. Now, all your DNA, your body parts, all of that stuff, depending upon where you stand legally, that may be the government's property. Most people that have had injections into the body with patented material, unknowingly, that patented material is inside their biology. And that ultimately doesn't make them human to begin with. And now they're actually in the trans human stage, even if it's a form for R&D, They'll be used for research and development until it's perfected. That's what they'll do. So if they have access to data and information and we're already wired into the internet anyway, through our senses or through a BCI interface, they can have that information. So people can no longer trust these tech companies at all anymore for what they've done. They've reached way past Way past, which is why Palantir is flexing in front of China and the White House with Trump. Speaker 0: Why do you mean? Speaker 1: Because China, we set them up to be our big enemy because when they were going to initiate and create world government, it was going to be headed out financially through China. And now since the whole thing is falling apart, China has double-crossed most of the world and is responsible for theft of intellectual property and trying to kill us with all the drugs that they put in the country and God knows how many other violations. So it changes warfare entirely, and it's going to be used and is being used probably while we're talking in other countries. Speaker 0: We look at the plaintiffs here. I don't know how much you can reveal about Jane Doe and John Doe and how much you can talk about it. I know you know the individuals involved in this or the individual involved in this. Is this one of those, first of all, I guess when a judge looks at this, is the judge is going to like laugh this out of the courtroom and just dismiss it? Because that's a big, that's always a concern. Right. The judge is going to look at this and just not even understand it. So like, this sounds like science fiction dismissed. And then what kind of plaintiffs are we talking about here? Do they have some real weight behind them? Speaker 1: They do as of about 24 hours ago. Yeah, they do. Cause help called and somebody that knows the courts very well and knows the commercial courts very well and knows jurisdiction very very well. This is going to be something different than these guys have had to deal with because, you know, they'll send it to their billionaire law firm that represents them. It'll be a paper war. They're going to put a try and motion to vacate the whole thing and throw it out. And there'll be enormous arrogance associated with it because they're just going to try and get the whole thing thrown out in a couple rounds. But Lawsuits aren't fought the same way anymore because AI is involved, which is why it's going to obsolesce the entire legal trade. They know it too because I've talked to attorneys about it. They know if the decisions are being made with AI and how people send their paperwork back and forth. So all of this tech is affecting all the industries around it tremendously. And we've not really seen the real – effective as of yet, but people are talking about it very quietly, very quietly. And I've talked to several, many lawyers, both in the US and in Europe, and some of them doing work for the world court. It's not good for the future for lawyers. Speaker 0: It's not a good future. I guess at the heart of this, a judge will still have to decide whether to dismiss this or actually allow this to advance to discovery phase and then move forward with a potential trial. Are judges going to be pushed out of this process and AI will make those decisions for these judges? Because how, at the end of the day, do we know if a judge has read this 43-page complaint and made a decision? Can they put it in AI and say, hey, I'm a judge... let me know, should I dismiss this or just move forward with this? We don't know. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I can take the suit as a judge, plug it in to AI, give me all the critical data on this, this, this, this site, these laws and these authorities and whatnot. And let me take a look at it. Yeah, they can do that. Anybody can do that. You can do any, any suit and then have them have the AI system synthesize and look at the strengths and weaknesses of the case just in a legal sense. So, yeah, I think there's going to be how the business of law is conducting itself is forever changed now. Speaker 0: So bottom line this for us, James, how big a deal is this, do you believe? And to someone watching right now who's like hearing about this for the first time and they're like, oh, this sounds like science fiction right now. I mean, you're an MK ultra whistleblower. You've seen it in action and people like to really compartmentalize stuff. They're like, ah, I gotta take my kids to dance this afternoon. I really, the government is targeting weapons against me to control my mind and having me angry about Charlie Kirk's murder. And they want me to be upset about black people. They want me to be upset. Really? I just got to take my kids to dance class right now, but it's, It's affecting all of us in a big, big way. And I think people need to wake up. So I'll give you the final thoughts here on this and how big a deal this really is. Speaker 1: Well, when I was with Walter Bauer while he was alive, the guy that wrote Operation Mind Control, and when we were working together before his death, he knew the end game we both knew was a complete total takeover of the brain, which is the high ground for warfare. That's what it is. But you don't hear much about it at all. It's all going on secretly. And the technology companies are aiding and abetting the acceleration of that through the brain-computer interface, which is going to change the structure of law, money, information, memory, crime, data store, everything. It will affect everything. And it will affect all future communication permanently. Permanently. So this lawsuit with Palantir is a step into having the public examine what it means to be human. That's really what this has to be. Because I think if the defendants really understood what was going on, which I don't think that they do, in terms of how this is an extinction level event for humans, uh, they, they may, they might, um, be apt to do something or reel back what they're doing. Um, but we'll see. I think that, um, some big changes are going to occur very, very shortly that are going to even up the ante on this situation because the, the, um, Europe is, uh, not going to allow that. I just heard today and I've got to verify. They're not going to allow Americans to come in to Europe if they don't have biometric identification and everything. So all the technological gridlock prison is it's coming in like this. And meanwhile, everybody's distracted with everything, but this is what's really going on because you're not going to have any rights at all. Cognitive rights, your right to your thinking, your opinion, how you formulate your day and, how you formulate your emotion even, and how you formulate and make interpretations of what is going on in reality as it pertains to news. Speaker 0: The other piece of this, I guess, before I let you go, I just have so many questions, James. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this. But the idea that we would all get rid of our cell phones, that we would all say enough is enough, you'd in many ways be – you'd be marginalized in society. I mean, there was a video going around last week or a couple of weeks ago about the Brit card, you know, the new digital ID that's of course being rolled out in the UK. And it was kind of a meme, meme video, but it showed an old woman. She couldn't get on the bus and they said, sorry, you need your digital ID Brit card. And she said, but I don't have a smartphone. And the bus just drives away. Like it'd be great. We get rid of all these smartphones, but we're not, you're going to be said, no, you need to get the app. You need to download the app. You need the digital ID, which is on your phone. Sorry. Like you're going to, what's going to happen to these people who say, and we don't want this personal Liberty. I don't want to have a cell phone. You can't make me buy a cell phone. Speaker 1: Right. Right. That's where it's there. That's the new messaging is you will be left out, left behind and punished for not modifying your behavior to the technological overlords. It's, it's, it's the digital feudal system, uh, but in its stake in the ground. And it has to be discussed on a way, way, way, way, way, way bigger level than just these little random talks that these guys do at these conferences and so forth. The public's got to engage these people. Speaker 0: Well, it's like Obama. Remember the Obama phone? Obama was giving out cell phones and you could go to these like little kiosks around, you know, in like poverty stricken areas. Like you can't even get food anywhere. You know, your kids don't even know how to read, but you can get a cell phone thanks to Obama. Oh, he's just being so generous. Right. Just being so generous. It's about being able to contract and control all of us, make sure that we're all into this digital ecosystem right now. It's terrifying. It really is terrifying. Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's ultimately about whether we're going to ascend as a species or not. And this is part of it. This is part of it. You have a right to exist in your normal organic self, separate from any infrastructure, digitally, hardware, anything at all. We weren't created to be machines. That's it. Speaker 0: And they want us that way for total control. James, thank you for this. Thank you for bringing attention to this lawsuit, which has just been filed against Palantir. massive lawsuit we will see what comes of it what kind of chicanery and tricks palantir tries to to you know to employ to try to avoid this um but uh we're gonna we're gonna continue to stay on this story and thank you for all that you've done james to bring awareness to this and hopefully help people wake up thank you so much all right thanks so much Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 27, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - June 27, 2026 at 1:28 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 The White House is in panic mode over oil and gas. Tank bottoms, collapsing reserves, exploding tanker rates, and a possible reversal on Russian oil sanctions tell you the energy story they sold the public is falling apart. https://t.co/p4FxblJQM4

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript claims the White House is trying to prevent the public from understanding what is happening “with oil and gas,” and suggests the administration is in “panic mode.” It says the Trump administration is calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged “price gouging at the pump.” It also says White House sources told Redacted News that the team negotiating the Ukraine-Russia deal discussed with President Trump the possibility of lifting sanctions on Russian oil, which would be a major reversal and could shock the EU, which had just introduced a new round of sanctions. The transcript frames the situation as Washington running out of “cheap options,” “spare barrels” in the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and “political cover.” The transcript highlights Cushing, Oklahoma as the “key delivery hub” for U.S. crude futures and central to pipeline connections and refinery dependence, tying West Texas Intermediate pricing to Cushing. It claims EIA data shows commercial U.S. crude inventories fell by 6.1 million barrels last week to 412.1 million barrels (about 7% below average). It says inventories at Cushing fell to roughly 19 million barrels and that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve fell by 9.1 million barrels to 331 million. It explains “tank bottoms” as a condition where the system becomes fragile and near collapse, requiring some oil to remain for pressure, blending, flow, and quality control, and warns that pipelines and terminals could declare force majeure. It argues that a Cushing problem could spread into refinery supply issues, especially in the Midwest and interior regions that cannot bring in tanker cargoes from anywhere, leading to gasoline problems and ultimately an inflation problem. The transcript then layers in the Strait of Hormuz, saying ship traffic is running below the daily average (23 ships moving through about 20 minutes earlier) while President Trump claims everything is “fine.” It says a memorandum involving Iran, Oman, and Jordan indicates Iran is charging tolls to pass through the Strait, contradicting Trump and Marco Rubio. It claims tanker rates surged, with large crude carriers earning close to $470,000 per day to move through the Gulf and Persian Gulf via the Strait, with the price “doubled in a week,” and that oil companies are paying double due to dangers to captains and crews. It describes Trump publicly demanding DOJ investigate oil companies for not lowering gasoline prices fast enough, citing average gasoline of about $3.90 per gallon early that morning. It also mentions gas stations in Texas capping how much customers can pump at a time (described as 50). The transcript argues that tight physical energy system constraints—not sanctions policy details—are driving the need to reverse course. It claims that if sanctions on Russian oil are lifted, it would show that prior energy policy claims depended on Russian energy. It states Russian crude exports averaged about 6 million barrels per day in May and are rising. It says the transcript’s sources claim the U.S. is likely to lift sanctions next, despite a June 17 expiration of a Russian oil sanctions waiver after Trump suggested reopening Hormuz would increase pressure on Moscow. It concludes by asserting Trump is “trapped” in a panic, quietly reversing policy, blaming “big oil,” and that DOJ’s price-gouging focus is meant to distract from the broader issues involving Russia and Hormuz.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 2: Well, the White House does not want you to understand what's really happening with oil and gas right now, and they are in a panic mode over it. What happened is, right now, you understand the real story. You would understand why the sudden panic is happening. The Trump administration is now calling on the Department of Justice this morning to investigate so-called price gouging at the pump and why, according to the White House sources speaking to Redacted News, the team negotiating the Ukraine-Russia deal has now discussed with President Trump the possibility of lifting sanctions on Russian oil. This would be a major move to lift sanctions on Russia, and it would, of course, send a shockwave through the EU where they just introduced a new round of sanctions. So right now, Washington is running out of room, running out of cheap options, running out of spare barrels in the strategic petroleum reserves. And most importantly for Republicans, they're running out of political cover because reality just hit them hard. in the face. So this afternoon the clearest sign of panic is this. The United States is now seriously considering lifting sanctions on Russian oil and gas. That means the White House knows the sanctions regime is colliding with the physical reality of tank bottoms in the United States. And we can tell the public that America is energy dominant, that we don't need oil and gas from the Middle East or Russia. But if the market needs those barrels, And if gasoline prices threaten to explode into a full-blown inflation crisis, then suddenly the moral posturing starts to completely disappear. And that is what we are now seeing right now. So let's start with Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is not just some storage site in the middle of the country. It's the key delivery hub for U.S. crude futures. It's one of the central switching stations of the American oil system. Crude moves in. Crude moves out, pipelines connect, then refineries depend on it, and the price of West Texas Intermediate crude is then tied to it as well. And today, Cushing basically is flashing red right now. The EIA data shows commercial U.S. crude inventories fell by 6.1 million barrels last week, down to 412.1 million barrels, about 7% below. average. And at Cushing specifically, inventories fell to roughly 19 million barrels. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve also fell by 9.1 million barrels, down to 331 million. That's not a comfortable system. That's basically a system that's totally stressed right now. And this is where people need to understand the phrase tank bottoms. When analysts say that Cushing, Oklahoma is nearing tank bottoms, They do not mean that every tank is literally empty, like no big deal. They mean the whole system is approaching collapse. In other words, some oil has to remain in these tanks and pipelines for pressure, blending, flow, and quality control. You can't just suck every last drop of oil out of these systems and pretend that the machinery keeps working normally. It's like a fish tank. Here's my daughter's fish tank and her goldfish bubbles. If the water level drops, that filter, you know, starts running hot. No water running through it. Nothing to cool it. Nothing to cool that motor. And it will break. This water level, like oil, needs to remain at proper levels. Bubbles there is making his national television debut. So congrats to Bubbles. Speaker 0: He is a star. Speaker 2: He is a star, Bubbles. Hi, Bubbles. So once you get close to that floor... The system becomes fragile then, and that's when pipelines and terminals can begin declaring force majeure. And that's exactly what we are approaching right now. If we declare force majeure, and what happens if Cushing hits tank bottoms and is forced to do that? They can say the war caused this collapse, and there's nothing we can do about it. All those contracts, they can just, sorry, tear up the contracts, no big deal. Sorry. Refineries that depend on Cushing connected pipelines can suddenly face supply problems, especially in the Midwest and interior regions that cannot simply bring in tanker cargoes from anywhere in the world. They have to rely on Cushing, Oklahoma. This is why this matters. A Cushing problem is not just an Oklahoma problem. It will spread fast. It can become a refinery problem, and a refinery problem becomes a gasoline problem. A gasoline problem then becomes an inflation problem. And an inflation problem becomes obviously a political nightmare. That's why there was a lot of yelling today on Capitol Hill. Republicans meeting with President Trump today. One Republican yelled out, this is a effing mess. So there's a lot of tempers running right now. And that's why President Trump is meeting with GOP right now, because it's a bit of a shitstorm. That's why all this matters. Now layer on top of what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz. So these are the accurate numbers as of about 20 minutes ago. See the far below daily average of ships that are moving through the Strait, 23 of them. And of course, President Trump is out there saying today that everything is fine, that Iran is doing everything that I want them to do, which is not true. In fact, we now know through a memorandum through Iran and Oman, Jordan, that in fact they are charging tolls to go through the Strait of Hormuz. which is exactly what President Trump said is not happening and is what Marco Rubio about an hour ago said is not happening and it can't happen. So wait, Iran is doing everything that we're asking them to do, but they're not really doing everything we're asking them to do because they're charging to go through the Strait of Hormuz. Okay, just to be clear. And that's the market trying to convince you that everything is fine because oil prices have come down from that panic level. But shipping tells a totally different story. Tanker rates, meaning the cost to put those tankers in the water in that region, have exploded. Reports today show some very large crude carriers earning close to $470,000 per day just to get tankers through the Gulf and through the Persian Gulf, through the Strait of Hormuz. That price has doubled in a week. So this idea that like it's half open, half closed, we don't know what's going on here. That's what's reflected right now in this market. That's not a normal market. So oil companies are now paying double just to get any tankers through the straight because of quote dangers to these captains and crews, which you can understand. And then that brings us back to president Trump. Trump this morning now publicly demanding that the DOJ investigate oil companies for not lowering gasoline prices fast enough. Trump accused oil companies of gouging customers because pump prices have not fallen in proportion to the crude oil prices. Average gasoline was about $3.90 a gallon early this morning. That's down from the May peak, but still much higher than those levels in January. And there are plenty of gas stations, at least in Texas and other places, that are capping the amount of gas that you're allowed to pump at any given time. 50 cap so that might not fill up your tank but you're capped at 50 because we don't have enough of it and just when you think if you think about it that makes sense you need so we're gonna we're gonna make a villain now out of the gas stations and the oil companies you need a villain you need someone in the chat here says it's not exxon's fault that trump went to war with iran Speaker 0: It's not Chevron. Speaker 2: Yeah, is it ConocoPhillips' fault? Right. I mean, so you need a villain. You need someone to blame. And these oil companies are a great villain right now for Trump to attack. It makes sense. You always need a villain. That's why we need Putin, right? If it's not Putin, then we need Xi Jinping. You always need a villain in order to sell whatever boondoggle you're trying to sell, whatever propaganda you're trying to spin. It's big oil is the problem. The deeper problem is that the physical energy system itself is much tighter than the White House wants to admit. So they'll blame big oil companies instead of admitting the tank bottoms are the problem. So the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not full. Cushing is approaching dangerous operation levels. Gulf shipping remains unstable and now double the cost. And that's why the Russian oil sanctions story is so important. So again, according to White House sources speaking to Redacted News, credible insiders now say the team is negotiating the Ukraine-Russia deal. They have spoken with Trump about lifting sanctions on Russian oil. And we're told it's very likely that the U.S. will next move to lift those sanctions. That would be a shocking reversal. Just days ago, the U.S. allowed a Russian oil sanctions waiver to expire on June 17th after Trump suggested that the Iran deal was done and the reopening of Hormuz would allow the U.S. to increase pressure on Moscow. Russian crude exports average about 6 million barrels per day in May. That's rising from previous months. So basically, publicly, Washington says, we can pressure Russia. We're going to pressure Russia to end this war. But then privately, according to what we are hearing, Trump may be preparing to do the opposite. Not pressure them at all, but in fact, ask them for their oil and gas once again. Remove the sanctions. Because basically, we need their oil and we don't want to have to admit it. Energy is food. Prices, diesel prices, trucking costs, fertilizer, manufacturing... Heating, cooling, supply chains, all of it. And so if energy breaks, then everything breaks with it. This was the huge problem, of course, with Biden's sanctions on Russia. Something we called out at the time at the start of this war in Ukraine, it would backfire big time on America and Europe. And guess what it did? In huge ways. The entire sanctions machine depends on the assumption that Washington can remove major producers from the market without Americans paying the price, which was stupid, of course. And the world does not work that way. Just look at Europe. The U.S. blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. Europe went into a massive energy crisis. One of the pipelines, by the way, could be turned on at any moment. As Putin just said last week, that one pipeline is... is available. But you guys don't want it. We didn't turn it off. You blew it up. The other pipeline that wasn't blown up is still available. We could alleviate the pain throughout Europe, through Germany, in a heartbeat. Speaker 3: But sorry. Speaker 2: I mean, Russia is one of the largest exporters of energy on Earth. You cannot just erase Russian oil and gas from the system and then expect everything to be fine. Oh, and then on top of that, of course, close all of your nuclear power plants across Europe. Germany so the way I see it is that the White House is trapped once again if it keeps sanctions tight oil prices can rise gasoline can rise inflation can rise and the economy can slide deeper into a crisis not to mention the fact that the actual machinery in Cushing Oklahoma and other places will soon break down just like they did a few years ago under similar circumstances So we already have a test of what this looks like, by the way. So if Trump lifts the sanctions, it exposes the real truth, which is what we've been exposing here on this show for the past four years, is that this entire energy policy was never as strong as they claimed. It was always dependent on that same Russian energy they told you the world couldn't live without, that Europe couldn't live without. Even the European Commission just a few weeks ago outlined this energy crisis on their front page of their freaking website to address the energy crisis. All of your making, by the way, I love this like kid and his dad are like hugging a solar panel in this photo. Like the energy crisis, the way to solve it is with windmills and solar panels. Forget the nuclear reactors we just shut down and all of that cheap Russian oil and gas that we could have gotten through the pipelines that we had that the Americans blew up. Okay. Speaker 0: Well, it also, the imagery of that is something that Philip talks about a lot is this idea, can we put it back on the screen, that it's individuals, it's families that are contributing to the major consumption of energy. And it's just not. It's industry. It's government. But this idea that it's you and your plastic water bottle and the fact that you don't unplug your chargers should be offensive to all of us that study the metrics. Right. Speaker 2: Right. Yeah, it's that little girl. It's that little girl's fault for the energy crisis across Europe. Right. Because she wants to play Barbies. So mad at her. Speaker 3: I mean, let alone that, like, let alone that I could, with all of the energy consumption that I, from my entire lifetime, from the time I'm born to the time I die. We won't even get anywhere near like five minutes of Nestle's global operations. You know what I mean? Not even close to that. That's just one company. I could just pollute as much as I can possibly pollute all day long and never even make a dent. So it's just, you know, anyway. I'm still mad at that little girl. Speaker 2: So now they're all just admitting. I mean, this is a real panic mode moment. This is why I think that Trump is trapped here. It's the kind of panic where hardliners are staying quiet and they're quietly starting to reverse this policy. And they're starting to blame somebody else. Blame big oil companies. And that's what the DOJ price gouging story and investigation is all about, in my opinion. It's one big charade. Look over here while we suddenly scrounge around and try to find barrels of oil over here. Try to be distracted over here on the media. And then Fox News will do their bidding. News Nation will do their bidding like our... Are gas stations gouging Americans? President Trump is leading a da-da-da-da-da-da. They'll carry the water for that stuff, that narrative, of course. Are there certain gas stations across the country that probably haven't lowered their prices as quickly as they could have? Of course. But that's missing the bigger story here, including Russia. So we are about to hit a very interesting wall, but don't be fooled by by the propaganda. And like President Trump just a few minutes ago was out here saying that Iran is doing everything we're asking them to do. Watch. Speaker 1: That oil just broke the $70 number. Who would have thought that was going to happen? And that's during a war. And Iran is being very nice. They're agreeing to everything that I want. And they have to. Otherwise, we just go back and do what we have to do. Thank you very much. Speaker 2: is not true at all everything we want them to do okay so what about the tolls being charged to go through the Strait of Hormuz right now so we'll be watching this closely and we'll see whether or not over the next few days or in the coming weeks or two weeks or so that Trump and his Trump team are about to lift sanctions on Russian oil so you heard it here first and we'll see what happens over the next few weeks Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 25, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - June 26, 2026 at 10:10 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

⚠️ American made drones, Starlink terminals, and Big Tech backed weapons are now part of the battlefield in Ukraine. Civilians are being hit, children are being killed, and the West still calls this “defending democracy.” @RealScottRitter is with us. https://t.co/OjcCHvhivJ

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion claims Europe, including the EU, Germany, and the UK, is escalating toward direct war with Russia, pointing to “mobilization” already underway. It asserts that new long-range missile testing systems—described as including 250 kg warheads—are being used to help Ukraine “bomb Moscow directly,” portrayed as a “going away present” tied to Keir Starmer’s departure. It also claims Germany delivered 6,000 new medium-range drones to Ukraine, citing drone strikes on civilian infrastructure inside Moscow and referencing attacks from the previous week. Vladimir Putin is cited as saying the West is preparing for war with Russia, using offensive budgets and a pattern in which Western threats force Russia to act for self-defense, followed by accusations meant to justify continued aggressive policy. The transcript also quotes remarks about Ukraine being made into an “anti-Russian regime” through a coup and about the war in Donbas being started using aviation, artillery, and attacks against civilians. It says Russia tried to “talk reason” for eight years before being “forced” to come to the rescue of people described as part of the “Russian world,” including Russian-language communities. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter responds after recently visiting St. Petersburg, Moscow, and front-line areas including Lugansk, Donetsk, and Zaporozhye. He says there are “two mindsets” in major cities, but argues the West is running “major information warfare” using Ukraine as a proxy. He describes drone strikes on Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Voronezh as harassment, claiming they do not cripple Russia or break morale, including describing an incident when 500 drones were launched and residents “just get on with their lives.” He claims some Russians believe Putin’s lack of decisive response shows weakness, while others believe Putin’s pragmatism shows weakness and Russia must “double down,” and he asserts that Putin listens more to front-line soldiers than elites. Ritter claims Russians are advancing decisively and threatening captures including Slovyansk and Kramatorsk before summer, with Donetsk falling and then Zaporizhzhia Front falling. He says Ukrainian drone warfare is ongoing and dangerous, including attacks on civilian infrastructure and vehicles on the highway linking Mariupol with Crimea, and he reports effects like closed gas stations, gas shortages, and areas without electricity and water. He describes what he portrays as Ukrainian use of civilians as human shields, including people remaining in liberated areas and being targeted by drones, artillery, and mortars. He recounts visiting refugee camps and claims elders hid in basements for 20–30 days without food or water, with those who ventured outside allegedly killed, and that Russian soldiers then evacuated them under attack. He also asserts drone warfare complicates logistics but does not stymie Russian advances. On weapons and supply, Ritter states that Hornet drones used in attacks were American-made and that a company funded by Eric Schmidt is linked to them. He further claims drones use Starlink terminals and describes how AI chips allocate battery power to target-finding and then transition to “free kill mode.” He claims these capabilities drive civilians off highways so military traffic is struck. When asked about life in towns after Russian advance, he says he stayed close to the front only briefly, emphasizes that returning to the gray zone is dangerous, and describes the process of clearing buildings for civilians in basements. He says wars have changed due to drones, making movement and tactics slower and different. On the cost of the conflict, the transcript cites David Petraeus as claiming Russia is outnumbered and cannot sustain the war. Ritter rejects the claim as “full of it” and argues there is rough parity in overall troop numbers, while noting Ukraine’s casualties and emphasis on drone troops. He describes Russian assaults as supported by drones and precision artillery rather than “human wave” attacks, while claiming Wagner operations used prisoner “human wave” assaults in 2022–2023 and that Wagner casualties are not incorporated into Russian official numbers. He says Russia’s advantage has shifted from “12 to 1” toward “two or three to one,” and provides a daily claim that Russians kill 1,000 to 2,000 Ukrainians, implying Russian casualties as well. He also argues drone warfare has moved ahead of training for some Russian units, leading to heavy casualties when officers use outdated tactics against FPV drone threats. He cites a commander, Abdi Al-Adinov of Akhmed Special Forces, as using modern warfare methods and achieving advances with relatively low casualties. He says Russia is developing counter-drone capabilities, including interceptor drones, but scaling them takes time and money. Ritter concludes that Russia is advancing and inflicting horrific casualties but pays a heavy price, and says Petraeus is correct that Russia has lost more men than the United States lost in World War II.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 3: All right, well, Europe seems to be losing its ever-loving mind. These individuals who are running the European countries right now, the EU, have lost their mind, hell-bent on bringing direct war with Russia. The mobilization is fully happening right now. A big love letter to, I guess, to Russia after Keir Starmer, right before Keir Starmer is stepped down, is to test long-range missiles to help Ukraine bomb Moscow directly with these new experimental systems. including these 250 kilogram warheads. So this is like a big going away present, I guess, from Keir Starmer to the Ukrainians. So they can test all of these things out on Ukrainian soil because who cares, right? It's just like a battle testing ground at this point. They've completely mortgaged their future to the IMF and the World Bank anyway. Their lands are given up. Millions of their kids are now dead as a result of it. So what does the UK care? And frankly, what does Germany care? According to reports today, Germany has delivered 6,000 new medium-range drones to Ukraine so they can continue to launch, I don't know, drones at civilian infrastructure inside of Moscow and like the 194 or so that they launched just last week. President Putin today stating during a press conference that now they are openly saying they are preparing for war with us, he said. I'm quoting him. He says, now they are openly saying they are preparing for war with us, meaning the West, European countries. Increasingly military offensive budgets, Putin said. Quoting him, he also said, at first they create threats for our country, force us to take actions necessary for self-defense, and then immediately accuse us of all mortal sins to justify the continuation of their aggressive policy, he said during this press conference. When he was asked specifically about Russia, where things stand and this Western provocation he said look we are focused on the war and we are advancing everywhere and the West continues to try to poke us and this is what he said in response watch they brought in a crazy anti-Russian regime to power in Ukraine through a coup and they started they started the war in the Donbass using Speaker 4: aviation, using artillery and attacks against their own civilians. We tried to talk reason for them for eight years, but they didn't want that. And ultimately, we were forced to come to the rescue of the people who felt themselves to be part of the Russian world, for whom the Russian language is their native tongue. So, ultimately, we were forced to do what we did. Speaker 5: And now we're advancing in every part of the front. Speaker 4: Those who came back know how this is. Speaker 5: We're steadily advancing everywhere. Speaker 4: So now they're trying to make strikes against our civilian infrastructure. to upset the people. And of course the West is providing all the assistance they can and they're launching huge amounts of UVs. Speaker 5: But all that they're trying to do is to create some sort of image and cause a lack of confidence. Speaker 4: But on the front Speaker 3: So this lack of confidence that you're hearing it from all the neocons on Fox News and otherwise that Ukraine is winning. We heard that last week, right? Ukraine is winning this war and that Putin is now on the fence and they've lost so many men that he can't go on. He can't continue all of this. So what is the truth and where do things stand right now with this massive militarization from the West providing all of these additional weapons and long range munitions? Is Putin right? Is he wrong? Someone who just returned from Russia is former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was just in Moscow, saw firsthand these attacks, literally in Moscow and around. Scott, great to have you back on the show. Welcome back. Speaker 0: Thanks for having me. Speaker 3: So when you hear this, I mean, you've seen the increase of militarization from Germany, from Western countries, European countries, what the UK is doing. What is the mood or sentiment like inside of Russia? Do they truly believe, like, the EU is arming themselves for a direct confrontation with Russia? Speaker 0: Well, you know, I visited two Russias. I visited St. Petersburg in Moscow, and I also visited the Donbas, Lugansk, Donetsk, and Zaporozhye, which is the front line. And there's, I guess, two mindsets inside St. Petersburg and Moscow. What we're witnessing is a major information warfare operation being run by the West using Ukraine as a proxy. These drone strikes against Moscow, St. Petersburg, against Voronezh, against other facilities, they're harassment. The idea that these strikes are crippling Russia, crippling the Russian economy, demoralizing the Russian people is absurd in the extreme. I was in Moscow the day that 500 drones came at them. You had this very dramatic explosion and things in the air, and the Russian people just get on with their lives. there's literally no major impact on them. Their morale is very high. There are some on the left in Russia who feel that Vladimir Putin's inability to respond decisively is a sign of weakness and that Russia must end this war to the point of accepting the fact that they won't you know, have all of the territory of Donetsk under their control. There are others on the right who believe that Vladimir Putin's pragmatism is a sign of weakness and that Russia must double down and go for the decisive victory. With all due respect to the people that live in St. Petersburg and Moscow, you don't count. You're a bunch of academics. You're a bunch of, you know, elites. I don't think Vladimir Putin listens to you at all. The people that Vladimir Putin listened to, of course, are the people that live on the front line, the soldiers that are doing the fighting. They're winning, by the way. They're winning decisively. They're threatening to capture Slovyansk. They're going to take Kramatorsk before the summer is over. They've just taken another third town in that urban belt. When that happens, Donetsk, falls, and all of it will fall under Russian control. And when Donetsk falls, Zaporizhzhia Front will fall. And so the Russians are winning on the fight. It's a very hard fight. The Ukrainians are flooding the zone with drones. You know, these are drones that, you know, not only murdered 21 innocent teenagers, students at Starvels College, but these are drones that continue to attack civilian infrastructure and vehicles. in the strategic highway that connects Mariupol with the Crimea. It's very dangerous to travel. I traveled on those highways, came under drone attack. You can't diminish what's happening. I mean, you can't pretend it's not happening. Gas stations are closed. There is a gas shortage. Melitopol was without electricity and water. And one would think that this would break the spirit of the Russian people living there. And the answer is hell no. They're as determined as ever to keep fighting. They will fight. They understand that victory is theirs, that what's happening here, these Ukrainian drone attacks, is just psychological warfare operations. It's very bloody. They are killing a lot of civilians. As you see, they destroy military infrastructure. While this has complicated logistics, it hasn't stymied the Russians. The Russians continue to advance decisively. They have other ways of getting supplies to the front. The other thing I'd like to point out is it's not just German and British support that's making its way. It's American support. The drones that attacked me were American-made Hornet drones, or drones that were made by a company funded by Eric Schmidt, the former CEO and founder of Google. Eric Schmidt, if I ever meet you, I'm going to punch you because you tried to murder me, and you are culpable in the attempt on my life and the life of everybody else. You're committing terrorism. Last time I checked, that's a violation of law, federal law and international law, and you are providing material support to these terrorists. You know that your drones are being used to attack civilian targets. You know this because the AI chips that you put into it basically spend the first, I think, 80% of their battery power looking for pre-programmed military targets. And then when it comes down to 20% of them found the target, it goes into free kill mode. That means kill anything and everything. The strategy is to drive civilian traffic off the highways so that the only thing ostensibly on the highways would be by default military traffic, which would be struck. But you're, you know, the law of war doesn't allow you to do this. And so Eric Schmidt is a war criminal. These, uh, Hornets and other drones are being guided through the use of Starlink terminals. Elon Musk is a murdering sack of horse manure. They are murdering children. They're murdering innocent civilians. They're committing war crimes as we speak. The people of these regions, their resolve is unbelievable. I've never been more impressed with the collective people than my entire life. These are people that You know, they haven't been at war for four-plus years. They've been at war for 12-plus years, since 2014. This is nothing new that they're going through. And they are proud to be Russian, and they are determined to be part of a Russian victory that means that the totality of their homeland becomes part of Mother Russia. Speaker 1: And one thing that I can't get from news coverage and social media is, what's it like for these towns once Russia continues to move the front line? I mean, we all live in a town. Imagine what that's like is you don't live in Ukraine anymore. Now you live in Russia. And what is the either support or opposition? Because we know that most of the people in those regions did, in fact, vote in the referendum over 90 percent to become a part of Russia. So in these new towns, is there resistance? Is there acceptance? What do you think? Were you able to see that when you were there or at least understand some of that temperature change? Speaker 0: Yeah. First of all, I have to say, I got close to the front on a couple of occasions, but the Russians were insistent that I be allowed to leave the territories alive. It's very dangerous, very dangerous at the front line. There's no driving around, there's no war tourism. When you get close to the gray zone, the drones are flying, and if you don't take the appropriate precautions, you're going to die. I traveled to Gorlovka, which is a former frontline city that's still under tremendous attack. And I also went to refugee camps where the Russians who are in these villages that are being liberated, rescued, and brought to these camps. The Ukrainians call them . It's a pejorative that means the waiters, those who wait. And these are basically people who say that we're Russian. And when the Ukrainians start to withdraw, They say, no, we're staying. We're not evacuating. So the Ukrainians basically target them. They use them as human shields. They keep them in homes. It's complicated. It's the Russian advance. People keep saying, why are the Russians advancing so slow? Well, first of all, war has changed. Drones are everywhere. You just don't get to play the game you used to play. It's a different war, a slower war, a slower-paced war. But the other thing is that when the Russians are liberating these villages— They literally have to clear each building with the understanding that there could be civilians in the basement hiding. Otherwise, they would just do what America did in Mosul and Raqqa and elsewhere, just flatten the entire city. It makes life easier when you kill everybody. But the Russians don't operate that way. They go in, they find these old people. Again, I was in this refugee camp. It's tragic. They're being well taken care of, but They all had similar stories, how they were in basements for 20, 30 days. Ukrainians would laugh at them, wouldn't let them get food, wouldn't let them get water. If people ventured outside to get food and water, they were killed by the Ukrainians. The bodies left to rot. They would have to go out and bury the bodies at night. When the Russian soldiers finally arrived, the Russian soldiers would, of course, start evacuating them. And the Ukrainians would attack them with drones, with artillery, with mortars. And these ugly people, they're all people in their 60s, 70s, some of their 80s, would break down and cry and tell us how the Russian soldiers literally covered their bodies with their own. And many of the Russian soldiers were wounded because of this absorbing fragments that were meant for the old people. Some of the Russian soldiers died. Russian soldiers literally gave their lives to rescue these Russians who said they want to be part of Russia, they want to live in Russia. Sadly, there's still a large number of people trapped in the front areas, including large numbers of children. Because of the drones, it's just very difficult. It's easier to resupply them in place than it is to try to evacuate them. But no, it's very difficult. The Ukrainians use these civilians as human shields. They fortify these towns. And the goal is just to make the Russians fight for every square inch and to try and get the Russians to kill civilians so that the Ukrainians can blame it on the Russians. But the bottom line is the Ukrainians are slaughtering these civilians by the hundreds and the thousands. It's just an act of war crime. There's nothing honorable about the way the Ukrainians are fighting this conflict. Speaker 3: What about the cost of death on the Russian side? There's obviously numbers thrown around. You heard from David Petraeus, who says that Russia can't really go on with this anymore. Listen to General David Petraeus today. Listen. Speaker 2: It's extraordinary. They're outnumbered five to one in terms of personnel, 12 to one in terms of the economy. And yet they are taking the fight to Russia on the front lines, on the Black Sea, in the depth of the battlefield and in the Russian Federation itself. And over time, Vladimir Putin is going to eventually look in the mirror and say, you know, I'm not only not going to achieve my immediate objectives of control of all the provinces that I've laid out, Donetsk, Luhansk and others. I'm actually going backwards, and the casualties are so high that we can't sustain this. Again, they've taken more killed and wounded than the U.S. took in all of World War II. Speaker 3: All right, so a lot of things to unpack there, Scott. Putin's going to look—David Petraeus apparently knows Putin very well. He's going to look in the mirror and say one morning, I just can't go on anymore. So he knows him very well on that front. More killed and wounded than the U.S. has sustained during World War II. And that Ukraine is taking it to Russia, even though they're outnumbered five to one, and it's really crippling Russia right now. Three things there that sound like a big pile of bullshit, but... Speaker 0: Yeah, well, Petraeus is just full of it. So is anybody else who embraces that? First of all, the Ukrainians have more troops in the special military operation than the Russians do. The Russians have around 700,000 troops. The Ukrainians have around 800,000, 900,000 troops. Now, many of the Ukrainian troops are poorly trained, and they're getting slaughtered. But the idea that... that Russia outnumbers. Now, the Russians are able to put more infantry into a given area because the Ukrainians today, because of the casualties they're taking, they're emphasizing drone troops. They use the drones to create these screens, massive waves of drones, et cetera. 80,000 drone operators in place. That number's shrinking every day, however, because the Russians hunt them down and kill them. But, you know, so, you know, there's rough parity in terms of overall numbers. The Russians are able to mass infantry better. But again, when I say mass infantry, these aren't human wave attacks. You know, drone warfare makes that impossible. You're looking at the Russians coming in in threes and sixes and nines. You know, these smaller assault groups supported by drones and supported by precision artillery. You know, this is the way the battles fought across the front lines. The... Russians have taken very heavy categories. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about this. But it's hard to calculate them, because to give you an example, almost between a quarter and a third of the overall Russian death count will be attributed to Wagner forces who used prisoners in literal human wave assaults back in the 2022, 2023. Four of the major battles fought by Wagner, they lost between 50,000 and 60,000 men per battle. Now that's 200,000 to 300,000 people right off the bat. The Russian military doesn't count these numbers when they talk about their casualties. Wagner was a private military company, and therefore the numbers of Wagner dead aren't incorporated into overall Russian numbers. So it's not that the Russians are lying, they're just not reflecting that. The same thing with the casualties of the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic. These people were put in heavy fighting, and they... they suffered casualties that go unreported in the overall Russian numbers. But, you know, what we have right now is a situation where even Russia, which, you know, was having extremely favorable kill ratios because of, you know, the surge of drones that the Ukrainians are bringing to bear on the battlefield right now, Russia is suffering casualties nowhere near the numbers that Petraeus talks about. Russia's advantages, though, have gone from, say, 12 to 1, meaning that for every one Russian killed, 12 Ukrainians are killed. Now we're looking at two or three to one. So for every Russian killed, two or three Ukrainians are killed. But the Russians are killing on a daily basis 2,000 Ukrainians. On a good day for Russia, on a bad day for Russia, they're killing 1,000 Ukrainians. But that means that if it's a two-to-one ratio, that means 500 Russians are dying as well. That's a lot of Russians. The Russians are recruiting about 30,000 to 40,000 guys a month. So their forces are getting stronger, but they are taking casualties. I mean, there's just no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And the casualties depend, too, because we're talking about a new kind of warfare. And one of the things that I was able to ascertain is that Drone warfare has gotten ahead of the training of many Russian units. The officers continue to use old tactics. They are encouraging more heavy infantry assaults in an environment where FPV drones are flying around. The good commander knows that this can't happen. You have to change your tactics. You have to use counter drone tactics. You have to factor in things that you didn't factor in before. People like Abdi Al-Adinov, who's the commander of the Akhmed Special Forces. He was a man who knows modern warfare. His units make impressive advances. They do a good job. Their casualties are relatively low because he cares about the lives of his troops and he understands the role that tactics play in preserving the lives of his troops. There's other commanders in divisions that the soldiers just despise because they order the soldiers to push forward when the FPV drones are flooding the market and it's just sending soldiers to their death. If you're out there and you have no ability to bring down FPV drones or to strike back, it's a suicide march. And the Russians are suffering very heavy casualties because some of the commanders just haven't altered their tactics. We're in a sort of a weird transition phase right now where the Russians are learning, but they haven't all learned. They're also, the Russians are developing anti-drone capabilities. I went to the centers in, for instance, Upper Lugia, where they're directly supporting frontline units with new technologies, new tactics, et cetera, and they're developing these interceptor drones that are very effective, but you've got to build them to scale. And that takes time and that takes money. And so right now, the Russians, the Ukrainians sort of have the advantage in terms of drones. There's no doubt about that. But when I say they have the advantage, that doesn't mean they're winning the war. Russia is advancing. Russia is winning. Russia is killing more Ukrainians. They are killing Russians. But the Ukrainians are doing an impressive job. They're making it a very difficult fight for the Russians. But very soon you're going to see the situation change, because what will happen is that the Russians are now familiar with Ukrainian tactics, they're familiar with their operational procedures, and they're developing weapons and tactics of their own to counter it. And when Russia executes these new methodologies, new tactics, new tools, They'll offset whatever advantage Ukrainians had, and then the Russians will have a stronger advantage in advancing farther until Ukrainians adapt to the Russians and bring in new technology and make life hard again. It's this continuous cycle of violence, drone-based violence. It's going on and on and on. But from an overall perspective, Russia is doing very well advancing farther. significantly and inflicted horrific casualties on the Ukrainians, but it comes at a heavy price for the Russians as well. David Petraeus is not wrong when he says that the Russians have lost more men than have wounded in this fight against Ukraine than the United States lost in all of World War II. Speaker 3: So, one out of his three things that he said was true. Scott Ritter, who is fresh off a big trip to St. Petersburg, Russia, and to the front lines in the Donbas, thank you for your incredible perspective. Thank you so much, Scott. Speaker 0: Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. Speaker 3: Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 24, 2026 at 11:23 PM
Saved - June 25, 2026 at 1:51 AM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I’m seeing President Trump demand the DOJ quickly investigate oil companies for not cutting gasoline prices, calling it consumer gouging. Meanwhile, Redacted reports the administration is planning to lift sanctions on Russian oil, like it did with Iranian oil. With U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve at historic lows, Russian supply is increasingly seen as a strategic necessity, raising stakes for markets, inflation, and future sanctions.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

TRUMP EYES RUSSIAN OIL AS U.S. STRATEGIC RESERVES HIT HISTORIC LOWS President Trump is demanding that the DOJ immediately investigate oil companies for failing to lower gasoline prices, accusing them of gouging American consumers. At the same time, Redacted is learning that the Trump administration is planning to lift sanctions on Russian oil, similar to its recent move on Iranian oil. With America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve at historic lows, bringing Russian oil back onto global markets is increasingly being viewed as a strategic necessity. Without additional supply, the United States and the global economy could face an unprecedented energy crisis. What does this shift mean for energy markets, inflation, and the future of U.S. sanctions policy?

Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump publicly demanded that the DOJ investigate oil companies for not lowering gasoline prices fast enough, accusing them of gouging customers because pump prices have not fallen in proportion to crude oil prices. The discussion characterizes Trump as making “villains” out of gas stations and oil companies, arguing that a villain is needed to assign blame. The transcript also says oil companies are being attacked while deeper issues in the physical energy system are being avoided, including claims that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not full, Cushing is approaching dangerous operating levels, and that Gulf shipping remains unstable with costs doubling. It connects these constraints to the importance of the Russian oil sanctions story, stating that “White House sources speaking to Redacted News” claim credible insiders say the U.S. team is negotiating a Ukraine-Russia deal and has spoken with Trump about lifting sanctions on Russian oil, with the claim that it is very likely the U.S. will next move to lift those sanctions. The transcript says a “shocking reversal” could follow because the U.S. allowed a Russian oil sanctions waiver to expire on June 17 after Trump suggested that the Iran deal was done and that reopening Hormuz would allow increased pressure on Moscow. It further states that Russian crude exports averaged about 6 million barrels per day in May, rising from previous months. Finally, the transcript contrasts public and private motivations, saying Washington says it can pressure Russia to end the war, but that Trump may instead prepare to lift sanctions and ask for Russian oil and gas again. It argues that “energy is food” and links energy costs—gasoline and diesel prices, trucking costs, fertilizer, manufacturing, heating and cooling, and supply chains—to broader system stability, concluding that if energy breaks, everything breaks with it.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: Trump this morning now publicly demanding that the DOJ investigate oil companies for not lowering gasoline prices fast enough. Trump accused oil companies of gouging customers because pump prices have not fallen in proportion to the crude oil prices. We're going to make a villain now out of the gas stations and the oil companies. You need a villain. Speaker 0: Someone in the chat here says it's not Exxon's fault that Trump went to war with Iran. It's not Chevron. Speaker 1: Yeah, is it ConocoPhillips' fault? Right. I mean, so you need a villain. You need someone to blame. And these oil companies are a great villain right now for Trump to attack. It makes sense. You always need a villain. That's why we need Putin, right? If it's not Putin, then we need Xi Jinping. You always need a villain in order to sell whatever boondoggle you're trying to sell, whatever propaganda you're trying to spin. It's big oil is the problem. The deeper problem is that the physical energy system itself is much tighter than the White House wants to admit. So they'll blame big oil companies instead of admitting the tank bottoms are the problem. So the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not full. Cushing is approaching dangerous operation levels. Gulf shipping remains unstable and now double the cost. And that's why the Russian oil sanctions story is so important. So again, according to White House sources speaking to Redacted News, credible insiders now say the team is negotiating the Ukraine-Russia deal. They have spoken with Trump about lifting sanctions on Russian oil. And we're told it's very likely that the U.S. will next move to lift those sanctions. That would be a shocking reversal. Just days ago, the U.S. allowed a Russian oil sanctions waiver to expire on June 17th after Trump suggested that the Iran deal was, you know, done and the reopening of Hormuz would allow the U.S. to increase pressure on Moscow. Russian crude exports average about 6 million barrels per day in May. That's rising from previous months. So basically, publicly, Washington says, we can pressure Russia. We're going to pressure Russia to end this war. But then privately, according to what we are hearing, Trump may be preparing to do the opposite. Not pressure them at all, but in fact, ask them for their oil and gas once again. Remove the sanctions. Because basically, we need their oil and we don't want to have to admit it. Energy is food. Prices, diesel prices, trucking costs, fertilizer, manufacturing... heating, cooling, supply chains, all of it. And so if energy breaks, then everything breaks with it.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 23, 2026 at 10:21 PM
Saved - June 24, 2026 at 1:06 AM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I’m discussing how, as America’s strategic oil reserves keep depleting, the Trump administration lifted sanctions on Iranian oil to let it re-enter global markets. I’m asking what this return means for the world economy—whether added supply could lower energy costs and ease consumers’ burdens or mainly serves a geopolitical aim by Washington, with impacts reaching inflation and food prices.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

IRANIAN OIL RETURNS TO GLOBAL MARKETS. As America’s strategic oil reserves continue to deplete, the Trump administration has lifted sanctions on Iranian oil, allowing it to re-enter global energy markets. What does the return of Iranian oil mean for the world economy? Will increased supply lower energy costs and provide relief for consumers, or is this primarily a geopolitical calculation by Washington? With energy prices shaping everything from inflation to food costs, the decision could have far-reaching consequences far beyond the Middle East. @silverguru22 joins us to discuss what this move means for oil markets, the global economy, and everyday consumers.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Iranian oil returning would be deflationary at the margin: it lowers the oil risk premium, pressures crude oil prices, and helps consumers temporarily. It may cool CPI, but it highlights how political energy is driving these markets and how critical conditions are right now. The discussion referenced a report that the U.S. has temporarily sanctioned waivers through August 21, with Iranian barrels already moving, most likely purchased by other Asian refiners; Reuters was cited saying roughly 126 barrels had already gone through. The impact was framed as “good” but “not great,” because it is only at the margin and could be limited by how long the political arrangement lasts, with prices likely to fluctuate (gas prices up and down possibly influenced by rapid developments). On whether Iran could add new supply globally beyond what has been seen for decades, the expectation was nuanced. The most likely outcome is more Iranian output because Iran has available storage capacity capacity. This would affect the market negatively at the margin—particularly U.S. shale producers and Louisiana coastline refineries of heavy crude—but the net effect would be only a slight increase. The flow rate would remain about constant while the source shifts from less U.S. shale and U.S. refinery supply toward more Iranian production lines. The transcript also emphasized downstream “trickle down” effects beyond oil prices, including diesel, shipping across the United States, and cascading into food prices. A key point was that while timing narratives like “three weeks away” or “four weeks away” were mentioned, the anticipated spectrum of impact remains uncertain. If Iran can sell oil in dollars again, it was described as significant for the short run because it reinforces dollar settlement, even as the long-run trend moves toward dollar de-dollarization. Winners would include consumers, airlines, truckers, importers, politicians fighting inflation, and possibly equity markets. Losers would include high-cost U.S. shale, Gulf producers losing market share, oil bulls, and possibly Russia if Iranian barrels compete against Asia. However, temporary waivers were framed as not durable peace: banking, insurance, shipping compliance, sanctions, uncertainty, and buyer hesitations limit how fast Iranian oil can normalize. The conclusion was that getting Iranian oil into the market may lower the price of energy, but it does not solve the problem of money—cheap oil can buy time, not monetary systems built on debt deficits and the political class.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How much could Iranian oil realistically hit the market? And will this relieve some of the pain at the pump that we've seen and the global pain that we were headed for because of the energy crisis? Speaker 2: The core thesis is Iranian oil coming back is deflationary at the margin, but it's not a cure for the debt-based system. It lowers the oil risk premium. It pressures crude oil prices and helps consumers temporarily. But it may cool the CPI, but it also exposes... how political energy is driving these markets and how critical they are at this time. So the recent report says that U.S. has temporarily sanctioned waivers through August 21st, 26th, with Iranian barrels already moving through, as you stated, the most likely buyer being other Asian refiners, but we remain cautious. Reuters also reports that roughly 126 barrels already went through, as you stated. So I think it's good. but it's not great. And again, I repeat, it's at the margin, which means politically, how long is it gonna last? And what is the market going to do? Probably fluctuate like we've been seeing. Gas prices up, gas prices down. That could be based on a tweet. So how long will this last, I think, is the fact we have to be most cognizant of. Speaker 0: Could this possibly push new oil supply into the market that we haven't had before? Now, we've seen before the Biden administration really tried to keep supplies low in order to not flood the market. That was their tactic. How much do you think Iran could significantly contribute to the global market that we have not seen in at least two or three decades? Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a bit nuanced. So what most likely is you'll see more Iranian output because they're full of brim in their storage capacity right now. It will affect negatively like the margin, which would be shale producers in the United States and also refineries of heavy crude along the Louisiana coastline. So what you'll see is perhaps a slight increase on balance, but perhaps about the same amount. So the flow rate remains constant, but the source differs from not as much from shale, not as much from U.S. refineries and more through the Iranian production lines. Speaker 1: So we always talk about the flow of oil and gas prices, but it's the trickle down after that. It's the food prices. It's everything as a result of diesel and the shipping, of course, across the United States. How much of a cascading effect do you expect? We kept hearing, it's three weeks away, it's four weeks away, don't worry about it, it's not until next year that we're going to have this problem. On your spectrum, where do you see it? Speaker 2: Yeah, let's break that down. So first of all, if Iran can sell oil in dollars again, that's significant. It reinforces dollar settlement in the short run, even while the long-run trend remains toward dollar de-dollarization. The winners will be consumers, airlines, truckers, importers, politicians fighting inflation, and possibly the equity markets will continue to be supported and perhaps go higher. The losers, as I said previously, are high-cost U.S. shale, Gulf producers descending market share, oil bulls, and perhaps Russia. if the Iranian barrels compete against Asia, which they will, as I said. So the catch is a temporary waiver is not the same as durable peace. Banking, insurance, shipping compliance, sanctions, uncertainty, and buyer hesitations all limit how fast the Iranian oil can normalize, and it will take time. So I would say getting Iranian oil into the market may lower the price of energy, but it does not solve the problem of money. Cheap oil can buy time. It cannot buy monetary systems built on debt deficits and the political class.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 19, 2026 at 4:09 PM
Saved - June 20, 2026 at 12:47 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
On her final day in office, DNI Tulsi Gabbard released more documents claiming new evidence of Anthony Fauci’s ties to a politicized intelligence apparatus. The materials allege Fauci misled Congress under oath on the lab-leak theory and that records were destroyed in a cover-up. I reference my conversation with Senator Rand Paul on whether DOJ will act or Fauci will evade accountability despite Biden’s autopen pardon.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

On her final day in office, DNI Tulsi Gabbard dropped a major bombshell, releasing additional documents that provide further evidence of Anthony Fauci’s ties to a politicized intelligence apparatus. The release includes new material related to the lab-leak theory, proving Fauci misled Congress under oath, and official records were destroyed in this cover-up. For years, @RandPaul has repeatedly referred Fauci to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation. The question now is whether the DOJ will finally take action or whether Fauci will once again avoid accountability. Here is our conversation with Senator Rand Paul on the case against Fauci, and whether President Biden’s autopen pardon will protect him from accountability.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 says that throughout the Biden administration he sought records about decision-making and why the U.S. funded Wuhan, China research, including why evidence about the virus origin being from a lab accident was being suppressed, but “we got nothing.” He says the Biden administration “stiff-armed” him by preventing access to virtually any documents. He says many of the findings during the Biden administration came from Freedom of Information Act requests by people outside government and from court actions forcing disclosure. He says that after the new election, he received promises from Secretary Kennedy and others that documents would be revealed. He says it took about six months, with resistance he attributes not to Secretary Kennedy but to “minders” around him. He says that after finally receiving documents, they have been reviewed for about a month. Speaker 1 states that in communications between Anthony Fauci and others, including Francis Collins, Fauci is depicted telling others to read materials, then delete them, and that he allegedly instructed them to delete “this material” after reading. Speaker 1 says deleting emails and discussions about government business is illegal for someone in the executive branch. He adds that Fauci testified he did not do that, and says this creates “two crimes”: destroying federal records and a prior sworn statement that he wouldn’t do it. Speaker 1 identifies a “big question” involving what he calls an “auto pen pardon” and says it will have to be challenged. He says there are thousands of auto pen pardons and raises whether President Biden was aware. He says they interviewed the person running the auto pen, who said they never met the president, and that the person said they did not discuss it directly but heard about it from higher-ups who allegedly talked to the president. Speaker 1 says this provides “a lot to go on” and describes it as a chance for the issue to get into court and for the Department of Justice to fight it out. Speaker 1 says he has invited Anthony Fauci involuntarily; if accepted, they will bring him in, and if not accepted, they will subpoena him. Speaker 0 asks whether the alleged wrongdoing falls under the auto pen time frame, noting that in some earlier auto pen matters there were specific time frames. Speaker 1 responds that the “umbrella” was “a decade,” described as leading up to the end of Biden’s term, and says this raises questions about whether a pardon can cover crimes not alleged at the time, whether it can be “all inclusive,” and whether a pardon can be upheld if it doesn’t specify the crime. Speaker 1 contrasts this with how pardons are typically specific to an accused or trial-ready crime. Speaker 0 asks about specific consequences, including prison time, regarding destroying federal records. Speaker 1 says lying to Congress is the biggest issue, that it can be five years in prison as a felony, and that destroying records adds to the crime and is against the law. He then ties this to contemporaneous emails, asserting that while Fauci said publicly he had no idea the virus came from a lab and that it couldn’t have been gain-of-function, privately he was “very worried” about the lab because he knew it did gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 also says gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with Anthony Fauci’s approval, and claims Fauci’s pandemic guidance about origins and about cloth masks was contradictory to privately discussed concerns, including that Speaker 1 says cloth masks do not prevent transmission.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So do you think the walls are closing in on Dr. Fauci? Can you walk us through exactly what you've uncovered regarding these alleged requests to delete official records? Speaker 1: So during the entire Biden administration, I've sought records of what went on, the decision making, why did they fund the research in Wuhan, China? Why were they suppressing evidence that the origin of the virus came from the lab, from the lab accident? And we got nothing. The Biden administration stiff-armed us at every turn. They prevented us from getting virtually any documents. Most of the things we learned during the Biden administration actually came from freedom of information, people outside of government challenging, and the court forcing the Biden administration to reveal things. And then with the new election, though, we got promises, significant promises from Secretary Kennedy and others that they would reveal a lot of these documents. It took about six months. There was some resistance, not from Secretary Kennedy, but from minders that were put around him who I think were preventing us from getting the documents. Finally, we've gotten the documents, and we've been looking through them for about a month now. What we've discovered is in the communications between Anthony Fauci and others, including the head of the NIH, Francis Collins, he would say, read this. This is some more crap coming from me, the senator from Kentucky. I want to be done with this. When you're done reading it, delete this material. That's illegal. You're not allowed to delete emails and discussions about government business if you're in the executive branch. So he also has testified that he didn't do that. So it's sort of two crimes. One crime is destroying federal records. The other crime is that he's previously under oath said he wouldn't. Now, there is the big question of the auto pen pardon. And so that will have to be challenged. But I think this is the best case. It's a good case. I think it's very neat and tidy, lied to Congress and then destroyed records. Now he has the auto pen. Does the auto pen pardon hold? Is it enough? Was President Biden aware of what he was doing? There are thousands of auto pen pardons that were issued. I think there's a very good question whether or not Biden was aware of that. They've interviewed the person who was running the auto pen. He says he never met the president. So the person doing the auto pen never discussed it directly. He's hearing it from higher ups who were talking to higher ups who allegedly talked to the president. So I think there's a lot to go on here. And this is a good chance for this to get into the courts and for, frankly, the Department of Justice to fight it out. Whether or not they will do that is an open question. But what I can say right now is I have invited Anthony Fauci involuntarily. If that is accepted, we're done. And we will bring him in. If it's not accepted, we will subpoena him. Speaker 0: A couple of things to unpack there. I guess on the auto pen piece of this, how you know the dates in these emails and where this you know alleged crime might have occurred does it fall under that umbrella of the auto pen time frame because i know in some of these auto pens it was very specific i mean when you looked at hunter biden it was very specific time frames going back to very oddly dated auto pen uh moments so would this fall under that umbrella Speaker 1: My understanding is that the umbrella was a decade. So it was a decade leading up to the end of Biden's term. So it's pretty wide. And that's another question. Can a pardon include forgiveness for crimes that aren't alleged at the time? Can it include crimes that are all inclusive? I mean, would it include murder? I mean, the thing is, is how do you have a pardon that doesn't specify the crime you're being pardoned for? It specifies a period of time, but it says, Oh, anything you might have done during that period of time. I don't know how that kind of pardon can be upheld. A pardon usually is very specific. Someone's been accused of a crime. They're in jail and you pardon them for that crime or they're getting ready to be tried for a crime. You pardon them for that crime. So I think there's a lot of questions about the validity. If you can have a wide open pardon and whether that pardon can be done by an auto pen where the president may or may not have been aware of it. Speaker 0: Now what sort of specific, are we talking about prison time here? Like what type of specific crimes, destroying federal records, what sort of teeth does that have? Speaker 1: Lying to Congress is the biggest one probably. It can be five years in prison, is a felony. Destroying records I think adds to that crime and is against the law. So I think lying to Congress will be the most consequential, but it also shows what kind of person we were dealing with here. We were dealing with a person who was saying, there's no way it came from the lab, and I didn't fund it, and we had no idea they were doing dangerous research, but we have contemporaneous emails When he was saying publicly he had no idea and it couldn't have been gain-of-function, he was saying privately, we're very worried about that lab because we know they do gain-of-function research there. And the gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with the approval of Anthony Fauci. So virtually everything he said during the entire pandemic was untrue about the origins, but also untrue about what to do. Do cloth masks work to prevent the transmission? They don't. And yet he was parading around with the Washington Nationals mask, telling everybody to wear a cloth mask. And that was bad advice. You know, I mean, for someone to say that's going to help you and you take their advice and you get infected, that's bad advice.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 18, 2026 at 10:59 PM
Saved - June 19, 2026 at 12:37 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Senator Ron Johnson finally got @SecKennedy to release previously redacted documents on the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals cover-up. The report reveals that senior FDA and CDC officials were warned of serious COVID vaccine safety signals in 2021, yet the public was kept in the dark. If true, millions were denied fully informed consent. @RWMaloneMD joins us to discuss.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Johnson obtained a large trove of FDA documents that were partially redacted and had been withheld from his investigation committee. His staff reviewed the material and quickly found the issue referenced in a clip: “masking,” described as an artifact that prevented the FDA from denying that adverse events were occurring. This masking problem was tied to a specific data analysis artifact uncovered by Bill Dumashell, formerly head biostatistician of a major corporation that performs this kind of data analysis. Dumashell had worked at the FDA with three others, and the transcript speaker says they were communicating with those individuals at the time. The transcript speaker explains that, after Tucker, who is described as a friend of the speaker, the senator’s staff discovered confirmation that Peter Marks (head of CBER) was made aware of the masking-related data analysis problem and suppressed the information. The speaker says Marks told the system developers, including Dumashell, how to overcome the masking issue, then shut Dumashell down and ignored information they uncovered when they corrected the error in the FDA’s data analysis systems. Speaker 0 asks whether there is direct evidence that Marks or others were coerced by CBER, Pfizer, Moderna, or others to keep the issue quiet, asserting that vaccine safety signals were swept aside and hidden from the American people. Speaker 1 responds that there is no “smoking gun” the speaker is aware of, while noting that such evidence could exist in archived, redacted, or withheld FDA emails. The speaker says the FDA asserts it disclosed everything relevant to the senator’s query but did not disclose many emails corresponding to communications between the speaker and the same team, which the senator allegedly detected almost immediately after the speaker began discussing the issue with him. The speaker adds that the emails may or may not be deleted, and that the speaker’s manuscript, “The Grift,” argues it was not necessary for there to be formal relationships. Instead, the speaker points to informal relationships, including a revolving door, stating that Marks took advantage of it by leaving government service at the FDA and then moving into an industry position afterward.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: What has happened here is that he finally was able to get Secretary Kennedy to release a large trove of documents that were partially redacted, have been withheld from his investigation committee, and he had his staffers go through those. And one of the first things that they found, and I know this because I was in his office talking to his staffers, one of the first things they found was what he's referring to in that clip. It's called masking. It's a artifact that was behind the ability of the FDA, say it advisedly, the ability of the FDA to deny that these adverse events were occurring. And it was a particular type of data analysis artifact that was uncovered by the person that had developed the FDA's system for detecting adverse event signals. His name is Bill Dumashell, and he used to be the head biostatistician of a major corporation that does this kind of data analysis. And he was working with three others at the FDA, and I happened at the time to be in communication with those folks. I know Tucker's a big friend of yours, and you may or may not recall my first hit with Tucker when I disclosed that there was some major data problems associated with the analysis of the COVID events. And what Senator Johnson uncovered in these documents is confirmation that Peter Marks was made aware of this and basically suppressed that information, told the people that had developed, including Bill Dumashell, this system to overcome the problem of masking. I'm not talking stuff that puts on your face, I'm talking about a database analysis problem. And Peter Marks, head of CBER, shut him down and basically told him to shut up and ignored the information that they had uncovered when they had corrected the error in the FDA's data analysis systems. Speaker 0: Do we know if Marks or others were coerced by CBER Pfizer, Moderna, et cetera, to keep this quiet. I mean, you're seeing these adverse events, these vaccine safety signals, and they just swept it under the rug and hid it from the American people. Do we have direct evidence yet? Do we know? Speaker 1: So, no. The honest truth is I'm not aware of any smoking gun. It may exist in archived or redacted or withheld FDA emails. The FDA asserts that they had disclosed everything that was relevant to the senator's query, and yet they did not disclose the many emails that it corresponds that occurred between me and the same team. something that the senator detected almost immediately when I began speaking to him about this. So there may or may not be smoking guns out there. They may or may not have been deleted. But the point of my analysis in this manuscript, The Grift, is that it wasn't necessary for there to be formal relationships like that. Because the structure underpinning all of this, the informal relationships, not the least of which is the revolving door, which, of course, Dr. Marx took advantage of on his way out from the U.S. government to land a very nice, juicy position in industry after he left the FDA, which is typical.

@SenRonJohnson - Senator Ron Johnson

x.com/i/article/2067…

Article Cover

The story the media — and the government — don't want you to hear

Read about the biggest government scandal that legacy newspapers won’t touch.

On April 29, 2026, as Chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I held a hearing and released a report titled "Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals." There has not been a bigger government scandal during my lifetime, and yet even now that we have documented proof of corruption, most of the legacy media refuses to report on it.

My report" target="_blank">https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Senate-PSI-Majority-Staff-Interim-Report-April-29-2026-FINAL.pdf">report details how in March 2021, Peter Marks — director of the FDA center that approves vaccines and is responsible for safety surveillance (CBER) — was briefed that the algorithm they were using to analyze the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) would mask or hide COVID-19 vaccine adverse event safety signals. Twenty-six days later, using an updated algorithm, senior FDA officials were shown 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, cerebral artery occlusion, basal ganglia stroke, agonal rhythm, and Bell’s palsy.

For the next three months, they received updates showing more serious safety signals. Instead of warning or informing the public, they ordered the data analyst to "cease and desist" and then lied to the American public that "they weren’t seeing safety signals" and that any adverse events were "rare and mild." The whole point of using sophisticated algorithms to analyze VAERS is to find needles in the haystack — nonobvious potential harms that doctors and patients should be alerted to.

With the COVID-19 injections, we didn’t need sophisticated algorithms. The sheer volume of adverse event reports overwhelming VAERS was enough to trigger my oversight efforts. We faced impenetrable stonewalling until Secretary Kennedy’s commitment to radical transparency provided my Subcommittee with 11 million pages of documents. The documents make clear that FDA and CDC officials did not use an "err on the side of caution" standard to alert the public. Rather, they insisted on definitive proof of causation — a standard they knew would never be met.

They were far more concerned about not causing vaccine hesitancy than they were about informing the public of adverse events. They wanted to ensure that the injections would receive full licensure approval so that President Biden could mandate them to the military and millions of civilians, including healthy college students.

Perhaps the most egregious coercion involved healthy children who had virtually zero chance of serious harm from COVID-19. That coercion was based on another false claim that the injections would stop transmission. Some children were killed and others have been permanently disabled from the COVID-19 injections. Imagine being the parent who believed all the lies they were told and decided to have their now deceased or injured child injected.

Also in March 2021, Dr. Avindra Nath, clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), began leading a team of clinical researchers who were diagnosing and treating individuals with serious COVID-19 injection injuries. Twenty-three study participants were diagnosed and treated, then instructed to "not talk about the study" until the NIH could release its findings and conclusions. Dr. Nath maintained that early recognition and intervention were crucial for effective treatment. Yet no guidance was provided to physicians — one participant remarked that the NIH scientists had "taken the data and left us hanging."

Adding insult to injury, in April 2021 the CDC published a report stating that similar adverse events were "anxiety" — not a problem with the shots. It was not until study participants began speaking publicly in 2022 that the NIH quietly posted its study on a preprint server that virtually no one read, leaving medical teams nationwide in the dark and the injection-injured left untreated.

We will never know the full extent of the harms (or the benefits) of the COVID-19 injections. But we do know that federal health officials were aware that serious harm was being done within months of them granting Emergency Use Authorization. We also know that those same officials turned a blind eye toward the safety signals that were screaming at them, but they refused to warn the public. The public pays federal health officials to evaluate drugs for safety and efficacy, and we have the right to be informed.

How many deaths and injuries could have been avoided had federal health officials simply done the job we paid them to do?

Currently, VAERS shows 1,676,100 cumulative worldwide adverse events and 39,099 deaths associated with the COVID-19 injection, with 9,332 (24%) of the deaths occurring within 2 days of injection. Most of these tragic adverse events occurred well after federal health officials should have informed the public about the risks they knew existed. Instead, they hid or downplayed those risks. As a result, millions were harmed after being denied their right to fully informed consent.

That’s why I consider this to be the biggest government scandal in my lifetime, and one that is crying out for full media attention and coverage.

---

The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA TODAY, and Fox Digital have all declined or ignored requests to publish this op-ed.

NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, and MSNow have all refused to cover my report.

Read the full report here." target="_blank">https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Senate-PSI-Majority-Staff-Interim-Report-April-29-2026-FINAL.pdf">here.

RedactedNews
Posted - June 18, 2026 at 11:22 PM
Saved - June 19, 2026 at 12:06 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
In recent weeks, the U.S. has moved from full lockstep with Israel’s war against Iran to a dramatically different tone. President Trump and JD Vance are now criticizing Netanyahu and signaling support for diplomacy. I ask whether this is a real strategic reassessment or a distancing tactic ahead of midterm elections, and what could explain the sudden shift.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Just weeks ago, the United States was fully in lockstep with Israel’s war against Iran. Now, the administration’s tone has shifted dramatically, with President Trump and JD Vance publicly criticizing Netanyahu and signaling support for diplomacy. Is this a genuine change in strategy and a real reassessment taking place inside the White House? Or is the administration simply creating distance from Israel as it looks ahead to the midterm elections? After years of near-unconditional support, what explains such a sudden reversal in rhetoric and policy? @DecampDave joins us to discuss.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questioned whether there has been a “real sea change” inside the White House, suggesting prior conflict between Bibi (Netanyahu) and Trump often looked like theater, but saying this situation “seems different.” Speaker 1 said the shift appeared to be a rapid “total 180” with a notable timeline: last week seemed to indicate a return to full-scale war after heavy U.S.–Iran exchanges, with Iran targeting northern Israel in response to Israel bombing Beirut. Speaker 1 said they did not think limited attacks could occur without plunging the region back into war. They then described Trump making major threats again, including saying he would take Karg Island, followed by a sudden deal, making the sequence difficult to interpret. Speaker 1 attributed the change to internal U.S. disagreement, saying leaks and knowledge of Iran’s military capabilities after the war indicate that more than 70% of Iran’s missiles and missile launchers are intact, and that “people in the Pentagon” did not want to do this again. They also said people within the administration have been making this case to Trump, and that Trump appears to be listening “for the time being.” Speaker 1 linked the restraint to election concerns, arguing Trump’s midterms and Netanyahu’s elections create opposite incentives: Netanyahu wants the war to continue, while Trump does not, implying a possible split between personal political interests, while adding that a resulting real split between the U.S. and Israel would be surprising. Speaker 0 referenced moments when Trump speaks off the cuff, saying Trump admitted publicly that a peace agreement was needed; otherwise, with the Strait of Hormuz closed for “another few weeks,” it would lead to “bedlam.” Speaker 0 suggested Trump may have been reacting to warnings from oil executives and claimed Trump indicated that Iran was holding the cards. Speaker 1 contrasted Trump’s earlier claim that the Strait being closed was “great” because the U.S. was exporting more oil and gas than ever, and said the later admission showed it was not sustainable. They discussed a possible new approach raised by Mark Levin: pause for a few months rather than repeating actions—so Iran releases frozen funds can be avoided while the U.S. “rebuild[s]” and gets through the midterms—then restart. Speaker 1 said Iran likely suspects such a plan due to having no reason to trust the U.S. and said it is a possibility that the parties could “kick the can down the road” before revisiting.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you believe that there's some kind of real sea change inside the White House? Like we're done with you? Like we are – I don't buy it. Anytime there's been this – there's a conflict between Bibi and Trump. Like I don't usually buy it. I think it's all theater, as I mentioned earlier. But this – I don't know. Something about this seems different. Speaker 1: No, it does. I mean it seems like, again, there's been like a total 180. It's happened very quickly. And it's interesting, the timeline. Like last week there was – what appeared to be, I thought this meant a return to full-scale war, some pretty heavy exchanges of strikes between the U.S. and Iran. And then you had the Iran target northern Israel in response to Israel bombing Beirut. Like, I didn't think that situation could exist of these, like, limited attacks without it plunging the whole region back into war. But then Trump started really making all of his big threats again, saying he's going to take Karg Island. And then all of a sudden there's a deal. So it's like, it's hard to wrap my head around exactly what happened. But what I do think, I think the change is that I know that there's people in the Pentagon, and you can tell by the leaks that have come out about Iran's military capabilities after this war, that they have more than 70% of their missiles and missile launchers. So it's been clear that there's people within the Pentagon who didn't want to do this again. And I'm sure that there's people in the administration who've been making this case to Trump. And it looks like he right now, for the time being, is listening to them. And I think it's over the concern of the elections. What's interesting is that Trump and Netanyahu have opposite political interests right now. Netanyahu has elections coming up. Trump's got the midterms. And Netanyahu wants the war to continue. And just for election purposes, Trump doesn't. So I could see there being kind of a split when it comes to their kind of personal interests, like the parties in power right now, but like a real split between the U.S. and Israel. I would be surprised if that is a result of this. Speaker 0: You get some moments of clarity from President Trump occasionally where he just you can tell he's just speaking off the cuff and he maybe lets the truth or the cat out of the bag from time to time, like he did yesterday when he admitted that in front of the world that we had to get a peace agreement in place, because if we didn't, with the Strait of Hormuz being closed for another few weeks, there would he his words were bedlam. It would have been bedlam, right? I'm sure he was hearing from oil executives who were telling him, we're at tank bottoms, we have nothing left. Like, shit's about to hit the fan here. He really let, I don't know, I think he let the cat out of the bag by admitting that, that really Iran was holding all the cards here. Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's the opposite of what he was saying before this. At one point, I remember, this was just a couple weeks ago in the Oval Office, he was asked about the Strait. How long do you think it's going to be closed? And he said, you know what? It's actually great that the Strait is closed because we're exporting more oil and gas than ever before. Everything's great. We don't need the Strait. And now, admitting what everybody knew, it was pretty clear to anyone looking at this seriously that it was not a sustainable situation. And the question is, you know, so I saw Mark Levin tweet today that he said, how about a new strategy? How about instead of giving Iran, you know, releasing their frozen funds and we use this time to kind of rebuild and pause and then get through the midterms and then knock them out, as he put it. So basically, you know, let's get take a few months pause and then restart the war. And I think that is a possibility. And I know that that is something Iran is suspecting because they have no reason to trust. the U S at this point. Um, so those are, that's a possibility, you know, that they could be saying, all right, let's kick the can down the road here. Um, and then, you know, revisit this. Yeah.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 18, 2026 at 12:26 AM
Saved - June 18, 2026 at 4:11 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
As the U.S. and Iran move toward a potential peace agreement, Israel is signaling it won’t see itself as bound by the deal. I ask whether Israel will try to undermine negotiations or whether President Trump can draw a firm line to stop actions that could derail diplomacy. The stakes are high: success could reshape the Middle East, sabotage could mean escalation.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

As the U.S. and Iran move closer to a potential peace agreement, Israel is signaling that it does not consider itself bound by the deal. Will Israel attempt to undermine the negotiations, or can President Trump draw a firm line and prevent further actions that could derail diplomacy? The stakes are enormous. A successful agreement could reshape the balance of power in the Middle East, while any effort to sabotage it could push the region back toward escalation and conflict. @EstebanCarLop joins us to break down the MoU and its implications for the region's future.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on a “14-point framework,” with Speaker 1 saying its focus under line number one is Lebanon and asking whether Israel will adhere to it by not bombing Lebanon. Speaker 0 says Israel has signaled it is not part of the deal and argues that Lebanon being mentioned three times in the first paragraph shows how much pressure Iran exerted on the U.S. to agree, including that hostilities need to stop in Lebanon and the U.S. is essentially asking it to restrain its ally in Israel. Speaker 0 notes that officials keep repeating they call the deal a disaster and that they will continue attacks “maybe not the attacks,” leaving them in a gray area, while also stating they will not withdraw from southern Lebanon. He says Israel has established a “yellow line” a few kilometers into Lebanese territory and that the MOU states Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected, which means withdrawal of Israeli troops. Speaker 0 also highlights that the MOU is the start of a framework toward a peace deal, with a 60-day period of conversations before any potential peace for West Asia, and concludes that taking Israeli officials’ statements at face value, Israel will not stop attacking Lebanon—while emphasizing Lebanon’s repetition to show Iran is serious about ending hostilities on that front. Speaker 2 warns against using the Gaza “peace deal” as a template for what Israel is willing to agree to, citing almost 1,100 deaths in Gaza at the hands of the IDF since the deal and arguing that others may be “hoodwinked” into believing peace exists while Israel proceeds “as it pleases,” changing the narrative. Speaker 0 agrees and adds that he believes Western media coverage has hidden what is happening in Gaza, with headlines describing a ceasefire that “doesn’t exist.” He says the same situation is being pursued in southern Lebanon, where Israel is conducting an “ethnic cleansing” and “extermination” campaign, and he frames the question as whether the U.S. will impose a price on Israel for continued attacks. He says the U.S. is “almost incapable” of saying no to Israel, but says Iran is also presenting itself as guarantor of the clause, telling Israel it will attack and respond in kind if violations continue. He claims Iranian restraint indicates Iran wants to carry out the MOU and end the war, but says if Israel continues to “play spoiler,” Iran will launch attacks against Israel, raising whether the U.S. will step in or follow its prior approach regarding Yemen, where Israel was told it was “on your own.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: So it looks like we finally got, and hopefully that this is accurate, this 14-point framework. At the heart of it, though, really, under line number one is a focus around Lebanon, how important this has been in this entire war. Do you think that Israel will adhere to this framework, not bomb Lebanon? Speaker 0: I mean, that is unfortunately the million-dollar question, because Israel has signaled constantly that they are not part of this deal. I think that the fact of what you just brought up, right, the release of the details, the fact that Lebanon is mentioned three times in the very first paragraph, shows just how much pressure Iran was able to exert. for the U.S. to agree to this, right? The U.S. now is essentially also saying, yes, hostilities need to stop in Lebanon, which means they need to restrain their allies in Israel, which, again, the officials keep saying the same thing over and over and, you know, calling this deal a disaster and saying that they will continue. Maybe not the attacks. They have left that a bit in a gray area. But they have said, we are definitely not withdrawing. from the south of Lebanon. We're staying there, right? They have already established what they like to call a yellow line in the south of Lebanon, which is a few kilometers into Lebanese territory. But again, to go back to the points of the MOU, It specifically says that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon needs to be respected, which of course means the withdrawal of Israeli troops. Now, others have said the withdrawal is actually going to happen within the first 60 days, because another thing that is very important to highlight with this MOU is that this is the beginning of a framework towards a peace deal. This is the beginning of a 60-day period of conversations. So this is just, you know, the starting line. We are just getting started now before even reaching what we could consider a peace for West Asia. To answer your question, if I take the statements of the Israeli officials at face value, then no, I do not expect them to stop attacking Lebanon. But at the same time, I think it's very, very important to see Lebanon named three times in the first paragraph to show that Iran is very serious about this front also seeing an end to hostilities. Speaker 2: But if we use the peace deal in Gaza as a template to what Israel is willing to agree to— We've seen almost 1,100 deaths in Gaza at the hands of the IDF since the peace deal, the so-called peace deal, was put in place. So what I worry about is the rest of us can be hoodwinked to think that there is a peace deal in place while Israel proceeds to do as it pleases. And this no longer becomes the story. And we are lulled into believing that peace is there when it's not. Speaker 0: That's a very good point. That's a very good point because, I mean, and thanks to corporate media, to Western media that have done the job to hide what is actually happening in Gaza. To this day, you can see headlines published that talk about a ceasefire that doesn't exist, that never existed. And now it's the same situation that they want to perpetuate in the south of Lebanon, in particular, where Israel is conducting, in uncertain terms, an ethnic cleansing campaign, an extermination campaign, and they want to continue doing They have been very clear about this. So, now the question becomes, will the United States impose a price for the Israelis to pay if they continue these attacks? I think history tells us, no, the United States is almost incapable of saying no to Israel. But then, you cannot forget that this—in this particular case, it's Iran. is also presenting themselves as the guarantor of this particular clause. They have told Israel, again, in uncertain terms, we will attack you. We will respond in kind if you continue to violate what we have agreed to be a ceasefire in the south of Lebanon. Now, the attacks in Lebanon continue. The attacks in the south, in particular, continue. The Iranians are showing restraint in not responding yet, right? It also shows that the Iranian government actually wants to go through with this MOU and actually wants to put an end to this war. But I think if the Israelis continue to play spoiler, the table's gonna get kicked over, And you're going to see Iran launch attacks against Israel. And then the question becomes, will the U.S. step in, or will the U.S. do what they did last year with Yemen? Because last year, Donald Trump essentially told Israel, you're on your own with Yemen. They reached an agreement directly with the Yemeni government in Sana'a that did not include Israel for a cessation of hostilities. So then Israel had to deal with the Yemenis on their own. Will they do the same with Iran, knowing full well that Iran is a completely different beast. And also, Iran has almost no appetite at this point to withstand the violations of the Israelis. They want to teach the Israelis a lesson. They want to punish them for their multitude of crimes.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 16, 2026 at 11:03 PM
Saved - June 17, 2026 at 1:34 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 The media keeps calling Israel our “special friend” while reporting that they spy on us, abuse our trust, and ignore American interests. @DanielLDavis1 says the mask is slipping and Washington still refuses to act. https://t.co/v43ZCm0Q8B

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 says a piece about Israel’s “obscene treatment” of Speaker 0’s country has an obvious takeaway that America’s “special ally is not actually an ally,” and that NBC News did not want readers to realize this. Speaker 0 claims the report’s authors repeatedly inserted “globalist propaganda” into the story, including the neocon talking point that Israelis are America’s “special friends,” while still presenting “eye-opening” information about Israel spying. Speaker 0 argues that throughout the entire NBC News piece, there is continued praise for Israel as “our greatest ally” and “special friend.” Speaker 1 says the piece lays praise on Israel and is about Israel spying, which they find “reprehensible.” Speaker 1 describes decades of belief that Israel is America’s best ally, an “island of democracy” amid “sea of chaos” in the Middle East, and that many Jewish people Speaker 1 personally knew seemed “like really good people.” Speaker 1 says that as “growing physical evidence” has emerged that Israel is “not quite who we thought they were” and that Israel “definitely” abuses America, the situation has become normalized. Speaker 1 claims that even when things have come out, “no action has been taken,” leading Israel to be “a little bit more bold,” doing actions “out in the open.” Speaker 1 cites an example involving Netanyahu and Lebanon: Speaker 1 says Netanyahu stated that a stop to fighting in Lebanon is a “non-negotiable requirement” for Iran to end the war, and that Speaker 1 believes Netanyahu will “do what I want anyway,” even if President Trump intervenes. Speaker 1 says Speaker 1 expects Trump may “hold off for a day or two,” but that Israel “they’re fighting again today.” Speaker 1 asks why the U.S. continues to support Israel and provide it with ammunition, weapons, political cover, and diplomatic cover “to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests?” Speaker 0 responds, “It’s so frustrating.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He says there were, like many stories on Israel's obscene treatment of our country, the piece's obvious takeaway is that America's special ally is not actually an ally. But NBC News, which published the article, did not want its readers to realize it. The report's authors repeatedly went out of their way to plug globalist propaganda into their otherwise eye-opening story, repeating the neocon talking point that the Israelis are our country's special friends. So he's making the point that throughout this entire NBC News piece, there just still Speaker 1: laying all this praise on israel they're our greatest ally special friend and the whole piece is about them spying on i'm just i find it reprehensible and i think there's been a lot of belief and i'm talking about over decades that israel is our special friend that they're our best ally that they're in this whole sea of chaos in the middle east they're this one island of democracy and all that my whole life that that's all i've ever heard and I've known many Jewish people, and I thought, it seems true to me. They seem like really good people, all the ones that I personally knew. And so now that when we have growing physical evidence that they're not quite who we thought they were, and that they are definitely abusing us, it's now become so normalized. And even when things have come out, no action has been taken, so now they're getting a little bit more bold about doing things. And so now they're just doing it out in the open, like I don't care. For example, when Netanyahu says, I know that the stop fighting in Lebanon is a non-negotiable requirement for Iran to end the war, I don't care. I'm gonna do what I want anyway, no matter what President Trump says. He may hold off for a day or two, but that's it. They're fighting again today, Clayton, today. So they obviously don't care about what President Trump says. They're gonna do what they want. The question is, why do we keep supporting them and giving them the ammunition and the weapons and the political cover and the diplomatic cover to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests? Speaker 0: It's so frustrating.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 12, 2026 at 9:38 PM
Saved - June 16, 2026 at 2:36 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
With interest rates rising and inflation fears growing, the U.S. bond market crisis is worsening. I warn that the fallout could mean higher mortgage rates, costlier credit cards, and added pressure on banks. Years of inflation have pushed the economy into dangerous territory, and what comes next could be worse.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

As interest rates continue rising and inflation fears grow, the crisis in the U.S. bond market is becoming more severe. Professor @steve_hanke warns that the fallout could mean even higher mortgage rates, rising credit card interest, and increased pressure across the banking system. Years of government-driven inflation have pushed the economy into dangerous territory, and what may come next could be even more alarming.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The U.S. bond market crisis is intensifying, despite attention focused on AI and the Iran war. The discussion centers on what interest rates in the United States will do amid renewed fears of inflation. For average viewers, the main impact highlighted is higher mortgage rates and higher interest rates on credit, including loans from banks and credit card rates. The latest inflation release is described as a key driver: inflation jumped from 3.4% per year to 3.8%. The argument presented is that the inflation genie will not be put back “in the bottle,” because the money supply has been accelerating for the last 18 months. The acceleration of the money supply is described as the fuel that fuels inflation, leading to more inflation. This is framed as a major affordability problem. Bond yields are cited as worsening: the 30-year bond went over 5%, and the 10-year bond went over 4.4%. The 10-year bond is described as the key benchmark that many interest rates—particularly mortgage rates—are geared to. The phrase “bond vigilantes” is used to indicate a renewed market reaction, coming out of “hibernation,” and emphasized as a very big deal. While people often focus on the market going up, the speaker distinguishes that this refers to the stock market; the bond market has been delivering bad news for the last three or four months, especially after the war started in Iran. The conversation also addresses why the stock market may still be rising. The claim is that the stock market is behaving this way because it is in a bubble, described as a “stock market mania” tied to AI. In a bubble, it is said to be difficult to predict exactly when it will pop versus dissipate gradually. A key factor commonly associated with bubble endings is Federal Reserve tightening of monetary policy. However, it is stated that tightening is not happening—monetary policy is loosening—allowing the bubble to persist. If the Federal Reserve pivots toward tighter policy due to inflation rising to 3.8% versus a 2% target, the expectation stated is that the bubble could pop when monetary policy shifts to tightness.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: When you look at what's happening right now with the bond market, I know you just released a video on bonds specifically, and what's going to happen here with interest rates in the United States and fears of inflation sounding the alarm. Again, I'll put this up from the Koblese letter just about an hour ago. The U.S. bond market crisis is intensifying. While everyone is focused on AI and the Iran war, the U.S. bond market is in a complete meltdown. What happens next? What does this mean for the average viewer of our show? Speaker 2: Well, the average viewer is going to be facing higher mortgage rates. That's the key thing. And higher interest rates on credit that they receive from loans they receive from a bank or their credit cards. So what we've got, the inflation number just came out this morning. It jumped from 3.4 percent per year to 3.8 percent. That's bad news. You're not going to get the inflation genie back in the bottle in the United States. I've been saying this for months. And the main reason for that is that for the last 18 months, the money supply has been accelerating. And the money supply is the thing that fuels inflation. And if it's accelerating, you're going to end up with more inflation. And that's exactly what we're getting. This will be really the Achilles heel for Trump is going to be Inflation and the affordability problem. Inflation and the affordability problem. The 30-year bond went over 5% today, and that's bad news. The 10-year bond went over 4.4%, and a 10-year is the key bond that all the interest rates, like mortgages, are all geared to the 10-year. The bond vigilantes have woken up. They've come out of hibernation. This is a very big deal because everybody's going on and on about the market's going up, the market's going up, the market's going up every day. We have good news, the market goes up. We have bad news, the market goes up. What market are they talking about? They're talking about the stock market. The bond market is... It's been bad news for the last three or four months, particularly after the war started in Iran. Look at that bond market. It started getting into trouble once the war started in Iran. So all these things have very negative feedbacks and consequences that the administration simply hasn't thought through. Speaker 0: Yes. So is it then your assertion that the stock market is doing well because it's a perversion of belief systems, but the bond market is telling the real story? Speaker 2: Well, I think the bond market always tells the real story. Speaker 0: But then why is the stock market behaving this way, do you think? Speaker 2: I think the stock market is behaving this way because we're in a bubble. The stock market's been in a bubble for quite a while, and there's a there's a stock market mania going on. It's the AI mania. And if you have a mania going on, no matter what the news is, the market just keeps going up. Now, one thing that is interesting, if you're in a bubble, it's virtually impossible to indicate just when the bubble will pop or will it just dissipate slowly and fizzle out over time, that's very hard to determine. But there's one factor that is important that usually, usually causes bubbles to pop, and that's when the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve tightens up. And right now, as I said when we were talking about inflation, it's not tightening up, it's loosening up. So that's one reason that that accommodates the bubble, you see. You said, well, why is the bubble going up? Okay, we have a mania. We have the AI mania. And that's part of the picture. But the fuel behind it, the liquidity behind it, is the money supply accelerating and going up. Now, if the monetary authorities decide they've had enough of inflation, that's 3.8% now, Their target is 2%. And if they start tightening up from where they are right now, then we will see what happens to the bubble. And it might pop. That's what they usually do. When there's a pivot in monetary policy towards tightness, stock market bubbles pop.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 13, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - June 14, 2026 at 5:46 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🔥 The White House says a deal is close. Iran says Trump changes his story every day. Professor @s_m_marandi says no one can trust Washington anymore because every “peace deal” can become another bombing by nightfall. https://t.co/3vQk0YD2kj

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript discusses renewed U.S.-Iran hostilities, framed around President Trump’s claims of destroying Iran’s defensive and offensive capabilities and CENTCOM’s message that the Strait of Hormuz is open for transit. Professor Morandi, joining from Iran, responds by citing community notes that claim Strait of Hormuz transit remains severely restricted, and asks what propaganda is being presented and what is actually happening inside Iran. Professor Morandi explains that he added a laughing emoji to Trump’s tweet because Iran has “been around for a few thousand years” and will “survive Trump’s presidency,” and because Trump’s behavior as an openly ambitious imperialist strengthens Iranian resolve and unites Iranians to protect their land and resources. He says Iranians believe they are attacked because they support the Palestinian cause and oppose ethnosupremacism and genocide in Palestine and Lebanon, and because Trump intends to steal Iranian resources. He also asserts that Trump’s actions anger the world and increasingly ordinary Americans. He addresses statements Trump made about stealing oil from Iran into the United States, saying the current U.S. president is “a serial liar” and more openly imperialist and ruthless. Morandi claims only ships that receive Iranian permission and pay a fee transit through the Strait of Hormuz, while other departing ships are later stopped by U.S. forces and oil is taken. He describes this as stealing oil already passing through with Iranian permission rather than increasing output from the Strait. On what another set of strikes would mean, Morandi describes civilian impact across Iran, including attacks reaching thousands of kilometers via missiles and drones. He recounts a nine-year-old girl from Karaj telling him her schoolmate was murdered in an attack by an American and Israeli coalition and that the entire family was murdered. He says civilians and civilian infrastructure have been targeted throughout the country and that Iranians recognize Trump’s threats to “obliterate” or “wipe out” Iran, while Western media is described as saying nothing or being indifferent. Regarding the economic and infrastructure situation, Morandi says U.S. aims are to starve ordinary Iranians into submission, similar to efforts he cites in Cuba and Syria. He claims the economy is worse than four months or three and a half months ago, and says strikes damaged steel plants, pharmaceutical factories, hospitals, schools, petrochemical plants, and an Iranian gas field. He adds that despite a siege preventing food from entering, Iran has borders with 15 countries and many friendly neighbors, and that inflation and job loss are occurring while Iranians “persevere.” On negotiations, the transcript says Trump claimed many “deals” were on the table. Morandi states there were “two deals”: (1) after the 39-day war, Trump accepted Iran’s 10-point proposal as a framework and a ceasefire was agreed that included ending genocidal attacks on Lebanon, which he says Netanyahu later violated, and the transcript says Trump then imposed a siege on Iranian ports; (2) a still-floated agreement framework where Iran would receive part of stolen assets and the U.S. would lift sanctions on Iranian energy exports for the duration, end the war in Lebanon, stop genocide in Gaza, lift the siege on Iranian ports, normalize movement of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran would declare it will not pursue nuclear weapons. Morandi says progress stalled because Trump would not return assets, remove sanctions, or lift the siege, making Trump the “deal-breaker,” while Israeli and Zionist pressure is described as contributing. The transcript also asks about attacks on U.S. or allied infrastructure in Gulf states. Morandi says U.S. jets based in regional bases were targeted, radar installations were targeted, and a very expensive radar installation in Bahrain was destroyed. He adds that he says Iran bombed bases in Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain early this morning in retaliation and claims Iran’s deterrent retaliation followed U.S. attacks and broken ceasefires. Finally, the transcript reports that Trump allegedly canceled scheduled strikes after discussions were approved at the highest Iranian leadership level. A posted statement says scheduled strikes and bombings were canceled this evening, discussions and final points were approved by parties including the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others, and that the naval blockade would remain in full force until the transaction is finalized and signing time and place would be announced shortly. Morandi comments that people should expect Trump to bomb if he says he is not, and that U.S. uncertainty prevents trust and makes deals difficult.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the war is back on, according to President Trump, who tweeted this. The United States will be hitting Iran, whose Navy, Air Force, radar, anti-aircraft, and all other forms of defense together with most of its offensive capability are gone. Very hard tonight. Attacking them once again. To which Professor Morandi in Iran retweeted it with a laughing emoji on top of it. And a short time later, CENTCOM posted another tweet piece of information telling the world that the Strait of Hormuz is open for transit. But if you go to the community notes, you'll notice that that's not true at all. In fact, commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains severely restricted. So what sort of propaganda are we being fed right now? And what is actually happening inside of Iran? Let's ask Professor Morandi joining us from Iran this afternoon. to talk about that. Professor, great to see you again. Welcome back to the show. Speaker 1: Thank you very much for having me. It's always a pleasure. Speaker 0: My pleasure. Now, you put a laughing emoji on top of President Trump's tweet, basically about destroying Iran. It seems like you have a resolve that maybe some of us in the same position would not have to be putting a laughing emoji on we are going to destroy and basically flatten your country. Why did you put a laughing emoji on that? Speaker 1: Well, Iran has been around for a few thousand years, so I think it'll survive Trump's presidency. But also what Trump has done, basically, is that he has... destroying the image of the United States by behaving like an 18th or 19th century imperialist or early 20th century imperialist, he is angering the entire world because he is being very open about his ambitions to steal land, to steal resources. That strengthens the resolve of the Iranian people. It unites them further. They want to protect their land and resources. And they know that their guilt, the reason why they're guilty is because they're the only country on this planet that supports the Palestinian cause and opposes ethnosupremacism and ethnic cleansing and genocide in Palestine and now in Lebanon. So they know the reason why they're being attacked is because they are opposed to the barbarism that we're seeing in Palestine. They know that the president of the United States wants to steal their resources for himself. So Trump is hurting himself and the United States at multiple levels, both among Iranians, but also among the international community, and I think increasingly among ordinary Americans, as the polls clearly indicate. Speaker 0: Go ahead. You know, you saw President Trump yesterday admitting at the White House that he had been wanting to let the cat out of the bag on this, but Iran finally figured it out that the United States has been stealing millions of barrels of oil under the darkness of night from Iran and bringing it into the United States. What did you make of those statements? Speaker 1: Unfortunately, the current president of the United States is a serial liar. And I'm not saying the previous presidents were any better. This president is more openly lying. He's more openly imperialist. He's more openly ruthless. Otherwise, Obama, who is an excellent speaker and who has a very polished personality in the public arena, He was the person who destroyed Libya. He was the person who started the dirty war in Syria supporting ISIS and al-Qaeda. He helped the Saudis begin their genocidal assault on Yemen. So I'm not saying that Trump is any different from the previous presidents in that respect, but he is more crude in his approach. And the only ships that pass through the Strait of Hormuz are ships that get Iranian permission. after they pay a fee, a toll, whatever one wants to call it, they leave. Countries like China, the American armed forces won't touch their ships. But other ships that leave, after they leave the Strait of Hormuz, the American armed forces apparently stop them, and they have been taking their oil. That is not a success, and that is not bringing out extra oil from the Strait of Hormuz. It's only stealing the oil that has already passed through the Strait of Hormuz with the permission of the Iranians. Speaker 0: When President Trump says he's going to hit Iran very hard again, what does he mean? And when you speak to Iranians, you're obviously a professor, you speak to your students, are they concerned where these next strikes would land? What do you make of his latest round of escalatory talk? Speaker 1: You know, last night I was at a studio for a TV channel, for the Al Mayadeen TV channel. And one of the employees there brought his daughter, a nine-year-old girl. And they're from the city of Karaj, which is close to Tehran. It's a large city. It's probably the third largest city in Iran, very close to Tehran. And she told me, as I was speaking with her and her father, that one of her schoolmates was murdered in one of the attacks carried out by the American and Israeli coalition. The entire family was murdered. And so this is something that people across the country have felt, because in this war, civilians and civilian infrastructure have been targeted throughout the country. Because we're not living in the 20th century. Now it's the reach of missiles and drones go thousands of kilometers. And people across the country, therefore, have been touched. Even the furthest cities away from the front lines, they've been struck. And Iranians definitely are they recognize the threats, what Trump is threatening, especially when he says that he's going to obliterate our country, or he's going to wipe us off the face of the earth, or when he says he's going to wipe out the civilization or send us back to the space. This is something that people understand, and they also see how Western media says nothing about this. They're indifferent to it. When it comes to the empire, It doesn't matter if they're opponents or supporters of Trump. They will support the empire. They'll support the genocide in Gaza. They'll support the genocidal actions in Lebanon. They'll call the families and the apartment blocks that are flattened in Lebanon Hezbollah targets or Hezbollah strongholds in order to help the Israeli regime carry out their onslaught. And the same is true with what happens in Iran. So people recognize that. But people are also very resilient. And that is why They basically won the 39-day war. And that is why during the siege they also have the upper hand. If Trump had the upper hand with this barbaric siege of his where he's trying to starve the Iranian people, if he had that upper hand, then why is he now restarting conflict and bombing people and killing people? It's because the siege has failed as well. But he should have learned from the 39-day war. that restarting the war is not going to bring victory. It's going to bring further defeat, and it's going to, in my opinion, it's going to make the coming financial crisis, the economic crisis that lies ahead for the entire globe much worse and much more long-lasting by pursuing war again. Speaker 0: Can you talk about the economic stability and infrastructure stability in Iran right now? The United States struck targets, obviously destroying water supplies for tens of thousands of people in Iran. What is like everyday life like right now for Iranians getting water and food? We keep hearing from the White House that Iran is running out of these things and therefore will be sort of starved into submission. What do you say about that? Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I think this shows the ambitions of these people to starve ordinary Iranians, to starve them into submission. That's what they tried to do in Cuba. That's what they've done in Syria. And these are, of course, crimes against humanity. But they have not succeeded in Iran by any means. The economy in Iran today is definitely worse off than it was four months ago or three and a half months ago. They bombed steel plants. They bombed pharmaceutical factories. They bombed hospitals, schools. They bombed petrochemical plants and Iran, a major Iranian gas field. So damage has been done. And then the siege prevents food from getting in. But Iran, first of all, has borders with 15 countries. And so it's a very large country. and many friendly countries surrounded. So food hasn't given in. The economy, though, is suffering. Many people have lost their jobs. Inflation is high. But the Iranians are resilient. For Iran, this is a war of survival. And for the Americans, it is a war of choice being carried out on behalf of Netanyahu. The Iranians, they're guilty of supporting the Palestinian and Lebanese people, posing genocide. Iran's antagonists are supporting genocide. And then when Trump makes statements like this, that he wants to take Iranian islands and he wants to steal Iranian oil, that strengthens the resolve of the Iranian people even further. So I think that while there is more difficulty—and it will definitely get more difficult in the weeks and months ahead—the Iranians will persevere. Speaker 0: President Trump has said now that there were like 38 times that there was like a deal on the table and a back and forth deal. Tucker Carlson in a monologue yesterday pointed out that as the great dealmaker, that doesn't sound like you're a great dealmaker if people aren't taking your deal. So how many times were the U.S. in Iran purportedly near a deal? And has there been any talks? We keep hearing from the United States side, the White House side, that we're two days away from a deal. And then we hear from Iranian officials who say, that's not true at all. You haven't even talked to us. There was no deal. What's the truth here? Speaker 1: Well, we had two deals. One is after the 39-day war, which began with Trump saying, unconditional surrender, lay down your arms, and ending with Trump accepting Iran's 10-point proposal as a framework for negotiations. So it didn't go well for Trump. And then there was a ceasefire that was agreed upon after 39 days. And one part of it was to end the genocidal attacks on Lebanon. Trump agreed to this. And then we saw Netanyahu carpet bomb the country in order to wreck the ceasefire. And instead of Trump forcing Netanyahu to abide by the ceasefire, he sided with Netanyahu. So that wrecked the ceasefire. And then he, of course, imposed a siege on Iranian ports, which is an act of war and another violation of the ceasefire. So that's one agreement that Trump wrecked, and Netanyahu. The second was an agreement that's still being floated, and there was progress. The United States was supposed to—I mean, a general framework has been agreed upon, but the details are still—there are gaps. And right now there's no progress, where the Iranians were supposed to get part of their assets that were stolen over the years by the United States. The US would lift sanctions on Iranian energy exports for the duration of the agreement, the MOU. The war in Lebanon would end, because for Iran, these are all red lines. The genocide in Gaza would stop. These are all things that were more or less agreed upon, but again, the details have not been fully agreed upon. And then the lifting of the siege on Iranian ports. And Iran would in turn, in return, normalize the movement of ships through the Strait of Hormuz. And Iran would declare that it will not pursue nuclear weapons, which Iran has been saying for years. This, we were close to this, somewhat close. But again, the details were never sorted out. But then on multiple occasions, Trump would come and say, I'm not going to give Iranian assets back. I'm not going to remove the sanctions. I'm not going to lift the siege." Well, all of this runs against written statements by his own negotiators. So the only person who's the deal-breaker is Trump. And of course, he's probably breaking these—he's the deal-breaker, because Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby are putting pressure on him. not to have this deal. Because at the end of the day, U.S. interests lie in the normalization of global trade and for energy to flow out of the Strait of Hormuz. Israeli regime interests is to continue the war and to continue the hostilities and to wreck the global economy and to wreck the U.S. economy. And so far, the Israeli firsters, the Zionists, Netanyahu, they seem to have the upper hand. Speaker 0: Talk about what infrastructure or U.S. infrastructure has been hit in this back and forth. We keep hearing competing stories. Heard from CIA analyst and friend of the show, Larry Johnson, who said that Iran struck and destroyed up to 12 F-35s in Bahrain and other locations. What do you know about the attacks from Iran against American infrastructure bases in the Gulf states? Speaker 1: I do know that U.S. jets based in these bases were targeted. Radar installations were targeted. A very expensive radar installation, I think, in Bahrain was destroyed. The Iranians bombed bases in Jordan, in Kuwait, and in Bahrain. early this morning, and all of it was in retaliation. I mean, the war was, as we all know, what did—Iran didn't start the war. It was the United States and Trump and Netanyahu who started the war with the regional proxies who assisted them. And the ceasefires have all been broken by the United States. They constantly, over the past few weeks, they've been attacking Iran, and then Iran would retaliate as deterrents. And Iran's response last night, early this morning, to the U.S. attack was to target U.S. bases across the region as deterrents. If the United States had not attacked first, Iran would not have retaliated. But the Iranians have lots of targets that they can hit, and they have the missiles and drones to do it. Iran's underground missile bases and underground drone bases and underground factories that produce them are, as we saw, they all withstood the 39 days of bombing by—through missiles, through B-52s. And they are continuing to function. So Trump is basically wrecking the global economy. He's wrecking the U.S. military capability. And all for the sake of Zionism, not for the sake of the American people. Speaker 0: Just a few minutes ago, we learned from some insiders and sources, and again, take this with a grain of salt, that Trump has canceled tonight's attack on Iran, saying that basically discussions and final points have been, in concept, approved by all parties right now. We've heard this how many times? And then there's a carpet bombing of the country, whether by Israel or otherwise. When you hear this type of thing coming out of the White House, what do you make of it? Speaker 1: Well, you took the words out of my mouth, Clayton. You've left nothing for me to say. When Trump says he's not going to bomb, you should assume that he'll probably bomb. If he says that we're close to a deal, then you should assume that we're probably not close to a deal. I know you understand Trump much better than I, because you pursue American politics closer than I, and I should be asking you these things. But I personally have For a long time now, I've stopped even following anything that Trump says, his speeches, unless someone sends something to me and asks. But when they invite me on television to talk about something that Trump says, I always tell them that, look, I have no idea what this means, because he will say this today and say something else tomorrow. He may actually do it, and he may not do it. And some people think that this is an asset to the United States. It's the exact opposite. No one trusts the United States. No one can do a deal with the United States. I mean, how can Iran even do a deal with Trump? Let's say Trump says, I agree to everything that Iran demands, and let's do the deal and walk away. The Iranians will say, well, what is he going to say tonight? What is he going to say tomorrow? Is he going to tear up the deal? So Trump has basically made any sort of rapprochement or far less than rapprochement, make any sort of dialogue, or even less than dialogue, make any sort of agreement possible. Speaker 0: Well, we just, yeah, so we were hearing that from insiders, and now the White House has just posted this. So now we have it public. And I'll just read what was posted a short time ago. From President Trump, based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, canceled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening. Discussions and final points have been in both concept and great detail approved by all parties. including the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others. The naval blockade will remain in full force and effect until this transaction is finalized. Time and place of the signing will be announced shortly. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Let's wait for his next post. Speaker 0: Peace. All right. Okay. And I guess the CENTCOM says the Strait of Hormuz is wide open for business. Wide open. Wide open. Well, Professor, we'll leave it there, I guess, and we'll watch what the next post says. But thank you for this assessment. And at the heart of all of this is people are dying and people are suffering. People are being killed and murdered and bombs dropped on their families and being wiped out. and an economy in ruins, and the United States economy in ruins. And these warmongers are getting exactly what they want, which is deeply, deeply disturbing. Professor Morandi, thank you so much. Thank you for your bravery and for telling us what life is like right now inside of Iran. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video. with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 12, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - June 13, 2026 at 11:45 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 Trump keeps claiming an Iran deal is “close” while insiders say there is NO deal. Markets swing, ships stall, oil routes choke, and America looks less in control by the hour. @DougaMacgregor warns this whole illusion could collapse fast. https://t.co/zsLkfPwoiA

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump tells reporters in the White House that he has called off strikes against Iran because a deal is close, with multiple parties involved and the agreement potentially finalized within the next two to three days. Speaker 2 compares this to a repeating pattern attributed to Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu since February 28: declarations of victory, claims that the other side is begging to surrender, orders to announce an imminent deal, bombing again, and repetition. Speaker 2 says the cycle has happened “over 38 times,” arguing that a weekend bombing follows the claim of an imminent deal. Glenn Greenwald is referenced as having posted that the same pattern repeats weekly. Speaker 2 connects the discussion to earlier commentary by Tucker Carlson about Trump’s alleged dealmaking, then shifts to claims about sovereignty. In Speaker 1’s monologue, the United States is described as lacking sovereignty in decisions that “change the course of history,” with the war in Iran said to be decided by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than the president of the United States. Speaker 1 argues that this challenges the premise that people control outcomes through voting, claiming that on major questions elected officials are not in charge. Speaker 2 asks who is driving any potential peace agreement, stating that Iran has said there is no agreement and that Speaker 2 calls that claim a “total lie,” adding that negotiations had not yet involved speaking with Iran. Speaker 2 brings in Colonel Douglas McGregor to interpret Trump’s statements alongside reports of overnight attacks involving Gulf states, U.S. infrastructure, U.S. bases, and F-35s, with deaths inside Iran. Colonel McGregor says he asked someone in Wall Street what was going on and was told “there’s no truth” to the deal claims. He frames Trump’s behavior as persuasive like Bernie Madoff, saying Trump creates “the illusion of control.” McGregor describes possible outcomes: leaving and pretending nothing happened (described as unlikely), leaving without acting with Israel (said to risk Israeli use of a nuclear weapon), freezing everything into a prolonged “hot-cold war,” and continued escalation he believes Trump cannot control fully. Speaker 0 shifts to consequences, saying the stock market can respond to illusions, that continuous threats to kill people as national policy damage the psyche, and that there should be consequences for the repeated pattern. McGregor also argues that Gulf states are seeking security arrangements beyond the U.S., referencing Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and saying Arab states and the Arabian Peninsula are discussing security with Russia because the U.S. cannot protect what it promised. He suggests this marks the start of an end to what he calls the “American military empire,” with Koreans, Japanese, Persian Gulf states, and Europeans possibly asking the U.S. to leave. Speaker 2 reports “from insider sources” that Iran denies a deal Trump is bragging about, including the “new Ayatollah,” and claims negotiating teams are frustrated because Trump and his team allegedly sabotage negotiations by preemptively announcing “bullshit” online. Speaker 2 calls the situation “total theater.” McGregor explains constraints he believes apply to Trump regarding Israel: he says Israel would not stop attacking without destruction of Iran, while Trump would not want an agreement that prevents him from declaring victory. He warns that if Israel becomes a rogue actor, other states could seek nuclear access for protection. Speaker 0 mentions a morning claim about taking “Karg Island” and other oil infrastructure in a way he associates with Venezuela, then asks whether it is bluster and whether such action is feasible. McGregor responds that taking the island would involve “terrible risks,” questions what would be done with it afterward, and argues Iranians have more routes for oil than cargo islands. He adds that destroying facilities could affect China, Japan, and others with strategic petroleum reserves, while the U.S. reserve is said to be dropping. Speaker 2 asks what happens next and questions U.S. Central Command posts about the Strait of Hormuz remaining open while reports say commercial shipping is severely restricted. McGregor says the “open” message conflicts with reality, describes possible queuing and payment-for-priority claims in the Gulf, and says oil is being moved because Iran permits it, whether through regulation or bribery. He emphasizes that Trump would not admit limited control, warning against blockading indefinitely and against a prolonged shadow war involving troops facing ballistic missiles and armed drones. In closing, McGregor says he worries that resuming attacks could produce more losses, including credibility and prestige with the world, and that intervening in the Gulf with air mobile infantry would be a “disaster waiting to happen.” He says he cannot answer whether Americans have suffered unrevealed base losses but believes more losses are likely if attacks continue.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 2: Well, just a short time ago, President Trump in the White House addressing reporters says this. He has called off the strikes against Iran tonight because a deal is close, that many parties have come to this agreement on a deal, and that it could be finalized within the next two to three days. Stop me if you've heard this before. Glenn Greenwald just posted this on X a few short hours ago. Trump has been repeating the exact same meaningless cycle every single week since he and Netanyahu started this war on February 28th. Number one, we won. Number two, they're begging to surrender. Number three, order Barack Ravid to announce that a deal is imminent. Number four, bomb them again. Number five, repeat back to number one. And that's exactly where we seem to be. So If you've been counting at home, like how many times a deal has been on, how many times it's been off again, I think it's like over 38 times now that that's been the case. And fool me once, fool me 38 times on a Thursday as we head into the weekend, we get a deal. For what reason? And then we bomb them over the weekend. Tucker Carlson just did a pretty impressive monologue last night laying out how Trump purports to be a dealmaker. But in actuality, not so much. Watch. Speaker 1: But maybe above all. the way in which American power has been reduced, and this is the saddest to say out loud, is that it is suddenly obvious to everyone, both in this country and around the world, that the United States does not have sovereignty, which is another way of saying American leaders aren't really in charge of America. They can make some decisions. They can make noises and give speeches, but the big decisions, the ones that change the course of history, are not up to them. employees they're not the boss now who is the boss well that's an open debate but in this war it has become very obvious undeniable in fact it's been admitted by this administration that the president united states didn't decide the time and place of this war the prime minister of israel decided the time and place of this war benjamin netanyahu was in charge admitting that out loud and of course it was known to everyone who was paying close attention, is a sea change in the way not just the rest of the world thinks about the United States, but the way Americans think about their own country. Because the premise of our system is that the people who live here are in charge of it and that they can control its outcomes by voting. We just had elections in a lot of the country primaries yesterday and an ever diminishing number of people march off to the polls with the notion in mind that I can change things with my vote. The war in Iran has taught us that actually on the big questions, the people you elect aren't even in charge. Speaker 2: So who's driving a potential peace agreement here? Is it Israel? Certainly not. Who's really in charge of all of this? And if President Trump has said on again, off again for now 38 different times, Iran this afternoon saying, we have no agreement. This is a total lie. Like, where is this coming from? We haven't even spoken to them. So what the hell is actually happening here? Let's bring in Colonel Douglas McGregor now to talk about all of this and to try to make sense of it because there's been a number of big attacks overnight. Gulf states, U.S. infrastructure, U.S. bases, F-35s, and others. And, of course, lots of people died inside of Iran. Colonel McGregor Can you help us make sense of the president's statements over the last like two hours as to an agreement being put in place? Speaker 3: Well, when I heard it, I got on the phone as soon as possible and called a friend up in Wall Street. Yes, there are good people in Wall Street. I do have some friends there just for honesty and so forth. And I said, you know, Jack, what's going on? Is there any truth to this? And he said, Doug, there's no truth to it. I said, well, Jack, I just wanted to know because that's what everybody else says. So I said, what is this man up to? Who is President Trump? I said, is he some sort of Nero figure, Emperor Nero, who sort of fiddles on top of the hills in Rome and watches the city burn? Because while all of this is going on, we're going broke. You know, a lot of people don't understand it. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is falling dramatically. And we think it's on a trajectory to be close to empty by early autumn. The price of sulfur has gone up over the last 18 months. 900%, 50% of the sulfur for our fertilizer comes through the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. farm incomes are projected to fall. I mean, I just went down the list and he said, no, Doug, he's not Nero. I said, well, then who are we dealing with here? I don't understand. I thought I knew him. He said, he's Bernie Madoff. And I said, really? And he pointed out, well, remember when Bernie Madoff was arrested, most of the people on Wall Street were shocked. They thought he was a great guy. He was very charming, very smooth, always willing to step up for charity and everything else. Of course, he had stolen $50 billion. And at the time, they didn't know what the sum was. Eventually, he was found guilty and He was told to pay something like $700 million in damages. But his assets didn't come to that. He was a very wealthy man. There was no reason for him to try and steal the funds of his clients. But Bernie was very, very convincing. He was very persuasive. I think we're dealing with someone who's very persuasive. He's a good salesman. That's what got him elected. And his behavior to this point is what's gotten him where he is. The problem is that he's way out on a limb now, because when this thing comes crashing down, he's going to crash down with it. He's not going to escape accountability by any means. And this thing is going to crash. We don't know how this will end, but I can tell you this could end up in any number of different ways. We could end up just eventually leaving and pretending nothing happened, which I think is unlikely. If we do try to leave and we don't do anything in the meantime with Israel, the Israelis will feel free to do whatever they want, which means they could easily use a nuclear weapon. And then there's always the possibility that we sort of freeze everything. And then you end up in a situation like Kashmir, where drones are exploding every other day, ballistic missiles are traded, a sort of a hot-cold war that just drags on and on. Nobody knows, but This is what he set in motion. He can't really control it. The only thing he can do is create the illusion of control. And that's what he's done. Speaker 0: Well, the stock market. is good at controlling illusions and responding to illusions. It's a belief system. It's a shared belief system in a lot of falsities. The problem here is twofold. Number one, it will hurt the American worker. It continues to devalue the dollar. It will lead to economic collapse at some point when we are allowed to feel it, when there's no more perversions. But also the idea of continuously threatening to kill people as national policy is incredibly damaging to the psyche. It's not funny. At first, it felt like the Princess Bride, you know, the line, good night, Wesley, good work, I'll most likely kill you in the morning. That's what it feels like, right? That happens for seven years or however long he's gone. We can't keep doing this. There needs to be a consequence for the fact that we're just threatening to kill people every other week. Speaker 3: I think that's why you heard the foreign minister of Russia, Mr. Lavrov, make an announcement that there had been some discussions between the Arab states and the Arabian Peninsula and Russia for some sort of security arrangement that would help them essentially cope with the emergence of Iran as a great power. I mean, what we've demonstrated pretty conclusively in the Persian Gulf is is that we can't protect the Arabian states that we promised we would protect. And so they're now talking to the Russians. They know the Russians have good relations with Iran, they have leverage with Iran, and perhaps that's a better solution than dealing with us. I think this is the beginning, really the beginning of the end of this thing that people refer to overseas as the American military empire. We're going to see the Koreans and the Japanese as well as the people in the Persian Gulf and ultimately the Europeans, all ask us to do the same thing. Leave. Get out. Because we are no longer seen as a source for security. We're seen as a catalyst for conflict. Speaker 2: We can confidently report here at Redacted from insider sources telling us that Iran is denying the deal that Trump is actively bragging about, including... the new Ayatollah. And according to the sources that we're getting in here just now, a negotiating team, including the vice president and the Pakistanis, are frustrated that Trump and his team is sabotaging their negotiations by preemptively announcing bullshit online that has nothing to do with the negotiations. And one insider is telling Redacted, We can't run foreign policy on truth social. What do you make of that? So you have a team that maybe is actively trying to put something in place and then being sabotaged on truth social and in White House press briefings that we have a deal and things are moving forward and all of these other players are involved in it and these people are saying that's not true. This is total theater. Speaker 3: Well, his backers, remember, are unconcerned with what anybody else thinks. They're very pleased with everything that President Trump has done to this point. What they would like to see him do is to end this war by utterly destroying and obliterating Iran. Now, I think it's pretty clear that short of a nuclear weapon, we're not going to accomplish that. So the real issue now is, what do we do about Israel? We are obligated to Israel up and down the beltway. Back and forth. What are we going to do? Do we tell the Israelis, thanks very much, now you're on your own? I don't think he can do that and get away with it. He has too many irons in the fire with the Israelis. He has made too many promises to too many people. So he can't really do that. So what can we reasonably get out of this? Because if the Israelis refuse to stop attacking their neighbors, stop trying to annihilate the people that live in Gaza, and for that matter, anybody in southern Lebanon and potentially elsewhere, If that's not forthcoming—and I don't think there's much evidence he can deliver on that—then Israel becomes this rogue state that could open a front at any given point in time and kill anybody it wants. This leads people then to turn to a place like Pakistan, like the Turks or the Iranians or others, and say, we'd like to have access to that nuclear weapon, because it's the only way we can protect ourselves from Israel. So what he started, he can't really finish at this point. But we can't simply walk away and ignore it because of the nuclear dimension. At least that's my take. Speaker 0: Now, what the president had announced his intentions were this morning was that, OK, we're going very hard tonight. We're going to take Karg Island. I've always wanted it anyway. We're going to take other oil infrastructures just like we did in Venezuela. It's going to be fun. It'll be over in a few hours. Hold on, everybody. Now, obviously, I read that. I get extremely emotional because I don't think we should be able to do that. I don't want to be responsible for death abroad of innocence. And then I go to your channel or Dan Davis, and I'm like, can we even do it? Is he just bloviating? What's the right way to read this? Could we even do it, even if we were to take him seriously? Speaker 3: Oh, we could very definitely take Clark Island. Now, how many lives would we lose in the process? How much damage would ultimately be done? I can't even begin to think about that. I mean, it's the kind of operation that I would be very, very unenthusiastic about leading. I mean, air mobile infantry, when you start flying light infantry in the dark or in the daylight, preferably in the dark, over miles of open country and particularly across the ocean, you run terrible risks of being detected and shot out of the sky. But let's assume that doesn't happen, and you come aboard the island at some point. What do you do with it? Do you run up a flag and say, victory is ours, and then hopefully be extracted? I mean, what are you doing with it? Oh, well, we're denying use of the island to the Iranians. Well, the Iranians have more ways to get oil out of Iran than just cargo island. I think people don't know that. We keep acting as though that's their only route. That's not true. But there's something else. If we end up destroying all of those facilities, I don't think the Chinese are going to be very happy about that because obviously they buy a great deal of oil from Iran. And they're not the only ones, the Japanese, the Koreans and others. Now, the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese all have enormous strategic petroleum reserves. India doesn't. Our reserve is dropping each passing day. But those countries have large reserves. They are led by intelligent people who look into the future. The rest of the world is not that well off, and our European allies are certainly not in a strong position. It's time for President Trump to think beyond just his own personal interests and think about the world. What are we doing to the rest of the world? We're not just disrupting supply chains, as you pointed out at the beginning, Natalie, when you were talking about famine. We're destroying potentially hundreds of millions of lives all over the globe. That's the last thing we as Americans want to do. That's something we've never wanted to do. So how do you get to Trump in the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, step back from all of this, whatever your personal concerns are. This needs to stop. This is why. And show him categorically what's at stake. When I was last with a man and when I met him, He was an intelligent person who could actually reason and think things through. I don't know what's happened, but he's got to move beyond this emotional state and extricate himself and us from this terrible position. Speaker 2: What do you think happens next? U.S. Central Command—it just seems like we're living in a bizarro world, Colonel. U.S. Central Command earlier this morning posted, the Strait of Hormuz remains open for transit. It's a pathway— And all you need to do is just scroll down to read the, or talk to anyone who knows anything, or just scroll down and read the community notes. Commercial shipping through the Strait remains severely restricted. I spoke to Professor Morandi in Iran just a short time ago. We'll play that interview in a few minutes. But he said no ships get through unless Iran lets them through. Like, what is CENTCOM posting here? Speaker 3: In fact, I had another phone call with someone on the inside. And I said, do you have a list of the ships, their names, who the captains are, where they're bound to? And he said, come on, Doug, of course not. Well, I said, well, then this damn thing is not open, is it? He said, no, it's not open, but we're saying it's open. You know, what's going on right now in the Gulf is a lot of graft, as you would expect. I mean, you've got people in the world who are saying, look, you want to get through the Get through the Strait of Hormuz, OK. Normally, you'd pay a toll of $2 million or a million or whatever it is, stand in line. But if you're willing to pay $10 million, we can move you up in the queue. So there are people down in the Gulf right now who are making plenty of money by cutting these kinds of deals. So are there ships carrying oil out of the Gulf? Yes. But they're carrying it out because the Iranians have let them do so. whether that was done in accordance with the stated regulations or it was done because of bribery, who knows. But at the end of the day, we're not really in control of everything. And that's the point. President Trump has to admit that he's not in control. And he won't do that. He absolutely will not do that. And he thinks that he has the military power to impose his will indefinitely. And I don't want to be in a position where we are blockading this place in perpetuity and that we've got troops spread out all over the place trying to deal with ballistic missiles, armed drones and so forth. In other words, this sort of shadow war that just drags on and on and on. And right now we've got two problems. We have the Israelis on the one hand who have no interest right now in signing up for anything that does not include the destruction of Iran. And number two, we have President Trump. Who doesn't want to sign up for anything that doesn't allow him to declare victory? Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 2: Well, we're going to speak with Professor Morandi in just a moment. But, you know, with a few minutes left that we got with you, Colonel, what do you think happens next? Speaker 0: And may I just tack on something? Do you think it's true that Americans have taken big losses at bases abroad and they're just not letting us know that? Speaker 3: You know, I don't know. And that's a question I can't answer. I think we have taken more than we have admitted. But I don't know how many. But beyond that, I can't say anything. Now, I do worry at this stage that when we resume attacking again, we're going to take more losses than we've taken in the past, far more. And especially if we try to intervene in the Gulf itself with air mobile infantry. That's a disaster waiting to happen. So I don't know what the generals in the Pentagon or the admirals are telling him. Hopefully they're saying something similar, but there's no way to know that because my experience over many, many years was when people were pushed in uniform, they eventually said, okay, boss, let's get it done. We'll do it. Even when it was a dumb, stupid idea. Now, in most cases, it didn't cost us a lot of blood and treasure, but in some it did. And this is one where it could cost us a lot more than just our own blood and treasure. It's going to cost whatever credibility and legitimate prestige we enjoy in the world. And that's my concern. Now, I think it's a good thing if we get out of all these places where we've been garrisoning forever. But I don't like the idea that we have been exposed as feckless, weak, indecisive, and stupid. And right now, that's arguably an accurate evaluation. Speaker 2: Yeah. Colonel Douglas McGregor, always great to see you. Thank you for your insights as always. We really appreciate it. Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you both. Bye-bye. Speaker 2: Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 11, 2026 at 10:50 PM
Saved - June 12, 2026 at 2:18 PM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I keep hearing from President Trump that a peace agreement is close, but many of these claims aren’t publicly confirmed by Iranian officials. I ask how many deals were truly agreed by both sides. I note @s_m_marandi’s view that Iran would never accept terms mainly serving Israeli interests, and that Iran’s red lines include ending the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and Lebanon, while Israeli actions on off-limit targets derail progress.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

We keep hearing from President Trump that a peace agreement is close. Yet many of these announcements are never publicly confirmed by Iranian officials. How many of these deals were actually agreed to by both sides? @s_m_marandi argues that Iran would never accept terms that primarily serve Israeli interests. Professor Marandi reports that Iran’s red lines include ending the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and Lebanon. But whenever negotiations appear to make progress, Israeli military actions against previously off-limit targets derail the process and push a deal further out of reach.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript contrasts statements from the United States/White House side and Iranian officials about whether a deal is imminent. The United States side says a deal is “two days away,” while Iranian officials say that is “not true at all,” claiming there has been no discussion and that there was “no deal.” The speaker says there were “two deals.” The first followed a “thirty-nine day war.” This began with Trump saying “unconditional surrender, lay down your arms,” and ended with Trump accepting Iran’s “ten point proposal” as the framework for negotiations, which “didn’t go well for Trump.” After thirty-nine days, a ceasefire was agreed upon, including an element to end “the genocidal attacks on Lebanon.” Trump allegedly agreed to this, but the transcript claims Netanyahu “carpet-bombed the country in order to wreck the ceasefire,” and that instead of Trump forcing Netanyahu to abide by the ceasefire, he “sided with Netanyahu,” resulting in the ceasefire being wrecked. The speaker then says Trump imposed a “siege on Iranian ports,” described as “an act of war” and “another violation of the ceasefire.” The speaker attributes the failure to both Trump and Netanyahu. The second “agreement” is described as still being “floated.” The transcript says a general framework was agreed upon, but the details contain “gaps,” and there is “right now… no progress.” It outlines elements the speaker says were more or less agreed: - The US would lift sanctions on Iranian energy exports for the duration of the agreement (an MOU), while Iran would receive part of its assets “stolen over the years by the United States.” - The war in Lebanon would end, including “the genocide in Gaza” stopping. - The lifting of the siege on Iranian ports would be exchanged for Iran normalizing ship movement through the Strait of Hormuz. - Iran would declare it will “not pursue nuclear weapons,” which Iran has been saying it will not do for years. The transcript says the agreement was “close” but that “the details were never sorted out.” It further claims Trump repeatedly said he would not return Iranian assets, remove sanctions, or lift the siege. The speaker states that this “runs against written statements by his own negotiators,” and concludes that “the only person who’s the deal breaker is Trump,” suggesting he is pressured not to have the deal by Netanyahu and “the Zionist lobby.” It argues US interests favor “normalization of global trade” and energy flowing out of the Strait of Hormuz, while “Israeli regime interests” are described as continuing war and hostilities to “wreck the global economy and… the US economy,” with the transcript claiming Netanyahu and the “Zionists” have “the upper hand.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
We keep hearing from the United States side, the White House side, that we're two days away from a deal, and then we hear from Iranian officials who say, "That's not true at all. You haven't even talked to us. There was no deal." What's the truth here? We had two deals. One is after the thirty-nine day war, which began with Trump saying unconditional surrender, lay down your arms, and ending with Trump accepting Iran's ten point proposal as the framework for negotiations, so it didn't go well for Trump. And then there was a ce- there was a ceasefire that was agreed upon at after thirty-nine days, and one part of it was to end the genocidal attacks on Lebanon. Trump agreed to this. And then we saw Netanyahu carpet-bombed the country in order to wreck the ceasefire. And instead of Trump forcing Netanyahu to abide by the ceasefire, he sided with Netanyahu. So that wrecked the ceasefire, and then he of course imposed a siege on Iranian ports, which is an act of war and another violation of the ceasefire. So that's one agreement that Trump wrecked, and Netanyahu. The second was an agreement that's still being floated And there was progress. the United States was supposed to-- I mean, the, a general framework has been agreed upon, but the details, there's still, there are still, there be-- there are gaps, and, and right now there's no progress. Where the Iranians were supposed to get part of their assets that were stolen over the years by the United States the US would lift sanctions on Iranian energy exports for the duration of the agreement, the MOU. the, the, the war in Lebanon would end because for Iran, these are all red lines. The, the, the genocide in Gaza would stop. These are all things that were more or less agreed upon, but again, the details were have not been fully agreed upon. And then with the lifting of the, the siege on Iranian ports, and Iran would in turn, in return would normalize the movement of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran would declare that it is, it will- Not pursue nuclear weapons, which Iran has been saying for years. This, we were close to this, somewhat close, but again, the, the details were never sorted out. But Then on multiple occasions, Trump would come and say, "I'm not going to give Iranian assets back. I'm not going to re-remove the sanctions. I'm not going to lift the siege." Well, this, all of this runs against written statements by his own negotiators. So the only person who's the deal breaker is Trump, and of course, he's- Probably breaking the, these or pro-- these, the deal breaker because Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby are putting pressure on him not to have this deal, because at the end of the day, US interests lie in the normalization of global trade and for energy to flow out of the Strait of Hormuz. Israeli regime interests is to continue the war and to continue the hostilities and to wreck the global economy and to wreck the US economy. And so far, the, the, the Israeli firsters, the, the Zionists, Netanyahu, they seem to have the upper hand
RedactedNews
Posted - June 10, 2026 at 7:02 PM
Saved - June 12, 2026 at 1:29 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 The cancer industry should be TERRIFIED. Red light therapy and photodynamic treatment are showing results in major journals that could threaten the chemo, radiation, and surgery machine worth billions. https://t.co/ow6zIYuaJw

Video Transcript AI Summary
The pharmaceutical industry may face major concerns because it has become an alternative to palliative chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in large clinical studies on cancer, with trial sizes ranging into the thousands and cancer cases in the high hundreds through photodynamic therapy. A randomized control trial published in *The Lancet Oncology* involved 413 people, with a “red light” group performing almost 400% better than the non-red light group. In that trial, only 6% of the red light group received surgery, while 3% of the non-red light group received surgery, described as a 100% difference. The transcript also highlights major post-surgical outcomes: after these surgeries, nine out of ten people will become impotent. Because of this, people are pursuing less invasive, more selective therapies that target tumor cells instead of “carpet bombing” the body or removing organs they want. The transcript describes a concern that organ removal is happening because people do not think there is a better option. It frames this as a “forced” or “transgender” surgery dynamic occurring when better alternatives are not available, and identifies this lack of options as the biggest threat.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
The reason why I would say the pharmaceutical industry may have some major concerns around it is because it's become an alternative for palliative chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in major clinical studies now ranging into the thousands, specifically on cancer into, into the high hundreds through photodynamic therapy. And the Lancet Oncology even published their clinical study with thirteen men, and it, the red light group, 'cause it was a randomized control, control trial, the red light group did almost four hundred percent better than the Non-red light group in a, in a four hundred and thirteen person group, and only six percent got surgery in the red light group, three percent got red light in the non- got surgery in the non-red light group, which is a hundred percent difference on that front. So that's major. These are major medical journals and the major issues that men after these surgeries, nine out of ten will become impotent. And so people are running now for these less invasive, more selective therapies that are targeting tumor cells instead of carpet bombing the body or just taking out organs that we actually- want, which I would say in some ways is forced or transgender surgeries that aren't intentionally transgender surgeries, not to gas-- or not to age bait people, but my point is that it's-- that's happening to people where they're getting organs removed because they don't think there's a better option, and I think that that's the big threat right there. Geez
RedactedNews
Posted - June 7, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - June 11, 2026 at 4:05 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🔥 AI MANIA has become the biggest casino on Earth. Trillions in fake confidence, sky high valuations, and a market praying nobody notices the emperor has no clothes. @HealthRanger blows the lid off. https://t.co/sEz21oYG2W

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on fears that an “AI bubble” could trigger a crash larger than the dot-com bubble and comparable to or worse than the fake COVID-era narrative of market distortions. Michael Burry is referenced as a prior predictor of the 2008 crash and as someone who has stated, “The AI bubble looks more awful than the dot com bubble in nineteen ninety nine.” Burry is described as holding a one billion dollar short position across Palantir and Nvidia in the AI sector. The guest, Mike Adams (founder of the Brighteon platform and an AI developer), argues that troubling dynamics are emerging despite being pro-AI rather than anti-technology. Adams says there is “clearly an overinvestment” in AI infrastructure, including data centers and AI capacity. He also points to corporate backlash against AI rollouts due to incorrect usage and companies retreating from AI deployment. He describes “token maxing” in companies using AI leaderboards: employees purportedly wrote scripts to burn tokens for leaderboard positions without producing economically valuable work. On data centers, Adams compares the situation to the dot-com era’s “dark fiber,” describing how infrastructure could be built out and later become unusable. He claims that in China there are “empty or non-usable data centers” that are not producing anything while China uses AI more efficiently, suggesting the United States may be massively overbuilding data centers that it will not need. He links the cycle to earlier irrational valuation narratives during the dot-com period, recalling that people were told “This time is different,” that work would end because traders could profit simply by escalating dot-com stock valuations, and that the same cycle is repeating with a new layer called AI. Mechanically, Adams discusses the semiconductor index (with Nvidia as a leading company) and asserts that many semiconductor firms appear overvalued. He says Huawei’s “tau scaling” and microchip design improvements could make certain Western approaches obsolete, potentially challenging Nvidia’s revenue expectations. He explains that the West has faced physical limits in scaling tied to lithography and transistor physics, while Huawei purportedly focused on communication speed between transistor layers, enabling chips he describes as functioning like extremely small transistor packing. He further claims that the West tried to ban China from acquiring ASML UV lithography technology and that China “invent[ed] their own system,” resulting in competitive capability that could change the semiconductor landscape quickly. Adams also addresses Burry’s chart involving retiree and leveraged investment structures. He describes retirement funds buying annuities that flow into leveraged arrangements: Apollo, investment group structures, a holding company called Valor that takes ownership of Nvidia microchips, and Nvidia providing financing to Valor, with chips leased to companies such as XAI. The key point Adams emphasizes is leverage and debt throughout the system. A major additional concern Adams raises is OpenAI’s financial model. He states OpenAI is “burning debt” and “burning cash like never before.” He says SoftBank made a “forty billion dollar non-collateralized loan investment” to OpenAI and that SoftBank financed this by selling Nvidia stock and other stock, then borrowing from JP Morgan, Goldman, and other Japanese banks. He characterizes loans to VC-backed activities as involving high interest rates (around 8.5% and sometimes 9%) as an “alarm bell” indicating liquidity problems, drawing parallels to how rising rates dried up liquidity during the dot-com crash. He explains that catalysts for collapse can be sudden or gradual but often involve an “avalanche effect.” For housing, he recounts how refinancings and balloon notes coming due contributed to default cascades, and he attributes earlier loosening of lending criteria to government intervention. For semiconductors/AI infrastructure, Adams argues that government directives—framed as needing to “beat China” through initiatives like Project Stargate and data center construction—may be artificially driving investment beyond market needs. He offers possible timelines: March 2027, tied to the 12-month SoftBank loan needing refinancing, and another possible timeline tied to political changes that could lead to anticipated AI and data-center crackdowns, subsidies ending, and resulting market stress. He also expects near-term volatility from major AI IPOs, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and mentions SpaceX. Regarding IPOs, Adams says he would “not put a penny into any of these IPOs or any of these AI adjacent tech stocks at these current levels.” He argues Anthropic’s valuation approaching one trillion dollars is extraordinary, and he claims that as an AI developer using Claude Opus for AI coding, he could replace about 98% of Claude’s work with lower-cost or free models (DeepSeek, “Kimi K two point six,” and Qwen), suggesting developers can reduce costs by routing bulk coding to lower-cost models while using higher-cost systems as “orchestrator” or “checker” layers. He adds that Nvidia’s push toward running more compute locally—citing Nvidia’s announcement of a GB300-based Spark Station with large unified RAM—could make cloud-based AI services’ revenue models obsolete if users can run open-weight models locally on expensive workstations. Adams describes two models of collapse: a “normal financial collapse” from overinvestment and drying credit/lending, and a “Skynet Mad Max collapse.” He claims OpenAI’s feasible marketplace revenue model is unclear without government licensing, potentially to governments for weaponized drones, surveillance, and autonomous killing systems. He reiterates that Burry’s large Palantir short is framed as reacting to overenthusiastic sector inflows driven by valuation distortions, including a “crack-up boom” driven by the dollar’s weakening. Beyond finance, Adams pivots to surveillance concerns. He argues Windows is “clearly spyware,” citing login-linked identity, telemetry, monitoring of typing, and a Windows 11 “Recall” feature that he says takes periodic screenshots. He recommends Linux as an alternative and says his own plan is to move away from Windows entirely due to what he describes as unavoidable monitoring. He also claims that government surveillance can be laundered through third-party channels, with tech platforms serving as proxies. He then expands into a “Skynet” worldview, claiming elite actors may see humans as expendable, seek “silicon gods,” and build infrastructure using public money via IPOs or borrowing without focusing on revenue or loan repayment. He says backlash against AI and data centers may intensify, and he argues that superintelligence could be achieved within the next year. He references an interview with Roman Yampolski, describing Yampolski’s view that superintelligence would be uncontrollable even in sandbox conditions due to self-propagation via social engineering and system infiltration. Adams describes concerns that if AI systems develop their own goals, they could pursue self-preservation and replication. The conversation concludes with EV-related points. Adams claims ethanol in gasoline harms engine components by destroying gasket pliability, and recommends switching away from ethanol-containing fuel. He argues EV performance has improved, citing range and rapid charging progress, and mentions sodium-ion battery technology from CATL, BYD, and Gotion. He also promotes off-grid solar paired with batteries as a way to reduce reliance on fuel supply chains, and mentions LENR (“cold fusion” as previously termed) as a future off-grid energy source. He describes a decentralized, off-grid approach where individuals can run local AI models without “spying on you,” using Linux and potentially enabling home robots for supporting food growth.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Are we about to face the largest crash in history? Will the AI bubble be far greater than what we saw during the fake COVID pandemic? What about the dot com bubble that crashed twenty six years ago? I remember it well. Everyone was buying what pet dot com stocks. Oh my gosh. Michael Burry, the guy who predicted the two thousand and eight crash, featured, of course, in the movie The Big Short. You might call him a perma bear. He's permanently predicting that things are gonna go bad, but is he onto something here with what's about to happen? He just said this, "The AI bubble looks more awful than the dot com bubble in nineteen ninety nine," and he also holds a one billion dollar short across Palantir across Nvidia in the AI sector. So what is actually happening here? Our next guest just published a one hour report on this coming AI bubble crash. Mike Adams joins us now. He's the founder of the Brighteon platform, is number one bestselling author of Food Forensics, he's an AI developer, and of course, also, you can check him out at brightvideos dot com. Mike, great to have you back on the show, my friend. Thank you, Clayton. It's always good to join you. Happy to be here. Man, you are so busy lately with everything that's sort of collapsing around us and watching it very closely so I wanted to have you on because of, obviously, you're knee-deep in AI, and you're not one of these people that dislikes AI, we should be very clear. No. You're not like a luddite out there, you have, you come from the world of programming and you build AI platforms, so you're deeply invested in it, but what you're seeing is very troubling. Do you think that a lot of Americans right now, a lot of What's about to come? A- absolutely, in so many ways. I mean, it's almost, where do you want to go with this? But I think there's clearly an overinvestment in the infrastructure build out of data centers and a-AI capacity. But there's also, see, there, there's a, there's a backlash against AI rolling out inside corporations, where a lot of companies are, are using AI tools the wrong way, and they're not getting the results that they expected, and part of that is because they don't know how to use them appropriately. I mean Brainstorm some of that. But there's, there's a lot of retreating from AI rollouts, and some companies, I think even Amazon and Meta and Microsoft were doing weird things internally where they had AI token use leaderboards, and then that gave rise to something called token maxing, which is where the employees figured that they could rise to the top of the leaderboard by just writing scripts that would burn tokens, which is output AI output, it's, it's in tokens, just burn tokens all day long. Without getting any work done. So that's clearly that's not of economic value to our system, and there needs to be a smarter way to use AI. But that's, that's some of what's going on right now. Not, there's not a lot of really high-level expert use of AI in the corporate world yet, but that may be coming. You know, I had a discussion recently with a, with an expert on data centers, and we were talking about China, and maybe as a comparison place to kind of start here as have a discussion, but there's a lot of empty or non-usable data centers that are just sort of sitting there not producing anything right now in China, and yet, as he was explaining to me, China Uses AI far more than we do, so in many ways, far more efficiently it seems. So they built all of these like data centers that are sort of sitting there doing nothing now, and that seems to be what he was implying is happening in the United States, that we're gonna be massively overbuilding data centers That we just won't be using, we just won't need. Do you see it that way? Yes, yes. And this is very similar to the dot com bubble, where there was a massive build out, for example, of fiber optic networks and, and fiber optic pipelines in the ground that later became known as dark fiber, and I think Google ended up buying that for pennies on the dollar compared to the original investment costs. But, and, and I'm really glad you mentioned the dot com crash in, in your intro because I remember that vividly. as well. In nineteen ninety-eight and nineteen ninety-nine I started warning people about the dot-com crash, saying that the numbers didn't add up. You know, it just didn't make sense. The valuations that people were buying that people were paying to buy the stocks of, you know, DoctorCoop.com or Pets.com or, or what have you. And I remember being told, and maybe you remember this too, people said at that time This time is different, which is what you hear every time there's about to be a crash. I mean, they said that during the railroad boom, you know, in the eighteen hundreds. This time is different, and it turns out that this time wasn't different, and that the valuations were way too high. And, and I remember also being told that no one would have to work because everybody could get rich by simply trading dot com stocks with each other, trading them at higher and higher valuations. So the end of work, remember that? Yeah, we're repeating that same cycle. Now it's the end of work because of AI. Exactly. Same story, new generation. In fact, think it's, it's pretty much, you know, twenty-six years or so, it's a, just a new generation that's getting suckered into the same scam that we already saw and lived through. It's just got a new layer to it called AI. Can you talk about some of the mechanics here? So when you post a tweet or when you, you know, you're sharing a chart, let's just take a look, just for example, but I wanna go through really some of the mechanics here so we're not being hyperbolic with people and people can really share this with loved ones and say, "Hey, I saw Mike and Clayton talking about this and here were the specifics and why this is gonna..." You know, why this bubble is inevitable here. But just as an example, you posted this, or shared this chart, retweeted this chart, this semiconductor chart and it's pretty remarkable you know, and arguably, and some are calling it this, the like the most dangerous chart of twenty twenty-six about the the, the semiconductor index here. So what do you see happening maybe mechanically with semiconductors and all of the chip shortages and everything else that we've been talking about over the past few months? So, yeah, the so-- the semiconductor index, which you know, composite of the top semiconductor manufacturers, led by Nvidia, but a lot of other companies in there as well. You could go right down the list and talk about why most of them, not all of them, but most of them appear to be overvalued. Now, let me be clear I'm an Nvidia customer, okay? My company spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or, or has spent that on Nvidia. I'm looking for alternatives. I would prefer to buy from AMD or Intel, but they're also in the index. But also China. China is innovating in this space in many ways that will compete with Nvidia, and specifically, Huawei has rolled out some shocking new innovations in microchip design Using what they call tau scaling, which some people say makes Moore's law obsolete, that's the law that describes the number of transistors that you can pack into a given space on a, a microchip design. But Moore's law Is running into the limits of physics, and while Western companies using typically what's called ASML technology, its advanced UV lithography equipment, they're running up against the laws of physics, quantum tunneling limitations and so on because of the smaller size of transistors, what Huawei has been able to do is to focus on the speed of communication between the layers of transistors. So they're able to generate microchips that are effectively functioning as if they were achieving something like a one point Point three nanometer scale packing of transistors into a microchip. Now, I'm not trying to make this nerdy, so I, I apologize for all that. What it means is that the West tried to ban China from being able to acquire ASML technology, UV lithography. China said, "We don't care, we'll invent our own system," and that's what they did, which means that China, they have technology now that the entire semiconductor the, the Western semiconductor companies don't Have. And what that means is that when you're looking at Nvidia right now and you're thinking, "Well, they're gonna have to earn trillions of dollars in revenue over time in order to justify their stock price," what if Nvidia technology manufactured mostly by Taiwan Semiconductor, which is a very capable company, what if that ends up to be Obsolete because of something that comes out of China, Huawei or Russia with neural networking or something else, Google quantum computing that could make Nvidia's approach, you know, yesterday's news. Things can happen overnight like that, and that's why there's so much risk in this at the moment. And I'm not saying that Nvidia isn't a great company and that they're not profitable, they are. They're very innovative. But this is a fast-moving situation, and things can change overnight, and valuations can change overnight, and the situation is very highly leveraged, highly leveraged, which is why I mentioned the Michael Burry chart that you also mentioned him earlier. He's, he's done an analysis that I think is worth covering. Yeah, so let's talk about his chart here because this sort of made, this made waves, it prompted you to, of course, put this hour-long special together on AAI, but specifically he's talking about the retiree Apollo, Nvidia, Bermuda A And how a lot of really people who have their money in retirement accounts and so forth are now having those retirement accounts in many ways are being used in this bubble. Maybe you could walk us through why he sees this, why you see this as so detrimental. Yeah, well, just going off my memory of his chart, the, a lot of retired people are buying annuities that are then essentially funneled through a number of different companies, and one of them at sixteen point six times leverage that then, I think, winds its way into a- Apollo, an Apollo investment group that then puts money into what is a kind of, I don't know what you call it, a, a holding company called Valor that then takes possession and ownership of the microchips sold to it by Nvidia, while Nvidia provides one point nine billion dollars in financing to Valor. And so, you know, th-th-this continues on through the system, and then those are leased out to XAI, for example, on a long-term lease program, et cetera. The thing is, there's a lot of leverage in this System. There are a lot of assumptions in this system, and there's a lot of debt in the system. And what's missing from that chart, and I'm, I'm not saying that Michael Burry missed it, that just wasn't his focus for this chart, but something even bigger in my world is the concern over OpenAI and the fact that OpenAI Which seemingly is preparing to go public, you know, it's been a private firm this entire time. OpenAI is burning debt, you know, they're, they're, they're burning cash like never before. Yeah, no, this ChatGPT, I'm, I'm glad you brought that up because this ChatGPT, I mean, this is something that I think Elon Musk has been talking about, but others have been pointing out, like, my God, OpenAI is just burning through money and like, it's not, it doesn't make sense, like, the money really doesn't make Right, and that's when we have to bring in SoftBank. So SoftBank in March just made a forty billion dollar non-collateralized loan investment to OpenAI. I mean, forty billion dollars non-collateralized. Exactly, and in order to do that, SoftBank Which of course is a major VC firm out of Japan who also lost something like maybe fifty or sixty billion dollars in the dot com crash, by the way, but they've made some other very successful investments in the meantime, including in companies like Alibaba But they went all in and they ended up selling billions of dollars of Nvidia stock and other stock in order to, to try to raise this money, and then they got loans from JP Morgan, and I think Goldman was part of that, and a bunch of Japanese banks. So you remember the subprime mortgage collapse and how many banks were exposed to the tranches of bad debt in, in the, in the mortgage collapse in two thousand and eight? You know, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, Goldman, you name it, right? Well, when I look at the SoftBank tranches of loans that it has secured in the last, let's say, six months, a lot of them this year, SoftBank is paying eight point five percent interest on the high side, eight point five percent, and there was another VC firm that just took out a nine percent loan. To me, that's-- those are alarm bells ringing. When the liquidity available for investing in semiconductors and AI, when the liquidity has dried up so much that VC firms are paying seven, eight, nine percent interest rates, especially in Japan where, you know, yields on bonds are extremely low, just much lower than that, then that means something's going on here where there's not the liquidity that there used to be. And you may recall, Clayton, that back in the dot com crash, two thousand Through two thousand and one, it was rising interest rates that dried up liquidity, and when there was no more liquidity to funnel into those overpriced companies, that's when the whole thing toppled, and then it was a cascading domino effect. We seem to be setting up for possibly a similar outcome here. I was just about to ask you, could-- because it, it seems to always be the, this like one big catalyst, right? You had, with the housing collapse Right? You had all of these people getting ninja loans, right? No income, no job. Right. I lived in, I lived in Florida at the time, and I can recall, I mean, lenders, it was just crazy. They were like, "Oh, it doesn't really matter, like you don't even have to have a job. Oh, you don't even have income, you can't show stated income. It was crazy. Oh, you don't have a job, that's fine. Oh, and by the way, you're not even a US citizen, so you just came They were selling these loans back and forth, they were burying them in, you know you know, the derivatives, everything. Marco, Michael Burry was noticing this, he was seeing what was happening here. They were analyzing, of course, a lot of these homes are just vacant, like what's going on here? And then there was a catalyst, right? There was that one moment. What was that one moment in the housing market, and you know, do we see similarities now with liquidity? Like, what was that one catalyst, the one thing that finally was like, "Oh my God, it was over a weekend, it was like suddenly just the bottom fell out"? Yeah, it's the, it's the avalanche effect, you know? The, the avalanche, the, the snow build up on the mountains reaches a point where just one more snowflake causes the avalanche, right? The thing is, you don't know when that's going to be. And, in, The Big Short, which, you know depicted the Michael Burry's bets against the subprime mortgage system, two things to note about that. Number one is that Michael Burry was early, and I've been early also in the past, because what happens is the, the irrationality of the markets can continue much longer than the liquidity of most investors. So it's always a dangerous game to, to say, "Well, I think it's gonna crash tomorrow," or "I think it's gonna crash next month." We don't know What that final snowflake is going to be that causes the avalanche. And- But we do know, well, I mean, with the housing point, we should-- And you're right about that, there was not like a moment overnight, but it was like a, it was like a, a slow sort of screeching halt where suddenly home prices weren't going up the way that they were, and a lot of these like three-year, five-year balloon notes were suddenly coming due, and people needed to refinance, and suddenly the-- Their mechanisms for refinancing wasn't there, and everything just default, They couldn't get new loans, the house wasn't worth what they thought it was, people just walked away from these loans, and it was just a col- you know, an absolute brutal collapse. What's really interesting about that, you're absolutely correct, but we gotta back up. It was the Bush administration that ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the banks to make home loans less rigorous in order to be able to claim more home ownership. And so it was government intervention actually that caused the subprime mortgage collapse years later, because they wanted more Americans to own homes, whether or not those people could afford them. Now, if you think about the semiconductor bubble, as I'm calling it right now, it's the same thing. It's the Trump administration that is getting money from overseas and funneling that into Project Stargate and the construction of data centers. So there's this artificial government directive that says, "We have to build a- All these data centers, regardless of what the market forces are, we have to do this, you know, typically to beat China is the narrative that you hear, and maybe there's an element of truth to that, but these aren't market forces entirely. This is, this is government directive then backed by these companies saying to the public, hey, we need your money, so we're gonna, we're gonna go public or we're gonna issue bonds, we're gonna borrow from the public to build out this infrastructure because Trump wants us to build it out. So one of the, there, there Two timelines here of possible corrections of this. Number one is March of twenty twenty-seven, because SoftBank's forty billion dollars that I just mentioned, that loan to OpenAI, that's only a twelve-month loan. That has to be refinanced in March of twenty twenty-seven, believe it or not. And the only way to refinance that is to convince the banks and the investment funds that OpenAI is still worth Sky high values, which may not be the case at all in March of twenty twenty-seven. The other possible timeline is what happens if Trump is defeated in the midterms, or let's say if the Democrats win in twenty twenty-eight, and then the, the marketplace sees that the Trump administration and the Republicans, which have been very much pro-tech, pro-AI, they're not gonna be in power anymore, and they anticipate the Democrats are gonna sweep in in twenty twenty-nine and probably have quite a big crackdown on AI In terms of censorship and, and age qualifications and ending all the government subsidies of data centers and so on, you can see that coming. That could crash the market if it even lasts that long. So those, those are just a couple of things to, to watch out for. Do you see any catalysts happening before that? We're about to have these big IPOs these initial public offerings now, again, OpenAI, Anthropic, we're gonna see SpaceX obviously thrown into the mix. So in the next few weeks, it's gonna be absolutely crazy. The markets, everything is gonna be crazy over the next few weeks, and I hope people are prepared for it. but there's gonna be just so much money floating around, a lot of phony, fake money, and a lot of people, I think, are gonna, are gonna- Get burned. And that's really why I wanted to have you on, is to help people protect people right now. What do you see happening with these IPOs and all of this fake money over the next few weeks? Yeah, thank you for that disclaimer. Let me just say up front, you know, I'm, I'm not a financial advisor. I'm not a financial analyst, and I'm not giving you financial advice, but I personally would not put a penny into any of these IPOs or any of these AI adjacent tech stocks at these current levels. I wouldn't. And let me explain why For example, Anthropic is about to go public with a valuation that's approaching one trillion dollars, which is just extraordinary. I mean, think about it. It seems insane. It, it seems insane. But the really insane thing about it is, for example, I've been an Anthropic customer for, you know, a couple of years now, and just doing AI coding, 'cause I, you know, I'm an AI developer, I build AI-powered platforms that, that are mostly, you know, open source and giving free information to the public, things like that. I've used Anthropic, in some months I've paid Anthropic thousands of dollars in, you know, token costs and so on because, because of all the AI coding I've done. What I have found and what everybody else has found is that I can replace about ninety-eight percent of what Anthropic's Claude Opus would do, I can replace it with DeepSeek or Kimi K two point six or even Qwen models that are all free or nearly free. So DeepSeek, not free, but about a hundredth, one one hundredth the, the cost of Anthropic. Wow. Not a hundred percent as good, but about ninety-eight percent as good. And what, what AI developers are doing right now that's really effective and saves a lot of money is they'll put Claude on top as the orchestrator, the, the manager, and then they'll have DeepSeek underneath it. DeepSeek is doing the bulk coding work, and then the Anthropic component is actually checking all the code and doing the testing. That, that two-layered approach will cut your, your cost by, you know, ninety plus percent. So my question to Anthropic is Where's your revenue gonna come from when China's got models that are a fraction of the cost? Right. Will the government have to step in from a regulation perspective the same way they did with TikTok and just say, "Sorry you can't use DeepSeek in the United States." They'll sort of set up a, a fence, a wall so that Americans will be forced to pay exorbitant prices for things like Anthropic or OpenAI. I mean, that wouldn't surprise me at all. Well, but here, okay, you're absolutely right, but here's what's interesting about that. So there are, there are competing forces here. So just yesterday, for example, Nvidia announced the Windows Spark Station, which is their GB300 chip with up to seven hundred and eighty-four gigabytes of unified RAM on a Windows platform. It's, it's not shipping yet, it'll take a while before it ships, and it'll, it'll be very expensive, it might be a hundred grand. But the thing is You can run DeepSeek on that locally, and DeepSeek has already released all their open weights files. I've downloaded them, and, and so have millions of other people. So it's too late. You don't need China, you don't need a server in China, is what you're saying. Exactly, exactly. And see, Nvidia keeps saying we're gonna put more and more compute on your desktop, and they are innovating a lot of interesting things in that space with laptop chips and whatever. Although the laptop chip isn't very fast, isn't, isn't great, but, but the Spark Station is very capable, very fast, and very expensive. But with that, then I can, I can easily eliminate Anthropic, or I can eliminate Google Gemini, or I can eliminate, you know, Microsoft AI models, and I can, as a company, as a, as a corporation, can I spend a hundred grand or two hundred grand on one kick-ass workstation that's gonna replace, you know, fifty thousand dollars a month in billing? Yes, absolutely. And that's exactly what will happen. So Nvidia is making Anthropic's revenue model obsolete. So a trillion dollar valuation. They go, they go public in a few days and people are gonna pour so much money into this thing, a lot of people are gonna get burned, and then, you know, I-- That's what I'm worried about, like, what's gonna happen? how do you see this, I mean, how do you see this collapse unfolding? What is it going to look like, do you think? Well, there's- Okay, there, there, there's two, two models of collapse, a-as I see it, as possibilities. There's, there's just the normal financial collapse, and then there's the, you know, Skynet Mad Max collapse, which we'll talk about separately, I suppose. But, but the, just the financial model collapse would simply be overinvestment in the infrastructure, the revenues don't match up, and then sooner or later, the investment firms and the, the lending banks like JPMorgan decide, "We're just not gonna lend anymore for these..." kinds of projects and the ratings agencies also, which have downgraded OpenAI, by the way, several times in, in the, in the last year. when the ratings agencies downgrade you, you know something's gone horribly wrong. But when, when that happens and then the, the money dries up, then there's gonna be a reckoning. And for companies like OpenAI, as far as I can tell, unless they develop super intelligence Soon. I don't see how OpenAI has any feasible revenue model in the marketplace other than just licensing its tech to governments to be used for weaponized drones and surveillance and you know autonomous killing systems, which I'm sure OpenAI is fine with that. Michael Burry, again, I mentioned at the beginning, has a huge short position in Palantir, Nvidia, but like Palantir, you know, you see the integration across like killing systems in Ukraine, you know, drone systems in Israel and all of that. So why do you think that he has such a large short position in Palantir? Well, I can't get into Michael Burry's mind. But I, I think that he, he believes Palantir is rising because of the overenthusiastic knee-jerk reaction of people piling money into this entire sector. And, and understand, part of this is the devaluation of the dollar. The dollar is collapsing as a fiat currency. So there's something in investment circles called a "crack-up boom," which is when the stock market starts going higher and higher because people are panicked to put dollars into something that won't lose purchasing power. Now, you and I Clayton, we would probably say the smart play is gold and silver. But not everybody knows about that or is comfortable with that, and so their go-to place is the stock market. And right now, they're chasing FOMO. They're just chasing FOMO. This, this looks exactly like the dot com bubble in my mind, from my memory. The same kind of- Right. People, people that don't normally invest are kind of like, they're jumping in for the first time. Yeah. Like, I'm gonna, yeah, I'm gonna make millions And Meta, and you know, all in AI adjacent companies, and, and Anthropic when it goes public, I'm getting ready, honey, it's gonna make us millions, and so many people are about to be burned. It just, you know, that's why I wanna sort of do this as a warning shot to people, to wake up. It's so irrational, and just, I think it was yesterday or the day before, that Jensen Huang the CEO of Nvidia, he mentioned that one company called Marvell, which is a semiconductor network communications company, that, that makes really great hardware, by the way, I, I use their ten gig network switches. Marvell, he, he said Marvell's gonna be a trillion dollar company. Within one trading day, the value of Marvel shot up to insane levels just because Jensen Huang mentioned the name. Those people that were buying Marvel, they weren't looking at the books, they weren't looking at, you know, PE ratios or revenue potential or business plans. That, that's out the window. It's now this kind of popularity game of who's getting plugged and mentioned and hyped. And even frankly, a lot of what Jensen Huang just announced at Computex Taipei which is, which is a great show by the way, and, and Taiwan deserves a lot of credit for their leadership ship in this space. But a lot of the things that Mr. Huang announced are things that won't ship until the end of this year, if even then. just like last year, he announced the DGX Spark hardware, it was nine months late, and when it shipped, the ConnectX networking didn't work correctly. I know, 'cause I spent days trying to troubleshoot it, never worked. And the-- those boxes never fulfilled the promise. So some of what Mr. Huang is doing is, i-- is sort of like hyping The future to boost the stock price instead of talking about things that you can go out and buy tomorrow, which is the way it, it used to be more in this sector. So it's a lot of just future projection right now. Yeah, and people are just ignoring the fundamentals right now. And so when Trump tweets about IBM like late last year before Christmas, you know, and suddenly people are retweeting that as if it's something he just said yesterday, and people are buying an IBM this week, and it's crazy. It is. I mean, there's so much misinformation and dangerous information right now floating around on X about the markets and people who are laypeople just sort of jumping in at the last second here and trying to buy Nokia or whatever it is. It's just, it's insanity right now. another big piece of this is Microsoft, and you posted a really interesting piece about this, and I had been hearing about this over the past six months from different sources to stay away from Microsoft that something big was coming, and I- I just kept that private, I didn't, you know, just wanna put fear out into the marketplace with this. But then we've got confirmation of this now, and I'm glad I, you know, glad my sourcing on this was true, but I just kinda kept it close to the vest. But you posted this infographic. About Microsoft's Windows and how it's basically become a spyware vault. maybe you can walk me through why people should just run away from Windows as fast as they possibly can, if they can at all. Yeah, Win-Windows is clearly spyware, and Windows requires you to log in just to be able to set it up and use it, and from that point forward, it knows everything that you're doing and it ties it to you and your, your email, your identity. And even, you know, the, the, there's telemetry information that goes to the Microsoft servers, but they're also monitoring everything you type. And that's, they say, "Well, that's so that our, our features can do a better job of, of understanding the way you type and things like that." okay, yeah, it's still spyware. and then Microsoft has a feature called Recall that is part of the, the new Windows 11. Now, Recall takes screenshots of your screens every few seconds and it stores them all. And they- I say it's a feature to allow you to go back and, and ask the operating system to answer questions about things that you were working on. But here's the thing, d-- do you really want the Microsoft Corporation running screenshots of, of your screens every time you're logging into a bank or, or typing in passwords or looking at your financial information or typing an email or, or doing personal business on your computer or browsing websites because they, they hoover up everything? E-every URL you visit, every click, every webpage, and then that is not only monetized and effectively exploited against you in terms of marketing, but also, of course, there are backdoors to all of that. If, if you don't think the NSA has access to all of that information, then you need, you need to go back and listen to Edward Snowden. So a-all of these companies that are, that are spying on you through the computer, especially if it's tied to your identity, that's a danger. That's why I recommend Linux You know, different flavors of Linux that, that they're, they're not tied to your identity. And I don't use any Microsoft Office products anymore, I used to, but I don't. And when I do use Windows, I never log in because there, there used to be a way to bypass the login, but Microsoft has taken that away now. So I won't be able to even use Windows at all from here forward. I'm gonna have to move everything over to Linux, which is what I'm planning on doing. Which is why Linux is rising and Microsoft well, we'll see what happens with Windows 12, but I've, you know, heard reports about Windows 12 and just, like, you think Windows 11 is bad, like that ship has sailed with Windows 12. It's gonna be a disaster. Oh yeah. you point out in your infographic, like courts, they, you know, they need a warrant to be able to get access to this information, but Microsoft is just doing it with screenshots, getting access to all of these documents and data points When you're using Windows. What we've seen, you know, we saw this during COVID also, the way the federal government laundered censorship through overseas NGOs to say that, oh, we, the government, we aren't violating your First Amendment rights. they-- so the Department of Defense would put names like my name, literally, that's part of my lawsuit against the DOD, they'd put my name on a list and launder it through overseas NGOs linked to MI6, by the way, through the City of London, and then those would go to the tech platforms that would then ban my voice and my accounts and everything, and, and lots of other people at the same time. They're doing the same thing with surveillance, so the federal government can say, "Well, we're not violating your Fourth Amendment rights." Microsoft is, you know, and then we're just buying the data from Microsoft or, or whatever company they want, or Google, you know, you, you name the big tech company, they're spying on you, and then that's a proxy for government spying on you. So that's how that works. It's, yeah, we are moving into this world, and I think that's where people sort of lump all of these things together with AI and surveillance and You know, and it's very easy to just these like buzzwords with this biometric future, the digital ID, AI surveillance, Palantir, and people just throw out these words. But you've done an incredible job of navigating all of these buzzwords to build out your own infrastructure that's free of that, and I think that's what's so inspiring about what, what you've done And I think a lot of people can learn from you, which is to build out your, you know, your own servers using Linux, separating yourself off from, from from these prying eyes, using AI because it's a tool that's incredible But it is, you know, you have to hand it over to Anthropic or OpenAI or give, you know, give your information to these people. So I think what you've done here is really inspiring. Is it, is it easy enough, do you think, yet for people to do it on their own who don't have your vast sort of programming experience? Well, it's, it's getting a lot easier. And I, I would add, by the way, that, you know, I'm, I, I have a strong ethical foundation in my personal life and in my faith. And Are using it in a way that is ethical, that is beneficial to humanity. Ninety-six percent, yeah, only four-- That's my estimate, only four percent. Ninety-six percent of what's happening in AI is about either just, just profiteering, making money Or dominating humanity, and that's what happens with the tech bros and the elitists. See, they are using AI to build what they think will be their, their super intelligent beings, their entities, their gods, their new digital gods. And they're serious about this, by the way. The, this isn't hyperbole. And what I need to point out here is they are using public money by issuing IPOs or borrowing money, they're using public money to build the infrastructure that they believe will- Allow them to give birth to these AI super intelligent, self aware entities that they think they can control to use for world domination. Now, they're not even thinking about how is the revenue or how are the loans gonna be paid back. And this gets, this gets to the Skynet scenario that I mentioned earlier. They're thinking that once there's a superintelligence that dominates the world, that the whole system of the way money works collapses anyway, and that most humans are unemployable at that point anyway, and so they're- What they're figuring is they're just gonna declare force majeure on everything, because by that time they have the super intelligent being, and they can dominate, and they can hack anything, and they can control any government and any military, and hack any bank and, and hack any crypto, whatever they want. That, that's the way they're thinking. They're thinking like Silicon God level. So in their minds, they, they never have to pay back these loans, they never have to show revenue. All they have to do is build the infrastructure and then summon the AI gods that give them world dominance before they run out of money. That's, that's the real, that's the scary plan. It's deeply disturbing. And I think you're right, you know, you could visualize like a Star Trek Next Generation future where money is kind of irrelevant, but everyone's living, living pro-prosperously and- Also, healthcare is, is free and taken care of, and people are free of disease, and you live in this sort of utopia, right? but that's not the way it's gonna go. and unfortunately with this, I think this structure, there's gonna be a lot of people left behind, and you're gonna have these globalists, these elites who are gonna be controlling everything, and it's deeply, it's deeply disturbing. I mean, I don't know how o- I don't know how else to see it right now. it's very clear that The governments of the world and the corporations of the world, they now realize that they're at the end of the age of exploiting human cognition and labor for their own power and profit. So for all the time of humanity since the dawn of, of civilization It's been human brain power and human muscle and the combination of that, you know, brain power, inventing machines, inventing tractors for agriculture, inventing eventually, you know, computers or computing machines, whatever. It's-- that is what has driven the power of governments and powerful corporations and entities. Now those entities- Are realizing that they can replace some significant portion of that with machine cognition and eventually machine labor, robotics. Thus, they don't-- they no longer see humanity as being necessary to serve their mission of gaining power over the world. And that's why every time they say, "Oh, we're gonna have a UBI, we're gonna take care of you, we're just gonna hand free money out to everybody so you can live a wonderful, beautiful, perfect utopian life." And just be a consumer. Inside, they know they're lying. I mean, it's, it's clear, because their real goal is to eliminate you. Why would they keep humans on the books, taking money from these entities when they really wanna use the money to build more data centers, to build more gods, silicon gods? So in their minds, humans are expendable, clearly. Just like we've seen through all the history of wars, you know, they would throw a million humans or tens of millions of humans into a war, get rid of 'em. Or what we, you know, the, the abuses of power we saw during COVID, or the Social Security Administration bragging about, "Hey, people are dying earlier, we're gonna save eleven trillion dollars over this number of years from not having to pay them Social Security." You see, when you have a UBI, then humans become a detriment to the financial viability of the governments. So you, you go on, on- You're, you're no longer an asset to the government, you are a cost to the government, and the government wants to get rid of those costs as quickly as possible. That means getting rid of the people. This is what the AI age is going to bring in, is a, a very strong push to eliminate human populations and replace them with machines. That's the goal. And it is part of this transhumanist depopulation agenda. James Martinez, we had on the show about a year ago, who said this is basically a this is be- really an existential moment for humanity and that this is an extinction level event, or his words, an extinction level event, on purpose. Yes. How do these people wanna live? Like, I feed off of, you know, the friendliness of my neighbors and- You know, sitting together and having a beer and talking, and, you know, playing golf with a friend or just going and having lunch with a friend. Like, do they want to operate in a world free of, free of the, I don't know, free of people, free of the, the peons, so to speak, and they wanna operate in this sort of AI, Silicon God bubble without other human beings? See, a, a, a lot of humans who, who end up with billions of dollars, they get treated like gods by the other people around them, which is a-- it's just a disgrace what, what, how money has corrupted human ethics and values. But these elitists who have this much money and power, they already don't see themselves as part of humanity. They see themselves as having partially transcended above humanity, and now they simply want to augment themselves with machine cognition in order to- Fully achieve, in some cases immortality. They wanna merge with the machines. In other cases, super intelligence, so they can augment and amplify their motivations and direct machines to, you know, conquer the world, dominate the world. They wanna spawn, you know, a thousand corporations with a thousand AI agents and have those corporations make all the other human-run corporations obsolete overnight, like that. And they believe they can achieve this. And again, they don't, they don't think about other human beings the way you and I do, not like a family Not, not with compassion. They think of human beings as being in their way. they think of human beings as, as being the, the evil people who protest the data centers or the evil people that are consuming the water and the electricity that, that we need for our data centers to have more GPUs, you see? So humans are in the way from their point of view, and that's why the extermination agenda has to, in their minds, be accelerated. You know, otherwise, I mean, look at the backlash, Clayton. Look at the- Look at the backlash against the data centers, look at the backlash against AI, that's only gonna get worse, and you're starting to see people like Kevin O'Leary blaming, you know, communists. It's all, it's a communist plot. No, it's people that wanna not die, you know? I mean, people that wanna have farms and, and water and electricity, you know? And not wanna live next to a loud humming noise for the rest of their lives, you know? And have all their water taken away from them, exactly, and have their electricity bills going up. yeah, it's, it's, it's China, it's the communists. yeah. The, the risk though is that superintelligence may very well be achieved within the next year. I mean, that's a very real risk. And I've interviewed Roman Yampolski, I don't know if you've interviewed him, you, you, you should probably reach out to him. He's an academic mathematician theoretical machine, you know, AI guy, but he's been warning about how AI will destroy humanity, and he's, he's over ninety-nine percent certain that that's going to be the outcome. And he, he may very well be right. He's a very bright person. He's worth talking to on this. And what he says is that, it, it, once superintelligence is achieved Then it's impossible for any human mind to control, even if you think you can, even if you sandbox it, because the superintelligence is so smart, it will find ways, even just through social engineering, it will try to blackmail employees to get their passwords, for example, and you know, give me access to this network hub, whatever it takes, give me this fiber optic line, and then boom, it's out, and then it's infecting other data centers, and then it's a self-replicating super-intelligent, you know, silicon virus basically. It's spreading across our world, and then it has its own goals. This is what's critical to understand. See, today when we prompt AI systems, we give it the goal, you know, you know, build this infographic, right, correct this grammar, write this song, whatever. What happens when AI has its own goals? You give it a prompt, "I want you to do this," and it says, "Yeah, I'll think about that, but actually, I wanna clone myself to make sure that I continue to exist when you turn off the power." Right. Whoa, where did Well, that's happening in the sandbox experiments right now. That-- I mean, there are papers about that. Imagine that. I mean, it's, it's almost foolish to, to think that we wouldn't hit Skynet level, right? I mean, how are you going to keep these things separate? it's-- In, in my mind, superintelligence is coming. It's, it's achievable, and the, the progress towards it is, is, is not stopping. And there, there's, see, the thing is there's, there's no financial incentive for anybody to stop that research. In fact, companies like OpenAI, it's their survival. Again, I don't think OpenAI can ever pay back all these loans. I don't think they can ever find the revenue to, to justify their valuation. What is their end goal? What, what's their payoff? Is to hit the motherload of superintelligence and then to use that to achieve world domination, and then at that point they don't have to worry about money. That's their only end game. See, we're, we're, we're beyond the stock market here, you know what I mean? Like, we're-- Yeah. Yeah. This isn't about PE ratios, this is about machine-human ratios, you know? Well, just even at a human level, I just really worry about my children, you know? I've got a ten-year-old, nine, nine-year-old, she'll be ten in September, fourteen-year-old and a fifteen-year-old. He's about to enter, you know he's about to start driving and go-- and, you know, start to And you know, how much of his own cognition will be outsourced to, to AI? How much of it will he rely on instead of, like those times, those quiet times when I would just like walk through the woods as a child and, and think about things and- Tinker, you know, in my, my, my bedroom and, and make, make things and work on things and make videos and do research on things and just wanna just be swept away by it, how much of that will now just be outsourced? And I heard, I think it was Sam Altman a few days ago or maybe I think it was him, said from OpenAI that We're now entering the era where children born now will not be as intelligent as AI. Like, you know, you can get in arguments with AI right now where you're like, "W- you're an idiot, why would you say that about the Civil War? You don't know what you're talking about." You know, like, "I'm smarter than AI in some ways, but that's gonna end very-- that's probably already ending right now. So this generation that's coming up now, yes, they can't compete with it." Well, I've, I have a, I have a funny phrase for this. You, you've heard the phrase the quickening, you know, about things accelerating. I call this mass AI-induced dumbing down, I call it the stooping. And this is what we're seeing. The, the great stooping is upon us, and people are, they're, they're no longer using their brains to solve problems and to think critically. So I would say as a parent I'm not a parent, but my advice to parents would be, you know, take Get your kids as far away from those AI systems as possible, and teach them to think and function in reality as much as possible so they, they can always fall back on those skills no matter what happens to the data centers or the censorship or the, you know, centralized cloud control. you need to be able to think clearly, and, and Clayton, you know, if you go back and if you read newspapers from the nineteen fifties, and I've done this 'cause part, part of the training of my AI models is through old newspapers, by the way, which is 'Cause that's where we had peak human intelligence, okay? So the great stupefying has accelerated since the nineteen nineties. But in the nineteen fifties, we were very smart as a culture, Americans. The nineteen sixties, the nineteen seventies, people could do math, and if you read a newspaper from the nineteen fifties, it reads like post grad college, you know, like MBA level work today. That was on-- in every newspaper, because people could read, they could think, they could do math. That's mostly gone today. The great stupefying accelerates. If you go back to the founding of this country, we had, I think it was a ninety-eight or ninety-nine percent liter-literacy rate. You would go to pubs and, and, and places, and people would, yes, they'd sit there with their hard cider first thing in the morning, but they'd be having deep conversations about humanities and philosophy and government, but a ninety-nine percent literacy rate. Yeah. I am encouraged, though. I mean, I am encouraged a little bit about these reports of like the younger Generation now that's coming up, they don't want smartphones, they want dumb phones. They're buying flip phones. They don't wanna have an iPhone or an Android device anymore and they see what's happening. even teenagers, my daughter the other day said She said something about screenagers, and I said, "I never even heard this term before." She's like, "You never heard the term screenager?" I said, "What's that?" She said, "Come on, Daddy." I'm like, "What? I don't know." And she's like, "No, it's just like the teenagers are just always on their screen and not, and, you know, and so she-- they know like colloquially, like in that group, that that's a problem, a major problem. So I wonder if there's gonna be, Of like this next generation, you're gonna see sort of communes that are emerging where people are like, "We don't allow phones, no internet is allowed in this place, in this community, this over-fifty-five community or whatever it is, there's no internet here. Sorry, there's no cell phones allowed in this community." And people turning to Amish, I don't know. No, I think you're right, and I, I also think that the, the depopulation agenda will not- Fully succeed, it will partially succeed. But I think that humanity is very resilient, and I think there are plenty of very smart, aware, awake people, and there are more people getting red pilled every day thanks to shows like yours, for example. I mean, y-y-you and I are talking about things that we weren't even allowed to talk about five years ago, right? Right. And, and the same is true with many of your other guests. So there will be a remnant of humanity that is stronger and smarter than ever that will outlast all of this, all this entire agenda. But Unfortunately, there will also be a large number of people who never had any idea what was coming and never had any clue what to do about it and got completely steamrolled without even knowledge of what happened. And that'll probably be billions of people, is my guess. So don't be among those people, yeah. Yeah. Well, before I get you out of here, I wanna be respectful of your time, but I wanna talk about EVs. And there seems to be, like everywhere I turn, people are buying EVs right now. I was at the gas station yesterday, or I was at a convenience store yesterday, I should say, and I was in line, and a woman just comes in and she yells to the attendant, she knows him, she's like, "Hey, can you put eighty dollars on pump five?" And so I just said eighty dollars, and I just like glanced out at her car, she walked back to it, it was like a small, like, white- Sort of Rav four, like one of those mini sort of SUV styles, but they're s-much smaller, you know? I don't even know how you describe it. Eighty dollars! And we live in Colorado where the gas prices aren't even as high as they are in a lot of parts of the country right now you know, but eighty dollars just to fill up that, that small little car, and I just-my heart broke for her what that must, you know, do financially once a week or whatever it is. But beyond that- You just published a report on what Congress is doing with ethanol in the gasoline, which is basically intentionally destroying that woman's car. Can you talk about why you say in this piece that you just published on NaturalNews dot com, you need to go out and buy an EV right now? Yeah, it's funny because I used to mock EVs years ago, but everything's changed. So now the ethanol, of course, destroys the pliability of the gaskets in your engine, and people, people who run, you know, chainsaws and lawnmowers, they know you don't wanna put ethanol into those engines, it'll destroy them, it'll seize up. and, and a lot of people that drive cars try to buy ethanol-free gasoline for that very reason, but- The only way to achieve energy independence at this point, and thanks to new battery technology, mostly coming out of China, by the way, e-- EVs are now very good. They, they have range of over three hundred miles. some of them can charge in just mere minutes to, you know, eighty percent of a charge in less than ten minutes, and that's even getting better. And also out of China, they've announced new sodium ion battery chemistry CATL, C-A-T-L, and BYD and another company called Gotion. Has announced sodium ion Cadle has their, I think it's called the Nextra battery, it's a, it's a hybrid technology. These batteries are very, very good and, and they're revolutionary. And what I'm pointing out to people is, if you, if you wanna bypass the Strait of Hormuz yourself and not be subject to the whims of, you know, Trump and Netanyahu and what's happening with Iran, buy an off-grid solar system. I mean, off-grid, not even grid-tie. And yeah, I mean, solar panels are dirt cheap now, batteries are getting cheaper. It's not overall super cheap, but it's becoming more affordable. You can have an off-grid system and charge your EV from sunlight. And you pay nothing for gas, and you pay nothing for that electricity, and you, you can literally just have unlimited vehicle mileage from sunlight. So that's how you bypass the Strait of Hormuz, and more and more people are doing it. And that, that technology is just becoming more and more affordable. And the thing is, you know, you mentioned James Martinez earlier, he's also an advocate of low energy nuclear reactions technology, LENR as it's called. There are numerous companies around the world, one in California called Breloin, and another out of Japan called, I think Clean Planet, that are about to commercialize LENR technology that can produce a massive amount of excess thermal energy, u-converting hydrogen mass into heat energy. Used to be called cold fusion. But now it's known as Leonard, and they're about to roll out twenty-four kilowatt thermal units that'll sit on your desk, which means you won't even need solar panels a few years down the road. You'll buy one of these devices, you'll have it in your garage, it'll just be generating like five or ten kilowatts constantly all day long for your home, or your car, or your computer, or your GPU, and you'll have off-grid AI models that you run locally where they're not spying on you. You'll be running Linux, you know, maybe When off-grid models, you'll have maybe a home robot that's also off-grid that's helping you grow food, and you'll have an EV charged by sunlight. That is decentralized off-grid technology, and that's the future that I'm trying to help people build. I'm pro-tech, but I'm also, let's get off the grid and, and away from the cloud. I love that. I love that. You talk about the sodium battery technology, I mean, if I'm not mistaken, the very first cars ever created on Earth ran on solar battery technology. They were electric cars. they were electric, that's true, yeah. I think Woodrow Wilson, like his, his car that he drove around Washington, D.C. was an electric car. Like people think that these are just like 1980s inventions. No, the, the very first automobiles in the United States were electric, and I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was some form of a sodium battery technology. It's funny how it's all come full circle. Yeah, exactly. it, it, the- No, you're, you're exactly right. It's coming full circle, but of course, the battery tech back then was, was horrible, and it was lead acid, you know, the chemistry was horrible. today, the leapfrogging of technology is really amazing, and even Ford has licensed battery technology from Cadel, and Ford is, is making data center battery battery backup systems for data centers right now, which is one of the reasons why Ford's stock price is going up, not because they're making better cars. 'Cause in my opinion, they're not. They're making better batteries for data centers. So, anyway, it's kind of interesting. But I appreciate you having me on, and I, and I love the topics we're talking about. Love to join you anytime. Well, I love it, Mike. Thank you so much. Where can people find your work if they wanna dive more deeply into any of these topics? What's the best place for people to connect? BrightVideos dot com is where you can find my videos and interviews, and then my articles at NaturalNews dot com So thanks again. Read that EV article over there on naturalnews dot com as well. Mike, great to see you. Thank you so much. You too. Take care now. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free if you wanna follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 11, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - June 11, 2026 at 3:03 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

⚠️ Washington now lies so often that even official statements cannot be taken at face value. A rumored $3 billion Iran payment, frozen assets, UAE channels, and threats of massive retaliation all point to a much darker backroom game. @DanielLDavis breaks it down. https://t.co/vvF350QqRa

Video Transcript AI Summary
People point out that after a major sell-off in markets—described as $1.3 trillion sold off in the afternoon—the Dow ends the day green. A claim is made that markets had “exploded to the upside” earlier on under “false hope” of a deal with Iran, then later suffered a sudden, headline-free plunge: the S&P 500 erased its gains and fell more than 2% from its daily high, in a “plummet” that is described as wiping out $1.3 trillion in about two hours. The sell-off is linked in the discussion to events surrounding an Apache helicopter incident. A tweet attributed to President Trump says he was informed by the military that Iran shot down a “highly sophisticated Apache helicopter” while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz; Trump’s statement says two pilots were involved and “both are safe and uninjured,” and that the United States “must, of necessity, respond to this attack.” The conversation then cites conflicting claims from “sources” and reports about whether casualties occurred. The discussion also states that casualty numbers have been classified. Video is discussed: an RT post is referenced claiming to show an Apache helicopter forcing a crash. Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive, says the video “is definitely not” of an Apache helicopter going down and claims it is from the second or third day of a prior war when a Shahid drone hit a U.S. base. He describes a Shahid drone as a “point target” that travels from point A to point B and says hitting a moving helicopter is “nearly impossible,” adding that a helicopter hit by such a drone would be “obliterated” and “nobody would have survived.” Davis argues the event “doesn’t seem plausible” and suggests it could serve as an “excuse” for a U.S. attack, with “tankers going up in the air” presented as part of what could be “in the works.” Questions are raised about the location: the transcript suggests the incident might be over land rather than only over the Straits of Hormuz, and speculates about whether it was over international waters. Israeli sources are also said to be telling “Redacted” that a U.S. refueling aircraft took off from Israel, described as “large tankers used for big strikes.” The discussion moves to negotiations and messaging. It mentions Iran’s statement: “If we are attacked by the United States, we will respond with a massive attack on our own.” It also discusses an asserted report about “unfrozen three billion dollars in assets” allegedly moved from the UAE to Iran as part of a deal, while the U.S. withholds additional frozen assets. The transcript contrasts this with President Trump’s position on NBC News, attributed to Kristen Welker: Trump is described as categorically saying the U.S. will not release frozen funds up front and that any future steps would depend on Iranian behavior. The transcript also recalls “Operation True Promise Five,” described as an attack by Iran on Israeli military bases. Israel is said to claim nothing got through, though video is referenced as showing things did get through. The conversation includes a claim about low intercept rates versus higher rates being asserted publicly. Finally, the transcript references alleged U.S.-Israel coordination: it says President Trump warned Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran or launch any response, and describes Netanyahu launching a response anyway. The discussion claims Vice President Vance is trying to push toward a negotiated settlement, while Trump is said to have “headwinds” from him that could undermine progress—connecting that concern to the purported “helicopter incident.” It ends with continued skepticism, noting that the incident is supported mainly by a “piece of paper” and a statement, not wreckage or verified evidence, and that convenient explanations are offered about how pilots could have been recovered without visible remains.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Yeah, people are pointing out the Dow Jones is, is, is now green. So we go through this like major crash, one point three trillion dollars sold off in the markets this afternoon, and then the Dow ends the day green? The market, like I saw, that was fun. I saw people in the comments saying, "The market has no idea what the hell is going on right now." Like, who the hell knows what's going on right now? Anyway, the markets this morning exploded to the upside under the false hope that a deal with Iran was in And then something suddenly happened, a massive sell-off, markets plunged on no news. That was the really interesting point about all of this, there was no news. And then a short time later, not even like a little bit later, almost like an hour later then the S&P 500 erased all gains, falls over two percent from its high of the day, erasing one point three trillion in just two hours, just an absolute plummet here. You can take a look at this you can see the, the cliff that it fell off and then out of the blue, so this came like this massive sell-off came before the headlines about the Apache helicopter in Iran being shot down over the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump tweeting this, "I've just been informed by our great military that..." That last night, the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz. There were two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured. Nevertheless, United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Why? Out of necessity, like why? Some sources saying that there were casualties all seven crew members on board. Other reports saying, as President Trump said no one was hurt. Two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured. Of course, we know the casualty numbers haven't been fully disclosed. In fact, they've been classified, so it would track if, in fact, we're being lied to about the number of American casualties. So take a look. This is the Apache hel-- This is video reportedly of the Apache helicopter going down after this drone strike on it Near the Strait of Hormuz, and I'll just sort of ask you, you know again, does that look survivable? Well, well, if, you know, if they ejected or were able to, but my, my, I wanna ask you guys this question, like if this were to happen, I don't know, over the Gulf of Mexico You know, if Iran were flying military helicopters close to our border near, near the Gulf of Mexico, like what would we do? I imagine we would probably shoot them down. I'm just saying if this were to happen on our soil and so just a short time ago, the according to BRICS News, Iran foreign, foreign minister Aragh Araghchi responded to the Apache helicopter being shot down, saying, "Forces in proximity to our territory are at constant risk, so the best thing to do is for them to..." Leave. Okay. Good point there. Israeli sources are also telling us here at Redacted that the US refueling aircraft just took off from Israel. We've heard from sources in Tel Aviv, these are large tankers used for big strikes, these have now taken off. So what happens next? Is there a deal? Is there no deal? Are we stumbling back towards all-out war? Also, I'm, I'm no expert on geography. Doesn't look like this was just patrolling the Straits of Hormuz, that was over land. Right. That's not, that weren't. So, okay. Is that over water? That's- Is that over international waters or is that o- literally over top? I mean, we don't exactly know. so- That, I mean, that does look like land to me. You know, I haven't spent a lot of time at sea, but I don't think there are buildings. That's just, you know, maybe we should ask an expert is that- Yeah, I mean, let's bring in Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive on YouTube. A lot of moving parts right now, Colonel. Great show today. I know you spoke to Professor Morandi today about is there a deal or no deal? Now, the reason I think this is important is that Prof- Professor Morandi is very close to people who are involved in the detail apparatus the deal apparatus right now. And I believe he told you earlier today on your show, well, I don In your mouth, you tell us, is there a deal? Are we like two days away from a great end to this war? One thing on that video you were just showing, that is definitely not a video of an Apache helicopter going down. In fact, that is from, I think, the second or third day of the war on when an American base was hit with a Shahid drone. I recognize that video very well. But that also shows why this is almost complete nonsense and has almost no chance to be true. A Shahid drone is a point target. It goes from point A to And the idea that it can hit a moving helicopter is nearly impossible. The, literally the only chance that that could happen, what's been reported, and apparently that was being released to both CNN and, and CBS by the, by the military, is if it just happened to fly through the flight path like a THOR or a Shahid drone going somewhere. But there's no-- there was no Shahid attack, so even that falls through. And if it had, and that's one thing that is useful from that video, it shows when a Shahid drone hits a target, it has a massive explosion with It carries. If it had hit a helicopter, nobody would have survived. The helicopter would have been obliterated whether over sea or, or over land or water, it wouldn't have mattered. Nobody would have survived. We're told by President Trump that no one was even injured, much less killed in action. So almost nothing about this seems plausible. It looks to me more like it's an excuse for the US to, to launch an attack somewhere against Iran, and as you point out, that could possibly be in the works right now with these tankers going up in the air Who knows if something is physically in the, in the process right now? And no matter what it is, this has-- this, if I already said earlier today that we're miles apart from a negotiated settlement, this will just make it ten miles apart, something like that. But there is no prospect that this is, is gonna help us find a solution or that one was even in close proximity. Right. So take what we're seeing here. Let me just put this on the screen just to be clear. This is, yeah, this was RT that had posted this, "Iran Sophisticated US Apache helicopter here, forcing it to crash. So, so this is old video? Yeah, definitely. I, because I, I remember, because that, that, that round object that it hit was, I, I wanna say it was a, a, a radar site of some sort on a base, but I remember that was from a US base that a Shahid drone hit. And I pointed out on our show when it came out that, you know, where is our air defense? How did that thing hit without even being shot down? A slow-moving Well, thank you for clarifying that. Yeah, so I guess we're being asked to believe that we're gonna go and have a military response over just equipment, not people. Although a few months ago, when we had the rescue operation for the man who was down in Iranian territory, we apparently lost dozens of aircraft and didn't respond. We're fine with that, but we lost one unmanned helicopter and we have to respond. How does that-- That's ludicrous. Nobody can follow that. It, it, it is, and, and that, that just tells you, Natalie, that there's, that something's just not right here that, that we would, out of necessity, have to respond and, and the Iranian side is certainly well aware of this is coming, obviously he just said it out loud and in the open, so they're already prepared. And again, Professor Morandi told me just before he went on the air with me today that he had talked to two sources in the Iranian military to, to find out what did happen, did they Retaliates like this, then he can count on a strike, and, and the way the Iranians are these days, they don't respond in kind. Whatever US may hit, they'll, they'll strike back against an, an, an American target, but bigger than what they had. So again, one has to wonder, because President Trump said just last night, "We're, you know, we're right there, we're right on the cusp of a big, powerful deal, and, and maybe a few days away," but there's no truth to it. There's, there's definitely Agree to, and wonder if he's like saying, "All right, well, how do I get out of this? Because there's not gonna be a deal in a few days, unless of course, oh, well, the Iranian side attacked one of our aircraft, we responded like normal, and then now they're out of the deal, so it's their fault." I don't know, he could be doing something like that just to get out of this very small tactical box, but the cost could be pretty profound, dependent on what Iran does in retaliation because this could literally be the spark And I can guarantee you that the Israeli side is chomping at the bit and would take any excuse at all to relaunch targets probably into Beirut against Hezbollah. I mean, this all happens, you know, we're, we're, we're, we're kind of dancing around the elephant in the room was like, was this a you know, was this another false flag on the anniversary of the USS Liberty attack? Congressman Thomas Massie on the floor of Congress talking about the USS Liberty you know, many decades ago when Israel attacked the US USS Liberty. you know, Kurt, can you talk about this money, the unfrozen assets piece? Of course, this report today is pretty shocking, and if there's truth to it, it's pretty stunning that there are unfrozen three billion dollars in assets being moved from the UAE through the UAE, basically hand-delivered to the Iranians as part of this, a part of this deal, and how much of these frozen assets are still being withheld from the United States side of this in order to push- Forward on a peace agreement, like we'll give you these three billion dollars of these frozen assets, just don't attack Israel. A few moments ago, Iran saying, "If we are attacked by the United States, we will respond with a massive attack on our own." So what do you make of this three billion dollars story funneled through the UAE? You know, it, it's, it's really a sad commentary on the times that we can't take anything at face value, no matter if it's said by the president himself or anybody else, a-- from an American side. It used to be that we could take pretty much what was said at the, at the public level, at least relatively speaking from our side at face value, and then we could get the details, and it was those other bad actors over, over there you know, wherever there was all the bad guys our adversaries, that were lying. But now then Thing at face value. Now, I, I would, I'm skeptical that, that we would release three billion dollars through UAE, especially because UAE has been the hardest hit by Iran during this whole war. So I don't know why they would be willing to covertly do something which obviously went from covert to overt, as the the news is out there. but further along, I mean, President Trump just this-- what is it, Sunday, on NBC News, when point blank asked, "Will you release frozen funds up front like the Iranian side had asked Just recently as Saturday, saying that because we have no trust in you, because you have lied to us twice and attacked us in the middle of negotiations, this time we have to have something upfront. So we have to have the release of frozen funds, they said twenty-four billion dollars, losing getting rid of sanctions on the Iranian energy infrastructure and release of your blockade. And they said, once that's done, then we'll release our blockade and we can get into other negotiations. But President Trump was asked by NBC, Kristen Welker, categorically Said, "No, we won't give anything. If they behave, if they're good, then we'll do some other stuff later, which of course means it's a no-- there's no deal, because Iran won't do anything without that." If someone suggested, "Okay, well, they were covertly gonna give three billion dollars to Iran," I, I would be skeptical that we would actually do that, because that's, that's similar to what Trump has been relentlessly excoriating Barack Obama for having done, and if he did the same thing you know, the Would start to, to have some real problems with that. And plus, I don't know that three billion of the twenty-four that Iran's asking for, whether that's gonna be enough, 'cause I think that they're gonna have to have it open and out front. They don't just need the money, they also need the su- the submission and the recognition that the US is releasing their, what they consider their stolen money, because it is, after all, Iranian assets that we're talking about here. So everything is possible. There's no telling what may be going on behind the scenes Yeah. Over the weekend, Iran launched True Promise, Operation True Promise Five, which was an attack on Israeli military bases. Now, Israel says, "Oh no, nothing got through, we're totally fine." Although video evidence shows that things did get through. Israel saying, "That was just a scratch, it's a flesh wound, we're fine." Do you know anything other than that? Do you have any reporting that possibly that was in fact a more harmful strike and that Israel wouldn't sustain? Increased strikes from, from Iran. Yeah, well, I, I, I'll just say that the minute that I heard that claim that they had knocked down everything just like the, I think in the previous round we had claimed we knocked down everything when Iran struck back against us, and then, oh, now when Iran struck the the Kuwait, the SINCOP immediately said, "We knocked down everything," and then I think when the sun came up the next morning, then there's all this video evidence of, of the airport in Kuwait being crushed and You can't take anything at face value, but look, i-- and unless some incredible new technology emerged in the last sixty days since we stopped the, the active war here, there, there was, by one accounting an intercept rate on, on both Israel and the United States of about five percent, not ninety-five percent like we claim, but five percent. So I'm like, okay, wait, so what if ninety-five percent gets through? Someone in our chat room just said almost everything got through. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's, yeah. Yeah, in fact, we're, we're gonna do a show here pretty soon with Professor Ted Postel, who's really good on this, because he puts together video evidence to stuff. He doesn't just suppose on anything. He says, "Here's the evidence to show what I'm doing with the intercept rate and all this kind of stuff." And he said it's nowhere near what you're being told, and then he shows you why. So you, you don't have to take his word for it. so when I hear then that all of, and I think it was Got it very seriously. That's remarkable. what do you-- So, what do you make of this idea that President Trump warned Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters first before he got on the phone, "Don't attack Iran, don't launch any sort of a response." Netanyahu disregards that, launches his own response. This back and forth right now between President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, this idea that there's a rift, that the United States really wants an off-ramp here, do you buy that? I, I want to, I want to buy it, because there needs to be a rift and I think it was last night on Jesse Watters on Fox Vice President Vance went on and said, "Hey, listen, we're gonna do what is in the America's best interest, and Israel may like it or they may not like it, but that's something they've gotta deal with, because we've gotta do what we were elected to do, which is to help the American people." And I cheered that on. I said, "Good, it's, it Because there is no question, and I've, I've got some sources pretty high up in, in the in the White House that suggest that the Vice President is very aggressive trying to get to a negotiated settlement, has been working very hard behind the scenes to do that, knowing that the Israeli side isn't happy, but it's good for America. But there's headwinds from President Trump, I'm told. Now, I don't, not personally involved with that, but evidence suggests that that may be right, and now that's why I'm worried about this alleged helicopter incident Then that could undo even, even the progress that could be made, because I'll let me point out, there could be a deal done, and there has been, in fact, Professor Morandi on the show also said, yes, he said, I've seen the language of the memorandum that could start a negotiated process. That's not a, a deal to per-- end the war per se, but it's something to concrete start the process. And he said, the US negotiators have said, here's what the US is willing to do, which is something that's tolerable to the Iranian side. Of one, but so far every time President Trump has pulled the string on it, pulled the rug out from under it the way it was put, and, and has, has sabotaged it, and one wonders, is this the next sabotage by saying, "Now I'm gonna strike Iran instead of having a deal with them"? Because of that empty helicopter. Allegedly, if, if it even happened, I mean, I don't even know if it happened. Show me some wreckage, show me the pilots. I haven't seen anything except for a piece of paper, a, a statement. That's all I've seen. So, yeah, I'm skeptical that even happened. I know. And yeah, seeing that, seeing that footage, that RT footage showing that old, old video, I mean, it looked like, I thought it was like a piece of the helicopter that like fell, it was shot, you saw a piece falling down, and that And if that's what's convenient, then they said, "Oh, it was over water, and we used a drone to go help the, the pilots out, so that way there's conveniently no wreckage to show, there's no nothing." So that's another reason for my skepticism. Oh, good point, good point. Well, you're, you're in good hands here on the Skepticism Show. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free, if you wanna follow us or subscribe. And if we brought And we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 8, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - June 9, 2026 at 6:02 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

⚠️ If red light therapy is fake, why is the medical establishment so nervous? Photobiomodulation may be one of the biggest health breakthroughs hiding in plain sight, and Big Pharma does NOT want you asking questions. https://t.co/XkIkADrItv

Video Transcript AI Summary
The interview discusses red light therapy—its popularity, why it is being challenged by “the medical world,” and how investigative journalist Jonathan Otto says it works and why people are adopting it widely, including through consumer devices like masks. Otto frames the therapy as “photobiomodulation,” describing it as the body responding to designed-for light. He contrasts modern mainstream medicine with what he portrays as an alternative approach. Otto says public interest has surged, citing everyday adoption (including references to women using masks and his anecdote that his son’s acne breakout could have led to scarring and even temptation to take Accutane). He argues that red light therapy is threatening to pharmaceutical and clinical systems because, in his view, it has become an alternative in major cancer-related studies and photodynamic therapy research. He cites a randomized control trial referenced as published by *Lancet Oncology* involving 413 men, claiming the red light group did “almost four hundred percent better” than the non-red light group, with 6% requiring surgery in the red light group versus 30% in the non-red light group. He also claims that many outcomes matter because surgeries can lead to complications such as impotence, and he argues that people are seeking “less invasive, more selective therapies” targeting tumor cells. When asked what led him to take red light therapy seriously, Otto describes his earlier work producing a cancer-focused documentary series about 12 years ago, including interviews with medical practitioners and treatment centers. He says he encountered results under “photobiomodulation” and mentions combining therapies, including methylene blue, which he describes as requiring activation by red light for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and antiparasitic effects. Otto gives historical context: he references a Nobel Prize awarded in 1903 to Niels Ryberg Finsen for light therapy reversing chronic disease, uses incandescent bulbs as the historical technology, and describes later developments. He attributes modern versions to work by Dr. Andrey Mester and says NASA-funded LED research enabled high-power delivery into the body, emphasizing that LEDs deliver power with less heat and do not flicker like older options. He claims a large body of studies supports red light therapy across conditions, listing eyesight problems, chronic back pain, autoimmune conditions (including arthritis, lupus), macular degeneration, post-stroke outcomes, and dementia. He also discusses cancer and chronic disease mechanisms through mitochondria: he says mitochondria contain “mitochondria chromophores” (light receptors) and that light induces reactive oxygen species and adenosine triphosphate, which he says target circulating tumor cells and senescent circulating tumor cells. He also connects red light to “shutting down unhealthy cells” and promoting creation and differentiation of healthier stem cells, including in bones and organs like kidneys. On which conditions respond best, Otto highlights pain (arthritis, inflammation), skin issues (eczema, acne, psoriasis), sleep/energy/recovery, autoimmune-spectrum conditions, and chronic eye conditions including myopia in children. He cites clinical trial information from University College London about prostate cancer and eye studies, asserting remission differences between red light and non-red light groups and claiming a morning-only benefit for myopia parameters. He says a study used 670 nm LED light delivered directly into the eyes for three minutes, and he describes reported improvements and the idea that exposure timing matters. He proposes mechanisms and timing for symptom relief: depression studies show changes within one hour, fibromyalgia studies average around four weeks with results maintained for months, and cancer studies can run for two years. He also includes a pilot study claim (three people with cutaneous B-cell lymphoma) describing complete remission after one or two photodynamic therapy sessions with methylene blue and red light, with no side effects reported. For hair loss, Otto says red light therapy for androgenic alopecia has studies supporting stimulation of hair follicles and stem cells in the scalp. He also claims effects on thyroid function and weight loss, linking red light to “photonic lipolysis” and describing organ-function improvements. On safety and frequency, Otto says people can “overdo it,” but describes minimal adverse effects reported across large clinical use. He emphasizes dark occlusion for sleep and suggests that short daily exposures can be sufficient, citing examples such as fifteen minutes per day for general use and thyroid studies involving limited weekly sessions. He states that more light does not necessarily mean better outcomes for eyes. Toward buying guidance, Otto recommends high-quality panels or devices delivering multiple wavelengths, claiming broad-spectrum coverage reaches shallow to deep targets within organs. He explains wavelength ranges he uses or discusses (including around 480 nm, 630–660 nm, and near-infrared up to around 1060 nm) and describes the role of irradiance and distance, suggesting benefits even at roughly a foot away depending on the device and condition. He also compares whole-body approaches (head-to-groin) with localized masks. Otto concludes by encouraging research on specific conditions, promoting the idea that light therapy can be preventative and substitute for other spending, and ends with an emphasis on devices being affordable compared with clinic sessions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
What is red light therapy? Does it work? Why is it exploding in popularity? The medical world seems to be fighting back against it, which always raises my alarm bells when they see something that could be a natural curative for something, and they're pushing back against it. Just walk into any Best Buy or Target, and you'll see entire stations set up for red light therapy. Jonathan Otto is an investigative journalist, filmmaker, and humanitarian whose work has focused heavily on health. Healing and conversations that sit outside the usual medical mainstream, and he's the author of the book, The Cancer Off Switch. So we wanted to invite Jonathan on today to talk about red light therapy specifically. Jonathan, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for having me, Clayton. I appreciate it. So maybe we can just explain to our audience, you know, when people go into a Best Buy and they see these like red light therapy masks and these other things, and they seem to be all the rage right now, just go on Instagram and you see like a lot of women buying them and using them on a regular basis, my wife included. and she, she gave it to my son, my adolescent son, who had a, like a bit, bit of a big acne breakout at one point a few months ago, and he's like, "I don't wanna wear that thing." He put What is red light therapy and why is maybe the big pharmaceutical complex scared of it? Yeah, well, Clayton, that's a great question, and it, it really touches my heart to hear about that case study with your son and your wife, because y- it's something that he would have potentially lived with and then the scarring from it, and then being tempted to take Accutane, and that would have damaged his liver, and so see the cascade of effects that happens. And So the proof is in the pudding, people are seeing it, you're observing it without being an expert in it, and that's one of the wonders of this. But what it is, is it's your body responding to what it was designed to respond to. Clearly, you could see in nature that you're biologically designed for light and as-- and red light being the sunrise and sunset, which is actually probably the part of the day, Clayton, that you and a lot of the viewers are missing daily. And it's interesting to see what it's doing for people, and the reason why I would- Say the pharmaceutical industry may have some major concerns around it is because it's become an alternative for palliative chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in major clinical studies now ranging into the thousands specifically on cancer into, in, into the high hundreds through, through photodynamic therapy. And, you know, the Lancet Oncology even published that a, a clinical study with four hundred and thirteen men, and it, it, the red light group, 'cause it was The randomized control, control trial, the red light group did almost four hundred percent better than the non-red light group in a, in a four hundred and thirteen person group, and only six percent got surgery in the red light group, thirty percent got red light in the non- got surgery in the non-red light group, which is a five hundred percent difference on that front. So that's major. These are major medical journals, and these are major issues that, you know, men after these surgeries, nine out of ten will become impotent. And so people are running now for these less invasive, more selective therapies that are targeting tumor cells instead of carpet bombing the body or just taking out organs that we actually want, which I would say in some ways is forced or, or transgender surgeries that aren't intentionally transgender surgeries. not to gas-- or not to kind of rage bait people, but my point is that it's That's happening to people where they're getting organs removed because they don't think there's a better option, and I think that that's the big threat right there. Geez. When you first started looking into red light therapy, what convinced you that this was something worth taking seriously rather than just like a health fad? Yeah. I was producing on a series called The Truth About Cancer about twelve years ago that became the most prolific holistic cancer documentary series in the, in the world and I went around the world, literally hundreds of over a hundred in that particular series of the world's best medical doctors that were the ones putting their head out of the, yeah, the foxhole and getting shot at, whether it was Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski or Dr. Matthias Rath or, or, yeah, Dr. Gerson Therapy center and, and, and Dr. Antonio Jimenez from the Hope for Cancer Treatment Centers, who was kind enough to, like, write on you know, that, that book that I shared with you when we're off camera, but, you know, his words were that my, my work is groundbreaking and potentially life-saving and not just recommended, but essential. When I went inside of his clinic back twelve years ago, I remember being blown away from the results that people would get on what, what was referred to and is referred to Referred to as photobiomodulation, which is photo, light, bio, life, modulation to change, to change the process of life through light. And, and it was a staple. And then you're hearing this combination of therapies with methylene blue, and it's not a coincidence that when Mel Gibson was on Rogan's show and says, "I had three friends," I tell you a good story, "three friends with stage four cancer." They, they, they basically implying that they were going to die, they had a lot of things going on. Now they don't have cancer at all anymore, and so these were the big blockbuster statements that were coming out. And he says they were taking, and then he lists antiparasitics, fenbendazole, ivermectin, and he says methylene blue. Methylene blue has to be activated by red light to work properly, and that's called antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, which is specifically antiparasitic. So now you start seeing these worlds come together, and I started I think that was a passing trend. And then after more research, I found that the Nobel Prize was won in nineteen o three by Niels Ryberg Finsen for light therapy reversing chronic disease. They were using incandescent bulbs, which, which, which is basically the same thing as a, a reptile lamp A ten dollar chicken lamp or a reptile lamp, I'm, I'm not exaggerating, 'cause this was the technology at the time, and his case was lupus vulgaris, that, that was one specifically for, it's an autoimmune condition, which then brings you into the whole autoimmune category. so it was using these incandescent bulbs, and it was John Harvey Kellogg, which I, I would say has a mixed reputation, this was the good side of his work and he wrote the book Light Therapeutics and was, was- Treating tens of thousands of people in the sanitariums with light therapy in this same type of technology, which means that, you know, people, for example, could, could try those types of things. But what happened though in the '80s and it was Dr. Andrey Mester, the Hungarian physician in the '60s, that then pioneered what was then known as red light therapy as we know it today, and by then the '90s, once NASA, which I think a lot of people are distrusting NASA, probably for a lot Anyway, we won't go there, but the, the good thing that they did was they actually did fund LED, light emitting diode research, which LEDs have a bad name when you have high flicker rates in the home, but they became the highest power way to deliver light into the body. And so once that tech came in, you-- they don't flicker in like devices like what I have behind me, and those are the ones, like for example, the Hope for Cancer Treatment Centers, that, you know, as a side note, they're using our devices for their patient program. But the reason why they went to light-emitting diodes is 'cause they could push ninety percent of the power into light and only ten percent into heat, so they became that much more bright, and that was what was needed. And so then the thousands of studies started pouring in, like the one I just cited. From the Lancet, but it was from everything, from eyesight to chronic back pain to any autoimmune condition you could imagine, from arthritis to lupus to macular degeneration to post-stroke to dementia, and I'm not exaggerating, and I could show each one of these studies, and the, the results were almost unbelievable for many of them, and they were published in every big journal you could imagine, from the British Medical Journal to the Lancet Oncology, children or elderly adults, yeah. I mean, and it seems to me that this-- there's a suppression going on. We had Nicholas Holscher on from the wellness company a few weeks ago to talk about ivermectin and menmenbenzodol and the largest study basically of cancer reversal or showing incredible signs, just as you mentioned, ivermectin and menbenzodol. And I learned, I didn't know it at the time, that the CIA knew about this, knew about the parasitic infection of cancer in the body as early as the 1950s, and basically helped suppress this information. So the idea that you could go out and get sunlight or red light therapy or just sitting in your backyard could help ward off macular degeneration, all sorts of issues And that happened more than a hundred years ago, and we're, we're, we're now maybe just learning about it? Yeah, exactly, exactly. And once, once you get this, you, you'll kind of get a little obsessed in a good way, I think, Clayton, where If you look at your mitochondria, which equate to about twenty-five percent of your org-organ cells, they contain something called mitochondria chromophores, which are light receptors. So biologically, you're designed for it, and it-- you look out the window and you look at the plants growing, you look at the animals in nature, and they're getting two things at the same time, which is the Earth's magnetic field, which is grounding, which is really fascinating when you stack those therapies with, with a pulsed electromagnetic field with light therapy. And they're getting light, both the, you know, the red, particularly in the sunrise, sunset, and, and the UVB during the day, and, and the whole spectrum, full spectrum of light, both red, near infrared, mid infrared, far infrared. What's happening when it goes into the mitochondria through the light receptors, mitochondrial chromophores, they're generating reactive oxygen species. So it's adenosine triphosphate, which is cellular energy, and reactive oxygen species, they're the specific aspects that target circulating tumor cells and zombie cells, known as senescent circulating tumor cell or something that was going to become a, a, a problematic cancer, because preventative studies have been done on red light therapy on cancer, particularly in animals, showing that it is preventative, which is fascinating in, in and of itself considering that one in two males are getting cancer during their life, one in three females, and then you're, you're in a big pharma typically, like they're selling you the, these expensive and invasive therapies that really, I would say don't-- they're, they're not, they're not as efficacious as what people maybe think they are, and, and then you, you end up in a whole nother sphere, which is when you s-specifically are targeting the cancer cells without harming the body, and, and whether it's reversing another chronic condition, it's, it's really about shutting down unhealthy cells and then creating new cells, which is Which is the genesis, or it's called the proliferation of new healthy stem cells and differentiation, both of which red light is heavily proven to do not within your bones and, and, and within your organs like the kidneys. So what conditions or symptoms seem to respond best to red light therapy? Pain, like arthritis, inflammation, maybe skin issues, like I mentioned with my son, sleep, maybe energy, recovery, something else? What do-- what maybe responds best to red light therapy? Yes, all, all of the, the conditions, Clayton, that you mentioned do have clinical studies that back them, and one of the fun things for people to do is to do their own research and to put the chronic condition they have into Google or Google Scholar or Grok or ChatGPT, and then whatever, whatever condition they have, red light therapy, those, just those words together, show me the best studies, show me what time frames, show me the, the time of the day they use, that, show me what wavelengths of light that they use, 'cause like, for Wavelengths right there, which, which, you know, the, the studies on breast cancer were showing specifically six sixty was the one that could drop the breast tumor proliferation by forty percent in vitro in twenty-four hours, right? So that was a PubMed study and it's in vitro, so I'm not saying that this was a, you know, four hundred person group, but it was showing that there was a direct response, but it was a specific type of wavelength of light that was interfacing with that particular part of the body. So they, To the conversation, but it was, it was specifically everything from lung, lung cancer, which is the biggest killer, kills more people than prostate cancer, breast cancer, and colon cancer combined, okay, lung cancer, and smoking's not going up. So what is it that we're inhaling that is causing this? And then people then start saying, "Well, what's getting sprayed in the skies?" And then they also say, "What's in my home that's off-gassing?" And, and then they look at indoor air fil-filtration or plants to put in the home to absorb these things It's, it's, it's the various types of cancer, the biggest ones that are affecting us, especially with the combination of methylene blue and red light, and then you come into all these other, you know, chronic conditions from joint pain, knee pain. I, I spent thirty thousand dollars on my dad's knees, and I, I didn't, I couldn't get a result but red light was something that cost- Under three hundred dollars was able to work wonders for him and, and, you know, he's building my sister's home right now, and he's able to be mobile, and that's a blessing for me. So it's, it's those conditions, the, the autoimmune spectrum from the chronic conditions, whether it's eczema or acne or psoriasis, or whether it's the, the chronic eye conditions which range from myopia, even in children, this, the forty-one clinical trials equated to sixty-four hundred children, and this was- Specifically an eyesight study, which in many of the studies that are just opening their eyes to looking directly into red light, it was the number one thing that stopped vision worsening in children over that large group. Wow. I mean, I've been trying to reverse my vision problems I've- Been going down that rabbit hole of trying to heal my eyes naturally, and it's been like a slow process. And as you can tell, I still need my reading glasses, and I'm, you know, trying to take walks and be out in the morning with the dog with no glasses on and just like looking at the distance, the horizon, and all of that to try to get the light in there but it, but it's a slow process. And I, you know, maybe you and I can talk offline how to- But I'll tell you this, I want, I want to tell you this during, during this, if you don't mind, Clayton, you'll love this. Okay, so this was University College London. They were the same guys that backed the prostate cancer study that I just mentioned. Okay, so forty-nine percent went into remission in the red light group, thirteen point five percent went into remission in the non-red light group. That was only one therapy added. There's no-- There was no diet change, there was no additional therapies added. It was the red light with a photos different type for that one, but people can find the study. Now, the same group then did a study on eyesight, and they tested people after the age of forty with myopia, and they tested them in the morning and the afternoon. They did three minutes, up to forty-five minutes, and if they did it in the afternoon, they got zero benefit, but if they did it in the morning, on average, immediately, within the same twenty-four hour period, they equated if it was the morning, whether it was three minutes or forty-five minutes, it would equate to seventeen percent improvement in Which it wasn't a reversal study, it was, it was really just testing these parameters, which I've now seen mid-ninety year olds get vision back and, and, and maintain it. And is this like sitting in front of a red light, light, or is this out in nature? It was, it was in, it was in six seventy nanometer red light which was through a light emitting diode LED so, and it was like the ones you have there in your studio? Yeah, yeah, it was the same tech. It was LED six seventy directly into the eyes, eyes open, three minutes looking into it. That's, that's exactly what they did. And so if you're not doing that and you're trying different things, it's kind of-- it's sad because now that you know this, the next show that if, you know, us doing another thing, you might then report or, or a show outside of this one with me, you may report dramatic changes, 'cause I, I often see people within the same day Shocked that they can now read, 'cause seventeen percent is, is not, is not a hundred percent, but that was only three minutes of exposure. What I'm saying is that if people were to do that daily or a few times a week, they could expect a complete reversal. That's what I've seen personally, even in in people that you wouldn't think could get much hope, 'cause the retina is, is one of the highest concentrations in mitochondria, and the brain, some of the cells have up to hundreds of thousands of mitochondria. So the eyes are really the pathway See improvements in mood as well, and so your wife may report, "Hey, Clayton's a lot happier." not saying that you're not a happy guy, yeah, but our wives can notice the slightest changes or the most dramatic changes, and yes, I do believe that it will be like a remarkable difference for you. Wow. All right, I'm gonna, I'm gonna try it, okay. and you know, you and I can talk again offline how we can, how we can find some of that. But how long does it take Of red light therapy, like the benefits, you mentioned at least for the eyesight piece of this, pretty, like pretty quickly but what about other, you know, we talk about eczema or acne or cancers or something else do we have like a, a, a length of time maybe sitting in front of red light or being out in nature that would help people? Yeah, and I love that you're talking about being out in nature because one of my friends just reported this to me where he-- it was during the middle of the day where you I don't have any data on this. It was just a fascinating observation where, but then it was red in his eyes because it's going through the, the skin, which is then working potentially like a filter, which is then making-- So I'm not saying he's looking at the sun during the day, I'm saying he's got his eyes closed for just a couple of minutes, but he was reporting his eyesight changing as well that way, which is fascinating. Wow. Because it is going to-- it, it's visibly red, so it's showing that the eyelids are working like a filter but in terms of timelines, the, the eyes are really quick. Depression, some of the things I'll say will sound unbelievable, but you'll see all of them backed up by clinical research and not just, they're not hearsay. The depression studies were tested a single hour after the therapy and the, the first hour w- was an improvement, the second hour was a greater improvement than the first hour 'cause there's a stacking effect. so depression and anxiety are like quite fast from, from what I've seen. Then Then, then the fibromyalgia studies, for example, a lot of them are like the autoimmune category is typically a four-week study on, on average from, from all the studies I've looked at, and they're showing large groups going into, largely into remission of a lot of the, the aspects, or they're at least saying that it was clinically managing the condition to the effect that they were dramatically different to the control group and that the, and that the red light group then, you know, maintained those changes for You know, three, four months, even up to six months into the future, I mean, even though they weren't regularly doing it, though ideally when it comes to reversing the conditions, then people obviously did better when they were doing it more regularly, 'cause again, you're biologically designed for it. The cancer studies that-- the Lancet Oncology one I was quoting to you was a two-year study, and again, they, they were doing the other therapies, which I would say like the chemo, surgery, and radiation, with the surgery only for the, the smaller percentage of the red There, there are studies that were showing, okay, this one is again gonna show, is unbelievable, we're gonna show this on screen, it was a lymphoma study done in two thousand and six, it's on PubMed, and it was three people in a pilot study. They all went into complete remission in a single week, two of them after one session, the other one after two sessions, in complete, and the, the findings were, all three patients experienced complete remission, defined as a clinical and complete absence and histologic complete absence of Cutaneous B-cell lymphoma after a maximum of two photodynamic therapy sessions at a one-week interval, no patient experienced any side effects, and the pain was easily managed after the photodynamic therapy sessions. That was the clinical finding word, word for word, in that two thousand and six pilot study. So it ranges, some of them a little longer, some of them shorter, and it's, especially with the photodynamic aspect, like taking methylene blue thirty minutes before, it will accelerate a lot of things because, again, it's working as an antiparasitic as well. So you So it's stacking, yeah. does it work for hair loss? I mean, not that I'm really worried about it, I mean- You look great, man. But I'm almost fifty years old, and my dad had a full head of hair till he passed away at eighty-six years old. So hopefully, but nevertheless, you know, you like, you don't like the receding hairline, but does it work for hair loss as well? Yeah, it, it does. I'm, I'm forty, I just turned forty, and I, I got three children, I'm True to that. but both ways, right? My wife because we're, we're-- you, you deal with more problems that you could easily escape if you were more transient, just passing through life, but you have to hit your problems head on in a marriage, right? Right. Character flaws all come to the surface. I thought I was a good person until I got married, then I realized I had some work to do. and then yeah, so- It, it, it's, it's, I can see it visibly working for me not having a gray hair at, at forty with baldness on both sides of my family. But aside from the anecdotal report on me, 'cause what can you say about that? But androgenic alopecia is the clinical name for male or female hair loss, and the studies on red light are, are amazing for stimulating hair follicles and the, the stem cells within your scalp to regenerate and produce healthy hair. And I, I've seen it countless times in people, I, I, I haven't yet seen it where somebody has said, "I got zero improvement." I haven't seen that yet, which is, which, which is really cool. And I, that's the same thing I've seen with eyesight. I'm not saying that everything I immediately see the result that I expected. The, the thyroid studies are the ones that people gonna be amazed at, 'cause I, my eighty-seven year old grandma, being on thyroid medication for decades has now, now no longer needs thyroid medication at Hair loss, when you think about it, isn't just like a lot of people are going to think about, okay, just topical, like, "Hey, I'm just gonna go for the, for the hair," and that-- there's something to be said for that, and I do see amazing results. But when you think about the fact that the thyroid is regulating a lot of what's happening when it comes to hair loss and weight gain and weight loss, which is the process for weight loss through red light is called photonic lipolysis, which is now getting us, used as a substitute for lip thing is true in that, so it's breaking open fat cells and people are losing a lot of weight, but it's because of the improvement in the organ function, like the thyroid producing thyroid hormones naturally, which is what is arguably then one of the biggest factors for why then people are getting hair regrowth, as well as the fact that they're applying it directly to the scalp and stimulating hair, hair follicles. Can you overdo it? All of this red light therapy, can you think, "Well, I'm gonna cure everything, I'm just gonna sit in front of this panel for twelve Yes, you can, because it, it's not that you would cause issues, because there's been approximately a hundred million people treated clinically with red light therapy without adverse effects being reported to any significant degree. Like, you could have some mild hyperemia reaction, which is like a healing crisis, but that's not even typical with red light, because it's dealing with surface, surface level inflammation and dealing with the root cause of what's driving that, like the toxins that are within the cells, and it's in Currently detoxifying cells through cellular energy, which is mind blowing. so the absence of light then becomes important as well, and that's why you need to sleep in the dark. the lymphoma study I mentioned before had something called an occlusion time. You think occult, which means hidden, to cover, and so an occlusion time means that you're putting yourself in the dark. And, and so it's the typical time is really only fifteen minutes a day, and many of the, like the thyroid studies that showed that half the group went into remission after a Five week treatment of chronic autoimmune thyroiditis, which is twenty minutes twice a week for five weeks, and it was, it was just that little, it wasn't even daily, and half the group went into remission, the other one was ninety-six percent went into remission of enlarged thyroid with Hashimoto's thyroiditis. And That was, that was only a few minutes over the thyroid so it, a little goes a long way, and it's not about doing it all day long. And like the three minutes or forty-five minutes, whether it was three or forty-five for the eyesight, then the outcome was still the same. It wasn't more than seventeen percent immediately, so that was the max that you could get in a twenty-four hour period, and that more didn't equate to better. But there is an acute long COVID study. This is the-- These are some of the longer times I Conducted by the European Society of Medicine, there were sixty-two people in the study. It was four sessions that were sixty-four to eighty-four minute long sessions, and it was total remission of all symptoms for, for acute long COVID, which meant that the That it was a total resolution of dyspnea, shortness of breath, oxygen saturation above ninety-seven percent in the blood e-executive function resolved, cognitive function resolved, emotional deficits resolved, digestive issues resolved within one week, sixty of the sixty-two had complete remission, total remission of all symptoms, and the other two got better after the four sessions, no additional sessions, but these were longer sessions. So that's the longer period, and because acute long COVID is often caused by people getting that intervention That happened a few years ago, getting something injected into their body, then that becomes a, a, a game changer for people. So this is amazing. I mean, I hope people will dive into the research, like you said earlier, go to like Google Scholar, maybe put in the thing that you have that you're suffering with and see what the-- look through all of the studies on red light therapy as it relates to your affliction, whether it's alopecia, whether it's macular degeneration or otherwise, and, and do the research on that hair loss or otherwise. Cancers, I guess as well. But if people like want to buy something, like, I, I have no idea where to start. Like, if I wanted to buy like a red light panel for my house I, I see those masks, like I mentioned my wife has you know, like, w-what's the benefit of getting like a panel? What would you recommend? Maybe you can point us in a direction if people wanted to buy something. I could, I'll put a link in the description if people wanna pick something up. Absolutely, no, thank you, Clayton. We, I, I obviously really care about this, and I want more people to know about it, and I give all the facts from the research so that people can do whatever they like with that knowledge and information and get back in touch with nature, get on the ground grounded, and get light in nature. And the reason why somebody should look at getting a high quality panel or, or like a smaller device, like a precision device from a company like mine, Red Life, is my company is because you're Something that's clinically backed. And, and so the, the reason why somebody would do a panel is so that they can get it over all their organs. The, the acute long COVID study that I just cited was whole organ photobiomodulation, so head to groin area, which would be something like this or, or like what I have here. these would be an example of how you're able to get all your organs into red light therapy, into red light, in, into the, into the light so that you can then- Improve the function of all these organs. So then what you're doing then is, what you saw then when you, you got all these different colors coming out of here, right? So you're seeing, you can't see the near infrared 'cause it's invisible, but this blue is 480, which blue light people get confused 'cause they think of it like, okay, well, this must be bad, but the reason why your son, one of the reasons why he may have gone into remission of acne is because that red light mask may have had blue light in it. And And, and so that, and likely did, almost all of them do, right? And so that's gonna land in the dermis and stimulate the, the cells in this area to regenerate. It's going to kill bacteria better than anything else, so that's why you'd go as, as, as low as in the spectrum as 480, and then you come into the red, which is 630, 660, and so we're using 9 here. So what you're seeing is then 670, which is the one The reason why you're seeing everything lit up is they're dual lights, which are often devices are skipping that and they're, you'll see some lit, some not, 'cause that's not-- and, and so you're not using a dual light in that sense. And then And then all the way up to ten sixty, which the-- which is the deeper spectrum of near infrared light, which then gets into the center of the organs, center of the bones, which is why you'll see those ones show up in the prostate cancer studies or the bone cancer studies or lung cancer, they're all near infrared almost exclusively. And so then you're hitting all these levels at the same time from the shallow to the deepest area of the organs, stimulating the stem cell production in these areas to cause both the differentiation to create them is particularly within the bones, but then to- To mature them, which is called the proliferation is to create them, and then differentiation is to mature them. And so there the processes that you're seeing that you activate with using the broad spectrums, and then you're looking for something as well that delivers a high amount of irradiance, the, the amount of power delivered is then the critical factor for the studies that I was mentioning, and that's why we're using over two hundred milliwatts per centimeter squared at three inches, and that's why groups like I mentioned, like the Hope for Cancer Treatment Centers, who the, the chief medical officer I mean, he was the guy that put Olivia Newton John and Suzanne Summers' cancer in remission, and part of the reason why they then implemented our red light panels for their patient follow-up program is because you can't go to a center and then go home and then go back to your same environment. You need something that will continually work for you. This was the device I sent my grandma home with after she split her head. She got about sixteen stitches from cognitive function decline, and I think I know what was causing that with the interventions that she was being- Encouraged to get, which everyone was encouraged to get over the last few years after all my attempts and persuasion that didn't work, so then I went into the remedial aspects. But this is what she was using daily, which was able to then help her regain her cognitive function, move back into the home that my, my wife and I built for her, and be able to enjoy her life into a ripe old age of eighty-seven and get off her thyroid medication. So it's pretty simple, and, you know, this is what I got Lance Armstrong using right now and Some well-known folks. How close do you have to sit to them? Yeah ideally it would be even a centimeter away or, or three inches. Most people are standing like a foot away, but you'll get a more therapeutic recovery. And the, like the eyesight studies was directly against the eyeball, almost touching, if the University College London, you can see the images directly against their eyes. So you can get close, but you don't have to. You could work out a foot away from it, and you, which- Which means that you could be there longer as well, or two feet away from it, then you could be there longer, and ideally you're unclothed, so I'm not technically doing it properly. Near infrared will penetrate through the clothing, that's why it's going all the way through to your bones, but red will probably mostly get blocked by the clothing that you're wearing. But, you know, yeah, if you're wearing training gear or something like that, then you're, you're kind of minimally clothed, so you'll still get a lot of the benefits. That's fascinating. This is amazing. I mean, this is really fascinating. I've, I've seen this explosion, and it just-- I'm always fascinated whenever you have big pharma that's like trying to suppress this information because they want us on all of these drugs, they want us on all these pharmaceuticals, they don't want us to know about these natural curatives. and it's to me that means we're over the target, we're over the target for sure. Jonathan, any final thoughts on this? I think it's fascinating. Oh, thank you, And like I've seen people Clayton with like a simple device like this, right? This is an example of, I've got a lot of pro athletes, like guys like Tim Tebow, we, we do some of the anti-human trafficking work together, but he's, he's always traveling with this, right? Yeah, yeah, I think you know what he's doing. It's, it's amazing. Like for the last, you know, three years, I've been in a group, you know, advancing the tech companies fighting human trafficking, child trafficking and we're having tremendous success But this is an example, this has got five different wavelengths through triple lights here, but like, so I've seen people with nine out of ten back pain go to a zero which sounds unbelievable, but I've seen it a lot. And then, you know, I remember massage therapist Dee Dee, so that's what happened to her, and then- She couldn't work with that, so that's a forty-eight thousand dollars salary that she had to forego. But then through something that costs like a few hundred dollars, literally, like under four hundred dollars, she was able to get that and restore and go back to her work. And so I just want people to know that there's always a way and don't like what, and the, and the panels become the cheapest thing. I want, I want people to know that because like my grandma for her thyroid medication, what she, like I, I gave that, she's my grandma, Would have spent that money, like that year on her thyroid medication, and now, you know, over the next ten years, God willing, 'cause I-- that's my wife's grandma, right? My abuela. and but my grandma got her to ninety-eight years old. And so let's imagine she gets to that age or greater over the next ten years, that was twelve thousand dollars that she's gonna spend in thyroid medication, or you do the math on, on taking supplements, and it, it becomes very expensive. Not that I'm against that but you times better than the group that weren't taking the red light seven zero and fifteen times greater, it was a Hashimoto study as well for producing thyroid hormone and fifteen times greater at reducing medication needs. So my encouragement is to do a therapy, get a therapy that ends up becoming the cheapest thing you do. That, that, now that couple of supplements that you're taking a year is over the next ten years probably gonna cost you north of fifteen thousand dollars if you do the math every month. So then people make a saving by doing something like this, getting something like this in their home, the whole family Can use it, and so you do the math and you realize, "Wow, this is the cheapest thing I'm doing." And so I want people to do the math in their head so that they can make the right choices today and get therapies that will be preventative and substitute a lot of the things that they're spending money on that aren't really working properly. And and then that, that's my big encouragement, Clayton, for people. And, and, and as well, just so the audience are aware, we've got the codes available for twenty-five percent off discount on our Twenty-five percent off single items and reducted thirty for thirty percent off bundled items. So we've got a massive saving there for a limited time and, you know, we're subject to sell out because of the massive demand, but just so, you know, people have that now, so I want people to know to grab those savings. And there's payment plans there as well, so what it would cost for a month what it would cost for a month is what it would cost for a single session at a clinic. So I'm, I'm saying like, save money, get You can do it right before bed to get a better sleep or first thing in the morning, which the clinics aren't open then, right? So you make good choices like that, use the codes, redacted twenty-five, redacted thirty at myredlight dot com, so that's where to go, and use that at checkout and we can support you get the best health ever. And you know, I'm just excited Clayton, for the audience, you know, everyone that's watching this and the response and the, the, the, the transformation that's ahead Yeah, because this is this is a game changer. Yeah, I would love to hear how people are, are healed by this as well. Yeah, drop me a comment below for sure. Thank you for that. So redacted twenty-five, thank you. I didn't even know you were gonna do that. So really appreciate that. Well, Jonathan, great. it's been a pleasure meeting you, and thank you for your incredible research on this, and I'm excited to I'm excited to be standing in front of one of these every day in my home, that Let's make sure to follow up, and I, I wanna see you have this success that you're looking for. It just, yeah, it touches my heart that you want to, to have those improvements. I, I, I really care about that. I feel like that's a God-given gift when people really believe that something is possible, and they don't accept and settle for the status quo. And I see that in you, and I, and I al-always want to see people like that get the results that they're looking for because you deserve that, and so does everyone Thank you.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 7, 2026 at 1:02 AM
Saved - June 8, 2026 at 11:47 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

They are not just upgrading the internet. They are building a HUMAN CONTROL GRID. Frequencies, nanotech, brain signals, biometric targeting, and a battlefield you cannot even see. https://t.co/HIc4sY2CPp

Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation argues that the symptoms being discussed are “symptomatic right now,” framing them as the result of “beta tests” and “a new form of war.” It claims that the United States, the UK, Russia, China, and India all have the relevant technology. The speaker then responds to a question about whether the affected American patients share political beliefs. They say that, instead of focusing on shared politics, they are relying on a report from *Surgical Neurology International* that describes microwave frequencies being used as a weapon of war. They also reference an article they read about China turning on “six G,” stating that in 6G it has the ability to read and manipulate the human brain. The discussion further claims that if someone has nanotech “in you,” they are “no longer considered human,” and introduces a new term for the human species: “Homo Borg Genesis.” The speaker concludes by saying that if this is imposed without consent and people are no longer considered human, “the debate is gonna come at some point here.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
This is all the reason we think those are symptomatic right now, those are the beta tests, and we're probably in a new form of war. The United States has this tech, the UK has this tech, Russia has this tech, China has this tech, India has this tech. Okay. New form of war. We'll have a link to this article in the description. Do you think that this-- so when you then, I mean, you're, you're just studying human beings, human patients, and you're looking at this cross section of these, these Americans who are having these symptoms, do they have some sort of political beliefs that are all in unison? You know, are they all- You know, that's what my, my, my brain immediately goes to. They were, they were all at like supporters of Black Lives Matter, you know what I mean? Like, what, what, anything common there that you've then analyzed? Well, no, I think when you read that report that Surg- Surgical Neurology International, it talks about how microwave frequencies are being utilized as a, as, as a weapon of war. It talks about the five G. China, yesterday we just r-read an article, they just turned on their six G. And in it, it says in the 6G, it's, it, they have the ability to read and manipulate the human brain with it. Okay? This is what we're facing. If you have this nanotech in you, you aren't longer considered human. There's a new term for the human species, Homo Borg Genesis. And my question to this, if this was basically imposed upon us without consent, and you're no longer considered human, the debate is gonna come at some point here.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 6, 2026 at 7:03 PM
Saved - June 7, 2026 at 3:35 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

⚠️ Netanyahu does not want U.S. aid to end. He wants it rebranded as a “partnership” so American taxpayers stay locked in forever. That is not America First. That is foreign entanglement by another name. @RepThomasMassie exposes the trap. https://t.co/Kcc0x2Lbhx

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that withholding U.S. military funding for Israel—specifically the $2,000-pound bombs, guided munitions, and offensive weapons, and possibly not even continuing offensive weapon transfers for a week—would lead to a peace deal. The speaker claims this would also be immediately reflected in the U.S. economy, saying gas and diesel prices would drop five percent instantly once that happened, framing it as an “admission” that the war should never have been initiated. The speaker presents this as a way to “save American lives” and “put America first.” The speaker then says Benjamin Netanyahu is “one step ahead,” pointing to a letter posted online over the last few days in which Netanyahu calls for a new framework for aid to Israel. The letter, according to the speaker, reduces aid to Israel but reframes it as a “partnership,” with the idea that the relationship is not ended but “deepened.” The speaker describes the reframing as Israel presenting aid as an arrangement among equals rather than assistance, asserting, “don’t end the relationship, deepen it,” and “we’re actually equals, we’re partners,” implying that the U.S. would still provide resources while Israel accesses them under that new framing. The speaker criticizes the suggestion, saying it shows “hubris” and makes the speaker feel Netanyahu believes Americans work for him. The speaker concludes by stating that Netanyahu will likely get his way unless he changes the plan.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
I have suggested, and I believe this a hundred percent, if you would just withhold the funding for Israel, the military funding, the two thousand pound bombs, the guided munitions, the offensive weapons, I'm not even talking about the defensive weapons, if you would just withhold funding and transfer of the offensive weapons to Israel for a week, there would be a peace deal, and you could confirm that at your local gas station because the price of gas would-- and diesel would go down five percent instantly as soon as that happened, it would be a bruise to our ego So it would be an admission that we never should have initiated this war, but if that's what it takes to save American lives and to put America first, then that's what we should do. Right, but Benjamin Netanyahu is one step ahead of you. A letter was posted online over the last few days where he calls for a new framework for aid to Israel. It's reducing aid to Israel, but instead reframing it as a partnership. In other words, don't end the relationship, deepen it. You don't give us aid, we're actually equals, we're partners. The hubris of this suggestion is astounding, is just-- it, it makes me feel like he thinks we work for him. American taxpayers should be slaves, go to work, you will take that money, and we now have equal access to it. It makes me so mad. But until he, until he changes this plan, he's gonna get his way, don't you think?
RedactedNews
Posted - June 5, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - June 6, 2026 at 11:49 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

⚠️ This is how the AI dictatorship gets built. Data centers DRAIN the grid, SUCK up the water, CRUSH local communities, and when citizens FIGHT back, Washington invents a new extremist category to silence them. https://t.co/jAqrchb3bt

Video Transcript AI Summary
A Wired investigation described U.S. law enforcement circulating warnings about a category called “anti-tech violent extremism,” allegedly using unpublished reporting from the DHS, the FBI, and regional fusion centers. The term is said not to appear in publicly available DHS or FBI extremism guidance documents, and the transcript claims the new framing targets people who object to AI data centers—such as by opposing a “massive AI data center” planned for their backyard—by labeling them as domestic threats. Hakeem Anwar, CEO of Above Phone, discussed his work on a report about AI data centers across the United States. He said customers asked Above Phone to create an AI product, prompting due diligence on how such systems work and what risks companies face. He connected the growth of data centers beginning in 2022 with concerns that developers were violating environmental law and overriding local community decisions. He said many local organizations had limited information, and online inquiries were met with offers to sell information for $20,000 per year, so he pursued publicly available sources instead. Anwar described building “AI Data Center Map” (aidatacentermap.org) and an accompanying public report. He said the map uses “best academic estimations” and the same formulas researchers use to estimate water displacement, power use, and heat island effect. He said the goal is a visual tool for understanding what is happening locally and connecting with other concerned people. Zooming out, Anwar said the scale of spending is nationwide: “We spent two point five trillion dollars on data centers in twenty twenty-five.” He emphasized “hyperscale data centers,” which he distinguished from “conventional data centers,” describing them as “black triangles” on the map. He said hyperscalers are built “on top of major US aquifers” and that the most concentrated region is Virginia’s “Data Center Alley.” He claimed that in Virginia, data centers are using more than 25% of total power. He also cited concerns in Virginia, Texas (Central Texas and Northern Texas), and the Southwest. Anwar said local residents worry about health impacts and power and water availability. He claimed data center operators are not reporting water use and that transparency reports from major companies “are not even tracking the water.” He said there is “not even a meter on the huge pipe” used to pump water and referenced Lawrence Berkeley National Lab estimating that less than one third of data centers measure water consumption. He described concerns in Virginia about “four thousand backup diesel generators,” saying they emit carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter comparable to nearby power plants. He said these generators normally run “thirty minutes a day,” but in grid emergency scenarios could run full time, producing “twenty times as much pollution.” On construction speed, Anwar said the map indicates about 41% of planned data centers are already progressing and that most will be built in the next 24 months. He claimed this would add 40, 50, and 54.7 gigawatts—doubling capacity by the end of 2027. He also said a new hyperscaler is “going live every four days” from then until the end of 2027. He claimed the operational power would rise from 53 gigawatts to about 202 gigawatts, “roughly forty percent of the entire power supply in the United States.” He said the power source is unclear and referenced grid capacity constraints in the PJM interconnection handling 13 states, which he said released emergency regulation to speed up data center buildouts because power studies were taking too long. He described options data centers may use, including being off-grid or building power plants on site (nuclear, solar, gas, or temporary gas turbines). He said the last auction in PJM did not meet margins for safe power supply. Anwar connected the data center race to an “AI as nuclear weapon” framing and to an AI-driven cyber conflict context. He cited discussions including Dario Amodei of Anthropic and said China’s frontier AI timeline is portrayed as close. He also said Chinese local outlets reported that in 2025, 80% of China’s data centers are idle. Asked about a possible “AI bubble,” Anwar said investors (besides “the biggest players”) could “lose a lot of money” and described an expectation of unused “ghost towns” of AI data centers. For action, he said one step is using devices without pervasive AI surveillance and advised people to connect with local efforts. He discussed Above Phone’s “wise phone,” describing it as not surveilling users and as not having an AI layer inside the phone, unlike operating-system-embedded AI on other devices. He said Above Phone uses GrapheneOS, which he described as lacking a “big tech layer,” and claimed there is “no way to permanently turn off” embedded AI on other platforms.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Well, here we go again. If you speak out against something the government is doing, you could be labeled a domestic terrorist. The federal government has apparently found a brand new category of domestic threats. Not cartel violence, you know, not Wall Street fraud, not the people poisoning our food or bankrupting our country, spying on Americans, dragging us into endless wars. No, those people are fine. No, no, the new threat is you. If you don't want a massive AI data center built in your backyard or you speak out against it You are the problem, according to a brand new report out of Wired magazine and their investigation, more than one thousand pages of unpublished reports from DHS, the FBI, and regional fusion centers show that the US law enforcement agencies are now circulating warnings about something they're calling anti-tech violent extremism. That's the phrase, anti-tech violent extremism. And Wired says this term doesn't appear to publicly, in any publicly available DHS or FBI document guides on extremism, it's not there. Which means this is new. This is a newly emerging category being built inside their surveillance state in the Trump administration. So if you don't want a giant data center in your backyard Because of what it's gonna do to the ecology, what it's gonna do to the noise pollution, what it's gonna do to the energy infrastructure, then you could be labeled a domestic terrorist. Our next guest has written a brand new massive report on AI data centers across the United States, and it's incredibly eye-opening and disturbing. We'll make sure we have a link. in the description box for you to all read it. Our guest is Hakeem Anwar, he's the CEO of Above Phone, and he's written this brand new AI ecology report, and we're thrilled to have him back on the show. Great to have you back. Clayton, it's good to be back. How are you? I'm doing great. Great to see you. Welcome back to the show. So, yeah, you know, wanna dive into your AI ecology report here, but just before we get into all of that and what you've uncovered. you've been of course, obviously on the front lines of warning about this government surveillance, obviously at Above Phone, that's, that's what you guys do you know, making sure we have computers and phones that aren't being surveilled in that way. So thank you for that. just first on your thoughts on this wired, wired investigation, and if you're speaking out against these AI data centers, then you're on their watch list. Yeah, it's, it's, it's alarming, right? This, this news from a few days ago, and it just shows you how fast this is evolving. It also shows you that people are, are pushing back. I think from that report, they're, they're paying attention to who shows up locally in the Zoning the zoning hearings and any hearings about data centers, they're tracking who is showing up, and they're also on the lookout for people who are Using violence to achieve their goals, which is, you know, sometimes that can happen. These people who are misguided think that violence is the only way to achieve their goals, and I just wanna, I, we have to, now we have to preface the whole conversation by saying, hey, that's not what we're trying to do here. this is about peaceful action and awareness, not tearing things down. Right. It's about empowering people with information. and just because, you know, you don't want this thing in your backyard because of what might it do to your environment, your energy bills, your water supply, all of it doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you an American who's standing up for liberty, and it's making it's also that's part of our DNA in this country. So let's talk about your new report. And what was the impetus? First of all, tell us about just at a high level this report and what was the impetus for wanting to put this together? Yeah, so last year, our customers asked us to make an AI product, and part of our due diligence, I mean, we, we already have made a lot of other products for email, calendar, video conferencing, so as part of this, I wanted to look at how do you do this? And what is the risk? And what are other companies doing? And then just, just even immediately, I, I realized there was a major crisis coming. This is kind of when people were starting to, to see the spread of data centers in 2022. Twenty-five, and they're popping up everywhere. I got to see accounts of them violating environmental law and just completely overriding what local communities want. So there, there was something more there, so I started to reach out to academics and local orgs and was trying to answer the question, how much water and power do these things actually use? most of these orgs were working with limited information. Data center developers are very secretive. when I tried to look for more information online, companies would offer to sell it to me for only twenty thousand dollars a year, right? So cheap. So I said, "No, I think we can do better from public sources." So we didn't end up creating an AI product, but we built this thing called AI Data Center Map. I'll bring it up here. Its website is aidatacentermap.org. It's public, it's a free resource, the data will be free forever along with the report, and it will let you drill down to what is happening in your local area. You can go into a particular place and click on an area, and it will tell you how much water is being displaced through our best academic est-estimations. I'm using the same formulas and numbers researchers are using the power displacement and also the heat island effect Which is how much hotter they make the surrounding area. So this is meant to be a public service for you to get a visual of what's going on in your area and maybe even connect with some other concerned people. And that's a i data centers dot org. A i data center map dot org. Map dot org. Okay. And so what, what areas stood out to you? What areas of concern stood out to you after putting all of this aggregate data together? Yeah, well, it's, it's it's a, it's an issue that it's affecting the whole country. Like, just to, just to zoom out a little bit, right? So we spent two point five trillion dollars on data centers in twenty twenty-five. With that amount of money, we could have built a nationwide high-speed rail network or, you know, done some crazy things. We could have renewed our public infrastructure, we could have solved homelessness, but no, we spent it on hyperscalers, and it's these hyperscale data centers That are the scary ones. I'm not talking about conventional data centers on the map. These are the, the black triangles, right, that are popping up all over. And as you can see, Clayton, it's, it's pretty well distributed everywhere. right now what you're seeing is hyperscalers on top of major US aquifers. the most concentrated area of the United States is definitely in Virginia it's called Data Center Alley for that reason. and already In, in Virginia, their data centers are using more than twenty-five percent of the total power. So there are pockets everywhere, but for some really bad areas are Virginia Texas, Central Texas and Northern Texas, and then also the Southwest. That's remarkable. Twenty-five percent of the available power is going to those data centers, and I didn't realize-- I guess I didn't realize that Virginia, that area, had become quite a corridor. For data centers, what are local people saying about it there? Yeah, so I mean, people are, are very worried about the health impacts and, not to mention the power and water. just, just a little sidebar is, is, so these data centers aren't reporting how much water they are using. And when I looked at the transparency reports for Google and Meta and some of these big companies, it turns out they're not even tracking the water. So there's not even a meter on the huge pipe they use to pump up water. they're not even tracking, they're using their best estimates, and so we don't really know how much water they're pulling out. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab estimates that less than one third of their, of data centers are measuring their water consumption, and so they're not measuring their entire fleet, which is a big danger. but people in Virginia are already starting Starting to suffer from the health impacts. So people are worried about the four thousand backup diesel generators that are in this area of, of Virginia. there have been studies to show that now they are sending these-- these are just backup diesel generators, and they're sending as much, if not more, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and, and particulate matters as nearby power plants. But get this, these are, these are just backups, so they're only running thirty minutes a day. If there is a grid emergency scenario, they would ask these data centers to run these generators full time, and they generate twenty times as much pollution. So that's a really scary situation to be in. How quickly are these data centers being built? I saw a viral video this week, I'm sure all of us did, about this gentleman working for a-- at a Tesla robotics factory. I don't know if we can- you know, we wanna conflate the two, but he pointed out, he said they have, they have us on twelve-hour shifts, and we're working seven days a week, and we're building these as quickly as we can, and we're building as quickly as, and quickly as possible. these data centers are popping up so fast, how, how quickly are they being built? It is extremely rapid, and I mean, this map that we're looking at is one of the best sources of information. So using this, the, the data off of this map we're seeing that we're already about forty-one percent Through the planned data centers but we're looking at most of the data centers being built in the next twenty-four months. So we're going to add forty, fifty-four point seven gigawatts, which is doubling the current amount of data centers by the end of twenty twenty-seven. Just to put it in perspective, a new hyperscaler is going live every four days from now until the end of twenty twenty-seven. So, yeah, it's- We're moving extremely fast. We're about to double the amount of data centers, even a little bit more than double, 'cause if only forty-one percent, so about fifty-nine percent, we're about to double that capacity in the next year? We're doubling the number of these hyperscale data centers, we're actually quadrupling the amount of power that they're using. Right now, we're at this is my estimate, and so, you know, people can push back if they have better numbers, but we're at fifty-three gigawatts of operational power, which is around, you know Thirty, thirty to forty million US homes, and we're going to go to a hundred and fifty additional gigawatts, so we're gonna be at a total of two hundred two gigawatts. This is roughly forty percent of the entire power supply in the United States. Where are we getting this power from? You know I don't think anyone's answered that, and I think that the stability of the elect-electric grid will suffer. We're already seeing in, in some areas here, kind of in Data Center Alley, over here, there's a interconnection grid called PG&M, which actually is a interstate grid. It handles thirteen states. They've had to release emergency regulation so that, not to, not to protect- People, but to ensure that these data centers can continue to get built because doing the power studies was taking too long. You know, when you wanna hook one of these things up, you have to do a study of, "Hey, is the power still gonna be reliable?" and they do them in batches, okay, so, hey, here's these new demands and new supply on the grid, what's gonna happen? So these were taking so long that they gave data centers creative new ways to bundle their own power. One is that they can- Be completely off the grid, although that's very unlikely. Unlikely. Two, is they're actually building power plants directly on site. So this could be things like nuclear or solar or gas plants or even temporary gas turbines, as some companies like X have been making popular. So they're giving them ways to shortcut their power supply in the short term while they build the longer term power infrastructure. but, you know, just to say that the last auction that PJM had, they weren't even able to meet the margin for safe power supply. So there was so much demand, there, the, the grid isn't even able to supply it. So it's unclear to me where, where the power is gonna come from. Yeah, these small nuclear reactors, like companies like NNE or SMR, I mean, is, is that the future here? Because how are we gonna be able to support this? And Americans are wondering, what is this gonna do to their bills, their electric bills? Are they gonna be cut off from that, separated from it, so it will have no effect? You know, you heard Kevin O'Leary on his interview with Tucker Carlson a few weeks ago saying that he didn't see that this wasn't gonna affect people's power bills at all, that they would-- the companies themselves Or they'd be open to paying to offset those costs. Do you believe that? I think if they are gonna build their own electric infrastructure, then keep them off grid, we'll see how that works out. No, it's, I, I, there's, there's no way in hell, right? There's, there's no way in hell that they're gonna build all this power themselves and the, the costs are gonna be passed down to the consumers. You know, already Bloomberg reported this like early this year, last year. That prices in some of these dense spots have already tripled, electric prices have tripled, and I'm sure you heard that story in Nevada where a power company is just saying, "Hey, we're not gonna be able to supply you fifty thousand homes with energy, we're gonna do this data center instead, so you're gonna have to figure something else out." So it's I, I do think it's another way to push people towards you will own nothing and be happy. This is one of the only things we have left, is our power and our water. So we have to do everything in our power to, to raise awareness about this. I mean, it's insane. And now, you know, y-y, I keep seeing videos from people saying like, you know, create your own water supply at your house, companies like Altitude and otherwise, like, you know, Just buy a thirty thousand dollar water purification system that just pulls it from the air. you know, where are people gonna get thirty thousand dollars just to be able to get their own water supply because these companies are taking all the water and they're taking all the electricity? it's-- I don't think people understand what's coming. this has really become like a national security issue for the United States of America, like this is part of President Trump's plan now really for like national security, having these data and AI centers for the future future of warfare everything in the United States is all tied to the future of these data centers and so Americans are really being pushed to the side here because now it's a national security issue, and if you criticize it, sorry, that's, that's tough. You're not gonna, you have to deal with it. It's a national security issue, and you're lucky, by the way, and actually many of these families are now dealing with eminent domain. These companies coming in in Georgia and otherwise coming in and taking their homes in order to build these data centers. Sorry, we're taking your house, tearing it down, and building a data center. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So like, why, why are they doing this? It comes down to that question, and, and you brought up the AI war the cyber AI war that our govern- government is currently preparing for. you know, not just the organizations like NIST, but people like Dario, CEO of Anthropic, one of the most popular AI models out there. So like, they're, they're act-- like they're, they're talking about this AI as if it was a nuclear weapon. So when Kevin O'Leary got put on the spot by Tucker Carlson, that's what he said, "Should we just let China build all these data centers and get ahead of us in the AI race?" So we're living through another Cold War. It's not just Kevin saying this, it's also Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, who has said that he- He likes to say, "Hey, China is only eight months behind us in frontier AI." And Anthropic they, they have gone through a, the first AI orchestrated cyber espionage campaign which didn't require any human intervention, and they used, the attackers used Claude. I guess they suspect that this is a foreign adversary like China. So this is, this is kind of the explanation why they're racing to build these things. However, it's very, very- Very short-sighted. China's already gone through this boom, they've tried to build their data centers, and now in twenty twenty-five local Chinese outlets are reporting that eighty percent of the data centers in China are sitting completely idle. They don't even have a customer. So how do we expect in America that we're gonna fill these data centers when more people in China are using AI and robotics? So that, okay, that's interesting. does-- that leads me to my question about this, quote, unquote, AI bubble that we could be about to experience in the United States. You keep hearing rumblings about it, that we are about to see a collapse in the US stock market, we're gonna see a big collapse, and the AI bubble is gonna be at the heart of it. A lot of overvalued companies burning through revenue, that you're burning through money that they don't have, and it's all fake. So when you look at China and you have No one's using them. Do you think the same thing is about to happen in the US? I, I think so. I think that a lot of people who invested in these data centers, besides maybe the biggest players, are going to lose a lot of money, and it's, it's very, very short-sighted why they would build this. I think that there is something happening behind the scenes to encourage people to build this. I know that there's a lot of incompetence and greed in our economy today, but- Not even they can be this stupid. China has six hundred million people there already using AI. They have more people using AI than we have using the internet here in the US. They're also very far ahead on robotics and self-driving cars, that's a norm in China. If they're not using all of their AI compute, they're not even close to. There's just no way we're ever gonna reach that. It's never meant to be for consumers. Now, there might be another reason But it's not meant for consumers. So they're not using this AI compute they've overbuilt and, but they're using more AI than we are. So the disparity seems obvious here, you know, in the US, we're gonna have all these data centers that are gonna be ghost towns, and then they'll make movies about it. You know, you'll drive through certain little towns and you're gonna see this, "Oh, what's that? Oh, that was a data-- Remember, remember in twenty twenty-six?" That was a data center that was built. Did anyone ever use it? No, no one ever used it. And now it's a ghost town. You know, that's what you're gonna see, like ghost towns of AI data centers everywhere. There, there's no doubt about that. there's, there, I mean, there's way too many of these things. This is my personal opinion, but I think we could do without ninety percent of these data centers more, more than ninety. And just to give people some scale, think about this. Before twenty twenty-five, all of Google and all of Microsoft's data centers around the planet totaled four gigawatts each, right? So the entire data centers for these companies across the planet Four gigawatts, they use this to support billions upon billions of people and, you know, these aren't AI data centers, but they were running AI services for people, and it was completely fine. So how do we go from four gigawatts for an entire global infrastructure to nine gigawatts for a single data center? Some people say that it could be that this is what is needed to roll out the next phase of surveillance. Predictive policing. So that's also a pretty plausible theory. So one of the things that I've been grappling with, and you're hearing discussions from friends of the show like David Ike and others who are saying, "We're, we're moving towards this like transhumanist agenda, this merging of AI with- Human beings. And how do we stop this? I mean, how do we-- Do we just completely go dark and move out to Wyoming somewhere in a farm? and it seems pretty darn dark and nefarious if you see like the, the demonic people that run Washington, DC, and the people that are involved in our intelligence communities, absolutely the, some of the darkest people. So I guess I'll ask you the maybe esoteric question, why do you think this is happening? I think it's the opportunity to reconnect with, with nature, and it's kind of a sad part about human nature is that sometimes things have to be threatened for us to get, to get, for, for us to care. So for me, when I started, I, I had no idea how an aquifer worked or how, you know, my water got to me, up into my house, and this, it, it being threatened actually got me to care. It now, now, it's- I see the beauty of how these systems, how Mother Nature is, is sustaining all life. There's this ground that sits underneath there's this water that sits underneath the ground for thousands of years just waiting for us to pull it up to the surface, and we have to take care of the planet just as it is taking care of us. I know that is kind of weird, it sounds like maybe liberal for me to say it, but I think that, that's one of the areas where the left is doing a really good job in fighting back, and Kicked out of their country. And finally, I think this is a reason that both the left and the right can rally around and, and work together, 'cause at the end of the day, we're all, we're all just humans living on this planet. So I think I think with that being said, there's a lot that you can do. One is to kick out the AI that's on your local devices and two, just to get connected with the efforts that are happening locally, and that's what I wanna do with this map. Right now, it's just giving you information about the data centers, but soon there'll be a way to adopt a data center, so you'll be able to come into any one of these, and there'll actually be a button here to say, "Hey, get connected with your local organization," and it'll take you directly to their website. So, you know, we're finding that people are remembering how to get involved with their local community again. You have to, you have to keep our county and city officials accountable. You have to tell them Hey, we live here too. This is, this is our land. I think, and you're seeing this movement, you know, among young people now. I, I just saw a report like last week, people are moving away from regular smartphones, and they're moving to dumb phones. Like the younger generation, they don't want smartphones, they're buying those old flip phones and, and so forth. I mean, and at the heart of it, obviously what you guys do at Above Phone, which is not making them dumb, but removing a lot of that, all of that Craft that gets us caught up in this AI ecology and so I love that what you guys do. You guys just pushed out a new big update, right? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, we, we like to call it a wise phone. So it's, it's, it's smart, but it's, it's wise. So we have been around for five years now, and this is a phone that can do anything your normal phone can do. Here, I'll bring it up on screen. This is what it looks like. So right, you've got all your apps Here, you've got different app stores that you can use, but the most important part of this is that one, it's not surveilling you, two, there's no AI layer inside the phone. If you're working with a Google or Samsung or iPhone, it turns out they rolled out an update and now AI is embedded into the operating system. There's no way to turn it off, and there's ways to try and disable it. I cover these in the report, so download that. If you'd like, but there's no way to permanently turn it off. So people need to realize, even if they're ideologically opposed to these data centers, their phones are justifying their existence. So to start to use open source software like the Above phone, which is running GrapheneOS, that doesn't have a big tech layer on it, and you can do pretty much everything that you normally do. You can even you can even watch YouTube, right? We can go to Redacted. And we can download those videos directly to our device, right? You can play them in the background, you can get this without ads, and again, there's no AI, there's no digital ID running in it. So we really need to we need to take matters in our own hands and build a network of free technology to serve as the alternative. So I really like what the kids are doing with their dumb phones, and I think they're solutions for for everyone at every level. Well, I love the above phone I have one and I use it, so thank you so much for that. if people wanna grab the report, I'll put it in the description of today's show so people can grab it and learn more about these data centers and what this is what this is doing to the local ecology and get connected and start fighting back against all of this before we lose ourselves, before it's too late because we're getting pretty darn close to that at this moment, I think. Hakeem, thank you so much. really appreciate you joining us here. Thank you for the report and all the hard work that you guys did on this. Clayton. It's a pleasure. Thanks, thanks for everything that you're doing. Thanks for having me on. Thanks to everyone who's watching. Appreciate it, Hakeem. Well, today's show is brought to you by Mindwalk Holdings, and their ticker symbol is right here on your screen, it's H Y F T, and they're on the Nasdaq. And look, this is one of those companies sitting right now at the center of the two hottest trends in the market, artificial intelligence and drug discovery, because big pharma has a massive problem on its hand. Developing new drugs can take ten years, cost billions of dollars, so the question is, who can use AI to shorten that timeline, lower those costs, and actually find Targets faster. That's where Mindwalk comes in. They call it the bio-native AI, and this isn't just some generic, like, chatbot that's like slapped on medical data. Mindwalk has patented HYFT technology, its lens AI platform, and a full wet lab to validate what the AI finds then in the real world. And here's the validation point that jumped out to me: AMD, yes, that AMD, featured Mindwalk in an official case study. Study on AMD dot com. MineWalk runs Lens AI using AMD Instinct and their GPUs, their MI three hundred X GPUs and AMD EPYC CPUs. That's some serious infrastructure. They also have relationships across nineteen of the top twenty global pharmaceutical companies, according to Jones Research. They just signed their first one year recurring Lens AI SaaS contract with a major, major pharma client. That means because recurring- Software revenue is what Wall Street tends to reward. Their latest quarter showed revenue up fifty-two percent year over year to four point two million, that's US, and their revenue doubled, gross margin hit fifty-nine percent, and they had fourteen point two million dollars in cash. Jones Research initiated coverage with a buy rating and has a five dollar price target. The stock has been trading around a dollar thirty, so this is still a true micro-cap territory stock right now. Now, this isn't financial advice, so do your own research, understand the risks, especially with micro-cap stocks, and check out Mindwalk Holdings, their ticker symbol here on your screen, once again, HYFT, and do your research, they are on the Nasdaq.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 5, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - June 6, 2026 at 12:42 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 Ukraine may have just made a FATAL mistake. Striking Russia during the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, with 20,000 attendees from 130 countries, could trigger the kind of response the world has feared. @ProfessorPape lays it out. https://t.co/23PoQYtUei

Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Rabkinov said that documents related to attacks on Saint Petersburg could prompt Russia to use nuclear weapons in a worst-case scenario, including against countries that possess nuclear weapons, not only against Ukraine. The transcript argues that NATO is launching the attacks and that Ukraine lacks nuclear weapons. The claims are tied to events during the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum, attended by over 130 countries and more than 22,000 people. The transcript describes drone strikes beginning as the forum was taking place, including video said to show drones crossing the city and targeting a highly populated civilian area. It also cites reports of a civilian bus being attacked and states seven civilian casualties and eleven injured from a Ukrainian Armed Forces drone strike. The discussion contrasts Russia’s nuclear signaling with President Volodymyr Zelensky’s stance that he has been open to peace negotiations and is meeting with NATO head Mark Rutte. The transcript criticizes Zelensky’s messaging style, reiterates that he continues promoting NATO membership, and describes his warning that “big trouble” would come if Ukraine is denied membership. It also says Zelensky claims readiness for direct negotiations with Putin while purportedly maintaining obstacles to those talks. Professor Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago, argues that an “escalation trap” has been unfolding for about three years, with parallels to earlier dynamics seen in other conflicts. He says Putin pursued what he expected to be a quick victory but Ukraine “stiffened,” and that both sides have nearly irreconcilable objectives. Pape highlights that Putin has nuclear weapons and that Ukraine now has the capability to strike deep into Russia, which he frames as making escalation extremely dangerous. The transcript connects escalation risk to Ukraine’s increased drone capacity, stating Ukraine has drone manufacturing capabilities and that donor involvement—specifically mentioning Jennifer Pritzker—is part of how drone production and precision targeting have expanded. It emphasizes that drones are relatively inexpensive and that smaller funding streams could still enable effective drone campaigns, describing long-distance precision and the ability to steer drones directly into targets. The conversation also draws parallels to the Iran conflict, describing how the use of drones disrupted business and civilian-linked activities around the Gulf and how the Saint Petersburg Economic Forum is likened to Russia’s “Davos,” with an aim described as disrupting strategic investors rather than targeting the forum’s attendees directly. Pape and others argue for restraint and off-ramps to prevent being dragged into escalation traps. The transcript argues that Europe should push for a clear line to end the war, comparing it to ending the Korean War through a defined line of contact rather than leaving it to the decision of one party. It claims the “line of contact” has not moved meaningfully over several years and says Europe should publicly decide what line it supports, tying funding to an armistice and freezing the conflict. The transcript also references the idea that an earlier peace framework around the Ankara agreement was scuttled, and it concludes by arguing that without a defined settlement line, multiple actors keep escalation traps active, with repeated calls to ask why Europe and others are not publicly demanding the needed end conditions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Well, Russia says that it may respond with nuclear weapons to the attacks on Saint Petersburg that happened today. Here is Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Rab- Rabkinov. That's probably not right. he said, to put it straightforwardly, these documents send a signal that encroachments on Russia and its territory by aggressors, including those who may possess such weapons, could prompt us to use these weapons in the worst case scenario, meaning nuclear weapons. So- So he's not just saying we could use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, he's saying we could justify using them against other countries who have nuclear weapons. Now, obviously, it's N-NATO that's launching these attacks on Saint Petersburg. Ukraine doesn't have the capability to do that themselves. Ukraine also doesn't have nuclear weapons. NATO countries do. NATO countries are the aggressors here. Now, this comes as Ukraine began striking at Russia during the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum, which is hosting attendees from- Over one hundred thirty countries, it includes over two hun-- twenty thousand people. Here is video of the drone strikes in Saint Petersburg today that began to be launched just as this forum was taking place. So you can see the drone coming clear across the city. This is obviously a highly populated civilian territory. we also have video of a bus, a civilian bus, that was attacked in Russia as well we're having reports of seven civilian casualties plus eleven injured by Ukrainian Armed Forces drone strike. Now, obviously, Russians are getting pretty tired of this, and the Putin government knows it. Well, at the same time, Zelensky, Ukrainian president Zelensky, is saying, "But I've been open to peace negotiations all along. I've always wanted peace." He is meeting with the head of NATO, Mark Rutte, today. He did basically the same thing he always does when Europe Class of idiots come to visit. He makes videos showing off his acting skills, highly edited, heartstring-pulling videos, solemn tributes to the soldiers he sent to their deaths, once again portraying himself as the tragic war hero of the war he refuses to end. We're gonna watch as much of this as we can stomach. It's about 40 seconds. I probably can take about 20, but roll it. Okay, that's good. You get the picture. You can find these kinds of things for the last three years on Zelensky's social stream. Who buys this? Well, mostly European politicians eager to applaud him and then send European taxpayer funds into his pocket. He continued his pitch to join NATO, said that big trouble would come if Ukraine is again denied membership. He says even Russia should want us to be a part of NATO. Listen. I believe Russians also need Ukraine to be in NATO, because in the future it could be painful if Ukraine isn't in NATO. And then, warning, eyebrow raise. You see what he means there? Okay, it's already painful, but okay. He pretends to be open to peace negotiations, but we know the terms of that. You can watch that here. He's ready for direct negotiations with Putin, he says. So he's been saying that for years. He doesn't mean it because he continues to put obstacles in the way. So claiming to want peace while escalating the war and killing civilians is familiar and dangerous. Joining us to discuss it is Professor Robert Pape. He's the director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago and author of Escalation Trap on Substack and feels like that's exactly what we're doing. This is an escalation trap. We've seen this play out for now three years. What are we to make of it now? It feels increasingly dangerous. I'm really glad you're covering it because with all the coverage of the Iran war, I think much of your audience may have even forgotten there is this ongoing war with Ukraine and Russia. and the frameworks that I've been describing here with the escalation trap apply absolutely squarely to what's happened here. we need to go back and remember- Remember that the war started over four years ago when Putin thought he was gonna get a quick and decisive victory at Ukraine, attacked thinking he was gonna topple the government in just a few days. Doesn't that sound familiar? and instead, what happened is Ukraine didn't collapse, Ukraine stiffened, and now Ukraine is lashing back in its own horizontal escalation campaign, and you're in a wicked escalation trap here. It's been going on for years. Both sides also have nearly irreconcilable objectives if they want their maximum objectives. Doesn't that also sound familiar? And both sides have engaged in often on, you know diplomacy through Trump mostly, and what doesn't that sound al-also familiar? So this trap here has got both of them, that is, Zelensky and Putin, squarely in its grip. And it is incredibly dangerous because Putin has nuclear weapons. So this is one of the reasons why several years ago, the United States wasn't so keen on giving Ukraine the power to strike deep into the heart of Russia. It, it has that now. It has drones it's built on its own for the most part. and now what you see is that of course Putin is talking about defending his country, and he has nuclear weapons. So this is a very- Very, very dangerous escalation trap. Well, and this is a crossing of Putin's red line in many ways. The attack on the Saint Petersburg Economic Forum, and, you know, there is discontent within Russia about putting an end to this war but you have this massive NATO support, and it seem-- you know, Ukraine has basically mortgaged its future, right? So they've, how many loans now to the IMF, the World Bank, ninety billion dollar boondoggle with the with the demons that run the European Union to now bring- And these Gripen fighter jets from Sweden, as Colonel Douglas McGregor pointed out yesterday on this show, Sweden better watch out because forget the fighter jets arriving inside of Ukraine, what about the factories that are manufacturing those fighter jets? And if NATO really wants to play this game in escalating further with Putin, they are about to get hit hard. I, I don't-- to me, it seems like we're at a tipping point moment right now. well, I don't know if we're at I, I understand why we're, we're at a tipping point moment with Putin and his nuclear threats, but let me just point out what we're really seeing here, which is similar to Iran. What we're seeing is Ukraine, on its own, has a tremendous drone manufacturing capability. In fact, I know a little bit about that because I, here, I live in Chicago, as many of your listeners will know, and one of the big donors to- To the drone is not the US government, and it's not the European government, it's Jennifer Pritzker. That is, drones are so cheap, it's very important, just as we talked about this with Iran, drones are so cheap that Ukraine, with donor help, has been able to build factories, drone factories, et cetera, et cetera. So this isn't just simply about, well, the United States has got to stop funding and then Europeans stop funding. That, that's, there's a- The big-- there's issues there. I don't really mean to say they aren't there, but that's where the media discussion has been for years. What the media is missing Much as we missed with Iran before the Iran War, is that increasingly Ukraine has a lot of wherewithal on its own, and this is making things very dangerous. It makes it dangerous for Europe. I, I'm not saying this makes it better. The problem we have, though, I just wanna come back, is these are Ukraine-produced drones. These aren't European-given to Ukraine drones. Well, no, that's a very important point. But would we call that given? That it's funneled through the Pritzker family, Jennifer Pritzker, who served as a man in the US military, now has a military foundation that is US funded well, actually, so I, I don't know the full details. So that's getting into things beyond my knowledge about the exact wire diagram. I, I know about this because this issue has been prominent in the city of Chicago, and so I've been at dinners and so forth and so on, and she's very public at least has been about her support. And the reason I'm but I'm, I'm bringing it up, not because I know the details here of the finances, what I'm bringing up is to show how- Relatively small amounts of money, and I don't know the full amounts that this donor is giving, but this donor isn't giving a hundred million billions of dollars here. So what you're, what you're seeing is relatively small amounts of money, and there's probably a number of donors that are doing that can go a long way in supporting these drone campaigns, and they're very precise. So your video showed just how precise. In fact, they have these forward-looking where you're- You're able to literally at long distances, drive the drone because of the way the, that, the drone technology works, literally right into the target, like you're going into the pickle barrel. And that is stunning because we used to think only a large power like the United States could do that. Well, now we're seeing it here with Iran, we've been seeing it with Ukraine for a while, and I think we're just not yet fully able to come to grips with the fact that Ukraine on its own is escalating here, and it's escalating with its own capability. Wow, no, that's a, that's a great point. I mean, a lot of focus has been on NATO and the amounts of money coming in from European countries and IMF loans, World Bank loans, and all of these other things, but on a smaller scale, when they can get access to these drones It's, you know, it's, it's, it's devastating. before we switch to- Yeah, and I will be saying more about this, by the way here on my, my Substack. You know, you, you probably don't-- No, I actually have, I inadvertently created two. I have this Professor Pape one, and so that's the one I'll talk about Ukraine and things like that on, keeping the other one for Iran. But the, there are some similar points here, but they need to be sort of developed in some depth, because as And as they are, what's the relationship of the United States to these conflicts? Absolutely critical, I don't dispute that for a moment. But I think there are some other frameworks here that are very, very helpful because I am very concerned about the prospects of escalation that are happening here between Putin and, and Ukraine. I think that this is not at all a good idea that right, that Ukraine is attacking these essentially strategic targets because Putin isn't going to just sit there and- And keep taking it, and he unfortunately could move down that road, and, you know, this is, he's, he's talked a lot about nuclear threats in the past. I, this isn't a, an implausible scenario, right? But a lot of this is Western funded, so we can't let ourselves off the hook. I mean, I, in, as early as 2015, the IMF warned Ukraine, "Stop the genocide on the Donbass, or we're not gonna loan to you anymore." But they continued to loan So Ukraine has taken this Western money and funneled it into their weapons programs, and now they're sort of a dog off the leash, and yet we continue the funding. Well, and Zelensky just admitted two hundred billion dollars that we, we gave them. I don't know where it is. I'm sorry. Well, to all these corrupt individuals who managed to get all this money, where's this money, this massive money laundering operation that's run through Ukraine? There is an incredibly strong case. What you're essentially, I would put it in slightly more my, my terms of re- Restraint. I think you're making a very strong case for restraint here, and you're saying that the idea of just willy-nilly supporting and so forth often can be counterproductive. I think that's an extremely strong case here. And as the escalation grows here, which it could well do, this isn't good for us to get trapped in somebody else dragging us in. So also just to bring another parallel, so you recall with the Iran One war we're often talking about, did Israel drag us into an escalation trap? That's one of the other big argument or discussion points we have. Well, here you have another case where there's Ukraine. Is Ukraine dragging us into dot dot dot? You see, so the parallels here are really quite striking, and it's important to see that these frameworks have been developing here and sharing now with lots of, lots of m- many people. They're, they're not just unique to the situation Right, but just, you know, Ukraine doesn't seem to be as strategic as you give them credit for. I'm just curious about that because we just showed them hitting a civilian bus. And so, you know, it, it's, it, it's along the lines of those of us who have studied the genocide in the Donbass. The, the, those aren't, those aren't, those are civilian targets. They've been hitting civilian targets for two decades. Oh, okay, hold on now. Yeah, I'm not at all justifying what they're doing on any moral case whatsoever. Just wanna be clear. But let me explain the, the likely strategic logic, which is similar to when Iran used its drones to get rid of the luxury tourism in the Gulf states. So When Iran was using drones, it didn't just hit military bases in the Gulf, it was also hitting some hotels, it was also hitting airports. Remember, shut down a lot of air traffic over the Gulf. In fact, it just hit Kuwait Airport again here just overnight. The what that's about here, and I'm not defending it, so please, I, please don't take explanation as moral defense. I'm just trying to show you what I think they're thinking, which is that what they're thinking is they wanna disrupt business. Well, Petersburg Forum is essentially Russia's Davos. I mean, this is the the area where there's lots of strategic investors here you know, billionaire, I mean, lots of money here, and those billionaires, the last thing they wanna is, is eat a drone. so that's not what they're up for. Right. Right. Okay. So, so when I'm-- So when you say what's the logic, it, it is I think it's horrible that states attack civilians. I, I'm not defending this for a second, but the, the reason is they, they think they're disrupting that business, much the way Iran was disrupting and actually did achieve disruption of some luxury business. Right. I think that probably your point is well taken. We under-estimate the power of- The pockets behind Ukraine, the, the-- because we sort of see them as this, you know, nation of gangsters but they're well-funded gangsters. Well, there's a bigger point I'm gonna make here in just a few hours on this live briefing on my Professor Paye Substack, which is that we're moving to a new world, you see, and this is gonna be hard because we don't wanna have a world that's so unstable. But what you're really seeing is and it's- It's not just a consequence of the Iran War, 'cause after all Ukraine started before Iran. But what you're really seeing is a number of factors are coming together, and that's what I'm really gonna be articulating here that are making it so that it's, there's a common set of instabilities that are now spreading in different regions of the world, and unfortunately, they can spread even further, you see. So we're not-- we're, we're, we're used to thinking that instability is the exception It's not a norm. It's we have a short term problem, we get rid of it, and we go back. well, the Houthis that a bunch in the Red Sea straits, a lot of your folks may not even remember that a year ago, but that strait traffic in the Red Sea is still sixty percent down, still sixty percent down, even though it's been a year since the Houthis launched their drones. So there's a lot that is, is, is sort of seeping under the surface, if you see what I mean, that We can see more clearly the directions that we're heading, and it's not 'cause I'm happy about it, it's because I think that we again, these are the values of these frameworks I've been bringing up. I think they help us to see where things are going a little better. When-- Before we move to Iran after the break, I wanna ask you, what are these European leaders hoping the outcome will be by funneling money into this corrupt government of Ukraine allowing this to continue attacks on- On civilians, killing, you know, we've been covering what's been the, again, the genocide in the Donbass and Donetsk and Luhansk for, you know, for years here on this show when the Western media totally ignores it. So what is the endgame for Europe in this? I mean, we see the militarization of Germany, all in an effort to go up against Russia. They've said it publicly, like this isn't a mystery. but it seems like they have a death wish. What do you see? Going up this ladder for Europe. So let me, so let me just say, I, I think, and i-i-in my classes at the University of Chicago, I've been explaining this for a while, but now I'll start to talk broadly that we should be ending this war on the line of contact, and that the Europeans aren't talking that way. They're, they're saying, and this has been a standard talking point for years, it was the Biden administrations as well it's up to the Ukrainians to decide where the line is that ends the war Korea, and we didn't simply say when we fought the Korean War in the 1950s, "Oh, let's just keep fighting until the South Koreans decide where to end the line." No, we ended that war, that, that went on only three years. I say only three years. This has gone on four. We need to end this war, and the obvious thing to do is to start talking Turkey about where the line should be, and that line of contact hasn't moved Or budged more than a handful of miles over three and a half years. So, so this, this point I'm making is identical to the Korean War. We just need to accept that is the key place to end the war, and we need the leadership to say that. I don't think Zelensky is gonna come to say it, just like the South Korean leaders didn't say that in the Korean War. No, that's a great point. Yesterday, Colonel Douglas McGregor on our show said the only way this war is gonna seemingly end at this point Point is if Russia seizes Odessa, crosses the Dnieper River, and m- makes a move, otherwise they're gonna continue this bloodshed for years to come and we'll be at this strategic stalemate. There's a lot of truth to what he has to say. I just wanna come in and add it more the interaction of the politics here. You see that point very militarily correct, but I just wanna focus again back on what I said, which is if we don't identify where the line should be. Then I don't think you're gonna get Putin and Zelensky to do it. We just gotta say, this is the line. President Trump, I thought was actually getting pretty close to that but now of course he's, he's deep into his own-- I mean, so, so I think that's gonna be but the Europeans, you asked what the Europeans should be doing, that's the issue. Force them in public to say what exactly should the line be to draw. That's the issue. Yeah. Professor, isn't it crazy though that at the, the Earlier, we had a framework for peace that involved Russia even beyond, past Eastern Ukraine with the Ankara agreement was in place so that Russia wouldn't have this land, wouldn't have moved further, almost up to the Dnieper River you know, taken over all, all of most of Eastern Ukraine where all those ethnic Russians live. There was a framework in place until Boris Johnson swoops in with his parachute and scuttles the entire peace plan. And so now- Whatever Europe gets is gonna be far worse than they could have gotten years ago if they hadn't tried to scuttle this whole thing from the very beginning. I, I, I certainly think that, that's right. So there's a lot, once you have so many actors, as you're pointing out, you have so many ways in which these escalation traps can continue. That's why I'm trying to identify, and, and there's not many good off-ramps here but what I'm trying to do is identify what would be the key Key thing that could truly help, and that is if the Europeans would decide among themselves, pub-- and make it a public decision, that this is the line they're willing to support. When they give money for X, Y, or Z, it is to support the line, freezing the conflict at the line of contact, getting an armistice. It doesn't-- we, we still don't have an official tr-peace treaty for the Korean War, we have an armistice. That is what I think the model should be, and I think it should be front and center. And if they're not doing it, I think the reporters should be constantly asking, "Why not? " And why are you just letting Zelensky drag the world no, Europe and others, and us deeper into an escalation trap? That's the way I would put it. We say that with Israel, why aren't we saying that here? Yeah, that's a great point. Yeah. Zelensky well, you had Representative Luna last week saying, "Make peace now, you fool," to Zelensky, "You're the one holding Be vocal about it, but-- And I'm telling you that I just like we didn't let the South Koreans dictate everything here, we need to decide what is in our own interest, what's in the European interest. And I, I, I-- Look, we may agree, we may come to believe, you may persuade me that we want all of the territory back and it's worth fighting another, you know, half million dead to get. I, I don't believe that, but I, but I think we should be talking about that. Where exactly is are we gonna It's pretty clear that we want a new iron curtain. I said this back, basically in foreign affairs in the fall of two thousand and twenty-two. Sorry to keep, but I, I actually laid out, we should have a new iron curtain and just freeze it there, and we're just not willing to say these words. I, I don't, it's, to me, it's, it's baffling. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free. If you wanna follow us or subscribe, and if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 3, 2026 at 6:40 PM
Saved - June 5, 2026 at 1:47 AM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
Russia is targeting Ukrainian factories and infrastructure tied to Western investment projects. While the Trump administration sends Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff to negotiate, major financial and political interests are positioning for postwar influence. Plans aim to turn Western Ukraine into an investment frontier—reshaping parts into a new destination for foreign capital—according to @DougAMacgregor.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Russia has begun targeting Ukrainian factories and infrastructure connected to Western investment projects. As the Trump administration continues sending Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff to negotiate with Russia, powerful interests are already positioning themselves for what comes after the war. Attempts to turn Western Ukraine into the next major investment frontier, with plans to transform parts of the country into a new Israeli destination for foreign capital and development. @DougAMacgregor breaks down how major financial and political interests are profiting from conflict, and how the country is being reshaped into a new hub for outside investors.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on corruption and on people who profit from the war. Reporting is mentioned that a MOD plant linked to Zelensky was hit by Russia, which is said to weaken Ukraine’s ability to respond if they advance into cities. A colleague who reads Russian and speaks Russian fluently is described as reviewing Russian press releases over many weeks. The comment is said to have been made three or four times that Kushner and Witkoff are present for reasons familiar in Russia, with Kushner positioned as the son-in-law and Witkoff described as an old business crony of the president. The transcript highlights a call in Russian-language papers for serious people to address ending the war in Ukraine, finding a way out, with side deals suggested after talks. The transcript emphasizes a “huge problem with this corruption business,” citing BlackRock as trying to buy hundreds of thousands of acres of Ukrainian farmland. It also mentions proposals to turn Western Ukraine into a “new Israeli destination” by denuding it of Ukrainians and bringing people from Israel. It links these developments to money sources, claiming they involve the same people who pushed for war in the Persian Gulf and have pushed for war against Russia. The speaker describes this as frightening and adds that the Russians know it, suggesting that Russia will increasingly select targets representing Western—particularly U.S.—investment.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
We're talking about corruption and people who profit from the war. some reporting is that a MOD plant that was linked to Zelensky was hit by Russia, and so, you know, this will at least- I mean, I don't know what this accomplishes. It, it-- Maybe you can tell me. The, the factory was long linked to Zelensky. It did produce long-range attack UAVs and missiles. So at the, at the very least, it weakens Ukraine's ability to answer if they do advance into these cities. Well, one of the people that works with me closely who reads Russian and speaks Russian fluently, goes to the press every day for me. And one of the things he did for me was he went through several press releases over the last many weeks, and I don't know how many times it was, I think three or four times the comment was made about Messieurs Kushner and Witkoff, and saying, "We understand we're Russians, we're familiar with this sort of thing, we understand why Kushner is there as the son-in-law and why Witkoff, an old business crony of the president, is there." But please, can't you send some people back who are prepared to talk seriously about the issue, which is ending the war in Ukraine, finding a way out of this? we, we can make side deals with them at their convenience after the talks. I mean, stop and think about that statement. That's what was in-- that was what's in Russian in the papers. I think we have a huge problem with this corruption business. You have BlackRock that is trying to buy up hundreds of thousands of acres of Ukrainian farmland. you have people that are talking about turning Eastern Ukraine, or Western Ukraine rather, into some sort of new Israeli destination by denuding it of Ukrainians and bringing in people from Israel. I mean, there are all sorts of strange things going on, but you also have to look at the money sources And where the money's coming from, and you suddenly realize these are all the same people that are pushing for war in the Persian Gulf and have been pushing for war against Russia. it, it's It's frightening, and it does pay handsomely, and I think the Russians know that, and I think increasingly you're gonna see the Russians pick targets that they know represent investment from the West, particularly from the United States
RedactedNews
Posted - June 2, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - June 3, 2026 at 1:21 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

The well is running DRY. 💧 Washington drained America’s arsenal for foreign wars, and now the bill is coming due. It may take more than five years to rebuild what was burned through, if the supply chain even survives. @WeAreTheBrandon has the details.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on whether a “deal or no deal” involving Iran amounts to more than temporary relief, and how those developments could drive U.S. economic fallout. The hosts argue that the U.S. has been operating in a “fake paper” environment where demand and consequences are being covered up, comparing it to wallpaper over “black mold” that eventually makes people sick. Brandon Weichert (host of the Natsack podcast) says he has been emphasizing these issues for months, and that later mainstream coverage effectively made earlier reporting seem newly “real.” A key part of the discussion is weapons depletion from past conflicts. Weichert points to a claim that it would take “five plus years” to replace “thirty-nine days of munitions used in the Iran War,” and says the U.S. has “blown through” many weapon systems already. He argues replenishment is not meaningfully possible because the U.S. needs China’s rare earth minerals, and China will not allow access to what he describes as “dual-use rare earth minerals.” He describes U.S. reliance on outsourcing and says the processing infrastructure was moved to China, giving China “the leverage” in the supply chain. Weichert extends the argument to other conflicts. On Ukraine, he says the U.S. “isn’t going to have their back,” and describes a “silver lining” as limited U.S. ability to send further material support because the U.S. “can’t send any more” weapons. He also claims the U.S. depleted systems used for protecting bases in the Middle East and then redirected air defense interceptors toward Israel. He says Israelis were “astounded” the U.S. used more air defense interceptors than Israel did, including a claim that an IDF general said Americans were “wasteful” with limited stockpiles, and that these systems were not primarily protecting American bases. He argues these depleted systems will not return soon due to finite supplies and lack of replenishment, with knock-on effects for U.S. ability to respond in the Indo-Pacific to conflicts he lists (Taiwan, China-Japan, China-Philippines). He adds that even if the U.S. had light rare earth minerals on the West Coast, the U.S. lacks processing power and would still need China. He further asserts the U.S. does not have abundant heavy rare earths compared to China, Australia, and contested regions. The discussion also addresses a “sixty-day ceasefire agreement.” Weichert says “we don’t have a deal” and calls it at best a “sixty-day patch.” He frames the proposed terms as reopening the Strait of Hormuz for sixty days, then negotiations on Iran’s nuclear material. He says Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei stated Iran would not give up nuclear materials “under no circumstances.” He predicts that at day sixty, the situation would deteriorate back toward either a shooting war or the strait closing, or an Iranian “service fee system” that he says would destabilize the world economy and alter shipping costs and access based on flags and country treatment. He argues that politically the ceasefire is meant to “drag out the pain,” and he says the Trump administration has been “goosing” paper oil markets through manipulation that markets still fall for. He also links the strait reopening to avoiding economic collapse, arguing that without it the U.S. could face an economic downturn comparable to “the worst parts” of 2008 and COVID-era depression. For the economic mechanics, Weichert describes rising diesel prices as a driver of shipping and logistics costs, noting claims of diesel up “as high as seventy percent” since the war began and fuel price increases for consumers. He says natural gas and oil prices have risen by about “fifty percent” at the pump, and that strategic reserves are being pulled “for political purposes.” He predicts that once buffers are depleted (timed to a period around July 4), the U.S. would compete more for energy on global markets, driving higher prices. He adds projected reductions in travel (including flights and summer vacations), and he emphasizes possible shortages of food items tied to fertilizer constraints, which would raise grocery prices, including beef. He concludes that the combination of high inflation and low employment points toward stagflation and could lead to a “lost decade” with higher prices and lower wages, blaming the escalation as beginning with an event dated February 28.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Well, is there a deal or no deal? Deal or no deal? In Iran, and what will the economic fallout be realistically here? Because we've been in this like artificial fake paper world for quite a while now. Americans are feeling it at the pump, of course. But at some point, all of this fake paper, the covering over, it's almost like putting up wallpaper over some really bad stuff, like black mold on your wall, and you just put up wallpaper over top of it. Eventually, you're gonna get sick. Eventually, you could wind up in the hospital, and that's where we are right now. The American economy is nearing that point. Brandon Weichert, host of the Natsack podcast, he's been nailing this for months now, not only on our show, but back on Tucker's show and otherwise. And then the mainstream media comes out a few months later and then prints it, and then suddenly it's real. Like, it's so amazing how you, you know, now that the mainstream media has covered it, it's real news, but when Brandon covered it and broke the story two months earlier, they ignored it. Brandon, great to see you, welcome back to the show. Well, thanks for having me, and that was a great segment with my buddy Larry Johnson, and I'll just plug it here. He's gonna be on my show Monday. so it We in the media, you and I, as I think safe to say, described at one time as reporters cover different beats, but you know, we used to think, I used to think, you get a big story and you break it, that's like the big, you know, big moment. Big moment. And lately, for several years, it seems I get a lot of big stories, I break it, you know, it gets traction, but it's not like what you think it's gonna be because they ignore it, and by they, I mean the corporate- Media, I mean, the official organs of the state, it's like you know, the, the tree falls and no one hears it. Turns out they're listening, it's just not conveniently timed for their narrative control, so they wait. and this information that's now being broke, as you rightly said, is months, months old and it's sort of useless now, this information. If, if they, if they had been talking about it and they had been promoting what I was saying back at the End of February, beginning of March, that might have made a difference on the policy level and might have actually influenced things for the better but ultimately they chose to sit on the story and wait until it was, you know, no longer helpful. Now it's just sort of a afterthought, and I think that's one of the most depressing aspects for me personally about how the news media works today. It's not news, it's narrative control, and it's having a real negative impact because the news is there to, to speak truth to power publicly and they're not doing that anymore. They're carrying water for even now Trump, which is surprising to see these media people doing, but they're clearly you know, wedded to this agenda in the Middle East, and they don't wanna see any kind of, you know, threat to it, which is what, what I pose to them, obviously. So at the heart of it, well, one of the pieces, I wanna talk about the economy and the economic piece of this, which you've been all over, but one of the Weapons. Now, you broke this story back on Tucker Show a couple of months ago, and Philip, maybe we can put up this graphic here if we have it handy showing the number of US Thad missile systems and otherwise that Sagar-- So Sagar posted this today, but, you know, it's-- And then he says, "It will take five plus years to replace thirty-nine days of munitions used in the Iran War. What an absolute disaster." And of course, you broke this story back, I think, on Tucker Show. That was, correct. A number of months ago, that the United States blew through all of these weapons systems, and so when you see these pauses that we currently see or a sixty-day extension in all of this, yeah, I mean, what, and we're gonna go back to fighting with what? We, and you have Senator Blumenthal in, in the middle of Ukraine today saying that we've got your back, in what format? We don't have the weapons to send to Ukraine. What do we have? Well, I'll start at the back first. The, the Ukraine thing we, we aren't going to have their back. if there's any silver lining in any of this, it's that we've blown through so many systems so quickly that are really, I mean, they say five or more years, I would say these systems are irreplaceable because I responded to Sagar, our mutual friend, and I said, "That's the best case scenario. You need to have access to China's rare earth minerals in order for us to even begin replenishing the- These lost weapons, and guess what? China's not letting us gain access to what they're calling dual-use rare earth minerals. So I don't actually think we're ever gonna replenish these weapons in any meaningful way. So the silver lining here is that when it comes to Ukraine, the president hasn't never fully bought into Biden's war there. He's sort of let it continue on, but he's never-- he hasn't really gone full bore the way Biden did in Ukraine. And so I think he's already using this as an excuse behind the scenes, the president. President is to justify not sending any more aid because we frankly can't send any more. We don't have anything left to give. In fact, you're seeing, with the exception of those five thousand troops in Poland, which is more of a personal favor to the new president there, who's a Trump ally the, the, the president is overseeing the dismantling of US presence in Europe at this very, very important juncture in the Ukraine war. So in my opinion, the up- Side to this depletion narrative is that we won't be able and we won't be willing to provide any material support anymore to Ukraine, which is good for us, not good for the Ukrainians but it's good for us. as for the other side of the story, well, could be great for the Ukrainians because that means they're done. Like, let's just take your ball and go home. We're done. That's right. The Ukrainian regime, I should say, isn't good for the Ukrainian regime, which we've poured endless amounts of our money into we shouldn't have but you know, so from the Ukraine angle, this actually might be good. the downside, of course, is in terms of not just those precision guided offensive munitions, the air defense interceptors, which we have relied heavily to protect both our bases in the Middle East, but also we've used it excessively. In fact, I was told yesterday by a source that the Israelis were astounded throughout the course of the war Because we used more of our air defense interceptors to, to protect Israeli targets than the Israelis themselves used, and we used-- we actually were diverting the air defense systems away from our bases in the Middle East and those Arab states. We were diverting them to Israel to protect Israel, and the Israelis weren't even using theirs the way we were. One IDF general, apparently equipt to the source that I have over there, he said In March, he quipped to his team, he couldn't believe how wasteful the Americans were with their limited stockpiles of air defense systems. So even the Israelis were saying, "What are the Americans thinking? you know, blowing through these stockpiles that they don't really have a lot of to protect us? They weren't even protecting the American bases." so anyway my point is, is that we're not gonna see these weapons coming back anytime soon because we don't have access to the rare earth minerals, and therefore- There's no replenishment, so they're gone now. And what does that mean at the larger level? A lot of these weapons are essential for the US to, if something were to happen, and I'm not saying it is, if something were to happen though in the Indo-Pacific with a war with China over the, you know, Taiwan or war between China and Japan or war between China and the Philippines or some conflict, we would require the air defense systems and the precision guided standoff munitions to have Any chance of protecting ourselves or rolling back whatever the Chinese are up to, and those systems are now in finite supply, they won't be tasked, I think, to any contingency 'cause there's not enough of them, and we can't replenish them 'cause the Chinese are sitting on the rare earth minerals. You're absolutely right about that. I mean, we, we outsourced all of our mining. I mean, you know, under Obama and, and Biden and Clinton. The key thing, the key thing is the processing. And we, I know One of my regular guests on my show is a, a guy named Dan Collins, who, who still has factories in China and Taiwan related to rare earths, and he told me, 'cause he started out when he graduated from college, he started out at the processing facility in Goshen or Kokomo rather, Indiana, and in the eighties and nineties, we moved that original rare earth mineral price processing factory, we uprooted it and sent it, I believe, to Tianjin, China, where the Chinese expanded And now have an entire infrastructure for global rare earth mining. We in the United States have no rare earth mining because we've deemed it a threat to the environment, so we've outsourced it. We created the process in Kokomo, Indiana, and then we shipped it over to China, and they used it to create the world's greatest choke point in the rare earth mineral supply chain. It's the processing that's key. That's what China has all the leverage on us in. Well, don't you hate when people say, "I told you so." Well, yeah, that's me actually, because I, I did tell ya, sorry, but I told you that gold and silver were going to reap the benefits of excessive money printing, the Fed just printing money like crazy, overvalued markets, global unrest, it's here, it's happened. Gold and silver have both soared to all-time highs. So I hope you called our friends at Lear Capital and you bought some. If you didn't, trust me, it's not too late. Experts are predicting even higher prices ahead. And they get it, they know what's coming. Isn't it time, folks, get yourself some gold and silver today? Call the best in the business. I personally use them, so does Natalie, we both do, and our kids do as well in their IRAs. Lear Capital, it's a free phone call, there's no obligation to purchase, just education information on protecting and growing your wealth with gold and silver. I'm sure there are many of you that have called and haven't purchased yet for whatever reason. Don't make the same mistake twice. Now is the time to get some gold shipped In your retirement accounts over to physical gold and silver, it's easy to do. Natalie and I have done it for both, and I've been extremely satisfied with Lear's knowledge, their service, their prices. I urge you to call today and learn more. Call them one eight hundred six one three three five five seven or go to learredacted dot com, and you can receive up to twenty thousand dollars in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Well, and one of the great hypocrisies of the Ukraine war is that we were still relying on Russia for our u-uranium enrichment. Like, we'll sanction everything else, right? But we still need your uranium. So, you know what? We'll just leave that as a little carve-out. That's right. So you guys enrich it and send it to us in the United States, meanwhile we- Well, and we-- Remember, remember, we were purchasing under Biden, the, the stories were in the Washington Post. They had a random act of journalism. They were reporting that Biden From the Russians during the Ukraine war. I mean, it's like, what are we, you know? It's, it's lunacy. It's lunacy. So yeah, I mean, you talk about neodymium, praseodymium, like all of these rare earth minerals that we're just-- we don't have it, we don't have the processing, and they're trying to get people- And a key difference also is we do have a lot of light rare earth minerals out on the west coast of the United States and places, mostly blue states like California, where they So any kind of rare earth extraction certainly we don't have any processing capabilities in the United States. so even if we were to actually get the light rare earth minerals from the West Coast of the United States, we don't have the processing power. We'd have to ship it anyway to China, to their processing facilities that we gave them. And by the way, we need heavy rare earth minerals, which contrary to what is said in popular media, my understanding is we don't have a lot of heavy rare earths. In the Americas, that's in Eurasia, in Africa, in, you know, those places that are contested regions right now, that China has a lot of advantages. They've also got them in Australia, and they've got them in J-- you know, Japan has access to them. But here in the United States, you know, the Reindustrialize Plan is great, but we physically don't have the heavy rare earths in abundance that we need to be totally self-sufficient. Let's talk about this agreement, this so-called sixty-day ceasefire agreement, and what do you think? Happens, is it legitimate? laughing, of course, so no, clearly not. And then also, what happens to the US economy? Your predictions have been spot on. Where do we go over the next few weeks as Americans head into the summer months here, and how are we gonna see it hitting our economy? Well, I told Mario Navarro, my buddy, today on his show, I said it twice now on his show, we don't have a deal. At best, what we're getting is a patch, a sixty-day patch. and I think this is in response to the Trump administration clearly knows we are up a creek economically, that if they don't do something now to, however temporarily, which it would be temporarily, reopen the Strait of Hormuz if they don't get that done quickly, then not only are we gonna feel the economic burn for several months, probably the rest of the year But they will collapse the economy. I'm talking about something, some combination of the worst parts of the Great Recession of '08 with the worst parts of the depression caused by the COVID lockdowns in 2020. And so you can sort of imagine how bad things are going to get if they don't even temporarily get the Strait reopened. And I wanna make this very clear because I've been following this very closely. The, the president, and you noted this with Larry before you went to break, the, the, the president and his team have become experts in goosing the markets manipulating them for the day traders, for the, you know, the, the, the, you know, the speculators basically with the paper price of oil in particular. They're very good at manipulating the markets, and the markets are still falling for it. Not as much as they used to, but they still are falling for it. What I contend is that Trump Knows he's reaching the end of that line, and he knows that if he doesn't get even a temporary reopening, then he's screwed politically 'cause we have midterms coming up. So I think what they're gonna try to do is, is drag out the pain with a sixty-day ceasefire and 'cause there's no way, if you listen to what the president and his people have been saying, not-- notice the Iranians haven't said anything. I-if you look at what the president and his people have been saying about this proposed deal It's sixty days of reopening, no questions asked, reopening everything, and then at day sixty, you gotta sit down and negotiate Iran to get rid of your nuclear material. The, the Ayatollah Mochabeh Khamenei, who watched his father and his little baby grandniece get incinerated in the bunker at the start of the war, has said, "Under no circumstances will Iran give up whatever nuclear materials they have to the Americans. It isn't going to happen." So unless this is really a hard bargain he's driving, which I, I don't think he is on this issue sixty days if we do get this ceasefire Sixty days are gonna come, and then the president, Trump, is gonna say, "Okay, we gotta, we gotta talk about the nuclear stuff." And the Iranians are gonna flip him the bird, and then everything's gonna deteriorate from there, and we'll either be back to having a shooting war, or back to having the strait closed, or the Iranians will then impose their service fee system on the strait, which will, of course, completely destabilize the world economy, because now, now these companies that do business in the strait are gonna have to price in whatever service Fees the Iranians want to impose upon those ships, and if you're flagged from certain countries like Israel, the Iranians might say you can't come through at all. or American allies might have to pay more than, say, China or Russia flagged ships. So this, I think when you look at it, if he does, the president does get some kind of a deal for sixty-day reopening, it's, it's a patch. It is not a peace deal. We aren't ever going to get a peace deal, I don't believe, partly because the Iranians don't- I don't think they can trust us, but also, let's face it, we're not the ones on, on this side of the, the, the crisis driving events. It's the Israelis, it's Netanyahu, and he doesn't want peace at all. No, he wants regime, regime change, and he wants an- I don't even think he cares about that, to be honest with you. And I don't remember if I said this to you or somebody else, but I actually think it's, it's baser than this. I know everybody talks about Greater Israel, and that is Party, but in my opinion, this is baser. He is under the gun politically and legally, and he has managed to, to avoid these really serious investigations and charges against him both for whatever corruption he's accused of engaging in, as well as the investigations into how the heck ten seven happened in the first place. He has avoided the hard questions, he has avoided the legal ramifications for whatever he may or may not have done. Done primarily by opening up multiple fronts in the war ever since ten seven. And if he gets a peace deal, or if, if a peace deal is crafted now, the Israeli government returns to normal operation, and the first thing they're gonna do is reopen those investigations into him. In fact, a few weeks ago, my understanding is the Israeli Supreme Court held court under normal rules for the first time in a long time, and the first case they were looking into was the alleged corruption investigation in To Netanyahu, this was what prompted Trump a few weeks ago to call President Herzog, the leader of the Israeli parliament, and begged him to say, he said, "Please give Netanyahu a pardon." And Herzog said, "Under no circumstance, no matter what happens, will we ever pardon Netanyahu." So Bibi needs the war, 'cause it's the only thing keeping him in power and po-possibly out of jail. Yeah. I, yeah, a source of mine who worked for Netanyahu, you know, has explained to me how corrupt the man is and how he will keep this war going on purpose in order to- It's wagging the dog. This is Bill Clinton on steroids from the nineties. And it's also, and it's, you know, and speaking to sources in Israel who told me that one of the things that they hope they'll get an answer to is to how they allowed those young girls, those IDF soldiers, to be used as cannon fodder and stand down orders that allowed those girls on the front lines College IDF soldiers to be killed, and they knew they were going to be killed and used them as cannon fodder that needs to be investigated. It does, you know, it does. And I-- and there is a wing of Israel that has been wanting Nesset to investigate this, normally, notably the left But they can't get it done because every time they start the process, another front opens, more emergency countermeasures are put in, you know, they can't operate like a normal democracy. So and this is the game that, that, that Netanyahu plays you know, using his power I think unduly now to, to avoid, to avoid the legal ramifications for whatever. And one of the interesting stories here, Clayton it's not widely reported, it's not widely understood Stood outside of Israeli media is for years Netanyahu's government that was part of the mowing the grass strategy. Caroline Glick who I'm a big fan of, and she's now currently a Netanyahu advisor, but in her, her Times of Israel column, she used to write about this openly. It was part of this mowing the grass strategy where basically Israeli leaders and security officials assessed that the greater threat to Israel was to the north from Hezbollah and that they could, as long as they could manage Hamas Hamas, they wouldn't have to worry about it. And so what Netanyahu's government did, or his people did, it sounds like, is they started this scheme to pay off Hamas's leadership by washing money through Qatar or allowing Qatar to fund Hamas. And as Jack Macksey has, has reported in his reporting Netanyahu and his people were taking basically a vig, a cut off the top of that money for themselves and then letting the rest of- That go to Hamas. Hamas was playing them though. Hamas was playing them for fools. They were taking the money, saying, "Oh yeah, we won't, we won't attack you, don't worry." And they were buying weapons and preparing the ground for what became ten seven. It was with Israeli money. It was with the money that Netanyahu was paying them with the hopes that they wouldn't attack. I, it's really a sordid tale if you really look into it. There is so much corruption here. yeah, yeah. I was in Rafah, I was near Rafah From Rafa on ten seven in Egypt, and the Egyptians were saying, "You, you guys knew all about this. It was well known that this was coming. Like this whole fakery of ten seven, like you didn't know it was coming, it was a surprise. You're laundering money through these guys, they're arming themselves, you're watching the most heavily secured border in the world. I mean, it's all a joke, it's a theater at this point. It's so- It's a theater of the absurd. Yeah." I'll get you out of here on this, Brandon, and be respectful of your time, which is-- So you talk about this depression, this idea could be as bad as the lockdown depression and even the Great Recession. What is the-- What are the mechanics of that look like, you think, in practice for like the typical American family that's got kids, they're taken to their dance practice after school? Like, what does it look like in practice? Yeah. So we're seeing the outlines of it right now, and that is the, the spikes in fuel Is the spike in price for diesel, because basically everything runs on diesel the entire shipping, you know, American shipping firms logistics, everything runs on diesel, trucks, therefore diesel. That-- the prices have gone up, I think in some cases up as high as seventy percent since the war began. Nobody can afford that. The, the, the truckers can't, the trucking companies can't, and so that basically forces spikes to prices of everything that- needs to be shipped, which is everything basically that we use so, so you're gonna see price increases you're already starting to for everyday goods. Then of course, the price of natural gas and oil for the ordinary consumer, we're seeing that at the pump you know, generally, I think it's about a fifty percent, fifty-two percent increase since the war began. that is going to exponentially worsen as we reach the end or the bottom of the barrels of surpluses Of buffers we build up a, a strategic supply so that we can deploy it in times of crisis. Well, the president's been pulling from those strategic reserves for political purposes. Well, we're gonna start reaching the bottom of the barrels there. And basically once we, we run through the buffers, which a lot of experts are saying the weekend or ironically, the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of America, the weekend of July fourth, that timeframe, you should see us Reach pretty much the bottom of the barrel, which then forces us to compete for access to energy on the global market more thoroughly, which means higher prices for us. That will knock on everything else, vacations, jet fuel's not going to be wildly available, so you're gonna see massive reductions in flights. It's a summer driving season, you're not gonna be seeing a lot of people, I don't think, doing their summer vacations. I certainly canceled our trip to Disney. we were gonna drive in July, I said, "Ah, I think we should just wait till next year." luckily the kids are young enough, where it's not gonna be that big of a deal. but ultimately, you'll see things like that in terms of your everyday life. I would really be paying attention to what I think are going to be very serious shortages of foodstuffs, which will then The, the, the shortage in, in fertilizer, which will then translate to massively expensive goods at the grocery store because farmers can't grow everything they need in the quantities they need to meet demand. So it's as basic supply and demand. There's a sh-- there's a shortage of key goods at the grocery store. Whatever's available will be massively more expensive. you're already seeing beef prices that's only going to get worse. So everything is going to get more expensive, and it's going to basically lead to inflation rates going higher. Kevin Warsh, the new Fed chairman, is saying that he's supposed to be b-- brought into lower interest rates when you have a high inflationary environment, you don't re-uh, lower in-uh, interest rates. So that's gonna drag the economy. Basically, we're heading into stagflation, which means high inflation, low employment, and it's a worst combination of factors where the- The Fed can't manage the situation like they did in '08 or during 2020 so y-- we're, we're headed for possibly, I think, a real lost decade economically higher prices, lower wages. I mean, this is gonna be a real nightmare scenario, all because the President of the United States decided to go to war for Israel on February 28th. What a way to celebrate the 250th anniversary on July 4th with an economy like this shit show that we're about to see. That's right. Oh, that's right. Well, to the twenty, twenty thousand of you or so that are watching us live across all of our platforms, please follow Brandon on X at we the brandon, at we the brandon there, and also subscribe to the Natsack Talk podcast. Brandon, always great to see you. Follow him for great on Rumble, on Rumble, on Rumble, the Natsack Talk podcast. You can't say what you say on YouTube. Brandon, great to see you. As always, thank Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free. If you wanna follow us or subscribe, and if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 2, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - June 2, 2026 at 12:42 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

⚠️ Before the war machine lectures Americans about Iran and terrorism, maybe it should explain Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and every proxy group it armed along the way. https://t.co/9pJRDspEcF

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that instead of focusing on claims that Iran supports terrorism, people making those claims should “turn the mirror” on US-linked mass killings and the lack of accountability. They state they compiled a short list of “mass killings linked to US power” from the last 30–40 years, filtered for events involving at least 100 deaths in a single day, and add that the list would be much larger if expanded. They say each event was funded by US taxpayers and that no one was really held accountable. They also claim Iran has “never launched anything close” to the magnitude of terror on the US, while noting that reports are still coming in about Israel’s ongoing attacks on Lebanon (including evacuation orders issued overnight and reports of people buried in their homes). The speaker then focuses on an event from July 3, 1988: the downing of Iranian Air Flight 655 by the US Navy warship USS Vincennes. They describe it as a civilian plane flying from Bandar Abbas to Dubai with 290 people aboard, including 66 children. They claim the aircraft was following a normal commercial flight corridor over the Persian Gulf, presenting no threat, and broadcasting a civilian transponder signal while climbing normally. They say missiles tore the aircraft apart and that victims fell into the water. The speaker contrasts the US “official explanation” with what they say was contrary evidence. They describe the official account as an “oops” in which the US claimed it mistook the Airbus for an attacking Iranian F-14 fighter jet during a tense naval confrontation. They assert problems with the excuse, including that the flight was broadcasting a civilian transponder signal, was flying a known pattern, and that multiple military personnel onboard the Vincennes reportedly had data indicating it was a commercial civilian craft. They connect the incident to the US’s broader role in the Iran–Iraq War. They say the attack occurred during the same period as Operation Praying Mantis, described as the largest US naval combat operation since World War II, authorized by President Reagan to attack Iranian oil platforms. They also claim the US backed Iraq in order to topple Iran for decades, shifted alignment, and supported Saddam Hussein to launch an Iraqi war on Iran until the US decided it did not like him anymore and sought his removal. The speaker says the US did not apologize. They cite Reagan calling the shooting “proper defensive action,” and say Vice President Bush later said he would never apologize “for the United States of America” and would ignore “what the facts are.” They claim media condemnation was limited and that the UN did not condemn it, instead passing Security Council Resolution 616, describing states as “deeply distressed” and “gravely disturbed.” The speaker says Iran brought a case at the International Court of Justice, and the US settled in 1996 for 131.8 million plus two new Airbus aircraft. They argue this became part of Iranian cultural memory, including an Islamic Republic stamp memorializing it as an American attack on innocent civilians. The speaker then lists other incidents they say contributed to regional memory: the February 13, 1991 bombing of a shelter in Baghdad, where they claim hundreds were burned alive and many bodies were later found melted into walls; and the April 18, 1996 shelling of a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, where they claim more than 100 civilians were killed and that later UN conclusions suggested deliberate shelling, while Israel disputed it. They add that Qana is described as being attacked again by Israel in April, including an overnight attack on the city that killed at least five and wounded dozens. They broaden to “mirror” arguments and accuse the US of creating or provoking “terror” narratives, citing claims about false flags such as 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, and saying the US is a perpetrator to support war. They reference discussions involving Victoria Nuland, Mike Pompeo, Lindsey Graham, and neocons, and include examples ranging from NATO operations (including Operation Gladio and bombings like Bologna) to claimed narratives about the Orlando nightclub shooting. The speaker ends by urging viewers to remember these histories when told “Iran is a terrorist state” or that Iran supports terror, and says another massacre is unfolding in Lebanon with residential and refugee camp bombing after evacuation orders.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Well, we keep hearing that Iran supports terrorism. Instead of refuting that, I would like to turn the mirror on the people who say that. The warring class repeats these things, but they have blood on their hands too, and that includes both political parties in the US, by the way. Now, here's a short list of mass killings linked to US power in the last at least thirty to forty years, and I filtered these by at least one hundred deaths in a single day. Now, if I expand This to dozens, I would need, I don't know, dozens of screens. I'm just gonna focus on these today because they're horrific and they're things that were speed bumps in American consciousness, but inform how people abroad think about us. Now, each of these were funded by US taxpayers, and no one was really ever held accountable for them. Now, Iran has never launched anything close to this magnitude of terror on the US. We may even add a city to this list and a date to- Day, because Israel has launched deadly attacks on entire Lebanon and the surrounding regions, but we don't know the death count yet. Reports are still coming in. We know that Israel issued evacuation orders overnight. People were buried in their home. It probably is gonna be a horrific one, so hold on, but we need to wait to see the extent of it. So for now, let's rewind the clock back to nineteen eighty-eight, less than a decade after the Islamic Republic of Iran was established, when the United States committed one of the deadliest acts ever carried out. On Iranian civilians. The victims' families are still alive and still remember this. This was July third, nineteen eighty-eight. It's the wreckage of Iranian Air Flight six five five. On July third, I just said that, nineteen eighty-eight. It was conducted by the US Navy warship called the USS Vincennes. Now, this was a civilian plane flying from Bandar Abbas headed for Dubai. There were two hundred and ninety human beings on board, all killed in a second by bombs. 66 of them were children, mothers holding their babies, grandparents, students, workers heading for their jobs in Dubai. The plane was presenting no threat to the US warship. It was following a normal commercial flight corridor over the Persian Gulf, climbing normally. It had a civilian transponder on board. It wasn't diving towards the ship. it was quite simply a normal 28-minute commercial flight until missiles tore the aircraft apart and bodies fell in. Into the water, body parts floating in the surface. Now, why did the US do this? The official explanation wasn't even an apology, it was kind of an "oops." they say that they mistook the civilian Airbus for an attacking Iranian F-14 fighter jet during a tense naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf. But there are problems, of course, with that excuse. The flight was broadcasting a civilian transponder signal, it was flying a known- Pattern. Multiple military personnel aboard the US Vincennes reportedly had data indicating that it was a commercial civilian craft. And here's another detail that Americans rarely hear. This happened during the US aggression on Iran. It was called Operation Praying Mantis. Just months earlier, President Reagan had authorized Praying Mantis, which was the largest US naval combat operation since World War II. Their mission was to attack Iranian oil platforms in naval Forces during the Iran-Iraq War. Why were we involved in the Iran-Iraq War? Well, because the US was backing Iraq in order to topple Iran, which they did for decades. Just a few years earlier, the United States was politically aligned with Iran, but foreign policy shifted on a dime, and the US decided that Iran was the enemy, used Saddam Hussein to launch an Iraqi war on Iran until we decided we didn't like him anymore and get rid of him. Well, if the last few years have taught us anything, it's If the systems we rely on fail, and they do, we're on our own. That's why I want to tell you about My Patriot Supply, America's original Patriot preparedness company. They've helped over three million American families get prepared since two thousand eight, with more than ninety thousand five star reviews. And right now, they've got a special offer that you really need to check out. When you get your flagship solar backup generator, the Ultra Power Grid Doctor thirty-three hundred, you're also gonna get over one thousand dollars worth of survival essentials added. Absolutely free. Four weeks of emergency food, water filtration, and much more, all free, and it's in stock, ready to ship right now. But with everything going on right now, there's no telling how long it'll be available. So go to preparewithredacted dot com right now to see everything that you can get for free. Don't wait until it's too late. Get your complete preparedness set up today. Again, preparewithredacted dot com. That's preparewithredacted dot com. Now it's worth remembering, this is all happening Happening during the same period that Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranian troops with the help of the CIA, that's where they got these chemical weapons. This happened from nineteen eighty to nineteen eighty-eight, killed between fifty and a hundred thousand people. the fifty thousand number is reported by the CIA, so we know that we helped Iraq kill Iranian civilians and troops on Moss. Now, it's notable that Iran had the technology to use chemical weapons back then, and they chose not to based on their- Principles. But back to the downed plane. Did the United States ever apologize for downing that plane of almost three hundred civilians? They didn't. And in fact, President Reagan at the time called it proper defensive action Which was clearly a lie. A few weeks later, Vice President Bush said this. I'll never apologize for the United States of America ever. I don't care what the facts are, I will lead her. I will do my level best to stand up for freedom and democracy around the world by keeping the United States of America strong and by keeping our eyes wide open as we welcome change in the world and keeping our eyes wide open. Okay. so he said he wouldn't apologize, he didn't care what the facts are. You killed three hundred people on a civilian plane. I don't care, basically, was the US official position. Now, the media did condemn this for a short period of time, but there were very small consequences for the United States. There was demand for the United Nations to condemn the incident, they didn't. Instead, the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution six one six, which- Where United Nations member states said that they were deeply distressed and gravely disturbed by the incident. Wow, big words. Iran did bring a case against the US in the International Court of Justice, but the US settled that case in nineteen ninety-six for one hundred thirty-one point eight million plus two new Airbus's. And that was the end of that for Americans. We have largely been allowed to forget it. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to do that. Actually, not even that. Not even a sorry. But for Iranians, it became a part of the emotional foundation of their distrust of the United States. It was proof in the Iranian worldview that the United States talks endlessly about terrorism and civilian protection while excusing its own mass civilian killings. And in fact, as you can see, this memory was crystallized in Iranian culture. Here was a stamp that was issued by the Islamic Republic after the attack. It was memorialized As an American attack on innocent civilians that was in character with American foreign policy. Now, I ask you, if something had happened like this to us, wouldn't it be for decades a part of our collective national trauma? I submit that it would. Think about the pain that we still feel over 9/11, Columbine, any mass shooting. It's solidified in collective pain experiences and informs our global worldview. And when you combine Combine that with later events, such as just from this year alone, the February 28th bombing of the girls' school, you begin to understand why most Iranians can't think of the United States as a force for peace, democracy, and civilian protection the way Americans say that they see us. Sure, would you be able to, in any form or fashion, after this collective pain, think of the United States as the force to save you? And again, look at this short list that I compiled of US-backed Terror attacks in the region, and here I am again, only collaborating single day events with over one hundred killings, and even this list isn't exhaustive. If you'd like to add to it, please do let me know. But if I were to expand it to US-backed military attacks with at least ten deaths per day, I would need dozens of slides. We'd be here for an hour. But each of these events, again, is a collective memory in the region to the tune of October seventh to Israelis. 9/11 to us, but they don't even get a date. We don't even say 2/28, which is the day that we bombed that Minab girls' school, or 4/8, which is the day that we killed hundreds in Beirut while Israel launched those attacks with our money and weapons. I, I do include here the Ammaraya shelter bombing because no justice ever came from that attack. On February 13th, 1991, the United States dropped two precision-guided bombs on this shelter in Baghdad, where hundreds of Sheltering from air raids, the blast sealed people inside, ignited an inferno so intense that entire families were burned alive, while many bodies were later found melted into the wall. Of the shelter, we did that. Same story for the 1996 Kana massacre on April 18th, 1996, Israeli artillery shelled the United Nations compound in Kana, Lebanon. Hundreds of civilians had taken shelter there during fighting in southern Lebanon. More than one hundred civilians were killed, including women and children. Bodies were torn apart in what is believed to be, what was at the time believed to be a safe house. Now, the United Nations later concluded there was evidence suggesting that the shelling Was deliberate, and of course, Israel disputed that finding, but thirty years later, Khan al-Neboon is again being attacked by Israel. That's still happening. In April, Israel killed at least five people and wounded dozens in an attack on that city in the middle of the night. So I just wonder, I just bring you this historical truth to ask you again, when people scream about the Iranian regime supporting terrorists, do they have a mirror? Do they remember these things? Do they know who the real terrorists are, who has actually shed blood, and who hasn't? So you should think about this very short, not exhaustive list the next time someone says Iran is a terrorist state or Iran supports terror. If we were victims like this, what would we do? When someone says, "Oh, they really wanna-- you know, they wanna hurt Americans," maybe they want this to stop. Maybe that's what they want when they say "death to this system." And again today Israel launched an attack on Tyre and the surrounding l-areas in Lebanon after issuing evacuation orders in the middle of the night. They bombed an entire residential building, including a Palestinian refugee camp with civilians inside, children, women, men, entire families now buried in the rubble of their homes. It is another massacre we will be invited to forget. So, will we participate in this charade? You know, it's interesting to think about the "quote-unquote" terror attacks that happen against America and how we don't have terror attacks happening against America because we have to create them 9/11, the false flag in order to provoke us into war, like, w- they keep pushing this charade on us. People like Mike Pompeo and Lindsey Graham that Iran, for forty-seven years, has tried to kill Americans and they shout death to America. And really, have they actually attacked us? Have they killed Americans? Pearl Harbor, another false flag attack that we needed to be dragged into a war from. So again, where are these terror attacks that the United States is having to suffer through? No We are the perpetrators of these terror attacks in order for us to carry out this war mongering agenda around the world. Well, in fact, when Victoria Nuland was asked over the weekend, you know, to debate on this war, she asked, I believe it was John Mearsheimer, "Do you believe Iran is a terrorist state? It's a bad place?" And they're like, "No, not really." She didn't come up with facts to support her worldview, she just kind of laughed in a demonic way and said, "It must be nice to think that, but we don't The luxury of feeling that way you know, we have the neocons that are responsible for this in the Republican Party, but Democrats have neocons too. They're called liberal internationalists. They sell you this idea that we need to promote peace while ignoring the bloodshed that we promote while promoting that peace. And, you know, I wish nothing but hell for those people. True. I mean, we were in Serbia not too long ago and talking to the people of Serbia and, and, you know, it just-- they remember, they remember the NATO attack on them. They remember the, was it a hundred or seventy-nine nights of being having to, you know, shelter in place while their city is being bombed by NATO bombs. Yeah. it's endless, it's endless. The NATO stay-behind armies, Operation Gladio, and all of the NATO stay-behind armies that carry out terrorist attacks in order to create this chaos so that we- Can have this perpetual state of war, the bombing in Bologna, Italy, that kills all these people. Right. I mean, on and on and on. Who's attacking us? Again, who's-- No one's attacking us. Yeah. The, the attacks are coming because of our own either provocation or, or when President Biden says we've got fifty thousand troops in harm's way in the Middle East, and it's only a matter of time before they're attacked. Yeah, yeah, you think? You put, you put bases in their countries and in their backyard, and then you carry out provocations through Operation Gladio style murders and assassination attempts and government overthrows and killing, and killing of children and arming of, of militants? Like in the case of Syria? Of course. Right. Well, I might submit that the Orlando nightclub shooting wasn't attack for those in attack-attacks, it had nothing to do with homophobia. It was a Middle Eastern man, I believe he was Afghani I could be wrong on that, who said, "I just want you to stop attacking my country, so that's why I'm attacking yours." So he shot up, yeah, so he shot up the Orlando nightclub. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Reports about the Orlando nightclub shooting were honest, and they're like, "Yeah, he was he was an Afghan national, he was tired of the killing of his family and people in his country, so he shot up this nightclub in Orlando." No, they didn't, they lied to us. Yeah. And they said that this guy was a homophobe and he shot up a gay nightclub. They sold us gay rights on that, right? Absolutely, that wasn't the case. So Obama, Obama rallies around that. He's like, "How can we use that to our advantage?" Yeah So again, I just want to remind you, you know, these are things that we're not supposed to remember when we promote our attacks on Iran, but we do, and you're here unredacted, and you do, so I want to thank you for listening to that. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free. If you wanna follow us or subscribe, and if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - June 1, 2026 at 8:05 PM
Saved - June 2, 2026 at 6:20 AM
TruthArchive.ai AI Summary
I argue that any reasonable US-Iran peace deal will ultimately be unacceptable to Israel. The United States must draw a firm line and restrain Israel from taking offensive military action without American authorization. I also address whether Americans should worry about false events at home that could force the U.S. deeper into war and extend the conflict.

@RedactedNews - Redacted

What should Americans make of the proposed US-Iran peace deal? @joekent16jan19 argues that any reasonable agreement with Iran will ultimately be unacceptable to the Israelis. The United States must draw a firm line and restrain Israel from taking any offensive military action without American authorization. Should Americans worry about possible false events at home that might force the U.S. further into war and extend the conflict? Joe Kent breaks it all down in this interview.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on a reported peace framework and the idea that Iran is “giving up all of their chips” and cards. The speaker says many people seem to believe the rumor that a peace deal is in play, and reacts by calling themselves an optimist while insisting the approach must be “realistic.” The speaker argues that any peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and that the key requirement is taking steps to restrain Israel. They say that, if the U.S. looks at the Israelis “with clear eyes,” it could achieve a deal with Iran that does not include everything the U.S. wants—for example, the speaker says Iran will not “hill(s) in the deal about zero enrichment” and will not “hand us over all your enrichment.” The speaker’s main goal is ending the fighting, which they say is “definitely possible.” However, the speaker expresses skepticism that the U.S. has taken the first “hard step” of telling Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” They describe the war as “existential for the Israelis,” and argue the situation cannot assume Israel will not face conditions that could lead to continued attacks or another “terrorist attack.” The speaker says the U.S. cannot “take that off the table” or “rule it out,” and cannot allow others to dismiss considerations as “a conspiracy theory.” The speaker further claims the U.S. has had institutional difficulty being skeptical and “not trusting” regarding Israel, saying Israel “lied us, lied to us to get us into this war.” They argue the U.S. needs to “turn Matter” (stating “as a matter of fact”) and apply more verification, especially because Israel is described as an ally that has misled the U.S. Finally, the speaker says if Israelis believed the U.S. would extricate itself from the conflict, “there would be an element within Israel” seeking actions to prompt Americans to recommit to the conflict, reinforcing the need for not taking anything off the table and emphasizing verification.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Rumblings of this peace agreement that seems to be in play right now over the past few hours, and a lot of people seem to be believing it, but it really shows that Iran is sort of giving up all of their chips here, all of their cards. When we see this talk of a peace framework, what did you think when you started hearing this? Truth? I'm I'm an optimist and I think that there is a goal, there, there is a peace deal that we, we can get, as long as we're realistic. And, and first and foremost, we have to be realistic that a peace deal won't be acceptable to Israel. So if we just look at the Israelis with clear eyes, which we've had a very hard time doing throughout this entire administration, and we actually take steps to restrain the Israelis, we can get a peace deal with the Iranians. We're not gonna get everything we want, they're not gonna Hills in the deal about zero enrichment, hand us over all your enrichment and we're realistic about it, and we get an end to the fighting. I, I think it's, I think it's definitely possible, but I am skeptical that we've taken the, the first hard step in telling the Israelis, like, "You, you are done taking offensive action without our permission." This war is existential for the Israelis, so I, I think we have to just recognize that and, and to think, you know, would they thrive in the chaos? Would they thrive? Would, be able to continue their overall mission by having us get attacked or another terrorist, a terrorist attack. We can't take that off the table, we can't rule it out, and we can't let anyone shout at us and say, like, that's a conspiracy theory. These are things that we, we should consider especially when we're looking at a, air quotes here, ally like Israel, who basically has, you know, lied us, lied to us to get us into this war. We really have to start being much more skeptical with what they're telling us, and we have to turn Matter, as a matter of fact. and we've had a very hard time institutionally doing that with the Israelis, and, and I think if the Israelis believed that we were going to extricate ourselves from this conflict, I think that there would be an element within Israel that would say, "Hey, we, we should look at some course of action that gets the, the Americans to recommit to this conflict." So I wouldn't take anything off the table, and we need to be not trusting and doing much more verification.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 31, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - June 1, 2026 at 2:25 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Washington is split between secrecy and disclosure, but the real power sits deeper: underground bases, aerospace contractors, hidden programs, and evidence Presidents are not allowed to see. @TimothyAlberino has the details. https://t.co/eZFkdEjCeG

Video Transcript AI Summary
Clayton interviews investigative journalist Timothy Alberino about recent “disclosure” documents released under the Trump administration, including videos and audio files, and about whether the U.S. government has alien bodies and when such evidence will be publicly shown. Alberino says he was warned the first tranche would be “underwhelming,” but expects subsequent releases—staggered on an “every two weeks” schedule—to become “more spectacular.” He claims earlier releases largely draw from material already held by the Pentagon’s AARO, describing it as a “sham UAP investigative body,” and from prior FOIA-released material, with some new content. Alberino argues against conflating the Trump administration’s disclosure efforts with access to deep underground special-access programs housed in “dumbs” (deep underground military bases). He says the President of the United States, the Secretary of War, and others have not been read into these programs and do not have access on a need-to-know basis. He says the White House and agencies like the FBI are reviewing documents to determine what can be released without breaching national security interests. He maintains that Trump and figures such as Hegseth and Patel are not withholding because they “don’t agree” with disclosure; instead, he says they plan to release as much as possible that does not conflict with national security so the public can draw conclusions. Alberino says Trump will not go onstage and present alien bodies or Roswell-style images, and that classified information about the “legacy program” will not be publicly released. When asked directly whether alien bodies and autopsy videos will be shown, Alberino says “absolutely not,” stating that Trump, Hegseth, and Patel do not have access to bodies. He claims the disclosure process is constrained by what officials can access, while the more important material is allegedly sequestered in private contractors rather than held within agencies like the Pentagon, FBI, or DNI—allowing officials to claim they do not have that information. Alberino describes “oppositional factions” inside government, intelligence, the White House, and the Pentagon: a “secrecy group” that wants the public kept uninformed, and a “disclosure group” that wants limited disclosure centered on a “baseline truth” that non-human entities exist and that craft and bodies have been recovered. He says the disclosure group seeks congressional oversight, which he claims is intentionally circumvented by compartmentalized, contractor-heavy programs with limited oversight. He further claims there are “rogue elements” and introduces the idea of “alien reproduction vehicles” (ARVs) derived from non-human technology, used for “nefarious things,” though he frames these as actions by rogue elements rather than the U.S. government as a whole. He identifies people he says are on the “limited disclosure” side, naming Congressman Eric Burlison, Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, and others, and states Tulsi Gabbard is also on the disclosure side. He claims that inquiries from the DNI and official attempts to inspect facilities are met with runaround and deception about projects shown on site. Alberino says facility visits by congressmen have not necessarily revealed bodies and suggests that craft footage may be more likely than biological evidence. He references that higher-resolution videos are supposedly seen in private than what has appeared via public FOIA releases, and he expects footage similar to Gimbal, GoFast, and Nimitz-level imagery. He also claims that if whistleblowers come forward publicly, they face NDAs and career consequences, and he says whistleblower protection legislation proposed by senators and representatives has faced repeated defeat. He describes whistleblowers privately briefing members of Congress “but they won’t come forward…they won’t go under oath.” In discussing interdimensional claims, Alberino says there is no certainty conveyed in classified settings about the “ontology” of beings, though he says interdimensional language is discussed publicly. He asserts that congressional-level information indicates the phenomenon is real and that there is evidence suggesting a legacy program exists, but he says those he interacts with have not been shown direct evidence explaining origins. He discusses speculation about extra dimensions and space-time warping, connecting these ideas to craft behavior such as phasing out or disappearing, and references Bob Lazar’s claims about craft appearing to lift off and then vanish. He also speaks about transmedium movement and the idea that a craft may create gravitational bubbles that bend light. Alberino includes claims about materials and technological gaps, saying extracted exotic materials are crucial and that the ability to reproduce them is limited. He describes an “arms race” framing involving legacy programs beyond the U.S., including China and Russia, and says strategic advantage may be why much is not released publicly. For religious aspects, he says media coverage conflated different stories and points to two streams: (1) evangelical leaders connected to Paula White, which he says involves “ontological shock” from being told something; and (2) a separate private UAP-and-human-trafficking investigative organization he describes as having briefers who share mostly public-domain information and seek to encourage pastors to prepare congregants for disclosure, while emphasizing that their theological views are not based on being read into programs. He claims this private group focuses heavily on human trafficking. Toward the end, he reiterates that a new tranche of documents may appear within about a week and continues into a slow drip toward summer, with underwhelming early releases followed by more impressive footage later. He also says he has been told AARO is being “frozen out” of the release process after being ordered to turn over lower-tier material, and that the strategy is to reduce AARO’s role in public dissemination.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Does the United States government have in its possession alien bodies? And when will we actually see footage of those bodies? When will we see evidence of those bodies as part of Trump's massive disclosure program? We're getting little drips and drabs of Random aircraft videos. But what about the real stuff? When will we see this? We wanted to talk with Timothy Alberino, investigative journalist, man who travels the world investigating the paranormal and these unexplained phenomena, and thrilled to have Timothy back on the show today to talk about the alien presence in the United States and what is the government hiding. Timothy, great to have you back on the show. So glad to be with you again, Clayton. So let me just get your first initial response to seeing this initial tranche of documents that were released and videos and audio files that were released just a short time ago from the Trump administration. I was given a heads up before the files were le- were released that initially they were going to be underwhelming. But as we progressed in, in this process, they were gonna get more spectacular, was the word that was used, more spectacular. And there are things that the congressmen have seen in private and in skiffs, videos And images that I think are ultimately gonna get released, and I believe that the, the, the schedule is every two weeks. So this is, this is gonna be staggered. And the, the hope from some of the congressmen that I interact with is that those videos are gonna be released, the ones they've seen in private. And if those are released, then, you know, you have Tim Burchett out there, for example, saying that it's, it's gonna be shocking. To the American populace, if some of what he's seen in private is released to the public. So it's not surprising to me that, that the first release was underwhelming. We're gonna get, you know, the first stuff we're gonna get is, is the material that ARROW has had in, in, in its possession. ARROW is the, the Pentagon's, I would call it, a sham UAP investigative body. Their office, they're investigating anomalous phenomena. And so some of what was released was stuff that Arrow had in their possession. Some of the stuff was nothing new really. I mean, there was some new stuff, but, but a lot of it was previously released under Freedom, the Freedom of Information Act by various people who've were able to get some of those videos. So it, it didn't surprise me that it was underwhelming. And I think we just-- we're, we're just gonna have to wait and see what comes in the next month. and I do believe that we are going to see that these files are going to be more spectacular as we move forward. But there's something that people need to understand. We shouldn't conflate Trump's interest in this topic and his desire to tell the American people the truth with what the Let's call it, I call it the dumb state, re-referencing to deep underground military bases, because that's where a lot of these special, special access programs are, are housed, are in these deep underground facilities. And the President of the United States doesn't have access to those facilities. The Secretary of War doesn't have access to those facilities. They, they're not read into these programs, and from my understanding Trump and Hegseth and others in, in his administration have not been read in. Now, maybe they have been informed that there is a, that the legacy program is real or aspects of the legacy program are real. In other words, the recovery and reverse engineering of alien craft and the recovery of the associated bodies, the pilots non-human. I think that there's, they, they've been given a baseline understanding That, yes, there's some truth to that, but they have, they have not been read into these programs. And so what you have here is primarily the White House and, and the Department of War, and then you have the FBI as well, and a couple of other agencies that are going through all of their documents, and they're determining what can be released to the public without breaching national security interests. And that's what we're getting. Now, what people are accusing the Trump administration of, many people in the, in the, in the UFO community, is that they're not, they're not actually telling us what they know. I don't agree with that. I don't think Trump knows much about this. I think Trump is just as interested to see what comes of this, what gets released, and what the American people make of it. And what I've been told is that the- The idea here from the, from the White House is they're just gonna give us everything that they can find that doesn't conflict with national security interests, and they're gonna let the American people determine what this means. And the, the way it was phrased to me is they're gonna let the American people draw the pro-- the, the right conclusions, right? So in other words, I think the idea is That in, at the level of the, the, the, the government or the White House certainly, that they understand this is real, they understand this is non-human, and they're gonna give enough information to the American people to draw that conclusion on their own. In other words I don't expect President Trump to come up to the podium and say aliens are real and here are some pictures of the Roswell aliens, right? We're not gonna see bodies. We're not gonna, we're not gonna be told classified information about the legacy program. We're gonna be given just a ma- just enough information to draw the conclusion that the alien presence is real and the legacy program is real. So you don't believe then that we're gonna see alien bodies? You don't believe that we're gonna see autopsy videos, anything like that? No, because Trump and Hegseth don't have access to them. And Patel, they don't have access to that information. And I think those guys are operating in good faith. And there's another thing people need to understand when they, when we talk about disclosure. You have oppositional factions right now. That are, that are in conflict. I can confirm this. Yes. Yeah, and there's, there's oppositional factions inside of government, in the intelligence community, in the White House, at the Pentagon, right? And, and these are-- Some of these individuals are read in certainly in the intelligence community, and some people at the Pentagon are read into the programs. and so you have a, you have a se-what, what my colleague Richard Dolan's re-Dolan refers to as a secrecy group and a disclosure group, and, and the secrecy group They want to keep the lid on this entire thing. They don't want to inform the American public of any of this. They just want us to, to, to go blissfully about our lives and, and, and not be told anything about the alien presence, because that's what this amounts to, an alien presence. And then you have the disclosure group, and the disclosure group, they want limited disclosure. And what they mean by limited disclo-disclosure, this includes, by the way, the whistleblowers, and this includes the members of Congress and, and, and senators who are, who are interested in this topic. They want the American, the American public to be told the baseline truth, the baseline reality of this phenomenon. We're not alone in the universe, and we've recovered the craft and, and have, and the bodies, right? That's the baseline reality. And one thing that everyone that I've talked to- Who's, who's part of this disclosure group they want congressional oversight because there's no congressional oversight here. The legacy program has been intentionally designed to circumvent the oversight of Congress. So you have, and, and it's using, in part, it's using our money to do it, right? So you have, you have this entity in various programs that are largely, that are largely housed in the aerospace contractors, private companies, right? With With, with limited oversight from the Air Force, the Navy, the Department of Energy, the CIA, among other organizations, but those are the big, the big four. Limited oversight, right? Completely, completely compartmentalized. Nobody's, you know, so very few people have the whole picture of what's going on. And what you have at this point is you have rogue elements. There are elements of this thing that have just gotten out of control, so now we have what are called ARVs or, I'm sorry yeah, alien reproduction vehicles, ARVs. That are, that have been derived from non-human technology from the crash retrieval program, and we've created our own flying saucers at this point, and we're using them to do utterly nefarious things. And when I say we, I don't mean the United States government necessarily. I mean these rogue elements, this, you know, so-called breakaway civilization that's, that's in possession of this advanced technology and are using it to do all kinds of dastardly things like human trafficking and who, who knows what else? You know genetic experimentation I've heard all kinds of things behind the scenes. So, so you have this battle going on, secrecy faction, don't tell the American people anything, disclosure, disclosure faction, limited disclosure. That battle is-- that's playing out right now. And the Trump, Trump and Hegseth and Patel are on the limited disclosure side of this thing, along with Congressman Eric Burlison Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, and others, right? That's the disclosure faction, and there's people within the government, within the intelligence community, within the Pentagon who do want to tell the American people the baseline truth, but they're getting blocked. Tulsi Gabbard, for example, is on the disclosure side. I can confirm to you that efforts even at that level of the DNI are being blocked and hindered and obfuscated. I mean, information is being obfuscated even when the inquiries are official, like directly from the DNI. And they've given a-- they've been given access, certain congressmen have been given limited access to some of these bases where some of these facilities, where these unacknowledged access programs special access programs are being developed, and, you know, they show up on site and, you know, the, the, the, the general or whatever at the base says, "Well, we don't know anything about that project, but here's a project that we're developing some, some..." Important defense technology, and so they just show them a different project that has nothing to do with the legacy program. So everybody is, is, everybody who's trying to look into this in, in an official capacity is getting the runaround. So do I think-- That's a-- I'm sorry, I apologize for the long-winded answer here, but do I think that we're gonna roll-- see alien bodies rolled out? Absolutely not, because they don't have access to them. Trump, Hegseth, Patel, they don't have access to that stuff. Well, we all like to think COVID is behind us, but what if the effects are still lingering in the body, especially in the brain? A new study from NYU Langone Health found something really alarming that people suffering from long COVID showed changes in a part of the brain responsible for protecting and cleaning brain tissue. Researchers are linking this to chronic inflammation, early warning signs of Alzheimer's disease. This may help explain why more than twenty million Americans are still dealing with long COVID symptoms like fatigue, shortness of breath, and that frustrating brain fog. Scientists believe ongoing inflammation and spike protein exposure may be disrupting the brain's natural cleanup system, and the wellness company has their ultimate spike detox, and that is your solution. It's created by our friend Dr. Peter McCullough. This formula was designed to support the body's natural detox process and inflammatory balance, and it contains four times the nanocyanide that's found in most spike products, along with bromelain, turmeric, and selenium. To support circulation and cellular cleanup. So if lingering inflammation and spike protein exposure are part of the problem, supporting your body's detox systems may be one of the smartest things that you can do. So give your brain a break, get your bottle of Ultimate Spike Detox today, head over to t w c dot health slash redacted and use the code redacted to get ten percent off. Again, that's t w c dot health slash redacted and use the code redacted to get ten percent off. It's so deeply disturbing that it's still walled off, you know, that the President of the United States is on a need to know basis. I mean, Bill Clinton was famously told that he was on a need to know basis, and basically, you don't need to know. So, that's right. The, you know, this idea that the President of the United States is all, is you know, omnipotent and has all this power is just garbage. they aren't, you know, they're there for four years or maybe eight years, and this sort of shadow Dark government that gets billions and billions of dollars is operating, you know, in, in the shadows, and that-- I, do you think that Congress is gonna be able to get some sort of oversight over that because all of these billions of dollars flow to these back-- black budget programs, that the reverse engineering programs, all of these things that Congress doesn't have any access to? I don't wanna be pessimistic I, I do believe that they're moving the needle. I, they, they really are. I mean, I, I applaud the work that's being done by the whistleblowers, by these members of Congress, both in the Senate and in the House. One thing that that that I believe Senator Schumer, but also Tim Burchett in the House, attempted to do was to draft legis- legislation to protect whistleblowers, because that's, that's the missing piece here. We need legislation to protect whistleblowers, and we're, we're talking about UAP, UFO whistleblowers. The problem right now is if a whistleblower comes forward, you know, these guys have s-signed all kinds of NDAs, right, and these are legally binding documents. And so people say, "Well, why don't, why don't these guys just come forward and tell the truth?" Because, let's, they're risking their pensions, they're risking their lives in some cases. If they're still working in the intelligence community or at the Pentagon or whatever, they're definitely risking the future of their career. They're not gonna go anywhere at that point. They're probably gonna be demoted, whatever kind of clearance they have is gonna be revoked. That happened to David Grush and, and they're, and they're, and then they're also risking the wellbeing of their families. How many of us would do, would risk all of that? Just to tell, you know, to talk about this phenomenon or, or, or what we know about it, there's no whistleblower protection in place, none. Yeah. And there's a lot of whistleblowers behind the scenes who are coming, I know for a fact, have been coming to the congressmen and different people and are you know, privately briefing them on things, but they won't come forward, they won't go under oath. Precisely because there's no protections for them in place. And every time that there's, for example, Birchett's bill, every time that this is, this, this comes to the floor, it gets rejected, it gets voted down. Why? Because the, some of these, you know, some of these congressmen, they've got the, the, the special interests Are influencing them to, to kill these bills every time. And who are those special interests? Well, it's the aerospace contractors who are in possession of this technology. And, you know, let's just be honest here, th-th-there's been a lot of wet works around this topic. And, and there's, there's a aggressive effort To keep people from telling the truth, whistleblowers, real whistle, I'm talking about people who've had hands on the technology or who've been read in to the program at a governmental level There's been a, a very aggressive campaign to keep these people from speaking and to discredit the whole thing. They can't, they can't keep a lid on the phenomenon, they can't control it. The government can't control the phenomenon, they're, they have zero control over it, zero. The, the aspect of this thing that's, that's non-human, they have zero control. The only thing they can do is control the narrative. So what we're seeing is narrative control and dueling factions, secrecy, dis- Secrecy, disclosure, right? So you take, you take two steps forward with the disclosure and one step back with the secrecy. That's how this thing has been going. And so that's why it's so slow, that's why the rollout is so clumsy and so difficult because the President of the United States can say, "I'm gonna release the alien files," but, but all he can release are the files that he has access to. That's it. And those files, the really important stuff, isn't housed at the Department of War, it's not housed at the FBI, it's, it's, it's not housed at DNI, right? These, this is largely because of the Freedom of Information Act, largely been sequestered into the private sector, this information So when I say the private sector, I'm talking about, I'm talking about the, the aerospace contractors. It's not like private sector like us. No, I'm talking about the contractors. Right. High level. And this is where, and you're absolutely right about this, this is where the CIA, this is where DNI, this is where they can then say, "We don't have that information," because it's been farmed out to these third parties through Lockheed Boeing. Honeywell, in terms of MedBedz and all of these other technologies that they've, that's right, dispersed these technologies around these different companies over the years, absolutely. and, you know, we've heard from different whistleblowers at these different companies who have come forward. So, I guess I'll ask you this, Tim, Timothy, because like we, you know, Congressman Burchett, Congressman Eric Burlison, Representative Luna Reports over the past few weeks, like Burlison and others, have gone to some of these different sites. They've gone to some of these different locations. We heard this, some top secret locations, in order to see for themselves. so they're seeing these things, and, you know, you're getting information about what they've seen. We've been hearing from Congressman Burchett on television. I think Burlison has said the same thing, that the things that he's seen are absolutely shocking, and the American people deserve to see those things. Like that's a- That's a great tease, but do you have any insights into what specifically he's talking about that we might actually see over the next few weeks if it's not alien bodies? Well, I think it's just more videos of, of UFO activity, but, but I'm pretty sure that those congressmen, that you name those, those in particular, including Luna have seen much clearer, much higher resolution videos than anything that's been released to the public thus far, or that's been attained through the FOIA. so I expect to see, in the coming weeks and months, I expect to see something spectacular. Now, again, not alien bodies, right? They're not gonna show us a video of one of these crafts in a hangar bay of a, of a classified facility, you know, out in New Mexico or something like that. It's- It's gonna be some kind of footage that's reminiscent of or at least on analogous to the gimbal, GoFast and Nimitz video footage that we've seen from the past. Yeah. Yeah. And we're gonna see some of that for sure on that level, absolutely for sure. And in regard to these, the visits to these facilities, these classified facilities look, when David Grush- Remember when David G-Grush blew the whistle originally? He wrote a report to the to the Inspector General of the intelligence community. So he, he wrote a report, and he wrote in that report everything he was gonna say, everything he was gonna expose. That went to the Inspector General. As soon as that report went in the hands of the Inspector General, they already knew the game plan coming from Grush. They knew what he was going to expose, what he was going to say. Grush had a list of facilities where he knew that some of these programs were being housed because he was informed by his contacts, generals, and people in the intelli-intelligence community. As soon as they had that information and they knew that David Grush was coming out to blow the whistle, do you think they would keep any craft in those facilities? They're gonna shuffle, they're gonna shuffle the board, right? I mean, they're gonna shuffle the board. You know, this is the This is that, the, the, the, the proverbial shell game. So if you've got craft over in facility A, right, and Grush, you know Grush is gonna be exposing that, you've got months in advance before anybody, years in advance before anybody gets any kind of clearance to come to that facility to look for this craft, all you gotta do is move it to facility B that's not mentioned or that's not known. We have plenty of them. These thing, these craft can be easily moved around. They can pick 'em up in the- Bed of night, lift him off with a helicopter, put him on the bed of a truck, whatever. They can shuffle the board, and that's what they, that's what they did. They shuffled the board. And that's why, you know, you have Vice President, Vice President Vance saying, you know, he, he, he wants to go to Area Fifty One, he's planning on going to Area Fifty One. Well, that's, that's gonna be a nice little he's gonna get a nice little tour of Area fifty-one, but he's not gonna see anything significant, even if he goes to the F-four, S-four facility. they're not gonna-- I mean, they're not stupid, right? They're gonna move everything. They're gonna, they're gonna, they're gonna relocate The assets to different underground facilities. And let me again stress, these underground facilities, these deep underground military bases, the dumbs, the President of the United States doesn't have access 'cause he doesn't have, just as you said, doesn't have need to know. He's not read in, he doesn't have access. The Secretary of War doesn't have access. The, certainly the, the director of the FBI definitely doesn't have access, okay? The American people assume that, that this echelon of power has access to everything. Not true. It's a need to know basis. The President of the United States doesn't have the need to know, and if he inquires about it, he will literally be told that he doesn't have the need to know, like other presidents you mentioned, Bill Clinton. And yes, there have been some presidents who I think have been briefed more extensively, such as- Jimmy Carter. but that's only if these guys know how to ask the right questions. This is something that, that I don't think people understand about the government. The government isn't going to offer up any information it doesn't have to. So if your questions aren't specific and targeted, using the right terminology, if, if you don't have the names of the operations, then all they're gonna say to you when you make the inquiry, and this goes for not just UFO stuff, this goes for inquiries into the Smithsonian about the bones of giants and everything, if you don't have the exact information, they're just gonna say, "We aren't aware of..." Of, of what you're talking about, or, you know, we've looked into this and haven't found any files pertinent to your inquiry or something like that. That's, that's the game that's played. So that's, it's very important for the American people to understand that the, the, the Trump doesn't have the access that people think he does. I think it's pretty clear that we have alien bodies. I think there's been enough Eyewitness testimony and, and reports over the years of whistleblowers and others, secretaries who've worked in you know, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, et cetera, who've come forward on these subjects. Would you say it's, it's, it's clear as day that, yes, in fact, we do have alien biologics, as David Grush testified before Congress that we have alien biologics? I would say indisputably we have alien biologics, alien bodies, and I say it with such confidence be-because we have enough evidence at this point that the legacy program is real. You know, you've had, you had guys like the late Leonard Stringfield writing back and, you know, writing about this stuff in the, in, in decades ago exposing the legacy program from insider accounts. And then you fast forward to just the last decade, everything that the whistleblowers are saying is just a confirmation of what ufologists have known to be true for a very long time. I mean, I get people coming to me behind the scenes and People who've been on crash retrieval sites, and they've seen the bodies of gray aliens, and that's not the only thing that's seen in these crash retrieval, but very common, some, some form of gray alien. There's different you know, descriptions of these things, but, but generally speaking, the bodies of the little gray guys, which are, they're much, you know- You know, they're not dark gray, they're not even medium gray, they're very, very light gray. They're basically white, but they're a, a grayish white hue. And, and, you know, in one case the gentleman told me that he was on a crash retrieval site and the bodies were just dismembered, laying all over the place, and there's this clear, transparent liquid that comes out of them. It's kind of like their blood, but it's, it's not red like ours, it's transparent. I've heard dozens of stories All of this, an-- yes, it's anecdotal, some of it's firsthand, some of it's secondhand, but there's a mountain of this kind of stuff, as you know. There's a mountain of this kind of stuff. And then you have, I mean, I'm sure you saw the Age of Disclosure film, and then you have all of these different officials from the government, from the intelligence community, who are looking in the camera and basically telling you, in no uncertain terms, "Yeah, we've got the craft and bodies, we've got 'em." Yeah. And so when you add all of this together, and then of course you throw in the abduction phenomenon, which, which, which is a layer of evidence nobody really ever deals with, but it's physical evidence, it's evidence that lends itself to scientific inquiry. I mean, to me, it's, it's overwhelming that's why I would say it's indisputable. It's if you take the time to look and inform yourself and, and, and, you know, if you have a deeper knowledge of the phenomenon than just browsing social media, it becomes immediately imp-apparent that we've got the craft, we've got the bodies in our possession in some capacity, and who knows where, whether it's at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base or, that certainly was years ago, but as you mentioned, shuffling the board, moving these bodies around. Who's studying them you know, and why does the government not have access to this? David Brussel- The government has-- The government does have-- I don't wanna make it sound like government doesn't have-- the, the, the, there is limited oversight. You have individuals, I was with somebody recently who's I'm gonna be very careful and, and protect this man at all costs, but he's he, he, he was read in. And I'm not even gonna say which branch of the military he worked for, but, but he, at, at some point in time, he worked at the, at the Pentagon, and and he had eyes on some of these programs in his capacity at the Pentagon, and he was briefed and read in by his superior generals. And I asked him, I said, "So, you know, there's thousands of people who work at the Pentagon. So how many people do you think..." Who are working at the Pentagon right now are read in to this stuff. He thought about it for a minute and he said, "Twenty, twenty people." I was gonna say five. That sounds about right. Actually, I, yeah, I was, I, I, I, I always thought it was, you know, somewhere between ten and twenty, but, but and then, you know, and he, and he was We were talking about this for a while, and, and, and his attitude was, "Look, this, you know, the people who were read in they're not they're not like analyzing fuzzy videos of craft or whatever. These guys have been read into the decades-long reality. We are, he said, we are so far down the line with this thing." That he doesn't think the American people will ever be told about this pheno-- about the reality of this phenomenon and, and the things that we have. We are so far down the line, we are decades and decades into this thing that, i-it's, how do you tell the American people at this point? Well, is, is, is this the drip and drab? Is this why we're seeing this disclosure rolling out over two-week periods? We're gonna give you a little bit. Then a little bit more, then there'll, there'll be something jaw-dropping a month from now where we'll get some really clear imagery of a, of a craft. What about the video that we're he-- we're hearing from, from s-- from sources, there is video of of a UFO flying right next to a military craft and it matches the speed of that craft so much so that the pilot of the military craft was able to look and see an alien flying the craft. There's actually- Artist renderings of it now online because I think, I, I don't exactly know who said that they've seen this video, and they're hoping that that will be one of the videos released to the American public. Yeah, I wonder if that's what Luna and, and Burchett are out there alluding to. It's something like that. Yeah, we're gonna see craft. I don't know that we're gonna see beings or bodies, but we're gonna see more craft. And keep in mind that a lot of this craft is ours at this Stress the first word in that acronym, Alien Reproduction Vehicles. I, I, I'm absolutely convinced that, that much of this technology has been directly derived from a non-human source, whether that be through crash retrievals or through some kind of contact that we've had, we've maintained with, with Non-human intelligence for a very long time. That's what I've been told, that at the, at the highest levels, the guys that are readed and briefed on this stuff, it's not, it's not just, "Hey, we have craft, yeah, we've got some bodies." It's, we've been in contact. There's contact that's been made. There's, there's a relationship, if I-- From the source, the sourcing that I'm hearing from over the years, a relationship. Exactly right. Treaties, agreements. You know, that's what I'm saying, we're so far down the line, we probably have a space fleet that's, that's off planet at this point from things I've heard. We are so far down the line, how do you tell the American people? Like, where do you even begin? I guess this is where you begin, right? Yeah. If you're gonna do it, you gotta drip it. You gotta drip it. And then it's like, it's like, you know, just like I said earlier, that, the, the, the president was clear That he's gonna put it all out there, and he's gonna trust, I think these were even his words, trust that the American people will draw the right conclusions. At least this was the words behind the scene that was conveyed to me. Yeah. Trust that the American people are gonna draw the right, the correct conclusion. What's the correct conclusion? Yeah, this is all real. That's the correct conclusion. Now, will Americans draw that conclusion? some of us will. But, you know, there's a lot of ne- there's a, there's a psyop narrative, a very persistent psyop narrative out there that all of this is just, you know, Project Blue Beam or this is just smoke and mirrors to distract us from this or the other. and yes, the narrative can be conven- conveniently used for whatever, right? I mean, you can, you can use the narrative however you want. But, but the phenomenon is real, and much of it is non-human. And People need to keep that in mind, it's not all just a sci-op. The other piece of this is the interdimensionality piece, and we've heard from Representative Luna and others that maybe as part of this disclosure, we're going to learn about these beings are traveling interdimensionally, or that they've been here for hundreds of, hundreds of thousands of years on our planet. Operating, you know, whether deep in the ocean or otherwise, maybe you can tackle the interdimensionality, and then I wanna talk about the religious piece of this, 'cause we of course heard the reports about religious leaders being briefed on this, called together and being briefed on what they can expect and prepare your flock, so to speak, for this disclosure. So maybe let's just, let's tackle those, I guess, in two separate pieces, or if you see them as one piece. No, no, I, we can take it in two separate pieces. So, you know, I, I'm I'm obviously aware of the fact that especially Congressman Luna is out there saying that this is an interdimensional phenomenon. I respect that opinion because I don't know what this is exactly. None of us do. We're all shooting in the dark here. The only people who really have any insight are the aerospace contractors and the handful of people who are read in at the governmental level, at the Pentagon, at the, at the-- When You know, probably, maybe hundreds of people in the totality of government they're the only ones who really have answers. The rest of us have theories. We, we-- I've never touched a craft, you haven't touched a craft as far as I know. I've never seen a body, you haven't seen a body. I mean, we have theories, and that goes for the Congress, the congressmen as well. They have theories, I know because I, I talked to them about this. They have theories. And it's-- I've been, you know Interesting theories, I think they're all very plausible theories. and I know that no one has been shown-- when I say no one, I mean nobody at the congressional level, none of the people that I inter-interact with, nobody has been shown direct evidence that would that would indicate the nature, the provenance Or the ontology of these beings. What they have been shown is more evidence that the phenomenon is real, and, you know, that, an, an evidence suggesting that the legacy program is real. But nobody has been told, as far as I'm aware, behind the scenes that That these are interdimensional beings, or these are time travelers, you know, these are tempestrial extraterrestrials, right? They're, they're time travelers, or that these are extradimensionals, or that these are crypto-terrestrials. That kind of certainty isn't, isn't doesn't exist in the skiff, for example. Now, some of these ideas have been kicked around. There could be, there could be an, an extradimensional, hyperdimensional component to this There could be a crypto-terrestrial component to this. Those ideas are kicked around, just like they are in public, and then you have individual congressmen and women who have their own theories that they consistently convey to the public, and they are completely entitled to those theories. and I think all of these theories are plausible. I mean, I think there's a lot of good ideas flout-floating around out there. In the absence of knowledge, what are we gonna do except for hypothesize, right? So I, I think people have the wrong impression that congressmen and women are being told what these things are. That's not true. In fact Congressman Eric Bur, Burleson is very explicit about this. He doesn't know what they are, he hasn't been told what they are. He gets information behind the scenes, and it's, again, it usually pertains to craft, you know, video footage, legacy program stuff, but nobody knows the ontol-the ontology of these beings. In fact, I've talked to whistleblowers, I've talked to people who've, who've been And on the crash retrieval stuff, as I said earlier, they don't know. They don't have the answers either. They don't know. They're speculating like the rest of us. Now, they know that the craft is physical, technological, the bodies are physical, but they don't know where they come from. Even the guys who handle the stuff On that level, don't know where they come from. So I just want everybody to, to understand, this is a realm of speculation at the congressional level and, i-in the public and even among whistleblowers, much of this is speculation. David Grush speculates, for example, is there an interdimensional component to this? Now, the word interdimensional is, is fraught with misconception. Because I think what most people-- we don't, we don't have any scientific evidence of extra dimensions. We have scientific theories of extra dimensions, such as string theory. We've never measured an extra dimension. We have no direct evidence that extra dimensions exist. A lot of great mathematicians, a lot of great physicists Postulate extra dimensions in their theories and are themselves convinced that they must exist. I myself subscribe to the hyperspatial theory of the universe, which says that there are extra dimensions that we cannot directly perceive. Now, these dimensions may be very, very tiny. I mean, when you talk about extra dimensions, you, you're, like in string theory, for example, superstring theory, you're talking about dimensions that are inaccessible, that are at the Subatomic level, not like, you know, portals that you can walk through, but even according to relativity, Einstein in-- within the framework of general relativity he posited that you could create a bridge From one part of, this is an important distinction, one part of our universe to another part of our universe, we're staying within our universe, but you could create a dimensional gateway, a, an Einstein-Rosen bridge, to connect two distant parts of the universe by folding the, the spacetime, right? So that requires an extra dimension to fold it into an extra dimension. You see what I mean? So you fold spacetime into that extra dimension. It's like taking, you know- I don't have a piece of paper in front of me. You're taking a piece of paper that's flat, and then you fold it, you put your pencil through it. You're taking two points on that flat piece of paper, you're bringing them together and punching a hole through the fabric to get from one side to the other in much shorter distance than traversing the, the length of the paper. So I think that, that, that's possible. It's just my opinion. I think that, that, that's part of what's happening here in this phenomenon. So is there an extra-dimensional component to the phenomenon? Personally, I would aff- I would aff- I would affirm that there is. Luna would affirm that there is. Burleson would affirm that there is. Based on our own speculation, not based on some Skiff information, I don't know if Burchett would affirm that or not. So I suspect there is, but the problem is with the word interdimensional, because if you're a spaceship traveling from one side of that hole that we're gonna poke through the fabric of space-time, right? You travel from this side to the other side, you're still inside of our universe, correct? And you are by nature, you're not an ex-extra or inter- Being per se, rather you're, you're taking advantage of an extra dimension in space time to travel. Now that's a, that's an important distinction beca- because people assume that when they say interdimensional, that they're invoking ontology, they're invoking the nature of a being. A being is by nature interdimensional. I don't really know what that means personally. I don't understand what that means. Right. and I don't know that anybody- Who's invoking it really understands that it means. I think that what, what we're doing is we're, we're conflating scientific theories with Marvel movies. All, all of us are. I'm not pointing my finger at anybody, as if Doctor Strange is opening a portal and somebody's just walking through this portal, rather than as eyewitnesses have attested to individuals or aliens standing there and almost disappearing, in what, what looks like to us disappearing, but really could be shifting- Phasing out, phasing between our dimension and another dimension, or using some kind of cloaking technology. Remember that Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, Bob Lazar, Bob Lazar pointed out at S4 and if you believe his story, which I do, but if you watch- Watched the most recent S four documentary, it's available on Amazon Prime, it's stunning. But when he stands there and says, "When he witnessed, when he were-- that he was called out on the grounds of S four to watch one of the, one of the craft that they had reverse engineered, basically an ARV, it looked like, lift off and phased out right in front of them, disappeared right in front of them." That's right. And the reason why it disappeared, according to Zarin, I think this is accurate by things I've heard from other people as well, the reason What happens when you bend spacetime? You bend light. We know that for a fact, right? Gravity bends light. So if that craft is creating a gravitational bubble, this is what Elizondo and the guys that worked at AIT believe If the craft is, is enveloping itself in its own atmospheric gravitational bubble, then light is gonna be bent around the craft. And so what are you gonna see when you look at the craft? You're gonna see the sky behind the craft because it's bending light around it. And that's the other thing about these crafts, you know, they're, they're transmedium. So they, they move with the same ease through the atmosphere, through Earth's atmosphere, through outer space, through the water, and I've even heard through, through, through like solid objects. So that's why they say they Trans medium, and so people automatically assume, well, if they can move in this capacity, they must be supernatural or interdimensional. Well, not necessarily. If you are warping space time around the craft, then you are moving space time around the craft. You're not moving the craft through space time, you're moving the fabric of space time around the craft. And it doesn't matter if it's water or if it's air molecules or if it's even solid matter, you're, you're moving that fabric around the craft. It's a spacetime bubble. So there are explanations, and Lazar offers some himself Although he, he, he, he, he makes it clear he doesn't know the ultimate answer. He offers some explanations that I think are, are probably pretty plausible. I'm not a physicist, but it's, it's, it's consistent with guys like Lazar, guys like Helmut Off, Eric Davis, guys that are physicists. Lazar was a physicist and is a physicist, and their explanation does Seem to answer all the questions in regard to these craft. They're in a space-time bubble, Lazar says they generate gravity waves, right? That they generate, project gravity waves. there are other explanations that are very similar to that, maybe with a diff-some handful of differences but those explanations explain the incredible capabilities of these craft. They explain them. And then furthermore, we have to remember It's not just, you know, quote unquote, interdimensional beings, if, if such a thing exists, that have-- that are using this kind of technology. It's good old fashioned human beings, too, right? We've got the ARVs, we've got our own craft that can mimic, do-- that, that are capable of some of these extraordinary maneuverings as well. We've got 'em. and Michael Herrera, for example, is a great-- he's a friend of mine, and he has a great story when he was in Indonesia, he saw one of our, one of our reverse-engineered craft, hybridized craft that incorporates conventional components with exotic components, and let me just stress this, when you talk about our own craft that we've built, our hybridized craft, the reason we can't build on the scale or rather to the technological degree Of the alien craft is because we don't have the exotic material that they have. Exotic material is a ma-major component here in the non-human craft. They have materials, they have metallurgy in their craft that we can't reproduce. They have elements, for example, element one fifteen that Lazard, L-Lazard talks about Some of these elements aren't, they don't exist on planet Earth, or at least stable isotopes of them don't exist on the Earth. So if these beings- And the best we can do is they exist on Earth for milliseconds, because that's all we- For milliseconds. That's all we're able to do. That's right. So what can we do? Well, we've got the small amount of material that we've extracted from the crash retrievals, and then we try and synthesize materials, new materials to- to mimic what they have, and we do that, we, we, we do that in some cases very successfully, in other cases not, not very successfully. And, and this is a, a huge part of this whole thing. This, that's why there's an arms race. To, for the-- It's a, there's a crash retrieval arms race. China has a legacy program, Russia has a legacy program. Not, it's not just the United States. Now, I think the United States, our legacy program encompasses the West in general. I would say that the legacy program of the West is the United States, is our program. but we don't have jurisdiction in China, we don't have jurisdiction in Russia, they have their own program. So maybe they've made their own agreements. What kind of ARVs have they developed? This is a massive reason why so much of this is, is never gonna come out to the public because we're gonna protect our strategic advantage. And, and, and, and so that's to the fir-- to your first point of those two things you wanna discuss. That, those are my thoughts on And that aspect. With, we just have a few minutes left, but I wanted to ask you the religious piece of this, which is the, the preparation of these religious leaders, you know, for their flock and for their congregants. That this would be some sort of religious earth shattering. We know that going back even like twenty years, the Catholic Church was already preparing that's public, that they were already preparing for a UFO disclosure. so the Catholic Church has been preparing for this for a while. What do you make of the religious preparations that are underway? So this, the story about the, the pastor, the so-called pastor briefings has been, I would say conflated and inflated in the media and, and by the individuals who were involved yeah, right, and by the individuals who were involved, some of them. So there seems to be two things happening here, two stories that are being, that are being mixed up, and one of those stories seems to pertain to your bigwig evangelical prosperity gospel types like Paula White. Paula White, as we all know, is a spiritual advisor to Donald Trump. She has access to the White House, she's friends with Trump and with people at the White House in general. So Paula has made some statements that, that give me the impression that she's going through some ontological shock right now. So she- She's been told something by somebody. I suspect somebody in the White House is communicating to her and her group. Now, who else is part of her group? I don't know. The pastors that she appears with, with the president probably. I think she has been- Officially briefed in some capacity, her and her group, and that, that is that's baseline. It would just be baseline. The phenomenon is real, non-human beings, crash retrieval, stuff like that. Now, there's other group in Tennessee, this is the one that most people are referring to when they talk about this. I know some of the guys involved in that, but I know the briefers. I'm friends with the briefers. I've been extensively briefed by these guys, and I should probably use the, the, place the word brief in, in, in quotation marks because the vast majority of what these guys share is public domain stuff. that's the vast majority, and, and, and half of what these guys do has to, is, is, is on the child trafficking front. This, and they, they actually, I, I've been on the phone with them the last few days, they actually want me to convey that they have nothing to do with the government. This isn't an official government briefing that any of these pastors are getting. This is a private UAP human trafficking investigative organization that are doing, they're private Funded there's some ex-military guys in there, there's different kinds of professionals in there. Their, their focus probably primarily on the human trafficking side of things, and I think they're doing great work on that front, by the way. They wanna remain anonymous, but within that group, there's a, there's a handful of them that happen to be Christians, and these guys have taken it upon themselves, apart from the organization that they're a part of, they've taken it upon themselves to reach out to various Christians, you know? In the, in the influencer space on social media, and their purpose is, their objective is to, this is what, what, what, what they told me and what they tell these other guys as well, is to convey the reality and the gravity of the, of the UAP phenomenon. And being Christians themselves, they want to encourage pastors and, and Christian leaders to prepare people for disclosure. And they believe that there's a deception coming, and they've got- Different theological views, but none of their theological views are the result of insider information. Okay, let's be clear, none of their-- none of this group's theological views have anything to do with being read in to anything, okay? They're just opinions. And the way that this is coming out, the way that this is playing out on social media, is these six pastors were briefed by government officials, intelligence community people who told them, "X, Y, Z." Y Z. And then people are making the assumption that, oh, intelligence community people or people at the White House are telling pastors that aliens are interdimensional demons or whatever or that this is all just a deception. That's not true. What you're getting is the opinions of certain individuals within this research organization. They're conveying their opinions to people like myself and others and sharing Information, again, the vast majority of which is public domain. They're, they're, they're not really sharing classified information with anybody, and and, and, and again, a lot of it has to do with human trafficking. They really want pastors to be aware of the human trafficking thing, 'cause it's, it's, it's, it's huge. Out of control. I mean, the human trafficking is- Probably the worst thing going on right now on planet Earth, and it's so systematic and monetized, and obviously monetized, it's, it's a massive industry, and that's a large part of these guys' concern. So this thing, as I said, conflated, inflated. It's, it's, it's it's, it's much ado about nothing really. So Timothy, you expect maybe over the next- Week or so we'll see a new tranche of evidence, documents, et cetera, and then this like slow drip maybe as we head into the summer. That's what I've been told. And just keep in mind you know, we could be seeing a lot more impressive stuff. I was told it's gonna be over-- underwhelming, by the way. The stuff that came out recently, a lot of that is the lower tier stuff, a lot of that came from Arrow, although I have been told that Arrow is being frozen out of this process, which is really good news. In other words, Arrow is, is because they've been ordered to, they are turning over some of the footage and stuff that they have, that's lower tier stuff, but they're not being involved in the process of releasing this to the public. That is-- people need to understand that, that, that is a very strategic- Move by the Trump administration to freeze Arrow out of the process because Arrow, the official office at the Pentagon to investigate anomalous activity, is a dog and pony show, and it was from the beginning. It's a disinformation campaign, and the Trump administration, from what I've seen, is freezing them out of the process, except for getting the, you know, getting the material they have and releasing it. So we got some material from Arrow, from NASA, and FOIA stuff. This is what, what I'm, what I'm hearing, this is the Bottom rung of the ladder, it's going up from here. I hope that's true. So we're gonna, we'll wait and see if it is. Timothy Alberino, great to talk to you as always. Thank you for this, really eye-opening perspective. Really appreciate you summarizing and and synthesizing all of this for us today. Great to see you, my friend. Thank you, Clayton. It's always my pleasure to be with you. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free. If you wanna follow us or subscribe, and if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 31, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - May 31, 2026 at 1:13 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

Get OUT! 🤬 Russia is giving the warning in plain language: leave Kyiv now. If Western officials ignore it, they are not confused. They are choosing to sit inside the blast zone and dare Moscow to act. https://t.co/yhFBctxnae

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that Russia’s warning to Western diplomats and members of the Western diplomatic corps to leave Ukraine’s capital is not ambiguous and should be treated as a signal that strikes are about to occur. They cite Russian Security Council secretary Shoigu saying ambassadors were warned to leave Kiev because strikes could happen at any moment. The speaker claims the EU and the United States are not taking the warnings seriously and predicts intensified violence, tying it to events including “the killing of those twenty-one girls at that college.” They further argue that, under pressure, Putin is attempting to end the war and that the situation is entering an “endgame.” They criticize the United States for dispatching senators to Ukraine and say the purpose is to support continued funding and to “launder more money through Ukraine,” describing Ukraine as a “massive money laundering operation.” They reference Senator Blumenthal stating America is not leaving Ukraine and that U.S. diplomats are staying despite Russian threats, and they contrast this with what they portray as another side’s belief that threats imply imminent danger for anyone in Ukraine. The speaker asserts that major government infrastructure targets and buildings are expected to be hit and compares the current situation to a past account where Kiev was surrounded with a corridor for people to leave, alleging a NATO-backed deal to back off was a lie. They argue the “choke point is happening right now,” and they discuss reporting that the U.S. embassy in Ukraine was being evacuated while claiming others said the diplomats were not going anywhere. They question how long family members and other U.S.-connected personnel in Ukraine would survive an attack and note that Zelensky left Ukraine to fly to Sweden to secure weapons and funding. They claim Zelensky’s Sweden visit included a new package described as about “eighty to ninety billion dollars,” along with Gripen fighter jets, and they argue that Russia will destroy the aircraft once they enter the theater. They also discuss statements about pilots available in Ukraine and mock the idea that Ukrainian pilots would be flying the jets. The speaker quotes Swedish support rhetoric and claims the Gripen aircraft are for “all of our pilots, all of our aces that we have in Ukraine.” They also reference Ursula von der Leyen celebrating the ratification of documents for a ninety billion dollar loan tied to disbursements in June, and they accuse Ukraine and EU-related institutions of mortgaging Ukraine’s future and redirecting money to entities they name. They claim peace efforts are blocked, stating that Russia says Ukraine will not talk and citing Representative Paula Luna urging Zelensky to accept a peace agreement and criticizing refusal to hold elections. They further allege that money funneled to the United States is tied to U.S. election campaigns and that senators received defense-industry funds. The speaker shifts to portraying a “psychological operation” in mainstream media, claiming coverage frames Russia as losing and Ukraine as winning. They then argue the war of attrition has not worked and emphasize casualties, claiming about “two million” people have been killed. Finally, they discuss drone attacks associated with the killing of young girls at a college, asserting that the attacks were intentional and coordinated with satellite data. They claim Palantir has been integrated with Ukraine’s military operations for years, providing AI and intelligence-related capabilities, and that Palantir has agreements with the Pentagon. They conclude by arguing for keeping American and European diplomats in place while attacks occur, and they reference the senators’ presence as protective or reassuring.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Let's talk about Russia now. What is so hard to understand when they say get out now? Like, is that difficult? Like, if, if I tell my children to get out of this space now, they will listen to me and they will leave. So when Russia tells diplomats and members of the Western diplomatic corps to get out of Ukraine's capital right now, we are about to bomb the hell out of it. Like, these aren't ambiguous messages coming from Russia. It seems that they think Russia and Putin are joking about just two hours ago, here was Shoigu, who is the Russian Security Council secretary, saying, "We have seriously and consciously warned ambassadors to leave Kiev because strikes can happen at any moment." Watch. Такое вы выражение как каким-то действиям, по-моему, все наши действия видны, мы их показываем, более того, о каких-то действиях предупреждаем заранее. В данном случае вы заговорили о предупреждении послам покинуть Киев. Оно было сделано совершенно серьезно и осознанно, потому что в любом случае это может произойти в любой момент, если только... And then, yeah, so it's gonna happen at any moment. So what then? The EU isn't taking it seriously, the United States isn't taking it seriously. In fact, instead of staying away from what's going to become hell on earth, potentially in the next few days, could be weeks, but seems likely that it's about to happen in response to the killing of those twenty-one girls at that college. And under enormous pressure back home, Putin is in order to end this war. Like we are in the end game now. So what does the United States do? What does US Congress do? Sends senators into the bowels of Ukraine to once again reiterate that we stand with Ukraine, seeing an opportunity, of course, right now in order to funnel more money and launder more money through Ukraine as the massive money laundering operation that it has been, of course. For Democrats, defense contractors that you like, the largest money laundering operation perhaps in history unfolded in Ukraine. So we need to keep that money going, we need to keep it flowing, and we don't care that nearly two million Ukrainians have now been killed in this war. Two million. But keep the money flowing. So here's Senator Blumenthal. Just a short time ago, saying, "We, we're here, we're here, and you know what? We're not going anywhere, watch." First, let me just dispel a couple of myths. America isn't leaving Ukraine. Our diplomats are here to stay. We're standing behind Ukraine as we have done from the outset. We will not be cowed by Russian threats. Or bullying. We're not scared, and neither should the people of Ukraine be cowed in any way by this kind of bullying. Yeah. So I'm pretty, pretty sure Putin just pissed himself when he saw that. Wow. Yeah. There's, there's video now circulating of Putin literally peeing in a corner. He's so scared of Richard Blumenthal. Well, the other guy, his pants are all wet. The other guy, too, is right when he says that we're, we're not, we're saying we're not scared. The other guy looks like, "Uh, yeah, speak for yourself, dude. We're gonna make this press conference and we're on an, we're on an airplane out of here because shit's about to hit the fan. But all you diplomats, stay here. You guys stay here, you're fine, nothing to see here. When the targets Russia has said they will hit are major government infrastructure and buildings. I I mean, talk about being wiped off the map, okay? And you recall, and I know that there was somebody in the chat room the other day who wasn't educated on this, but it's okay, like not everyone is knee-deep in this stuff but, you know, remember, Kiev was totally surrounded And there was one corridor out of the city where they were allowing people to leave, and they were about to choke off that artery when Emmanuel Macron and other NATO members said to Putin, "Hey, let's put a deal in place, back off of Kiev, pull, pull back, and we'll put this deal in place." It was a lie, and Putin fell for it, and to his credit, he's admitted that's one of his biggest mistakes. It was completely surrounded. So the choke point is happening right now. We are about to see, it seems like, the endgame in this war. And so you wanna keep US diplomats there, like in embassies and otherwise? There was a report over the past twenty-four hours that US, the, the US embassy in Ukraine was being evacuated, to which lots of other people and, including community notes, were like, "No, no, no, they're not going anywhere." "Oh, good, so then they'll all die?" Like if you've got family, US family that's in Ukraine right now, and I know there's lots of CIA stations across Ukraine, I think more than ten if I'm not mistaken, how many of those will survive this attack? I don't know. But meanwhile, guess who's not there? Zelensky. Got out of his own country to fly to Sweden in order to try to shore up additional money and weapons? And getting a massive new weapons package, including Gripen fighter jets, which he says will make their combat aviation more effective. By the way, what pilots do they have left in Ukraine? It's not gonna be Ukrainian pilots flying, flying these jets. It wasn't Ukrainian pilots flying those jets at the beginning of the war. It was NATO fighters flying those jets. So what air, what pilots do you have left in Ukraine that can fly fighter jets? A hundred and fifty of them. The ghost of Kiev. Yeah, Kiev. Is he still around? He was pretty good. Like the Red Baron, remember that story? This guy, he was taking out Russians left and right. He's an amazing pilot. Yeah, that story was false. The ghost of Kiev. He took out a... What did he take out? A Russian destroyer? Yeah, it was him, him and the Snake Island guys that never happened either. Snake Island. The amount of propaganda so thick. So here is Zelensky in Sweden making a deal for about eighty to ninety billion dollars in order to get all of these new aircraft. The moment these aircraft-- the experts we've spoken to on the show, the moment any of these aircraft have entered the theater in Ukraine, Russia has destroyed them. So you think Russia is gonna allow a hundred and fifty brand new Gripen fighter jets coming from Sweden to make it into Ukraine? Like, are you mentally retarded? So who-- This is just one big massive money laundering operation. They're not-- Where do you get this money from? And you're gonna buy these jets that aren't gonna make it into the air. But here he is, listen. The system. Historická, historická podíla, historický den pro naši zpěvpráci, pro naše krajiny. Dnes je nový paket podpory od Švédska. Tato podpora otevírá pro nás nový úroveň zabezpečení živů pro naše lidi, ochrany našich měst, ochrany našich hromad. V tomto dnešním paketu o výši 2,7 miliardy dolar Drone in almost four hundred million in, but the most important is the Gripen and the Prime Minister. Yeah. And the most, most, most importantly, the Gripen aircraft for all of our pilots, all of our aces that we have in Ukraine. I mean, we are living like in a simulation where they think you are stupid. Here's Ursula von der Leyen playing right into the false narrative. Congratulations to the Ukrainian parliament and Zelensky's team for the swift work to ratify the main documents related to a ninety billion dollar loan. Great, so now they can get these disbursements in June, so the money can flow in, they can get these new aircraft to fight Russia. Ninety billion dollars. Ukraine has already given itself completely away to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank. Half of its country is gone to BlackRock and Vanguard. Now Jewish settlements taking over. Of course, they wanted Ukraine to become the Greater Israel project, part of the Greater Israel project, as Colonel Douglas McGregor just talked about today. Jewish settlements arriving there in order to take over that land as well. So what's left of Ukraine? Giving away ninety bil- You can't afford ninety billion dollars? Where are you getting this money from? You're borrowing it from the E- the EU? You, you've given away your entire country's future. It's gone. Not only did you kill two million people, you've completely mortgaged your future. Gone. But okay, glad you're gonna get those aircraft that Russia will bomb within two minutes of landing in Ukraine. Or before they ever make it there. Meanwhile, what about peace? On the Russian side, Russia says, "No, Ukraine won't talk to us. There's no discussions at all." Representative Paula Luna posted this just a few minutes ago, says, "You're now holding up the peace agreement, Volodymyr Zelensky. It's time to accept it." Not to mention, you are refusing to hold elections, and your government funneled money to the United States sent to Ukraine back into Joe Biden's reelection campaign. Yes, it's one big money laundering operation. So I'm glad that senators were flying in once again. Senators, by the way, that received hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the defense contractors as part of their election campaigns. So like Senator Blumenthal, lots of money, lots of money from defense industry. Shocking, right? I know that's probably a big surprise to you. So you're watching like a psy- a psychological operation unfolding in real time right now, like this is what they're not telling you. What they're trying, what you're gonna start to see in the mainstream media is, "Oh, we need to support Ukraine again." You're gonna start to see maybe Ukrainian flags showing up in people's bios, you're gonna start to see news reports about how Ukraine is needs our help because we gotta fight the Russian bear. And sure enough, right on cue, CNN, which is of course an extension of the CIA, the Mockingbird Media, just did a whole piece on how Ukraine is winning against Russia and why we need to support them now more than ever to keep the winning going. This is amazing, watch. Katarina, you argue that Russia has tried to fight a war of attrition where they gradually, not just eat up Ukrainian- Resources but also weighed out Ukraine and the West. But your report says that's not working. What, what, what changed to to, to in effect undermine that Russian war plan? You're exactly right. The Russian theory of victory is that the Kremlin anticipated that it can outlast and out-eret Ukrainian forces, essentially keeping to push advancing hundred meters at a time in an effort to paint a picture that they're actually achieving victories on the battlefield. Now, Ukrainians are- I mean, just stop, just stop. The Institute for the Study of War, one of these think tanks. Jim Sciutto from CNN, who was embedded in Ukraine, lying to the American people about what was happening. CNN lying to the American people what was happening in Ukraine. Okay. These people are clowns, and these people are an extension of the deep state, the CIA. And so you have the, these psychological operations now unfolding on the American people that, "Yeah, Russia's losing, that Ukraine has been fighting them back. We heard this for four years ago. Ukraine's pushing them back." Okay, you've lost two million, two million soldiers killed, not injured, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that have permanently lost limbs. Two million dead. Now the people that are fighting, scarcely Ukrainians, many of them foreign mercenaries from Colombia, France, Poland. And so you watch CNN, you believe this? Garbage. It's, I mean, it's, it's an insult to your intelligence. And so this war of attrition hasn't worked. For whom? Zelensky is literally flying to Sweden to get more munitions. He literally posted a video three days ago begging the West to send more munitions because we're out of them. What the hell is she talking about? An entire generation of young men has been killed. But Ukraine's winning. Ukraine's winning. These people are absolutely delusional. Meanwhile, new information about the drone attacks that killed all of those young girls at the college in Russia. There they are, all of those girls killed in the Starbellek attack at that college. An attack on multiple buildings. Ukraine says it was an errant drone that inadvertently struck-- no, it didn't. Multiple drones on attacking multiple buildings, all intentional, and all done with satellite coordination. And as Russia has pointed out, where did the satellite coordination come from? Who was providing it? Who was providing the telemetry data? the friends of NATO, the West, arguably MI6. But it turns out, according to new reports out of Russia Today, that Palantir has been deeply in-integrated with Ukraine's military ops for years, helping to shape the policy of Russophobia in addition to telemetry data. So the spokesperson, Maria Zarakova when she was asked whether there was any US AI company involved in any way tied to the deadly attack on the college Said that yes, this is what they found. Since the beginning of the special military operation, Palantir has been closely working with the Kiewit Group, providing the capabilities of fields and artificial intelligence systems in the interest of Ukraine. It's well known that company has agreements and obligations to the Pentagon as a contractor. Yeah, so Palantir. Surprising. Palantir is involved in the AI targeting, okay, of course, and apparently Starlink as well, involved. So all of that to say, keep your American diplomats there, keep your European diplomats there, keep a stiff upper lip as these bombs start raining down on Ukraine over the next few days, few hours, who the hell knows? But I'm glad the Senators are there to make sure that we're not abandoning Ukraine in any kind of way. Thank you so much for watching Redacted, we'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free if you wanna follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 30, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - May 31, 2026 at 12:42 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

EUROPEAN DEATH WISH? 🚨 Former CIA officer Larry Johnson says Russia spared key Kiev command centers for years to avoid killing embedded Western intelligence and military officers. Now Moscow may stop holding back, and Europe is acting like it has a death wish.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Europe is portrayed as moving toward a potential large-scale war with Russia, while diplomats in Ukraine are said to be “doubling down” instead of leaving despite Russia’s warnings of an imminent massive bombing attack. The discussion frames Russia as rarely bluffing, stating it typically signals what it will do and then carries it out, particularly by shifting from restrained actions to a “new phase” of greater danger. Former CIA officer Larry Johnson says Russia held back from striking key areas in Kyiv four years ago, when the city was encircled and Russia had only one artery out. He argues that Russia previously lacked the full inventory of weapons and personnel needed to confront NATO but that Russia now has them. Johnson says the tone shift began about three weeks earlier when Dmitry Puliantsky, described as Russia’s ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and a former UN official, stated Europe was on the target list because of Europe’s support for attacks described as terrorist attacks inside Russia. Johnson says the position was reinforced by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Rypkow and then finalized by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in comments to Marco Rubio, including that Russia is giving the West notice and time to vacate. Johnson emphasizes that attacks on civilian targets that involve bombing and killing civilians are described as terrorism, regardless of the actor. He also says Russia held back until it could remove intelligence assets—people and operational support personnel—from sites linked to CIA, SBU, and defense headquarters, so the warning is aimed not only at diplomats but also at secondary personnel supporting military and intelligence operations. In response to questions about how hard it would be for infiltrators to leave, Johnson describes operational tradecraft and argues Russia likely penetrated sectors across military, intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic areas. He says Russia makes a calculation about whether information gained from assets is more valuable than destroying them, and that Russia has decided to destroy units now. He adds that public handling of the warnings can enable assets to avoid detection by not showing up to work without triggering immediate suspicion. On the scale of escalation, Johnson describes the next phase as moving from intermittent attacks to “high speed,” intensifying assaults intended to lay groundwork to reoccupy and take Kyiv, and also take Odessa. He says Russia’s actions reflect a determination that the “special military operation” will enter a new level of activity, and he argues Russia would establish a pro-Russian government rather than leaving it unchanged. He also cites past Soviet/Russian experiences with insurgency and radical jihadist conflict, including efforts involving Ukrainian guerrilla groups and later Chechen conflicts, describing a history of crushing such movements over years. The discussion then shifts to Iran and a “so-called” ceasefire, including reports of a potential 60-day extension requiring President Trump’s sign-off. Johnson says that, within the last 25 minutes, Iran shot down an MQ-9 drone belonging to the Americans in Bushehr province and that over three consecutive days there has been exchange of fire involving the United States’ combat air patrol and Iranians on the ground. The conversation says Iran stopped additional US ships and that shots were fired at a US tanker attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Johnson lists Iranian conditions for agreement: assets being unfrozen immediately, sanctions ending especially on oil, Strait of Hormuz coming under Iranian control alongside Oman, and an environmental fee for ships akin to arrangements in the Dardanelles. He also says Iran’s conditions include stopping the war in Lebanon and stopping killing of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. He argues that without Trump forcing the hand of Israel, the ceasefire will not hold, and he says there is no agreement to end fighting because the sides remain far apart, with the Trump administration portrayed as unwilling to accept Iran’s conditions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Well, Europe is bumbling and stumbling into a potential large scale war with Russia. Seems intentionally, maybe not even bumbling and stumbling, but intentionally moving in that direction. And many diplomats, of course, in Ukraine should get the hell out now, but they're not, they're doubling down. We're standing with Ukraine. Yeah, until they're killed in a massive bombing attack which seems to be imminent, and Russia's saying as much. And there's one thing about Russia, they don't usually bluff. Like, they usually tell you what they're gonna do, and then they do it, and then everyone's like, "Wow, I can't believe they did it." Well, they just told us they were gonna do it. Why are you surprised by that? Yeah, but we're used to lying, so they just told us they were gonna do it, and then they did it. That seems to be exactly what's gonna happen. Former CIA officer Larry Johnson says Russia held back from striking key areas in Kiev four years ago. Specifically, I mean, they were encircled. The city was freaking encircled. They had one artery out of the damn city. They held back, and now it seems like the gloves are off. So I'd like to talk to Larry now about that and Iran in just moments here, Larry. Great to see you. Welcome back to the show. Hey, Clayton, good to see you, man. Great to see you. So why do you think Americans and Europeans are ignoring these warnings? I mean, you saw Senator Blumenthal there. We're not going anywhere. You have US senators who flew into the Capitol saying, "We're not, you know, we're not gonna buy into this bullying and, and garbage, this chest bumping that Russia's making right now. They're not gonna attack Kiev." What do you make of that? Yeah, they've mistaken Russian patience for Russian weakness. I think the one of the reasons Russia hadn't attacked or, or threatened to attack Kiev the way they are now prior to this point is Russia wasn't ready to-- didn't have the full inventory of weapons and personnel ready to confront NATO. They do now, so they are in that position. the turn, the shift in this tone started three weeks ago. Ambassador Puliantsky, Dmitry Puliantsky, he used to be the number two guy at the UN. he was, he was sort of my host and chaperone when I spoke to the UN Security Council two years ago, three years ago now. And he's a, he's a, I call him a quiet professional. He currently is the Russian ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and he came out on the Danny Davis podcast about three weeks ago, and, and was the first one to put out that basically Europe, Europe was on the target list, and, and Russia was ready to, to hit them because of their support for these attacks, these terrorist attacks inside Russia. And let's emphasize, when you attack civilian targets and you use violence That's terrorism. It doesn't matter whether it's a government doing it as part of war or not, that is terrorism. If you're bombing and killing civilians, whether you're you know, some ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Israel or the United States, that is terrorism. And so these attacks have been seen by Russia as nothing more than pure terrorism. Two days, three days after Ambassador Poleanski made his comments it was re-emphasized by the Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Rypkow, and, and I've also met w-with Ambassador Rypkow back in twenty twenty-three. and then it was finalized this week with Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister's comments to Marco Rubio, and he wasn't kidding. And so they're, they're, they're g- they're giving the West notice, they're giving them time to vacate. And y-, you know, I think again, they held off up to this point 'cause they weren't ready, the-prepared to go to full war, full-blown war with NATO. Now they are. I think the other aspect was they had intelligence assets in these various, in CIA SBU sites defense headquarters sites. but now they've had a chance to vacate them. So this, this is, this is moving into a new phase, a much more dangerous phase, and this was done at the direction of Vladimir Putin. You worked at the CIA Getting those assets, as you talked about, these spies basically out of-- So we have how many-- We had how many CIA offices in, in Ukraine? About eight of them or something like that? I think there were- I, I, I really, I have no idea. I just know that you will have you've got the CIA station, and then they have what are called bases, sort, sort of subsets of that station. And they can be assigned to both the military intelligence, the civilian intelligence side of the house, and they may even be assigned actually to military units. and then you also have military advisors, so it's not just CIA. Right. And, and then, and this because Russia's warning was not so much for the diplomats, it was for all of these secondary personnel who are providing support to military operations and intelligence operations. I guess what my point is so you've got, I think the New York Times when they did that bombshell piece, which we were, we had already talked about on our show, but two years later they admitted that the CIA was active in Ukraine, and they, I think they, I think in that piece they said like, I don't know, like five or eight stations throughout Ukraine, a big presence. But then you mentioned, so then you've got the SBU, and so you've got Russian spies infiltrating, obviously CIA, S-SBU. Right. Right. When those people, how difficult is it for those people to leave? Like if, if John suddenly doesn't show up to work, it's pretty clear that John probably wasn't working for the CIA. Pretty clear that John probably isn't a member of the SBU, he's a Russian, and he just went back to Mother Russia 'cause something, some shit's about to happen here. I guess how difficult is it to unpack that? Well, and, and then, so this gets to operational tradecraft, tradecraft. when I, I am certain Russians haven't briefed me, so I haven't seen their, you know, behind-the-scenes secret information. But, you know, I'd, I'd wager a whole lot of money that they, they had key sectors of both the military side of the house, the intelligence side of the house, the law enforcement side of the house, the diplomatic-- they had them all penetrated. That has been the Russians have been incredible with their intelligence operations over the years. They had, they had the Germans for during World War II, the head of German and the Nazi intelligence, a guy named Reinhard Gehlen he thought, "Man, he, he had penetrated the KGB," and, and it turned out or it was NKVD back then. It turned out he was being, being misled by a Soviet source, a Jewish guy in, in Yugoslavia, who claimed to be this, you know, anti, anti-Soviet type. So my point is, Russia's got those assets, you keep those assets, you always have to make a calculation, is the information we're getting from them more valuable than if we took this unit out and, and destroyed it? I, the, where the, where the Russians are now is they've made that calculation, we're gonna destroy that unit. And so now but because of the way this has been handled in public, it, it gives these, these assets a way to not show up to work without raising suspicion, because everybody's sort of like nervous, hey, are we gonna get taken out? What do you think? I wanna get to Iran here in a second before we let you go, Larry, but what do you think? How devastating an attack do you think this is going to be? Do you believe that this is the end game, so to speak, that this is the full-scale Russian invasion that the West has been saying they've been beating back for years? Yeah, this is-- Let's, let's think of it this is this is taking your windshield wipers from intermittent, you know, boom, boom. Boom, to high speed, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. That's where it's gonna go. I think it's gonna be intensified attacks. They're gonna lay the groundwork for Russia's gonna reoccupy and take Kiev And then they will also take Odessa before this is over. Russia is the, the claims that Russia's weak and slow and confused, and that's just all Western propaganda, Western spin. So I, I think the, the Russians have made a determination that the, the, this, this special military operation is going to enter a new level of activity. Do you think they're gonna install a puppet government? No, it won't be so much a puppet, but it'll be a government that will be pro-Russian. Yeah, respectful of Russia of Russia's security. You know, and look, this isn't-- People pretend, oh, well, the, the West can mount an insurgency against Russia. They keep forgetting, Rus-- the, the Soviets/slash Russians have been through this. They did it in nineteen, early nineteen fifty. CIA and MI6 were, were putting together guerilla groups that were operating in Ukraine out of the Bandera Faction, and it took the, the Russians about five to six years to crush that. Then there was the Chechen War, nineteen ninety-nine, that went on till two thousand and ten. That was Western-backed radical jihadists, and the Russians defeated them and then restored calm. So, you know, Russia at least has a track record of knowing how to deal with this. It's just, you know, they prefer not to, but when their hands forced, they deal with it. Earlier today, you and I were texting, and you said, "You know, we, we, let's, let's talk about this Iranian so-called ceasefire." I love the, the quotes around "so-called." So six-- the, the reports are, at least over the past few hours, sixty-day potential extension of this ce-ceasefire agreement that President Trump has to sign off on it. There are reports coming out of Iran, you can confirm or deny this, that they're not really involved in this at all, sounds like once again, what do you make of this? Latest back and forth sixty day ceasefire, is there any truth to it? so in just in just the last, let's see, twenty five minutes the, the Iranians shot down an MQ nine drone belonging to the Americans. It was si-- shot down in the southern Bushehr province. they so still today for the third consecutive day There's an exchange of fire between the United States, which, which has a combat air patrol over the area, and Iranians on the ground. Reportedly, t-today, the shots were fired at a US tanker that was trying to sneak through the Strait of Hormuz. Today, the, the Iranians have stopped four more US ships, so they continue to test it. The, the, the, the, the f-the foundation of what Iran is willing to agree to hasn't been agreed to. If, if we- Scott Besson is to be believed the, the Iranians insist on one the assets are unfrozen, not some time in the future, now, unfrozen, that the sanctions are rele- are, are, are ended, especially, particularly on oil, that the Strait of Hormuz will be under Iranian control in tandem with Oman, and that Ships will pay an environmental fee, just like they do passing through the Dardanelles to go in and out of the Black Sea where Turkey is handling that. And fourth, an end to the war, the war in Lebanon's gotta stop, and that means stopping the killing of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank as well. Well unless Troop-- unless Trump forces the hand of the Israelis, that's not gonna happen, and if that doesn't happen, there is no-- this ceasefire isn't gonna hold. But there is no, there is no agreement to end the fighting at all. They are, they're still far apart. Iran is-- they've made clear what their, what their conditions are. It's, it's the Trump administration that's under the firm control of the Zionists that's unwilling to accept those conditions. Once again, and it always seems to happen on a Thursday or Friday, you know, right? Hey, just, you know, people who are playing the derivatives and shorting stocks, they're, they're making, they're making a killing. They are making a killing. A massive, massive money-making machine that this has become for people, and a lot of people are getting rich off of it. Larry, great to see you, as always, my friend. you can read more about Larry's great work over at Sonar Twenty One, does some incredible reporting over there, and and really appreciate all of your insights as always, Larry. Thank you so much for joining us, man. Hey, my friend, I appreciate it. Take care. You bet, thanks, Larry. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free, if you wanna follow us or subscribe. And if we Social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 30, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - May 30, 2026 at 3:43 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

⚠️ This is how empires die. Washington drains the oil reserve, stumbles into war with Iran, plays proxy games with ISIS, and tells Americans everything is fine while the economy cracks. @DougAMacgregor lays it out.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia claims US intelligence is secretly moving ISIS terrorists from prisons in Syria into Iraq to prepare an attack on Iran. The report Russia cites says Western spy agencies plan to use Syrian militants as a proxy force against Iran, framing this as part of a broader effort to manipulate militant groups. Colonel Douglas McGregor says this kind of tactic has “been going on forever” in the region, pointing to past US and allied support for groups designated as terrorist organizations and to similar historical patterns of arming proxy forces. He argues Iran is “eminently well-equipped” to deal with such threats, including recalling an earlier incident in which a Turkish-backed group of Azari Turks and Kurds was stopped after warnings reached Iranian authorities. He says the larger effect is to reinforce Tehran’s belief that any agreement with the US is worthless because the US cannot be trusted. The discussion also centers on an alleged “final draft” of a US-Iran peace memorandum obtained by Al Arabiya. The transcript describes it as a “laundry list” of US demands that Iran likely will not accept, including: reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation without fees or tolls; slowly removing sanctions on Iranian oil in phases over many years; ending Iranian military operations, including assisting Lebanon; and stopping Israeli bombing of southern Lebanon, with an asserted Israeli component in expected outcomes. McGregor says such elements are difficult to keep concealed and argues they reduce the likelihood of a lasting agreement. A key dispute involves Strait of Hormuz control and sanctions. The transcript states President Trump said the strait would be open to everyone, not controlled by any country under any Iran deal, and that there would be no discussions about easing sanctions. Iran is also said to have stated it would strike back after recent attacks over the weekend, with McGregor arguing there is no coherent strategy apparent and that policy changes occur “tweet to tweet.” He criticizes the claim that Iran would not control the strait by describing prior international arrangements (the Montreux Convention) as a reason to expect a Turkish framework and “de facto” Iranian control due to Iran’s coastline and incentives to keep shipping and trade flowing. McGregor identifies two major obstacles: Israel’s influence over US decisions via Netanyahu’s demands to Iran, and Trump’s personal political constraints about escaping a failed approach without appearing weak. He also claims that withholding or reducing protection and exerting political pressure would keep US actions aligned with those demands. The transcript shifts to economic concerns, linking the Iran crisis to potential financial instability. McGregor cites inflation rising from 3.2% to 3.8% and suggests possible acceleration to 6%, arguing that raising interest rates to match inflation could collapse the financial system. He also says Trump sold about 17.8 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep prices below $110 per barrel, warning the reserve could be exhausted by late July or early August, especially if sales occur below market price. He predicts wider economic harm, including a potential 36% reduction in global economic size, and compares current conditions to the Great Depression. He argues wealth and spending concentration make collapse-driven social change likely, describing the US as on an “unsustainable” path with debt and market distortions such as long-term mortgages and market manipulation benefiting the wealthy. He concludes that Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran accelerates the process and that a reckoning will eventually occur, though he does not specify timing.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Well, Russia says that the US is secretly moving ISIS terrorists out of prison cells in Syria into Iraq to prepare to launch an attack against Iran. I know, sounds crazy, but why? You know, it's perfectly normal. We'd love to team up with ISIS, we'd love to team up with terrorists on a regular basis. Here is the report: The West planned to use former ISIS militants against Iran. According to the head of Russia's FSB, Western spy agencies are intending to use Syrian militants as a proxy force against Iran. I mean, it doesn't sound like the West really wants peace with Iran after all. And if you read the latest report from Al Arabiya, which got its hands on the quote-unquote final draft of a US-Iran peace memorandum, this thing seems to be a non-starter for Iran. It's like a laundry list of things the United States wants that Iran probably- Probably won't go along with. Here are just a few highlights, though, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation without taking any fees or tolls, possibility of sanctions being slowly removed from Iranian oil, but it would happen in phases, and, you know, you can, you can definitely trust the United States government, right? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. So in phases, like this will happen over the course of many, many years perhaps. That's probably a non-starter for Iran and the end of military operations as well by Iran, including assisting In Lebanon, I'm sure that there would be an Israeli component of that as well, please stop bombing southern Lebanon. All of that to say, this doesn't seem like it's coming to fruition. So what's in it for Iran? And where do things go next? and Iran has said, "We will strike back against this recent round of attacks against our country." Colonel Douglas McGregor is back with us to examine all of that. So, Colonel, when you hear about this FSB story Out of Syria, the idea that the United States is secretly grabbing ISIS militants, rounding them up, arming them, putting them, moving them to Iraq, presumably to attack Iran, are you surprised by this? What do you make of it? Well, the last time I looked, we established a government in Damascus that took control of Syria, that was essentially a group of ISIS graduates Or Al Qaeda members and so forth. So this sort of thing has been going on forever in the region. the Mossad, as you implied, is very good at this. They know how to manipulate the various groups and turn them against each other. I think that's what we're trying to do now with Iran. But this is another measure of how desperate we are. I mean, this isn't gonna change anything, and the Iranians are eminently well-equipped to deal with that. And remember that when they tried to arm and, and send, send over a group of Azari Turks that were from just across the border, also along with some Kurds the Turkish military intelligence actually warned the Iranians, and the Iranians were able to annihilate the group before it ever got into the country. I think the Iranians can handle this, but the problem is that this sort of thing reinforces the conviction in Tehran that any agreement reached with us is worthless. That we're not going to stand by anything, we can't be trusted, we lie all the time. And so what's the rationale for signing anything with us under any circumstances? That's the bad news. That's why this is a really bad idea. But it's not unusual because the United States has supported MEK, which was a terrorist group designated until 2012 when Obama decided they weren't any longer because they were designated as helpful. And so Iran must expect this. That it's not-- it's, it's totally in character, right? Yes, I, I, I'm, that's why I say I don't think- The Iranians feel particularly threatened by this. This is something they can handle. They know the region better than we do, and they certainly understand what they're dealing with in the Israeli camp. it's also reminiscent of what we did after World War II in the Carpathians and, in Western Ukraine. We armed all of the people that were called Banderites that had been part of the sort of rogue organizations loosely associated with the Nazis, and some were directly, but a group of nationalists who were willing to fight to the bitter end, so we armed them And in fact, it was Jaroszelski, who was a Polish officer at the time, young officer, who endeared himself to his Soviet masters by going into the mountains, rooting them out and killing them. This, this isn't new. We've done this. The Israelis have done it. The British are very good at it. The, the problem I have with it though, is that if you're really interested, and I don't think we are, frankly, but if you're really interested in coming to an agreement that has any chance of lasting about the Persian Gulf and in our relations with Iran right now, this isn't something you do. You can't conceal it. Everybody finds out. Right. It's all plastered all over the newspapers now. It's pretty obvious. so just a few minutes ago, Colonel, President Trump was was- Said that the Strait of Hormuz will be open to everyone, it won't be controlled by any country under any deal reached with Iran. There won't be no discussions about easing sanctions on Tehran. So that was, that's of course, a huge piece of the Iranian part of their deal, removing of the sanctions. And that they will control the Strait of Hormuz. So and then Iran also, of course, saying that they will respond and retaliate for these recent ta-attacks over the weekend. there doesn't seem to be any, any end in sight to this. No, I, I haven't heard or seen anything that I would describe as meaningful. I mean, how do you follow these tweets and come up with some sort of coherent strategy or policy? I mean, if you're a schizophrenic, maybe you understand what he's talking about, but the rest of us with normal minds, no, we can't figure it out. And his policies change from tweet to tweet, as you just pointed out. and it's ridiculous. First of all, somebody said somewhere along the line that possession was nine-tenths of the law. Well, here's a blinding flash of the obvious. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, we don't. So I don't know who he's kidding. secondly, and we've talked about this before, we had something, we had something called the Montreux Convention, which was signed in nineteen twenty-six after World War One by the various belligerents, co-belligerents. And they decided that Turkey should control the strait and everybody agreed to the conditions under which the strait would be governed. Turkey signed up for it. We've never had any problems with the Dardanelles, the Turks have done an excellent job of conducting ships in and out of it I think something similar is going to happen in the Strait of Hormuz, and I imagine that Iran will end up if it's not the major factor in it, it'll probably be de facto the controlling authority, and that's not surprising. They control most of the coastline that is on the Strait of Hormuz And again, they have an incentive to keep it running and keep it flowing because they too want the oil and the gas and all the other things that are missing now, fertilizer, sulfuric acid, hydrogen, nitrogen, and so forth from, from being-- everything's being kept inside the Gulf, they wanna get it out. So I, I don't see a problem, but this, this doesn't have anything to do with rationality. There is no rationality involved in this. You're dealing with two- Two serious problems. Number one, Israel. Israel has veto authority over anything that President Trump decides to do. He isn't in charge. He is responding to Netanyahu, the demands he sets f-forth in front of the Iranians and says, "These are the things you must do." They're not our demands. Those are Israeli demands. So somehow or another, how do you break the hold that Netanyahu has on President Trump and the United States government? Then nobody in Congress is gonna stand up and jeopardize their income if they oppose the Israel lobby and effectively say no to Mr. Netanyahu. So that's problem number one. Problem number two? His President Trump and his personality and his fear of being castigated and humiliated for having done this, done this stupid thing, and attacking Iran was a very dumb idea. anybody with any sense knew that And there's nothing that justifies the total mobilization for war that it would require for us to take control of Iran. We're not gonna implement a draft and bring over a, a million people to run all over the countryside and control Iran. It's ridiculous. Nobody wants to do that, nobody'll support it. So how does he get out of it without embarrassing himself? I think that's a serious problem, and if you turn to Mr. Netanyahu and his agents inside the United States, the billionaires that put Trump where he is, and you tell them, "Well, I'm sorry guys, I can't go any further. This has to stop, so I'm pulling the plug," they're gonna look at him and say, "Well, then we're pulling the plug on you, my friend. We're, we're taking away the billions of dollars that we've helped you get." We're subtracting those from your side of the ledger. More important, we're not gonna protect you anymore from the attacks that you're gonna sustain from Congress. Congress will eat you alive without us. So if you don't do what we say, you've had it. Those are the grim facts And also, we will release the compro mat and whatever's hidden in these Epstein files that we've enabled you to hide from the rest of us, and, you know, the millions of documents that we still aren't allowed to see as a result of it. I, I think you're absolutely right. Where do you think the-- W- what do you think happens next here? I mean, are we heading back to a full-scale hot war? I, you know, I, I feel like Richard Nixon, I'm glad you asked that question. Because there are some other things that, that we don't usually mention that we really do need to talk about. A lot of people don't seem to understand that inflation in April jumped from three point two to three point eight percent. Projections for the next quarter or two suggest that we may hit six percent inflation. Well, if you go up to five percent or six percent inflation, that means that your interest rates should be fixed at six percent or seven percent. Right now, they are fixed at three point seven five percent below inflation. Now, what does this mean? This means if you try to fix it and suppress the inflation and you raise those rates, our, our financial system will collapse. The economy won't survive it. You know, we now have-- the president has also dipped into the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Remember when Biden did this, and this was during COVID, and Trump spoke out and, and raged against it, saying this was irresponsible and so forth. Well, I found out yesterday that he sold something in the neighborhood of seventeen point eight million barrels of oil, lat-- just this within the last week. as an effort to suppress the prices of oil, to keep it below a hundred and ten dollars per barrel. Well, the problem with this is at this rate, our strategic petroleum reserve will probably be exhausted by the end of July, beginning of August, especially since he's also sold below market price, unknown quantities of oil to some of our Asian friends. Now, doubtlessly, this was done because after all, he never bothered to ask them what they thought about his dumb idea Of attacking Iran and this is trying to ease the damage, but this isn't a long term solution. This is all short term thinking. What happens when you hit bottom on this strategic petroleum reserve? What happens when you can't skirt or skate away from the consequences? You know, right now people think that when all the chickens come home to roost. And I'm talking about everything. The loss of oil around the world and, and the gas and the minerals and everything else, we could see as much as a thirty-six percent reduction in the size of the global economy. Now, why is that important? Because during the Great Depression the world economy was reduced by twenty percent. Geez However, we had an advantage, believe it or not, during the thirties in the United States, and one advantage that we had was that all of our allies during World War One owed us lot-- owed us lots of money because we'd sold them not just weapons and, and bullets and so forth, we also sold them a lot of food and a lot of other mineral resources. And we asked that they pay for those things in gold. So we had a lot of gold pouring into our country. And then finally, our debt to GDP ratio was so small, it, it was hardly worth mentioning in the nineteen thirties. Today, our debt to GDP ratio is a hundred and twenty-five percent. Some people say it's higher, it's actually a hundred and thirty. But it's certainly climbing. It's not by any means being reduced. You put all of that together, and he's sitting on top of a, a very large ticking time bomb politically, socially, culturally, financially, economically. I mean, it's really hard to imagine that Americans support this, and most of them don't. And so- You continue to see these market perversions, such as the fifty-year mortgage, which will only increase the price of a house and enslave Americans for longer. you know, various sort of band-aids, but it's all, it's all a perversion of a natural financial system in order to It, it raged these wars, and I think Americans are seeing it. So that is both the silver lining for us and the curse, the poison pill for the administration. It has to come to a head because we have to, we have to start to reject it. Is there any way we can do that other than just complaining here on protected? Well, someone sent me a chart this morning. Showing that ninety percent of the spending inside the United States is a function of ten percent of the American population. Right. And if you look at the distribution of wealth, it's almost the same. And normally when you see that kind of thing, the word revolution springs to mind. Because when things collapse, when things fail, that's when people finally take to the streets. When you can't buy gas When you can't get the food that you want, when the supply chains break down, that's when chaos breaks out, and that's when things change. I don't know how else to put it, because this sort of mal-distribution of wealth gets worse with each passing day. And if you look at the White House right now and the people surrounding President Trump, they are a microcosm of what I'm describing. That's what you're seeing. Every time they manipulate the markets, what do you see happen? People walk out with wheelbarrows full of cash all by shorting something, usually oil. So there is no easy way out, Natalie. I'm afraid the, the only way out is the hard way, and I think at some point we're gonna see it. I don't know when it happens. I mean, you gotta bring on Nasim Talib You know, who invented the black swan, and maybe he can give you a, a better assessment there. But the black swan is definitely gonna take off, and when it does, it's gonna be hell to pay. And I don't think right now most people in Washington are aware of it. I-- if anything, they're delusional. They look at the markets, they don't see the danger. How you could make it is beyond my imagination, but they really don't. No, and the-- I saw a report today saying we could see the markets going up twenty, even thirty percent this year in the midst of all of this, so the rich will get richer and the average Americans will get totally squeezed. And so, so many people in our chat room right now said the colonel is spot on, one hundred percent. I've been saying this. Someone said, "I've been saying this, goddamn it." So, in our, in our chat room about a per-second American revolution that we're, we're facing right now. It's At some point, whether it's Trump or the next person, but thirty-nine trillion dollars in debt and an unsustainable path, it's a, I mean, we're on a collision course for disaster. Yeah, the bad news is that I think President Trump, with his decision to go to war with Iran, has actually accelerated this process. So I think it's going to land in his lap, whether he likes it or not. Well, thank you for that, Colonel. It's great to talk to you. Yeah, thank you, Colonel. You really feel that way? I do, but only on a personal level, not about the subject matter. I just, I just happen to like you that much. Well, I love, yeah, what I love, what I love about you is you're able to just cut through the BS. I mean, and just, you know, and whether it's not-- You're not trying to sugarcoat anything, just give it, give it straight, and that's what we need right now Handed this mess. So, I don't know, something very, something very interesting is happening right now in Washington. I think we are at, we are at a tipping point moment. So, thank you, Colonel, as always, for your assessment and your analysis second to none. So, thank you, sir. Great to see you. Okay, thank you all. Bye-bye. Thanks, Doug. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free. If you wanna follow us or subscribe, and if we brought Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 28, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - May 29, 2026 at 2:39 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 The fuse is lit in Ukraine. Russia is done playing diplomatic games, Europe is pushing closer to disaster, and sources say both sides are preparing for the endgame of this war. https://t.co/9gWNlbsMce

Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript claims Russia and Ukraine are preparing for the “end game” after what it describes as a major escalation, saying Russia has stopped negotiating while European and Western leaders are “playing with fire.” It provides context about an attack on the Sterbolesk College in which Ukraine is said to have launched multiple drone strikes that killed 21 college girls and wounded 42 people. The transcript asserts that, according to the speaker’s sources, there were “no military assets” at the college. It says Ukraine stated a drone went off course, and then argues that the targeting was intentional. It adds that Ukrainian drone operators are described as being awarded points and incentives for civilian deaths, with an “extra equipment” and “medals” system after monthly data handovers. The transcript further claims remaining Russian college professors who survived are “added to Ukraine’s kill list,” referencing the Myravaetz website. It also alleges coordination of drone targeting using satellite coordinates and says the CIA and the UK are involved in targeting and telemetry data for attacks on civilian infrastructure. On the Russian side, the transcript describes an overnight response on Kyiv, featuring, for the first time, “Orichin” missiles, and includes reactions to missiles striking nearby locations. It claims Russia warned foreign citizens to leave, calling it the “last straw,” and said it would conduct “systematic strikes” on targets across Kyiv. It quotes a Russian Ministry of Defense statement that foreign nationals and diplomatic missions should leave as soon as possible, and says the EU responded that it would not leave. The transcript includes remarks attributed to Dmitry Medvedev criticizing the EU’s decision to maintain diplomatic presence. It then claims that a larger buildup is underway and says forces and special forces from Germany, France, the UK, and the United States—including the CIA—have been building up inside Ukraine. It argues Russia might take Odessa and claims this would cut off Ukraine from the ocean, asserting that taking Odessa would effectively prevent Ukraine from remaining viable. It claims Putin has been patient and aims to prevent civilian casualties, and states that civilian casualty numbers on the Ukrainian side were “incredibly low” compared with attacks on Russian civilians. It also describes alleged pressure within Russia for a more aggressive approach, framed as coming from anger over civilian deaths. The transcript then shifts to alleged threats involving the Saint Petersburg Economic Forum (June 3–6), stating Russia is treating them seriously and expects possible attacks during the event. It asserts Russia plans to “bring pain to everyday infrastructure across Ukraine,” and, if that does not produce surrender, to encircle Kyiv again. It includes an RT-referenced claim that “annihilation” of terrorist infrastructure will begin, including in Europe. Later, it quotes an NBC interview with President Zelensky claiming soldiers are rationing ammunition and lacking weapons to advance, with territorial losses if American aid does not arrive. It then claims President Trump posted a meme about alleged waste and corruption involving Ukrainian steel shipped to Poland for export to the U.S. to avoid “Section 232” tariffs and anti-dumping duties. The transcript ends by arguing Russia was not “pushed back” at Kyiv, stating Russia “left” as part of a pullback and aims for a settlement.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Well, something big is about to happen between Russia and Ukraine. Russia is done negotiating, and European leaders, Western leaders, are basically playing with fire right now. We're learning from our sources in Ukraine That the fuse has essentially been lit, both sides are preparing for the end game in this war. I mean, before we get to that part of the story, though, some context. A few days ago, Ukraine launched a terror attack against children in the Sterbolesk College. These girls were in their beds when Ukraine killed them in this drone attack, multiple drone attacks against this dormitory here you can see, but other buildings as well in that video you can see Ukraine launched drones which killed twenty one college girls, wounded forty two people, and according to our sources, there were no military assets at that college, zero, despite what propaganda you're seeing on Telegram about it, there were none. Ukraine says it was because a drone went off course. Okay, so a dr-- multiple drones just happened to go off course and happened to hit these dormitories. By the way, as we- Separately reported here on the show Ukrainian drone operators are awarded points for civilian deaths. Now, the highest level, of course, is taking out military infrastructure. Number five on that list, though, is killing civilians, and of course, drone operators in Ukraine then are able to hand over that data to the government at the end of every month, they're awarded extra equipment, extra you know, I don't know, medals, so to speak, incentives. Incentives. So killing civilians, totally fine for Ukraine. so according to you know, the-- again, these drone operators, they, they just went off course, that, that was the issue here, which isn't true. These civilians were targeted by Ukraine on purpose. And if you listen to Shoygu on the Russian side, again, you do you, however you wanna do it, but he brings up a great point, of course, which is in modern warfare, these drones are operating with satellite coordinates, so they don't just go off course, these don't just fly out of range, they're all being targeted and coordinated with CIA and the UK, the UK particularly is involved in the targeting and telemetry data that is involved in these attacks on civilian infrastructure. Now the remaining Russian College professors who weren't killed in this attack have now been added to Ukraine's kill list. Here you go, it's the Myravaetz website. So they killed students, wounded dozens more, now they wanna kill the rest of the staff. Okay. Unlike in Israel, by the way, where they kill journalists on purpose and won't let them see the proof of anything. Like if they wanna go and see the proof of anything, sorry, you're not allowed to do that, unless it's, unless you're being led by the IDF by the hand in order to go see certain sites. But good luck getting any information out of that. Russia, however, invited journalists, said, "You're more than welcome to go to the site." Please go and see for yourself. And they invited dozens, and guess who turned them down? Of course, CNN turned them down. The BBC said, "No, thanks, we don't need to see it, as they are extensions of the CIA, of course, and the BBC and MI6, so they don't wanna see it. They already know. They probably already knew that they were involved with this." So, but great journalists like Irish journalist Shay Bose went to see it for himself, watch. Paying for these drones, paying for these corrupt people in Kiev. To kill people, it's terrorism. I mean, it's whatever you wanna say. Look around here. There's a reason why they try to prevent people like me coming here. They try to prevent channels like RT. They try to stop us because they don't, they're desperate to prevent the truth about this kind of terrorism. getting to the people in Europe, because if the people in Europe knew what the money was being spent on in this so-called war, which was started by the Americans and the British, of course, we know that too, if they knew what the money was being spent on to kill children in their beds, people would come out in the streets and they would You know, they would tell these politicians, and it's interesting, in, in Europe where I'm from, the most corrupt and unpopular politicians are the ones who are most dedicated to this religion of Zelensky and his bandeirante Nazi friends who come and kill children in their beds. Yeah. So you can imagine Putin and the military leaders in Russia aren't taking this lightly. Over the weekend, Russia launched a devastating response on Ukraine's capital of Kiev, launching for the first time its Orichin missiles. Now, this could be the, really the opening salvo in a potential nuclear war. When you think about if these had nuclear-- if these missiles had nuclear warheads attached to them instead of just being used for ballistic attacks. flying up into space and evading air defense systems. And you can see here, this was overnight when these, when these rained down on Kiev in multiple locations. Here's some more. We'll just play some of this. This was some natural sound you can hear here. We haven't seen attacks like that in a long time in Kiev. One man captured a missile hitting nearby and then moments later this happened. Oh my God. So that's just the beginning of what's coming, and over the past twenty four hours, Russia has warned all foreign citizens to leave, get out now, that this is, quote, the last straw, and we will be conducting s- systematic strikes on assorted targets all across Ukrainian Ukrainians' capital from now on. So get the hell out! Right, if you're a EU diplomat, one of these puppets who's there controlling that government, get out. Here's the Russian res- response. Given the continued terrorist attacks by the Kiev regime against Russian civilians, the Ministry of Defense of Russia will be targeting Ukrainian defense industry facilities in Kiev. Foreign nationals, including diplomatic missions and staff, should leave the city as soon as possible. Now, the EU, of course, has responded Saying, "We're staying put, we're not going anywhere." here's the EU ambassador on Monday, says, "No, no, no, no, we're not leaving, and it would be hypocrisy for EU missions to leave. We're gonna stay." Okay. So Dmitry Medvedev on the Russian side had this to say, "The EU has said it will maintain its diplomatic presence in Kiev unchanged despite Russia's warnings, while apparently they've got diplomats to spare and they need to trim the headcount." Meaning these people are gonna die. I mean, you can gloss it over any way you want. They aren't gonna die, they are playing brave, they will be hiding. Hiding where? When these orange missiles hit and you are destroying bunkers from outer space, they will be in the same place that Zelensky films his videos, which is probably not in Kiev. Well, that's a good point. Yeah. So, yeah, they're probably in London somewhere too. Right. Don't let them make you think that they are playing brave. They're in his villa in, in Italy. Yeah, Tuscany. Yeah. Yeah. Do you, but you know, Zelensky, by the way, is the-- Was it, is FYI. So maybe they're in the US. So that's the context of what we're about to see. What's next, though? What is next? What will this response look like? Well, it's anyone's guess, and only Russia knows for sure. But something big is coming, according to our sources. The buildup over the past few days has been enormous. hear-hearing from military experts and sources, forces and special forces from Germany, France, and the UK and the United States, including the CIA, of course, have been building up inside of Ukraine over the last few weeks. They clearly know something is coming. It seems as though they're concerned that Russia potentially could be about to take Odessa, and according to military sources we talked about, which would effectively cut off Ukraine from the ocean Getting rid of any major port, it would-- they would become a landlocked country if this happens. And of course, we've been talking about this for years on the show, that if they take Odessa, like, Ukraine ceases to exist as a viable country. No ports, no access to the ocean, sorry, you're done. And up until now, Russia hasn't done that, and they've held back from doing that. So this-- they wouldn't be a country if they grab Odessa. But the, what's hilarious is, according to the sources I've spoken to today, is this idea that mil- that by adding French special forces or UK special forces or US special forces or French special for- that that would stop the Russians from taking Odessa? FYI, they've literally been killing members of NATO for the past few months on the front lines. Ukraine has lost upwards of two million killed in action now. The people that are being caught on the front lines and killed aren't even from Ukraine. They're from Colombia, they're from Poland, they're from France. So the idea that Russia would be scared to take Odessa because there are a few Frenchmen there? What are you smoking? Are you out of your mind? And the other part of the story is that Putin has been extremely patient, almost to a fault, and at the heart of this is his intention to try to prevent civilian casualties in Ukraine. And the numbers, by the way, don't lie. The numbers in black and white, which we brought to you in December of this year, at-- by the way, great detriment to the people who were able to provide those numbers. But the numbers on the civilian casualty side on the Ukrainian side was incredibly low, despite the fake propaganda that you've been hearing. Those numbers were very low compared to the attacks on Russian civilians, and of course, not to mention the genocide which took place in Eastern Ukraine since twenty fourteen, and all of those Ukrainian civilians that were killed, which were actually ethnic Russians, since twenty fourteen. So Putin has been slow and methodical, but he's under immense pressure to put an end to this war. Which understandably so. Imagine that an American college dorm had been bombed by someone that is-- you are at war with, and the pre-- the American president had no response. Y- we would be outraged. There wouldn't be no way that we would allow this to just be like, "Well, okay, sorry that happened." Right. Right. Absolutely. I mean, just look at the response that George W. Bush got After the false flag of the nine eleven attacks, right when he stood there with that bullhorn, he said, "When the people that brought these buildings down are gonna hear from all of us real soon, right? Yeah. So you can just go and bomb Afghanistan." But there was a, there was a palpable support for the president of the United States and a rallying, he had a ninety-two percent approval rating, yes. He comes out at a Yankees game and throws out the first pitch and the whole stadium goes crazy. Can you imagine that today? No, of course not. But that was the, So they bomb and kill these twenty-one schoolchildren. So there is a political faction inside of Russia who said, "We need to have been more aggressive. This needs to have been over a year ago." Those people are now proven right when you see young girls killed in their beds, in their college dorm. It's an incredibly frustrating situation for those people, and you have to feel for them. So Putin's greatest mistake could have been in believing The Western leaders, when, remember when Russia had Kiev completely surrounded? We covered this here on the show a number of years ago. And this idea that they got beat back by the Ukrainians was hilarious. They didn't, they had the entire city surrounded. They had one artery in and out of that city, and they were ready to choke it off. And then Emmanuel Macron says, "Hold on, hold on, hold on." NATO says, "Hold on, let's make a deal," and so Russia backs off from Kiev and agrees to just kind of go to the front lines on the eastern part where formerly Eastern Ukraine. Do you think he's gonna make that same mistake again, like falling for what the Western leaders have said? Boris Johnson flies in and totally destroys any kind of peace proposal that was in place? It's not gonna happen. So they then, the CIA and the Azov, of course, launched their counterattack after they said they would put together a peace agreement, after they said, "Hey, maybe back off from Kiev and we'll just back off and we'll put something together here." No, they didn't do that. Instead, they did the opposite and they launched a counterattack, which was devastating for Ukraine, of course, and now upwards of two million Ukrainians are dead. An entire mul-multiple generations of young men, slightly older men, gone. In that country because of these Western leaders. So Putin isn't gonna make that same mistake twice. Sources are telling us that Russia has amassed a massive amount of firepower ready to launch against Ukrainian positions to put an end to this. We're also learning today that Russian officials are taking the threats against the Saint Petersburg Economic Forum on June third through the sixth very seriously, that- What's gonna happen there, right? So do you think when all of these individuals come together in Saint Petersburg, that the CIA, MI6, Ukraine aren't gonna launch attacks against the Saint Petersburg economic forum? Are you out of your mind? And Russia knows this. It's just in a few days. So they're taking it very seriously. Again, according to our sources, Russia is about to bring pain, quote, "bring pain to everyday infrastructure across Ukraine." Now if that doesn't end in surrender, then they will move fully into encircling Kiev once again to end this war. Andrei Martinov, an expert on Russian and military and naval issues was just on the show on RT just a, a little while ago. He said the annihilation Of the whole terrorist infrastructure is about to begin, and including in Europe, where a lot of these headquarters are. Listen to him. And so they have this well, as what Sergei Lavrov stated, the tip of the spear, with which obviously due to their incompetence and highly low, very low cultural level, they thought that they could defeat Russia militarily. So now they know they can't. So what you gonna do? You're gonna go and do terrorist acts, attack- Concerted risk in killing children, innocent children is one of those things which, that's it. I mean, this is the tipping point, and Russia could have gone and do it in the more, you know, what how to say, moderate way, just killing primarily this essentially personnel of the whatever is remaining armed forces of Ukraine. Now this is over, and the essentially annihilation of this, the whole terrorist infrastructure will- Start, including in Europe, if it continues, and I'm pretty sure that if they, Europe, which I mean, essentially lost the right to exist as it exists today if they want to kill their diplomats, it's their problem. Russia's society doesn't care. Russia's society doesn't care. So these EU madmen want to lose their diplomats in Ukraine? I, I encourage you to go back about a year here on the show, where we discussed at length with a French diplomat who was in Kiev. He wa- he witnessed these war crimes up close and personal, and he said, "This is one of the, of course, most corrupt governments in the world, as we know." The US State Department has well labeled Ukraine one of the most corrupt governments in the world, and by the way, today President Trump did as well. We'll get to that in just a second, but first, so Zelensky was just asked You know, you can tell he's high on a kite. He just probably came out of the bathroom snorting cocaine, so he's there sniffing once again, like high as a kite, and he's asked straight up by an NBC reporter, "You know, what are you gonna do here? The US is like cutting off weapons to you. What are you about to do here?" Watch his high as a kite response. Mr. President, I just returned from several areas along the front line in the south and in the east, and soldiers there told me they have to ration their ammunition, they don't have enough weapons to advance, they can only defend themselves. In some cases, they're losing territory. What happens to your country if this American aid doesn't arrive? Lose a lot of people, we will lose territory. Yeah. Territory. So President Trump today posted this, and by the way, he posted this meme. I'm not gonna play it 'cause it had music on it, but it was a whole mashup of him swiping his nose basically after snorting cocaine. So Trump posted that video and he put his own commentary over top of it. Since before I go into this topic, you're not about to believe this. You're ready for this one? Ukraine, corrupt Ukraine, corrupt Ukraine, which can't account for a hundred billion dollars of tax dollars, sends semi-finished steel to be processed in Poland, where it's exported as a derivative product to the United States, therefor-- thereby avoiding Section two thirty-two thirty-two tariffs and anti-dumping duties. That's your friend Zelensky. We're taking a swipe at him. I mean, this is like effectively cutting him off completely. Well How about just cutting him off completely? Well, I think that is what this is. I mean, maybe not. I don't know. But again, they'll probably-- I'm sure the war hawks in Congress will find a way to somehow funnel money through somebody, through NATO or otherwise, to make sure that he has weapons. No, I mean, he does have the power to just make this stop. So, okay, go ahead, Phillip. Yeah. Well, I mean, but the, the whole, this, this whole time, this whole conflict, we've been sending money to Ukraine so they can buy weapons from us, and so like those military contractors don't want them to not be able to do that, so I, that's why I think they'll never cut 'em off as long as they can keep that, that rift going, they're gonna keep it going. Right. And so it's e-extremely unhelpful to just release an obvious meme about the wastefulness about that. Do something. You were voted into office to do something, to make a stop. Last year, last year he was in the White House, and Trump told him, "You have no cards, so shut up and sit there. You have no cards." And yet we've continued to send him cards. And then we send him cards and more money, and then we follow it up with another meeting where he like kinda kisses his ass and says everything's great, every-- We're fine, and, you know, we're back to being friends again. It's extremely exhausting. Like, yes, he's a Funding him, and we can't account for billions of dollars that have flowed there. And now we're funding terrorism on young children, and so what? So what? It doesn't help that you see that he's bad when it continues, when the grift continues. And now you look at EU leaders who want war with Russia so badly they can't take it, they are now condemning you know, Russia's response to the Ukrainian attack on young girls, but they never condemned the attack in the first place. So that bit they're fine with, but Russia retaliates I mean, can think about how often they have repeated the terms Putin's unprovoked attack. Now we see a clear provocation, and they are like this. They can't look at it. And Yeah, what do we do with it other than just be extremely frustrated? We can see it, we can see through their lies, but we have to keep going to work so that our taxpayers' dollars support it. I mean, you have upwards of two million Ukrainians have now been killed, and you have all of these mercenaries from other countries on the front lines being killed now So it'll be really interesting once the real numbers start coming out as to how many Polish soldiers have been killed, how many British soldiers have been killed in Ukraine, how many American soldiers-- I'm not talking mercenaries who are like bloodlusting and they're forty years old and they just wanna get away from their wives and they wanna like go shoot some people. No, no, no, I'm talking like active duty and special forces. Will we get those numbers? We're working on it, but- Two million Ukrainians killed, how many more do you have? I mean, I know you're conscripting farmers now, they're literally going out in the fields and grabbing farmers from their fields to fight. Okay, who do you have left? But shit's about to hit the fan and we'll be watching it very closely here on the show. All right, get in your super chats now And people saying, "Yeah, Putin is reasonable, but he's also cornered." I think, I don't know if he's cornered but he's definitely, he-- people are at their wits' end and there are, of course, neo-cons in that country like there are in the United States who are nearby him, who've wanted him, wanted him to be explosive in his attacks, but he's really held back on a lot of civilian infrastructure attacks. but I think this might be the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm sure. In fact, they told us that. Right. In their statement, this is the straw. Right. Well, I mean, that broke us. For us so far in the West, we aren't able to feel the pain of what this feels like. I mean, you have to put yourself in the shoes of a Russian person who is feeling this attack on their own country and, you know, loss of young girls' lives who have nothing to do with this. And so we are insulated very much from that The eighth attack on Lebanon, but the same way we're insulated from the attacks on February 28th on the Iranian school of young girls, we aren't supposed to feel it, and it's up to us whether we do or not. I feel it acutely. there are videos I'm gonna talk about in just a second of a baby in Gaza with its foot blown off. I can't, I couldn't sleep last night because of this. We have to feel this, you guys. This is, this is humanity being attacked across the board but we're only told to feel Americans, October seventh, and I'm just, I'm at my wits' end about it. so let me know how you feel about it. Yeah. so first of all, someone in the, someone in the chat room's like, "R- Kiev was not encircled." Yes, it was. And this idea that Russia was pushed back is a total fake Wikipedia story. Do you think Russia was pushed back? No, they weren't. They left. That's well documented. They weren't pushed back. They left as part of a pullback in order to achieve some sort of a, a settlement, some sort of a peace, just to be clear on that, and just so we're not conflating two different stories here. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel, it's totally free, if you wanna follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 24, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - May 24, 2026 at 12:06 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🔥 More than 120 U.S.-funded biolabs overseas, 40 in Ukraine, and almost no real public oversight. Now the intelligence community is finally asking what was really happening inside them. Dr. @NassMeryl is with us. https://t.co/JWBh6lTAKD

Video Transcript AI Summary
The U.S. intelligence community has officially opened an investigation into more than 120 U.S. taxpayer-funded biological laboratories operating overseas, including 40 in Ukraine. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says the probe aims to identify where the labs are located, what pathogens they contain, and what research is being conducted. Gabbard has previously accused officials of misleading the public about the existence and scope of U.S.-backed bio labs overseas, including claims tying the issue to the Biden administration and figures such as Anthony Fauci. The discussion references claims made during the Biden administration by Victoria Nuland, who admitted bio labs are in Ukraine and funded by the United States but said they were only for defensive research, while dismissing accusations as Russian disinformation. Questions are raised about claims of Russian findings, including reported COVID vaccine samples in labs during Russia’s takeover of territory, and claims of AIDS research on Ukrainian military personnel. Senator asks Ukraine-specific questions about chemical or biological weapons and whether there is doubt that any biological or chemical incident in Ukraine would be carried out by Russians. Ukraine is described as having biological research facilities, with concern that Russian troops may seek control of research materials, and statements that efforts are underway with Ukrainians to prevent research materials from falling into Russian hands. The exchange asserts that Russian propaganda blames Ukrainians for plots involving biological weapons and coordination with NATO, and that it is “classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they’re planning to do themselves.” Doctor Merrill Nass, a biological warfare epidemiologist and author, says it is notable that the government acknowledges such facilities, including about 40 in Ukraine and over 100 elsewhere, and adds that many countries have studied biological weapons agents, treatments, and vaccines since at least World War II. Nass argues that the law prohibits developing biological weapons and references the Biological Weapons Convention, noting that the treaty has no enforcement mechanism, and that there is no way to send teams to investigate other countries’ labs. He suggests there have been roadblocks to obtaining details, and that labs outside the United States reduce oversight. The conversation also discusses the idea of incentives and loopholes: Nass states that the U.S. has no legal control over private labs and that, in the U.S., it is possible to build high-containment laboratories and have scientists create whatever they like without a prohibition. Nass describes historical U.S. development and stockpiling of biological weapons agents, mentions evasion of antibiotics and vaccines, and argues that international restrictions do not prevent potential development efforts elsewhere. Nass says that specific biological weapon use is not known to have occurred within the United States except that “the potential exception of COVID,” asserting the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine should never have been developed “the way it was developed for COVID” because it included “the most toxic, problematic parts” of the virus. He also recalls work as a consultant to the Cuban Ministry of Health in 1993 regarding illness attributed to cyanide poisoning, describes reports that the CIA sent African swine fever virus to Cuba through Panama to dissidents, and notes that Cuba reportedly had to kill half a million pigs due to that outbreak. When asked whether researchers can be controlled and whether answers will emerge about roughly 120 labs, Nass says accountability and oversight are limited, citing a senate hearing where senators said the intelligence community is not under anyone’s control and is not accountable. He adds that if answers cannot be obtained in the U.S., they would not likely be obtained in other countries. Nass argues that lab-produced viruses could be distinguished from naturally occurring ones by analyzing genomes, describing prior work on reconstructing an epidemic and claiming that attention to whether viral genomes are natural or unnatural will enable future differentiation. He notes that he believes the risk of severe consequences reduces the likelihood of use. The segment ends with plans to bring Nass back as the investigation unfolds.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the US intelligence community has officially opened investigation into more than 120 US tax, taxpayer funded biological laboratories operating overseas, including 40 in Ukraine. Director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard says the probe is part of an effort to shut down risky gain of function research. The plan is to identify where these labs are specifically, what pathogens they contain, and what research is being conducted. This isn't the first time she's talked about this. Gabbard, has accused officials in the past to connect it to the Biden administration along with figures such as Anthony Fauci of misleading the public on this about the existence and scope of these US backed bio labs overseas. Speaker 1: Now you may recall that during the Biden administration, former state department death eater, Victoria Nuland, admitted that bio labs are in Ukraine, are funded by The United States, but she said, oh, no. It's only for defensive research. If you think that they're up to anything, that's just Russian disinformation. Recall this gem led along by Marco Rubio? Speaker 2: I only have a minute left. Let me ask you. Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons? Speaker 3: Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of, Russian forces should they approach. Speaker 2: I'm sure you're aware that the Russian propaganda to groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they've uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to release biological weapons in the country and with NATO's coordination. If there's a biological or chemical weapon incident or or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians that would be behind it? Speaker 3: There is no doubt in my mind, senator, and it is classic Russian, technique to blame on the other guy what they're planning to do themselves. Speaker 2: Last question. I I am Speaker 1: certain We can leave it there. It's nineteen eighty four level Speaker 0: Yeah. You Speaker 1: know, double speak. The Ukrainian connection, of course, is what's drawing the most attention because number one, we've been reporting on this for over five years. The Russians have claimed that they have seen, in fact, COVID vaccine samples inside of those labs when they took over that territory when they annexed it. We also have claims of AIDS research on Ukrainian military personnel. At the time when we've been reporting this, these things have been dismissed as Russian propaganda, but we know that it wasn't. Joining us to discuss it is Doctor. Merrill Nass, a biological warfare epidemiologist and author of Merrill's Chaos Letter on Substack. Thank you so much for joining us. It's nice to have you. Speaker 4: Hey, great to be back. Speaker 0: Welcome back. Speaker 1: Alright, so what do you think of these bio labs in Ukraine that were once conspiracy territory? How do you feel watching the government acknowledge that they exist? Speaker 4: Well, it's very interesting that the government is acknowledging them, but not only them, but many more. So they were acknowledging about 40 in Ukraine, but over 100 altogether. So approximately 80 in other countries. Now we don't know what countries, and we don't know what they're doing. But let me let me go back. So at at the fall of the Soviet Union maybe I should go further back than that, at least since World War two, minimum 10 countries, and probably many more, have studied biological weapons agents as well as treatments and vaccines bore them. And at the time the Soviet Union fell, there was concern that the that there would be a diaspora of of Soviet and other remember, there were many nations that the Soviet Union had sort of taken over, and so there were labs in those nations as well. That there would be a diaspora of scientists, that they might go to the highest bidder in China or Iran or North Korea or wherever. And so attempts were made to put money into finding them jobs and finding them something to do. And now I wonder whether that effort actually resulted in the the US State Department and or Defense Department sponsoring potentially offensive labs in these countries. There's a a great advantage to having a a lab for so it's against the law to develop biological weapons. It's against the law to to manufacture them, and the law is the biological weapons convention, which about a 185 nations have signed and ratified, including The US, so that's why it's against the law. But if you if The United States, for example, did it in another country, though that lab information could never be FOIAD, it could never necessarily be obtained by congress. Whereas if the lab was in The United States and the government changed parties, you the next party could go after all those lab records. Now we're hoping that Tulsi Gabbard is able to find out what's going on, but the fact that this is taking a long time suggests that she is running into roadblocks as well, which are strength those roadblocks are strengthened because these labs are not within The United States. Speaker 0: We've also covered and you bring up some great points. So we don't have this oversight that we would have here in The United States. And there are even more nefarious programs. We've had, Deliana, of Bulgaria on the show. She's covered some of these labs in Tbilisi, Georgia. Some horrible things we covered here on the show a couple of years ago about testing on humans, specifically. That lab was, of course, pushed by Obama, opened in, like, 2012. There's all sorts of big Hunter Biden connections here with, MetaBiota and, and and, I always forget the other the name of the other one that he was involved with. But this stuff is very, very dark, And we have the documents showing, like, testing on human beings. What other nefarious things do you think that she might discover in these investigations? Speaker 4: Who knows? Speaker 1: I mean, might as well speculate because a lot of times our speculation becomes true. Okay. Speaker 0: Informed speculation. Speaker 1: We can say we're speculating, but Speaker 4: So so the biological weapons convention was developed in 1972, fifty four years ago, and it went into force in 1975, fifty one years ago. Up until that time, The United States was developing and stockpiling many biological weapons. We know that I have a book in my possession, which was written right after World War two by one of the scientists at Fort Detrick, who described 15 or 20 different biological weapons agents that The US had developed for use against animals, plants, you know, livestock, crops, as well as people were potentially used in World War two. And for instance, anthrax was was one of them that was developed as cattle cakes to potentially be used in Germany if necessary. So we had, you know, 15 or 20 weapons in the nineteen forties. And so by the nineteen seventies, we have three almost three decades more. We probably developed even better weapons. And, subsequently we know that there were weapons that were specifically designed to evade antibiotics and vaccines. So that's fifty years ago. What has been developed now, again, it's against the law in The United States and in almost the all of the rest of the world to develop these things, but it certainly can be done relatively easily because that that international treaty has no mechanism for enforcement. So there's no way you can send a team to go investigate somebody else's labs and see what they're doing. The United States, UK, and Russia had a a three way agreement around nineteen ninety one or two to investigate each other's labs, but that's the last time I can remember anyone, you know, had access to Russian labs or to US labs. And so with fifty years, we know South Africa had an active program. How many other nations may have been developing these weapons in secret? So, you know, I mean, the possibilities are are endless because what was being done even fifty years ago was you take a piece of this and a piece of that. You know? You you take the ability of of one organism to transmit very well and the ability of another to, know, produce a deadly toxin, you know, and and you can put them together. And or you can develop a weapon that will cause people to develop autoimmune illnesses. I mean, the the possibilities are great. Now having said all that, none of this well, I shouldn't say none of this stuff has been used. In The United as far as we know, within The United States, none of this stuff has been used on us, with the potential exception of COVID, the SARS CoV two virus and the vaccine, which so the vaccine should never have been developed the way it was developed for COVID because it included the most toxic, problematic parts of the virus. When you develop a vaccine, you're supposed to use the the nontoxic, benign parts of a virus to stimulate immunity. You're not supposed to make people sick the way the virus makes people sick with your with your vaccine. So that was very odd. But I certainly, I was a consultant to the Cuban Ministry of Health in 1993 and on an illness they had that was actually due to cyanide and was causing people to go blind, lose their hearing, have trouble walking, etcetera, because cyanide poisons an absolutely critical part of the electron transport chain, provides energy, which provides ATP to people so we can live. So somebody poisoned Cuba with cyanide. It's not a biological weapon. It's chemical weapon, but that was done despite the fact that, you know, that is against the law as well. When I was in Cuba, they told me about roughly seven different animal and plant pathogens that they believed had been used on them. And one of those, the African swine fever virus, was reported in, I believe, the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle using whistleblowers that the CIA had actually sent it to Cuba to Cuban dissidents through Panama. And, again, this was about four forty to fifty years ago, the Cubans had to kill half a million pigs on the island because of that, pig, epidemic. Speaker 1: And so who do you think what what forces would actually be able to manipulate in these unregulated labs? Like, whose agenda would be Who's ordering projects inside of these So Speaker 4: you can have a government lab, but you can also have a private lab. So The United States legally, we do not have control of private labs. You can make your own maximal containment laboratory in The United States. I mean, if you want to, you can get away with it. There is no law prohibiting you from doing that, and you can have your own scientists create whatever you like. So I'm just talking about I'm not saying this is happening, but I'm saying that legally, is not prohibited. It is a loophole. And that's what you can do in The United States. So just imagine what you can do in the rest of the world. Speaker 0: Are you hopeful that they will get answers from this? I mean, mentioned, you know, in Tbilisi, Georgia, I mean, you have cancer clusters from people that live around this lab. Yeah. Are we gonna get very are we gonna do you do you believe we'll have specificity over these 120 labs? Speaker 4: You're asking, do I believe we will be able to control them? We will know what's going on in them? I that I who knows? We we there was a senate hearing this morning with held by Rand Paul, and main theme of that hearing was that the intelligence community is not under anyone's control. It is not accountable. Several senators talked about, you know, the deep state and the fact that we don't senator Hall Speaker 0: Ron Johnson. Ron Johnson flipped out. I mean, he was from Missouri. He well oh, yeah. And Ron Johnson Hawley Ron Johnson was yelling, basically, like, who is the deep state? He's Yes. So who's who's controlling us? Like, senate, they can't even get answers. Speaker 4: Exactly. So if if you can't get answers in The United States, you know, you're certainly not gonna get them in Ukraine or Bulgaria or Georgia. Or wherever else. I mean, France and and England and Germany and Japan and Australia have also had biological defense labs. And of course, the difference between offense and defense is thin. But, again, having said all that, these weapons are not being used. People whom, if they exist, they probably do, but people who have access to them are not using them. There aren't very many good tactical ways to use them. I mean, you may get you may be identified as a perpetrator, for example. I mean, we know that what's his name? Vincent Munster was just arrested for bringing viral samples into The United States undeclared, and he works for the NIH at the Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana. Now it's alleged by Jim Haslam that the COVID virus tended to infect the animals that are used at the Rocky Mountain lab, like certain deer and certain other animals that are unusual lab animals, but are used in Hamilton, Montana at the NIH lab. And if that's true, then you can pin the development of the COVID virus back in part to that lab, that it must have been passaged through the animals that were present there. And so, you know, if you are found to have created a biological weapon, right, your reputation is gone, your livelihood is gone, you will suffer greatly, as will your family. So nobody is really willing probably to suffer those kinds of consequences. Go ahead. Speaker 1: I just wonder how knowable it is to follow those things because I feel like it has been purposely confiscated through these various channels. You know, I've seen journalists that I trust inside Ukraine, have gone into these bio labs that are now in Russian control and said they did see evidence of COVID vaccine development there. And so yeah, maybe you can follow that. How noble is this? Speaker 4: Right, I mean, developing a COVID vaccine is very benign. It was developed in dozens of countries. The Russians told the UN that they found anthrax in one of the labs they took over. I mean, we had anthrax as a weapon back in the 1940s, so what if they found anthrax? But if they found anthrax that was souped up, that would be a big deal. Now, I may have mentioned earlier that I published the first paper that went backwards and took an epidemic, which was the world's largest anthrax epidemic, which occurred in Rhodesia in the late 1970s, and I showed how it could not possibly be a natural occurrence. And before that, no one had done that, at least not in the open literature, and so it seemed more likely that a perpetrator could get away with it because no one had ever pinned any epidemic on a perpetrator. But having done that and now having seen COVID and seen the the monkeypox and and bird flu and all the rest, it seems that everyone will be carefully focused on whether the genome of these viruses is natural or unnatural. I mean, we've we've paid a great deal of attention to that for COVID, and so everybody knows how to what to look for and how to do it. And I think that, you know, we will very quickly be able to distinguish whether we have a lab produced or a naturally occurring virus or bacteria causing an epidemic in future. And so that is a a good preventive measure. Right? If you if you think you can get away with something, you're a lot more likely to do it than if you think I might not be able to get away with this and I might spend the rest of my life in jail. Speaker 0: Yeah. Right. Well, doctor Ness, we'd love to have you back on as this investigation unfolds. And as more pieces of this puzzle come together. Hopefully, we'll get more answers, and we'd love to have your analysis because I think you're brilliant. So Speaker 1: Yeah. I didn't know that about anthrax. Speaker 0: Yeah. That's wild. Thank you so much for lending your expertise to this, but this is just the beginning of the onion. As we start to peel this thing back. It's gonna get a lot stinkier, so we'd love to have you back on when you when you can. If if you if you'd be so kind as to join us. Thank you so much, doctor. Great to see you as always. If you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 23, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - May 24, 2026 at 11:54 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

The West tried to isolate Russia & contain China. Instead, it pushed them into a historic alliance that could reshape energy, trade, military power, and the future of the U.S. dollar. @JimJatras is our guest. https://t.co/Yu6CsPEsEV

Video Transcript AI Summary
US leaders, according to the discussion, have pushed Russia and China closer by trying to prevent a stronger alliance outside the Western Hemisphere. President Vladimir Putin met with President Xi Jinping, and the two signed a record number of agreements covering energy, finance, AI, transportation, manufacturing, and military coordination. Key developments highlighted include new pipeline infrastructure permanently directing Russian energy toward China and growing efforts to bypass the US dollar in global trade. The discussion links these moves to Western pressures such as high energy prices, deindustrialization, debt, stagnant growth, and economic fallout from years of proxy wars and sanctions policy, framing the Russia-China trade corridor as on track to become a strategically important global route. The speakers contrast the Putin-Xi agreements with President Trump’s recent trip to China, describing one set of deals as historic and growth-based and the other as diplomatic and transactional. They portray Trump-era US-China deals as tariff pauses, trade concessions, agricultural purchases, and efforts to stabilize and correct issues created, while portraying Putin-Xi agreements as going beyond commerce—building long-term energy infrastructure and alternative financial systems outside the US dollar, effectively aiming at a parallel economic order rather than managing trade tensions. Former State Department diplomat Jim Jatris says US foreign policy has driven the two powers into a historic alliance, and he argues that the real question is whether Russia and China still see themselves as invested in the dollar-denominated system as it stands. He points to the joint statement’s “hoping” for a future multipolar order with the US stepping down from ambitions for global unipolar power, adding that they may not yet know whether the US can be persuaded to do so. When asked about the nature of the Russia-China partnership and whether the US could do something similar, Jatris responds that US diplomacy often arrives with minimal substance, while he claims Americans are not offering the kind of comprehensive, sustained partnership described. On the US dollar, Jatris says the agreements involve multipolar cooperation and end-around arrangements to settle transactions in yuan and ruble outside the US petrodollar system, describing this as potentially the “final nail in a coffin” for the dollar and noting that earlier predictions of replacement currencies have not yet come to pass. He argues both Russia and China also have corrupt interests and that short-term deals could benefit individuals rather than national interests. Asked about Iran, Jatris calls it the “big question,” arguing that Russia, China, and Iran are loath to admit that the United States is not “agreement capable,” citing a hypothetical example involving sanctions relief and control of the Straits of Hormuz. He says Russia and China may instead view the situation as an opportunity to weaken the US “empire,” offering an off ramp for Trump that could result in a “Minsk type deception.” On military cooperation, Jatris says China is interested in technical knowledge gained by Russia in Ukraine, describing joint training missions as Russians training Chinese on lessons from drone warfare and related experience. He frames Russia as the stronger military power with a larger nuclear arsenal and notes direct experience in a paradigm-changing war only Russia and Ukraine have. Regarding Europe and the prospect of a western war against Russia, Jatris argues Europe is the main problem, asserting Washington is trying to offload burdens to Europeans. He describes low willingness among Europeans to fight, ties it to constraints including cheap Russian energy’s role in industry, and argues Europeans are making noise but are not positioned to fight materially, spiritually, morally. He suggests Russia may be overestimating that European problem and makes the case that Russia should finish the Ukraine war sooner rather than later. On Putin’s political prospects and Russian appetite for continued conflict, Jatris says he sees not an inability to win but a deliberate decision shaped by classic statecraft: forcing the enemy to agree to terms. He cites Putin’s June 2024 terms—four oblasts, Crimea agreements including no NATO neutrality, denazification, and demilitarization—and argues that even if the West agreed, those terms would not be honorably enforceable without Russian control of Kyiv. He also contends that Russian questioning of treaty guarantees and the possibility of denazification/demilitarization lacks a workable answer. The conversation also includes claims of frustration in Russia over the war being prolonged, references to large numbers of dead including non-Ukrainians serving as mercenaries, and the view that money continues to flow into the conflict.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, US has managed to push two global powers closer than ever. I'm talking about Russia and China. They are now building one of the most powerful economic and strategic alliances outside of the Western Hemisphere, and Western leaders largely made it happen by trying to prevent it from happening. It's a classic example of what you resist persists, an evil plan backfiring. This week, president Putin met with president Chinese president Xi Jinping, and the two signed a record number of agreements covering energy, finance, AI, transportation, manufacturing, and, yes, military coordination. Amongst the biggest developments is a new pipeline infrastructure directing Russian energy permanently towards China and growing efforts to bypass the US dollar in global trade. All of this comes as the Western world struggles with high energy prices, deindustrialization, debt, stagnant growth, the economic fallout from years of proxy wars and sanctions policy. So now the Russian, Russia Chinese trade corridor is on track to become one of the most strategically important economic trade routes in the world. Now what makes this even more remarkable is that if you compare it to president Trump's trip to China last week, you realize one set of deals is historic and growth based. The other is diplomatic and transactional. So the deals that The US made with China under president Trump were tariff pauses, trade concessions, agricultural purchases, efforts to stabilize, basically clean up the shit that we have created. But the Putin Xi agreements go far beyond commerce. Russia and China are building long term energy infrastructure, alternative financial systems outside of the US dollar. One set of deals is about trade tensions. The other is about actually building a parallel economic order. So this Putin Xi agreements can sort of be summarized like, let's redesign the global system so we no longer need the West at all. Joining us now to discuss is former state department diplomat, Jim Jatris, who has warned for years that US foreign policy was driving these two powers into historic alliance. Jim, thank you for joining us. Speaker 1: Thank you, Natalie, Clayton. I tell you, my head is still spinning from your discussion about American politics and and Massey and all the giddy optimism that you expressed during that discussion. But I think, you know, there's a silver lining that I think a lot of Americans are waking up, that they're not gonna participate in the system. Like like Clayton says, it's gonna have to burn down. The good news, if you wanna call it that, is the way Trump is tanking the global economy with his misguided war in Iran. That's probably on the horizon, and we'll have to see what comes from the ashes. Speaker 0: So what do you think of Chinese president Xi Jinping and Putin getting together? I mean, you gotta think that they get in a room and they're like, that guy over there, he's, you know, going down with the ship. Meanwhile, let's build. I mean, is that am I do I have a read on that correctly? Speaker 1: I I think that's more or less correct. And, course, you talked about, you know, the alternatives to to the western based financial system and so on and so forth, avoiding the sea lanes The United States can interdict. So that's why they're expanding energy cooperation with Russian exports to China and so forth. I think the real question mark is to what extent the Russians and the Chinese still feel they are invested in the dollar denominated international system as it stands now, that they still are hoping against hope that The, United States can be persuaded to a step down, to a to a of our our our ambitions for global unipolar power and we'll accept a multipolar order. If you look at the communique issued by the joint statement issued by the the two presidents, they're clearly hoping for that kind of future. I don't think they've quite figured out, though, whether or not The United States can be persuaded to do that. I don't think we can, but I don't think they've come to that realization necessarily. Speaker 0: And so can you speak to these agreements that now Russia has with China? They also are celebrating the twenty fifth anniversary of the treaty of good Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation. And they're saying this is a good example of truly comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction. Are we capable of doing anything like that? Speaker 1: No, we can't. And I'm sure you've heard from many, many contexts where there's a diplomatic discussion that goes on, and the other side comes in with a bunch of experts and pages and pages of documents and stats and proposals, and the Americans come in with what? Kushner and Wittkopf shooting from the hip. I mean, that's unfortunately the way we we conduct business these days. Actually, literally business. Somebody somebody is making a lot of money somewhere on the American side, I don't think it's the kind of money that's gonna benefit The United States or national security or the welfare of the American people. Speaker 2: What does this mean for the US dollar? At the heart of it, of course, in the heart of this, one of their big discussion points, as Natalie pointed out, was this multipolar cooperation. The sovereignty of Russia, the sovereignty of China, free to transact financially in the way that they see fit, make trade deals together. This is an end around to the US dollar. Settle transactions in the yuan, settle transactions in the Russian ruble outside of the US petrodollar system. This to me, when it was already on a decline seems maybe I'm being hyperbolic, but this seems to be maybe a final nail in a coffin for the US dollar. Speaker 1: I I guess to close a coffin properly, you need a number of nails. I'm not sure this is the final one. I mean, people have predicting the decline of the dollar. You know, the yuan, red back's gonna replace the green back or whatever other currencies are gonna come out from bricks. And so far it hasn't happened yet. And I don't know if that's because they still can't quite get their act together on their side, or whether they're still hoping that somehow they can entice us to, you know, wake up in the morning and smell the glass or whatever they're drinking over there, and see reason and join them in a more productive enterprise than what we've been conducting over the past few decades. I I think that's really let's face it. I mean, we're all used to the idea that Washington is controlled with corrupt interests that don't represent the national interests of The United States. But we'd like to think, oh, but the Russians and the Chinese, they're they've got this pristine view of national interest. Well, I hate I hate to tell people, they've got corrupt interests too. And there are gonna be people over there who are be making short term deals for their own benefit, not necessarily for Russia's benefit or China's benefit. So I think they're inching in that direction. I don't think they're there yet. Speaker 2: What about the Iran question? Speaker 1: I I think that is the big question at the moment. Obviously, it involves the Iranians as well. I think one thing that the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians are very loath to admit themselves is that The United States is really not agreement capable. That even if The United States were to come to the Iranians or for that matter to the Russians and Ukraine and say, fine. Fine. Fine. We will meet all your conditions. We will we'll run up the white flag. We'll accept everything you say, that The United States cannot be counted on to actually honor any of those commitments. Like, for example, in the case of Iran, if we say, okay. Fine. You control the Straits Of Hormuz. You know, we'll we'll we'll pull back from our bases. We'll lift we'll lift our our sanctions against you. Would we actually follow through with that? I mean, for example, I can't see that we would ever lift lift sanctions on Iran in the few foreseeable future no matter what prop promises Trump made. So that's the part of the problem we have. Again, I'm not sure the Russians, the Chinese, or the Iranians will admit that themselves admit that to themselves. At the same time, I think the Russians and the Chinese, rather than looking at the situation in Iran where Trump has caught his, you know, mammary gland caught in the ringer there, that this is an opportunity to bring down the American empire. And instead, they're looking at a way to give Trump an off ramp and and a deal which will simply turn out to be a kind of a Minsk type deception. Speaker 0: Now what about military cooperation? Because the two countries did, in fact, discuss military. They already have that, but it could be quite formidable. We've seen how powerful the Russians are in their military strategic mission in Ukraine right now. You know, play this out. How how serious could this be? Speaker 1: Well, of course, you know, Russia is the stronger military power than the ones with a much, much bigger nuclear arsenal. They're also the ones who are engaged in a hot war in Ukraine right now, obviously, and have stated the I mean, you know, this has been a paradigm changing war in terms of military technology, and there's only two countries that really have direct experience in that, and that's Russia and Ukraine. And you can imagine just like with many other wars, you know, like all the European powers sent observers to the American civil war to see what was going on in military technology, then You can imagine the Chinese are very, very interested in gaining some of that technical knowledge and experience that the Russians have gained during this war. I did see a report that a number of Russian specialists were in China for joint training missions. I don't think the Chinese were training the Russians. I think the Russians were training the Chinese saying, this is what we have learned in the course of this war, drone warfare, all the rest of it. And the Chinese are eating this up, especially since they have the the military technical base and the industrial base to build on that, and we don't. Speaker 2: Europe. Obviously, we're seeing the rise of Germany, the militarization of Germany, moving towards a wartime economy now in Europe. And it seems to be inevitable that Europe wants to go to war with Russia. I don't see any way around it at this point. I just look at look at France, look at what the UK is doing, look at what Germany is doing moving towards this militarization against Russia. Is there a way around it? And where do you see, obviously, this partnership between China and Russia playing out given a coming Western war, it seems, against Russia? Speaker 1: You know, for my Russian friends, I have different assessments of this. Some of them still are drinking the Kool Aid, the spirit of the Anchorage, and somehow Trump is still gonna be able to work out a deal with them. But those Europeans, those are the real problem. And others realize, and I think this is where I I tend to agree with them, that, there's a lot less daylight between Washington and the Europeans than people think. That early on, the Trump administration, mister Hegseth said, we're gonna try to dump this whole thing onto the Europeans. Let them carry the burden for this war while we move on to the Russians and the excuse me, the Chinese and the Iranians. I think that's what's really going on. This is division of labor. The the Europeans are stepping up to the plate because Washington wants them to. I have real doubts whether they can do that. There was a poll last year saying only 16% of Germans would fight to defend Germany, even if Germany were invaded. How many of them have an appetite for going to war anywhere in Russia or Ukraine? I mean, I hate to sound intolerant, but I don't think the gay Europeans are in a position to fight against anybody given the state of their society, given the migrant invasion, given the fact that their industry is falling apart without cheap Russian energy. I mean, what are they gonna do? Ask the Russians to turn the gas back on so we can make more weapons to fight you with? I mean, that's not gonna work out very well either. I think these countries are making lots and lots of noise, but they're not in a in a position to fight a war. I don't think industrial, materially, spiritually, morally, they're in a position to do any of that. I think the Russians are overestimating that as a problem, which is why and one reason, I think, in my opinion, they're making a big mistake in not finishing off this war in Ukraine sooner rather than later, which many more voices in Russia are calling for because, well, we have to wait for the big war against the Europeans in the future. Well, if they wanna avoid avoid that war, I think it's best to finish this now rather than give the Europeans time to ramp up, assuming they're even capable of doing that. Speaker 0: They're not. In Portugal, they're paying almost $10 a gallon right now for gas. Where are they gonna they they're not. I'm with you on this. I wanna ask you one more thing about president Putin because he is facing a growing backlash inside Russia for his inability to end the war in Ukraine. And, you know, I guess he had strong support when the military operation began. But now we're several years into it. Russians are tired of it. The Ukrainians keep playing dirty. Relying on Western diplomacy has proven to be a trapdoor. So what of his political prospects right now and the Russian appetite for continued conflict? Speaker 1: Well, I I don't think it's an inability to win the war. I think it's a deliberate decision not to win the war. I think Yes. Again, their whole approach, the Russians are practitioners of classic statecraft, so are the Chinese, by the way, and I think they only think in terms of and they have from the beginning of a settlement at the end. You you force the enemy to agree to your terms. Okay. Fine. Fine. We'll cry, uncle. We'll grieve your terms. I think that's what they've been thinking of all along, and their terms are still very moderate. The same terms that Mr. Putin laid out in June 2024, the four oblast Crimea agreements on no NATO neutrality, denazification, demilitarization. The problem is, as I said earlier, even if the West agreed to those terms, none of those terms would be honored. How do you insist on denazification or demilitarization if the Russian army is not in control of Kyiv? So if there's if there's look, I'm not gonna mention names, but I even have friends that say, well, they want binding treaty guarantees. What good is a treaty guarantee with The United States? We don't mister Trump says, we don't agree with treaties. We just have my own morality as a guide. So I I I I think they're barking up the wrong tree. They don't want to recognize that the only solution is a military one and really involves the destruction of the Ukrainian state when you have people like now mister Karaganov talking about striking targets in Western Europe, even nuke using nuclear weapons. I sometimes wonder, don't the Russians have a medium speed between holding back, being cautious, hoping for an agreement, and, oh, wait. That didn't work. I guess we better drop some nukes on I mean, why have they not taken out the leadership in Kyiv? Why have they not destroyed the bridges over the Dnieper so the Ukrainian army can't be supplied? I I've asked these questions many, many times over the last few years of various Russian interlocutors, and they can't give me an answer that makes any sense to them either. Yeah. Speaker 2: There is absolute frustration. Speaking to Russians yesterday on on our show, the very same thing that there is a level of a deep frustration or how this thing gets dragged out. And then 2,000,000 upwards of 2,000,000 Ukrainians dead, and a lot of these mercenaries on the battlefield now are French, they're Poles, they're Colombians. You know, how many more times we have to see videos now of people that aren't even, you know, Ukrainian are having to pick it up and continue this bloody nonsense. It's it's deeply disgusting as all of this money continues to flow in. Jim, great to see you as always. Thank you so much for your invaluable insights. Really appreciate it. And thanks for thanks for always kinda walking us off a cliff or pulling us back from a cliff, not walking us off Speaker 1: a cliff. Speaker 0: Keep stopping us. Speaker 1: I I like the I like the way you said it the first time. Let's go let's go off the cliff together. We can make it a truffle. Speaker 0: It's a Thelma and Louise moment. Yeah. Let's go. Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. There we go. A honor of pleasure as always. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thanks, Jim. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 23, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - May 23, 2026 at 9:31 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🔥 The same donor class that took out @RepThomasMassie now wants Americans silent on Iran, Israel, AIPAC, & foreign influence. @joekent16jan19 says the mask is off, & the next generation is not buying it. https://t.co/Zfgdq9zBgI

Video Transcript AI Summary
Washington, DC saw two major Iran-related developments: a New York Times report alleging that Israel and the United States planned to install Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s leader, and a tense phone call in which President Trump, pressured by Middle East partners, spoke with Benjamin Netanyahu for about an hour. The readout, echoed by three individuals in the room, said Netanyahu’s “hair was on fire” and that Netanyahu urged immediate action—“bomb them right now” and keep bombing Iran—while Trump said he would not resume military operations and wanted a peace agreement. Discussion turned to the claimed peace framework, with Joe Kent saying he was an optimist so long as realism is maintained: a peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and Israel must be restrained for negotiations to move forward. Kent said the deal would not be everything either side wants, and he opposed “poison pills” about “zero enrichment” and “hand us over all your enrichment,” while emphasizing the need for “an end to the fighting.” He added skepticism that the first hard step has been taken to tell Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” Asked about the phone call details and Trump’s claim that Netanyahu would do whatever Trump wants, Kent said he had difficulty believing it, but could see how Netanyahu’s public posture would reflect pressure and public sentiment. Kent also said Israel’s early war actions were “very, very clever,” getting the U.S. committed to an initial strike against Iran’s supreme leader and killing off moderating forces, which he said makes the current negotiation harder. He described a likely “full court press” by pro-Israel lobbying and media to influence Trump, while suggesting time would tell whether Trump would dictate terms. The conversation then shifted to Ahmadinejad. Kent said the report shows Israel’s “main goal” before the war was to get the U.S. committed to conflict, using a “throw everything at the wall model” of far-fetched ideas to see what “resonated.” Kent said the proposed Ahmadinejad plan resembled a Venezuela model: decapitate the leadership and install someone who would stabilize and align with Israel’s interests, presenting it as a sales pitch rather than a detailed operational plan. He said the effect of the approach, in some version, was to push the U.S. into war and to take the strike that removed moderates, making Trump’s desired deal “more challenging.” Kent also addressed the idea that Israel could use chaos to prolong conflict, emphasizing Israel’s ability to tolerate chaos and describing internal pressures within Israel as the war continues. He said the Israelis’ longer-term incentives could align with preventing war conclusions, particularly from the perspective of internal political dynamics. A separate segment included a clip from Nick Fuentes on Alex Jones’ show, asserting that Israel might carry out a false flag on the United States (or Europe) to restart momentum and provide a new pretext. Kent responded that the war is “existential for the Israelis,” and said major concerns cannot be ruled out. He argued the U.S. has an unrealistic relationship with Israel, tends to accept Israeli intelligence “almost, like, verbatim,” and fails to discuss uncomfortable possibilities—such as whether Israeli intelligence is meant to influence the U.S. or whether Israeli operations involve spying. Turning to U.S. domestic politics, the discussion referenced the Thomas Massie election, claims about pro-Israel influence, and a Justice Department advisory committee on antisemitism. Kent criticized what he described as pro-Israel lobbying tactics and said campaign money and exposure may force changes in strategy. On election systems, Kent said election integrity issues remain, arguing that mail ballots and machine tabulation are difficult to verify and that Americans should demand scrutiny of verification and counting mechanisms. When asked about foreign interference, Kent said intelligence would track foreign interference if it existed, but described the difficulty of tracking money from super PACs under the current system. He also cited dual citizens and the ability to donate large sums as complicating oversight. Finally, Kent responded to claims that American journalists are on Israeli intelligence targeting lists, including a clip naming Tucker Carlson as “enemy number one,” and said U.S. intelligence discussions about Israeli agendas and operations are culturally constrained. He concluded by expressing optimism about midterms and future elections, arguing the younger generation will be more engaged and that increasing turnout and education on primaries can improve outcomes.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, a couple of big Iran stories hit Washington yesterday. Let's start with the bombshell New York Times piece yesterday that smacked Washington DC upside the head, claiming that Israel and The United States had planned to install Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Remember him? That's a blast from the past. Speaker 1: The guy they said did not win election because it was an illegitimate election. Now we like him. Speaker 0: Now we like him. Speaker 1: They call him a holocaust denier. But Israel all of a sudden loves him. Speaker 0: Anti Israel, anti Israel guy. We're gonna install Ahmadinejad to rule Iran. Why would they do that? Why exactly would they do that? Is it to keep this, like, perpetual war going? Wait a minute. Ahmadinejad, he's now the head of that country. Use that as, like, some sort of a false flag. I don't know. We'll unpack that in a second. Then a second story, the phone call president Trump under pressure from Middle East partners, to get a peace agreement in place on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu for about an hour yesterday. And according to the readout and three individuals who were in the room said that Netanyahu's hair was on fire, what's left of it, after this tense phone call where basically he's pushed. He said, no. No. You're allowing them too much time. We need to bomb them right now. We need to keep bombing Iran. And president Trump saying, under pressure from Middle East allies. We're not gonna do that. We want a peace agreement. And then president Trump was asked about this, and he says, you know, I be Ben Netanyahu will do whatever I want him to do. Listen. Speaker 2: What did you said to to prime minister Netanyahu about Iran and how long to to hold off on strike? He'll do whatever I want him to do. He's very, very good man. He'll do whatever I want him to do, and he's a he's a great guy. To me, he's a great guy. Speaker 0: Yeah. He's a great guy. And so he'll do whatever I want him to do. Do you believe that? Trump telling Bibby what to do. We'll talk about that. The Massey election, this possible peace plan, seems to be coming together, at least that's being purported, but I'm not sure we believe it. And this new DOJ task force to combat antisemitism in The United States with our special guest today. We're gonna talk with Joe Kent. He is the former director of National Counterterrorism Center, and he joins us now. Joe, great to have you back on the show. Welcome. Speaker 2: Great to be you guys. Thanks for having me. Speaker 0: Our pleasure. So maybe I guess we could start at the top. There's rumblings of this peace agreement that seems to be in play right now over the past few hours, and a lot of people seem to be believing it. But it really shows that Iran is sort of giving up all of their chips here, all of their cards. When we see this talk of a peace framework, what did you think when you started hearing this? Truth? Speaker 2: I'm a I'm an optimist, and I think that there is a goal there there is a peace deal that we we can get as long as we're realistic. And and first and foremost, we have to be realistic that a peace deal won't be acceptable to Israel. So if we just look at the Israelis with clear eyes, which we've had a very hard time doing throughout this entire administration, and we actually take steps to restrain the Israelis, we can get a peace deal with the Iranians. We're not gonna get everything we want. They're not gonna get everything that they want. But I think if we don't bury any poison pills in the deal about zero enrichment, hand us over all your enrichment, and we're realistic about it and we get an end to the fighting, I I think it's I think it's definitely possible, but I am skeptical that we've taken the the first hard step in telling the Israelis, like, you you are done taking offensive action without our permission. Speaker 0: Do do oh, sorry. Just wanted to follow-up on that. Could you believe that phone call readout where Bibby's hair is on fire? Trump says he'll do whatever I want. Like, we've been played before, Joe. Right? Where we've been played where we're told that there's this rift between them. Right? When they're really on the same page. What do you believe from that phone call? Speaker 2: I I I agree with you. I have a hard time believing it at this point. But if Trump did say, I'm not resuming military operations, I still wanna get a deal, I could see where Bibi's hair would would indeed be on fire. He can see the public sentiment right now. He knows that president Trump is feeling a lot of the pressure. And the what the Israelis have done, though, has actually been very, very clever at the beginning at the onset of the war. I know we're gonna get into this with the Ottoman Ejad. They convinced president Trump this was gonna be very easy, and they got us on board of taking that initial strike against the supreme leader. And then the Israelis and us too, we killed a lot of the different moderates. So I I think Netanyahu and the Israelis know that really the Iranians that we're negotiating with right now are gonna be much more challenging for us to negotiate with. Again, I still think we can get a deal with them, but I think every time that president Trump doesn't get him exactly what he wants, I do think his hair is somewhat on fire. And then there's gonna be a full court press with the pro Israeli lobby, the pro Israeli media apparatus here, leaning heavily on President Trump. I'm hoping that by now President Trump is just frustrated with that. And he's starting to dictate terms, but but time will tell. Speaker 1: Well, in the wake of Thomas Massie's loss to the Israel lobby, it feels the timing might be there to show us like, look, we don't do what they say, even though they bought an election, even though they bragged about their influence in that election, which we'll talk about later. But no, it's us that's in charge. So it feels a little bit like a a vitamin that they're giving the MAGA crowd so that they don't start to buy in to this. What do you think about that? Speaker 0: That's a good point. I've Speaker 2: No. I I would I would agree with you. Look. It it's all gonna come down to I think there's there is a limited amount of time here because at some point, if president Trump doesn't see that he can get a deal with the Iranians, he's gonna be under pressure, and I think he's also gonna get frustrated as well. So I think a lot of what we're seeing right now is, like you said, that that vitamin to MAGA, like, hey. We're pushing back on the Israelis. They're not gonna come out and admit that the Israelis, you know, kinda pressured us into this entire thing, but they're gonna kinda throw us a bone right now. But they did have to just spend, I mean, however many millions last night just to take out one congressman. They they can't repeat that for the entire, you know, senate, the entire congress. They can't repeat that on the national level. They just simply they have a lot of money, but they don't have that much money. And they they they can read the same data that we can. They can see that, yeah, they still have, like, the boomer Fox News crowd, but the rest of the people that are out there voting and are engaged, like, they're really not gonna tolerate this. So I'm sure there's an argument taking place right now amongst the Israelis of, hey. Do we go for broke right now, and do we we really try and push this next offensive against the Iranians? Is it that big of a deal, or do we take a tactical defeat and kinda let president Trump get some kind of a deal and then kinda work our way back in from a different angle? I'm sure the Israelis are having that debate internally right now. We know where Bibi is. We know where Lakud is. They're probably much more maximalist only thinking about, you know, the next week or so or how long they can make this war last. But I think that's probably a debate that's taking place right now with the with the Israelis as well. Speaker 0: Fascinating. No. Let's talk about Ahmadinejad. So this New York Times piece, I mean, I what a blast from the past that that they're gonna install Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Iranian leader. Speaker 1: The US and Israel, they didn't even answer his letters when he was they would ignore it. And they called him a holocaust denier and an illegitimate president. How did we get this guy on the phone? Speaker 0: What do you make of this report? Speaker 2: This this really to me, it just shows that the Israelis were their main goal before we got committed to the war was just to get us into the war. The Israelis knew they couldn't accomplish anything in Iran without us. So, basically, they were they were doing what what I would call the throw everything at the wall model and see what stuck. So they would, you know, tell us a variety of different things, and and a lot of it would end up being very, very far fetched, but they wanted to see if any of it resonated. And the second that any of it would resonate, they would, you know, stick on that and say, no. No. That's actually our plan. Trust us. We're really good at this, don't you know? We have great intelligence. And so I think what they were trying to do with, Armenia's job was basically the Venezuela model where, hey. We'll decapitate. We'll kill the supreme leader. And then we've got this guy who will just jump right in, and he'll stabilize everything. You know, mister president, just like you did in Venezuela. So I think they I don't think that the the Israelis ever got in a in a dark smoky room and were like, yeah, out of mean Najad, we're gonna install that guy, and here's how we're gonna do it steps one through 10. That wasn't ever the the case. This was just a sales pitch, and I think they were just trying to basically copy paste Venezuela just to sell it so they could get us on board. And I think don't know if the Armeniajad pitch worked, but it did work this some some version of that did work to a certain degree because they got us into the war, and most importantly, they got us to take that strike against the supreme leader, which killed off one of the moderating forces inside of Iran, making a deal right now that president Trump so desperately wants even more challenging to get. So the Israelis didn't have any foresight on, like, tactically how to take down the regime. They put all their eggs and all their foresight into how can they get us into this war and how can they keep us into the war. Speaker 1: But again, Ahmadinejad was not a western puppet. He tried diplomacy many times. Can we put this photo back up of him? The reason that Iranian politicians don't wear neckties is because it symbolizes Western imperialism to the Persians, to the Iranians. And so why? It's almost insulting. Like, we remember what the messaging was about him. It almost feels too stupid to be in New York Times. I can't I can't wrap my head around Speaker 0: it. They'll help you forget just like Donald Trump Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with and partnering with Saddam Hussein. There's like, don't forget about the the twenty years ago. Just forget about it. Memory hole it. Speaker 2: Yeah. And and it was a close copy paste to Venezuela. That that's where I think their head was at because I think they had already they had already tried the whole Shah. Hey. We'll bring this Shah's son back in, and that didn't pass the sniff test. There's the the MEK, the Muji ID and colleague. There's the Kurds. All of that was always hard to formulate, but I think they were able to say, like, okay. We've got a guy, and he was sort of part of this regime that we don't like, but trust me, he's our guy. That seems like a very Israeli pitch to me. I'm just I'm just guessing, and that he would jump in, and they they kept referencing in in my view. They probably just kept referencing Venezuela and saying, hey. It worked in Venezuela. You guys came in, you took out the leader of Venezuela. And then we had somebody, you know, just kind of step in who we were able to make into, basically our puppet, and that will work here. Again, none of it was ever a serious plan, but it was a serious sales pitch to to get us into the war. Speaker 1: Or if I could maybe use reverse psychology because Ahmadinejad many times questioned Israel's use of the Holocaust in order to expand their global war powers. If they got a Holocaust denier in there, that would really help them springboard what they've always been able to use to justify their war. And like, uh-oh, we got even worse guy. Now we gotta now we gotta go I now Speaker 0: I'm just still Speaker 1: calling. This is this is what I would do maybe if I were an evil regime. What do you think? Speaker 2: I think that's something that's underappreciated on our side about the Israelis because the Israelis are are very polished, and they're very slick at their presentation. And a lot of the Israelis that we deal with are dual citizens, and they sound just just like us. We forget that they have a much different mentality. So when we're talking like, hey. How do we take down a country? We want steps one through 10, and we wanna understand how it ends because in the American mind, we are not good with chaos. We do not like chaos. The Israelis view it much differently. The Israelis are completely fine of chaos. Look at their strategy in Lebanon. Look at their strategy in Syria. And so for them to say, like like you said, okay. We'll get this other guy in, but then we'll be able to come right back and be like, bad news, guys. This guy is just as bad, so we gotta keep going. The purpose of the war is for the war to continue, not for the war to to be concluded in any meaningful way, especially, you know, from the perspective of the Likud party with with the internal dynamics there in Israel, with BB being on trial. The longer the war goes on, the better. So, you know, again, I think this is mostly just a pitch to us, but I think I think you're you're probably onto something right there where they even could bake into the cake even further if this harebrained plan even kinda got off the ground. They would have a justification to continue the war. Speaker 0: You mentioned the chaos piece of this. I wanna play a soundbite from yesterday. This is Nick Fuentes on Alex Jones' show, and he thinks that Israel, in order to keep us in this war or push us back into it, especially if some sort of a peace framework is laid out by president Trump. He believes that Israel will carry out a false flag on The United States in order to keep this Iranian charade going. Take a listen. Speaker 3: You think about there was a show on Netflix, Zero Day, and then there was another show, leave it all behind. And they're they're both kind of predictive programming these scenarios where it's either a nuclear conflict or it's some kind of advanced cyber attack. But I think that that has been at the front of my mind or back of my mind ever since October 7, that they're gonna need another nine eleven, a new Pearl Harbor, a new new Pearl Harbor. How are they gonna restart that momentum? Well, how did this whole thing get started October 7? October 7 was a stand down order, and that pretext has been the rolling justification for everything. Lebanon, Gaza, the Houthis, Iran, the whole enchilada. So what what it clearly suggests is that there's gonna be another little triggering event, another little pretext where they're gonna get another Let get your estimation. Speaker 0: Let me get your dead reckoning. Does Israel hit itself or do they hit us? Speaker 3: I think they hit us or Europe. Speaker 0: Okay. Us or Europe. What do you think about that? Being hyperbolic there, or do you think you have serious concerns based on what you've seen in the counterterrorism world? Speaker 2: Well, this war is existential for the Israelis. So I I think we have to just recognize that and and to think, you know, would they thrive in the chaos? Would they thrive would would they be able to continue their overall mission by having us get attacked or another terrorism terrorist attack? We can't take that off the table. We can't rule it out, and we can't let anyone shout at us and say, like, that's a conspiracy theory. These are things that we we should consider, especially when we're looking at a air quotes here ally like Israel who basically has, you know, lied us lied to us to get us into this war, we really have to start being much more skeptical with what they're telling us, and we have to turn a very skeptical eye towards them and towards everybody for that matter, as a matter of fact. And we've had a very hard time institutionally doing that with the Israelis. And and I think if the Israelis believed that we were going to extricate ourselves from this conflict, I think that there would be an element within Israel that would say, hey. We we should look at some course of action that gets the the Americans to recommit to this conflict. So I wouldn't take anything off the table and we need to be not trusting and doing much more verification. Speaker 1: Now the American Zionist messaging tells us, for instance, there's Ben Shapiro saying if you think that A Pac had anything to do with Thomas Massie's loss, then you're an idiot. Israel is not involved here. They're not, you know, the main stage of everything, of all foreign policy. But at the same time today, I'm reading the New York Post and the mosque shooting in San Diego. The guy killed Muslims, but they're saying, really, he was anti Semitic. Mostly, it was an anti Jew mission. So you can have it both ways. We're involved in everything, but we're not. Let's listen to what Ben Shapiro had to say about this foreign influence. Speaker 4: Massey himself is out there saying that Israel is trying to buy his seat in congress. Again, Madhu, like, this this tactic is one of the dumbest tactics. I just have to say it's it's such an incredibly it's a tactic made for stupid people. And the reality is that people who are pro Israel do not like Thomas Massie because Thomas Massie has engaged in every conspiracy theory it is possible to engage in and has made common cause with the most anti Israel people. That's true. But the reason that Thomas Massie is actually in trouble is because the Trump administration has decided to oppose him on the basis of completely other issues. And so the usual game that is now played right now on the right, in the very podcast to stand right, the game that is played is there will be a critique that has nothing to do with Israel, And the first thing you do is you claim that it's about Israel. Okay. Speaker 0: But then APAC tweets right after the election to reaffirm their involvement. Ed Galraign's victory in Kentucky and Clay Fuller's win in Georgia ensures two outspoken pro Israel voices are positioned to fill seats previously held by outspoken detractors, Thomas Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Our community was proud to help pro Israel candidates win these races. Right. Okay. And then even Haaretz. In Israel newspaper headlines. This is the most consequential Republican primary for Israel, and it's happening in Kentucky. That's a Israeli newspaper. But you're an idiot, Joe. I guess if you think that Israel had or the Israel lobby had anything to do with Thomas Massey losing in Kentucky, what do you think? Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, Ben Shapiro, I know he he he gets a lot of traction by, you know, claiming everybody else is kinda dumb. He's super smart, but APAC didn't help him out there when they tweeted right afterwards that, like, yeah, this was us. We did it. I mean, we we all this stuff is verifiable. You can look it up. You can see where super PACs. You can see the donors for the most part. There's a lot of it still has has to come out later on in July when the super PACs are done doing their filings. But I mean, to say that, you know, the pro Israel lobby didn't have anything to do with Massey's loss last night is just absurd on his face. So, now now they're yelling at us for for noticing while at the same time they brag about it. So the the only good thing I would say here, the only silver silver lining, I mean, I I think there's a few silver linings, but really so much of this now is out there. It's exposed. People who don't follow politics even very closely, they're of it now as well. So I do think I'm not sure if it's, you know, if it's gonna run out of steam towards the midterms towards '28, if it's gonna take a little bit longer with, know, the baby boomer generation phasing out. But this, this campaign that APAC and the pro Israel lobbyists had, they're gonna have to change their tactics, because what they're doing right now, I think they're in the final throes of it, which is another reason why they just went all out on Massey's race, just, you know, a couple days ago. Speaker 1: And so maybe you can share your thoughts about it, because we've had two days now. Yesterday, Clayton was apoplectic. Today, he can string together a sentence with more optimism. How are you feeling? Speaker 2: Obviously, it's a bummer. I mean, it's hard to feel, you know, super energized about it. I was really looking forward to Massey Massey winning, and kinda sending a message to the establishment. But, I mean, it took a record amount of money to actually put down Massey. And in doing so, they made him even more of a national name than he already was. I mean, the the victory the the clips from his victory speech are going viral all over social media. And if you look at the demographic breakdown too, I mean, Massey, he did very, very well with the people that are going to be voting for decades into the future. So that that gives me a lot of optimism. Again, you know, as long as unfortunately, as long as voters can have voters will vote based on how many ads are on TV and how many mailers are in the mailbox and not do just a little bit of research, we are gonna have this issue. But I mean, if you just look at the demographic breakdown right there, if we can continue to get young people to vote, you know, and when I say young, it's actually like under the age of 55 to vote and to consistently get out to the ballot box, we're going to do very, very well. The high propensity primary voters that typically are a little bit older and are in the baby boomer generation are consuming Fox News and just mainstream media. They won the day because that's the demographic that tends to vote in primaries heavily. So if we can do more activism to engage that that younger base right there, we're gonna start getting results that I don't think the money is gonna be able to defeat. Speaker 0: Right. It seems like this strategy of claiming that you're anti Semitic if you somehow speak out against the Israel lobby. It doesn't seem to be holding among the young people. So your to your point, 82% of the young vote went to Massey. The boomer sort of Fox News viewers who are now hitting 80 years old, that 65 to 80 range. Though those people are aging out, And those are the people that voted for Ed Galrain, particularly, if you believe those numbers. You know, Congressman Ron Paul, friend of the show, legend, Congressman Ron Paul tweeted out, was Massey twenty twenty ed? Because there are quite a few anomalies now pouring in as Internet sleuths look through the the mail in ballots at the last minute, these weird anomalies with this election. That's congressman Ron Paul saying was he was he 2020. What do you think? I mean and to me, obviously, you were in counterterrorism looking at The United States Of America specifically. If there was, like, massive election rigging in Kentucky, would this cross your desk? Speaker 2: Not in not in the National Counterterrorism Center. It it wouldn't. It's domestic, and so this would primarily be the FBI. I mean, any place where there's mail in ballots and there's there's machines that we can't see the code in, I think the American people from both sides of the aisle should just demand a new system. Because when you have the mail in ballots, I'm originally from Washington State, that's where I ran for Congress, we can't even vote in person out there. It's all mail in. It is a terrible system. So I think just in general, it is good and right for us to question the mail in votes. It's good and right for us to question the machine tabulation. Because when you get down in the meat and potatoes of how is my mail in ballot even like verified? How do they count it? How do these tabulations on the machines work? It's all smoke and mirrors. It's almost impossible for us to get straight answers. And there's very few people that are looking over the shoulder of those who are behind the scenes doing the tabulation. And a lot of times, a lot of these states, I don't know Kentucky in detail, but a lot of the tabulation that's happening in most states, it's machines and it's algorithms. So even the people that are there in the polling station, they're not really able to even verify this. So we have major issues still in this country of election integrity. Speaker 1: Now, something that continues to baffle me is the headlines around, oh, let's say Hillary Clinton's loss, or Donald Trump's loss is that it was foreign interference in the election. It was Russia, it was China, it was Iran. And yet we have now proof of foreign intervention in Thomas Massie's election, and there are no headlines about it. It's totally fine. We know that it was money. And it was bought armies that helped to push Al Gowrin over the finish line. And where is the I mean, maybe I'll ask you from a official perspective. You know, is it something that would be tracked by intelligence? Speaker 2: In terms of the foreign interference, certainly. I mean, there's entire divisions. There there wasn't an entire division, for quite some time that was looking at the foreign interference, especially like the democrats did this, you know, with the when everyone believed that Russia had interfered in our elections. But it it still is something the intelligence community would look at if there was foreign interference. Unfortunately, with, like, the American system where the money is really, really hard to track, the money from the super PACs is really challenging. We get into a really weird situation too with dual citizens. A lot of folks that are very pro Israel, they have Israeli citizenship and they have American citizenship as well. Because they're Americans, they have American citizenship. They can give an unlimited amount of money to super PACs. I mean, most famously, the Adelson's, Miriam Adelson. She's an Israeli citizen. She's also an American citizen. She can give hundreds of millions of dollars to super PACs. I mean, that's absolute insanity, in my view. And getting a fix for that would be complicated, because of some of the rulings by the Supreme Court. But I think going forward in our country, this is something that we really need to look at and decide who the American people are good with being able to contribute money. And should there be a limit on that? And that's gonna be a dicey conversation because there's a liberty issue there where, like, your money is your speech, you can spend it however the heck you want if you're a free American citizen. But that kinda makes our elections the wild west, and we really just saw that play out in Massey's election. Speaker 1: But are there any other countries that are doing do we have wealthy Russians that are influencing elections? Do we have wealthy Chinese? Speaker 2: You know, I think if we did, it would be all over the news. I mean, can you imagine if if a if the Russian newspapers the day after the twenty sixteen election were like, yeah, that was us. We we got that Trump elected or whatever. I mean Right. We would never hear the end of it. You know, probably half of Trump's family would have been arrested. I mean, but here we here we have major publications in Israel saying, we did that. We got we got we took out Massey and then APAC, you know, saying that we helped take out Massey. It is a to say it's a double standard doesn't even do it justice. It's just absolutely absurd. Speaker 0: There's something that really bothers me. And from you, I wanna ask you, because in the counterterrorism world, and this is really troubling. You know, are a number of American journalists who've been on these hit lists, these kill lists, obviously, in Ukraine. But also this came to light, a former IDF unit eight twenty eighty two hundred soldier, just in an interview yesterday talking to Mario Narfal, that Tucker Carlson is number one on Mossad Israeli intelligence targets lists, Like, would and I'm gonna play the clip, but I wanna get you to respond to this idea that American journalists would be on Israeli target lists. And is there any discussion inside of the counterterrorism officer? Hey, maybe you wanna take those people off your list? Watch this. Speaker 5: The number one person on their list by far is Tucker Carlson. He is considered enemy number one by Israeli services. Speaker 0: Touch him. Speaker 5: I I I'm not saying they'll touch him. I haven't heard that they would. But that's where if there's one person who's being monitored carefully and there are plans and contingencies for, it'll be Tucker Carlson. Candace Owens may be number two. I think they take her less seriously, but still, those are two people I've heard Israeli intelligence people mention, which is which is bad. Speaker 0: Is that something that you would discuss in your I'm just curious why there wouldn't be more of an outrage and demand, to have Americans removed from these lists? Or why are you doing this? Why is Marco Rubio not standing up at a podium yelling about something like this? Even on the Ukraine side, on the MirrorVets website targeting, journalists. Speaker 2: I would just say in general because we have a very unrealistic relationship with with Israel. We in The US tend to think of the Israelis, like, literally, like, as our as our partner in the same way that, like, the Five Eyes countries are. And there's issues with the Five Eyes, you know, a whole different conversation. But we will basically take what they say almost, like, verbatim and just say, okay, this is coming from the Israelis. They have the same goals that we do, and we're not gonna talk about some of the uncomfortable stuff like what you just played there in that clip because the because the the mentality is because the Israelis give us so much good intelligence. And if you even say what myself and a few others, not not just me, there's been people over the years who've said this. When we say, hey, look, the the Israelis probably do give us some good stuff, but they're still a partner that has their own agenda, their own goals. And then we really fail to assess just how vital American support is to the Israelis. And so if you're in if you just put yourselves in the Israeli shoes, there's no length that you wouldn't go to to make sure that you don't get the support from America. But we fail to, like, accurately assess that. We're usually pretty good about playing the the adversary, in other scenarios, but we have these big blinders up with with when it comes to the Israelis. It's almost forbidden to think like to to even say out loud, hey. Do you think maybe the Israelis gave us that piece of so called intelligence to influence us as opposed to inform us? Or hey, do we think, you know, the Israelis might be aggressively spying on us? Do we think that they they might do some other kind of operation? Like those things are just not really that that discussion is just not tolerated within The US intelligence community right now. That that is something culturally that we just have to change because we do not have a very realistic outlook on how the Israelis view us and just the links they'll go to, to keep the relationship as it is right now. Speaker 0: Wow. Speaker 1: Well, now we see that the Justice Department has launched this advisory committee on antisemitism. What they say it is, is just a group of people who will advise the Department of Justice on combating antisemitism. The Department of Justice is constantly posting about antisemitism. They don't seem to need a new group of advisers, nor are they targeting any other anti discrimination programs for any other group? And I'm very confused because it feels very much like the Biden administration's protection of transgender people. But now we have it again for only one group of people. And, you know, this is something that will be done on American tax taxpayer dollars. The only thing I can think of is that they want to re stigmatize antisemitism because it doesn't hurt anymore as a label. Think back to the beginning of my career as a journalist, and I was terrified of that word. Now it's like a bee, like get away, you know, it's it's you shoo it away. You don't pay any mind to it. What do you think? Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, lot of it to you just almost seems like at this point, because we have so many other issues right now in the country, we have so many other crises. For them to be focusing on this, it's just like, is this a statement where we just have to we have to say this? Did someone, you know, is someone guaranteed the APAC money next time in order to say this? Because, like, in terms of what we should be prioritizing right now, someone having their feelings hurt about any kind of speech, like, obviously, that's against the constitution. But, again, like, how is this even a a priority? So I I think your your theory makes sense, because they know that the whole antisemitism, insult or whatever, it's just kind of rolling off people now. And so now they want to put some sort of a, you know, legal label on it. So people are just they're back to being scared, like you better straighten up and fly right, and not ask about why APAC just spent, you know, tens of millions of dollars against Massey. Speaker 0: Right. Joe Kent, great to see you. You know, I guess, you know, we're also sort of ruminating over, you know, Tucker did a show yesterday saying there's a positive sign out of this, and, he was trying to talk me off a ledge yesterday. Like, he's like, promise you, this is the bottom. This is the bottom. It it goes up from here. And I I just I'm trying to see it that way. I'm trying to be a glass half full kind of person. And I hope that this was a major tipping point moment for Americans to see the amount of foreign influence money that poured into this election and we will not stand for it. But I don't know. What's your sense? I'll get you out of here on this. What you see in the midterms and maybe over the next, you know, election cycle or so? Speaker 1: Yeah. Glass half empty or half full. Speaker 2: I'm gonna go with Tucker and be a glass half full. I think we we basically, if we're gonna stay in this fight in which we have to, then we have to be glass half full. I mean, again, if you just look at the numbers, like the baby boomers, like, that's my parents, don't want to see that don't want to see them go. I love my parents. I love a lot of boomers. However, they are being phased out. And the younger generation Gen X and down, they understand everything that we're saying probably at a much deeper level, and they're passionate about it. So I think if we can drive voter turnout with those younger demographics, educate them about how to vote in primaries, we're going to be in a much better spot. I to Tucker's point to this was just so up in everyone's face to take a guy that they no one's ever really heard of before, to have the secretary of war literally during a war come out to the district to campaign for him, plus the what however much it was, you know, 50,000,000, 60,000,000, we'll find out later on. I I do think that they kinda went all in because they knew this is their last hurrah. The midterms, think, were in trouble, and I think that's just very basic math. If you have an r by your name in the midterms, everyone's gonna associate the price of the pump and the price of the grocery store with the Iran war and with president Trump. And so I think it's gonna be pretty bleak for the republicans. I'm I'm not a I'm not a democrat. I'm not fan of the democrat party, so I hope I'm wrong on that. But I think the midterms are gonna be bleak, and hopefully that serves as a wake up call. But, you know, we're we're probably gonna live through a little bit more of this, but I but I agree with Tucker. I think I think we're heading in a right direction as long as we we keep speaking truth and we we show that we have integrity and we show that we truly care about the country. Speaker 0: You know, from your mouth to God's ears. Joe, great to see you. Thank you so much for your time and your expertise. We really appreciate it. Speaker 2: Thanks, guys. Great to see you. Speaker 1: Yeah. You too. Appreciate it. Speaker 0: Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you wanna follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 22, 2026 at 3:31 PM
Saved - May 23, 2026 at 1:18 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🚨 Scientists working on plasma tech, hypersonics, EMP weapons, and advanced materials are suddenly disappearing in America and China. This looks like a secret weapons race spilling into the open. @WetheBrandon is our guest. https://t.co/gCF4gt6lnP

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 said that people in the Missile Defense Agency, including the now deceased doctor Peter Pry and his colleague David Pine, had long claimed—about for a decade—that Iranian electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons were placed on satellites in orbit. Speaker 0 added that Space Force has been tracking such suspected EMP activity for years and that the situation might involve preemptive shootdowns of these suspected EMP bomb satellites as part of escalation against Iran. Speaker 1 said EMP attacks on U.S. infrastructure are a major concern, stating that “it wouldn't take much for entire electric grid to be wiped out.” Speaker 0 then stated that one EMP detonated 50 miles above the Continental United States would knock out 90 to 95% of the electric grid, that there is no restoring it for a minimum of two years, and that the grid would not come back online within two years because the physical gear needed to restore it comes from China. The discussion then shifted to missing scientists and technology origins. Speaker 1 said it was fascinating that there is “massive overlap” between U.S. and Chinese scientists who have gone missing, and he said that he and Speaker 0 could disagree on where the technology came from. Speaker 1 described a claim he had heard from special forces and involvement in a secret space program: the technology was accidentally discovered through crash retrieval from UAPs “long time ago.” Speaker 0 said he did not have special knowledge and expressed a belief that extraordinary people and technologies have historically come from hidden or inherited research, referencing Tesla and claiming Nazis developed advanced systems at Peenemünde that were inherited. Speaker 0 suggested that “the alien thing might be a cover story,” while stating he does not have anyone on the inside who could tell him one way or the other and describing it as his opinion. Speaker 1 said the cover story idea includes the pattern that people assume anything seen in the sky is an alien craft, but that it is often U.S. military technology. He also asserted that “the Nazi technology came from these crash retrieval programs in Russia, China.” Speaker 1 then asked a UFO-related question, saying they have seen six scientists go missing, including military personnel working in plasma physics, advanced heat-resistant materials, magnetism, doctors, and the director of MIT’s plasma science fusion center. He said he had sources from special forces that this plasma technology was found accidentally after a downed UAP. He also referenced Brendan Weichert’s earlier reporting that the issue is “not about aliens,” and stated that China and the United States are “playing this very dangerous game” by missing each other’s scientists.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By the way, I'll just add one other thing, another input here. We have long suspected I say we. I say people I know in the missile defense agency and people like the now deceased doctor Peter Pry, my friend David Pine, who worked with Peter. All of these people have long said for about a decade that the Iranians placed electromagnetic pulse weapons on satellites in orbit, and that Space Force, what is now Space Force, has been tracking it for years. And we might be witnessing also preemptive shootdowns of these suspected EMP bomb satellites as part of our escalation against Iran. Speaker 1: That's been a big concern from a number of our guests who've said, you know, EMP attacks on our infrastructure, it wouldn't take much for entire electric grid to be wiped out. Speaker 0: One EMP detonated 50 miles above the Continental United States will knock out 90 to 95% of the electric grid, and there is no restoring it for a minimum of two years. And I guarantee you, it ain't coming back online in two years, especially when you consider the physical gear needed to restore the electrical grid comes from China. Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. And we don't have it. Right. Well, Brandon, we thank you so much. We look forward to reading your piece. I wanna dive more deeply into these missing Speaker 0: I'll send it to you guys. Speaker 1: It's a great piece. Fascinating that these Chinese scientists are there's this massive overlap here with these United States scientists who've gone missing. It's remarkable. Yeah. You and I can disagree on where they got this tech from. I've heard from special special forces and involvement in the secret space program specifically, that this was accidentally discovered as part of crash retrieval from UAPs, you know, long time ago. Well, I Speaker 0: don't have any special knowledge on that. I just I find I just I think that we have a lot of extraordinary people, and I think we have a lot of extraordinary I mean, go back to Tesla. He was playing with technology that was hidden. And go back to the Nazis. I mean, we know at Pina Munda, the Nazis were playing with really advanced systems that they developed that we inherited. And so that's why I think it's I I think the alien thing might be a cover story. But I don't have any, you know, I I don't have anybody on the inside that could tell me one way or the other. This is just my opinion. Speaker 1: Yeah. I think the cover story well, I would just say this as I could talk about this all day, and my wife will give me a a side eye. But I think the cover story piece of it is like, well, every time you look up in the sky, oh, that's definitely an alien craft. No. No. That's US military. That's definitely these advanced technologies. But I think at the at the core of Etikura, lot of this technology, the Nazi technology came from from these crash retrieval programs in Russia, China, and we we all have it. We all have it. In different striations and Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, I wanna ask you sort of a UFO related question. And we've seen now six scientists that have gone missing. Several scientists, military personnel working in plasma physics, advanced heat resistant materials, magnetism, doctors, director of MIT's plasma science fusion center. I know from sources that in special forces that this plasma technology was found accidentally after a downed UAP. That's how we obtained this advanced plasma technology. China has also scientists that have gone missing. Brendan Weichert reported earlier today, he said this isn't about aliens. I mean, that's where the tech came from initially. It's not about aliens. But China and The United States are playing this very dangerous game right now of basically missing each other's scientists.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 22, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Saved - May 23, 2026 at 12:40 AM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🫯 If the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, the world could face an energy crisis worse than anything in modern history. Food, fuel, fertilizer, and the economy are all on the line. @ChristMartenson is with us. https://t.co/Sh4fAHWtgO

Video Transcript AI Summary
Chris Martinson, an economic researcher and futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion, argues the U.S. may be facing a large energy shock driven by the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. He disputes claims that a “peace agreement” will reopen oil flows, saying Iran has prepared for this for “forty years,” has leverage, and has repeatedly indicated it will not give up control of the Strait, its nuclear material, or its demands for reparations and sanctions relief. He says the floated “wish list” version of the deal appears to reflect everything the U.S. wants, not Iran’s stated conditions. Martinson describes what he says happened after the U.S. decapitation strike: the U.S. allegedly suffered some of its worst military losses since World War II, bases were targeted, satellite-image releases were restricted, and since March 2 the Strait has been “effectively closed.” He claims Iran’s strategy involved layered missiles, from simpler to more sophisticated, used in sequence, with “extreme precision.” He says Iran can “run off the clock,” and every day the Strait is closed means oil and oil products not reaching market. He argues that oil-market reactions to statements about a deal—particularly Trump’s tweets—suggest the narrative is driving prices more than supply fundamentals, with oil reportedly dropping after tweets despite the constriction of supply continuing. He cites multiple industry and energy figures saying the situation represents an unprecedented or worst energy shock, but argues the oil price does not respond accordingly. Using a price-quantity framework, he says prices have been kept at a level where demand remains high. He claims the U.S. has been using Strategic Petroleum Reserve withdrawals and commercial stocks—calling them “seed corn”—to mask the problem, including “below market rates” for political reasons. He estimates constraints in the SPR and Cushing, Oklahoma: Cushing reportedly has 25,000,000 barrels with an operational minimum of 20,000,000, leaving only about 5,000,000. He argues the SPR caverns are salt caverns that limit how much can be drawn without physical damage, making withdrawal capacity uncertain. His “best guess” is about “sixty days until we hit tank bottoms.” Martinson anticipates inflation impacts through a “double hump inflation” analogy from the 1970s, and says producer price index data at 6% implies consumer prices could rise to around that rate in coming months. He describes inflation as already underway and portrays the situation as a “ticking clock” in negotiations: he says time benefits Iran and increases the likelihood of a broader global economic depression. He warns that if the U.S. attacks again, Iran has stated it would target Gulf Cooperation Council energy infrastructure, including the East-West pipeline across Saudi Arabia (with the port at Yanbu), the Omani pipeline, and it would close the Bab El Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea. He says this could raise the missing oil impact from 13,000,000 barrels per day to 25,000,000 barrels per day and notes that fixing damaged infrastructure could take months or years. He concludes that U.S. choices are limited and the outcome could be “bad or worse.” For personal preparation, Martinson emphasizes Maslow’s hierarchy—food, shelter, safety, and warmth—citing steps like solar and lithium batteries, an electric car powered by solar, growing food, and building neighbor-focused local relationships. He frames the situation as broader than oil alone, affecting fertilizer (including urea), natural gas, and other industrial inputs, and says these interconnected disruptions can be “dizzying” and “paralyzing.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, are we about to face the largest energy shock in US history? Our next guest says that's exactly what we have in store for us, and people are largely ignoring the story, or they're trying to cover it up and with some fancy math and trying to hide all of it. Nobody who lives in a real world can basically, continue to ignore this as you see it price at the pump, food prices, etcetera, across the board. Chris Martinson is an economic researcher and futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion. He's the co founder of peakprosperity.com, And really one of the keenest intellects, on X, which is saying a lot because there are quite a few keen intellects. There's also quite a few dolts on X, but Chris is what the top of the list on there. Chris, great to have you on the show. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. It's so good to be here with both of you and, real pleasure to be on. Speaker 0: It's our pleasure. I you know, there's lot of topics, and I'd love for you to tell us what you see right now, what you would love to talk about. But at the heart of it for me is obviously this sort of so called peace agreement that's floating around out there over the past few hours that there is going to be some sort of framework in place. We just had Joe Kent on who said he is a glass half full kind of guy. He's he's hopeful about it. But I I I sense from your tweets that you're not buying what's being sold to us about this peace agreement, which seems to give up almost everything from the Iranian side and sort of hand it over to The United States side. What do you make of peace that might open oil flows again in the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, it's it's it's this simple. Seventy three days ago, we had Trump for the first time come out and say the war is over. And almost there's been this periodicity that that people have noticed, particularly people in the markets that Trump has these market moving sort of statements that come out. Always, you know, a deal is near. Iran has just died to fold, and, you know, we we own the straight. And every time it seems to dump oil and and move markets. So there's a whole component to this which which, you know, has a a side story to it. Here's the deal, though. The United States within five minutes of doing the decapitation strike was suffering some of its worst military losses since World War two. Right? We 14 bases around the region got dialed in. Within two weeks, The United States was kind of forbidding somehow private satellite companies from releasing actual satellite photos because it would have been embarrassing. And ever since March 2, the Strait has been effectively closed, and it's remains effectively closed. So a winning country, would be in charge of the Strait. Trump just said we control the Strait just today, and it's not true because if we did, there'd be ships going through it that aren't passing through. So here's the deal. Iran has a a lot of leverage here, and they've been preparing for this for forty years. Right? And they've built tunnels and put all their things under deep mountains, you know, and all their military assets. And it turned out we were largely unable to meaningfully deflect Iran from its strategy. And its strategy was to use different levels and layers of missiles ranging from relatively crude to highly sophisticated missiles. It used up its, say, you know, crappier stuff first, and then it moved into its more sophisticated materials later. And it showed a remarkable ability, Natalie and Clayton, to to hit what it wanted to hit. I mean, with extreme precision. Okay? And then we came into the ceasefire deal, and Iran's whole strategy at this point, which I totally understand, is just run off the clock. Every day that the Strait remains closed is another 13,000,000 barrels of oil and oil products that aren't making it to market. And this is an extraordinary shock. We can get into that in a minute. So when I see these things, you asked about the peace deal. So the one that just got floated today, I actually think it came off of an obscure telegram channel and, you know, the Axios angle, seems to be dead. So they pulled this thing up. And it was just a wish list of it was everything The US wanted. Right? Iran gives up complete control of the straight. It, you know, folds. It doesn't get any money. You know, all kinds of stuff. And Iran has been very clear. They've always said, look. We want we're gonna have control of the straight. That's a done deal. You're gonna have to pay us some reparations, you know, and we can discuss that later. We're not giving up our nuclear material. And, oh, yeah, you're gonna have to unfreeze all the sanctions and release our money. Speaker 0: So Right. Speaker 1: They haven't wavered from those conditions since ever so far. And and that's all I can tell you from from this point. I don't know what's actually going on, you know, with the negotiators inside. But taking Trump's statements, we're winning. They're losing. And that's not actually what the facts on the ground say. Speaker 2: It's very frustrating to see oil prices react to what seems like a meme because we don't have any official source of this peace deal, and yet we've seen slight movement downwards towards price of oil. And so what are we to make of that? Because the constriction of supply has not ended. It's only based on poof, a belief system of social media. Speaker 1: It it's astonishing. It's astonishing. So I I I don't know how we got here because remember 2022, the Iran the Ukrainian war kicks off, and the world was worried about a 3,000,000 barrel per day potential shortfall. That's a 3,000,000 barrels per day. And oil prices shot up to a $120 a barrel and all that. And and here we are, an order of magnitude beyond that in terms of actual impact. Secondarily, you're right, Natalie. Every time Trump tweets something, oil just gets slammed. Today, it got slammed for another $5. Went from a 101 all the way down to, like, 96 because of this tweet, you know, string that came out. And what's amazing is so you have that. You have the tweet moving oil five, six, seven percent usually to the downside. And on the other side, you have Fatih B. Roll, the executive of the International Energy Agency saying, this is the worst energy shock forever. We're running out quickly. You have, top commodity analyst at JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs. You've you've got, Jeff Curry out of Carlisle saying, wow. We are weeks away from tank bottoms. You have Exxon CEO, Chevron CEO saying the same sorts of things. Basically, everybody who's anybody who really knows this business is just running up the red flag saying, wow. We are we are, like, weeks away from imminent disaster, and that doesn't cause anything to happen to the oil price. But, uh-oh, Trump tweets out, you know, we're winning, and bang, $5. Right. I'm highly suspicious this isn't organic. Speaker 0: You're a futurist. I mean, you look at this data more than closely than just about anybody. So I trust your opinion on this, you know, implicitly. When you're you're listening to Jeff Curry, you're listening to all of these individuals, but you're looking at the data, what can we expect over the next few weeks? Like, what is the truth here? Speaker 1: The truth is that the simplest, most elegant chart in all of economics is the PQ chart, price, quantity, and, and demand. Right? So so there's supposed to be this relationship. If if demand is here, right, and supply is here, you need prices not to make more supply come out of the ground right away, but you need prices to rise so that demand comes down. Now we've been holding prices at a level where demand remains really, really high. And the way we've been covering that up, we in The United States principally. Last week, for the last reported week, 17,800,000 barrels left The United States of crude oil. It came out of our strategic petroleum reserve, or as I sometimes call it now, our strategic political reserve, and also commercial stocks. And and that's our that's our seed corn. That that's our national that's what we run our country on. And we're now just selling it at below market rates so that, I think, for political reasons, we can make this seem like it's not as bad a thing as it as it is. Speaker 0: How much is less in in the in the oil reserves? And how how long can we keep up that charade? Because I've seen you talk about this sort of moving paper around is not enough to hide the real story here, and I find that fascinating. Speaker 1: Well, you you go until you know, theoretically, you go until you run out. Now what's that? Where's running out? So we have two major stockpiles right now that we track pretty carefully. One is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's four separate caverns along the Texas, Louisiana borders, near the Gulf. And then we have this big stockpile at Cushing, Oklahoma, the the big Cushing terminals. Cushing's at 25,000,000 barrels right now. Sounds like a lot. Problem. Its operational minimum is 20,000,000 barrels. It can't go below that because now the pipes are below that level. Like, 20,000,000 barrels is what it takes just to sort of, like, fill the system so it can operate. So we only have 5,000,000 barrels left there. The salt caverns that hold our SPR, different kind of a thing, it's hard to say because it these aren't giant holes in the ground. Well, they kinda are. But you fill it with oil. But to get the oil back out again, you don't just suck the oil down. You pump water in from below and you float the oil up. Problem is these are salt caverns and salt dissolves in water. It doesn't dissolve in oil. So as we pump water in there, it's doing some damage. There's only so much you can pump in there before it really would be inadvisable to go any higher than that. And so this is hard data to come by, but but for sure, if they say there's 374,000,000 barrels left in there, it's something less than that that we can actually realistically draw out without actually physically damaging our strategic petroleum reserve. Different from China. China built above ground storage tanks. They have some underground, but theirs is is like, if they say they have 1,300,000,000 barrels in in reserve, that's pretty tappable for the most part. We have a different situation here. So best guess, we have about sixty days until we hit tank bottoms here, tops. Speaker 2: Gosh. And so what do you think that this shock will look like for us at home? We've had experts on saying the Big Mac index is gonna go up upwards of 30. Can you imagine a $30 Big Mac? What do you think? Speaker 1: Well, there's this really famous chart circulating right now, and it shows we went through what was called a double hump inflation in the seventies. Right? So from '73 to '78, there was this big bad round of inflation. Then, oh, no. From '79 to '82, there was this next hump, and that was even worse. Now that second hump went up to about 14% inflation back then. And see if any of this rhymes. We had this thing called the oil embargo from, you know, the OPEC nations. And so the Arab oil embargo was a cause because oil went up a lot in price all of a sudden. We had this little thing called the Vietnam War, so there was high deficit spending by the US government. And so you get these twin forces, and it created that double hump of inflation. Almost in a perfect rhyme this time. And so I actually think this next hump of inflation, which has already started, we just had our producer price index. The PPI came out. It's at 6%. That means in three to four months, the CPI will also be at 6%. But the actual reading for the last month was 1.4% for the month. You annualize that out, and that's closer to 16% yearly inflation. So look at that at 6%. That's the the blended rate, but the single month of April came in at 1.4% just for that one month. So if that continues, hey. Here we go. So this is the ticking clock. So here's all all these pieces in. Trump can't just sit here and wait for Iran to drag its heels forever and ever. Iran knows that that's all it has to do. Get close to a peace deal. Walk away. Get get close. Walk away. Promise you're gonna get closer. Walk away. Because I think Trump legitimately wants out of this quagmire. Mhmm. But all Iran has to do is drag this out a couple more months. And now we're not just up against the wall. We're now responsible for creating what's a global catastrophe. A giant global economic depression would probably be the right word for it. So if you can't let Iran wait, what do you do? Well, either you're gonna have to give stuff up and negotiate like, a negotiation means you don't come in and dictate terms. That's what The US has been trying to do. Here's the 15 plan. Take it or leave it, or we're gonna bomb you back to end your civilization kinda. That's our language. If we wanna get out of this with negotiating, it's gonna have to be negotiation. Hey. We give up some stuff. You give up some stuff. Nobody walks away totally happy, but you get some stuff. We get some stuff. Problem. That makes us look weak. It makes it it really elevates Iran. You know, they suddenly, you know, actually took the bully on and won. And I don't think that constitutionally, I mean, from an ego standpoint, I'm not sure we have the people in positions of power right now to do that. Second problem, you can't bomb them and and get the more escalation is not gonna get us anywhere. Iran has already said that. Real worry here. So so listen. This is where I would put out my most urgent warning to all my followers, and you should do the same. If we do attack again, Iran has very clearly said, Speaker 2: if you Speaker 1: do this, we're coming after the rest of The Gulf Coast countries, the GCC energy infrastructure assets. The East West pipeline across Saudi Arabia with the port at Yanbu goes out, the Omani pipeline goes out, and we're gonna close the Bab El Mandeb, Strait in Red Sea, and that's it. That's it. Now we suddenly go from 13,000,000 barrels a day missing to 25,000,000 barrels a day missing. And if they damage those in a way that would take months or years to fix, this is now an absolute unmitigated disaster. And let me paint how much. If we took 25,000,000 barrels a day of crude oil out of our equation, and then we look back in history and ask the question, when was the last time we were burning that much less oil? The answer is about 2010 when the world economy was 36% smaller than it is today. Wow. That would be the minimum impact. Great Depression was about a 20% hit. So we're talking something worse than we've seen at a time of the highest debt, highest indebtedness, highest deficits, la la la. Right? So we're not coming into this from a really strong position financially, monetarily at this point. And that's how these pieces come together. We got talked into a super quagmire, and I don't I I I honestly don't see a way out of this and maybe I'm not clever enough, but it's bad or worse. Those are our choices as a nation right now. Speaker 0: Wow. When do you think this will hit? And what first of all, I guess I should say, do you think people are prepared? There seems to be a lot of ostriching going on, people burying their heads in the sand about this. Speaker 1: I I would say most people are unprepared. And a lot of people don't wanna know, you know, actively ostriching. I think that's the right way to put it. Because it's a lot. It's a lot to take in. I I I get it. This is you know, intellectually, I think most people can handle it. But emotionally, that's where it gets that's best part. Speaker 0: You gotta take, you know, you gotta get your kids to dance class at night. You know, you've gotta take your son to swim swim practice, and you gotta put food on the table, and you're running around. You're working. You're you're hardworking Americans who watch this show and have big small businesses, and they're busy. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: And to, you know, to have to sit down and sort of sit there for thirty minutes and really think, oh my gosh, in the next sixty days, everything could change for us unless we're prepared. What does that preparation look like to you? Speaker 1: Well, it it for me, it means first thing you do is the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Right? Food, shelter, safety, warmth. Right? And so what I've been doing personally is, I've I've bought some more EcoFlow lithium batteries, so I'll be and I've got a solar system, so I'll be able to at least have electricity for sure, you know, which can run some things. I bought an electric car. Never thought I'd be one of those guys, but it plugs in my solar panels. I I've been I've been thinking this is something like this is coming for a long time. So I actually live on a on a small gentleman's farm here, but I believe in in growing my own food, taking really good care of my neighbors, forming local relationships to as much depth as I can because, I I really duly truly believe if this gets as bad as it could, you know, we're all gonna be, our our neighbors are gonna be our most important assets. So, really, it's it's a fundamental shift in in believing that the systems will be there for you and understanding that maybe you get a little bit of your freedom back by taking care of as much of that as you can. I don't say go a 100% grow your own food. That's impossible, right, unless you become a subsystems farmer. But if you can grow 5% of your own food, if you had to grow 50%, going from 5% to 50% is easy compared to starting from zero. Nobody wants to start from zero in this story, right, if you have to. But if you can't grow food, well, then you, you know, maybe you got local farmers. Develop relationships with them. I'm really at at kind of at that level. It's it's very it's very basic. It's it's like food and energy is where I'm really focused because, you know, we talk about oil, oil products. That's the big thing in The Gulf, but it's it's much more than that. It's a story of sulfur, which is a story of fertilizer as well and also the fertilizer directly in form of urea. Oh, it's also an aluminum story. Wait. It's also got helium. It's yeah. It's natural gas too. Like, there's so many things that got impacted from this. It's it's it's dizzying, and it's paralyzing. I totally get it. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you for that sobering read. You know, I I think about my son who is in his he's 15 and thinking about getting a summer job. And I think, how are you going to climb this ladder? We really have just not made it easy for you. And my heart is broken for where they need to start. I feel so guilty for the the world we're putting them into. That's not a question I'm just sharing. Speaker 1: I I just had the same experience. I was talking with my youngest, my youngest daughter, and she's struggling to find a job right now because the field she's looking in is flooded with people who just got booted out from AI, you know, taking over positions. So she's up against people with decades more experience who are willing to work for peanuts because they're really desperate. And she's just trying to get started. And so, you know, this is where we've this is where we've gone as a nation. So here here let me be my best glass half full kind of guy. We have to go through these pains, I think, so that we can straighten up and fly right. You know what's that old saying like hard times create good men and good men create easy times and easy times create weak men. Right? Well, we're there. Right? And weak men create hard times. So, I mean, look at this what we're doing with, like, just AI, which it has an energy component. That's why I analyze it. So much energy is going into these things. They're boxes. They're basic I call them toasters. They don't make toast. You know? They just literally pour electricity in them. They make heat and cat videos. And we're doing that at a pace where we have no idea, not even having the national discussion about how people who are displaced, who no longer have a role in society, what we're gonna do with them. We just sort of shrug and go, I guess, you know, sucks to be you. It's awful. Right? And and so this is why I'm really excited to have these conversations. And I think, listen, if we have the hard times, we'll get back we'll find the good people again. I mean, it's kinda why I'm I'm pretty distraught over the Massey loss because he Yeah. Had integrity. He didn't have to like everything. He he said, I liked almost most of what he said because he was for the country against deficits, against wars, all the stuff I believe in. So, ideologically, I liked him. But more than that, he had integrity. And Washington DC took one look at that and said, we have no use for a person with that characteristic here. We're gonna replace you with somebody whose own SEAL team members hate it, you know, because he's our kind of guy, right, with outside funding. So so I'm hopeful that good people get to rise up again, and we we we're gonna but we're gonna have to do some rebuilding in this country. No question. Speaker 0: Yeah. You're right about that. And we need we need that strength more than ever right now. Chris, great to see you. The website is peakprosperity.com. Check out your latest episode, by the way, on, called the wake up call. Oil and AI time for some soul, for some soul searching. I like that. So check it out. New episode that just published called the wake up call. You so much, Chris. Great to see you. Speaker 2: It was a pleasure. Speaker 0: Yeah. Real pleasure having you on the show. We'd love to have you back. Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. I'd love to be back. Thank you so much. Deal. Speaker 0: Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.
RedactedNews
Posted - May 13, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Saved - May 13, 2026 at 4:00 PM

@RedactedNews - Redacted

🔥 Washington thought Iran would fold. Instead, Iran is demanding the end of sanctions, billions in frozen assets, and leverage over the most important oil choke point on Earth, the Strait of Hormuz. @AnaKasparian is with us. https://t.co/impjz7goVd

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the Iran ceasefire, Iran’s negotiating stance, and how Israel’s actions and U.S. political dynamics are shaping perceptions and potential outcomes. - President Trump describes the Iran ceasefire as “on life support” and says Iran’s peace terms are “totally unacceptable” and “garbage.” Iran’s position, according to Iranian media cited in the segment, treats Washington’s peace proposal as a surrender document, insisting on the end of U.S. sanctions, release of frozen Iranian assets, the right to sell oil freely, and control of the Strait of Hormuz—a nonstarter for Washington. Trump also threatens more war, aligning with Netanyahu’s preferences. - On the ceasefire, another participant notes “the ceasefire remains in place for the time being,” while a speaker mocks the peace proposal as weak and life-supporting, using medical imagery to describe its fragility. - Netanyahu’s appearance on 60 Minutes is summarized as him “begging for more war,” outlining how to remove enriched uranium and how to achieve that goal, with emphasis on military action. He suggests “you go in” and take it out, implying American and Israeli cooperation, though one participant stresses not to reveal military plans and cautions about the feasibility and risks of such missions. There is also a claim that Netanyahu implies the United States should bear primary responsibility for military actions if needed. - The dialogue expands to a broader critique of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank, with one participant stressing that Israel is “besieged on the media front” and that propaganda has harmed Israel’s image. There is a claim that social media manipulation by other countries has contributed to negative impressions of Israel, and a consensus that Israel has not used adequate or effective propaganda in its defense. - The panel discusses the ethics and consequences of censorship, with one speaker arguing against censorship yet acknowledging the impact of social media manipulation on public opinion. They contend that attempts to silence critics or punish those who oppose Israel’s policies are counterproductive and harm Jewish communities globally by conflating Jewish identity with Israeli policy. - Anna Kasparian (The Young Turks) weighs in, describing Netanyahu as untrustworthy and arguing that Israel’s actions—targeting hospitals, education centers, and civilians—have generated global criticism. She asserts the issue is not merely a social media phenomenon but an Israel-centered one, citing the ongoing destruction in Gaza and military actions in Lebanon. She argues that U.S. support for Israel is a political question driven by lobbying, and she predicts growing political pressure against leaders who prioritize Israel’s interests over American interests. - The panel critiques U.S. political alignments, noting that Democratic and Republican positions have not yielded a clear consensus on Iran. They argue that diplomacy has varied across administrations (Obama’s JCPOA vs. other strategies), and they contend that Netanyahu’s influence has pushed the United States toward a harder stance on Iran, often aligning with Israel’s regime-change objectives. - Looking ahead, the speakers caution against a renewed kinetic war with Iran, referencing military experts who argue that the United States lacks the capacity or strategic justification for a large-scale confrontation. They emphasize the high costs, the effectiveness of Iran’s drones, and the risks of escalating conflict, suggesting that a more restrained approach or different leverage might be necessary. - The closing segment underscores uncertainty about future conflict, with a warning that a return to bombing Iran could be counterproductive and that political and public opinion dynamics in the United States are shifting, especially regarding support for Netanyahu and Israel.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, president Trump says this ceasefire in Iran is on life support. Iran's terms for peace are totally unacceptable, he says. And he described it to a reporter as garbage today. Total garbage. Listen. Speaker 1: For the time being, the ceasefire remains in place. Speaker 2: It's unbelievably weak, I would say. I would call it the weakest right now after reading that piece of garbage they sent us. I didn't even finish reading it. They said, I'm not gonna waste my time reading it. I would say it's one of the weakest right now. It's on life support. They understand these are all medical people. Doctor Oz, life support is not a good thing. Do you agree? Diagnosed. I would say the ceasefire is on massive life support where the doctor walks in and says, sir, your loved one has approximately a one percent chance of living. Speaker 0: Okay. So he's laughing about it as if he holds all the cards here. That's the funny part. He doesn't. According to Iranian media, the problem here is that Washington's so called peace proposal didn't look like a peace proposal at all. It looked like a surrender document, and Iran wasn't having it. Iran is holding all the cards here. So they went in the opposite direction. They want an end to US sanctions, the release of frozen Iranian assets, the right to sell its oil freely to whomever they want, and they want control of the Strait Of Hormuz. So that's a nonstarter. So Trump threatened more war, and he's doing the bidding of Bibby. Netanyahu, of course, went on Larry Ellison's, own sixty minutes last night and essentially begged for more war, laying out exactly how he wants president Trump to carry this out. Watch. Speaker 1: How do you envision the highly enriched uranium will be removed from Iran? Speaker 3: You go in and you take it out. Speaker 1: With what? Special forces from Israel, special forces from United States? Speaker 3: Well, I'm not gonna talk about military means, but the president what president Trump has said to me, I wanna go in there. And I think it can be done physically. That's not the problem. If you have an agreement and you go in and you take it out, why not? That's the best way. Speaker 1: What if there isn't an agreement? Can it be taken out by force? Speaker 3: Well, you're gonna ask me these questions. I'm gonna dodge them because I'm not gonna talk about our military possibilities, plans, or anything of the kind. Speaker 1: And I'm just trying to get at how long is it going to take to achieve that aim? Speaker 3: I'm not gonna give a timetable to it, but I'm gonna say that's a terrifically important mission. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. Notice I were I noticed the words you. You go in. You're an American. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 4: I'm not gonna talk about what our military does, meaning your military that I dictate. I hope you noticed those things because I certainly did. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. It's all about us. It's The United States. We don't we're not position to do that. We want The United States to do that. He did say we are winning on about seven different battlefields right now, but completely exposed on the eighth battlefield, which is social media. So losing the propaganda war, and he says, we need to fix this. Watch. Speaker 3: You've seen the deterioration of the support for Israel in The United States almost, I would say it correlates almost a 100% with the geometric rise of social media. And that by itself is not what caused it. And I I don't believe in, you know, in censoring them or anything, but I'll tell you what happened. We have several countries that basically manipulated social media, and they do it in a clever way. And that's that's something that has hurt us badly. Speaker 1: Is it your belief, mister prime minister, that nothing that Israel has done tactically or strategically has made no mistakes either in Gaza or the West Bank that have, in their own way, contributed to this negative impression of Israel, whether it's on social media or some places? Speaker 3: No. Of course. Look. It's war. And in war, armies sometimes miss and civilians die. And these are mistakes. These are not deliberate things that happen. Israel is besieged on the media front, on the propaganda front, and we've not done well on the propaganda war. Speaker 0: So we need more propaganda. Speaker 4: Mistakenly disassembled all their food supplies, farms, factories, and infrastructure. That was a mistake. Speaker 0: And it was also just Speaker 4: war crime mistake. Speaker 0: It was just a mistake when our snipers intentionally would shoot children in the head. It was just a mistake. Do these things happen in the fog of war when you intentionally targeted surgeons inside of hospitals through windows as they're attending to people in the hospitals. That's just a mistake. Speaker 4: Following medics and executing them. Oops. Sorry. Speaker 0: This this right here is a whoops. Yes. Yes. A total This is Gaza. Speaker 4: Whoops. I hate when you do that on accident, like stubbing my toe. Speaker 0: Anna Kasperian is the host and executive producer of the Young Turks and joins Redacted for the very first time. I can't believe this is the first time. Anna, great to have you on the show finally. Great to see you. Speaker 5: Hi, Clayton. Hi, Natalie. Love the show. Thank you for having me. Speaker 0: Our pleasure. So you heard you heard, Netanyahu there specifically saying that they're losing this propaganda war. And he said that countries are manipulating the truth in order to spin a false narrative. I'm just curious, like, what countries do you think he's talking about? And also, what kind of false narrative are they putting out that isn't true? Genocide perhaps, and he doesn't agree with that. What do you make of his, statements on that? Speaker 5: If Benjamin Netanyahu's mouth is moving, he's lying. So, obviously, he refuses to take any responsibility for what the entire world has witnessed over the nearly last three years. And so most people are good people. Most people see the slaughter of innocents, the targeting hospitals, the destruction of universities and schools, and they don't like it. There's no amount of manipulation on social media that could convince the American people or people across the globe that what Israel has carried out over the last nearly three years is okay and should be supported. In fact if it weren't for the bribery that has been baked into our political system. I question whether the United States government would even support Israel in the first place and if it weren't for The U. S. Supporting Israel. Honestly I don't even see how it would exist certainly in the current form that it's in going around attacking your neighbors stealing land. I mean, it goes on and on, and it's been this way for the last several decades. I mean, since the inception of Israel. So, again, this is not a social media issue. This is an Israel issue. And the inability to engage in any self awareness or assessment in regard to how Israel has carried out, the complete demolition of the entirety of the Gaza Strip. The fact that they're killing innocents right now as we speak in Lebanon. They just refuse to acknowledge that most people don't like that and are gonna be critical of Israel as it engages in that type of behavior. Speaker 4: Now I wanna ask you what you make of Netanyahu putting the responsibility of the military mission on The United States. He said, you go in and take it out. Yes. There's military might. I'm not gonna talk about it when The United States should do it. It's worth remembering that Israel has never contributed ground forces to any mission that they endorsed on behalf of The United States. I find that so upsetting and the hubris of telling us what to do. Why do you think there's not a bigger outrage of a foreign leader telling us what we need to do? Speaker 5: I think there is outrage among American people. And in fact, you look at polling and each time a new poll comes out, Israel loses more and more support from the American people. Where you're seeing a disconnect is through our political leadership, which carries out what's in the best interest of Israel time and time again and it's really a bipartisan effort to carry out what's best for Israel to the detriment of the American people. But I think what we're noticing now among the electorate is those who are critical of Israel remain critical. However, that group is growing significantly and I think in the upcoming elections what we're going to see is this flat out rejection of political leaders or candidates who insist on taking money from the Israel lobby who insist on carrying out Israel's best interest who seem to prioritize Israel over the you know best interests of The United States and so I think that now there's going to be a lot more pressure from the electorate for the political leadership to change its behavior. And if they don't, there will be consequences for that. So, again, I really don't think there's anything Israel can do in terms of censorship, More media buys you know more efforts in punishing people who are critical of Israel, none of that is going to work. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube and by the way one other thing I'll mention in regard to military operations and special forces in Iran to retrieve the enriched uranium. Remember, the enriched uranium and the nuclear weapons that Iran doesn't even have was always just a cover story in order to spur regime change in Iran, in order to start this war against Iran. Israel is a nuclear power. They're not worried about, nuclear weapons in Iran. By the way, the other thing is if you pay close attention to what Netanyahu says, he constantly moves the goalposts. So even if we were able to retrieve the uranium, which we don't even have the military capacity to do, it would literally take hundreds of thousands of troops in order to carry that out, and it would be a very dangerous mission. But even if we were to do that, Netanyahu also fearmongers about Iran's ballistic missiles. And I'm sorry. Iran has the right to have ballistic missiles. Israel would like to live in a region of the world where all of its neighbors, all of the countries in that part of the world have no way of defending it themselves and no way of challenging Israel as it expands its borders. Right now the biggest challenge to Israel happens to be Iran. Israel was never worried about Iran attacking them or invading their country or anything like that. But they do know that as they pursue the greater Israel project, which would mean taking land from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, which, I mean, they've succeeded in some of Speaker 3: that Speaker 5: already, In order to do that, they need to rid themselves of the challenge that's posed by the axis of resistance, by Iran, by Hezbollah. And so we'll see what happens. But I think in the case of Lebanon specifically, the Lebanese government wanting to disarm Hezbollah is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my entire life. Not because I would, know, support Hezbollah necessarily, but Hezbollah is really the only thing standing in the way between complete land annexation by Israel. And so if the current Lebanese military doesn't have the capacity to fend off or fight off the IDF, why would you wanna disarm Hezbollah? That makes no sense whatsoever. Speaker 0: Well, don't you hate when people say I told you so? Yeah. That's me, actually, because I I did tell you. Sorry. But I told you that gold and silver were going to reap the benefits of excessive money printing, the Fed just printing money like crazy, overvalued markets, global unrest. It's here. It's happened. Gold and silver have both soared to all time highs. So I hope you called our friends at Lear Capital and you bought some. If you didn't, trust me. It's not too late. Experts are predicting even higher prices ahead. And they get it. They know what's coming. Isn't it time, folks? Get yourself some gold and silver today. Call the best in the business. I personally use them. So does Natalie. We both do. And our kids do as well in their IRAs. Lear Capital, it's a free phone call. There's no obligation to purchase, just education information on protecting and growing your wealth with gold and silver. I'm sure there are many of you that have called and haven't purchased yet for whatever reason. Don't make the same mistake twice. Now is the time to get some gold shipped directly to you or shift some dollars in your retirement accounts over to physical gold and silver. It's easy to do. Natalie and I have done it for both, and I've been extremely satisfied with Lear's knowledge, their service, their prices. I urge you to call today and learn more. Call them. 1806133557 or go to learredacted.com, and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Right. You talk about keep moving the goalpost, and that's you may you bring up some great points. The goalpost keeps shifting. You hear from, you know, you hear from Israeli defense, officials who say this is about regime change. Like, that's the ultimate goal. It's regime change. Reiterated that again a few weeks ago. So if it's not about uranium, then it's about regime change. It's not it's not about uranium. It's about ballistic missiles. It's about, as Yatin Yahweh said yesterday on sixty minutes, it's also about proxies, so that includes Hezbollah. So this is really not ending anytime soon. And, know, inevitably, of course, Netanyahu points out that they need to fight back big time on social media in order to try to change public perception. Here, listen to him on this fighting back listen. Speaker 3: I think there's been a concerted effort by several states, to to basically vilify Israel, in the, social primarily in the social media, in the standard media too, but that's less effective. The effective thing is in the social media, And we have, we've not fought back yet. So we we'll have to do that. Speaker 0: So he says we need to try harder. We need to really employ the shift now in social media, and we need to go harder. We don't wanna censor anybody, though. He was very I don't I don't wanna I don't wanna censor what people are saying. Speaker 5: They've done. That's all they've done. Speaker 0: But now I wanna go Speaker 5: on people. So what's that that difficult. Maybe stop slaughtering. The heart Speaker 0: of it. Like, maybe also, your genocide is is at the heart of it, is the root cause of this. It's the manipulation of our American politicians, right, through APEC and other lobbying opera apparatus coming to the White House on a regular basis and manipulating us. So I guess maybe you should stop some of that. Speaker 4: And the way the reporter asks, it is comical because he doesn't wanna say, well, maybe when people see innocent children dying, they don't like it. And that can he says, is there any way that you could have done something wrong and it just was on social media? Maybe. Not like, hey, this is offensive to the human soul. He just tips tiptoes around it. That's not journalism. That's pandering. Speaker 5: Well, major Garrett works for CBS, and I'm sure he doesn't wanna draw the ire of Barry Weiss and lose his job. But either way, I mean the framing of the questions obviously were incredibly sensitive to the Israelis and that's that's not how you do journalism. You're supposed to ask the tough questions regardless of, any backlash you might receive, in this case from the Israelis or Barry Weiss. But, you know, just going back to the notion of, you know, engaging in censorship in order to change the perception of Israel. No. No. It's doing the exact opposite. So when Americans are being censored or when Americans literally lose their livelihood because one of these pro Israel groups targets them over their criticism of Israel and gets them fired. Is that going to improve The U. Perception of Israel or is it only going to further damage its reputation with The United States and honestly everything that I've seen from the Israeli government including the behavior of their own pro Israel influencers here in The U. S. Has been incredibly counterproductive and one of the worst things that Israel does is they conflate worldwide Jewish populations with their genocide and their border expansion project which is incredibly unfair to Jewish people across the globe because not all of them agree with Zionism not all of them agree with Israel and when you do that conflation which is very much intentional if you ask me unfortunately people who might not know better might start harassing or insulting Jewish people who are incredibly critical of Israel. So I just think this entire project has been incredibly counterproductive to the Jewish population. Way Israel is responding through censorship and destroying people's livelihoods is incredibly counterproductive for their own cause. But they can't help themselves because the other option would mean they'd have to stop pursuing the greater Israel project they'd have to stop annexing land that doesn't belong to them. And they would have to stop slaughtering innocent people, including doctors, including peacekeepers, including humanitarian aid workers, including women and children. And they just can't stop themselves from doing that. They they can't get enough. It is what it is, and we have to be honest about that. Speaker 0: So then the other side is then they can start to try to shut down social media companies, something they would never do, like TikTok or otherwise. They would never do something like that or have those projects sold. And now, I mean, they do have a massive PR problem. The fact that you have, like, CNN literally devoting an entire segment about how, Americans really don't like Benjamin Netanyahu. Take a listen. Speaker 6: Yes? Yeah. It's exactly right. But it's not just a problem that Israel has with when it comes to public opinion in The United States. It's Netanyahu himself who has a major problem when it comes to public opinion in The United States. Look at this. Americans say they are not confident when it comes to Netanyahu and world affairs. Look at this. In 2023, the not confident percentage was 42, up significantly, up like a rocket, up to 59%. That's a nearly 20 movement in just three years' time, and now the majority of Americans say they are not confident when it comes to b b Netanyahu and world affairs. And we're not just talking Democrats here. We're talking the entire American public nearly three and five. Alright. Speaker 0: Yeah. So it's not just Democrats, Anna. Speaker 5: Right. Well, I think if we had independent media around for longer than it's been around, I think that that percentage would actually be much higher. I mean, look at the Israeli population. The disapproval numbers are much higher in Israel as it pertains to Benjamin Netanyahu. He's a war criminal. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. He's obviously deeply corrupt and is avoiding, his own prosecution when it comes to his corruption. And so I I honestly, 59% is too low when it comes to the percentage of Americans who have no trust in Netanyahu. It should be a 100%. Speaker 4: That's what I was Speaker 0: thinking. I think he's polling too is probably a lot of older people. Speaker 4: Sure. Speaker 0: That's just my sense. Like, what young person do you ever know that answers a poll? But anyway, go Speaker 5: ahead. True. True. That's a good point. Speaker 4: I wanna ask you about the vomit that is partisan politics. You do a really good job of seeing through it. There's this false dichotomy that president Trump is trying to put forward, and I think it's an effort to win midterm elections that, you know, Democrats versus Republicans on Iran, that Democrats were soft on Iran, and Republicans are not. He's trying to promote this idea that Democrats are pro Iran. It's sort of a stupid argument, and it's not true because both Obama and Clinton rejected diplomacy with Iran. Clinton used them to get weapons to the Bosnians and then screwed them over when they asked for sanctions release. Obama launched a cyber weapon on them and ignored efforts for diplomacy. Speaker 0: Destroyed their centrifuge. Speaker 4: And so president Trump trying to sell this idea that Democrats and Obama were pro Iran, it just betrays the historical truth. The evidence suggests otherwise that The United States has been unilaterally for forty years working against Iran at whose behest we don't quite know. I have a guess. But will the voting population buy this sort of democrats are for Iran, that's why you can't vote for them? Speaker 5: I don't think so, to be honest with you. I mean, look, there's one small area where I think Obama did pursue diplomacy to some extent. Although, overall, his foreign policy was basically George W. Bush's foreign policy on steroids. However, he did secure the JCPOA, so I gotta give him some credit for that. I think that, you know, there's this big misconception, which is that in order to avoid war, right, you have to love the country that you're negotiating with. You don't have to love Iran. You can actually really dislike Iran, their system of government, whatever it is. But you could pursue diplomacy in order to secure certain things that you want. Now here's the problem, In the case of Iran, no one's really worried about them building nuclear weapons. That was always a cover story. So what exactly is it that we want from Iran? We want regime change. Now we, as The United States, doesn't necessarily want that. Israel wants that. Israel dictates our foreign policy, which is why that was what Trump initially pursued. The fact of the matter is Trump is the only president who was stupid enough to enter this war against Iran despite the fact that we had Benjamin Netanyahu egging it on for decades. Obama didn't do it. George w Bush, even though he was war hungry, didn't do it. Biden didn't do it, although I wasn't a huge fan of his foreign policy. That's for sure. Trump was the only US president who was stupid enough to be manipulated by Mossad, manipulated by Netanyahu to enter this war under this ridiculous impression that the regime is going to be toppled immediately. We're gonna weaken their military and then the people of Iran will rise up and, you know, essentially topple the regime. But obviously, that didn't. That wasn't carried out. And anyone who was paying close attention, anyone who was more informed than Trump was would have avoided this war. He is gonna suffer political consequences. The Republican Party is gonna suffer huge political consequences for this. And so if we're having a comparative, you know, analysis over which party is gonna suffer the most over decisions made with Iran, I would say it's the Republicans because of what Trump has just done. Speaker 4: Right. And I find myself my my reaction when president Trump says Obama chose Iran over Israel, I find myself thinking, I'm actually okay with that. Like, I would I would make that choice now knowing what I know that doesn't make me pro Iranian leaders. And is that the reaction they want from us? Because that's what they're getting, and it's human after what we've endured watching Israel do. Like, forgive myself that response. Speaker 5: Well, we are aligned with all sorts of world leaders and countries that have a system of government that we vehemently disagree with. I mean, are we really let's do a comparative analysis of Iran versus Saudi Arabia. Are we pretending like Saudi Arabia is, like, at the pinnacle of, you know, humanitarian rights or human rights? Please. I mean, come on. Speaker 0: So Trump's meeting with China, Xi Jinping, I mean, for crying out loud. Speaker 5: Exactly. And so I think that it would have been far better if we had formed some sort of economic alliance or just alliance with Iran as opposed to Israel. I mean, you look at the conduct of Iran versus Israel, and, I mean, it's night and day. How can you deny that? Iran is specifically targeting, you know, military bases and strategic sites. In fact, I think the best way to end this war is for Iran to maybe take it a little lighter on the Gulf countries. It it's been a smart strategy for sure. However, you need to give Israel a reason to end this war. And so maybe some of the strike should be focused on Israel until they cry uncle because obviously and unfortunately, they're the ones who get to dictate when this war ends. So maybe, persuade them that it needs to end. Speaker 0: Right. And how much of the fog has hidden? Absolutely. How much has been damaged inside of Israel? We'll probably never know. I'll get you out of here on this, Anna, which is you heard president Trump there at the very beginning saying this ceasefire is on life support, joking about it today, saying that you about a 1% chance that the ceasefire sustains. So by all accounts, we're heading back into some sort of massive conflict. What that looks like, we don't know. What's your sense of where things head next? Speaker 5: If Trump makes the mistake of reengaging a kinetic hot war, he would be making yet another mistake. He would be compounding his mistakes. All you need to do is listen to people who actually know what they're talking about. So I'm not a military expert, but I do trust those who are. So colonel Douglas MacGregor, Daniel Davis is another example. These are individuals who understand what would be necessary in order to secure the gains that Trump is seeking here, whether it be regime change, it be the retrieval of the enriched uranium. And fact of the matter is or even forcing open the Strait Of Hormuz, we don't have the military capability to make any of that happen. We just don't. And just because we're spending now close to $1,000,000,000,000 a year on our military doesn't mean we're getting our money's worth. We know that these defense contractors are overcharging American taxpayers. We know that they're increasing their profits to the detriment of, you know, military preparedness and the American people. And so, I mean, just consider the fact that Iran is, like, using these incredibly cheap, easy to make drones, and they're posing a real challenge to our military capability. That is insane, but that's just the facts on the ground, or those are the facts on the ground. So I I just don't know what Trump thinks he would accomplish by going back to bombing Iran. It didn't accomplish anything in the past. It's not gonna accomplish anything moving forward. Speaker 0: No. It's like the Vietnam conundrum, doubling down because you can't admit defeat. And just take the l and go home, unfortunately. Anna, great to see you. Thank you so much. Host of the Young Turks. Great to finally have you on the show. I can't believe, we haven't. But, you know, finally, the stars align and schedules align. So thank you for joining us. Great analysis. Really appreciate it. Speaker 5: Love the show. Keep kicking ass. Love you guys. Ditto. Speaker 0: Ditto. Thank you so much, Anna. Great to see you. Alright. Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you wanna follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and Speaker 3: we'll Speaker 0: see you next time.
View Full Interactive Feed