We'll be right back. Welcome to The Last American Vagabond. Joining me today is James Corbett to discuss a topic that's been really pressing on my mind, something that I've been, you know, sensing for a long time. I think a lot of us have been sensing, but in this recent administration has become something that I just can't ignore that feels like pretty much the extension of the great reset that we saw initiated during Biden's administration.
And it's been overlapping in my coverage with things like the network state agenda, with, you know, Trump's new Board of Peace conversation.
And recently there's been a discussion that's overlapped with the Strait of Hormuz and the Iran foreign policy point and an interesting argument has been put out about whether or not this is essentially that great reset and I wanted to bring James on to discuss this interesting kind of intertwining of events and and you know kind of break down where we think this is going and discuss whether this might actually be the great reset how are you today James I am
doing fine or should i say ohio because i am us christian son how are you doing oh okay japanese that's what was that how are you james i'm all right it's a it is seriously though i wanted to you know this thing it's it weighs on me this topic is it's heavy you know more than i mean say it was sort of like the technocratic idea because i actually should have included that like that to me is a huge part of this like kind of multi-faceted agenda and hoping you're you know your work is always so.
You know, basically just help guide this in a way that might make it more sense for myself or other people. And, you know, so first, let's just start with the idea of this concept, right?
So first, just not to get into like the Iran conversation itself, but ultimately, we saw this ceasefire conversation, which amounted to last point here, Donald Trump initiating or at least claiming to, point we could get into if you'd like to, it kind of feels like another bluster, but a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. And this started an interesting conversation because it kind of seemed like it didn't make sense, right?
This idea that, well, you're stopped blockading a blockade to reopen the strait. Like it didn't make much sense. And this argument came out of people arguing that this is a masterclass. That's a term that's been used all day today. And the idea that this is sort of an engineered plan by Donald Trump to essentially play the fool, which I have a hard time wrapping my mind around, to engineer this change.
Now, what they're really focusing on is the global energy flow and oil and, you know, kind of circumventing to the United States and that through that sort of reengineering the way the global energy system works and almost in a way arguing that sort of like the U.S. Debt could be like turned and inverted to be their greatest asset and all these
different arguments. And so I was wondering in my mind right then, is this sort of just a, an effort to just give Trump a pass to make it seem like his bumbling efforts are really just a secret plan? Or was this really like the plan? Like was, is this, because to me, I do see how this can connect with the great reset, with the technocratic agenda, with the greater North America, greater Israel.
So, you know, I just, that's, I want to get in with you. What do you think about this and where do you think this is going? OK, there are several layers to examine here, but the first layer that we should probably get out of the way right away is the idea that Trump is personally making any decisions or strategizing anything himself.
Of course, as we know, like every president throughout history, he is just a product of what his advisors and handlers and people who are feeding him information tell him to say essentially at various points. So let's not make the mistake of assigning any agency to Trump himself. But having said that, is there a greater strategy going on? Well, again, as I say, there are layers to looking at this.
So the first order layer of looking at this move to blockade the strait that they want to open, it does make sense in a certain capacity. For example, I think the narrative that they are putting out there right now is that either all traffic goes through the strait or no traffic goes through the strait. We're not going to let Iran determine which traffic goes through the strait and put up their toll. So unless you open it up completely, we're going to close it down completely.
And that does make sense from that perspective. If the if the goal is to pressure Iran into opening the strait, then we we apply pressure on them by taking away their toll incentive for traffic passing through the strait. That doesn't make a certain degree of sense. Right. That was their intention or their benefit. Right. Exactly. So that's the narrative that's put out there anyway. There are several things to interrogate about that narrative.
One of which, as I'm sure you're aware, Kit Knightley has been writing about it off Guardian, is the entire question of this straight drama and, Is the strait closed? How was it closed? And in what way? And are there mines involved? But both sides said there weren't mines involved. But the anonymous press report said that the strait has been mined. But then Iran said that, yes, it's been mined, but we can't find the mines. But clearly that was the mine. I said they said that.
Whatever. Anyway, people can keep up with that sort of back and forth and what that even means. So I think there is some degree of theater taking place around this issue in general. But yes, there is sort of the broader question of the larger... Picture of this. And there's, as usual, there's the 2D picture and the 3D picture. The 2D picture is the one that probably makes sense to most people.
These are individual sovereign nation states that are warring against each other on the geopolitical chessboard for different squares of the chessboard. And in that regard, maybe this is, we'll call it a Trump master plan. But again, we know that Trump is not making any decisions himself. But the US side of this deep state is making the concerted move to actually generate the energy crisis by which they will be able to consolidate more of the energy market in American hands.
And so the argument is essentially so they're closing down the strait. They have just taken over Venezuela. They are boarding slash bombing slash otherwise disrupting Russian tankers going into various locations. Meanwhile, of course, the Ukrainian proxies are targeting Russian oil infrastructure.
Qatar has been their gas processing facilities have been damaged as a result of the retaliatory strikes from Iran, which presumably America could have calculated would have occurred as a result of this that are going on, perhaps even prompted that retaliation. So what we have is this energy crisis. And, oh, wait, who turns out to be now the biggest exporter of oil and gas in the world? Well, now it's the United States. Wow. You know, convenient, isn't it? And that's.
If they bring in Venezuelan oil and other oil that they're tapping into this. And then we start to understand, for example, the strategic value utility of, say, Greenland in affecting an Atlantic or a northern blockade, which could be enforced in a future energy crisis or energy war. And the pressure is now going on to, of course, all of the U.S.
Vassal states and allies like Japan, which is currently dependent for something like three quarters of its oil imports for oil coming through the Strait of Hormuz. Well, the calculus changes and, well, we have to buy American oil now, something along those lines. But also, I think ultimately, this is about pressuring China and Chinese oil and gas supplies are obviously there's been a lot of cooperation with Iran and Russia and other axis of resistance nations.
But if China is pressured sufficiently, perhaps they will be maneuvered into something like a pre-World War II, pre-Pearl Harbor type strategy that the U.S. Applied against Imperial Japan, enacting an oil blockade, an embargo against Japan in the 1930s, which was... What was really the precipitory event towards the Pearl Harbor strike, which we know they were goaded specifically into that strike.
A lot to say about that. But are we being positioned into some sort of World War three participant precipitory event that would be precipitated by China being cornered into some sort of energy situation where they they are getting starved from all of their allies? Now, that that, of course, brings in the three dimensional layer that we should be looking at into all of this, which is so OK.
So if this is not simply nation states acting in their own sovereign best interests, what is the larger game plan and what is happening at a larger scale?
And as people know, I have been examining this, for example, in my recent I did a recent podcast on the real end game in Iran, talking about how this is engineering us towards a new multipolar system, exactly like those brick saviors have been talking about for years, specifically predicated on a new international monetary order, because what we are looking at is the death pangs of the petrodollar system.
I won't belabor it for your audience, who I'm sure have some inkling of a clue about what this is, but if they don't, they can go and look at my previous work on the subject. But long story short, in the 1970s during the energy crisis, right after Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, stopped the U.S. Dollars being convertible into gold. Suddenly, the entire international monetary order, which was at that time based on at least the idea, if not the reality, of the U.S.
Dollar being convertible to gold at $35 an ounce. Okay, the international monetary order has a solid commodity gold backing. Suddenly, that backing doesn't exist. What can we use to backstop the U.S. Dollar? Why would anyone hold U.S. dollars in particular?
Well, Kissinger, of course, was scrambling behind the scenes to create, at the behest of his Rockefeller deep state handlers, the petrodollar system, by which Saudi Arabia in particular, and of course, all of the countries that associate with Saudi Arabia would denominate their oil purchases and selling in U.S. dollars, and that those U.S. Dollars specifically would be recycled back through the U.S. Banking system into U.S. Treasuries as part of a security guarantee package that was going on.
As I have pointed out recently, That system is is has been strained for a number of years and pressured by the creation of a potential petroyuan oil purchases being denominated in yuan specifically and and settled in local currencies rather than through the U.S. Dollar has put some degree of pressure on the dollar. But now we're starting to see even potentially greater pressure on the dollar, especially if Iran is able to, say.
To put a toll on the strait so that only, for example, you know, yuan-denominated oil could pass through the strait, which was a story that was at least floated a few weeks ago. That would put even greater pressure on the dollar or at least the petrodollar. And the question is, so what system comes along to take its place? And wouldn't you know it, the BRICS nations have already been working on this
for years. They have their alternative SWIFT, the CIPS, the cross-border interbank payment system that China has been assiduously working on for years. They have the BRICS pay system, which will settle international payments in local currencies amongst the BRICS nations.
We see the RBI, the Reserve Bank of India, floating this idea that there should be an interoperable BRICS CBDC as a settlement currency, as a wholesale currency for BRICS nations, etc. So we're seeing the creation of this alternative infrastructure for an entirely new payment system. And it is important to understand that these concepts go together. A monetary order and a geopolitical order generally go together. It is no coincidence that the era of Pax Americana was defined by the U.S.
Dollar as the world reserve currency. And if we start to see that breaking apart, well, then we start to see the possibility of a new geopolitical order forming based on some form of multipolarity. Now, this blockade of the strait and all of this, actually, I mean, it creates potentially a different scenario by which U.S. Hegemony can be maintained further by essentially undermining that new monetary order, the petroyuan or whatever was coming along to take the place.
If suddenly most of the world is dependent on the U.S. Once again for oil, which would obviously be denominated in dollars. Again, there would be the incentive for states around the world to have and to hold dollars as the reserve currency. So it could be like what exactly what Brzezinski was talking about in the late 20th century with his grand chessboard book. We need to find a way to extend unipolar U.S.
Hegemonic dominance of the world into the 21st century to make it the new american century how do we do that well here we are at the doorstep of potentially another operation to do that and the perfect trump representation of that idea just belligerently muscle and weapons and just force it in apparently because my thought is that okay so you if that's the reality which makes sense you're essentially just by for the sheer
muscle and military power just forcing this and how in the world that can be you know anything other than momentary you know So something's going to shift. And so that's interesting because clearly that makes sense. And that would mean to me that it's a means to an end, right? So right now they're scrambling to try to find a way to keep that going. Before we get more on that, hypothetically in the BRICS side of it.
Is there a world in which you can see this actually? Because the way I felt that kind of going for a minute is more like, for example, during the COVID-19 time frame and other examples, we did see kind of an insight to where even adversarial nations can work together when it comes to a larger agenda. So do you see a world in which this could be engineered for the BRICS shift and that Trump's energy and efforts or assault, whether he even knows it or
not, are actually driving that into reality? Yes. And that is precisely because there is an interesting paradox, the paradox of power. I'm going to coin that term. It's probably been used before. But I think that the true strength and power of the unquestioned unipolar U.S. Hegemon of the Pax Americana era was not defined by the actual use of American military might around the world. It was about the implied threat of the possibility of that might.
But interestingly enough, the more you actually use that actual military advantage, the less power you actually have on the geopolitical scale. And I mean that because what is the message that certainly in Japan and presumably Canada, Greenland, all of the erstwhile American allies are receiving right now is you are absolutely going to be kicked to the curb and then kicked while you are down and curb stomped if for any reason America decides it is in their interest to do so.
And look, we can and we will do it and we are doing it. And now, you know, Trump is lecturing Japan about you're not committing enough to straight security. Therefore, you know, I'm not sure we want to protect Japan anymore. All of this. Every single player at the table understands that America is. Yes, absolutely. It has the biggest military in the history of the world. And there's no question that it could defeat any individual military that it chooses to take on at this time.
But could it defeat all of the militaries of all of the world, committing all of the world's resources towards undermining the U.S. empire? Well, maybe not. And I think that's more and more the calculus that we're seeing. And of course, that's the one that's being floated by World Economic Forum Davos man, darling Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, with his great sterling speech. We have to forge this new post-American world order and we have to stand up
to the American empire. And yes, I mean, it's understandable. Of course, most of I don't I'll just inform you for any Americans in your crowd who might not understand this. Yeah, a lot of the world hates and resents American power at this point because that power is being wielded and used as an obvious and blatant stick to beat people over the head.
Most people don't like that. So the more America actually uses its military power, like in blockading the Strait of Hormuz in order to open the Strait of Hormuz, people start to realize, oh, we thought we thought Iran were the kind of the bad guys in this. And Iran is the reason that we're you know, we're not able to get oil over here in Japan. Oh, no. Now it's the U.S. So now we hate the U.S. So there's an interesting paradox
that goes on there. And yes, in sort of the short term immediate interests, no doubt this will work towards the benefit of the U.S. In that system, in that 2D system. But the longer term implication of this is that every player at the table is going to find ways of protecting themselves and distancing themselves and even aggressing against the U.S. Because we can't deal with this, you know, 800 pound gorilla basically beating its chest and getting its way whenever it wants.
Yeah. You know, one of the things I think that is, is the biggest hindrance of like, even like the so-called experts in our military. You know, I mean, anything in our, in our system today where the experts on Iran seem to be experts on state department lies about Iran, you know, is that I see it sort of like the British military mindset to like the American rebel, you know, like the idea of just marching straight on and fighting versus running from the sides and tack,
you know, so there's a shift in dynamics here. And I think, or I guess tactics. And I think that that's the way, like you're saying the military might, I would agree with that if it was basically just militaries marching and fighting each other, whereas that's not, you know, even the US is, you know, fifth generation warfare kind of direction.
And so I think with Iran or Hamas and Israel, I think we can see a difference there that maybe, you know, yeah, maybe they can wipe out their military, wipe out their, you know, take control of the airspace to a degree, Navy, but are they, have they won? Is Iran effectively able to, you know, hold off and not lose in the same way? It's a different calculus, I think today.
You know, I think that's what people are starting to see, but I think that back to the point of just the a military force to try to make this happen. Same kind of point as I think that's the US government not knowing how else to achieve their ends. It's just this military force. And I think to your point about the blockade to the blockade, how I get your point to the logic, but I think it comes back to the point of this wanting to be like, if the blockade is something they wanted to accomplish.
And I think this is important in this point is like from like the lie about whether it was open, I'm going to keep talking about that from day one. I think we need to see that it was always open. It was very clear. I mean, you can see the traffic, general traffic was always going through. So it wasn't really closed. It was restricted, right? And so why did they, I compare this to the beginning of the Ukraine war. We had every news platform across the board saying tanks are rolling into Kiev.
That didn't actually happen that first day, right? So the point was that it was a bunch of narrative of the way they thought they were going to respond. And it's the same thing. I believe this was sort of the plan. I think it was.
Probably met in yahoo this is my opinion convincing trump against our intelligence to go at this because he was he was convinced he would be his legacy he would take over ron the world would support him because they just clucked down the shut down the strait and the world would stand behind you because it would hinder the global economy but they didn't do that and yet the narrative was it was shut then we are floating mines and all this stuff and my my research shows that wasn't true at all not
that they haven't or wouldn't but that they didn't this time and because they didn't want to fall into that trap and so now the idea of them blockading it in in response to them as sort of not doing that is actually making that the case.
But the question is whether that's gonna be effective. But so if they do that, the only way that works out in their benefit in my mind is that it's ultimately them creating the blockage because to do it in response, I guess you could argue that would get them in control of the way that works, but what's happening? Prices are going up, gas prices are going up, everyone's suffering.
And so I guess what I'm getting to is that from the perspective of like the Americans who are at least in some ways claiming this is what they want, none of this aligns with what's actually benefiting americans or basically it aligns with the oligarch.
Great reset globalist perspective you know and i think that's what comes back to it's like how would that be their calculus if the argument is america first or any of that right no no even even if you do believe that 2d narrative and you believe that it's this is trump and he's acting in the interests of america etc it still doesn't even make sense from that perspective if only because, as has been pointed out endlessly in the American conversation about this,
is, but the midterm, the midterm selections are coming up, guys, and it's going to be a wipeout for the GOP, and oh my god, and if that, so even if that is your calculus, yeah, okay, maybe this is part of some grand strategy to project U.S., you know, unipolar hegemon another 50 years down the road, but that system that.
That maybe they are weaving into place right now is something that will take months, if not years, to start to come together and to form new supply routes and all of these sorts of things. And, you know, in the meantime, selectorial defeat for the Republicans and Trump and MAGA are going to be rejected, etc. So even from that perspective, it makes no sense. Not that obviously, I hope I don't have to say this for your audience, not that I believe in any of that kind of garbage.
Yeah, right, right. Then they know this. But, you know, but but the same point is that, you know, I mean, it just at the end of the day, this seems counterintuitive, you know, and so that's why I keep coming back to this idea. Like, I just hope it's clear for people because we don't even need to really get into this idea.
But unless you wanted to touch on it, that I think part of this from the MAGA or rather just not MAGA, but just team sport politics Republicans who are grasping at this like a life raft in the middle of the ocean because it's like, OK, I can claim that Trump wasn't failing or that he was, you know, he double crossed us and everything, but he's going to succeed in this way. It just feels like, fine, I'll take that as the last-ditch effort to make it feel like he didn't fail.
And that makes sense to me. But from Trump's perspective, I can't help but see this as, or again, to your point, the US government or the agenda perspective, that this is part of a larger plan. And I don't want that to be taken as sort of giving Trump a pass, because I agree with you, one that I don't think he's truly, you know, either way, he's responsible for his actions, and he's done plenty of stuff that I think is, you know, crimes, but counter to American interest.
So where do we see this sort of like overlapping with that hypothetically, if this was the great reset, the larger plan in your mind, how do you see this interconnecting with the point that, you know, the technocratic part of this, like the actual global shift, the globalist part of this, because, well, first, isn't that a globalist idea? What we're discussing is what he's controlling. That's globalism, right? Well, I think the only question on the table is which form of global order?
The question of global order is not on the table. It's, you know, there is a global order and we are going to steward over it. The only question is who is we? People need to do that, though. That's important. Right. But that's the fundamental level of this analysis. So I guess the question is, I mean, are there people at this table who are vying for their nation state to become the leader of that table of global world order?
Yes, certainly there are. Yeah. But whichever way the crisis plays out, it plays into the hands of these these oligarchs who claim to be running the world. It doesn't play into the hands of you or me or anyone at our level. Exactly. That's actually a really important point that I don't think people think about enough is that let's just even say this is somehow in the interest of like the American preeminence or whatever we're talking about.
Or, you know, it's how in the world does that work for the average American? You're talking about the American oligarchy and you know what years. This is an important point to underline. And let me underline it by pointing people to my most recent editorial. It's called WTF happened in 1971. And it points to chart after chart after chart after chart, showing all of these economic and societal displacements and dislocations that took place centering around 1971. And it's it's everything.
It's not just, for example, productivity versus GDP or the medium salary versus productivity. It's also and of course, inflation, et cetera, currency crashes. But it's also societal things like the mean age of parents at birth, which keeps rising up and up and up, leading to the demographic crunch that we're seeing today. So all of these dislocations took place around 1971. Why is that?
Because that was precisely that moment where Nixon closed the gold window and started to see the formation of the new petrodollar system. The monetary order predicates what life is like for the average human being just trying to scrape by and put food on their family's table. That is the reality of this. And you can sign your identity over to, you know, whatever, whichever team on the field that you think is going to win the big sport.
But that doesn't mean anything for you other than you get to feel good. Meanwhile, society and the economy is collapsing around around outside. And, yay, I won. Yay, America's winning. I don't know where about where you are, but I'm assuming gas prices and other such things are going up there as well. Is that what winning looks like? because, I don't know, that's not how I would.
How i would define that yeah well exactly i mean and this is what's so confounding and this is why i really want to stress to people who you know it's easy to fall into this trap of what partisans like what the mainstream wants you to view as a republican and democrat right it's just it's so easy to just go for the the stereotypes i don't believe that's even the majority of people anymore i think it's got it's gotten further and further disconnected but you know it's that that i think
that it's easy to represent them as you know the people that would support this blindly because trump's winning but i believe most people the honest people that wanted to make america great again whether we disagree on what that might look like that genuinely wanted what they were promised right and they are being double-crossed right now you can't deny that like that's why i think and i know you're honest enough to see this that they're we've seen this change like
we were calling this but i think all of us back in like ima in like january about this you know people in the conservative party who were just not seeing it calling these things out now it's being like this weird waterfall of change of conversation i mean even alex jones going this is the great reset it's like where were you three months ago we were screaming about this but but my point though is i think honest people in this movement have been trying to get attention for just saying this is
not what we voted for it's not what we want and so majority of americans i think aren't falling for this don't want this but it's easy to take that bait at the end of the game to be like well this is going to win it's going to be benefiting you people are trapped in that partisan mindset still even if they're seeing through the larger political game i think and so this is like let me put it this way i think this is like a last ditch
effort of the dying two-party illusion to try to get people to reinvest in it. And I think that this leads to this big change that you've talked about a lot, that we've all talked about a lot. And whether we think it's the Great Reset or this is part of it, I think it's self-evident at this point that there is a reorganization of society underway. And you've got the technocrats lined up around Donald Trump. You've got other global elements happening.
So where do we see this going with this part of it, with the oil, with Iran, with the global dynamic? I mean, and I want I'd like to get in with you to the very clear point of the technocratic side of it. You know, the network state agenda. You and I haven't really talked about that a lot. And, you know, Curtis Yarvin philosophy and Marc Andreessen and, you know, all of this. Like, do you see first, do you see these things in any way connecting?
And then let's talk about the technocratic side of it. Yes. Well, on your point about this change in public perception and is it enough? The real question is, if people continue to think that this is about some sort of political argument between two parties that and however, however you position yourself in that matrix, you are going to lose. Whoever you vote for, government wins is the way to put it. Right.
So as long as people continue to frame this in terms of midterm selections or the next presidential race in 2028 or whatever, you know, stupid political paradigm people try to put this in, to that extent, people are losing. Until we realize it is us, as in the vast majority of humanity and presumably everyone I interact with on a daily basis, I imagine everyone you interact with on a daily basis, has no connection to these great power politics machinations taking place at the geopolitical level.
No, that isn't my reality. My reality is in my community with people that I know in the real world and how we are living and the standard of living is increasing or decreasing. Oh, it looks like it's decreasing. That is the level at which we should be assessing these events. So to the extent that we have been mind-gamed into playing this political game and supporting teams.
If that happens, and if people start talking again about the, you know, the midterm selections or something, as if that's the goal of what's going on here, then we lose. The only way to win this is the mass realization that it is us versus them. Hey, not to borrow the Occupy slogan, but 99%, well, let's make it 99.999%, and you might be closer to the truth. But yes, it is certainly not in our interest what is going on.
So the question is, does this tie into the larger question of the Great Reset or whatever you want to call it? And as I was talking about at the time when the Great Reset was being pimped by the WEF under Schwab, remember him? As I was saying at that time, Great Reset was really just a different label on a very old idea, the New World Order idea, whatever label it goes under, which is essentially an oligarchic system. Right.
If there's any difference in the 21st century, it has that technocratic twist because we are starting to see the culmination of all these technologies that make the scientific dictatorship that Bertrand Russell and others were warning about or salivating about back in the mid 20th century. It is coming into view. So that is, I guess, the twist on any of this.
And so the question really is, are there vested interests in the technopoly, the big tech oligarchs, having their say in the direction of this new monetary order slash world geopolitical realignment? And I would say that all signs point to yes. I mean, I know you've been talking about it for years. Whitney Webb has been documenting it for years.
Derek Brose, myself, others have been talking about, for example, Peter Thiel's influence on Trump 2.0 through obviously through Vance, most obviously, but through many other tentacles of the Palantir deep state as well. That's one way in which this agenda is being forwarded for a something larger than the idea of U.S. national sovereignty, state interests.
And of course, Peter Thiel hides under the umbrella of, oh, I'm a I'm a libertarian, etc. But we know what that means in the Peter Thiel formulation. He means it in the sense that he wants essentially his big tech oligarchical system in which he's going to be the techno king, as his favored court jester slash philosopher, Curtis Yarvin might call it.
And so for people who don't know about the technocratic dark state, obviously, they should be reading Ian Davis's book on that subject published by Papercuts Publishing. In which he goes into the accelerationists of the dark enlightenment and the philosophy that is driving these people towards, well, I guess various goals. I think different players in this agenda have different goals.
One of which, as I think you pointed out recently, and I think probably does deserve more detail, is this bizarre obsession with life extension technologies of various sorts that a lot of these players are very interested in, Peter Thiel included. With large investments in this and of course the whole Peter Thiel is a vampire meme that was floated in recent years because he may or may not actually be ingesting the blood of younglings.
At any rate whatever they are working on is some form of transhuman utopianism on one side and technocratic dystopia on the other side whereby this same technology that's going to make these people into godlike figures and, you know, extend their life and all of that is the same technology that they're going to use to completely control and track trace database all of humanity. So I think that that that is clearly part of this agenda.
That is clearly where it's heading. And when you get factor in energy crises and things like this, that is obviously part of that, that conversation, especially as we're starting to divert more and more energy and resources into the AI behemoth at the expense, once again, of the average person, the average working person who is going to find themselves out of a job sooner or later because you've been replaced by a robot.
And what's the solution to that? Well, don't worry. The techno oligarchs also have the solution to that. I mean, Elon Musk, among others, have been floating the UBI solution for many years. So welcome to the new economic order in which you will own nothing and you won't actually be happy, but the brain chip that has been implanted in you will be telling you that you're happy.
On that very note, too, and this idea of this sort of – and what's interesting about this point, and it very well could be that these aren't even connected, but the idea of what the network state agenda, the freedom cities agenda, the smart cities, all this stuff at the same point. Pronomals capital, Peter Thiel, the funding mechanism, it's an apraxious, what Ian was talking about. It's all part of the same agenda, is that this is being framed as a reimagining
of society, right? So this is literally what this idea is. So what I'm interested in is whether or not this is part of that same plan. And you could argue that these are just completely disconnected. So what I would be interested in your thoughts is that the oil side of it, what Trump is doing, do you see a way that this could be leading to the transition?
I actually don't even see a clear path for that. The way I see in this is that this is just trying to reorganize power, which always could lead to any one of these agendas.
Right so i'm wondering if you see an organ like a tie to this between the idea of the you know reimagining the way our societal structure our governance structure works because that's a different conversation like the way our governance works because the whole point of this that's back to this is call it tech zionism weirdly enough that's one of the the um trini vassan former cto of coinbase wrote a book about it that's what he called it is that this is about the you
know what you just kind of framed it as like this new like basically that you own nothing and you own they they own the keys to all of your data. You know, what's the word I'm looking for? Like put the Coinbase idea where you own the keys to these things, but they could ultimately box you out of those things. So it's like this re-imagining, if you will, of the idea that you own nothing and you'd be happy. But this... Reimagining of the governance structure and how we engage with it and how this
could lead to that. I mean, there's a lot of points. I'm sorry, I'm rambling on, but go ahead. Do you think there's a connection between these two things? Yeah, you raise an interesting point. I mean, I guess there's a distinction between the global governmental system that they set up and what it does. I mean, those are two sort of separate issues. One, that there is some sort of global order under which this is operating.
But the second part of it is how it actually functions and what it looks like. And that can function in different ways. For example, we have just lived through the 20th century in which we saw certainly in the latter half of the 20th century it was defined by the the bipolar arrangement of us ussr cold war which of course as i hope your informed listeners know was phony phony and engineered in a number of ways but.
Anyway it was the bipolar arrangement that became the unipolar arrangement of the u.s hegemon that's those are two different ways of governing the global order um an alternative that may be more in line with what I think a lot of the oligarchs have in mind is something like the 1984 universe of East Asia, Eurasia, Oceania. They're always at war with each other or in alliance in some permutation or combination, but I don't know.
And really, as Winston observes in 1984, well, the bombs are raining down. We don't know where they're coming from. It could be our own government, whatever. Who knows?
And that's another form of potential governmental structure, which I think is in line with that multipolar idea of the oh don't worry it's the competing axis of resistance multipolar idea versus the unipolar hegemon idea so we can have these different blocks and regional governments and we'll have the EU and the EU the Eurasian Economic Union we'll have the African Union etc which will of course take the form of technates because that is what
so much of this comes back to and that is I think one of the one of the kernel ideas from the early 20th century that has persisted to this time. And for people who don't know about that, again, they should look into it, obviously, the technate. I'm sure listeners who are regulars to The Last American Vagabond will not be hearing about this for the first time. But the idea of the state not being a, certainly not a nation state, but a governance structure based on experts.
Appointed, anointed experts, self-proclaimed experts anyway, who get to steward over the economy and society itself, because they're experts. And that is, I think, more what is in mind for these, the freedom city. Pronomos capital, that vision of society being governed not by a government that looks and functions like a government and has elected democratic representatives or whatever, you know, fig leaf of justification they give for our system today.
No, it will be run by experts who will tell you how to live your life because they know best. And in their positions, they will be able to determine, well, everything in society. If you go back to the technocratic study course and read about that vision of a building block for what could become an interlocking world order. It was based on the idea that everything comes down to energy, energy inputs and outputs in the economy.
And the reason that we have these incredible runs, run ups and crashes like the Great Depression is because the energy inputs and outputs aren't being balanced. And we have all of this crazy, you know, production going on and overproduction of things that people don't need, etc. And that creates these booms and busts, and this is a terrible way to run it.
What we should have is these experts who determine exactly what society needs, and then we can tailor our production so it precisely provides those things that we need. Now, the interesting part about that idea, as people in my audience, I hope know, is that it has been tried. If you don't know about that, please look at a little, a sort of fun parody that I did last year, question mark.
About the Ministry of Toothbrushes, where I pretended to be the head of the Ministry of Toothbrushes, talking about, you know, we have designed the toothbrush that you will need. It comes in the exact color that you will want. It is white, and you will have this, and it will look like this. And it was, of course, a parody, but a parody of a real process that has been tried before.
It was tried in the Soviet Union, in Magnitogorsk, which was this essentially technocratic city that was created and which had, of course, the social engineers stewarding over the production of everything in that economy, down to how many toothbrushes need to be produced in a year and what color they should be and what size and shape and how hard the bristles should be and how many you know, pairs of pantyhose should be produced and what style they should be in, et cetera.
There were people literally with reams and reams, and you can watch, Adam Curtis did a documentary about this where he's got the file footage of people showing the reams and reams and reams of that old printer sheet data of, well, here's what was produced last year. And so here's what we're projecting for this year and et cetera, et cetera. This has been tried.
And this is the sort of the ultimate dream specifically of a certain type of mindset, not just psychopaths with a desire for power, but psychopathic nerds with a desire for power, which is why I think Ian Davis's neologism. Neo-nerds, is so appropriate. Because it is that certain type of controlling idea that we will be able to perfectly plan society from the bottom up.
It is important whenever I talk about this to point out that there is a contrasting vision for order in society that order is not something that is gaveled down from the from some top level and centrally planned it is something that emerges as an emergent property of people coming together in voluntary cooperation for the most stable structures they form an order that does not have to be enforced by some upper agency or government or bureaucracy in the exact same way.
There does not need to be police on every corner enforcing that you speak English and you must speak English, Ryan. And we're going to beat you if you don't know that that doesn't exist. You learn to speak English because you are in human society and you want to communicate with the people around you. They speak English. So you learn to speak English. And and the great thing about it is because there is no central authority that beats people over the head and tells them to speak this way.
It's an emergent thing that can change over time and language changes and it drifts this way and it goes that way and new words arise and Hey, it's a beautiful, wonderful conversation. This anarchic process that is more stable and more orderly than any sort of process could be from some nerd sitting there in some central location trying to dictate to everyone in society. Of course, in little ways that benefit themselves, too, because why not?
You know, that's the idea of these people. But I was going to jokingly say his word for that is called anarchy, which clearly you were leading to. Right. That's the whole idea. Yeah. But so to the point of the governance structure, which is, you know, I, of course, forgot to mention the main point for how those connect is that the way they see this, as you know, is it kind of a CEO run country. And it's perfect to what you were just saying, right? The idea that it's not, it's managed.
And this is the transition they're highlighting that it's managed by somebody who just knows what they're doing. But one of the interesting, you know, carve outs or leave outs, I guess, is that there's no, you know, constitutional rights. There's no, you know, they just get to decide what's right for you. And that's kind of what you're highlighting. And this This is, you know, the very alarming transition of all this. And I think what's clear is that the design is infiltrating basically every
government that I can see. You know, it's all around the world. And this is what's so frustrating is that we're, you know, like even just the focal point of foreign policy in Iran, fighting to expose that because we should. There are crimes being committed. But it feels often throughout these stories that you're just sort of, you know, falling into the engineered transition for the global discussion.
And so it's like how do we get the average person to stand back and look at this from that global perspective because doesn't that in its own way make you feel like you're speaking from a globalist perspective you know it's like i'm not trying to tell you to look at it that way but to stand back and consider that they are looking at it that way you know unfortunately the nuance and subtlety of these conversations can evade people at times and
unfortunately the commentary generally descends to the lowest common denominator on things like this and And so it is difficult to. Yeah, sometimes we do have to state very clearly what is going on here. And yes, we're not globalists, but we're telling you that they are globalists and they are looking at it from this perspective. Um... It raises a number of things in my mind, this entire topic, and there's so much more to go into.
But I think, yes, on the question of CEOs rather than elected representatives, for whatever you will say about the elective representative system, at any rate, it's based on the pretense that it isn't just necessarily the richest person who gets to rule over you. At least that's, you know, it often turns out to be people who are incredibly wealthy. But anyway, but that's not a feature of the system. That's a bug. But in the in the techno state vision, yes, no, it is.
It is quite obviously it's the people with the most financial resources who can buy up the most amount of land to create their techno state and then run it however they like, because they're the techno king. And, of course, the implied part of all of this is who are the people who are most financially successful in this system that we are living in that has been created by psychopaths for the benefit of psychopaths? It's psychopaths.
Yeah, this is this is the reason why when people ask me if if there was the magic switch that I could flip to go from our current reality to anarchy overnight, would I flip the switch? And I can't say I would at this moment, because I don't think with because at the very least, if we were to simply say, OK, you know, make the cut right here, right now. And now everyone gets to just, you know, play in the completely free world with the resources that they have right now.
Well, of course, then Gates and Musk and Teal and psychopaths like this end up having all of the power because they have accumulated over their, well, combined generationally centuries of manipulation of the system. Right. And I don't think that would be a fair way to do it. But then again, then you get into redistributionism and OK, so well, we so we have to take all the money away from the billionaires and distribute it to everyone. But how do we do that?
Unless you're talking about communism or something. Yes. Right. Again, nuance and detail is important, but unfortunately, these kinds of conversations get sunk down to the lowest common denominator so often. Well, and this is why it just really comes down to personal choice, and that has to be respected in every possible way. You live your life the way you want to live your life.
The problem is that these technocrats and the rest, any governance structure outside of anarchism that I can see, wants to in some way dictate the way you live your life. And it just seems like the only possible path. But speaking of that, to just spend maybe the last 15 minutes on here is that there's obviously an element of this that adds sort of a wild card, if you will, with Israel. And I think it's interesting that clearly Israel has very public prophetic sort
of religious designs for some kind of a grander, greater Israel. And so- I don't know whether this, you know, I don't think anybody can really define, you know, whether it is the same. I think there's clear overlaps both to globalism, just the technocratic agenda and like Israel's perspective on what they want to accomplish. I'm not sure whether that's the same plan or that Israel sort of woven its way through these things over the years. But what I'm interested in is where we're at now.
And like, for example, as I was just showing yesterday, you know, this is not new, by the way, but it's just right there.
Smotrich is out there giving a very public, you know, conference about how this is the greater reset or excuse me the greater israel project and it's lebanon and syria and you know it's all the things that you people like us paying attention have seen and we know but average people are it's becoming more and more obvious to them and so i'm interested in where this goes if this is some kind of a transition and like a global transition of power you know how do you see israel playing a
factor in all that do you see them as a player alongside that technocratic agenda i just don't see a world in which you see this like ceo run country design living next to a zionist prophetic you know i just don't know how you see i'm curious what you think about that and how those things align if they're the same agenda what are your thoughts on all that well you know okay so this is where we get into the type of
speculation that at any rate i'm not going to profess to have the inside information to but we could at least imagine how this can play out in various scenarios one of which could be um man i hate to even bring up the specter of this because it is such a debunkable piece of nonsense that gets persistently thrown around in alternative media spaces, despite however many times I say it's debunked. The Albert Pike letter predicting World War III, right?
Which, no, there was no such letter. And I have the receipts on that, and I've written about it. If people are interested, just look up Albert Pike in my search bar. That's fake news. That letter never existed. It was never written. But anyway, for people who don't know, supposedly, Albert Pike, this great Freemason, wrote this prophetic letter back in the late 19th century about how World War III was going to precipitate.
World War Three? Yes, he knew about the first World War conflict and he knew about the second World War conflict that would be fought against fascists or Nazis or whatever, whatever phrase he used in that letter, which didn't exist at the time, etc. Etc um anyway but world war three would come about um when you get the you know the the the.
Was he specifically saying it was going to be the the sort of the judeo-christian jude uh sort of apocalyptic vision versus the islamic version and in that conflict you know people were going to see the madness of all this religion and come to the the bright light of lucifer um whatever the exact way he supposedly framed it in that letter that doesn't exist.
Anyway, so could it be that we are seeing the engineering of, yes, I mean, at this point, we have seen such a colossal sea change in general public opinion over the past, even the past two years on the Israeli subject, even in mainstream, you know, discourse. We've the United States has gone from a country that was whatever it was, 98 percent in favor of Israel versus Palestine to one that is now. Well, actually, it's about half of the U.S. is more inclined towards Palestinians.
That is an incredible sea change in opinion that's happened in, what, two years. It's it's almost unthinkable. And we are starting to see more and more people around the world recognizing that, yes, clearly Israel is manipulating and staging and puppeteering a lot of the action that is certainly happening in the greater Israel project. region and in the Middle East generally.
And so now it's, I don't see anyone making the serious argument that Israel was not in the driver's seat of this current Iran conflict. I mean, I think it's just, I don't know. I don't, I haven't seen anyone make a serious argument that Israel had nothing to do with it. I've seen people make stupid arguments, but not a serious argument.
So, so I think that the recognition is clearly that Israel is very much behind this and the greater Israel, the Zionist project, etc. Could it be that events are being engineered into some sort of apocalyptic confrontation, Israel versus Iran that draws in the US and Russia and China into some World War III scenario that will obliterate and people will see through the nonsense of these nation states and their various ethno supremacy arguments, etc.
And see the wisdom and the light of Lucifer, by which I mean the network state? Won't we be clamoring, for a CEO to come in and set things straight rather than one of these crazies with their, you know, ethno-nationalist supremacy, whatever garbage. Why wouldn't we want that as the... So could that be a long-term solution that we're being engineered into in the long game? Yes, it could be part of the sort of longer-term plan.
But having said that, I would never want to reduce this all to there is a plan and it is going to unfold this way. This will happen and this will happen and this will happen. I don't think that the world is engineered to that extent. And if I did, I would not be sitting here talking to you because, hey, it's all planned out and nothing I say or do will make any difference whatsoever. So I better just go off and have fun. No, I don't think so.
I think events unfold and sometimes messy and obviously there's coordination and conspiracy happening all over the place. But sometimes things don't go according to the plan of the conspirators as if there's one singular group that's writing this script. And the real. I don't want to say genius, brilliance. I mean that in a dark sense of this agenda is that whatever happens, they find a way to spin that towards their agenda and towards their narrative.
So any crisis can be used as an excuse towards their agenda. So anyway, I think there are probably people who would want to steer us into some sort of grand cataclysmic conflict so that they can build the new system on the ashes of the old. and that new system may be a network state, right? And there are certainly people at the table who I think have that as their driving, guiding ideology.
Well, it's important what you highlighted there's important, you know, is that there very well could be multiple, like that's what I was kind of saying before is that you've got these elements that all seem to be aiming towards some kind of re-imagining of the way we all live. And, but that's not necessarily, then they may not necessarily have the same end goal, you know, but they're using each other.
Like that's the same thing I saw during COVID-19 is that, you know, I made the argument then is that I'm not, I wasn't arguing at the time that, I mean, it's certainly possible as we all consider that they all were just working together, but that ultimately I've more saw it as that, well, all of them are more, you know, Russia, Iran, US, they see this as an opportunity to use this to control their peoples. And I think all of them are willing to take that, that tool to work in control.
And, but at the same time, we're only willing to go in so far as they could get what they wanted out of it and weren't willing to, you know, that was my opinion anyway. So it wasn't like just this coordinate, it was, levels of coordination to their interests. You know, it's the same kind of thing is that I think that there's right now the technocratic sort of elements, I think the Zionist elements, there's overlaps to all of it, clearly, but that.
It's a means to an end, right? Where they're like, even Trump, you could argue, is a useful idiot in all this. Then I think that's more likely than most of what we're seeing is that he's sort of just being manipulated. Netanyahu lies to him and they fluff, you know, given, and ultimately that's being used to certain agendas.
And so I think like going back just for the comment to what you said, which I really agree with for those that saw me at the point of this statement, because I do agree that I never, I don't think anybody honest would argue that there's one guiding thing in any conversation, right? But for this post, it's an image of Elon Musk and Trump, and it simply says the fake globalist resistance ushering in the globalist plan. The point of that is not to say that I think there's one plan,
but rather that they have a plan. That's the conversation. And it's not even that the fake globalist resistance knows that they are the fake globalist. Yes, exactly. No, it's even better if they don't know, if they genuinely believe they are the resistance and they're the ones that are standing up to this agenda because then they will truly put all of their energy and all of their passion into it. Meanwhile, they're being played by people who have more information.
And I think that's one of the key ways that these kinds of grander conspiracies work is along the intelligence agency model. Intelligence agencies, as people who have studied them know, are not singular monolithic institutions in which there is perfect transparency amongst all the players within that agency about what the agency is and what
it's doing. No, no, no, no, no. It's compartmentalized so that this person working over here might be sitting at a desk next to this person who has no idea what that person is doing. Or on a need to know basis, they might know this or that piece of the puzzle, but they do not know the whole puzzle.
You have to go up the ladder of power to get the people who have more of those pieces of the puzzle that can then divvy out pieces of information that may be true, but may be used to lead people along certain ways or assume certain things. The person with the most information is really the winner. And that's generally not the people who are actually working at implementing the agenda.
And in a similar way on the geopolitical scale, again, who knows, maybe Trump truly believes that he really is MAGA and he really thinks he's doing all of this for the best interest of the US. But again, he is just a product of whatever he's being told by his advisors and handlers and the pieces of information that he's getting. So to your point earlier about Netanyahu steering Trump, well, the New York Times, I'm sure you saw, came out with that piece recently talking about the...
Previously secret meeting that the briefing in the White House Situation Room that Netanyahu gave to Trump about Iran and what you know how easy it was going to be etc in February as the culmination of a months long many many meeting process of trying to convince Trump along those lines so in that case you know Netanyahu holds more of the pieces of the puzzle than Trump and is using his credulity to to lead him along in a certain way but then who holds more of the pieces than And
then Yahoo is the question. And how many layers up this Russian nesting doll can we go? And I also think at that point right there, and let me know what you think about this. You know, I have this overlapping theory idea like with about like Charlie Kirk and the same like maybe what happened there.
And the idea that a lot of people are dealing with this potential awareness is that I argue that Charlie Kirk, and this is more for the sake of the point we're making now, who knows if that's the reality, but that some people might be going through this. But hypothetically that Kirk sort of become became aware of the, the Zionism versus Judaism, Israel kind of discussion.
And cause I mean, I think that's actually very clear. The evidence backs that up, but it's my opinion that ultimately he remember he was going to Trump and saying like, you know, they're trying to trick you to go to war with Iran. Don't do it. Zionism or Zionists.
Ackman and others started attacking him you know and he spoke out a lot of shows and you know whatever ultimately happened i think he was becoming uncomfortably aware that you know he can support israel but zionism is is not necessarily america first that was an issue and so i think we think about this in regard to trump that if it is the case that he's not necessarily aware of all this i'm i start to sense i guess i mean it's
a guessing i guess what do you think of the likelihood that he is now becoming aware of that there is more of that he isn't being played in a way. And I personally started to notice a little bit of a difference in the way he was handling some of these situations. But, you know, is he being blackmailed? Is he being threatened? Is he in the line with the agenda? You know, who knows? But at the end of the day, the point in the grander sense is that just Republicans or Trump people
in their cabinet are starting to go, hold on a second. This isn't America first. This is something very different. And then does that change the way they engage with, you know, what's going forward to the policy? It's just an interesting thought. It is. And I can offer nothing but my own speculations and non-expertise on these matters. But my assessment is that Trump is fundamentally a narcissist. Like a diagnosable, actual psychological condition narcissist who.
Being such, is manipulable in various ways.
Certainly by as everyone who works in and around the administration knows by now by constantly and completely pledging total fealty and allegiance and loyalty and man he's the greatest and it's all because of trump of course we every press conference now is all about praising trump to to cloud nine because we you know everyone understands that flattery will get you far with a narcissist like that but of course there are ways to play on narcissists to get them to do what you want in other ways,
as Netanyahu and others have undoubtedly found out. But if there's any, I guess if there's any good point to the narcissism diagnosis, it would be that it means that when and if the narcissist becomes aware that he is being played or manipulated, he will have no compunction about severing ties with the person that he formerly seemed to like.
And so an example in the first administration, remember in the first several months of the Trump 1.0 administration, it certainly seems Steve Bannon was going to be a incredibly powerful and influential behind the scenes. But once that started to become the meme and started to be parodied on, you know, Saturday Night Live and things like this, that the person who's got the real power is Bannon, not Trump. Well, Trump's narcissist tendencies got him, got the better.
And of course he kicks him out the door. Right. So, yeah, so there may, I mean, that might be one of the ways that this plays out, at least on that sort of. That level of the drama. But again, the question is, is that level of the drama the important part of this overall overall agenda that's taking place?
The answer to that would, of course, be no. Yeah i agree and i think that the final thing to ask you here that's relevant to all this is you know in a general sense about trump and more just sort of an interesting partisan point too and i think we've sort of addressed it but right now one of the larger things that keep is happening kind of back to the original original point of why i think this may be a scapegoat or just like an excuse to make it feel like he
didn't fail is trump has changed right all this you got oh candace and tim pool and alex jones and everybody going oh my god trump's a different person today. I mean, I, I think it's pretty evident that he's been the same person, you know? So where, where do you see this going in regard to that? Do you think anybody's falling for it?
And do you think that Trump himself is actually changing and I'm just not able to see it because I'm, you know, in my own way, blinded by what I think Trump is, you know, it's like, there's both sides of that, you know, how do you see it? Well, as you pointed out earlier, our message hasn't changed you and me and Derek and Whitney and I am a panel members, et cetera, has not changed in all of this time. We have been calling out Trump for what he is since day one, right?
And we haven't changed. But the people who are calling us black-pilled and, oh, my God, you guys just don't understand, and et cetera, they're changing their perspective, which leads me to suspect that, hey, maybe actually we had a right, true analysis of the situation that was correct, has been proven correct, but those people will now hold that against us. Oh, no, you don't get it. He was good, but now he's bad.
No, no, no. He was always this way. That's my take on it. But of course, that's the self-serving take, isn't it? Well, it's just perfect. It's the whole Scott Adams, COVID-19, I was right, even though I was wrong kind of a thing. It's retroactively creating a situation where, like you said, you're right and wrong at the same time somehow. But it's just confounding because how do we ever truly reach the people that...
Like I always say, I do this not to... I mean, part of it is to keep everybody informed that are already part of the audience and keep up. But a lot of times it becomes just kind of high-fiving about stuff that we see. It's like that I'm trying to reach the people that have no idea about this. And how do you do that when it's such a difficult barrier between this propaganda field and the mainstream alternative media? I don't know. Do you think that's diminishing at all? Do you think that's going
away? Are they floundering and all this? Or where do you see the change happening? If I had the definitive answer of how to reach people, I would be doing that. So I'm just doing the best I can yes I think I. Let's put it this way. I like listening to The Last American Vagabond because I like the fact that you always stress, I think people are seeing through this. I think people are more aware of this than ever before. And you know what? I don't know that to be the case, but I like that better
than the alternative anyway. And at any rate, we should proceed on that as the assumption, because the alternative is to proceed as, oh, they control everything. They win in the end. So there's nothing we can do. Let's not try, which is the most effective enemy propaganda of all. More more effective than actually controlling everything is making people believe that you control everything. So why even try?
Good. Great. We've just taken care of the people who would be most opposed to us because they're not even trying to be opposed to us anymore. So, no, we have to understand. We have to at least believe. We have to have hope as opposed to hopium. We have to have hope that people can change. It has happened to me. I went from a know nothing buffoon normie who grew up in, you know, statist indoctrinated Canada, believing all the statist indoctrination.
I woke up from that. And look, it's a it's not like a on off switch. It's not a perfect process. We have stages of development. And I'm sure I'm still wrong about a lot of things, but I'm better than I used to be. And we have to have hope that other people can step through those hoops and escape the status doctrine indoctrination system.
We also have to have human compassion and empathy for those people to help them in that process rather than lecture them and be mean to them and kick them while they're down and make fun of them for being intellectually crippled by the system that is intellectually crippling them. No, let's let's reach the helping hand out to people like that and hopefully draw more people into our team. You team humanity, right? That's the team I'm on.
Yeah. Thank you for that, James. I appreciate that. I just, I hope people hear that, you know, that it's, that's what we do this for, right. Is to try to, you know, actually, you know, change, you know, like, like actually you pointed out last time and it's important to say it this way, not, we don't want to change your mind. We want to give you the opportunity and the information to look at the other perspective and maybe change your mind.
If you see that being, you know, cause it's not, we're trying to control people's minds, but it's important to understand that there are other views to all of this. And I'm of the mind, as I said, and I'm glad I actually believe that. I really do. I think people are changing. I think things are changing. And I think even in my time doing this, I've seen other moments where there was kind of surges like this and dips, right?
And I think this comes and goes. And I think we have an opportunity like we have before, maybe a bigger one than I've seen, probably in my mind, because this is a worse, larger kind of culmination of a genus that I've ever seen, but it's there. You know, and if we just, it's like, like, like at last point years, then 2024 point, like you said, we were calling this stuff out.
And I, not, not like just a, you know, bad things are going to happen, but like for crying out loud, like to demonstrate our value here, Jay, we were saying that this exact situation was going to happen. That's what we were talking about. And so we had an opportunity right there. Like we have many other situations in the past to maybe do something about it. You know, maybe in 2024 to maybe do something that could stall this, stop it, slow it down.
And of course people shouted us down, you know, but that happens. It's every agenda in history, you know, there's different sides to it. But right now there, you know, as always, if we do it now, maybe we can stop something that's being planned before. Maybe we can actually stop this still if we truly try.
So let's hope people are listening, you know, and I hope people will check out your work more than anything, James, because as I've pointed out a thousand times in my time doing this, you know, you were pretty much the, one of the main inspirations for me to even start doing this. And your work has stood there as this kind of just, you know, I hope people will look at it because it will blow your mind to see the kind of stuff that James talked about over the years.
I often point to your Al Qaeda documentary to show people how clear that story is. I show people take the time to look, you know, so anything you want to leave us with James on the way out? I appreciate that very much, Ryan. Man, inspiring someone like yourself to get into this is why I do what I do. So it's very, very gratifying to hear. And I hope people will take advantage of your offer there and take a look at my work because it is all there for free.
20 years now, 19 years of archives there at corporatereport.com. So I hope people will check that out. And I think the real win is not even in not even directly in what we can and cannot accomplish in with regards to these grander geopolitical machinations that are taking place at levels, you know, far, far removed from the average person.
But at the very least, in our ability to get people to recognize what is happening and to see through the narrative tricks that are being played on them so that we can get to what actually matters, which is creating community with like minded people in voluntary associations that we can create a world that has nothing to do with their phony baloney world that is completely detached. We will create a better world for ourselves in our communities, and that will be our win in the end.
So if we can get people to recognize that, I will take that as a win. You're here. Well said. Thank you, James. Well, as always, everybody out there, thank you for tuning in. As always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. Thank you.