crashingthunder

Judy A. Mikovits PhD - Disease X - The only way it can kill you is if you inject it! It's time we remember those names! John Coffin and Jonathan Stoye! Dr Judy Mikovits: How did I know we had disease x on the Sunday after Thanksgiving in 2014? Because I own the patents for the detection and the patents for the cures and have since 2011. TV Speaker: Scientists from the UK are putting their effort into developing a vaccine for this potentially deadly pathogen. Clay Clark: OK, Dr Judy, they're developing a vaccine for disease X before disease X even exists. What the hell is going on there chief? Dr Judy Mikovits: disease X is right here. It always was XMRVs. A plague of corruption. It's in our book, XMRV. X. Disease, X. It's all about the X chromosome and epigenetics. They even made a hat at the Cleveland Clinic sponsored by Abbott Labs, November 10 2009. When John coffin Oh, there in the UK, Jonathan Stoye of Wellcome Trust, they wrote a little op ed article that accompanied that October 23 2009 science paper where we showed you how they changed the variance of disease x in order to make cancer spread like mycoplasma, then we put it right in the book. It's in an email to the Heart, Lung and Blood Institute that says: Are you kidding me? Cancer that spells and spreads like mycoplasma and you did it and it's all right there in 2009. We got a great hat. It says XMRV. They literally, the government, your NIH, John Coffin, Wellcome Trust the UK Jonathan Stoye, they were selling hats and shirts about disease X and that XMRV virus. COVID is and always was premeditated murder. Part HIV. Part XMRV and SARS. ... We've got you now boys because we've got the cures! It's all about XMRV. Gotcha! Dr Judy Mikovits, PhD - 01/18/2024 https://therealdrjudy.com/uncensored-books Watch the full interview at: https://bitchute.com/video/ZYe3EepGdbPW/ #truth #health #diseaseX #XMRV #science #faith #GodWins

12 YEARS ago Pelosi "a tactic called a wrap up smear"

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize

song is Start Small Think Big by Michael Franti & Spearhead

Everything is Energy _ Once You Learn To Vibrate CORRECTLY, Reality is YOURS

Democrats in Congress are working to shut down a TV network that criticized them. That’s illegal but it’s happening. LINK to original video here >>> https://tuckercarlson.com/the-tucker-carlson-encounter-dan-ball/ READ THE TRANSCRIPT Tucker [00:00:00] If the First Amendment means anything and it has to if this is going to remain America, it means that the US government cannot censor the news. It can't make laws to stop journalists from saying what they think is true. So that's not a arcane legal question, it's in the text. It's the First Amendment to our Bill of Rights, the whole point of America. And yet out there in the open. Democrats are working to shut down news organizations all over the country. We've reported on this for a couple of years, but in no case are they're doing it more openly than their attempt to shut down a conservative news channel called One America News. OAN. And so why are they doing this? Well, they say the channel pushes something called disinformation, disinformation you should know does not mean that something is dishonest or factually incorrect. It can be entirely true. It just means that the people in charge don't want to hear it, and they don't want you to hear it. So it's therefore, disinformation is a term stolen from the Intel agencies, which are part of the apparatus in the federal government that Democrats are using to shut down the news. So here's California Governor Gavin Newsom going after OAN for daring to say that the vaccine might not be safe and effective. Newsom Soundbite [00:01:14] Well, the platforms are of concern, of course, and platforms have to do a better job across the spectrum. But they're also those that, propaganda machines that are out there as well. Let's be candid. One American News. You're familiar with them down here, perhaps one of the great disinformation networks in America. Tucker [00:01:30] Oh, man. It's one of the great disinformation networks in America. There's a guy who lies every day for a living, and it's not a guess. It can be proven. There's a guy who locked down the entire state and then went to the French Laundry in Napa for dinner without a mask on. That guy's accusing other people of disinformation. So what you have here is the oldest story ever told. The people in power don't want to be criticized. And in a so-called democratic system, they don't want voters to know that they're liars and incompetent. So they shut down anyone who tells the truth about them or who spreads a message they don't care for. It's just abuse of power. It never changes. It's been going on since Nebuchadnezzar, and he learned it from his grandfather because it's never not existed. But this country officially disallowed it, made it illegal with the Bill of Rights, which is just now being ignored. So House Democrats are putting pressure on cable providers to cut ties with OAN, because that's not unconstitutional somehow. So we're watching all of this. It's getting no attention. And we thought, why not speak to someone at the center of it Dan Ball, he's a host of Real America on One America News on OAN, and he joins us now, is due to explain what's happening to him and his employer. Dan, thanks very much. Dan Ball [00:02:39] Tucker. Can I say thank you. Oh my gosh. Inviting me, OAN. Some of our managements here and ownership as well. We truly appreciate it. Oh I mean of course, in a voice of reason, common sense for the people, for the Constitution, for freedom of press, freedom of speech. So thank you. Tucker [00:02:57] Thank well, that's all that matters. I mean, I've got nothing to do with Oann. I don't even own a TV, as you know, but I think it is. I hate the word, but it's existential. It is a question of life or death for the country, whether or not the First Amendment stands, and the idea that Democrats in power trying to shut down a news organization for saying things you don't like, which, by the way, happen to be true things. Yes. Is really a threat to life as we know it. So thank you. So tell us, just I'll ask you simple questions and get out of the way. How are government officials trying to shut down your news organization? Dan Ball [00:03:29] So go back to 2020. Let's start with the reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop. Yes. OAN was the first one to break that. Yes, they it was legit. We had Rudy Giuliani come on with our Sheinelle Ryan and discuss it. We even went over to Ukraine and interviewed some folks. And in August we broke that story before the election. We were then called by every single mainstream media outlet and Democrats, purveyors of disinformation, Russian propagandists. There was people online saying that we were owned by Russia, that we favored Putin, that Mr. Herring was bought and paid for by Russia or Trump. I can guarantee you it's a sweet 82 year old hard working man and his two sons. Not Putin, not Trump. I can assure you I've been there almost four years. Tucker [00:04:10] Can I just say, because I've been obviously the the subject of this as well? Dan Ball [00:04:13] Yes. You know. Tucker [00:04:14] I don't really care who owns your news, anyone's news network. If it turned out that, you know, you were owned by Vladimir Putin, I would, which you're not, of course, but I would still assess the product on its own terms. Is what you're saying true or not? I mean, that's all that matters. Dan Ball [00:04:28] And what they tell us back then, the laptop was Russian disinformation. You had those, what, 50 some ex intelligence community people say it was misinformation. Disinformation, Russian propaganda. Yes, sir. And we aired it. So that's when it really started. Okay. They looked at us and went, oh my God, these guys are going to interfere with the election because we're spinning truth to power. We're telling you this laptop is real. The big guy is Joe Biden, he's taking 10%. He's used his family and his influence to make millions to enrich himself. Well, they didn't like that very much. No. And then of course, Covid. We're in the middle of Covid. We busted through the narrative of the masks aren't working. When Joe took over and he told him to get the vaccine, he was talking about that winter of death and everything. We were talking about the irregularities you'd see with the vaccine when it comes to side effects and deaths, they didn't like that. So it was kind of cascading downward from a Hunter Biden laptop story to Covid coverage. And then we had the 2020 election, okay. And we had people on, of course, discussing irregularities in the election. They didn't like any of that. So it started several ways. YouTube demonetized us. I mean, every time we put a story about Covid masks, distancing, the laptop boom, taken down, 30 day suspension, 60 days, or just try to kill the whole account. And then all of a sudden letters came out. I think about 21 or 22 and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong on the date. But you had a letter and I think I gave it to your producers. There was a letter from four Democrat senators and two California Congress folks, Democrats, who sent letters to not only all of the satellite and cable carriers, but also to advertisers. And they used that little thing from Newsguard, which I heard you talk about Newsguard in that ESG rating and pyramid system. Tucker [00:06:08] It's just a CIA operation to shut down the truth. Dan Ball [00:06:11] And they told them to get rid of. And your old network was named Fox, Newsmax and OAN. Now, who's the smallest on that totem pole? We are. So they came after us. And so they scared away advertisers. They got us kicked off multiple carriers. Frontier Verizon Direct TV. Everything, because they sent these letters. Tucker [00:06:29] Sitting members of Congress, tried to get a news channel kicked off the air and bankrupted. But isn't that right? I mean, call me naive in the country I grew up in, that was just absolutely not allowed. You weren't allowed to do that. Dan Ball [00:06:42] We're not state run TV, right? We're not supposed to be. I mean, when I got ino- Tucker [00:06:46] Against the law to do that. Dan Ball [00:06:47] Well, but does this regime care? Look what the Biden or he has been doing to this country. They don't care that look at the border. Tucker [00:06:52] So the members who just help us by doing this. Dan Ball [00:06:54] I gave you the letters. I don't have them in front of me. The problem issue was one of them from California and, yeah. And McEnany, McEnany some like that from California. That's the two Congress folks. Tucker [00:07:04] Our House rep. And your company's based in Southern California. Dan Ball [00:07:06] Yeah, we're in San Diego. You're the stomping grounds for senators. I don't recall, but they were Democrats, I can tell you that. I don't have the names off the top of my head, but again, so they use those letters, and in those letters it said, we want you to look into these purveyors of disinformation, the good old disinformation phrase. And then what do you know? Months later, we're kicked off platforms. Okay. We're demonetized on social media, are major accounts with millions of followers for OAN are shadow banned or censored or fact checked every damn day? Right? This is what's been going on since 2020. And some people covered it and talked about it in 20 and 21 for us. And then it went by the wayside. You know, we went away according to the left because they kicked us off everything. But we've been fighting like hell ever since. And so again, thank you for covering. Tucker [00:07:49] Well, I mean, it's just I'm sorry. I just have to pause to internalize all this. I mean, first of all, I'm embarrassed has taken me so long just to hear the story. I was sort of aware of it, but it's shocking to me, right? Because it is so illegal and obviously illegal. It's as illegal as anything you could do in America. Dan Ball [00:08:06] Oh, Tucker, listen. Tucker [00:08:08] For members of Congress to shut down a news organization because they don't like what it says. That is not allowed in the United States. That's like any other crime, including murder or rape. It's not allowed. And they're doing it anyway. And no one's saying anything about it, were there news stories about this? Dan Ball [00:08:21] A couple, but not really mainstream. I mean, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, places like that would cover it and say OAN is under fire, but when you have 98% is, you know, of the mainstream media that leans heavily left. And every other day we had an article from Mediaite, Media Matters, Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, even ripping away. And there's dozens of them online. Myself too. Calling me out, calling me a purveyor of disinformation, a liar, a propaganda. Tucker [00:08:45] Because you were saying that Covid vax didn't work very well. Dan Ball [00:08:48] We said that the masks weren't working, that the social distancing isn't working. And by the way, all those reports in the last few months have come out. All true. Tucker [00:08:56] How many people, you know, who died of Covid? How many people do you know who are injured or killed by the facts? I've asked that question of 100 people, not one person knows more people who died from Covid than were killed or injured by the vax. Not one. Maybe the numbers are different. I'm just telling you my experience. So that's not a crazy thing to ask. Dan Ball [00:09:10] Oh well, let me tell you. When I was out there talking about ivermectin hydroxychloroquine, which work, by the way, because I try, I did them when I was sick with Covid and I felt better in 36 hours. They I would get death threats and messages going. You're killing people by saying that. Why are you going to take chlorine in a horse tranquilizer? Morons, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin around for decades. Tucker [00:09:28] So and but it's this constellation of intell agency cutouts Mediate, rolling Stone, Daily Beast. It's the same group neoliberal effectively state media or organizations that don't represent a huge percentage of American voters or no meaningful representative, no, a percentage of voters. But they're just like they're all working in concert. They're a mouthpiece. Dan Ball [00:09:55] For the left and Democrats. Yeah, I mean, that's what they are. Look, I got into this just like you. You're a few years older than me, but I've been doing this for, gosh, I'm 50 this year. And I started at 18 in the military. Yeah. And for the Armed Forces Radio television service. So 32 years I've been doing this and I started doing it to tell stories to help the people. My brother was a firefighter. We lost him years ago to cancer, him and I got into a debate one time about my job versus his and first responders and people that help the community goes. Dan your job's important. What journalists do is like a public servant. You're out there trying to help protect the people, tell them the truth of what's going on, speak truth to power of government. And so don't don't discount yourself. Don't discredit yourself. And so that stuck with me back in oh eight. My brother told me that free past and I come to this network in 2020 and I think, oh my gosh, here's a place where I can tell the truth, Mr. Herring, his sons, they don't come down and dictate and say, you will have these hosts, you are a guest. You won't have these guests. You must use these talking points. They're like, Dan, you have 30 years of experience. We've been on the air ten years. You know more than us go. And they let me be to tell the truth. And so I really embraced that. And I got to say it, I fell in love with the network and the family, and they've treated me like family. And to watch them go through this and 125 hard working employees, it pisses me off to no end, Tucker. I bet that they can do this to us when we have that first article. It talks about free speech and freedom of the press. I've dedicated my adult life to it. And now we're dealing with this bullshit where they can just try and shut down an entire family owned mom and pop network. It's disgusting. It's so un-American. It's like what's happening with the border. Tucker [00:11:24] The people in charge, don't want to be criticized, of course. No. Right. But in this country, they're not allowed to do anything about it, but suddenly they are. Exactly. So tell me about the carriers. And for those who aren't in the in this business, explain, if you would, how that works. Dan Ball [00:11:40] From, satellite and cable and online services. So in the year of 2022, from May, August and November, if I got those three months correct and it went in this order, I believe Direct TV, Verizon Fios and frontier all dropped us. Tucker [00:11:57] So that means. Tucker [00:11:59] You produce the product, the programing, the shows, and then those shows come into the homes of your viewers through wires owned by and services provided by the companies you just listed. Dan Ball [00:12:09] And there's contracts worked out and whatnot, and I can't go too deep into all that because there's pending lawsuits, of course, but that's another way they've tried to silence us is through lawsuits. Tucker [00:12:19] Are you satisfied? Is management of the company satisfied? You sincerely believe no B.S., that you were dropped from those providers because of pressure from the Congress? Dan Ball [00:12:29] 110%, of course. Listen, right before they started dropping us, comscore, which is a rating service I'm sure you're familiar with. Yeah, correct. Nielsen at the old school books and stuff. But Comscore had us in the top 10/15 networks of all the cable channels, 200 some channels you get on like. Direct and dish, right? Yeah, yeah. We were actually scoring close to some of the Fox Business shows. We were beating Newsmax. We were claiming my show personally was claiming big time. And then all of a sudden, we're killed because they saw us growing. They saw the audience tuning in to want to hear some truth because they're not like, come on, can you trust MSNBC and CNN used to work there, and to a degree, some of the folks on Fox, a lot of the mainstream media, I think Americans are wising up. You can't trust anymore because everybody's figuring out you have to spew a narrative depending on which network you work for. So it doesn't happen at OAN. Tucker [00:13:20] Well, that is factually true. I can say. Dan Ball [00:13:23] I can tell you. Tucker [00:13:24] Yeah. No, I know that to be true. So what happens then? They just they stop. We're not going to carry your signal into people's homes anymore. Dan Ball [00:13:32] Again, I can't go into particulars. All I can tell you is that Mr. Herring and his sons tried like hell to keep us on those carriers, and we were dropped. And that's as far as I can. Tucker [00:13:42] So what do you do that? Like I get. Dan Ball [00:13:44] Up in arms. Tucker [00:13:45] An anchor on the channel. I've been in this- Dan Ball [00:13:46] Many more lawsuits against myself or the hearings and our wonderful network, and the employees don't deserve that either. So that's why, for the first time in 30 some years, I'm nervous doing this interview. Tucker [00:13:55] No, no no. Dan Ball [00:13:56] I because I don't want to get a company who's struggling to stay afloat because of what the Democrats have been doing because I misspoke. But this story is going to be told. And you have a massive audience and you can help. Tucker [00:14:08] Well, I've I've certainly very often been in the position you are now in. You're working for companies you think's doing a good thing, and they're kind to you and you don't want to inadvertently certainly cause some more problems by talking too much. Yeah. So I'm very, very familiar with that position. Dan Ball [00:14:23] But the story needs to be shared because like you said at the beginning, we're talking about the First Amendment. Tucker [00:14:28] So what happened to you? And the first woman doesn't mean anything if no one can hear you. Right. You may have a right to speak, but if you know, they lock you in a room and no one can hear your words and it's it's a it's immaterial. It's not a real right. What happened to your viewership after? Dan Ball [00:14:44] We had to not rebuild because we still were on, I think, 100 and some small cable affiliates around the country in different states where, you know, you might have a town of 50,000 and their local cable is a co-op they chose to keep, but you. Tucker [00:14:57] Could take it off. All the big ones. Dan Ball [00:14:58] All the big ones. Tucker [00:14:59] All the big ones. So then- Tucker [00:15:02] And just to be clear, without getting into the details, but just so our audience can make their own judgments about what happened and why, these companies are not connected to each other. They're independent companies. Yeah, right. So if they. Dan Ball [00:15:12] They all got the letters, they all received. Tucker [00:15:15] Those for a fact. They received the letters and they all dropped you within a short time. Dan Ball [00:15:18] If you read the letters, it literally says we sent to cable and they called the cable and satellite carriers out. So yes, I would assume it went to every single major cable and satellite carrier from these four Democrat senators and two members of the House, all Democrats. Tucker [00:15:31] So and shortly thereafter, you were dropped by all the big cable. Dan Ball [00:15:35] In the same year? Yes. Tucker [00:15:36] And then so I think a fair without knowing any other information, and maybe you guys committed some heinous crime that I'm not aware of. I haven't heard that, but just on the basis of what you said, which I think is checkable, a fair person would conclude they did that in response. Well, I think I would conclude on the basis of that information. Dan Ball [00:15:54] You're a pretty smart guy, Tucker. Tucker [00:15:56] I don't know about that, but like, I could I can note the obvious. Dan Ball [00:16:01] I think any American out there with common sense can look at the timeline and say two and two is four, because math isn't racist. Tucker [00:16:08] Right now. No, math is not racist. Yeah, maybe the only thing immune from racism. So let's destroy it. Dan Ball [00:16:14] Yeah. Tucker [00:16:15] So where does that leave the company? Dan Ball [00:16:17] So here's what we did. We had to scramble. We had seen what happened to. I mean, it was Parler. Remember? Parler got shut down because. Tucker [00:16:22] Then one. Dan Ball [00:16:23] Third party servers shut them down. We didn't. Tucker [00:16:25] Want to. And not just the servers. Like, I think it if I'm remembering correctly, it was it was everybody. Right. The entire what they call the stack. It was all the service providers between the content creator and the consumer. All I think their lawyers dropped them and it was intense. Dan Ball [00:16:38] Were worried about the same thing, right? Yeah. Just like when Trump started Truth. You've got to go build everything on your own from scratch. If you hire one of these third party vendors, they're going to listen to the powers that be. So we don't want to trust them. So we had to build our own app, build up the servers, everything. And then we launched OAN app. So you can go to our website, you download, it's like 4 or 5 bucks a month and then you get live streaming on demand everything. So we're going streaming like everybody is anyway. Because let's be real, in 20 years, what's local news and cable and satellite going to be? Everything's streaming like yes, it's moving that way. So that took us a while to wrap back. Dan Ball [00:17:10] And a ton of money. But Mr. Herring, who has an amazing story of perseverance and coming from nothing, Louisiana to creating, you know, millions of dollars for himself in multiple industries over the decades. And then getting into TV news about 10, 12 years ago, he's been kicking cash in and saying, we're going to fight this if we have to, all the way to Supreme Court. We're not backing down. We have a right to broadcast, and they cannot shut us up. Are they trying to bankrupt and put us out of business? Or they legitimately have a concern that we're purveyors of disinformation? Because I can name probably about nine of the major stories over the last 3 or 4 years I've covered. And we were right and we were right first, because we had the guts to say it, because we didn't have corporate lackeys telling us we couldn't like the other big networks. Tucker [00:17:52] So, yeah, I mean, I've been accused of being a tool for Putin, of Putin, of Russia, for, you know, which is, I would say, material affected my life. I've never sued anyone over that, you know, and I never will. So I've never sued anybody. I never will see anybody because I don't I hate it, I don't believe in lawsuits, but, but anyway, leaving that aside, it's just interesting that coming out of this is whining, but I can't resist, you know, eight years of, like, nonstop lying by The Daily Beast and Rolling Stone and NBC News and CNN and MSNBC and all the rest about really big things like life and death things, insurrections and potential nuclear war and the. Dan Ball [00:18:26] Russian collusion hoax.Exactly. I mean, if somebody is purveyor of misinformation, Tucker, why aren't those other networks getting letters sent about? Tucker [00:18:33] That is sort of the question. Dan Ball [00:18:34] They're getting kicked off for misinformation. Thank you. That's my first question. If we said something you all said was misinformation, then I can point to, as you just said, probably ten or a dozen major stories that CNN, MSNBC and others have lied or falsely reported about over the last, well, since 2015/16, since Trump came on the scene, are they kicked off careers? Are they being sued? Tucker [00:18:55] Well, our country is. Dan Ball [00:18:56] Conclusion. Tucker [00:18:56] On the verge of collapse. Our country is being invaded and we are literally on the cusp of nuclear war. Well, actually, all because of lies told by NBC news, CNN, I mean told by their masters in Washington, but repeated by them. Dan Ball [00:19:11] And people died because of the Covid lies. I mean, let's all remember again, as I said earlier, you have the winter of death and you had hosts out there like Rachel Maddow saying, if you get the vaccine, you will not spread it. You will not die. Go get it. Remember, all those people and the celebrities coming together rallied around Joe saying, you must take it. And the people that don't are going to kill people. We just told people, it's your body. No one can force you to take it. And by the way, here's the bears reporting website. Have you looked at bears? Because there's. Billions of side effects and thousands of deaths. Those were facts. Yet we would get fact checked. We would get shadow banned for saying factual. Tucker [00:19:48] Stuff you want me about. I always want I don't have any abortion ladies in my life, thank heaven. But, when I see the abortion ladies on TV, I always want to say, whatever happened to my body? My choice, you know? Right. Whatever happened to that? Yeah. Dan Ball [00:20:01] I know, and that's different because actually. Well, it's two lives. Obviously, if you take the shot, you're risking your own life. And if you're for abortion, you're killing a life, of. Tucker [00:20:10] Course, but but just that slow. Dan Ball [00:20:12] You'll bring that. Tucker [00:20:12] Up, too. In my whole life, like, whatever, we made an exception for the VAX because why? But anyway, I want to ask you again with in a little more detail. So all of this is happening and everyone's ignoring it, including me. Dan Ball [00:20:26] I know you were busy. Tucker [00:20:28] I don't know about that. I just, you know, there's a lot going on. I missed it somehow. I should've I. Dan Ball [00:20:31] Wouldn't have allowed you to have me on. Tucker [00:20:32] I don't know about that. I never even really read about it or thought about it. It's just like so much drama going on. Dan Ball [00:20:37] That's true. I like to keep up. Tucker [00:20:38] It was publicly available. This information I know since you texted me and I went back and checked like. An informed person could know. Dan Ball [00:20:45] You can do two minutes of research on, I'm not pitching that other one. And you can find it. Tucker [00:20:50] Exactly. Dan Ball [00:20:51] I'm not gonna say the G word. Tucker [00:20:52] Exactly. Show it to me. It's not even about the vax or how corrupt NBC news is. Irretrievably corrupt. But it's about the First Amendment to the Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from doing what Congress did to you. Dan Ball [00:21:06] Correct. Thank you. Tucker [00:21:07] And so my question is, where are the First Amendment watchdog groups and all the media organizations and the white House Correspondents Association and all the people are supposed to be protecting us from to tell. Oh, wait. Dan Ball [00:21:17] White House correspondents. Hold on. Can I button quick? Yeah. You mean the folks that wouldn't give us a seat at the table in the press room? Yeah, look that up. So our Ryan, our white House correspondent, should have gotten a seat there. They pushed back. Your fellow journalists in DC pushed back. Wouldn't let her sit. So for a couple of years, you had to stand in the corner once the Biden regime got in. They kicked us out. By the way, this is factual. You can have some for camera guys in Chanel, our tent that we have on the white House lawn when the Biden regime took over, guess what happened multiple times. Our internet line would be cut. So either that's a journalist or white House staff. So I thought you were. Tucker [00:21:49] Going to give your tent to illegal aliens. Dan Ball [00:21:54] I know they can't. They're not gonna live at the white House. Please. They want you to go to your house if they want. They want to give you 500 bucks in Michigan to put them in your house there, right? Why am I so yeah, that happened that literally multiple occasions. As they would come in, the camera guy would set up, we try to dial in and oh, what's wrong? Grab the line. It's cut or it's broken. Who did that? Was it other people in the press corps? Oh, I didn't like going in. Or was it white House staff? I don't know, had to be one of the two. Who else is on the grounds going to cut our cord? Tucker [00:22:22] It's probably. It really is like getting booted out of a country club you don't want to be a member of, though I know, having spent my life there and a lot of time at the white House, it's like the worst, saddest, emptiest, most insecure people in the world cover that stupid beat and pretend like it's important when of course, it's not at all. You can get it all on C-Span and they're- Dan Ball [00:22:40] In such a bubble. They have no clue what it means to be a regular American who's out there struggling. Tucker [00:22:46] They're also like sad, bitchy little people. Dan Ball [00:22:48] They are so impressed. Tucker [00:22:48] Impressed. Dan Ball [00:22:49] A misery, and that's liberals. Tucker [00:22:51] How is that impressive? Dan Ball [00:22:52] Yeah. Liberals in general, I think are miserable people. And the ones in the press corps are even worse because they're so snotty and arrogant and elitist, and they think they know better then conservative media people or just regular Americans. Tucker [00:23:04] The hell is I can't stand? I'm standing there. All right. Dan Ball [00:23:07] You did it all those years, by the way. Tucker [00:23:08] What did you say? Dan Ball [00:23:09] I don't know how you did it all those years. Tucker [00:23:10] Well, I never covered the white House. I would just show up, you know, occasionally to do various things. But I always hated it in there. Living out of vending machines in a former swimming pool, waiting for some low IQ political operative to feed them lies and pretending they're real. And it's like, that's your life. Really? Can your wife possibly respect you or sleep with you? I don't think so. Like, it's just not possible. It's just not possible. And so I understand their bitterness and rage because it's really about themselves and their own wasted lives. Right? Dan Ball [00:23:36] Unhappy. Tucker [00:23:37] But I do think at some point they have to take a stand on principle, just on behalf of the profession itself in the country and say, no, government is not allowed to shut down news organizations because they don't like what they say. Did anyone stand up for you? Dan Ball [00:23:51] Is there anybody I'm forgetting that actually stood up for us? No, I'm trying to remember. I can't think of. I mean, when I would have guests on from different entities like Gateway Pundit, the Hoffs, they would do articles. They stood up for us. Breitbart did a couple. I think those two, I don't recall. And, you know, what's sad is what. Tucker [00:24:08] Happened in Gateway Pundit, I think I don't think there's any news organization in the world that's being sued by more left wing groups and Gateway Pundit. Dan Ball [00:24:14] Yeah, they might beat us. They might beat us. But yeah, there wasn't a lot, from what I recall. And I'm trying to remember if anybody else did, I mean, I would have guests on my show that were from other entities, and they would say things to support us and then post things. But as far as, like doing full stories or one hour interviews and discuss it now, nobody did because I guess, no, we weren't big enough for something or organization. Tucker [00:24:37] Well, I mean, it doesn't doesn't matter. We spent 70 years hearing about the McCarthy blacklist and the darkest moment in American history, and all those guys went on to win Academy Awards or whatever. They were fine. Not defending the blacklist. I'm not for it, but. But all these, this constellation of First Amendment free speech groups arose in the wake of the Red scare. And their job was to protect the principle of freedom of speech and the First Amendment as written. And none of them defended you? Dan Ball [00:25:04] No. You know, I think that the American people are seeing through the facade of mainstream media, especially just what, two weeks ago with the bloodbath statement of Trump. And thanks to Elon opening up X so people could see it, unlike everything's been stifled and all social media thanks to Zuckerberg and those guys. Right. So I think just that one little, one little tidbit where they saw how the media takes a sound bite at of context, and then the politicians take it and make ads, and you had millions of people on X for days. We can have to go discussing how. And these were lefties, independents and righties. Everybody was discussing it. I think that and the spaces and things on X where he's opened it up to free speech, that is the new town square. And I hope that and places like Oann are going to save us, because I think the people, some are waking up and finally seeing the truth. It took a long damn time. Look at the border situation, right? We've been reporting on the border. I went down there the first week of March after Biden took over. So six, seven weeks, six weeks into his regime. I went to Yuma, Arizona. They were already seeing three times the numbers from Trump in six weeks. And now we've seen 500 times the numbers. But no one in the country really knew about it because the CNN, MSNBC, the big old three, ABC, NBC, CBS, they weren't going down there. They weren't going to Del Rio. They weren't showing you what was happening. We were, again, misinformation, disinformation. And then what, 3 or 4 months ago when the polls came out that the border was tied with the economy, all of a sudden the regime change their narrative, the media starts covering it, and now the American people are waking up. Tucker [00:26:31] But you got to wonder, though, I mean, and you're in a good position to answer this because you've been in this business your whole life. Well, those places do seem like they're in their death throes, like Joe Scarborough. Dan Ball [00:26:42] Like if you look at their numbers. Tucker [00:26:44] Their numbers, that's what I'm saying. So Joe makes whatever 10 million or 12 million or whatever Joe makes. But if Joe Scarborough, like, walked into the NBC news HQ tomorrow, would he ever be able to sign a contract like that, like the business model? No. So the people currently on the air at those channels are really on their last contracts. Because none of this. Dan Ball [00:27:04] I hope so. Tucker [00:27:05] Nobody watches it, right? Dan Ball [00:27:06] Yeah. Well, I'm glad you brought up Scarborough since he's gone so hard against Trump the last couple of weeks. And I love the fact that you just interviewed Cuomo. So bring Cuomo up the other night he had Geraldo on and they were discussing the coverage of the bloodbath comment and other things, and they were talking about how these guys are hypocrites, how Mika and Joe leading up to the 2016 election, had Trump won, like every other morning and they were kissing his ass. And now fast forward a few years and it's he's the devil. He's the you know, the phrase he's a threat to democracy. We're Republic, by the way. Thanks, idiots. But every day threat to democracy. And they call us that threat to democracy. What the hell does that mean? Free speech is a threat to democracy. Tucker [00:27:43] Interesting. If you wake up in a country, all of a sudden you're getting a moral lecture from, of all people, Joe Scarborough. Dan Ball [00:27:50] Or Joy Reid. Tucker [00:27:51] We're all left. Yeah, but especially Joe Scarborough. Yeah. Well, Joe, I was just like an idiot. An angry idiot, but. Dan Ball [00:27:56] And the most racist. Thank you. The most racist host on. It's unbelievable. Tucker [00:28:02] Want a moral lecture from Joe Scarborough is. So it's hallucinogenic. I can hardly even believe this is happening. Do you know what I mean? Dan Ball [00:28:09] Yeah, exactly. Tucker [00:28:10] It's like getting a fitness lecture from an obese person that's like, I don't judge that you're fat. And Joe's case. I don't judge that you're evil. Like, you've got to deal with God on that question. That's not for me to judge, but for you to lecture me about morality. Yes. Dan Ball [00:28:25] There's so many are so many skeletons in those main hosts and talk show host. I don't call them anchors anymore. I love they still call themselves journalists. That's what really pisses me off too. Tucker. When I got this job almost four years ago, I made it apparent to viewers, this is an opinionated, conservative talk show. You're going to hear some facts, you're gonna hear my opinion. But they never do that. The other night when MSNBC was doing their A victory lap and we got rid of Ronna McDaniel. Yeah, you had Joy and Rachel literally saying we journalists stood strong. And I'm so glad that the CEO at NBC changed his mind. I'm like, did you just call yourself journalists? Are you shitting me? Tucker [00:29:02] It's also, that's. Dan Ball [00:29:03] The biggest line of you guys are propagandists. I mean, I don't call myself a journalist any longer, even though I did it for 30 some years because now I throw my opinion in. But I remind viewers of that because a lot of American people are so busy, they're so stressed out with the economy, they're so worried about crime, their kids education, going to a war that they don't have time to pay attention, that everything in primetime is not a newscast, folks. It's people's opinions. Those are talk shows. Tucker [00:29:27] Oh, I agree, but a lot, a talk show host. Yeah, that's what I am. Dan Ball [00:29:30] But these guys lie to American people every day and. Tucker [00:29:33] No one's even listening. Dan Ball [00:29:35] Well, that's true. Their numbers are dwindling. That's the only hope I see. And the next couple generations. Right. The the Z-ers and the millennials are all in line anyway. Nobody's watching traditional media. They're streaming everything. They're getting their news on X, of course, Instagram or TikTok. So yeah, this old school set. In a corporate setting is done. What you're doing is where everything's going. You have a studio. You still. Tucker [00:29:55] It feels that way. I mean, I'm only here by accident because I was totally out of options. I worked for everybody. I kept getting fired. Dan Ball [00:30:01] But you're all about happiness. You aren't. Tucker [00:30:02] You? Oh, 100%. Dan Ball [00:30:04] More leash of the corporate assholes. No, but. Tucker [00:30:06] I'm just saying I'm hardly at the, you know, leading edge of anything. I. I'm usually the last person to see the leading edge. It's already gone. I'm, like, waving at it as it drives by. So I just kind of wound up here. But now that I am here, it's very obvious that all the other I've worked for every network, that all of them, you know, it's just that things are changing really fast. Yeah, it does feel that way. Dan Ball [00:30:29] It does. Tucker [00:30:29] So, just bottom line, first of all, thank you for doing this. Second what? And finally what it like what's going to happen with OAN, do you think? Dan Ball [00:30:36] I think that we're going to win. I think we're going to survive. I think that we're on the right side of history. I think that and I know the family and myself very religious. We're putting it in God's hands. And I also know Mr. H. Mr. herring, the owner, who is one hell of a fighter like me, says we're not backing down, so I think we will prevail. I think we'll get through it. And I think we'll only grow while the old dinosaurs die. That's what I hope happens. I hope that, and I think it will just. Just like you're going to go with this versus just doing the show with Fox. Not that that was bad. You were averaging 4 million viewers. But look at your videos now. Tucker [00:31:10] Yeah. I mean, I just want to say what I think. Dan Ball [00:31:12] They're even better. Tucker [00:31:13] That's it. I just want to say what? I think. I'm on the Jimmy Cliff program. I'd rather be a free man in my grave, you know. Dan Ball [00:31:19] I agree. Tucker [00:31:20] Hey, man. Dan Ball, thank you for for telling us. Dan Ball [00:31:22] No, Tucker. Tucker [00:31:23] And I'm sorry it took me so long. Dan Ball [00:31:24] No, that's okay, man. We appreciate the support and just getting the word out about who I. And oh, man is where we come from. What we're trying to accomplish with speaking truth to power and what's being done to us. Because as you've said throughout this entire interview, it is a direct assault on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, something you and I have dedicated our life. Tucker [00:31:43] Of course, I just I mean, I actually agree with what you're saying, but even if I disagreed with what you're saying, I'd be every bit as outraged. We just interviewed a black nationalist. Communist, who's facing life in prison for saying things the Biden administration didn't like. And I, I brought the same level of outrage to that because, like, you can't tell people what they can say that's not allowed because you're not God and they're not slaves. Simple. Dan Ball [00:32:08] That's what we were taught growing up here. Right? Let's see if we can continue that. Thank you Tucker. Tucker [00:32:26] Hey, it's Tucker Carlson. The internet is crowded with interesting things that don't really matter. On TCN, we attempt to bring you interesting things that actually do matter, and a lot of them interviews, long form and short videos, documentaries. You can find all of it on TuckerCarlson.com, and we hope you will.

Aleksandr Dugin is the most famous political philosopher in Russia. His ideas are considered so dangerous, the Ukrainian government murdered his daughter and Amazon won’t sell his books. We talked to him in Moscow. Published Apr 29, 2024

"The Unprotected Class, How anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart" There is systemic racism in the United States, against whites. Everyone knows it. Nobody says it. How come? Published Apr 24, 2024 link to original here >>> https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-jeremy-carl-racism/ transcript Tucker [00:00:00] If somehow you were able to be airlifted directly or teleported directly from 1994 to 2024, you'd notice an awful lot of changes. Primary among them would be the internet. But the biggest change you'd probably notice about our public conversation is how white people were so openly attacked and denigrated. Yes, a racial group. So in 1994, you were about 30 years past the civil rights movement. And in 1994, the operating assumption of virtually everyone in the United States was the main lesson of the civil rights movement. Of the letter from the Birmingham Jail on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and all the different sacred moments that we grew up hearing about. The main lesson of those moments was it is immoral, in fact, unacceptable to attack people on the basis of their race. So then, if you fast forward 30 years to find the same country engaged in a public hate frenzy against people because of their race, you would find that bewildering. How did this happen? Of course, there would be the discrimination, the institutional racism of hurting people on the basis of their race in hiring, in admissions to schools, in federal contracting, in promotions. There would be all of that, but there would also be the public manifestation of it, of saying, oh, well, we just don't like you. You're not as good. You are morally defective because of your skin color. You say this about white people, people who founded the United States. You'd be shocked by that. And then to turn on the TV and see the president of the United States do the very same thing. You'd think maybe you'd been drinking ayahuasca. You'd see Joe Biden say things like this: Biden Soundbite [00:01:38] History has thrust one more urgent task on us. Will we be the generation that finally wipes out the stain of racism from our national character? We've all seen the injustice on the neck of Black Americans. Racism, nativism, fear, demonization have long torn us apart. But a black parent, no matter how wealthy or how poor they are, has to teach their child. When you're walking down the street, don't have a hoodie on when you go across the street. Domestic terrorism from white supremacists is the most lethal terrorist threat in the homeland. News Soundbite [00:02:19] If I were your daughter, what advice would you give me the next time I am stopped by the police? Biden Soundbite [00:02:26] If you're my daughter, you'd be a Caucasian girl and you wouldn't be pulled over. Tucker [00:02:31] White supremacy is the most lethal threat to the United States. White people are the threat. They are evil and they are dangerous. That's not just a senile President making that one statement. That is the people in charge of the country reinforcing that statement and that theme every single day of the year, not just by their words, but with their deeds. What is this? Why does no one mention it's happening? Why does anyone who does mention it's happening get attacked as a white supremacist for complaining about racism? And maybe more important, where does it go? Is there any other ending to the story but hurting people physically, lots of people? Could we have a resolution that doesn't look like Rwanda? Jeremy Carl is an author who's thought a lot about this. He's got a brand new book called The Unprotected Class, How anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart. He joins us now. Jeremy, thanks so much for coming on. It may be a an advantage or maybe disadvantage of being a little bit older that it's this is like the one thing you never thought or I never thought you would see in America, which is our leaders openly attacking people on the basis of their race. Just 60 years after the civil rights movement that supposedly taught us the opposite lesson in the Civil Rights Act. So how did this happen, do you think? Jeremy Carl [00:03:43] Well, it's an interesting question, right. And I think you just hit on a key point, which is 60 years. We are as far now from the Civil Rights Act as they were basically from the Wright brothers. So there's been a lot of time that's kind of, a lot of water under the bridge since that time. And a lot of things have happened. And I think it was begun with very sincere intentions, but I think rather quickly, certainly, you know, 10, 20, 30 years down the line, it got really hijacked to the point that we went from trying to treat people equally to what has eventually amounted to reverse racism. Tucker [00:04:19] Right? Or just I guess I would just call it racism, because it seems like the standard would remain the same. No matter the race of the person being discriminated against. You can't attack people. You can't punish people for the color of their skin for how they were born. So like that seems like a pretty easy principle to uphold is pretty straightforward. Jeremy Carl [00:04:38] Well, I would agree with you, Tucker, but it's, you know, nonetheless, we're really seeing throughout and this is what I really wrote the book about throughout many different areas of endeavor, and whether that be when we're looking at how, crime gets talked about to what's going on in Hollywood, to the educational system and monuments coming down and everything you could imagine, kind of the white person is kind of the great enemy. It's the, the kind of, the evil guy in 1984, the kind of two minutes of hate we have to have against him. The Emanuel Goldstein figure, kind of is the white person in particularly the Democratic Party discourse today. Tucker [00:05:20] What's interesting, though, is it typically when you see these moments of scapegoating, which are clearly, you know, kind of inherent to people, I mean, they pop up in every society at every time through history, like there's something in people that wants to separate a small group and like, blame all its problems in that group. But it's usually it's the minority. Of course, you know, the persecuted minority, whites are still, for at least as of today, probably change soon, of course, but they are still the majority in the country. So like, have you ever seen anything like that happen? Jeremy Carl [00:05:48] You know, I haven't Tucker. It's it's kind of amazing to watch because this is whites are still a 58% majority. It's no longer a majority of the under 18, but of adults it's still a solid majority. It's a super majority of our voters still in every presidential election, although just barely in the last presidential election. And yet they've become this figure of hate. And it's really been kind of fascinating and disturbing to watch and to kind of think about why that happened. And one of the things I suggest in my book is that really ultimately, this is a legitimizing ideology for ultimately resource transfer and resource confiscation. And that takes, the form of some of this reparations conversation or land back or some of these other things, and they sort of start out on the extreme left and everybody goes, oh, well, that's silly. That's never going to happen. And then all of a sudden, you know, it is happening and you're a racist if you think it's a bad idea. Tucker [00:06:44] Yeah. I mean, of course it's happened and it's still happening in other countries. You know, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and the whites were killed and their land was taken and their money stolen. And it's happening in South Africa right now. Of course, we're not supposed to look at it, but it is happening, actually. I wonder why people are, why the majority is putting up with it? Jeremy Carl [00:07:04] Well, that's a good question, Tucker and I, I can't even fully I don't have the perfect answer for that myself. And ultimately, I one of the main reasons I wrote this book is because I don't think the majority, I don't think anybody should be putting up with it, regardless of race. I mean, we shouldn't have, we shouldn't be putting up with racial discrimination in our society in 2024. But I think, you know, kind of white people, they're almost it's like a Stockholm syndrome, almost where they're they're like in a hostage mode in terms of some of the ways that they're thinking where they they sort of are in love with their captors. And they're not able to kind of accept what's going on, and particularly on the left, it's this sort of notion that, because we, of course, like every nation, have had an imperfect past, that white people have some hereditary blood guilt. And I think the balance of American history just shows that that's a really myopic and childish way to look at our history in our country. Tucker [00:07:59] Well, it's demonstrably absurd if America is so racist, if systemic racism is such a barrier, then why are nonwhite people moving here by the millions. So obviously that's silly, but it's a little weird to say that, you know, you hate whites, but you need to live in a country founded by whites who systems are Anglo systems like that. I mean, maybe I'm being too logical here, but it doesn't make any sense. Jeremy Carl [00:08:22] No, it doesn't. And I mean it sort of. It points to some of the absurdity here. And you also touched that. Of course, people from all sorts of different backgrounds are clamoring at the door. We're right now dealing with this, of course, with illegal immigration. And even if you look at some of these groups and again, something I discuss in the book, there are all sorts of nonwhite ethnicities in this country among immigrants and among citizens, in which, particularly among Asian American groups, but not exclusively. I mean, if you were to even look at Nigerian Americans, or particularly Igbo Americans, for example, they would have an average, higher, income than the average white American. And so this kind of notion that whites are sort of on the top is really a selective editing of any story, no matter how true that belies that or any statistics that belie that. It's one of the reasons you actually see Asian Americans frequently eliminated from these comparison sets when they're talked about, because it doesn't tell the story that, the left wants to tell. Tucker [00:09:21] Well, it's just a lie. I mean, the Labor Department collects these stats and you could say, well, maybe they're fake stats. Tell me how they're fake, but they've been, this trend has been going on a long time. I don't, I don't know if native born whites are in the top ten for income, actually, groups, but they're not near the top of the top ten, that's for sure. I've seen the numbers. I just saw them. So that's, so you're lying if you say that. So there's that. But again, I want to get back to the core question, which is why would anybody put up with this, this were happening to people from Madagascar? I would be as against as I am now. But it's particularly weird that the people whose ancestors founded the country are putting up with it. I hear all the time young people say, well, like, I can't really get a job. I have no expectation working in a big company because I'm a white male. It's like, why would you accept that? Like if you're 22, what did you do to deserve that? And what does it say about your country that it's doing it to you? Like why do people put up with that for a second? Jeremy Carl [00:10:13] I agree, Tucker, I mean, and I wrote this book because I didn't understand that either. And what I the only thing I can come up with, they're not the only thing, but the leading kind of hypothesis I can have is that a lot of people have kind of been so brainwashed by a lot of the propaganda from the left, that they're just simply not aware of some of the realities here. And so what I've tried to do in the book is just to detail the enormous number of ways throughout many, many different areas of endeavor right now where whites are being discriminated against and to say, hey guys, we shouldn't be putting up with this. Why are we putting up with this? We certainly wouldn't put up with it if any other group were being discriminated against in this way. So why do we not have the self-respect to kind of, stand up for ourselves? Tucker [00:11:00] Well, I, I couldn't agree more. And it's not that we wouldn't be putting up with it if any other group was being discriminated. It's just that other group wouldn't be putting up with it. And you see that, and there are groups who just won't put up with it. And I say that with admiration because why would anyone put up with racism, especially since anti-racism being against racism is our state religion. So I mean, how paradoxical that in a country where the one thing you can't be is racist, that anti-white racism is enshrined in law, custom and culture and no one mentions it? Jeremy Carl [00:11:34] I agree, it's mysterious. And I think one of the encouraging things is when I started to write this book a couple of years ago, and when I started even more thinking about writing this book, a few years before that, a lot of this stuff felt very taboo to even mention, even though it's obviously, as you just noted, it's it's obviously self-evidently true. And therefore it shouldn't be taboo at all. And I think one of the encouraging things is that we're beginning to see people and, and you've really been a stalwart on this, but there have been there been other folks in the media environment, folks like Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk. And there have been politicians, guys like J.D. Vance who are kind of now speaking up, and they aren't just saying like, hey, it's fine. You know, you can just go discriminated against white people and that's fine. We're not going to say anything or we're going to be too cowed. We're going to be too intimidated. I've really seen an improvement in the dialog just in the time even I've been writing this book. But at the same time, there's still a long way to go before we really kind of reach a point where we can have a candid conversation about this stuff that is actually based on reality, rather than a left wing fantasy. Tucker [00:12:42] I guess what what bothers me a little bit is that, you know, the justification for hurting whites has always been effectively as a species of the reparations argument. Like, you know, whites have hurt other people, therefore it's their turn in the barrel or something like that. You need to make up for something that your ancestors did, I guess, but that, I guess, kind of works sort of. Maybe if you're talking about the majority. But the second whites are no longer in the majority, and that's going to happen very, very soon, maybe already has happened. We don't know because we don't know the real population numbers because of illegal immigration. But we're right on the edge of whites not being the majority. Like at that point do whites get to say, well, now I want you know, some advantage in college admissions. Now, I want my kids to go to Harvard for free. And I want government contracts in a preferential way. Like what happens then? Or does the anti-white hate just get louder? Jeremy Carl [00:13:39] Well, that's the concern. And I think one of the things again, I talk about in the book, is we are essentially moving, as you just alluded to, to what is effectively a post white America. Now, how quickly we get that depends on whether Joe Biden ever decides that he's going to shut the border, and whether the Republicans are ever actually going to do anything if he continues to refuse to. But we're headed in that direction. And so then the question becomes, when you look at the history of multi-ethnic countries where you have unequal resource distribution and whatever else, that is a recipe historically, not in every case, but in many, many cases for violence. And so that should be of great concern to us. Yeah. And again, I'm not sort of I didn't write this book with the notion that, hey, you know, we just are writing this for white people, and white people should be the only one caring about it. Every American who is interested in living in what is going to be a multi-ethnic country that, gives hopefully equal rights to everybody should be concerned about this issue, because if we don't treat a very large group fairly, then there are going to be some people are just saying, you know, I'm not going to put up with that and who knows where that leads, but not anywhere good, I wouldn't think. Tucker [00:14:54] Well, and you already see it at the margins. You know, you don't want people to be radicalized. You want people to have to be radicalized along racial lines because they're irresolvable opinions change, skin color doesn't. So if we have any kind of race conflict, it it can it can go on for many generations and has, of course. But I think about South Africa, which in 1994, when it was handed voluntarily to the ANC, had nuclear weapons. And now parts of the country don't have consistent electricity. So the ANC is totally destroyed the country, it's a black party, and yet they're still blaming whites, the small minority of South Africans who are whites for all the problems. And so you're thinking, well, if that's the future here. Like, that's very grim, I think. Jeremy Carl [00:15:41] Oh, absolutely. And I'm not, I'm not. So I don't think fortunately, things are so dire here that we're likely to wind up in a South African situation where they can't even keep the power on. But I do worry that we may be Brazilianizing our society, where you essentially have, a few people kind of at the very top, living with guards, kind of under a lot of security. And things are maybe kind of good for them. And everybody else is sort of, you know, in a much worse sort of situation. And you kind of have, certain types of, of very polarizing racial politics beginning even to emerge, in Brazil as well. So I think, you know, I'm not worried that we're going to turn into South Africa tomorrow because of that. But given America and given our history and traditions and and the great beacon of freedom and opportunity that we've been for everybody, to even take a step in that direction is just something that we should do everything that we can to hopefully avoid. Tucker [00:16:46] Yeah. I mean, I should say about Brazil, you know, Brazil's had a pretty pyramid shaped economic system for a long time, and I don't think that's a good thing. You want a middle class, but Brazil has not had Brazil is a multiracial society like way more than the United States. A lot of people from different ethnic groups, okay, who intermarry and always have for hundreds of years, they haven't had until pretty recently, like the last ten years, hard core American style race politics. These have been economic arguments, which I think are fine to have because your economic system can be changed with one piece of legislation. Your race can never be changed. So I, I don't understand the difference ideologically between just ideologically, leaving aside resources and history and all this stuff. But like the ideas of like the Barack Obama Democratic Party seemed identical to the ideas of the ANC or Malema in South Africa, I don't what, is there a difference that you see? Jeremy Carl [00:17:42] Well, I don't think there is. I mean, okay, I mean, we're not yet at the kind of "Kill the Boer" chant level of, of overt racism in, in South Africa that they have, although that we're kind of heading maybe in that direction. Tucker [00:17:54] There was a book last year in Amazon, it was a bestseller. It was like eliminate whites. I mean, that was the name of the book written by some Indian guy. What? Jeremy Carl [00:18:03] It's it's yeah, it's crazy. And, I think it's certainly there's a lot of concern that we should have about the situation that we're in right now. But I'm not necessarily of the view that that it's going to be quite as bleak as it currently is in South Africa. But what I do see is that, some of this rhetoric is just incredibly toxic from the Democrats that, the direction that they would like to go is really of a sort of racial caste system, and that what we, what we're going to kind of do as a result of that is going to be something that would be very, very bleak for, for every American. But but certainly for white Americans most of all. And again, we've got to start calling them out on this, because until, you know, if we were letting them get away with these sorts of lies of, kind of police racially targeting African Americans and, and kind of, you know, America's history is nothing but violence and racism. Then, it's going to be very, very bleak in terms of what things are going to look like in the future of this country. Tucker [00:19:11] And my last question, since I know you've thought about this more deeply than anyone, probably. Do you see this accelerating or do you foresee I'm saying prayers for this, a future where we're not like talking about race that much, because it's not that interesting. And we're talking about the things that unite us in the ways to make the country better. Like what it does seem like this election year may be a potentially a turning point or an acceleration. Which do you think? Jeremy Carl [00:19:38] Well, I think that the left is definitely accelerating. I mean, as it becomes less and less true to speak of any sort of white systemic racism, the left is just amping up their, their conversation, about that, you know, their rhetoric around that. At the same time, I think there is more resistance that I just touched on. And you and others have really been in some ways at the forefront of that, which I'm very thankful for. But, I kind of feel like the best case that's realistic is that to use a kind of Cold War analogy, we move to what's called a mutually assured destruction. And that keeps us safe. So with the left has to understand, is when they use this type of racial rhetoric that is scapegoating whites, that is blaming everything on whites. That is saying white people are kind of the cause of all problems or that are going on in this country that, they need to understand that there's going to be a very painful and direct political blowback to them for doing that. And, that requires us to organize on our side to say, to actually arrange that type of blowback, to make them understand there are cost to that type of racist rhetoric that they're using. And then if that happens, they may say, well, okay, you know what? Maybe it's best that we kind of cool this off, that we don't use this type of rhetoric, that really what we want to do is, is sort of take race out of the public dialog. In this way, we're not going to scapegoat whites anymore because we understand that that, creates a politically painful scenario for us as well. But to create that sort of thing, which I think would ultimately lead to racial peace, and it would allow us to talk about these things that, as you know, would be much, more important and things that we should all be caring about far beyond race. We need to be a credible, credible deterrent to them. We need to show that we're not going to put up with, what, the sort of behavior that they've been engaging in. That's why I wrote my book, The Unprotected Class. And I sort of suggest in the book that, you know, ways that we can go to get there. Tucker [00:21:46] Man, I, I couldn't agree more. I remember watching the Republican still, the Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu. Really, what kind of an awful person, but say that the problem with New Hampshire was there too many whites in it? I remember thinking, is anyone else hearing this? You're attacking people who live there, whose ancestors have been there for 300 years to attack them because their skin color really, and he gets reelected by Republicans. And so I hope your book increases the sanctions on people who use racist ideas for political gain, because I think it's wrong. Jeremy Carl [00:22:17] Well, I agree, and I appreciate having the opportunity to go on and talk about it with you and appreciate all the work that you've done to really highlight this issue over the years. Tucker [00:22:26] Yeah, I mean, I'm fine, by the way. You know what I mean? It's the principle that drives me crazy. Jeremy Carl [00:22:33] No, but I think I'm great. I'm I'm glad, Tucker, that you mentioned that because, there's, you know, one of the rhetoric, one of the things that they used to kind of try to shut us up is to say, oh, you know, it's it's just whining. It's it's your being. You must be a loser. You must have a terrible life if you're worrying about that. No, I actually have a fantastic life. Personally, I have a loving family. I'm really happy, you know, five kids. But I'm looking at the future of our country. Yeah, and I'm concerned about the really concerned about the direction. And I'm concerned about my future for my kids. And not just for my kids, but for other kids of all different races in the U.S.. I want them to grow up in a country of opportunity and a land of opportunity for everybody, which was the country that I really grew up in. But I think in many ways this is becoming less true for everybody. Now, if you don't kind of check the right demographic boxes. And so that's why I wrote the book and that's why I'm speaking out. Tucker [00:23:24] Amen. You have your own water fountains. You got, you got some balcony seats in the movie theaters. Shut up and stop complaining you whiner. It's like what? It offends me as a Christian, I'll say that. Anyway, thank you so much, Jeremy. Good to see you. Jeremy Carl [00:23:39] Thank you so much, Tucker, for having me on.

About one in five mail-in ballots in the last election was fraudulent, handing Biden the presidency. We know this because the people who committed the fraud have admitted it in a new poll. Published Apr 26, 2024 link to original video here >>> https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-election-fraud-haskins/ READ THE TRANSCRIPT Tucker [00:00:00] It's now apparently a criminal offense, a felony in this country, to suggest the 2020 presidential campaign was not on the level. That crime appears to form the basis of one of Donald Trump's pending indictments. He's an election denier. But actually it's worth denying the legitimacy of that election because it was not fair. Critical information was withheld from voters through censorship and yes, by the government. That is a fact. It's also a fact that Mark Zuckerberg spent $400 million to control voting in various places around the country and affect the outcome. That's not legitimate. It was also conducted in many places through electronic voting machines, and no country should ever use electronic voting machines because fundamentally they cannot be trusted. Why would you trust it? But then there's the question of outright cheating. Voter fraud. Was there voter fraud? Well, we know there was some. But was it widespread? That is a hard allegation to prove, though of course, many people believe there was widespread fraud. Well, now it turns out we know for a fact that there was. And in fact, it can be proven with a poll. Just ask people, did you personally commit voter fraud? Well, that has just been done. And the answer is a huge percentage of people asked in the poll admitted, yes, I committed voter fraud. It's remarkable. Justin Haskins is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute. He joins us now with details. Justin, thanks so much for coming on. If you could just start by giving us the results, the shocking results of this poll, and we'll go from there. Justin Haskins [00:01:35] Sure. So it was pretty straightforward. We asked people, a series of questions. The first of which is or one of the first questions was, did you vote in, the 2020 election? And did you vote with an absentee ballot? And if they answered yes to both of those questions, then we asked a bunch of questions related to voter fraud. We didn't tell them that they were that we were asking, did you commit voter fraud? We just asked them about various behavior. So, for example, we asked, people, did you vote in a state where you're no longer a legal resident? That's a pretty straightforward question. If you're not a permanent resident of a state, you can't vote there. 17% of people, nearly 1 in 5 said yes, they did do that. We asked people, did you fill out a ballot for someone else on their behalf? That's also illegal. You're not allowed to fill out someone else's ballot. 21% of people said yes to that question. We asked if people forged the signature of a friend or family member on their behalf, with or without their permission. We actually put that in the poll question, and 17% of people said yes to that. So all told, it's at least and I say at least 1 in 5 Mail-In ballots involved some kind of fraudulent activity. But we didn't just stop there. We also asked everyone whether they voted via mail in ballot or not. So in-person voting as well. Do you know anyone who personally in your personal life, a friend, a family member, acquaintance? Someone from work? Has anyone ever admitted to you that they did one of these kinds of forms of voter fraud? And 10% and 11%. We asked two different questions on that said yes. People admitted to me that they committed voter fraud. And so when you take 1 in 5, if we just take the 1 in 5 Mail-In ballots could be related to fraud, and you apply that to the numbers of the 2020 election, which included more mail in voting than at any point in the history of the United States of America. What you end up with is potentially 13 million fraudulent mail in ballots. And, to put that in perspective, Donald Trump lost the election in the popular vote by about 7 million ballots. So this is a massive, massive story. If it if this poll is reflective of reality, it is proof that the 2020 election results can't be trusted. Tucker [00:03:57] I mean, my head is spinning. So and I'm assuming I don't know if you asked, but I think it would be fair to assume that most of these people who answered in the affirmative are Democrats. Justin Haskins [00:04:10] Well, it would be fair to assume that I think based on certain, things that we've learned in the past. But actually, what we found was that the voter fraud was, about equal between self-identified Republicans and Democrats. However, and this is really important to keep in mind, we don't have enough data to statistically, determine that that's an a really solid, accurate result because you're now digging really deep into the polling data and the sample size is getting smaller and smaller. But let's say that's true. And it was equal, let's say Democrats and Republicans committed fraud at equal rates. Actually, that's not the most important consideration because Joe Biden depended extremely heavily on Mail-In ballots, even if the fraud were equal between Republicans and Democrats. It would hurt Joe Biden. It would not hurt Donald Trump in terms of his ability to win elections. So, assuming the fraud was equal between Republicans and Democrats, if you just take the poll and you apply it to the election data that we have about the 2020 election, Donald Trump would win in all six of the swing states that he lost to Joe Biden in 2020, which means the wrong person is in the white House right now if this poll is accurate. Tucker [00:05:27] Pardon my bad memory, but how dependent was Joe Biden on Mail-In ballots? Justin Haskins [00:05:32] Well, it varied from state to state, but generally speaking, he, had twice as many Mail-In ballots vote for him than than Donald Trump did. And in some states, like say, Pennsylvania, for example, the ratio was something like 70% to 20 something percent in favor of Joe Biden. So without those ballots, Joe Biden would not win that. Tucker [00:05:55] I mean, that right there without your poll, which I think is a conversation changer. Forever, I hope. You have to ask, why would Joe Biden have a natural advantage in Mail-In ballots? I mean, honestly, like, what is that if fraud is playing no part here. Justin Haskins [00:06:12] Yeah, I. Tucker [00:06:13] I mean, does anything else explain that? Justin Haskins [00:06:15] It makes absolutely no sense. No, no, I mean, it doesn't make any sense, especially in a state where the election is split pretty close to 50/50. You might see slight variations in voting behavior based on party affiliation in the past. That's something that we've seen, but we've never seen anything like a 70/30 split, 75/25 split. You just don't see that. Tucker [00:06:39] Well, especially since Republicans are statistically more likely to have jobs and less free time than Democrats. I mean, much less in far higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans are not working and taking state aid, for example. So and presumably the idea behind mail in ballots is people are just like too busy. I'm working at my job. I don't have time to go to the polling place or whatever. Right. I mean, I don't see any other logical explanation other than theft. How how is this age? Justin Haskins [00:07:07] Age and disability is also a big part of it. Tucker [00:07:10] So how would I mean, and. Justin Haskins [00:07:12] Republicans are more likely to be older. Tucker [00:07:14] This seems like a huge deal. So I mean, what's the response been? Justin Haskins [00:07:21] Well, from from the right, from conservatives, the response at least most conservatives, the response has been, I mean, this is a game changer. This is one of the biggest stories of of the year, for sure. Donald Trump himself has said it's the biggest story of the year. It's one of the biggest polls in the last 20 years, he said. And I think that that's exactly right. We should be asking questions. We should be launching investigations. The sad thing about all of this is that the mainstream press doesn't care. They don't even care enough to talk about it, to refute it. They don't care because they got the result that they wanted, which was Joe Biden in the white House. And anyone who dared to ask questions about that has been labeled a conspiracy theorist, an insurrectionist, a person who doesn't deserve to have a platform of any kind. And you can't have a free society like that. And now we're seeing, as we've seen with so many other stories like Covid, the origins of Covid, for example, or whether lockdowns were a good idea, people initially who questioned the validity of the election were targeted, and their lives in some cases were destroyed, the careers were destroyed, they were attacked. And now we're finding out that all you had to do was just ask people. You just had to do the very basics of journalism, which is to ask questions and seek the truth. Just ask people, hey, did you do this thing? Did you did you do this thing you weren't supposed to do? Did you vote in a state where you're no longer a permanent resident? I mean, did you fill someone else's ballot out for them? You're not supposed to do that. Did you do that? No one in the media establishment, on the left, especially, but in much of the on the right as well, didn't even bother to ask the question. We just assumed that, no, that couldn't possibly have happened, even though obviously the opportunity for fraud was there. And so I think the bigger story here really, in many ways, is it's not that that Joe Biden is president, when Donald Trump should probably be president. That's a massive story. But the biggest story is, can we trust the media at all to tell us the truth, or to even bother to ask questions when an important story like this comes up? And I think the answer is obviously, as you know, and as many of your viewers now know, we can't. And how can you have a free society like that? Tucker [00:09:38] Well, it's of course not a free society anymore. So the New York Times never wrote about this? Justin Haskins [00:09:44] No. The New York Times, the only major left wing media outlet. And I say left wing, meaning establishment media outlet that covered it was the Washington Post which wrote, an article, very quickly without taking it very seriously, saying essentially, hey, you can't trust anything that these crazy people at The Heartland Institute do or Rasmussen Reports, these people are far right wing extremists and election deniers, etc., and so don't listen to them. And they were the only ones, not literally nobody else, as far as I'm aware, on the left has talked about this. Tucker [00:10:17] It's just, it's really. Well, I continue to think it's one of the most amazing things I've ever heard. They admitted it. No one had ever asked them until you did. Justin Haskins of Heartland Institute, thank you for joining us. Justin Haskins [00:10:29] Thanks, Tucker.

Pagan America The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come is John Daniel Davidson new book. The defining features of a pagan society are slavery and human sacrifice, so it shouldn’t surprise us to see their resurgence in a post-Christian America. link to original here >>> https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-john-daniel-davidson/ READ THE TRANSCRIPT Tucker [00:00:00] One thing we know about human civilizations is they're inherently religious, even, or maybe especially the ones that claim to be secular. Everybody worships something. So as the United States becomes progressively a now aggressively less Christian, that doesn't mean that religion has disappeared. Easter was replaced just the other day by the Biden administration with the worship of transexual ism Trans Visibility Day. So it's a religion. It's just different. And in this case, it happens to be a pagan religion. And that's the direction the United States is speeding right now toward paganism. The question is, what does that mean? And does it make anybody happier? Very few people have thought about this in any systematic detail. John Daniel Davidson of The Federalist is one who has, in fact, he's written a new book on it called Pagan America The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, and we are happy to have him join us now. John, thanks very much for coming on. So pagan America does a bunch of questions, but does the decline of Christianity, which is demonstrable and obvious and intentional? Does that inevitably mean paganism? John Daniel Davidson [00:01:08] In a word, yes. Because in the end, there is only one alternative to Christianity, and that is paganism. And and we should be clear about our terms. Right? When we say paganism, I don't mean that where there's going to be a sudden resurgence of worship of Zeus or Odin. You know, and, an explosion of witchcraft, although that is happening as well. Yes. What I mean is a return of the pagan ethos and the pagan ethos, is and always has been a rejection of transcendent or objective truth. Right. Pagans were free to devise and assign divine status to the here and now, to things, to natural phenomena, even to people. And we are returning to that as the world becomes re enchanted from its, sort of secular hiatus that we that we've been on for the past century or so. And what that means in America, of course, is a radical moral subjectivity that we see in the trans movement that we see in Black Lives Matter and critical race theory that we see all across our society asserting itself now that rejects the what are fundamentally Christian claims about the human person, our relationship to one another, and our relationship to God. Tucker [00:02:25] So it seems like one of the ways, maybe the main way that Christianity is different from all other religions in a practical sense, is that it rejects human sacrifice, human sacrifice being a constant throughout all recorded history in every non-Christian culture, human sacrifices at the center. So as Christianity recedes, should it surprise us that abortion, euthanasia, killing, war, human sacrifice has come to the center of our culture? John Daniel Davidson [00:02:53] Not at all. In fact, I deal with this at length, specifically with abortion and euthanasia as the most obvious manifestations of the return of human sacrifice in the new pagan cults. And it's interesting when you look at the justification for something like abortion, you know, back after Roe v Wade and even into the 1980s, the justification was, this isn't a human being. This is just a clump of cells. You're not taking a human life, and, these fetuses aren't viable. And as medical technology progressed in the 80s and 90s and over the past 25 years, you see the justification change. Advances in medical technology made the original justification, make no sense. It could not be maintained that this was just a clump of cells. We all knew, and we all know undoubtedly now, beyond any doubt, objectively, an unborn human being is a human being. Right. And and so the justification has changed from it's a clump of cells to safe, legal and rare to shout your abortion. And so now you have a positive defense of abortion as a, as a good, in fact, as a moral good that we should brag about and we should champion. And that is not a Christian value. That is a pagan value. And it's reasserting itself now in a modern context. Tucker [00:04:17] Well, I have noticed this. I haven't thought it through to the impressive degree that you have, but I notice that the justification for abortion went from essentially rational rates of if the fetus is not a human being, that's no different from an appendectomy, and I don't agree with that, but that is a rational defense of abortion. It's not a big deal because the question of taking life doesn't enter into it. But once you give that up, then what exactly is what is the justification? Is there justification publicly declared justification for taking another human life? John Daniel Davidson [00:04:48] Well, there is now, and it's very pagan indeed. The justification now is that is the will of the mother that determines the humanity of the child. So we have abortion laws in this country where a child of the same gestation, two children of the same gestational age in two different states, one, has to be saved if born prematurely. All the medical technology, all the medical expertise that can be brought to bear to save that child's life, must be brought to bear. Same gestational age child born in another state can be killed with impunity. The only thing that determines the humanity of this person is the desire of the mother to have the child or not have the child. And that is also quintessentially pagan. Because in a pagan society, what determines. Right, what is morally correct is based on the is based on a power dynamic. Those who have power do what they want to those who have no power. And that is their right. That is their their their God given right to enslave or kill or rape or abuse anyone who they have power over. And that's the dynamic we see returning now. It may start with a rational or secular justification, as we saw with abortion, but as we're seeing now in places like Canada with euthanasia, it quickly moves. Into a power dynamic where people who are inconvenient are simply being killed. And there's very little justification on a moral, on a Christian moral basis for it. Instead, there's there's a pagan moral justification, which is all about power and force and will. Tucker [00:06:20] And there's a delight there. I mean, you watch the Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, who I consider a criminal based on crimes, is she is committed and never been punished for. But whatever you think of Janet Yellen, her job has nothing to do with abortion. She's the Treasury secretary and she comes out sort of in. It's almost like this non-sequiturs like, why are you talking about abortion? And tells us that it's just a good thing. It's just a good thing. And if you want to help this country, you'll have more abortions. And she's thrilled to do it. So I look at that and I'm like, there's a supernatural component here. There's got to be because there's no rational justification for it. John Daniel Davidson [00:06:52] Yeah, exactly. There's no rational justification to allow healthy young people who are suffering from depression, or maybe substance abuse, addiction to, to kill themselves, but to have physician assisted suicide rate. And yet that's what's happening in Canada right now. And they went down the slippery slope. It only took them a few years to go from only people with terminal illnesses to, anyone who's depressed and lonely, and maybe, maybe also people who are costing the national health system a lot of money. Maybe those people do. We can get rid of them. And there's actually, you know, some government studies in Canada have actually calculated how much the National Health Service will save by expanding their euthanasia program. This is really dark stuff, and we have to understand it for what it is. It's the replacing of Christian morality with pagan morality and the transformation of, of a republic of self-governing citizens into what essentially is a slave empire, where those with power, the ruling class, rules over an underclass that is subject to, to to that power. And that's a very different dynamic. It means a total transformation of American society. And I don't think that many people have really started to wrap their heads around the implications of that for all of us. Tucker [00:08:08] Well, in in Canada, I mean, you have the state murdering its own native population, overwhelmingly the Christian population of Canada, people whose ancestors were Christian churchgoers and then replacing them with people, you know, who are not Christians from other countries. So it's it's hard not to see that as as part of it. I mean, that's just a fact. I mean, I guess you could interpret it in a different way, but it's it's the Christian Canadians who are getting killed by the state. I think that's just as true. John Daniel Davidson [00:08:34] I mean, it's also, you know, we saw with this, this hoax about the mass graves at the indigenous schools as well, that unleashed, a flurry of violence against Catholic churches in Canada. Dozens of churches were burned down, vandalized, destroyed. And the prime minister, encouraged it. He cheered it on. Yeah, it was the same thing with the Black Lives Matter protesters here in the summer of 2020. The regime did nothing. They encouraged it. They they wanted it to happen. They were willing to countenance violence in the streets. And the use, again, the use of raw force to advance their agenda and cement their rule, and then and then unequally apply the force of the state against Christians, against, pro-life protesters, against people who were in the vicinity of the Capitol on January 6th. This is a pattern that we're going to see repeated more and more often as we get away from this idea, of traditional Christian morality, that is to say, individual rights, rule of law, consent of the governed. These aren't things that just exist in like a secular liberal utopia. They depend on an actual Christian society to sustain them. And when Christianity, you know, declines or becomes we enter into a post-Christian era, those things are going to go away. Like they can't they can't sustain themselves on their own. And I don't think that that we appreciate just how much we rely on our Christian inheritance for, like, our specifically American way of life. Tucker [00:10:07] So I think that's really insightful what you just said, but it's also the opposite of what we were promised. So what we were promised, as always, was liberation from the strictures of this ancient religion that kept people from dancing and playing cards and having premarital sex and like any kind of fun at all. Right. It was to fit the Footloose model and but that's not. But what we got was not liberation. The country doesn't seem fair or liberated as compared to the America of 30 years ago. So it does seem like it's a lie. John Daniel Davidson [00:10:37] Yeah, yeah. Well, it is a lot. And I think there's, there's a, there's a misunderstanding maybe of terms that, that has crept into our society as well. Like when the founders said life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they understood happiness in a very specific way, which was the cultivation and the acquisition of virtue. Right, right. You are free to not to do as you as you want to, whatever you want to. You're free to do as you ought. You know, this is something, you know, John Paul the second talked about that, that the true meaning of freedom was freeing you to be good, right? And to be virtuous. It wasn't freeing you to, you know, try to change your, your sex and, or to to engage publicly in, in sexual fetishes and to try to foist that on children, or to be, you know, not not racist. That's not what freedom is for. And so we see, along with the decay of freedom into into license, right? We also see a disfigurement of reason. And that's also characteristic of pagan societies. Reason and faith are complementary. That's what Christians have always believed because it's the truth. But now we see creeping in, an abuse of reason. And you see this most obviously, right, in the Covid pandemic where people were invoking science but making everyone do these completely irrational things that had nothing to do with science, and were totally unreasonable. And you see this justification everywhere now in public life and always it is the we still use the language of science and reason. But clearly what is what is what is the determining factor for the people in power is simply force and will. We are going to make you do this not because it's reasonable, not because it even works. We're just going to make you do it because we're telling you to do it, and we're going to start to see a lot more of that to Covid. Should have been a real eye opener. And I think it was for some people about what the regime is capable of and how we're sort of operating on a new level, even when it comes to the justifications for major public policy. Tucker [00:12:42] So, I mean, I think this I think you're exactly right. You know, Christianity has rules, but by its nature, it rarely uses force to impose them on others. Paganism is the opposite. So the first several centuries after Jesus's death, the Romans were in charge. It was a pagan society, and they required all subjects to bow down before their gods to acknowledge their gods. Christians wouldn't, and they murdered the Christians by the tens of thousands. Then Constantine converts. It becomes a Christian empire. But the Christian empire does not force the non-Christians to bang on before Jesus on pain of death. It allows them to live there. Right? So they're like, in other words, Christianity is more, I guess, in the American sense, a little bit more libertarian or much more libertarian really, than any kind of pagan religious structure. Or am I misreading this? John Daniel Davidson [00:13:31] No, you're absolutely right. Tolerance, like religious tolerance, is a specifically Christian principle. It exists only in Christian societies, and it depends on a Christian worldview. And you have to accept some Christian theological claims about about the cosmos and about man and God in order to even entertain the idea of something like tolerance or freedom of speech. Right. These are luxury goods that only a Christian society can afford, right? Right. Because because Christianity, it does not compel belief, but pagan societies do. And so the idea that we could have, like tolerance and we could have freedom of speech and we could have sort of a live and let live libertarian is exactly without Christianity is totally false. You actually need a Christian society and a, an, a public square that is shaped and formed by Christian moral virtues in order to have tolerance, in order to have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. So, you know, when the founders, when George Washington sent his letter to the Hebrew congregation, you know, what he was saying in part was we will not impose force on you. We will leave you free to practice your faith because we are a Christian nation. And because we can allow that, we can we can have tolerance for your for your beliefs here because we are Christian, we're losing that. And when we lose that, we are going to see force and compulsion and coercion come back into the public square with with force. And we're actually seeing that right now. I mean, how much longer are people going to be allowed to be pro-life or to oppose gay marriage, or even to, you know, insist that that men are men and women are women. Tucker [00:15:12] All right. Bow down before my tranny God. I mean, that's that's what they're demanding. It's feels like people got this backwards. And I just want to press you a little bit on the on the question of science. So science flourished in the West, and really only in the West. Pure science flourished only in the West when it was Christian. And as Christianity recedes and of course, under attack and disintegrating in, in its institutional form, science is going away too. I notice that our leaders don't believe in actual science. In empiricism, for example, what's the connection between Christianity and science? John Daniel Davidson [00:15:49] Well, so what we were saying earlier about, you know, that there is no conflict between faith and reason. These are these are complementary truth about the physical world is is revealed by God, but it's also revealed to mankind through our reason. Through the faculties that God gave us. We are created in the image and likeness of God, and we can apprehend truth about God's creation through our senses and through our rational minds, and using the scientific method using scientific instruments. It doesn't mean that the only thing that's true are things that we can measure with our instruments, right? But the things that we can measure with our instruments are true. They are part of God's truth. But when you reject the idea of God's truth, or the existence of God, or even the existence of a of a rational and reasonable, universe, what you're left with again is there's just force and will. And so there's a we see now, a comfortableness on the part of our ruling elite to simply ignore science, to suppress it, to censor it whenever it contradicts their agenda, especially when it comes to things like the transgender movement, where all of the science and all of the studies that we have point to how harmful and how dangerous it is, and how the people who are suffering essentially from gender dysphoria need help. And all of that is being ignored in favor of this radical pagan agenda. It's also is being ignored about social media and screens. We know that those things are harmful. We push them on kids anyway. So we're going to see this a lot more often to a disregard for science. And so like appeals to scientific studies and appeals to reason and to objectively, observable phenomena are going to start to fall on deaf ears because, because a pagan regime, really doesn't care about objective truth and doesn't care about moral objective truth, but also doesn't care about scientific objective truth. Tucker [00:17:48] Yes. It's just so interesting. And I mean, that's a refrain in my own head every day. Everyone's so unreasonable. When did people get so unreasonable? Truly unreasonable. They just don't care what the established facts are. But I haven't connected it as directly. And as eloquently as you just have to. Religious faith is. It's just interesting that everything the reality is exactly the opposite of what we've been promised for the last 40 years, which is a secular society will be more tolerant and more reasonable. Religion. Christianity specifically, is the root of division, the root of oppression, and the root of superstition. Right? It's the opium of the masses. But that the opposite has turned out to be true. Am I reading this? John Daniel Davidson [00:18:29] No. You're right, the opposite is true. I think, you know, we have to take a step back and understand, like the idea of secularism, of a of a neutral public space where where everyone was free to kind of have their own opinions and go their own way. That is a temporary that was kind of this temporary, like caesura in the life of Western civilization made possible by the triumph of Christianity, but reliant on on Christianity for its sustenance, for its vitality. The the thing that we're seeing now is a return to form, right? You either have a Christian society and a public square that allows for, you know, secularism and freedom of speech, I mean, secularism. The whole idea of secularism was was invented by Christianity. So it's a product of Christian civilization. But without that, as Christianity recedes, we're going to return to a different form of society. And that's what I mean when I say there's only two options here. There's there's the Christian society and there's a pagan society, and it's we're going to go under different names where it's not going to take the same forms as it did in ancient times, but the ethos and the the cosmological worldview of the ancient pagan world is going to be reconstituted in modern times, and it's going to be very bad. It's going to be the kind of society that not even a secular atheist will want to live in. I don't know if you saw the other day the famous atheist Richard Dawkins, in an interview was saying how he's a cultural Christian, he's not a believing Christian, and he's upset that there's so much being made in Britain about Ramadan because he thinks Britain should be culturally Christian, and he likes cathedrals and he likes the old Christmas carols. And why can't we? Why can't we just have that? Well, you can't have that, Richard, if you don't have actual believing Christians who are practicing the faith, there has to be somebody in the cathedrals that are that is worshiping somebody who's singing the Christmas carols, who believes the content of the words. Without that, cultural Christianity withers and dies and something else is going to come in and replace it. If you don't have actual Christians living the Christian life in the public square, in your nation and in your community. Tucker [00:20:42] Well, I don't I'm a little confused, by the leadership of Christian churches in this country and why there's this reluctance, to say obvious things that are clearly true and in the interest of their congregations and of their faith, things that they would be required to say, really, as Christians. And I'm even more deeply. Confused by, in many cases, the collaboration between those churches and a regime that hates them. Why have so many Christian leaders just stood by and allowed Joe Biden, for example, to pose as a Christian, or people around him to pretend that this isn't really about Christian Christianity? Like, why not just tell the truth? John Daniel Davidson [00:21:24] I yeah, I have I as a as a Roman Catholic myself, I had to say I'm dismayed and confused about why Joe Biden hasn't been excommunicated from the Catholic Church by now. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and many other major political leaders who purport to be Catholic in public. But it is very confusing and it's disheartening. I think a lot of Christian leaders in America, have given, have accepted this false notion that winsome ness and being nice is the way to win people over to the faith. And not sort of, you know, speaking clearly about about moral truth. And I think it's a great mistake because, of course, the loving thing to do to anyone, if you love someone, you tell the truth, right? You have to tell them the truth if you love them, because you don't want them to persist in a lie that that harms them and damages them. So when it comes to an issue like transgenderism, the loving thing for Christian leaders to do is not to pretend that this is normal or healthy, but it's to tell the truth about transgender ideology to save people who may be ensnared in it, from from getting involved in it, and to help people who are ensnared to get out. And a willingness to tell the truth has been sorely lacking from our religious leaders across, you know, denominations in the United States. And I think that has to change. We have to grow a spine, and our leaders have to, get some backbone and be willing to speak the truth, the Christian truth about men and women, about the unborn, about how society should be structured, about marriage, about children. And speak it clearly and unapologetically in love. But but without caveats. That's that is loving. That is the way to love people as Christ loves them. And that's also the way to win souls and to convert a nation and a people. Is is to not apologize for the truth. And unfortunately, as you say, we have had a lot of mealy mouthed, weak Christian leaders in this country that don't know what time it is and who don't realize, like what we're talking about, that our society is becoming post-Christian and in the future pagan order that's coming into being in America. You you either speak the truth or you accept the lie. And too many of our Christian leaders are tacitly right now accepting the lies of the regime. Tucker [00:23:45] Well, given that you can only serve one master, I mean, you are only serving one master, right? So if you're a bishop or some sort of religious figure who stands next to Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, both of whom have, you know, aggressively promoted human sacrifice, and you don't, you know, say, get behind me, Satan. Then you're not, you know, you're you're serving dark forces or you're not. I mean, it's not just that you're polite or shy or something. It's that you're actively working, against the God you claim to serve. I would think you are. John Daniel Davidson [00:24:21] And this gets to the other big thing about paganism. And the reason for its persistence. Right? In the ancient pagan world, it was understood that the pagan gods were real beings. They were, gods. Angels. What? What we might call today dis incarnate intelligences or multi-dimensional beings. Right? But the point is, they were cast out of heaven. So they're here. They're here. And worshiping them and swearing fealty to them and giving sacrifice to them confer certain benefits. Tucker [00:24:57] Let me ask you to pause for a second and just elaborate. So you're saying that in traditional pagan societies, these gods cast out of heaven, moving from the spiritual realm to the physical realm, but were occupying the physical realm like you could touch them. They were physically present. Is that what you're saying? John Daniel Davidson [00:25:15] I'm saying, well, they were they were physically, represented in, in temples and in idols and. Yeah, you know, in, in rites, in secret rites and rituals and in pagan sacrifices, human sacrifices, and other kinds of rituals. That was that was how are we connected to these, these nonphysical beings? But it was understood that these nonphysical beings were they had authority and power over the things in the earth, over nature, in some cases over the fortunes of nations and armies and rulers. And that was a pretty universal belief in, in the pagan world. And it was even, a belief of the, of the Jewish people, although their account corrected the pagan account. So instead of, the god Bael overthrowing his god and taking the throne, the attempt to overthrow the one true God by. Lucifer was defeated and Lucifer was cast down with fallen angels and cast down to earth. Right. And so to your point about whether or not you either serve God or you serve the forces of darkness, you serve the devil. That is still true. Right. As Christians, we believe that's true. That that's that Satan is real. That fallen angels are real. And that and that the occult, is something that is also real. And, you know, I think people are becoming more and more aware of this, that paganism changes throughout the ages, and it takes different forms and we use different words to describe it. But certainly these, these forms of worshiping other beings, and other gods besides the Christian god are visible now. That they're manifest now. You can see it working itself out now, not just in like, teenagers, you know, practicing witchcraft on TikTok, although that is one manifestation of it, but also with the transhumanist movement and the transgender movement, you know, it's very pagan in the way it talks about what human beings are and what our destiny is. Even in, in the artificial intelligence, community and the push to develop AI. These AI developers talk about it. They talk openly about creating gods and creating a god that will do things for us that we can't do that's more powerful than us. It's very it's a very pagan mentality, and we need to understand where it's going. And it's not going anywhere good. Tucker [00:27:33] And that it's real. I mean, I guess I would argue that every religion, every religion believes that spiritual beings physically walk among us. That's the heart of Christianity. God became man. He got crucified, came back, met with his disciples, ate broiled fish, and then went to have it like that. But he physically existed. And so I think every society from the beginning of recorded history has believed that, you know, beings from that dimension are right here and you can touch them. And so, like, it's real, I think. Is that fair to say? John Daniel Davidson [00:28:09] Yeah, I think that I think that more and more people are, are coming around to that way of viewing the world. Some of them are Christian, some of them reject Christian. Tucker [00:28:18] Right. John Daniel Davidson [00:28:19] And and so but so they're not going to serve the Christian god, Ray. Going to serve some other being. And they're going to get more explicit about it, too. You know, I think that that and there's a whole bunch of different directions that, that this discussion would go and probably don't have time to get into all of it, but, but, but we're seeing that play out. And I try to explain some of those instances in the book, maybe that people haven't thought of, particular with artificial intelligence. I think there's some of this going on with the, the UFO, UAP phenomenon. People who are who are looking into that and who are deeply involved in that, you know, when they're pressed on it that, you know, they'll talk about how they believe that they're in touch with these discarded beings that are, they're very advanced and that have advanced knowledge. And that and that will confer that knowledge on us for a price. And this is exactly how like, the ancient Mesopotamians understood their gods as well, that that they would get knowledge, secret knowledge, and they would get advantages in technology in exchange for serving these gods. And, you know, it's difficult for modern men to where we're used to kind of a materialist vocabulary and a scientific way of looking at the world. But but that's being eroded and and, we're, we're seeing the creation now of what C.S. Lewis called the materialist magician. In The Screwtape Letters, he talks about how they want to conceal their presence. The demons want to conceal their presence from the materialist human beings. You know, because because that that way they can make skeptics and materialists out of them, but they hope someday to develop a new man who is both a materialist and a skeptic, but, also recognizes the existence of forces while not naming the spirits. And Veritably worships them while maintaining his skepticism. And that kind of man is coming into being now. Tucker [00:30:11] Well, I I've met quite a few of them. So just to press you a little bit on that, what you said about UFO, UAP, phenomenon, which, you know, I think people are waking up to the fact, the established fact that there is something going on. It's not from China, Russia, the US government has detailed knowledge of it, which is being withheld from the public like that. All is established fact, I would say. But in in the reporting on this, the research into it that you have done, what are your conclusions? Do you think it is possible that the US government has or elements of the US government? People within the US government are in contact with these beings, spiritual beings? I think it's fair to say, and have made some arrangement with them, as the ancient Mesopotamians did, as an exchange of technology for compliance for, for worship, for something. John Daniel Davidson [00:31:02] I think that's. The most reasonable explanation. Tucker [00:31:05] You think that's the most reasonable? You think that's the most reasonable? That's like the most far out thing I've ever. That's ever entered my brain. Right. John Daniel Davidson [00:31:13] Well, again. Right. So, again, you know, the reasoning from. Tucker [00:31:19] The most reasonable explanation. I mean, I agree with you, but I just- John Daniel Davidson [00:31:25] Think of I think, it's more reasonable than thinking that these things come from space, right? Yeah. They don't come from space. I'm aware these aren't, like, these aren't little green men who are, like, flying ships through, like, from Mars to Earth. I think that, the UAP phenomenon is, is best explained. The most reasonable explanation for it is that it is a spiritual phenomenon. And the beings that people, report having encountered, are discarded multi-dimensional intelligences or what Christians would have called demons or angels and have called throughout human history and inauguration. Peoples have had different names for them as well. You know, we I think we call them aliens, to kind of soothe ourselves, right? Because for modern man, for a materialist, skeptical modern, it's too much. It's too scary to say all of these are angels and demons. And so we say, oh, they're they're aliens. They're aliens. That's that's more reasonable. No. I, I do think that these things are real, that our government has had contact with them. Possibly other governments have to, and that they're being it's being kept secret for obvious reasons. But but I think the more you look into it that, that's really the only, reasonable explanation that you can come to. You know, it's either that or you have to descend into kind of a rat hole of conspiracy theory, in thinking that, you know, we have these secret technologies that are totally manmade. And there's the government has invented UFOs as an elaborate way to cover it up. You know, and, and even these videos that we, you know, saw in recent years from Navy pilots are all fake, you know, and it becomes a lot less reasonable to believe that then, than to believe the ancient Christian beliefs that people have believed through for thousands and thousands of years. Yes, and are attested to throughout all human history. I think that that is the most reasonable explanation. And I think, too, that as we enter into this post-Christian era and this new pagan era arises, that's going to become a lot more obvious. Tucker [00:33:35] I couldn't, I could not agree with you more. I wonder, though, if you will just expand a little bit on the implications of that. So if the U.S. government, which we pay for and does all of this, whatever it does in our names, because it's a democracy, it's our government, if the US or parts of the US government, people within the US government employees or contractors have made contact with dark spiritual forces, which I think is true and have made some arrangement with them, with technology exchange, you know, that would require them to be complicit in whatever these forces, are doing. Like what are the implications of that? The U.S. government, our government. John Daniel Davidson [00:34:15] Well, yeah. So the implications of that is that, yeah. America is not going to decline and fall. America is going to become evil, right? I mean, that what, you know, if if elements of the of the, deep state, right, we can call it the administrative bureaucracy or what, the permanent deep state, are doing this, then then that deep state, we need to understand that is a hostile force that is you setting about, evil designs, and is and is pursuing malign ends. And one thing that that, that deep state and those forces are not interested at all is in, allowing Christians to sort of flourish and practice their faith openly in the United States. They're not interested in that at all. And so Christians need to get get that through their head. Part of what I'm trying to do with this book, I should say, I don't go into the UAP UFO thing in the book, but it's obviously adjacent to it. And and the implications are obvious. Part of the purpose, my purpose of writing the book is to get Christians to kind of accept the reality that to wrap their brains around what's happening, it's hard to do. It's hard to accept that your government is is is an enemy, not just of, your political party, but but your whole way of life and your and your religion and your family and your community, and that you need to be prepared for your government to be an enemy and to persecute you and come after you. And you need to be prepared to be, a minority in a post-Christian society and understand what the implications of that are. I don't have all the answers. There's not a chapter in the book that says these ten steps will save America. I think the first big step is to get people to realize this is happening. This is the reality. And and to, to not kind of trundle along like, like, we live in the 1940s. We don't. That world is over. Tucker [00:36:15] John Daniel Davidson. Really appreciate this conversation very, very much. The book is Pagan America The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come. Thank you for writing it and for telling us about it, I appreciate it. John Daniel Davidson [00:36:26] Thanks, Tucker, I appreciate it.

Man Dies & Learns We Have It Completely Backwards! (Powerful NDE)

TIME OF DECEIT (Full Documentary) link to original video & Badlands Media here >>> https://rumble.com/v4sac50-time-of-deceit.html

The Spirit Realm Demons, Fallen Angels, Spiritual Warfare, and The Black Awakening Apr 19, 2024 The Spirit Realm: Demons, Fallen Angels, The Black Awakening and Spiritual Warfare This is from my interview with Ruzz Dizdar on his book entitled "The Black Awakening" Thanks for watching! God Bless you all!!!! If you like my content and wish to see me continue making videos, please consider supporting ETP, thanks everyone. Paypal - endtimesproductions@protonmail.com transcript 0:01 [Music] 0:08 what is the black 0:10 Awakening um it's related to the red 0:13 horse prophecy and Revelation it's 0:14 related to uh second Thessalonians 2 0:17 when it says about the day of the Lord 0:19 the perusia that day will not occur 0:21 until the Apocalypse of the Antichrist 0:25 and the upper stage of the word 0:26 Rebellion or Revolt that's all really 0:30 defined in the prophecy of the red horse 0:32 but here's where the term came from and 0:34 why I used it purposely when I started 0:37 dealing with military oriented highly 0:40 trained you know programmed and 0:42 assassins inside of them but a flick for 0:45 switch we can adjust character change 0:49 personality these are not supposed to 0:53 exist Raymond printice Shaw 0:58 listen this is a cool 1:00 this is rich people funding bad science 1:03 to put a sleeper in the white house when 1:05 we begin to deal with them I dealt with 1:07 someone from Fort Brag for quite a while 1:09 and a few others we were sitting in a 1:11 lake conat lake they reached over and 1:13 ripped open my shirt to see if I was 1:15 wired if I was wiring and recording them 1:18 and they were the most sophisticated 1:21 satanic Warrior type person they knew 1:24 five six languages they knew the ancient 1:26 Twilight languages they knew how to 1:27 conjure they knew they knew how to use 1:30 belari okam all these old pictish 1:32 languages of The Druids to summon they 1:35 were they are the real luciferian 1:37 they've been through many human 1:38 sacrificial things so they sat there to 1:41 tell me some of those things what 1:43 they've been involved with how they 1:45 sacrifice a human I'm listening to all 1:47 the stuff from them and then they said 1:49 to me you have no idea Russ how many of 1:52 us there are out there how many satanic 1:56 Cho they use the term chosen ones uh you 2:00 have no idea how many you have no idea 2:02 what's coming um we smell Christian 2:07 blood we we are waiting for our day and 2:12 when the call is given millions of us 2:14 will be 2:15 released and they looked at me and said 2:18 you believe in revivals and you believe 2:20 in Pentecost and the power of God you 2:22 believe in all that we believe in the 2:24 black Awakening A 2:28 multicontinuum to activate the 2:32 program demonized where they've 2:34 weaponized the Demonic powers to these 2:37 super soldiers the objective of the 2:39 project was to create super soldiers 2:42 we've been able to create super soldiers 2:45 oh uh uh tell him U I'm going to take 2:46 the thing about the super soldiers out 2:48 okay so that no super soldiers are they 2:50 waiting for a specific time to unleash 2:54 their power yeah they are because they 2:56 have to do it at the moment the 2:57 Antichrist is like you read in second 2:59 Thessalonians 2 that it's caught to Echo 3:03 the restrainer is holding back The 3:06 Apocalypse of the Antichrist the 3:07 unveiling in his movement so right now 3:10 he's held 3:12 restrained soon as the he who restrains 3:15 is removed soon as that occurs we have 3:18 white horse the release of the 3:20 Antichrist instantly we have the release 3:24 of the red M it says the whole earth AR 3:28 r a peace is taken from the whole earth 3:30 and all of a sudden it doesn't give the 3:33 details um but all of a sudden on a 3:36 global scale people are released to 3:39 begin to in the Greek word is sadzo 3:41 Slaughter begin to slaughter people it's 3:43 used of animal ritual Butchery to begin 3:46 to slaughter individuals that's exactly 3:49 how they defined it to me back in the 3:51 90s and we've heard this again and again 3:53 and again so that scenario fits the 3:56 Masonic version of chaos before a new 3:58 order it fits uh father meridon from the 4:01 black the Cathedral of the black goat 4:03 you know his book The Devil's Bible it 4:05 fits that scenario too so some of the 4:08 oldest darkest occultists the idea of 4:11 chaos first a collapsing of everything 4:14 so that a new order can rise that's all 4:17 by 4:18 Design uh and we've been given the heads 4:21 up in Prophecy but all prophecy has 4:24 boots on the ground it'll it'll it'll 4:26 all you know eventually happen so I do 4:30 believe 4:31 that millions and millions of these 4:34 trained programmed altered demonized 4:38 super 4:39 soldiers uh whether we want to say it or 4:41 not they believe they are the they're 4:44 being raised to help bring the 4:45 Antichrist in the Antichrist the 4:48 Antichrist well these are supposed to be 4:50 the events that signal the birth of the 4:52 Antichrist that's true in Germany when 4:54 we were in Germany when we went to 4:56 velburg castle that's true in Poland 4:57 when we went there that's true in 4:58 Switzerland it's in Canada so when we 5:02 talk about our research in 38 years 5:05 worldwide there may be well over 100 5:08 million generations of them and if even 5:12 half or even if a even if 10% were 5:15 intact like say United States remember 5:17 the in 5:19 Vegas look what he did look what that 5:22 guy did okay notice what would happen if 5:25 10,000 of them or like or like Colorado 5:30 are like in Arizona what if 10,000 of 5:33 them were released in one 5:35 week that's their that's their plot plan 5:39 and biblical prophecies ahead of that to 5:41 say here is what is going to happen and 5:43 from that a you know Global monetary 5:46 collapse and from that that's all that 5:49 chaos is coming so Revelation 13 a whole 5:52 new order with the Antichrist can come 5:55 the one the 5:57 only the Antichrist there are four faces 6:01 of the Antichrist on his rise to power 6:04 doc it sounds to me like you're talking 6:06 about the Antichrist are demons scared 6:08 of Holy Spirit-filled Christians they 6:11 they sure are as many time many times if 6:14 a real Spirit-filled strong believer 6:15 walks into a room obviously they know 6:18 that like that one demon in scripture 6:20 Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are 6:22 you because they didn't have the spirit 6:23 of God um so they know us so and I think 6:26 usually they they might even feel us 6:30 coming or sense us before we even sense 6:32 them but let's remember greater is the 6:35 holy spirit in us than any demon so we 6:38 should have great perception too but 6:40 when we do walk in a room yeah I believe 6:42 out of all my experience let alone 6:44 scripture uh they know a real 6:46 Spirit-filled believer and what well 6:49 they'll want to they'll want to try to 6:50 stay down or get the person to leave the 6:53 room they want to get out of there we 6:55 got to remember in James they shudder 6:57 they tremble even at the name Jesus so a 7:00 real believer that knows who they are 7:02 and know what they're doing they walk 7:03 into a room it's the other way around 7:05 even though they want to play the game 7:06 of scare you and do ever you know all 7:08 that kind of stuff The Authority we've 7:10 been given is so decimating to 7:12 them um that's why they go out screaming 7:15 at times they scream and Screech going 7:17 out at times because that Authority is 7:20 so overwhelming through my 7:23 experience people will know that demons 7:26 are real demons exist whether you 7:28 believe in them or not 7:30 there are demons Among Us can a person 7:33 be demon-possessed and not know it 7:36 um I believe that they can be demon 7:40 possessed and think it's something 7:43 else a new age I've got a spirit a psych 7:46 I got a spirit guy uh I've got a h f we 7:49 had one lady come in I have a family 7:52 animal ancestral animal spirit and this 7:54 is a good thing for our family so he 7:57 said let's test it the pastor that was 7:59 in our offices just at the doorway he 8:01 looked and said in the name as soon as 8:03 he began to pray and he said the name of 8:04 Jesus this they she called it a bear 8:07 spirit this demon manifested and just 8:10 was ready to attack him and grow he 8:12 rebuked It cast it out of her she went 8:14 to the ground she began to cry she said 8:17 I had no idea I didn't know what it was 8:20 we got to remember Satan can masquerade 8:22 remember that scripture he can 8:23 masquerade it's the word meta skido he 8:27 can morph his presence tactically for 8:30 deception without changing his nature so 8:34 he can get into you know that's why 8:35 people believe aliens are you know this 8:37 or or uh ancient you know the the great 8:40 white Brotherhood and things like that 8:42 these ancient Spirits they they their 8:44 power to masquerade and and and play and 8:48 and tactically do whatever they need to 8:50 get the allowability to get in so I do 8:53 think some people have stuff we've seen 8:55 this they have stuff they know 8:57 something's there they're not you know 9:00 maybe they opened a door somewhere 9:02 whatever but once somebody comes to 9:04 express Authority and all of a sudden 9:06 full-blown manifestation occurs they're 9:09 like I had no 9:11 idea I thought it was just a you know 9:14 helper spirit guide I just thought it 9:15 was an enhancement and they have no idea 9:18 the depth of it and uh so it can be they 9:21 don't know the full depth of it and 9:22 until some engagement occurs last year 9:27 the Vatican received over a half a 9:29 million reports of demonic possession 9:31 about dark Forces and demonic attacks 9:35 now there might be people and and when I 9:37 say possession I mean if a demon like 9:39 like Mark five that guy couldn't get 9:41 saved on his own that guy couldn't do 9:42 anything on his own because he was so 9:44 controlled so ultimately that level of 9:47 possession you need an outsider to help 9:49 them and then lead them Jesus and look 9:51 what happened in his life so but when a 9:53 Believer does have some kind of 9:55 attachment something or whatever else 9:56 and they realize or whatever they they 9:58 were deep into something and then they 10:00 come to the Lord but yet some you know 10:03 something they didn't close the door on 10:05 uh I believe in what some people call 10:06 autod Deliverance to where hey well if 10:08 you know your 10:09 Authority I even believe that if you 10:12 know all of a sudden a Believers 10:13 realizes something's here and it 10:15 shouldn't be because I'm a Believer now 10:17 Jesus delivered me just going to the 10:19 Lord that can happen he in because it's 10:21 not you know he wants everything cleared 10:23 out anyway so you can have a Deliverance 10:25 that way or if you're a Believer say 10:27 well I know my authority and 10:29 you know but but know the the legal 10:32 right know the reason why it's there so 10:36 that you can re you know renounce that 10:38 doorway or that practice and Say Never 10:41 Again you have no rights here it's 10:43 something 10:44 demonic so the issue is if you've been 10:46 raised in a family of Psychics or Voodoo 10:49 practitioners so even if you're raised 10:51 in some stuff or if you open the doors 10:54 you don't know you know you're just 10:55 going to go out and do you know smoke up 10:57 and do acid you get in that World those 11:00 kind of doorways can open little by 11:03 little by little so um I think some are 11:07 more vulnerable depending on what's 11:09 around them if their moms or dads were 11:12 witches or Satanist and things and 11:14 they've never repented and so the 11:16 spirits want to come down to the Next 11:18 Generation so even that is an an extra 11:22 um pressure uh when a son or daughter 11:27 you know they didn't do anything but 11:28 because of mom and dad the doors they 11:30 want to come down that family line and 11:32 go after so that so a son or daughter or 11:35 even a grandchild may have more undo 11:38 pressure so are generational curses real 11:41 in yeah I believe they're real and and 11:43 they're called familiar spirits in the 11:45 Old Testament meaning they're familiar 11:46 with in the family line or familiar with 11:48 an area so if my grandfather was a 11:50 Satanist and he was really a 11:52 practitioner first when he died he would 11:54 want to do a ritual to hand it all down 11:55 all those Powers down to somehow but if 11:58 he doesn't 11:59 and the spirits come out or even their 12:01 Spirits are on him they're always 12:03 looking for more access and they want 12:06 like in the Old Testament they want the 12:08 whole tribe they not only want the the 12:10 grandpa or the dad they want the family 12:12 then they want the tribe that's why the 12:13 whole tribes were infested they want the 12:16 they want everything so they're going to 12:18 go after if a Dad or Mom or grandmother 12:21 grandfather open those big 12:23 doors um it gives that that Spirit even 12:29 you know cuz well either way they're 12:30 just going to come after to bring 12:32 influence doesn't mean doesn't mean a 12:33 grandson or granddaughter is going to be 12:34 automatically influenced or or taken 12:37 over or they're going to become a 12:38 Satanist or or a witch um but there's 12:41 undue influence because of the moms and 12:45 dads or or anybody else you could be in 12:47 a donator at college and you got a guy 12:50 that's you know deeply into something 12:52 Voodoo and practicing Spirits whatever 12:54 and you're in the same room you're going 12:55 to have problems you could be vulnerable 12:57 to attack uh able to influence to you 13:01 know open a gateway to let them in so in 13:04 that sense yeah you can be more 13:05 vulnerable which brings us to the three 13:08 stages of demonic activity infestation 13:10 oppression and possession can a 13:12 Christian be demon possessed a Christian 13:15 cannot be demon possessed like a 13:17 non-Christian non-Christian has nothing 13:19 in them so they can be Body Soul and 13:21 Spirit completely taken over the Greek 13:23 word for we read in English possession 13:26 it's demonoid meaning demonization so 13:29 there's levels to it so I don't believe 13:32 a real believer born again can you can 13:35 have attachments you can have of course 13:38 obviously uh they attack and they do 13:40 other things in your life but a real 13:41 believer we read in Ephesians 4 if you 13:44 give the devil a foothold the Greek word 13:46 po uh topon meaning you give the enemy a 13:49 legal right not possession but to grab a 13:52 hold of an area and then you have a 13:55 level of demonization that has to be 13:57 dealt with repentance and renunciation 14:00 brings Freedom so not in the exact same 14:02 way as a non-Christian what do you see 14:04 when you're in the dark and the demons 14:07 come all of us have regular Warfare as 14:09 Believers you know we read in Ephesians 14:11 6 you know our struggle is not against 14:12 flesh and blood but against those 14:14 principalities and powers and we're 14:16 commanded to put on the armor of God so 14:18 we can be strong and bold we also have 14:20 been given Authority and this is 14:22 important for us to know because you saw 14:23 in the crowds we just saw here I ask how 14:26 many here know your Authority 90 over 14:29 90% did not Jesus had to give you 14:31 authority to trample To Tread to bring a 14:34 crushing blow to the work of the enemy 14:36 and to overcome all the power of the 14:37 enemy so what's happening now is and 14:41 what and all the SR know this for you 14:44 know decades now they've been summoning 14:46 Spirits just like the Old Testament 14:48 summoning spirits and sending them with 14:51 assignment or putting a demon on an 14:53 object to give to bring a curse Voodoo 14:56 can do this uh Sania can you know on a 14:59 lighter level but still do this uh the 15:01 saint of death in Mexico with millions 15:03 and millions the drug lords are doing it 15:06 they're they're doing rituals and doing 15:08 human sacrifice to fight each other at 15:10 times too so when a demon is summoned 15:13 and sit against you and you feel all 15:15 there is a a sense that there is a real 15:17 impact um the awareness is number one 15:20 but the authority you have if you'll 15:22 respond immediately to say then Lord 15:24 just say first Lord what is this what's 15:26 going on here the spirit of God is in 15:28 you uh what's going on here but 15:31 immediately respond I renounce this I 15:34 command this to be broken you will have 15:36 no effect on me I rebuke this and then I 15:39 pray for the sinder Lord engage them 15:42 whoever they are or like an astral 15:43 projection too but whoever they are if 15:45 they have summoned and S uh we've had 15:48 some high Mages do stuff and blood 15:49 rituals and we've had uh pictures drawn 15:53 pictur sent to us of a child sacrifice 15:55 saying Russ we did this for you and they 15:57 conjured and sent so who can summon 16:00 demons so and the good news is we could 16:03 preempt a lot of things every day when 16:05 I'm in my prayer time I want to Lord is 16:08 there anything that's been done anything 16:10 set my way I want to hit it now um are 16:13 there coven now what we do is we locate 16:16 these underground groups and we map them 16:19 out on paper and we target them we come 16:23 against anything at all the demonic 16:24 stuff they're doing we pray for exposure 16:27 we pray for God to engage the people 16:29 to to bring them to their knees all all 16:32 we to save them so you look at s of 16:34 tares how God brought him down um I 16:37 think that can happen 16:38 too and each touch and at the execution 16:41 did he try and touch you yeah he did 16:43 actually passes the soul of a killer 16:47 into someone new well I believe what I 16:49 see and I'm still trying to get my mind 16:51 around what I just saw some things pal 16:53 you shouldn't know can demons jump from 16:56 person to person or do they stay in one 16:58 place 16:59 they can if there's access not like the 17:02 movie Fallen to where just you brush 17:04 somebody and whatever else now a highly 17:06 demonized person notice in the scripture 17:08 Jesus doesn't touch them when it came to 17:11 Healing he touched and power went out to 17:12 heal but when it came to manifesting 17:15 Demons he just spoke and and he didn't 17:18 touch them because they they're going to 17:21 want to try anybody who's knows demons 17:23 and powers and we had we had an a voodoo 17:26 really heavy duty uh bour um and well 17:30 actually he he always called himself a 17:31 babalau so he would want to come with 17:34 all the demons in him and he would want 17:36 to grab to he would try at least to try 17:38 to want to release them on you so um but 17:42 you just in passing somebody um they 17:46 just don't have a right there's always 17:49 they have to have some kind of right uh 17:51 in order to really you know grab a hold 17:54 of do something 17:56 [Music]

Nikola Tesla ... LOST Interview ::: Visualization is the SECRET :.:.:.369

37 million tons of debris | Gaza destruction reaches horrific proportions

Originally released May 14, 2023 at DauntlessDialogue.com What is the personal cost of fame? What is the relationship between success and addiction? In ROCK BOTTOM, Adam Riva looks at the rise and fall of Bam Margera, how his life resembles the decline of contemporary culture, and the lessons we can learn from him and his family. Rather than condemning him, ROCK BOTTOM tells the story of a boy raised without discipline and exploited by the social engineers to steer an entire generation into hedonism. Like this film? There are plenty more just like it at DauntlessDialogue.com https://truthsocial.com/@dauntlessdialogue https://t.me/dauntlessdialogue https://www.bitchute.com/channel/HI5c0vtUaY0A/ https://twitter.com/dauntlessdialog https://www.instagram.com/dauntless_dialogue/ https://gab.com/DauntlessDialogue https://ugetube.com/@DauntlessDialogue

THE FAME TRAP (Dauntless Dialogue Mirror) link to Dauntless Dialogue rumble channel >> https://rumble.com/user/DauntlessDialogue link to original video here >> https://rumble.com/v4s0c25-the-fame-trap.html https://dauntlessdialogue.com/

Donald J. Trump Re-Truthed This last night 4.28.2024- 17.35.25

Owen Shroyer - Dares To Wave American Flag at Israel-Palestine Protest

The social media app Telegram has over 900 million users around the world. Its founder Pavel Durov sat down with us at his offices in Dubai for his first on-camera interview in almost a decade. READ THE TRANSCRIPT Tucker [00:00:00] Telegram is one of the fastest growing and biggest social messaging apps text apps in the world popular all around the world, including in the United States. But almost nothing or very little seems to be known about the company. It's headquartered in Dubai, where we are now. It is run and owned in. The software is design, written by Pavel Durov, who began it some years ago, who almost never does interviews. It turns out he's in a very interesting person, an extremely interesting person. We learned that the other day we were talking to him, and he has agreed to sit down and tell us about himself and his company, and we thought it'd be definitely worth hearing. And with that, thank you for joining us. Pavel Durov [00:00:40] Well, thank you for having me. Tucker [00:00:42] So, I confess, I used telegram. I didn't know anything about you or the company, and I was just kind of amazed by your story. And if you wouldn't mind just recreating it a little bit, for our audience. Where are you from? How do you start this and why? Pavel Durov [00:00:57] That will be a long story. That's okay. I was born in 1984, in the Soviet Union. So it was a funny year to be born in. And, back then, I could witness, you know, the deficiencies of the centralized system we had in the Soviet Union. When I was four years old, my family moved to Italy, where I could compare what I saw in Turin, Italy, with, what I experienced in the Soviet Union. And I thought the capitalist system, the free market system is definitely better, at least for me. And I went to school in Italy. I, became sort of a part of the, European as a result. But then when the Soviet Union collapsed, we decided to move back to Russia. In Italy, though, we, me and my brother, we had a lot of fun time. He was, shown live on Italian TV as a young prodigy kid who could solve cubic equations in real time, being just, you know, 30 years old. And that was considered to be impossible back then in Italy. Tucker [00:02:09] I don't know what a cubic equation is. So, yeah, it was difficult. Pavel Durov [00:02:13] Definitely. And, you know, when I first went to school in Italy, I didn't know how to speak Italian. I didn't know a single Italian word. And a lot of teachers said this guy, well, this kid will not going to be successful in our school by the end of the first year was second best by the end of this, next year I was the best student in our class. So it also showed me that, well, you could excel, you could compete. I like that competitive environment. And then the when we got back to Russia, it was a little bit chaotic. The only reason we got back is my father got, an offer to run. One of the departments in the Saint Petersburg State University is one of the, famous scholars and writers, dealing with ancient Roman literature. And, that experience was very different. And, I still enjoyed it because in Russia in the 90s, you had this experimental schools where, you were. Taught everything like we had six foreign languages. We had math, like very special. Tucker [00:03:21] Six foreign languages at once. Pavel Durov [00:03:22] Six foreign languages. In parallel. You would have math similar that you would have in specialized math schools. And like chemistry at the same level you would have at schools specialized in chemistry and biology. So that was really intense. My brother, he became world champion in maths in International Olympiads, in maths and programing many times in a row. Absolute best myself. I was just the best student in my school. Also did some victories in, local competitions in several areas, but we both were very passionate about coding and, designing stuff. And because we brought this IBM, PC computer from Italy back in the early 90s, we were one of the few families in Russia who could actually, teach ourselves how to program. And, we started to do that. I was, in the university. I was building websites for my fellow students. And, as a result, you know, I started, a company that became what they called the Facebook of Russia. We don't like to name it that way because, we actually managed to do a lot of things before Facebook. And that defined how the social media, industry developed in the years to come. The company's name was VK. I started it when I was 21 years old. I just graduated university, and, it eventually became the largest social network, the most popular social network in Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, Kazakhstan, and a bunch of other post-Soviet countries. That was a significant effort on my side because I, at a certain point, was the sole employee of the company. I would write the code myself. I would do the design myself. I would, manage the servers myself. It was quite intense. I even, responded to customer support requests, rarely slept. But that was, a fun time when I was 21, 22 years old. And then the company grew, like I said, to somewhere about 100 million active users, which was a lot back that it's, was, I think 2000, 12 or 2011 when we faced this, the first issues in, Russia. Because, you see, I was still a big believer in this values of free market freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. So when the Russian opposition started to use VK to organize large protests in Russia, where like almost half a million people would go and protest on the main square or some of the main squares of the city, we were requested to ban this communities on VK by the government and I refused. Tucker [00:06:37] So the government asked you to shut down communications between their opponents? Pavel Durov [00:06:43] Well, VK is a social networking platform, so they have this large public communities that anybody can join. Anybody can read what people are discussing or what the administrators are posting. They can comment, they can share. So it was a tool for this protesters to organize themselves. They were led by Navalny. It's quite a famous person now. And back then it wasn't about us, you know, siding with one side with one part of the, political, fight or the other. It was us defending the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly, which we believed was the right thing. But that didn't go too well with with the government. And, they were not too happy about that, I would say. And, in a few years from then, in 2013, we had a similar situation where, you know, you had this protests in Ukraine where people, again, would use VK to organize themselves and go to the main square of the city and, show their disagreement with the government. Tucker [00:07:54] Yes. Pavel Durov [00:07:55] And we received a request demand from the Russian side saying, you have to give us the private data of the organizers of this protest. And our response was, wait, wait a minute. This is a different country. Well, we won't betray you. Corinthian users because you ask us to do that. We decided to refuse. And, that didn't go too well with the Russian government as well. So at the end of that year, I had to make a. Difficult decision because I was offered basically a choice between two suboptimal, options, one of which was, I would start complying to whatever the leaders of the country told me to do. The other one was, I could. So my stake in the company retire, resign as the CEO and leave the country. I chose the latter. Tucker [00:09:00] That's a it's a if I can ask you to pause. It's a little strange because I have heard people say that telegram is a part of the Russian government, and you're describing the opposite. You're saying you had to leave the country because you wouldn't bow to their demands. Pavel Durov [00:09:15] Well, exactly like you say. And people who have very limited knowledge of where telegram came from, they would make these claims. They could be encouraged by our competitors who see it as an easy way to discredit us because, you know, telegram was spreading like forest fire. 2.5 million users sign up every day, and we're sort of a threat. So I'm not surprised there's this perception because our competitors, they spent tens of billions on marketing, and they're known for using PR firms to also engage in campaigns like that. So how would. Tucker [00:09:54] You how much do you spend on marketing? Pavel Durov [00:09:56] Zero. Tucker [00:09:57] $0 in dollars? Pavel Durov [00:09:59] $0. We've never spent anything on acquiring users for marketing purposes. We never promoted telegram. You know, on other social platforms in any way. This is very different from. Other apps. You could see them being promoted here or there. Pilgrim is different. All of our growth is purely organic. And, we got to almost 900 million users, without, having to spend anything on ads to promote Tillable. Tucker [00:10:37] Amazing. I'm sorry to interrupt you. No, no, it's just it's just interesting because I have heard people say that, but it sounds like the opposite of the truth. So you decided to sell the company, resign as CEO and leave your country? Pavel Durov [00:10:50] Yes, that's what I did. It was a bit painful because obviously my first company was my baby. I created myself. There was a lot of creativity, time and effort invested in that platform. But at the same time, you know, I understood that I would rather be free. I would want to take orders from anyone. And, I left behind probably a comfortable life. But for me, it was never about, you know, becoming rich. For me, everything in my life was about becoming free. Yes. And to the extent it is possible, my mission in life was to allow other people to also become free, in a sense, and using the platforms that we created where I created, my hope was that they could express their freedom. This is the mission of telegram. And it was also, in part, the mission of my previous company, VK. Tucker [00:11:53] So you start telegram after you leave Russia. Correct? Pavel Durov [00:11:57] Yeah. So the idea for telegram came when we were still based in Russia, because at some point we had this, very stressful situation where armed policemen would come to my house, try to break in because I refused to take down this, opposition groups that I mentioned earlier. And I realized there is no secure means of communication. I realized through, I want to tell my brother what's going on, to coordinate whatever we want to do. And the every tool to communicate I could use was not really secure or not encrypted. It was not safe to use them. So I thought it could be a good idea to actually come up with, do a decently encrypted messaging app. And my brother, being the genius that he is, he was able to create this encryption standard that we're using up until this day with minor changes. But the idea came. Tucker [00:13:02] Brother wrote the encryption. Pavel Durov [00:13:03] Yes. Well, my brother like two pages and maths. Super smart. He could. You know, he's an expert in cryptography. He designed, the basic principles of the Telegram's encryption. Was more on the user interface side. The way how the app works, the features, etc.. He was responsible for it for the encryption side. Tucker [00:13:30] So where did you go when you left Russia? Pavel Durov [00:13:33] We tried several places. We first went to Berlin. We tried to set up a company in Berlin. We then tried London, Singapore, San Francisco, you name it. We've been everywhere. Tucker [00:13:46] And why didn't you stay in any of those places? Pavel Durov [00:13:50] Oh, because the bureaucratic hurdles were just too difficult to overcome. Now, I was bringing the best in class programmers in the world to this places, and I was trying to hire them. From a local company. And the response I got in places like Germany, for example, is that, no, no, no, you can't hire people from outside of the European Union because you should first run some newspaper ad in a local, magazine or whatever. And then for six months, nobody responds from the engineers that are available inside the European Union and Germany. Then you're allowed to hire outsiders. And I thought it was a crazy idea, because. Tucker [00:14:39] Why didn't you just say they were illiterate refugees? Pavel Durov [00:14:43] Well, because we didn't consider ourselves risky. We were, you know, very successful people. We could have. Gone anywhere. Tucker [00:14:51] Know, but if you told them you were illiterate refugees, they would let you stay. Yeah. So you wait. So you go from Germany to Singapore to London to San Francisco. What happened in San Francisco. Pavel Durov [00:15:05] On San Francisco? We. Really thought that would be the place for us to be in, because all the tech companies are, of course, here or around San Francisco. And, there are two things that happened that, made us, think twice. Well, one thing is pretty obvious. I was in San Francisco. I got attacked on the street after visiting, I think it was Jack Dorsey, in Twitter in the Twitter's office. And, I was walking back at 8 p.m., to my hotel, and I got attacked in the street. This is the only country where I got attacked on the street. What happened is just three big guys tried to grab my phone from my hands. I was tweeting, about the fact that I just met, the founder of Twitter. That seemed right. Like a right idea for me back then, to do. And, I get attacked. I didn't want to let them have my phone. They probably didn't expect, resistance. So I smashed my phone back. There was a short fight with the guys. There was a little bit of blood involved, but I managed to run away, and decided I should probably. Tucker [00:16:25] They probably don't mug a lot of Russians. They might have been surprised. Pavel Durov [00:16:29] Well, there were much taller than me, I must admit. And there are three of them. But, I think I put up a good fight. Tucker [00:16:36] Were you surprised that this happened in San Francisco? Completely. Yeah. Pavel Durov [00:16:40] It was. It was a shock to me because I traveled a lot. There was the first, place I got attacked, and I thought, all right, maybe we shouldn't, look at San Francisco. Maybe there are other places in America where. Tucker [00:16:56] Where you don't get attacked. Pavel Durov [00:16:57] Yeah, exactly. But, you know, there's this second part, which was probably more alarming there in the US. We get too much attention from, you know, the the FBI, the security agencies, wherever we came to the US. So to give you an example, last time I was in the US, I brought, an engineer that is working for telegram, and there was an attempt to secretly hire my engineer behind my back by cyber security officers or agents, where they. Tucker [00:17:34] I called the US government to hire your engineer. Pavel Durov [00:17:37] That's my understanding. That's what he told me. Tucker [00:17:39] To write code for them or to break into telegram. Pavel Durov [00:17:43] They were curious to learn which open source libraries are integrated to the telegram app. You know, on the client side. And they were trying to persuade him to use certain open source tools that he would then integrate into the telegram code that, in my understanding, would serve as backdoors. Tucker [00:18:06] Would allow the US government to spy on people who use telegram. Pavel Durov [00:18:10] The US government, or maybe any other government, because a backdoor is a backdoor regardless of who is using it. That's right. Tucker [00:18:18] And you're that's a little surprising to hear. Maybe it's not surprising. It's offensive. You're confident that happened? Pavel Durov [00:18:26] Yes. There is no reason for my engineer to make up the stories. Also, because I personally experienced similar pressure in the U.S whenever I would go to the U.S, I would have, two FBI agents greeting me at the airport asking questions. One time I was having my breakfast at 9 a.m. and the FBI showed up at my house that I was renting. And, that was quite surprising. And I thought, you know, we're getting too much attention here. It's probably not the best environment to run. Tucker [00:19:06] Why would they? Have you committed a crime? Pavel Durov [00:19:08] No. They were interested to learn more about telegram. They knew I, you know, left Russia. They knew what we were doing, but they wanted details. And my understanding is that they wanted to establish a relationship. So could you in a ways, control telegram better? I'm. I understand they were doing their job. It's just that for us, running a privacy focused social media platform, that probably wasn't the best environment to be in. We want to be focused on what we do, not on the government relations of that sort. Tucker [00:19:47] The government relations. So then you came to UAE, to Dubai? Pavel Durov [00:19:53] Yes. Seven years ago we, moved here. We first wanted just to try it, for half a year, see if it works out. And it turned out to be a great place. We never looked. Back, and we never wanted to change the UI for any other place after that. Tucker [00:20:13] Why? Pavel Durov [00:20:15] Well, for a number of reasons. First, the ease of doing business here is, so high. For example, you can hire people from anywhere in the world as long as you're paying them a good salary. The residence permits granted automatically. It's very different if you try to do that in Europe. In some other countries, it's very different from them. Second, it's very tax efficient. Third, the infrastructure is great. You get a lot for, the minimum amount of taxes you're paying. The other the, the roads, the airports, the hotels, everything. I think you witnessed it yourself. Yes. But I think more importantly is that it's a neutral place. It's a neutral country. It's a small country that wants to be friends with friends with everybody. It's not aligned geopolitically with, any of the big, superpowers. And I think it's, the best place for a neutral platform like ours to be in. If we want to make sure we can defend our users privacy and freedom of speech. Tucker [00:21:20] So in the time that you've been here, there have been a number of wars and threats of war. Precursors to war. Have you had any pressure from the government here? Honestly, any pressure from the government here, to reveal a back door into telegram or to ban anyone or to make any changes to your business? Zero. Pavel Durov [00:21:42] That's the best part. For all the seven years we've been here, there's been zero pressure coming from the UAE towards Telenor. They've been very supportive, very helpful and it's a big contrast from whatever we've experienced before. Tucker [00:21:59] What about what you've experienced since you moved here in those seven years? Have you come under pressure from other governments under whose jurisdiction you don't follow but to to accommodate their demands? Pavel Durov [00:22:11] Well. Of course. Well, telegram is a is a large platform. We are popular in many, many countries. And. We've we've, been, receiving a lot of requests. Demands? Some of them were legitimate. Legitimate? It's, there was a group of people was promoting violence. There was some terrorist activity that was, you know, spreading violence in some parts of the world publicly, posting, things that, any decent human being would disallow or wouldn't want to be posted would help them, or in some other cases where we thought who would be crossing the line? It wouldn't be, you know, we'd align with our values of freedom of speech and, protecting people's private correspondence. We would ignore. Tucker [00:23:07] Those. Can you give us an example of a request that you thought crossed into censorship and and spying, violating people's privacy? Well. Pavel Durov [00:23:17] This is a, I would say, very funny story related to your home country. After the events of January the 6th, we received a letter from, I believe, Congressman. Yeah, of the Democratic side. And, they requested that we would share all the data we had in relation to what they called this uprising. And we checked it with our lawyers, and they said, you better ignore it. But the letter seemed very serious. And, the letter said, you know, if you are fail to comply with this request, you will be in violation with, you know, the US Constitution or something. Tucker [00:24:08] So they wanted data on people who voted for the other guy in the election. Pavel Durov [00:24:12] But they wanted the data of people who were demonstrating in Washington or wherever you doing? They're probably right there. I'm not an expert in these politics. Yeah. What, what's funny about that is two years. Exactly two weeks after that, we got another letter, a new letter from the Republican side of, the Congress. And there we read that if we give out any data according to the previous request, we would be in violation of the US Constitution. So we got two letters that said, whatever we do, we be violating the US Constitution in a way. That was my understanding of this letter's. Tucker [00:25:07] From the same legislative body, both from the US Congress. Yes. So how do you respond to that? Pavel Durov [00:25:13] Well. The same way we respond to most such requests, we decided to ignore them because it's such a complicated matter related to internal politics in the US. We don't want to take any. Tucker [00:25:28] If you would. I believe this strongly. If you ignore your problems, most of them do go away. Pavel Durov [00:25:33] That's very true. Tucker [00:25:34] It is. It is very. No, it says it, but it's true. Oh. That's amazing. Have you ever had demands that you can't ignore? Pavel Durov [00:25:43] Well. It depends. Right. Tucker [00:25:45] Unreasonable demands. Pavel Durov [00:25:46] So I would say the largest pressure towards telegram is not coming from governments. It's coming from Apple and Google. So when it comes to freedom of speech, those two platforms, they could basically censor whatever is you can read access on your smartphone. Tucker [00:26:10] So women do run the risk of being thrown out of their stores. Pavel Durov [00:26:14] Exactly. That's what they make very clear that if we fail to comply with their guidelines. So they call it, telegram could be removed from the stores. Tucker [00:26:26] Well, that would be not a small thing for you, right? Pavel Durov [00:26:29] Well, it's not won't be a small thing for us, because obviously, a big chunk of the world's population will lose access to a valuable tool that they're using every day. But, you know, it will not also be a small thing for them. I mean, there should I believe the there must be find some compromise in such cases. But Apple and Google are not very compromising when it comes to that guideline. If they believe some content is against the rules, they will see to it that all the apps that are distributed to their stores comply with this rules. Tucker [00:27:07] Or any of those rules, or do you interpret any of those rules? Do you believe any of them to be political? In nature and. Pavel Durov [00:27:17] Some of them. But it's not the rules. It's the application of the rules. The rules themselves. They're pretty general, right? So. There must be no violence, discrimination, public, publicly available. I don't know, child abuse materials. It's hard to disagree with that. Tucker [00:27:39] Yes. Pavel Durov [00:27:40] But then when they start to apply those rules, sometimes we are not. Agreeing with, with their interpretations. And we try to, you know, get back to Apple or Google wherever it is and say, look, we think you got it wrong. We think, actually, this is a legitimate way of people expressing their opinions. And sometimes they do agree to their credit, sometimes they disagree. And we still have to take some content down, at least in the version of telegram that is distributed through their platforms. Tucker [00:28:18] So there are a bunch of a number of conflicts going on around the world right now, and that may accelerate. Yeah. So would you expect that the number of demands and the intensity of those demands, the persistence of those demands, would increase as the wars become more intense. Pavel Durov [00:28:37] Let's see. I'm really hopeful that the past is is behind us. I want to be optimistic. I think now we reached a point where, politicians and societies know what to expect from social media platforms and where there, you know, the red lines are. Yes. We also learned much more about, the requirements coming from both them and Google. Apple. So and our users get better educated as well as what what is allowed and was not allowed. So I don't necessarily believe that things are going to get worse. Tucker [00:29:21] It does seem like the red line for for governments is allowing organized opposition to the rule. That's what you saw in Russia with Navalny and the Ukraine crisis in 2014. That's what you saw from that Democratic member of Congress after January 6th, 2020. Pavel Durov [00:29:39] There's a pattern here. Telegram has been used by protesters in places like Hong Kong. Yes, Belarus, Kazakhstan, even in near Barcelona. Back in the day. Yes. So it's it's it's been a tool for the opposition to a large extent. But it doesn't really matter whether it's opposition or the ruling party that is using telegram for us. We apply the rules equally to all sides. We don't, become prejudiced in this way. It's not that we are rooting for their position where we're rooting for the ruling party. It's not that we don't care, but we think it's important to, have this platform that is neutral to all voices because we believe that, the competition of different ideas can result in the progress and the better world for everyone. Tucker [00:30:35] That's, in stark contrast to, say, Facebook, which has said in public, you know, we tip the scale in favor of this or that movement in this or that country, or far from the West and far from Western media attention. But they've said that. What do you think of that? Tech companies choosing governments. Pavel Durov [00:30:55] Well, I think that's one of the reasons why we ended up here in the UAE of all places. Right. So you you don't want to be geopolitically aligned. You don't want to select the winners in any of this, political fights. And that's why you have to be in a neutral place. But I think Facebook in particular has, a lot of, reasons apart from being based in the US for doing what they're doing. I think every app and platform plays its own role. You know, we believe that humanity does need a neutral platform like telegram, that will be respectful to people's privacy and freedoms. Tucker [00:31:42] Maybe from a political perspective, it seems like the most provocative thing telegram does is offer something called channels, which seem sort of ready made for organizing groups of people. Can you explain to viewers aren't familiar with, what a telegram channel is? Pavel Durov [00:31:59] Yeah. So telegram channel is a one to many broadcast tool that allows people to, quickly disseminate any message to millions of people. So there's a channel, people subscribe to it. It's a one way communication, meaning a channel can be used by, say, a president or a head of state. And, everybody else will not be able to send a message to the president, but the president will be able to send a message to all of the people who subscribe to his channel. Tucker [00:32:35] Yes. Pavel Durov [00:32:35] Or her channel. So the point here is, channels are so easy to use, and they're so deeply integrated in the messaging user interface that they became extremely popular. Tucker [00:32:49] So you receive it like a text. Pavel Durov [00:32:51] Exactly. So it's it's a very familiar form for a lot of people. And since we launch, watch channels eight years ago, I believe, a few other apps, popular apps fold in our footsteps and copy that feature as well, and not nearly as advanced as it was we have, but it shows that it's, really, high quality and demanded feature that the world needs. Tucker [00:33:20] I think it's and you don't have to answer any these questions if you don't want, if it's too personal, but, you're the owner. You you own it. And it's very unusual. In fact, I've never seen it. To have a large business like this owned by one person. Why didn't you take. And you could have cash in and private equity money along the way, but you didn't. Why didn't you? Pavel Durov [00:33:42] Well, that's true as of now, token was 100% owned by myself. Which is, like I said, quite, unusual. Tucker [00:33:49] I've never heard of that before. Pavel Durov [00:33:51] The the reason I tried to, you know. Yeah. Stay away from venture capital money, too, in the early stages of our development is because we wanted to be independent. We knew that our mission and our goals are not necessarily consistent with the goals of, funds that could be investing into us. And also, for me, it was never about money. Right. So I have a few hundred million dollars in my bank account or in Bitcoin since ten years ago. And, I don't do anything with it. I don't own any, like real estate jets, or yachts. I don't think those, this lifestyle is for me. I like to focus on what we are doing. Tucker [00:34:42] With telegram. You don't own anything. Like big assets. Pavel Durov [00:34:47] You don't know big assets. Tucker [00:34:49] An island in Hawaii or. No, no. Pavel Durov [00:34:51] No. No land, no real estate. Nothing. Why? Because for me, my number one priority in life is my freedom. And once you start buying things first, it will tie you down to a physical location. In my view, it's my personal view. I don't have nothing against people who are buying real estate, but in my personal view, it will be like this for me. And the second reason is I like to stay focused on what we do, I telegram. So I know that if I buy a house and buy a jet, something like that, I would be spending time trying to make it nice. Tucker [00:35:32] And yeah. Pavel Durov [00:35:33] This will require a lot of time and effort. Tucker [00:35:35] Would you go with leather seats or velvet seats? Pavel Durov [00:35:38] Exactly. Tucker [00:35:39] And you're not even gonna choose? Pavel Durov [00:35:41] Yes. For me, I would rather make decisions that would influence how people communicate, rather than choosing the color of seats in the house that only I am. My relatives from, probably a bunch of my friends will see. Tucker [00:35:58] Interesting and you didn't take because I just have to say the third time. Haven't seen this before. You obviously were famous as a young man, as a company builder and entrepreneur, and so you could have really taken a lot of money and you didn't because you didn't want to be controlled. Pavel Durov [00:36:17] I just didn't see any reason to do that. You know, I had enough money to get by. Well, to be completely fair, telegram did takes outside money. We issued bonds three years ago, so we raised debt. And that was. And before that, we had a cryptocurrency project that also raised some funds. So there were instances where we raised outside, funding. But, when it comes to company equity. Tucker [00:36:48] You didn't give up ownership. Pavel Durov [00:36:49] We didn't give anyone ownership or voting control or anything like that, because we also believe in efficiency. I think that having myself as the sole owner, director and product manager for this, extensive period of time in the company, its development allowed us to move faster. Tucker [00:37:09] How could you be the only product manager? Are you still the only product manager in the company? Pavel Durov [00:37:15] Exactly. I still come up with all most of the features. I still work directly with every engineer, every designer who is implementing these features. You know, I'm running this company because I enjoy it. I'm the only product manager because I think this is the way I can contribute. Tucker [00:37:37] How big is your HR department? Pavel Durov [00:37:39] Zero. Well, you could say it's me. And that's because the way we hire. Tucker [00:37:44] Engineer, you need a big HR department. You don't think you don't suffer with that one? Pavel Durov [00:37:50] We in a way decentralize that. We started a platform where we host contests for engineers. It's actually contest.com. We have this separate, platform for that. And we select the best of the best engineers as a result of the competitions that we organize. We hold them every month or two months. So after a series of this competitions, we select the best of the best of the best. And they then maybe could join our team, which is just about 30 engineers. So it's it's really compact. The team super efficient. It's like a Navy Seal team. And this is how we operate. We don't need a HR department to find, super talented engineers. Tucker [00:38:44] Why does everyone do this? I mean, I look at some of these tech companies or Elon Musk famously when he showed up at Twitter. I mean, there are people doing things that he didn't even know they were doing and they didn't know what they were doing. They were like there was a World Peace department and a foosball department. And why doesn't everybody run their business like you? Pavel Durov [00:39:04] Well, it's an interesting question. I think it all boils down to the question of independence, in a way. I asked this question to the predecessor of Elon. Tucker [00:39:15] Jack Dorsey. Pavel Durov [00:39:16] Jack and and his predecessor as well. And, would you say, Dick Costa whatever is his name? And, this Jack, he told me that, if I told him, look, you can run this company with 20 people. You don't need so many people here. And the response was, I agree with you, but if we start firing so many people, it will make the Wall Street scared. They will think something's very wrong with the company. And we don't want to do that. And that's why we got to keep all this, employees. Tucker [00:39:54] So to keep the stock price high, he had to run it inefficiently. I mean, that's what you're saying. Pavel Durov [00:40:02] If I understood him correctly, that's what's. But to his to his credit, Elon has to take Twitter private. Before he could do all there. Well, I mean. Tucker [00:40:15] There's I mean, there's something sort of profound in what you're saying. I mean, the whole point of a publicly traded company or one of the points so the public can participate in the ownership of the company, but also so outsiders can assess the operations of the company. And so there's transparency. So we know how the company is run because it's owned by the public. And so it would be by definition more efficient, you would think. But you're saying that it's wildly less efficient that you wind up with a foosball department when it's publicly traded, but when it's privately held, you don't. I mean, that's kind of the opposite of what you would think, right? Well, I guess. Pavel Durov [00:40:48] Most tech founders would actually agree that running a public company is, less efficient than running a private company, because you have to be accountable to much more people. There is a lot of redundancy bureaucracy involved. So from a purely like efficiency standpoint, I would argue, and I think a lot of people would agree with me, that when a public company is suboptimal, however, there are other advantages of of getting listed. And of course that is relevant when you want to acquire other companies. Well, cash. Yes, you can have access to cheap capital. You know, there is a lot of things you can do. Tucker [00:41:33] But you don't want to do any of those things. Pavel Durov [00:41:36] Well, not. Not presently. Definitely. I am enjoying running my company in the way it is. Well, who knows what the future holds. But, as of now, I think we are doing a great job with, with telegram, 900 million users will probably cross a billion, monthly active users within a year from now. I think we are doing great. Why? Why would we lose this momentum right now? Tucker [00:42:01] Can I go back to something you said at the outset? You don't have an H.R. department. You only have 30 engineers working for you. You run the products, you own the company. Such a tight organization. But how do you get new users if you spend zero money for acquisitions, if you're not advertising, if you're not paying to bring people in, how do you how do you do that? How do you get to a billion for free? Pavel Durov [00:42:26] But because people love our product. What we realized pretty early on is that people are smart. People like to use good things and they don't like to use inferior things. That's why whenever you have a person who is who started to use telegram and they're there for a while and they start to discover all the features out there, you know, the speed, the security, the problems, everything that we have. They don't want to go back, and they start inviting their friends, recommending them. You should really check this app out because it's so much better than everything else. And also because people realize that whatever, messaging apps they're using right now, they're like 5 or 6 years behind. They are copying what we did six years ago. And that's not, you know, very high quality copy that they make about features. So people love quality. That's why they move. They also love the independence. They also love the privacy. They love the freedom. There are a lot of reasons why somebody would switch to telegram from other apps. Tucker [00:43:36] So one of the things we learned when Elon Musk bought Twitter is that the intelligence is not just us, but a bunch of other countries, the usual suspects. We're all over the company. I mean, they were some of them were present working at the company. They had access to the direct messages. You can just imagine, you know, because you run one. But the wealth of data flowing through would be of great interest to to governments. Does that make you paranoid that you'll be penetrated? I mean, I assume governments would like to know what's going on. Privately on telegram. Pavel Durov [00:44:11] Well, there's definitely a lot of responsibility that we have on our shoulders. And we I wouldn't say we are paranoid, but I think it makes sense to stay prudent and, you know, not being, too accessible, not traveling to weird places. Tucker [00:44:31] You don't travel to weird places. Pavel Durov [00:44:32] I hope not, like, I travel to places where I have, confidence that, you know, those places are, consistent with what we do in our values. I don't go to any of the big geopolitical powers to the countries like China or Russia or the US. So. Tucker [00:44:55] You don't go to the US. Pavel Durov [00:44:56] I try not to. I can go, but, you know, it's, too much attention like I described before. Tucker [00:45:02] Yeah. Because at some point, if you run something like this, you're a player in world politics. I mean, whether you want to be or not, don't you think? Pavel Durov [00:45:10] We definitely don't want to be a player. We want to be a neutral platform that is impartial and, you know, doesn't take any side. But you're probably right. There's some role we have to play. Tucker [00:45:24] Well, not taking a side is the one thing you're not allowed to do, right? I mean, aren't you required to take a side in the modern world? Pavel Durov [00:45:32] I think that's a big problem, because I think that kind of, attitude can result in our world becoming a more dangerous place, because at the end of the day, we all have to try to understand each other and try to get closer to each other in terms of getting to know the positions of the other people, even though they're drastically different from our own positions. And that's how we get to some, you know, compromise and move forward. If we're strictly divided and everybody is required to take a side and we can't take a side because we are this platform that people should use to collaborate and to find common ground and hopefully to move forward. If we lose that, we can end up in a much more dangerous place. Tucker [00:46:28] How often do you intersect with the National Security Agency, NSA? And I ask that as someone whose texts were read by them. So I know that they're very active in this world. What's your experience been? Well, I think. Pavel Durov [00:46:43] The NSA is not, an agency that works with you directly, right? Yeah. Come here. Tucker [00:46:50] You're so diplomatic, I love it. You got to say, it's not an agency that works with you directly. No, that is true. It is true. Pavel Durov [00:46:59] So my knowledge of my interactions with the NSA is very limited. Yes, I could read something in the newspapers about, you know, my phone being penetrated with Pegasus or something like that. I have no idea whether it's true or not, but this is the only source of information I can have about me personally being of interest to any of, you know, the secret agencies. Tucker [00:47:27] But you've got to think, even though you haven't done an interview in seven years ish, you know, you're it's widely known by people who are interested, who you are and your role in this. I mean, you've got to think you're under crazy amounts of surveillance, wouldn't you think? Pavel Durov [00:47:42] That's probably true. You know, it would sound funny, but I assume by default that the devices I use like I compromised. Yeah, because you will still use an iPhone or an Android phone. And, now, after experiencing what I experienced in the U.S., I have very limited faith in, platforms developed in the US from a security standpoint. Tucker [00:48:10] Yes. Privacy standpoint. Pavel Durov [00:48:12] Exactly. Tucker [00:48:12] Yeah. Because in a lot of countries of ours, America included, spying is described as, quote, security. You're looking at it from the other perspective. You're assuming that security is privacy and my right not to be spied upon. But I government's described spying upon you as security. Pavel Durov [00:48:31] Thank you for this correction. Tucker [00:48:35] So last question, do you, since you've done this since you were in college and you've been at the center of it, where do you see it going? And by this I mean the free exchange, the private exchange of information between sovereign individuals, human beings, non slaves. When I was a child. That was possible. It's increasingly difficult. Are we moving toward a world where there just is no private communication? Or do you think that privacy will remain despite, say, AI or just massive increases in computing power? Pavel Durov [00:49:11] While this depends on the extent of privacy. When you say privacy will remain. Do you mean that we have absolute privacy now? Tucker [00:49:21] I don't think that we do. And I think the world is becoming less amenable. Government is becoming less tolerant of privacy. And that's clearly the trend because they have more technological power. But will they win, I guess. Will there ever be a way to preserve privacy? You know, can is there a place for it? Pavel Durov [00:49:42] I believe in that. I am an optimist. I think some new secure hardware, you know, communication devices will be created, in a similar way that now we have, hardware wallets to store your cryptocurrency. Yes. Maybe we'll have secure, communication, devices, you know, to send messages or do voice calls. It's possible. I do believe that, you know, the world develops in cycles. And, if things seem to go in one direction today doesn't seem. Doesn't mean that tomorrow they will go the same direction. I also feel that at some point, people will get tired of, what they experienced today and they would decide to, you know, move to some other direction. So it's I seen it after Covid, for example. So during Covid, do you had a lot of restrictions also on social media platforms? You on most social media platforms you were not really allowed. To express doubt in relation to lockdowns, vaccines or masks. And, at some point I could feel that the sentiment changed. People started to feel very, very tired and sometimes angry. But the fact that they were not allowed to express their opinions, particularly after the end of, the pandemic, a lot of people started to be, even more skeptical about the restrictions in their freedoms that they experienced during the pandemic. Tucker [00:51:38] What was your position as a business owner? During Covid, did you must have come under pressure to censor opinions on lockdowns, vaccines, masking. How did you respond? Pavel Durov [00:51:52] So our position is pretty straightforward. We're a neutral platform. We were helping governments to spread their message about the lockdowns and masks and vaccines. We got dozens of governments who we really help. You know, some of their information, but we also didn't want to restrict the voices that were critical of all those measures. We thought it made sense for this opposing views to collide and hopefully, you know, see some truth come out of those debates. And of course, we got criticized for that. But, looking back, I think it was the right strategy. Tucker [00:52:31] So you allowed people to voice doubts about the so-called science throughout the throughout the experience? Pavel Durov [00:52:38] Exactly. During the pandemic, we I think were one of the few or maybe the only major social media platform that didn't, take down accounts or that were skeptical, in relation to some of these measures. Tucker [00:52:57] So why are you not famous and treated as a hero in the United States? Oh. Shouldn't there be a parade in your honor? If you're the only social media platform not to take down what turned out to be true, or to some extent true, more certainly more true than the CDC guidance. I mean, what why why were you times man of the year? Why isn't your face on the nickel? Pavel Durov [00:53:26] I'm not an expert in the US politics. But to be fair, you have, now, Twitter or X. Yeah. That, seemingly becoming more pro freedom of speech. And I think it is, it's, it's, it's it's a great development. And back to our earlier discussion about how all of this is developing in cycles. Things are starting to change, it seems. Tucker [00:53:57] So. I mean, but in in some ways Elon buying Twitter. Sort of end your monopoly. But you still greet it cheerfully. You're still in favor of it. Pavel Durov [00:54:11] Definitely. We will love the fact that Elon bought Twitter. We thought it was a great development for a number of reasons. First reason is just innovation. You could see X doing trying a lot of things. Some of them. Will turn out to be mistakes. Some of them will work, but at least they're trying to innovate. That's something we didn't have outside of telegram. And if you other companies in this industry for the last ten years, what you saw from the big players, they would rather copy the proven models with features that apps like telegram launch and just scale them on a larger audience. These features would be a pale, pale blue pill, reflections of what we built. But this was the way those companies operating still operate. What X is trying to do is, in line what we are building, you know, innovation, trying different things, trying to give power to the creators, trying to get the ecosystem economy going. Those are all exciting things. And, I think we need more companies like that. I was I don't know if it's good for humanity that, like, Elon is spending so much time on Twitter making it better, but it's definitely good for the social media industry. Tucker [00:55:38] When you see the other the guys who run these other companies, like what do you do know them? And do you ever talk about freedom of speech? I mean, if you're running, you're running to not you don't have to answer, of course, if you don't want. But like if you're into Mark Zuckerberg, which I mean. Pavel Durov [00:55:52] Yeah, I, we met with Mark, more than ten years ago. I was still running VK and, I told them I told Mark and his colleagues about our, app platform. We launched an app platform, I think it was 2009 at VK. They were very interested. It was an interesting meeting. They ended up trying to copy. Not what we did, but what I told them we did. That was funny. I remember him asking me whether we were planning to, start something. Okay. On a global basis, on the global level. Level? Like go, for international expansion. I said no, and I asked him whether he was going to try to capture more of. My domestic market where I was working out, and he said no. And we both ended up doing exactly that in like 2 or 3 weeks or whatever. Tucker [00:56:58] So I'm thinking I shouldn't go into business with Mark Zuckerberg. Pavel Durov [00:57:03] Look. No comment. Tucker [00:57:08] Thank you very much. It was a great conversation. I appreciate, and we're rooting for you. Pavel Durov [00:57:13] Thank you for having me. Of course. LTOV here >>> https://tuckercarlson.com/the-tucker-carlson-interview-pavel-durov/

The Biden administration accused journalist Owen Shroyer of spreading "disinformation" about the 2020 election and sent him to federal prison on a misdemeanor charge. He just got out. Published Dec 12, 2023 LTOV here >>> https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-owen-shroyer/ READ THE TRANSCRIPT Tucker [00:00:00] There is major concern in Washington at this hour that if democracy is allowed to function and the candidate who is leading in all the polls for President of the United States is allowed to win in 2024, we'll get fascism. And he's going to throw his political opponents in prison. And that will change America forever. Democracy will die. We'll become an authoritarian republic, not even a republic. A junta. Well, we don't have to wait, actually, because that's already happening. And it has been happening for at least three years, certainly since January 6th, 2021, a day in which we now know there were approximately 200 undercover federal officers in the crowd. But it wasn't a setup. Don't say false flag. So what happened in the aftermath? Well, over a thousand people were arrested, well over a thousand in the largest manhunt the FBI has ever conducted. Almost every single one of them had behaved peacefully at the demonstration, but many went to prison. Some went to prison without even doing anything wrong. And one of them, at least one of them was an actual journalist, a salary taking journalist, provably a journalist. And no one even accused him of going inside the Capitol that day. He was accused, however, of spreading, quote, disinformation about the election, which is now an imprisonable offense. His name is Owen Shroyer. He spent years as an Infowars host. He just spent 47 days in federal prison for - listen carefully - a misdemeanor. Hass anyone ever gone to federal prison for a misdemeanor? We can't find anyone. By the way, he was kept in solitary confinement for most of that time. He is out of prison, still on probation. He joins us now. Owen Shroyer, thanks so much for joining us. . Owen Shroyer [00:01:47] It's an honor to be here, Tucker. Tucker [00:01:48] Well, it's an honor to have you and welcome back from prison. I adlibbed most of that intro, so I want to make sure I didn't misstate any of the facts of your case. It just almost defies imagination. Tell us, in your words, why you were sent to federal prison. Owen Shroyer [00:02:07] Well, January 6th is obviously the hook that the Department of Justice used to put me in prison, even though my charge still was a misdemeanor charge. I think it's worth laying the breadcrumbs for this, because really the persecution that I've dealt with as a journalist and a talk show host dates back to actually 2019, where you may recall the Democrats were holding their impeachment sham against Donald Trump. And I happened to stand up during Nadler's introduction of the impeachment. And I told them that it was fraudulent, that we, the people, elected Trump and Trump. Was innocent. The whole exchange lasted longer than 60 seconds. Hearing [00:03:03] (Shroyer interrupts impeachment inquiry) [00:03:07] The cops escorted me out of the building. I complied. No problems. And normally that would be that, Tucker. In fact, this is actually pretty commonplace for the Capitol. I'm sure you've seen it many times yourself. One, David Hogg has done this. We've seen people storm into Kevin McCarthy's office. We see the pro-Palestinian protesters storming into the Capitol. We've seen the pro-abortion people. I can go on and on, but for the sake of time, I'll stop with that short list. Very commonplace for people to go into the Capitol. Now, normally what happens is the Capitol Police will detain you, escort you out of the building and usually just shuffle you on their way. Well, in 2019, after I had disrupted the impeachment sham hearing, which I would still argue is a First Amendment right to redress your grievances with the government, somebody got on the walkie talkie of the Capitol police officer just as he was about to release me and said, no, not so fast. We're not going to treat Owen Shroyer like the other 99% of people that go into the Capitol and get escorted out and detained. We're going to go ahead and charge and arrest him. So that was the first time I was politically persecuted. A month later, inside that same Capitol building, there were a group of, say, 40 or 50 anti-Trump protesters having a demonstration in the Capitol. Well, I decided to just show the double standard in this country to go back to the exact same spot that 40 to 50 anti-Trump protesters are in in the Capitol. I went to the exact same spot. I put a tape over my mouth that said "censored" because I had been banned off all mainstream media, social media platforms. And I was arrested for that and spent 36 hours in a D.C. gulag for that. Eventually, when that reached the judge's docket, he just completely tossed it out. But I think it's worth building to this point, Tucker, because people need to know that this discrimination and persecution against myself, but probably more importantly, just against journalists has been going on for a long time. Owen Shroyer [00:05:12] So bring us to January 6th. As you said, I was there covering the event as a journalist. And despite the mainstream media and left wing media reports that are completely wrong, claiming that I was in violation of a probation from 2019 just by being there, that is completely inaccurate. I was not in violation of my probation and I was there that day as a journalist. Well, after everything goes down that day and myself and the team that I was with, which is in their sentencing memo, they admit we tried to stop people from going into the Capitol. We tried to discourage people from being on Capitol grounds. We even tried to work with police to stop the whole event from happening. This is all on record. The government, the Department of Justice, the judge, the prosecuting attorneys are all well aware of this. It all came up in my sentencing memo, and yet they still decided to sentence me to 60 days in jail, which you reported. I did only serve 47. They wanted to hit me with 120 days in jail. And so I'm lucky that I really only got away with 47. Unfortunately, I had to serve, as you said, the majority of that in lockdown. Owen Shroyer [00:06:25] But here's another issue. Aside from the attack on free speech, the incentive right now from the Department of Justice is not justice, Tucker. The incentive from U.S. attorneys is convictions and the incentive from the judge is imprisonment. Justice never seems to enter the equation here at all. And I'm perfectly an example of that. Everybody knows I didn't belong in prison. Even when I was indicted by the FBI, a magistrate Judge, Farooq in D.C. issued a motion to the DOJ saying, hey, wait a second, you violated the law potentially here. And they did when they indicted me as a journalist. Barack Obama signed legislation that you have to go through special protocols and procedures when you're going to charge a journalist. They didn't do any of that. What did they do with the judges memo saying that you violated the law? They said, we don't care. We're charging Shroyer anyway. We don't have to follow the rules. So I can expand in a million different ways from there, Tucker. Tucker [00:07:25] And I appreciate, thank you for that summary. It's hard to believe any of that is real. It is. It's been chronicled in detail. It is shocking, though, to hear it laid out. So a couple of questions. First. You are a journalist and that's not I mean, a lot of people claim to be a. You actually working as one and paying your health insurance. You're a journalist. Okay. So did any other journalist defend you? Did any of them, any journalism watchdog groups Pan-American or whatever they are? Did anybody in the journalism community, White House Correspondents Association, speak up on your behalf? Owen Shroyer [00:07:58] No, not that I'm aware of. In fact, The New York Times had been writing stories about censoring me and shutting me down for a long time now. There were people in, say, the alternative media that supported me and came to my defense. I remember you actually covered my story at the previous network that you worked at as well. But outside of that, it was very few and far between. Tucker [00:08:21] Unbelievable. So you said and we often say as we describe these things, they did this, they did that. But can you attach some names to the horrifying miscarriage of justice that you endured? Like who was behind this? Do you know? Like what judge would sign off on that? Who are the prosecutors like? Who are these people? Owen Shroyer [00:08:42] Well, the judge in my case was Timothy Kelly, and he has had a lot of January 6th cases, and he's been very heavy handed in some of his sentencing. And again, I'm not sure the incentive there, because it doesn't seem to be justice. And the lady that spoke, the US prosecuting attorney that spoke at my sentencing hearing was a Kimberly Pascal. And, you know, they like to come off as friendly people and they like to pretend to you that they're operating in good faith. But I have to say, it doesn't feel that way after the results. In fact, during the sentencing hearing, I thought I was hearing the Twilight Zone music behind me as Kimberly Pascal was arguing that this is not about Shroyer's speech, but here's what he said. And you can see the transcripts from that hearing. And literally, Tucker, she says this is not about Owen Shroyer speech but here's what he said. I'm not sure how many times that was said, but even in the sentencing memo that the prosecuting attorneys released, the 30 page memo, about 27 pages are about my speech, not even on January 6th, my speech from my talk show before and after. Tucker [00:09:50] So I think it's from that memo that you're accused of spreading and I'm quoting disinformation about the election. Disinformation doesn't suggest that what you said was wrong. It's not the same as incorrect or false or a lie. It just means it's inconvenient for the people in power. So how in the world could the government admit in public that they're sending you to prison for questioning an election and still pretend that this is a democracy? Owen Shroyer [00:10:18] Well, it's amazing, isn't it? Because I'm not too old but I do remember that every presidential election that Democrats have lost in the 20th century, they've questioned and they've denied. So it's odd that one side can do that and the other cannot. But, you know, to go back to the not getting a good faith negotiation with the government, I want to be very clear about something here, Tucker. There was a notion that somehow my cooperation with the federal government was me turning on Donald Trump or me turning on Alex Jones, something that was completely inaccurate. The reason why I turned over multiple cell phones and I responded to every electronic data request that the FBI made and sat down for a multiple hour session with them to cross-reference my testimony. And I'm assuming other testimonies that they had gotten as well, as well as what was in my phones and everything else they wanted was to prove my innocence and not just my innocence. Everybody's innocence. Nobody wanted that to go down. Tucker [00:11:21] Innocent of what? I mean, you weren't even accused of going inside the Capitol building on January 6th. You're not accused of setting anything on fire or committing any act of violence. So, I mean, on what grounds could they steal your cell phones and violate your most basic privacies? I don't understand that. Like, what's the crime? Owen Shroyer [00:11:42] Well, the whole notion that the US attorney was arguing is that somehow I was behind the entire event that day. That's what their whole notion is, is that somehow I led the charge for what resulted in January 6th and people going into the Capitol and everything else. And I wanted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, look, here's all my communications. That was never anybody's plan. I had nothing to do with that. I never went in the building. And they acknowledged that. They acknowledged that. And they still decided to come down heavy handed on me. But it's worth mentioning too, Tucker. Part of the process here with me turning all of this over and cooperating, my attorney and my understanding was that they weren't going to press for jail time. That was the mutual understanding that we had here. And then they tried to hit me with 120 days. And I'm not curious if that didn't come from the minds of the U.S. attorneys, but perhaps someone higher up at the DOJ. I might even believe it's at the very top of the DOJ. Maybe Merrick Garland is the one who's trying to put me behind bars and make an example out of me. Tucker [00:12:46] Yeah, you can trust the Mafia more than you can trust the Justice Department. And I wish that weren't true, but it absolutely is true. So what was prison like? Owen Shroyer [00:12:57] Well, I will tell you, I think and this is kind of not something I would expected to have said in this interview, but it's just true. I think God wanted me to experience this for multiple reasons, Tucker. I'm a big believer in God, and I think everything that happens in our life is for a reason. And I believe God wanted me to go through this experience because not just the obvious example of speech imprisonment that I had to face, or a speech crime that is now potentially a precedent that could be used against any journalist, which puts fear in my heart, not just for me in the present day, but for future Americans, that they have to be afraid to speak and to do work, honest work as a journalist. But, you know, there was an unexpected issue that was clearly shown to me through this process, and that's that the Justice Department and the incentive behind imprisonment is wrong. [00:13:55] I mean, I can tell you the details of my stay, they're pretty much horrific, Tucker. I spent the majority of the time in lockdown. I went right out of solitary confinement into what's called a special housing unit for a phone call I made thanking people for sending me mail. People that were in jail for decades, some of the people that worked inside the prison for decades, when they saw that what's called "a shot" in the prisons, they said, I've never seen anybody get punished for this before. So I got sent to prison as a speech prisoner. And then I got sent to the prison inside the prison for my speech. And, you know, I had a couple off the record conversations with people while I was in there. And basically they were saying the same thing, like, look Owen, we don't like what's been done to you here, but these are orders coming from the very top. Your beef isn't with us here at this prison. Your beef is with the people at the top. They're the ones still coming after you, even when you're in here. And I'll leave it at that. So nobody's ever heard of a misdemeanor in a� federal prison until me. Nobody's ever heard of somebody going to the special housing unit for making a phone call, thanking people for mail until me. And so I don't know why they want to make an example of me so much, except that I just speak the truth and I'll say it right to their face if I'm given the opportunity. But we need prison reform in this country badly, Tucker. Most of the people that are in that prison, not just me, do not belong there. And there are way more political prisoners outside the realm of what you and I might think. You go after corrupt lawyers, judges, insurance companies. You go after the corruption in Medicare and Medicaid. They lock you up and throw away the key. I couldn't believe some of the stories. And while I'm in there, the Bureau of Prisons wants $2 billion. Matt Gaetz brought my name up during that hearing. The Bureau of Prisons doesn't need $2 billion more annually. They need to release $2 billion worth of prisoners because we have a prison industrial complex in this country. And we have a Justice Department that is not incentivized by justice. Tucker [00:15:59] Right. So the violent criminals stay on the street to act as militia for the ruling class and put the fear of God in everybody else, weaken the population. And the thought criminals, or the ones who challenge power, wind up in prison. I've noticed. Owen Shroyer [00:16:18] Well, and I think this is something that I hate to talk about, but it's just true. And people need to know this. Now, I'm a man of convictions and I guess I would think of myself as a brave man. But telling the truth shouldn't really consist of an act of bravery. But I have to be honest with you, Tucker. Just doing this interview. The book that I wrote while I was in there, I'm afraid now. I'm afraid that my speech is going to wind me up in jail again. That's something that sits in the back of my head now. Every day when I go on air and tell the truth, that's something that sits in the back of my head that I might go to jail for what I'm saying. Tucker [00:16:56] What's solitary like? Owen Shroyer [00:17:01] You know, my situation probably wasn't the worst as many people in solitary have where you get no interaction whatsoever. Luckily, some of the inmates that were in general population were able to at least sometimes come up to my window. But for the first 25 days, so almost the first month of my incarceration, I only got movement three days a week. Monday, Wednesday and Friday, I got 15 minutes to shower and that was it. I didn't even get access to commissary until day 35, I believe, which means I was forced to eat the prison food, which many prisoners don't eat at all because it's so bad and they just eat the commissary food. You get very little interaction. You get very little access to the outside. I was treated like a high security prisoner for a misdemeanor. And like I said, nobody could even believe that that was the case, whether it was long time prison workers or long time inmates. And so unceremoniously, I kind of got the nickname Misdemeanor because that was the big joke that somehow I'm in federal prison for a misdemeanor and nobody's ever heard of that. But, you know, that's the thing. You don't want to end up in prison. I mean, I don't have to sit here and explain why you lose all your freedoms. You have to eat unhealthy food. You're pretty much sleep deprived and starved the entire time. But now that's something that sits in the back of my head every time I speak. Doing this interview. Doing my show every day. I'm on air for three hours a day telling the truth. And every hour, I have to sit there and wonder, am I going to go to jail for something I said on my show? That's what they've done to me. And I'm afraid for future Americans that might have to face that same fear. Tucker [00:18:50] I mean, at some point, I think some people are going to say, I'm actually just not going to go to prison. Like, make me. I hope it doesn't get to that. But you could see that happening. Maybe putting you in prison, in federal prison on a misdemeanor charge for doing nothing. Maybe the whole point of that exercise, because you're a public figure, was to put the fear of God into everybody else and to get them to pause before they tell the truth. Owen Shroyer [00:19:14] Well, and it's just, the torture is beyond this. I've been under the scrutiny of the federal government since 2019, and all I've ever done is speak. That's all I've ever done. I've never hurt anybody. As far as I'm concerned. I've never broken any law. All I've done is speak. But because I speak against corruption in government and I speak against the corruption in the establishment, I am under the full scrutiny of the federal government. And, you know, people always make the joke, Tucker, but there's a bit of reality to it. I guess I should have just joined one of the leftist mobs and attacked police officers, defaced public property, tried to burn down a building, firebombed a police officer. I guess I probably wouldn't be in this situation right now. Tucker [00:19:57] Of course not. Torch Wendy's. You'd be completely fine. So last question, sort of bigger picture, picture question. I think your case is one of the most shocking, but it's not unique. There are a lot of people who went to prison for no crime after January 6th, which was obviously a setup. But the basis of the demonstration and of the conversation since has been the question of the 2020 election. Was it stolen? And do you think that any of this stuff, putting you in jail, pretending it was insurrection. Any of that. Has that convinced a single person in this country or abroad that the election wasn't stolen? I mean, you think that's actually worked as a propaganda tool? Owen Shroyer [00:20:40] Well, it's funny because in their sentencing memo, they said I wasn't remorseful for questioning it. Like I'm some, I guess I'm supposed to grovel to Joe Biden and the Department of Justice. Yeah, I'm not remorseful. But here's the thing, Tucker. They can put me in jail for a month, two months, a year, 12 years. It's not going to change the facts. It's not going to change the facts that Donald Trump was getting 40, 50,000 people at every rally. He did, sometimes 3 or 4 a day. And Joe Biden couldn't fill a broom closet. It's not going to change the fact that the recent joke Trump made, which I think is funny, Donald Trump sells millions of hats. I've never seen or heard of a Joe Biden hat. It's not going to change the fact that was well documented in the documentary 3000 Mules that these vote-by-mail drop boxes were filled with all kinds of corruption. And it's not going to change the fact that Donald Trump was leading in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, all the way through the night until 3 a.m., Michigan, and then at 3:00 and 3:30 a.m., all the sudden, hundreds of thousands of votes for Joe Biden came in just enough to put him over the edge. So they can throw me in jail forever. It's not going to change that history. And I always like to make this analogy, Tucker, because I think it's a fair analogy. I'm sure you recall the great homerun chase of 1998 when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both broke the home run record. Well, that's an anomaly. So we found out what was behind it. They were both using steroids. Or, as some people said, they were both cheating. Well, here's the thing. We just had a presidential election where both candidates broke the record. Do you really think that's organic? And do you really believe that Joe Biden got more votes than Barack Obama? Anybody who really believes that I think is lying to themselves and lying to anybody else. Tucker [00:22:30] A lot more than Barack Obama. Yeah, Joe Biden beat Black Jesus. Yeah, I agree. I agree with you 100%. Owen Shroyer, it is great to see you. I'm sure you're rattled, but you're obviously not broken. And so we're grateful that you took the time to talk to us. Thank you very much. Owen Shroyer [00:22:47] Absolutely, great to be here. And congratulations on your new network, Tucker. We're all cheering for you. Tucker [00:22:53] Thanks, man.

Heart of a Warrior by Mark Fonseca (Dark Knight Mirror) Link to DK Rumble channel here >>> https://rumble.com/c/DarkKnight * GO DIRECTLY TO DK's CHANNEL AND FOLLOW HIM NOW & THANK ME LATER LTOVideo HERE >>> https://rumble.com/v4l2zzc-mark-fonseca-heart-of-a-warrior.html

America is being invaded and destroyed with the help of our leaders. Michael Yon has spent his life covering wars, so he recognized right away what was happening. Yon joined Tucker to unveil the shadowy nonprofits that are fueling the migrant crisis currently unfolding on our southern border. originally Published Apr 23, 2024 https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-michael-yon-border-invasion/ READ THE TRANSCRIPT Bret Weinstein [00:01:21] Well, I, I wound up there because Michael Yon had been sending me materials, thinking that I would be interested in what was taking place in Panama. And, of course, I was utterly fascinated by what I was seeing. Now, some of your viewers may not know Michael. Michael is a former Green Beret who has refashioned himself. Well, the last time I was on your program, I talked about Goliath. And, if there's a Goliath, there's a David. And I would argue that Michael Yon is like David's eyes. He's been traversing the world trying to understand a story that as yet has no name. And that story is partially in the Darien of Panama. And it's all sorts of other places, including, in various UN installations. There's some story that is difficult to piece together. And he's been physically traveling to all of its various epicenters and showing people. Tucker [00:02:22] So a year ago, it would have been pretty hard to find an English speaker who had been to the Darien Gap. Again, it's famous this region, it's famous for being the most lawless and dangerous place on planet Earth. Michael Yon has now spent about six months in the Darien Gap shooting film, interviewing people. We're going to show you a lot of what he's found during the course of the interview you're about to see, but one piece of tape that caught our eye - kind of remarkable. A town of about 300 indigenous people, only about a dozen working toilets deep in the jungle, completely overrun by thousands of migrants from all over the world, including Africa and Asia. Watch: Soundbite [00:03:03] (Darien Gap video) Tucker [00:03:32] All moving to your country. Now it's happening. That's the end of the United States, the country that you grew up in. Irreparable. Forever. People in Washington, the people who control the Congress and the white House, seem to be in favor of this. And now they're just kind of saying it out loud. Chuck Schumer, probably the darkest member of the United States Congress, of course, the head Democrat in the Senate. He's telling us that we can't deal with any of that because Ukraine's border is too important. It's Ukraine. It's only about Ukraine. Here's Chuck Schumer: Tucker [00:04:13] Right. So if you want to know what evil looks like in 2024, you just saw it. It's Chuck Schumer, okay. The embodiment of it right now. But we did want to see more tape and hear more firsthand account from what it looks like at the other side, the Darien Gap, the beginning of the journey to our country where this invasion is beginning. And so we are grateful now to speak to Michael Yon, who spent more time there than maybe any American. Michael Yon, thanks so much for joining us. So could you just start with the with the overview? What role... And maybe I've misstated it, but what role does the Darien Gap play in the invasion underway of the United States? Michael Yon [00:04:56] It's absolutely vital. Tucker. You know, as soon as, Biden was installed, I was actually in DC for the, quote, unquote. You know, whatever it was, where they installed him. And then I flew straight within about 24 hours to El Paso, because I thought that the aliens would start flooding across the border. And they did. And so from there, I flew down to Columbia to the other side of the Darien Gap, because I thought that the Darien Gap would end up being a major pathway to the United States. And so I went into the, Darien Gap on the Colombian side. Just not not very far. Just about an hour inside. It's very dangerous over there. And I was there with Masako Ganaha, the famous Japanese journalist, and Chuck Holton, a war correspondent friend who just got strafed yesterday in Burma. But so we were out there in the Darien Gap on the on the Columbia side. We then flew over to Panama and went down into the Darien Gap on the Panama side. And so I recognized this would likely be the major invasion route of the United States. And so I just started spending a great deal of time down there. I got to know many of the Embraer Indians and Kuna Indians and others down in the jungle, and I started mapping out the pathways that they're coming in, getting to know members of the government and that sort of thing. Now, keep in mind, a lot of people have no idea who I am, but I've spent most of my life downrange overseas. I am an American, born and raised, was in the U.S. Army, that sort of thing. And, but most of my life has been downrange, for, I would say two thirds of my life has been in Middle East Asia. You know, I spent a year in and around China. I've written three books on Chinese information war that are only in Japanese, actually, because I've been working to wake up Japan for years. So, in other words, I'm not coming into this flatfooted. I'm not coming into the into this as somebody who looks at a map and thinks, hey, this might be the route. I'm looking at this as someone who has traveled in about 100 countries or lived in a, you know, in so many countries. And so I realized these would be the routes, likely the routes. So often when you see me leave Panama, I actually go to another, vital terrain, which is Netherlands. Right. And it was there with Eva Vlaardingerbroek and that sort of thing, whom you know, and, and so bottom line is there's a lot more going on here than just, the invasion. Obviously, the invasion is a killshot to the United States. Now, anybody that can get their feet anywhere into South America, which is pretty much most of the world at this point, they can get to the United States very quickly, and they can do this through the Darien Gap. Now, keep in mind, a lot of people ask, why don't they just fly to the United States? Many people do. Actually. Many people come on student visas and that sort of thing. And anybody that can actually land closer, like many of the Chinese, will actually fly to Mexico first. Some will go to Cancun and go on vacation first. And, if they can get a visa to Mexico, they'll go to like Cancun and they'll meet their what they call snakeheads and Mandarin is what we call coyote, coyotes. The Chinese call them snake heads. They'll meet up with their snake heads and in Cancun or Mexico City or Tapachula and, and then they head across up to, you know, Texas and whatnot, Yuma, all these sorts of things. And by the way, I've been across the entire U.S. border from Space X all the way to San Diego, quite a lot. And on the Mexican side also quite a lot. But I've been across the entire U.S. border. So now many of the actually Chinese will come through the northern border, as do others. But back to Darian. So they don't all go through Darien. Many actually use what's called the CBP one app. It's an application, that they can use to fill out this form and get on flights and fly straight from Bogota to the United States, or they fly from Guatemala to the United States. I was just over in Guatemala checking that out, actually. And so many people do fly in. The US is flying them in 24/7. But not everybody can do that. So now we have maybe 3,000 a day coming in. The number is constantly changing, but we know the number quarter over quarter is increasing coming through the Darien Gap because more infrastructure is being put in. So it's facilitating it. And and the main funder, by the way, is the United States. It's the United States. I hear people constantly talking about how we should punish Colombia or punish Panama or stay in Mexico. That's all nonsense. The people that are talking about stay in Mexico policy have zero idea what's going on. It's like teaching calculus to somebody who doesn't actually know how to add yet. The United States is the one that's behind most of this. The main engine is something called IOM, which is the actually, most of the Border Patrol agents I talked with, they've never heard of the Darien Gap and they've never heard of IOM. IOM is the International Organization for migration. That's the main engine that is doing this right. They are part of the United Nations. They have a they have a big office down in Panama, the City of Knowledge. It's right on the Panama Canal, actually. And there's more than more than five dozen NGOs down there, IGOs and non-profits. The main one is IOM. You can see people going through airports every day across the United States and Europe and Asia as well, with IOM tote bags and that sort of thing. But IOM actually has the probably the best office space in all of Panama. It's in building 110 at the City of Knowledge. I was just there about seven days ago and they fly their flag. The City of Knowledge in Panama City used to be Fort Clayton. All veterans of, Panama know what I'm talking about. Fort Clayton was the U.S. Army South headquarters. Right, right. That's one of the most vital pieces of terrain on planet Earth. There's almost no place on planet Earth more important than that little speck of land that overlooks the Miraflores Locks, Panama Canal, the Panama Canal Railway, and the Thatcher Ferry Bridge. The Thatcher Ferry Bridge is the bridge for highway one that goes all the way down from, well, the tip of South America, up to Colombia. And then there's that gap. That's why they call it the Darien Gap, because there's a break in the road, which they are about to hook together. And then that goes all the way that road. And Bret Weinstein talked about it on your show. Bret did excellent down there, by the way. That man loves the jungle, but that that highway goes all the way up to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and so that's a key highway. So you've got, Panama, such a vital piece of terrain. Because first of all, the Panama Canal and secondly, the Panama Canal Railway is important, believe it or not. And that road and Panama, just the location is vital. Now, we need the Panama Canal for trade, for one thing. But we also need it to get our Navy through. Right. And so we're slowly losing Panama. The NGOs that are causing these invasions like IOM, HIAS, Catholic Charities and so many more are also taking over governments. Tucker [00:11:59] Let me ask you to pause for a second. It sounds like from your reporting that the the NGOs and the UN are vital, like this wouldn't be happening without them. So let's just pause, if you don't mind and explain. You just mentioned three. You mentioned the U.N. agency for migration, the one devoted to destroying the United States. What are the second two? One was Catholic Charities. And what was the middle one? Michael Yon [00:12:23] Oh, there's at least 250. But in an city of knowledge, there's at least 62, 63. I've got somebody doing, a study on them now, but the, HIAS is one that's the Hebrew immigrant aid, society. And that's, actually, interestingly, Doug MacGregor, whom you've had on your show, told me, back when he said, you know, Mayorkas, ally Mayorkas, Homeland Security chief, was actually a board member on HIAS. So and then he moved over to the Department of Homeland Security, which, you know, recurse back to what I was just mentioning. These NGOs are working hard to take over various countries. For instance, HIAS, you know, the board member Mayorkas went to take over a Department of Homeland Security. Now, Mayorkas was down there in and I got word that he was going in 2022. So I got in front of him and I waited for him for four days in the Darien because I suspected where he might land, and he did. Four days later, he landed in front of me for Blackhawks. He went right into, San Vicente camp, which I call China Camp. And, he was there with, with the South Com Commander Laura Richardson. He was there with, also the ambassador Aponte and some others. And so basically, he was coming down there with fistfuls of money to increase the size of the camps and increase the flow through the camps. So I'll show you drone footage. Actually, I've already given it to your team. Tucker [00:13:53] Pardon my dumb questions, but why would the head of the Department of Homeland Security want to destroy the United States? Do you have any idea? Michael Yon [00:14:03] I can't read his mind, but I can read his actions. He's clearly doing it. They're clearly doing it. And. And highest is highest has an office 40 yards away from the front gate. You know, again, Brett Weinstein and Doctor Chris Martinson were down there and, and we were down in the dairy, and I said, there's HIAS right there. Of course, they hadn't heard of HIAS. I waited until we were right in front of them to explain what they were, because HIAS is right there at the camp, 40 yards away from the front gate. That's the Hebrew, Immigrant Aid Society. Usually I hit Catholic Charities and whatnot, but when I started hitting high, it highest because, because, we saw the impeachment proceedings with Mayorkas. Right. And so that's why I lifted and shifted from Catholic Charities and others and started focusing on HIAS. Of course, you know, the anti-Semitic remarks come up and whatnot. But the bottom line is he did come from, you know, as you know, Mayorkas is a migrant from, from, Cuba, right. And, and so both of his parents were, Cuban, Jews. And that's why he was a board member on HIAS, right? So this all fits together. So the bottom line is the United. That's why I say the stay in Mexico policy is absolutely irrelevant. It's ridiculous. It's not going to work. We're flying them in every day. They're coming across the Canadian border night and day. And we're the ones doing it. Tucker [00:15:23] I'm sorry to ask you to pass, but I just, this this feels important. I'll confess my ignorance right up front. I never heard of HIAS until right now. But I have heard of Catholic Charities. What's their role in this? Michael Yon [00:15:34] You know, there's many Catholic charities, by the way. They've got it distributed quite a lot. How many are in Florida? It might be. I can get back to you. It might be 18. I'm sorry, I've forgotten, but they have many different, groups even here and and all over the place, all over the United States. But Catholic Charities is, I think, Catholic in name only. Perhaps. But if you go down to the border in Texas or in Mexico, I've been to Catholic Charities in Mexico as well. You'll see them running the camps, running, you know, near McAllen, all over the place. I mean, very serious human trafficking. They bring in at least hundreds of millions of dollars. I can get you specifics as numbers, of course, change year by year. HIAS is the same. I mean, these are big players. But keep in mind, the main engine is IOM. But again- Tucker [00:16:21] These groups are working to I mean, they're working to violate federal law, which in a democracy we send our representatives to D.C. to vote on, right, reflecting our will, supposedly. And so these are obviously criminal organizations. So why is no one do anything about it? Michael Yon [00:16:39] Straight up criminal. I mean, we could go on for hours about that. And the, you know, the headquarters for IOM is actually in Geneva. Right. And, that's where Amy Pope, the American, is in charge of, HIAS, sorry IOM and Amy Pope took that position maybe five months ago or so. And, and she's bragging about it. She's got a little sign on her desk, at Geneva, boss lady, you know, she brags that the United States is the number one funder of IOM. And we are. And the number two funder is Germany. And the number three is Canada. Interestingly, I was just up in El Salvador. I was just up in Honduras and Guatemala and, where else? I mean, basically, I've been in every country in Central America. But the bottom line, is in El Salvador IOM is sharing office space or sharing a building with the, Canadian Embassy. So, in other words, again, Canada is the number three donor to IOM there and up in Honduras. IOM is sharing office space with, with the Canadian consulate there as well. So they're in the same building we physically went there. Right. So I am is literally with the Canadians in both of those countries, right. It's unbelievable the things that we see when we go on the ground. So IOM hands out rape kits. I brought some of these rape kits to some congressmen, you know, up in, Washington. Actually, we brought an Indian up there. Francisco Agapi, he's the mayor of 29 of the Embara Indian villages. He spoke with about 12 congressmen, but IOM actually hands out rape kits because so many of the women and children are raped in the jungle, that they started handing out rape kits with, male condoms, female condoms, those after, you know, rape pills, abortion pills, those sorts of things. And, yeah, I show these things extensively. And interestingly, I just got a message from the jungle. You know, there's a team out there right now. I'm looking at it right now. I'm looking at their location. But Ben Burke is out there right now with Oscar Blue, and, they got, just last night. Actually, I sent it to your team. A bunch of, people came in from different countries Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan. This was late at night, deep, deep in the jungle. They went in by helicopter. They're there right now. And, and so they were out with SENTFRONT. SENAFRONT front is sort of the Panamanian sort of Border Patrol police, slash army. Panama doesn't have an army, but they're sort of like those three things blended in. They're extremely professional. They're very fit. They're very well trained. And they're, so this team right now is out with a special forces team of SENAFRONT in the jungle. And last night they came up on, this group came up on them two groups and the SENAFRONT said another group of terrorists just came in. Right. You know, what's very interesting is Venezuela that main, most of the people coming in at this point are Venezuelan. Right. And there is a large presence of Hezbollah in Venezuela, which is quite interesting because Hezbollah is extremely dangerous. Right. So we've got Hezbollah down there who speak Spanish fluently natively, actually, actually, there's a village in Lebanon where they speak Spanish. There's a lot of bounce back, back and forth. But the but the bottom line is Iranians can fly into Venezuela, get a new passport right when they go there. Venezuela has a close relationship with China and of course, with Russia. And, I mean, Hezbollah is thick in Venezuela. In 1994, there was a Hezbollah bombing in Argentina, at a Jewish center, 385 casualties, 85 were killed, about 300 wounded. And within 24 hours there was a bombing in Panama. An airplane, blew up and killed, I think, 12 Jewish people and about 10 others. Actually, I met recently with one of the family members of three of the Jewish people that were killed. And Hezbollah did that. The mastermind of that Hezbollah bombing is now believed to live in Venezuela and has a bar. You can't make up the stuff on Margarita Island, right? So, I mean, they know who he is, they know where he lives. They know the bar that he runs. Right. And yet HIAS continues to help Hezbollah get into the United States. You can't make up this stuff. Literally, Jewish money is helping Hamas and Hezbollah get into the United States. I mean, this is Stephen King stuff. Tucker [00:21:13] So, I mean, you've just you've just given us a lot here. And I hope you'll come back. But let me ask, so you're a war correspondent? I think you spent more time embedded in Iraq than any other journalist. But you certainly know the business of journalism. How many other journalists from American news organizations are spending time trying to figure out how this invasion is happening? How many New York Times correspondents do you run into in Darien, for example? Michael Yon [00:21:42] Well, that's a funny question. I was just down there with Laura Loomer, and, and I took Epoch Times and, some others, and, and I'm doing what's called force multiplication. And Vandersteel and I have we we started something called Operation Burning Edge. In fact, we saw that you went to Colony Ridge, which. Very good, sir, which was. That's north of Houston. That's that big, you know, 200,000 strong colony that that's being built north of Houston. You are probably there derivative of our actions once we realize that Colony Ridge was that, was what it was. Todd Benjamin dialed me in. Todd Bensman and I, he's an author. He's a former intelligence, guy. He's a friend of mine. But he wrote a book called Overrun. And the last chapter of his book, he talks about Colony Ridge. So, I'm going somewhere. I'm going to answer your question, but I'm going around the block to do it. So Todd and I, we went to Colony Ridge because Todd thought that I could kind of blow that out of the water. And and so we went there with drones, and the drones wouldn't get high enough if you've been to Colony Ridge. So I said, let's go get a helicopter. We went to the airport and we got an airplane. And so we went back over that day and flew over it, and I said, this thing is massive. Let's go get a helicopter and come back with some other guy. So, so. Ann Vandersteel and I started Colony Ridge, started, we started Operation Burning Edge, and then we brought over Daily Wire. We brought over, a couple of congressmen, and we brought over quite a few people, and, and we got them up over Colony Ridge with the express intent on blowing this up so that people like you would pay attention. Now, we then went down to space, and we spent 2 or 3 weeks down there at SpaceX. We never reached out to Elon Musk. We never even emailed or message to SpaceX. We just we went there with the intent of prodding Elon to start paying attention to the border, SpaceX and Boca Chica is right on the border. So you see literally people coming across the border and onto space property. And so we got, you know, videos, photos of that. And the next thing you know, you know, you see Elon Musk, paying close attention to the border. Now, I'm saying all that to set the table for what I'm saying next. So when we go down to the Darien Gap or I go over to the Netherlands, I'm doing what's called force multiplication. Right. Ann Vandersteel and I, we've taken a lot of people down there. We've taken, a lot of journalists, we've taken a lot of Intel people. We've taken two congressmen to the Darien Gap, just a lot. And so how many people spend a lot of time down there? That would be me. And trying to understand this on a global scale. Top businessmen trying. There are a few, but Todd Bensman's not really a journalist. But he's written books about this sort of thing. But there are very few of us. But we would fit in the short bus. Now, people who study this on the larger war level, and, have done this for years all over Asia and that sort of thing. And I studied Chinese information war and that's me. Right. So, when it comes to the top level stuff and the reason I go to places like Netherlands and I'm watching all of these routes, there's more to this than just the invasion. Right? There's energy at stake, for instance. You see the Nord Stream, was destroyed, obviously. Now, long before Nord Stream was destroyed. I was warning that Nord Stream might be destroyed. And I was warning that for very specific reasons. And I went to BASF. I'm going somewhere with this. It all relates to the so-called migration, the invasions. You know, you need that natural gas to do something called the have a Haber-Bosch process. The Haber-Bosch process is one of the most important chemical processes ever invented by man. That's where you take the hydrogen off of natural gas, and you combine it with the nitrogen that we're breathing. And you make, you make, ammonia, you make ammonium nitrate. Ammonium. You make, you make these nitrogenous fertilizers. Right? That that process was first envisioned in 1903 by a German chemist named Fritz Haber. He wrote it in a book on thermodynamics, but it was very difficult to do. And in 1908, he finally made some. And then it was very difficult though. So another German chemist came in, Karl Bosch, and he started he brought it industrial, and he did that first at BASF, at Ludvig Hoff in Germany. That's the biggest chemical company in the world. I'm going somewhere very important with this. Yes, that chemical company, BASF is on the Rhine River, which is like the Mississippi River of Europe, let's say. And that dumps out at Rotterdam. Rotterdam is the biggest harbor in Europe. It's one of the top ten in the world. Just south of Rotterdam is Antwerp, in, Belgium. That's the second biggest in the world, right? And not the second biggest in the world, but second biggest in Europe. Yeah. So these are main artery in Europe, right. And so now Rotterdam is also there is a railway that goes all the way from Shanghai and other feeders in China all the way across Asia. And it dumps out at Rotterdam. Right. That's why I've been to the Shanghai side. I spent about a year running around China, out in Tibet and those sorts of things, and it goes all the way across Asia and it goes to Rotterdam. That's why Netherlands is highly targeted with this destructive migration, quote unquote. It's an invasion, right. And there and the World Economic Forum and the Chinese Communist Party, keep in mind, they are coasting, they're inseparable at this at this time, they're going to end up fighting in the future. I strongly believe the Chinese Communist Party and World Economic Forum, but they're working to make something called tri state city. Tri state city. Three state city will be most of Netherlands, part of Belgium, and part of Germany. This will then include Antwerp and Rotterdam. Right. And replacing with 30 million people they're coming in with. Right. So you see this Dutch farmers that they're knocking out. I'm out with those Dutch farmers a lot. They're doing the same to the fishermen. Anyway, we could go down that rabbit hole. Let's go back to, I'm going somewhere very important with this. Back to BASF. So I did two tours or so in and BASF before the Ukraine war. And because I thought or actually as it started because I thought, Nord Stream might get interrupted and I thought this for various reasons and because of nitrogenous fertilizers. Right. So we're in the plant. It's a huge plant. And I said I was there with Masoko going on how that famous Japanese journalist actually, and I asked the tour guide, I said, what happens if Nord Stream gets interrupted? And he said, well, BASF is dead, right? Yeah. And, then I bought an iPad, which I kept beside me for months. I'm sorry, sir, I need my water. I have a long history with water and, so I asked him, you know, what happens, if that if, if that goes. And he said BsASF is dead. So I kept an iPad right beside me. And, and I just, I bought that iPad only to keep this one website open that monitored the flows through Nord Stream. Right. And at one point it went to zero. And I said, wow, it has gone to zero. So I started calling a few people. I said, hey, yeah, something wrong with that website? Or did they just hit it? And well, it bubbled to the sea. Right. And so and everybody's like, well, we didn't expect that. And I'm like, well then you're not paying attention because that was obviously on the menu. So then, well now you can see BASF is moving to they're moving their main facilities over to China. Right. You see why I got to be ASF and why I'm watching these things now. Last March, I left Panama and I flew back to Netherlands, for the election. For the electron, sir. What, are you going to say something there? Tucker [00:29:27] Well, I again, I hate to reveal my ignorance since I try to pay attention to this, but I didn't realize BASF, obviously, because chemical company in the world, probably most single, most important company in Europe is moving to China. I didn't know that. Michael Yon [00:29:41] Not all of it. They're also opening facilities in other places or increasing presence in the United States as an example. But that hit on Nord Stream was a direct hit. Now, I also moved there, not leaving Germany. But, you know, as BASF goes, you might say Germany goes. Right. So for sure, I told that to Jordan Peterson. I had Jordan Peterson out of those, you know, a farm and, and Netherlands and that sort of thing. And I'm like, Jordan, watch, Nord Stream. I mean, you know, that was before I was gone. And so anyway, it's gone. So last March I went up to. Tucker [00:30:11] But can I ask you what the Biden administration is responsible for the destruction of Nord Stream? Okay. So- Michael Yon [00:30:20] Either that or space aliens, right. Tucker [00:30:22] Yeah. I'm betting Biden I mean they did it okay. And they've said they did it effectively. But why would the Biden administration, why would the Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, want to destroy Europe, which they've they've done? Why would they want that? Michael Yon [00:30:41] Now there's layered reasons for this. And let me let me continue to say something else. And then we'll recurse back to that because it'll help answer that question. So last March, I left the Darien Gap and I went back to Netherlands. They had elections. I was there for the elections. And, and then I went to Groningen Gas field, which is a Netherlands. That's the biggest gas field in Europe. And I was warning that I think they're going to close Groningen next. And people said, you're crazy. And I said, well, I wasn't crazy about Nord Stream, was I? And now they've closed Groningen, right? Groningen is also closed now. Right. And there was it wasn't destroyed or anything. They did it through information war. As you well know, the highest form of warfare is information war. Bottom line. Right. So it's information war that sets the table for these actions. So your your question why would they do this. Multiple questions. If the paradigm that I'm operating under is accurate and it appears to be it's highly predictive. By the way I since I was a young child, I was deeply immersed in physics. I always thought I would grow up to become a physicist, and that's all I cared about. I was basically failing school because I was just Rain Man on physics. So that's how I kind of learned my base thinking process was reading people like Richard Feynman and that sort of thing. Right. And one of the things that those very serious scientists of the day would say is, if you have a theory and it's wrong, then throw it out. You know, you may have to throw the whole thing out. So I call it the paradigm. So I over time, since I was a young teenager, actually, I've always worked on paradigms that do two things. One is they don't leave me surprised because if you feel surprised and I don't mean waking up with a snake on your face in the jungle, that's a different kind of surprise. But if you feel surprised, then your paradigm is wrong, right? So you need to either tweak it or throw it out. Never get emotionally attached to your ideas. They're not that important unless they turn out to be right. And also your your your paradigm should be predictive, right? That's why when Biden was installed, I flew straight to the El Paso border and straight down the Columbia at the Darien Gap and straight to Panama, the Darien Gap. That's why I was at Darien Gap. That's why I was, you know, thinking that they would do what they're doing now, which they're doing, which is increasing it and making it a major invasion route. That's why I've gone to BASF twice. That's why I was warning in writing in on interviews, I think something's going to happen to be at the At or to Nord Stream actually, which would cause BASF to crumble, which is as BASF goes, Germany goes. And I think that they were going to close, for instance, growing in gas fields. Now they have. Right. And it's all just based on listening to people like Feynman and running with it for the rest of my life, developing paradigms that never leave me surprised and that leave. And they're highly predictive, right. Tucker [00:33:26] So now what you're describing is a war against the west. Michael Yon [00:33:30] Under that paradigm that I'm working under, there are clearly people trying to drive us into global famines. I started warning about global famine in January of 2020. Right. It's clear that if you want to set the table for global famine, you want to knock out those nitrogenous fertilizers. That's one thing that you want to do. You want to take those off the table. Because in 1914, when the Panama Canal opened, that's actually when they also started doing then that Trojans fertilizer production at the same year, in 1914 at BASF in Germany. Right. So you see the world population starts to explode. Then it didn't just explode because we had faster ships, bigger ships and faster railways and that sort of thing, but that's part of it. It also exploded for other reasons as well, like refrigeration and electricity, but also nitrogenous fertilizers is a huge part of it. So if you're going to cost famine, what would I do? Let's see, I would and I would cause a war in Ukraine. Right. That's one thing I would do. That's why I was over in Lithuania before the war in Ukraine, warning that something may happen. I was down in Morocco. I was watching Morocco push, weaponized migration into Ceuta and Melilla. And these are two Spanish cities that are in there in Morocco. So you've got EU cities in Africa, right? So if you can get into Ceuta or Melilla, you're actually in the EU. So I was down in Morocco and watching them, you know, basically needle Spain and, and the EU with weaponize migration. By the way, I want to be very clear. I'm not talking bad about Morocco. I love Morocco, and you're the first country who recognized us. I always think Moroccans when I say, you know, Moroccans always say, yeah, no. Americans realized that Morocco was actually one of the first countries to recognize the United States when we declared independence. We have a long relationship. It's quite solid, right? But they definitely use weaponized migration against the EU and Spain. Right. So I was down in Morocco and we watched Frontex. Frontex did a report. Frontex is that is sort of the sort of the EU equivalent of Border patrol for the EU. They're basically useless. But they told us that the that the, Belarus was trying to push migrants into Poland. And Lithuania, right? So I lived in Poland for two years, and also I knew the Lithuanians quite well because I was with them in the war in Afghanistan. So I called up a senior officer in the Lithuanian Army. I said, hey, I'm down in Morocco. Why is Belarus pushing, trying to push people in that Lithuania? He said, fly up here and we'll take you to the camps. So the next day I was Vilnius, sitting in front of top members of the government. I stayed there for five weeks. They gave me complete access to the camps. I was with them in Afghanistan so that that, you know, I was they knew who I was and that sort of thing. So it was quite helpful. So I got to interview many of the aliens coming in and their roots and that sort of thing. And as you see, when I was actually in Lithuania, I started to warn, something's up. This weaponized migration didn't just come out of the blue. Right. I mean, when you're doing information war and you're doing I always watch the information wars first. But weaponized migration is often a precursor for something bigger, right? And that sometimes the weaponized migration is just. That is the main weapon. Like, for instance, when I was in Tibet. Excuse me. Hold on. Let me let me go back to China and I'll talk about weaponized migration. I love water and the, the weaponized migration is is it's an old weapon of war. It's been done in, you know, since space and time and, Tibet, you know, some of the, of the Tibetan, genocide. That's what it was. It was kinetic, of course, but a lot of it's just it's just that Han Chinese coming in and mass and then just moving in, and they're doing the same in Xinjiang right now with the Uyghurs right now. When I was in Hong Kong, I got kicked out of Hong Kong. It was sort of famously kicked out of Hong Kong. I was a bad boy, but they but one of the ways that the Chinese Communist Party took Hong Kong was they weaponized migration. They were just bringing in Han Chinese every day, 100 to 150 or so per day. Not many, just enough to keep it below the threshold of making people go crazy. And they took positions, as teachers, professors, they opened a Confucius Institute, of course. They, politicians, police, that sort of thing. Right. And so they slowly took over the cockpit until they just took Hong Kong. And, and so that's a, low level form. You know, I was just down in Honduras, and, for instance, I had dinner with a, a retired, Army, general there. He was like their chairman of the Joint Chiefs, actually, and I asked to have dinner with him. So we had dinner. It went on. And the reason I wanted to have dinner with him is because he's of Chinese descent. I think it was. His grandfather came to Honduras and in 2000, in 1923 and so he's what the Chinese Communist Party calls an overseas Chinese. Right. And so they, the Chinese Communist Party works very hard in their information game to recruit people like that. So I had specifically asked, to meet with this man because he had been invited to China. Right. And he'd been invited there to the village where they said his family came from. They had a parade for him. They always do that. They had a parade for him. They took him to the graves of his family. They always do that as well. And then they now they've had him in China seven times now, as I talked with him for 3 or 4 hours that night, over dinner in Honduras, a few months ago, he said, China is not coming to take us to to attack the world. They're coming to become the world. And I said, exactly, because, again, I've written three books on Chinese information war. I could go on for days about it. But the bottom line is, I understand how they're doing this. I was just over in San Salvador. I know you've been over there talking with President Buckley. He's done a great job cleaning that place up. There's a big library downtown with a big Chinese communist flag waving out front at seven floors. I was just in that library because I always go to libraries. I always go to museums. I always go to archeological digs because I'm tracking that that the the the trail heads of information war. And by the way, that's why I went to Honduras, because the Chinese Communist Party is doing an archeological dig there. They're trying to persuade all the Mayan Indians and others that you are actually descendants of Chinese, because you came over the land bridge, and then all these bad white Spaniards and everybody else came and took your land. So those are not called overseas Chinese. Those are called our cousins. Right. So you see, for instance, a lot of information war is all about to, go ahead, sir. Tucker [00:40:10] Well, I don't even know if I can digest any, I think we're going to have to break this into multiple parts because, you know, there's so much going on, that it's, I think I'm going to need to pause. And I've got about I've got too many questions. Michael Yon, that was an amazing conversation. Not at all what I expected, much more than I expected. And I hope we see you really soon.

Kite, Hit, Steel, Plane , Must = probably just a coincidence

No One Ever Gets Sued. Because they know they are GUILTY & Wont Fair Well in Discovery