All right, welcome back, and joining us now is Ryan Christian from the Last American Vagabond. I wanted to get his he's not part of the of the left right, Hegelian two step here, so I want to get his take on the politics, because you know, it's just going to be he said, she said for most of the media,
we're going to take a different approach to this. And I also wanted to get him on because they're going to be having live coverage of the UN summit, the pack for the future that's going to be happening there. That's a very concerning thing that we need to have all eyes on because they keep playing this game over and over again. But joining us now is Ryan Christian of the Last American Vagabond. Thank you for joining us.
Ryan, Yay, my pleasure. David, good to see again.
Good see you. What was your take on the pageant last night?
You just write something up right there as the pageant or theater. I mean, what's interesting is to be completely transparent. I didn't watch the entire thing, and I have a hard time doing that these days in general.
I know I didn't watch the whole thing either. I had to get away from it. I had a friend send me a text message and said, this is crazy. My dad's listening to it in one side of the house. My wife is listening to it on the other side. There I got nowhere to go get away from it.
Well, you know what's funny is I make the same point around like the State Department briefings, the White House briefing. It's just painful these days. Yeah, I mean, even the people in the room, the way they engage with them. It's the point is that if I take the time to really go through it, I'm going to have to take notes because I'm going to want to address it.
And it's like I end up with like forty five pages of notes of like you know, it probably take me four hours to cover all the lies that were put out. But what I tend to do is look at the you know, the different kind of highlights and of the supports, the parts people are highlighting from what they thought was important, and then if important enough, I
do tend to go back through it. But overall my impression of it, because I was looking at it more this morning, it is different than I think people expected.
But I'm very right out of the gate.
I want your audience to know that this year, more than ever or this cycle, I feel that there's more coordinated effort that I've seen in the past. And that could just be my own personal kind of feeling about it, but I'm saying that because I tend to feel like we should be skeptical or questioning more than usual whether these things are like being highly coordinated.
I just want to put that out there, my personal opinion. Well, we can't.
The way they got her in, I mean, no, she hasn't gotten a single point, a single vote point that a lot of people are trying to make out there. She's just installed. You know, well, she got less than one percent when she ran as a candidate four years ago.
The thing about that, though, I find interesting, is I think a lot of this is about sort of doing the thing that's actually the reality, like kind of making like the point is that we already know the primaries are kind of an illusion, like the d NCNA. That clear, but let's not pretend it's only one side. They don't really have to do what we want anyway, So the fact that didn't happen is sort of like, well, we like it, doesn't I mean, it should happen if it
was actually being done properly, but it wasn't. So it's kind of like a you know, that's where that's at now. I feel like you're trying to shove these things in your face. But to the point about the actual back and forth, it ended up to show where ultimately it seemed that Kamala Harris the week's leading up to it was almost I don't know whether intentionally, but she was like she did very airhead comments, like she was I
didn't know what's going on all the time. But then she came out in this debate and seemed to put forward a very you know, most of her responses seemed to be pretty good to highlight the claims of Trump that were accurate and so on, but the same to the point was that everyone's making the moderators seem to only apply that fact checking their aspect of one side of the discussion, which is true, but they're all lying all the time in my opinion, So it's sort of
like a coordinated thing right there. But it did end up in a way to seem to highlight that Trump wasn't as strong in a lot of the things that they were pretending. You know, I just was clear in my opinion, they're both pretty much the same thing, and they're both justice dis honest. The way this went out or ended up sort of, I don't know. It makes me wonder whether or not this might go a different way. My opinion is I think Trump is sort of the
selection with all this. But either way, everyone seems to be in the same page that it didn't really change anything. People who are voting already made their mind up the moment. These people were down their candidacy, and that's the real problem with our current political dynamic. It's really it's all boiled down to that person a little bit worse than what I might be forced into.
And that's so childish at the end of the day. And so that's kind of where I think it ended up. It was theater. It was entertainment, and that's what I.
Talked about yesterday and the run up to this. I played a clip from Thomas Massey, who's just had enough of this stuff. You get a clip here, we're going to do another theater. I've been involved in this. Don't expect me to be an actor in this play again. Yet again. You always come up with the last minute continuing resolutions, so you can justify throwing everything into one
giant basket called the omnibus bill. And that's really kind of in a sense, what happens with our political with our presidential race.
Right.
I got an omnibus candidate over here, and I've got another omnibus candidate over there, and both of them. It's like if you went to the grocery store to buy groceries and say, sorry, you can't do any shopping yourself. You can't make your own choices. You can pick. We've prepared two backs skits for you. This is what then basket A, this is what's in basket B. Which one of those two baskets do you want? And oh, by the way, you're going to have to eat everything that
you take on, you know. And it's like, well, wait a minute, but that's what elections are. It isn't like an a la carte. I want this or this or this and the government. Increasingly, it's now become orthodoxy of both parties that the government should do everything. You know, when Trump, they hectored him over Medicare for all or whatever and what he was going to do about Obamacare, and he says, well, I you know, I have a plan, I've got a concept of a plan and all the rest.
But he never questioned the issue of whether or not the government should be involved in our healthcare. See, and that used to it was only when Hillary Clinton, when the Clintons got in. That was what thirty thirty one, thirty two years ago, that was when they first started saying, well, we want to have the government run healthcare in the United States. And that was a big issue. But now both parts days have bought into that presumption that the
government run healthcare. The question is can Trump run healthcare better than Wallack can run health right?
Right?
And See, that's the same point, isn't it. It's the exact same point.
It's all being distilled down to this binary dynamic where it's the reality nobody, the vast majority does not have their needs met if honestly ever with that dynamic, you know, but the point to see is not just that it's always just two choices that aren't the reality. What we want is that they use the illusion of the back
and forth to bring you into that. The point you made about the healthcare so important because I mean, there's a valid conversation to be had about why there are people and I could take it a further step back and acknowledge it's because of other government lacking in policies, but that are in need in situations where they can't get what they might need and so on. But I would I always lean on the side of less government to liberty in the same way, even though that would
bring about problems. The point is I can understan why there might be an argument abound around medicare for all kind of things. But that was my first point. It's like, I'm like, well, hold on, we just saw what they would do through COVID nineteen, Like how can we even ignore how those things?
You know, it's obvious what they would do.
But to your point is that it comes to a position now where instead of acknowledging that maybe we shouldn't even have them involved, they drive you in a position where you're like, well, hers stance on government controlling everything is a little bit worse than his stance on the government controlling everything, and that amounts to the same thing. The basket thing is a great analogy, and I'm gonna
have to use that. And the point is not just yet to eat all You're not going to get half of what you want and half of it might I mean, the brands your life. But too bad, those are your choices. You know, that's crazy. You get home and you find that the boxes are empty. There's yeah, any.
Corn flakes in this thing. You know, it's just an empty box. Wait a minute, that's supposed to be border patrol. There's nothing in there.
You know.
I voted for a border patrol or whatever you voted for. Yeah, you go back and you look at it, like you point out that, how do we like government running our healthcare? Four years ago? I hated that, But of course Trump thought it was a great deal. He thought he saved lives. And he goes back to this old nonsense about the nineteen seventeen flu epidemic again to defend what he did. And you know, he didn't make any mistakes. All the mistakes that were made in his administration were because of
the germ game that they played on us. It's just insane what they're doing. But they do this over and over again, and everybody, you know, keeps falling into this same thing. I have so many of these, you know, a long time ago, when I was much younger, I would hang on these things and I would think about what what they're doing and how it's trying to be you know, how I was going to be perceived by the other side. It was going to be to this
guy's advanger. I'm just so far beyond that. I'm Mike Thomas Massey's like, I've seen this play before, and I know that this is just fake and it's just to keep people distracted from doing the real things that are going to make a difference in their life.
Can I cover on that point alone? Like, it's so funny. I was just thinking about this yesterday. It's difficult to engage, Like, for what we're doing, David, we have to be open minded enough to engage with the people that are you know, maybe they just literally for the first time in their life, decided to look into politics today, you know, And we have to be open minded enough to be like, okay, that we've gone through so much more in the scene here, and also that we could just be wrong.
You know.
The problem the reason I'm saying all this is that I'm I'm at the point where you where you're saying right there, where I'm having a really hard time engaging honestly with people that are taking some of these things seriously, and so I have to temper myself.
I'm like, I can't be rude. I can't.
But it's really difficult because some of this stuff is so cartoonish and so obviously against our interests that it's hard for me to engage with this as if I might want to get you know, it could be the option. It's just difficult, you know, But it's I've got to be open minded enough to consider there might be other options. But like what Thomas Massey is saying is that it's it's not necessarily that that.
Like, I think what we're.
Saying is that it's like an obvious manipulation where both sides are dishonest. I mean, he's kind of saying that, but he's also really just saying that they just give up with the end, like they want to save act, but at the end of the day, they kind of know that they're not going to get it.
So it's more theater in that way.
But even if you take his point explit just that being the only problem, it shows you that they are still lying to everyone that they're talking to, the convincing them that they're going to get this, and the reality being it's only going to come around to the if ever at a point when it's not necessary or after the fact when they think they need it for the election, and all of that ultimately, which we could touch on I think as a trojan horse to the digital ID
which overlaps in the back for the future. But the point is, however you look at it, we're all being played, and people like Massy, whether he's playing a role that I'm just being skeptical here as the one that kind of the revelation of the method comes out and shows you so you gain the support and you know that happens too. Whether whatever it is, it's the truth and we are being played, you know.
Yeah, there was an interesting article today, I'm Brownstone at Jeffrey Tucker, So that's whatever happened to libertarianism. He said this should have been in twenty twenty and on. It
should have been their moment to shine. Yeah, and I was just so it's like, yes, yes, he nailed it exactly right, because you know, when you look at what happened to the libertarian movement, small L and big L the Libertarian Party, there was only one candidate that I could find, and that was actually taking on the lockdown. That was Donald Rainwater in Indiana, who is running for governor.
He's running again this time, and he's got some really good economic issues that I had him on we talked about, but he was the only one who was pushing back against it. And all of a sudden, he's up like fifteen sixteen points or something like that in the polls.
And of course, what we always see happen is that as you start get close to the election date, everybody reverts back to their tribe, you know, and so they'll say they're going to vote for an independent or a third party candidate, but then they go back, they fall back into well, I'm going to vote for a Republican or vote for a Democrat. That type of thing always happens. But while he was doing that, I was so disappointed to see the National Libertarian Party was completely a wall
and what Jeffrey Tucker talked about. And I didn't realize that because I have not really followed them since then. You know, it's like, okay, we're done. I used to be very active in the Libertarian Party, and it's like that's that's it. After what happened twenty twenty. But this time around Jeffrey Tucker says, the guy that's running for president and the Libertarian Party, he was out there telling
people they needed to wear a mask. It was a cheerleader for Packslovid and all the rest of this stuff, and shaming people if they didn't follow this. And really the presidential canate was about as bad in twenty twenty as he is. But here's a guy that you know, now for a couple of election cycles, this has happened, he says, So what's happened to the intellectual movement? We've really lost that idea of the constitution of individual liberty
that's just really been flushed to the side. For the most part of it.
It's the same as always, you know, and it shouldn't be that we this will It's always the way this has gone as far as I can tell. Doesn't mean it can't change in the future. So I always want to make sure we're you know, thinking about this.
Hopefully.
I do believe we can't change, which is why they're trying to suppress we're talking about. But it's like the Green Party or anything else, you know, it very rapidly gets co opted by the same corporate entities and the same power structures that want to keep us falling into the left right paradigm. And you know, and to your point about people falling in line at the end, it's we're seeing more aggressively now than I think I've ever seen, which is you just how vulnerable it is right now.
But that it got very quickly dialed in, you know, like usually we hear it every year, most important election of our lifetime.
Very quickly we saw it happen.
Both Kamala and Trump were like gushing about how this everything will end if we don't vote one way or the other this time. And the problem is that it's just it's people want to do what they believe in. They want to you know, I want to vote libertarian, I want to vote Green Party, whatever it is. But then they get convinced by the adult conversation, you know, the way that they're projecting it today. Well, all these people telling you to vote your third party, your below
you believe in. There to understand how politics works, an adult will recognize the lesser of evils. I mean, it's just it's always the same conversation that boil it.
It makes you ignore your own principles.
At the end of the day, and it's always that way, like maybe there's one election out of ten, you know, cycles of elections where it seemed that way, and I can get the logic of it, but if it's literally every time, and literally every time, it's the same narrative. And this is why I think they're so desperately trying to hold new moves to change the situation, because I think people are seeing.
This more than ever I really do, and so I think ahead.
I think that it's also people want to do something right they see this, and that, you know, being passive and just letting this happen is not an answer. So it's like, what can I do? And the national media and the establishment of the government is very quick to come out and say, here, you can do this, and they give him a fidget spinner, right, And so they go sit in the corner and they play with a
fidget spinner. Think that they're doing something, you know, and when there's really things that they need to do, they need to do, they need to investigate what's happening at a state, in a local level. We had a situation here we had an excellent senator who had taken on the banking system and he had taken on a lot of and actually also put in anything about stopping out
of state money. But even though he's a Republican senator, he couldn't get it passed by the other Republicans, and so guess what, out of state money and the banks came for him and took him out. And so you've got to get involve. You've got to get involved at the primary time, because if you don't do that, then they're going to put in their people and you're not really going to have a choice when it comes to
the final election. And they're now starting, the big guys are now starting to pay attention to the state and to the local elections. They don't want you paying attention to that. They want you still doing the fidget spenter of the presidential election, and everything rides on the presidential election. I don't even think that Congress is going to do
anything to help us. So I'm looking at it and saying, well, we need to figure out how we're going to nullify what's going on and do it at the state level, and do it at the local level. Because that's worked for medical marijuana, it's worked for other things. We've seen nullification work and in the case of that, they stopped
Jeff Sessions. That was his passion to stop it. And yet because he didn't have any constitutional authority to do that, they had states all over the place doing first medical marijuana, then recreational marijuana. I don't I'm not at marijuana advocate. I'm a constitutional advocate. And when people say if you start nullifying federal governments overreaching their unconstitutional acts, then that's
going to lead to civil war, that's not true. And you can always point to that, and especially point to that for the left, because they're the ones who typically support marijuana reform and that type of thing, and you can point to and say that was done peacefully, wasn't it. And so we can follow that model for a variety of things. And I really think that's really about the only thing that we've got left in terms of politics.
And I don't make politics my entire life, but I think when you look at politics, that's the key thing at this point in time is state and local elections.
Yeah.
I agree, Well, to be clear of my stance on that in general, Like Katherine Austin Fishers said in a recent interview, in her mind, the presidential election represents about one percent of what you can do to actually affect change, and I completely agree with that. If anything, Quite frankly, I do believe my personal opinion is I don't think your vote speaking specifically about the presidential election, but quite frankly, I generally think this broadly.
Your vote is not translated to the outcome.
And there's a whole conversation to have in there about the nuance about that.
But for two things.
One one hundred percent agree if you're going to make an effect anywhere with a vote, regardless of the circumstances, local is where it's at. I completely agree with that. And I wouldn't say that they're only now doing that. I'd say that's always kind of been the case, so they're very aware of how they can use the smallest elections, you know, trickle up in that same way.
But I would argue that.
We're basically putting it this way that if you think your vote makes a difference, obviously I support that, but I only ask regardless of my opinion, but I only ask that you do what you actually believe in. As I was saying before, don't fall into what they convince you is what adults the lesser of evils. Just stick with what you believe in and vote for who you
actually believe that's Trump or Kamala. Then I support that choice, even though I disagree with it, saying, but I think that more people are showing that, Like all the comments I see online are all, well, they're both terrible, but you know, I'm honest enough to acknowledge that I have to do this or she'll win or whatever. And so I'm like, well, you stick to Jill Stein or whoever else you actually think might make that difference, and stick with that.
I just think that's super important that we're at a point where we can't.
We got to stop compromising our principles because people in the adult conversation that they keep framing it that way, tell you otherwise, you know it's important today.
Oh yeah, yeah, Well, you know, when you look at it, as you sho point out, I think, you know, we've got the whole thing exactly upside down, because as Musk has said, you know, he said, look at what Soros is doing. He's putting money behind local district attorneys because what he wants is chaos, and that's what he's getting with these district attorneys and so he's not focused that much on Washington. And so Musk is saying, you know, the smart money is going to be focused on things.
The closer you are to yourself, the more more effect that you're going to have, And of course that is true, even getting out of the political sphere and focusing on your family, focusing on your life, making preparation about your life. We don't want to ignore the politics, but we want to keep an eye on it so we know what we need to kind of defend against, and then you know, make some effort to try to nudge things in a particular way to the extent that we have the capacity
to do. But recognize realistically that you're not going to have a whole lot to say about that, but you do have a lot to say as to whether or not you're going to prepare, whether you're going to train, whether you're going to make alliances and local area, that type of thing that you do have some ability to do something about. I think that's really important. But it's kind of amazing to me how they get caught up and these petty side issues so they don't have to
talk about the fundamental thing. And of course they talk about gun controlled. Trump can't really say much about it because he did set a precedent for doing gun control by executive order. It's really really crazy, kind of tied.
It's the interesting thing when you look at them more than I've ever seen, and maybe if by design, I
don't know, their narratives are shockingly aligned right now. Like it's really strange, Like there's the typical wedge issues where we know they disagree, but at the end of the day, and Jill Stein's want to put out this compilation of their different rallies that were basically around the same time where they were, you know, it is reel Go against Iron four Forward, biometric curveillance wall, like all these different points, and they're all kind of cheering, how my guys doing this.
They're not. They're both like, yeah, yo, pro America.
You know.
It's really an alarming thing where they're framing themselves as like the counterbalance. And even in the debate, she Israel won't be here tomorrow if she wins, and she's like, that's not true of supporters my whole life, and I'll support their war. It's like if they're debating about who supports israel war and I don't know why the people.
I mean, I think most people see it. Quite frankly, I think the only people driving this machine forward are the ones, like we talked about, that are team Sport politics. They've chosen already. It doesn't really matter what they have to say.
Yeah, oh I agree. Yeah, even on the things that she's flip flopped on, right, nobody holds her back to the fire, fracking, all the rest of the stuff, oh yeah, for because she what she does is she does a focus group, which is the same thing that all these politicians do. The Republicans for years knew that everybody wants to push back against They don't like Obamacare, they don't like the open border. So I'll talk about Obamacare and open borders and then I won't do anything about it.
And of course she can play that game as well. You know, I can do I can support fracking as a candidate, and then you know, go the other direction when I become present. So they're just tell you whatever they know that you want to hear. They have focus groups, and they just have positions, and they can change their
positions just as easily as shifting in a chair. Let's talk a little bit about what's coming up in terms of the un Packed for the Future, because you're going to have reporters on site covering that as that's going through in about eleven days, right.
Yeah, yeah, it's basically so Derek will be on site and he'll be doing stuff for t LAB live on our show as well, but I believe you'll also be putting stuff on Conscious Resistance, so make sure you check
both out. The interesting thing about this that I find so alarming is that it's getting little attention, and I find this so what we're talking about is the Summit of the Future, and then within it they're talking about the Pact for the Future, and that's the real alarming part for me because it seems to have all of the same possible mechanisms that like during the COVID nineteen discussion, we all were and it hasn't gone away, so we're
clear about that. But the pandemic accord and all these different overlapping points were very clearly identified as a problem. Right everybody was highlighting this. There were a lot of shows about it. Even still right now, we should be
paying attention to the way that goes forward. But Derek and I had a great interview about this where walking through the actual points, it seems like it has all of the same kind of mechanisms at least potentially, but with far less oversight or far less you know, like that truly matters anyway, but far less like acknowledge. It's very lofty, all these general concepts that could be used in the same way.
And I'm I opened.
I wondered out loud whether the pandemic accord, which which happened a lot through history, was sort of like the clumsy on its face, we're going to controller life thing, so we all pushed back on it and then we accept the lesser of it, you know how they do that?
Right, That's what I think this might.
Have said that about the World Economic Forum. You know, it was always interesting because uh, you know, we would go to the Builderberg Group and we talk about that, and nobody was talking about the build of Berg Group. But the World Economic Forum they wanted all kinds of press coverage. They invited it, and they put this cartoon Nazi out there. I mean, you know, clutched, it's just like a bond. Yeah, it's such a straight out of
central casting. And it's like, pay attention to this watch this and everybody's like, you know, but where the real work is getting done is at Bilderberg, at the Club of Rome. You know, they got one after the other where they're meeting, and they wanted to nobody to talk about these So they basically set up a lightning rod
of criticism, which is the World Economic Form. And I agree with you, and we also see that regardless of what their rationale is, you know, whether it's we're all going to die because of global cooling, or then we're all going to die because of global warming, or we're all going to die because of a pandemic, whatever it is, it's always the same solution. We've got to have a depopulation, we've got to have central control, we've got to have
tracking of everybody. And so they come up with these different mcguffins, I call them to get people afraid, but it's always the same solution. Whether it's a pandemic, or it's climate change or freezing or heat or whatever, it's always the same solution. And so that's really what this is about. This is about, you know, creating the structures to govern us. And I think the thing that is very concerning about it and This was brought up by
expos A News out of the UK. This said, well, where is the discussion about this in the political sphere in the UK? Where are our representatives on this? We're you know, do we have a say in this? And you know why is this going to Well, the same thing happened with the Pair's climate accord, and they always run this stuff through, They jam it through without getting people involved. And I think that's the really concerning thing that we really need to pay attention to.
It absolutely well, the very common tactic today, if not like, the only thing they seem to do anymore is use the justification like the same, that's it's a climate change model.
Right, we're all going to die. It's it's our fault. We have to do this.
We can't really wait for democracy because we're all going to die. It's like the same, even though we all know that democracy the mob rule. Like the point is that they ultimately use the act idea that we've destroyed this and typically pointing at the other party. That's usually how that goes, right, the whole scarecrow thing, and so they get us in the idea that we have to rush through this and so on and not dive into
the reality and the facts and so on. And I think that the two main things around what this all
is obviously tied to is just general world governance. I think that's what all of these main points are about, about driving us to a point to where and obviously tech technocratic technocracy overlap where we're not talking about necessarily the old classic politician like I mean that may even be what Klaus Schwab was supposed to kind of like taint us the kids, but more so like the engineers and the scientists, you know, and so on, like let
them decide because we don't know enough. That's the idea behind that, And really it ends up just being elitist oligarchs in the world that decide these things for everybody. And so that's what this is about, is setting up this framework to make it look like, no, we're not going to have some world government, We're going to have a mechanism in place that should there be an event, which is really what this is around a world event
that suddenly justifies that we need coordinated action. That may well be what the whole nineteen illusion, amongst a lot of other technological experimentation, and you know, memori platform stuff may have been one of the main points setting us up to go. Look, that's how we failed because we
didn't have this in place kind of an idea. And so now this is about setting up this framework and then triggering up what they talk about in this discussion a planetary emergency or at least acknowledging claiming for tending one whatever to drive these things into place, and then never relinquish in that power. This is the Patriot Act that never went away. It's the same stuff we've always seen. And then the other part of it. And there's more
than just these two main parts. But me to my in my mind, these are the central parts and then the digital framework because that right in this main discussion they keep highlighting the global digital compact. So this is exactly what I'm worried about now. To go back to the point we said before the Save Act, Thomas Massey's point, all these different it's right now, and that to his point where he says they don't even really want it. I think it's religious about it. I think they all
want it. It's a trojan horse for digital ID using the real ID compliant identification combined with Biden's mobiles, driver's license push. Once that comes into play, that removes the other options for paper stuff because it'll be making it digital for all of your identification concepts. And then you go back to the actual save act and the only thing you have are real compliant ideas, and that's the digital identification.
So that's driving us there.
So when we get to a place where they're having a digital compact for the world, all that means is the same point, but on a global scale. And as we're all highlighting yourself, Catherine, I mean, it's this. I don't see how we come back from that. That once we get past that step, the censorship will become in I mean, I don't want to say it's not possible,
but let's just say it is. If we recognize right now that we're under some massive control, the insurmountable kind of effort that they the average person starting a new show has no chance today with the level of censorship, right, I'm forty times worse once they have a situation where it's not even accountable if it is even right now, the digital control that boxing you out from websites or domains, like just how about just not even being able to
access the Internet if your social credit score is too low.
We've all talked about this stuff. Yeah, that's what I think this is absolutely about.
Yeah it. As a matter of fact, you know, Microsoft has been working on the Coalition for Content Providence and Authentication uh CCPA I call the Chinese Communists Party of America where they can mark you, they can use and the partnership is with Intel and other processors and as
well as Adobe. So they got the hardware of the software that's going to mark you, and then they've got their mainstream media that's going to decide whether you are somebody should be allowed to talk or whatever, and you won't be able to even upload stuff. You know that that's gonna be the interesting thing. And I'm kind of in that situation right now with Spotify. Spotify has taken the lead and podcasts to ban me. They banned me within a couple of months of me starting my independent show.
And I'm man there as well, by the way, while ago and.
So they've they've talked about giving their you know, or leasing or selling whatever their technology to other podcasts so they can do the same thing. It's just a matter of time before that happens. And so they'll they'll stop it on the upload side of things, but it is a completely comprehensive thing to shut down anybody that disagrees with them. It's just astounding to me to see how everyone is pushing censorship, and he noticed there wasn't a
single question about that, and the xactly right. The so called press of ABC doesn't care at all about censorship, and neither of the candidates brought it up either, So you know, it was just fine for it to happen during Trump. It was only a problem when he was kicked off. Just like the police state and the swat teams attacking people's homes and throwing flash grenades and the
baby's cribs and stuff. That's only a problem if it might have happened and mar A Lago, if had the potential to happen, even though it didn't happen in mar Lago. But now it's a problem because they could have potentially done something like they're doing to everybody all the time
in our homes. It's that kind of you know, voyeurism that is really kind of occupying the average American where they don't care about what happens to them or their neighbor I only care about what happens to their the guy that they've identified as a person who's going to save them. That's the only thing they care about.
Yeah, well it's kind of the othering, right, It's like the dehumanization. It's the same thing we're seeing in our country right now with left and right. It's been that way for a long time. But it's it's the idea that it only matters if it challenges our worldview or our beliefs, or what we want to happen. It's just hypocrisy, plain and simple, you know. And it's if you think for one second that the censorship digital ed stuff is only coming from one side, it's not. It's both sides
and different flavors. It always is cocon pepsi. It's the same thing every single time, you know. And so right now they're both clearly pushing digital biometric wall, digital identification from different angles.
It's very very clear. And so they may not even know that themselves.
I'm not convinced that in these individuals necessarily are in the know about these larger plans. Frankly, I find it more believable that these were useful idiots, all of them.
Congress you know what I mean. But I mean, I'm sure at some level there's inside to it.
But that's the thing I'm really hoping Americans can come to terms with right now, is that this is very clearly something that is bigger even than our election system or political dynamic. There's something that is global and if we can see it like that in other context, the COVID nineteen illusion, you know, globalism in general, we have to ask or the Israel conversation. I mean, Americans, more than I've ever seen in my life, are like openly
discussing Israel's aggressive control over Congress. And that's important. It's not about Jews or Israeli in particular, it's about Zionism. But that's important, and that right there is a huge part of globalism because of a lot of the right narratives, they seem to try to decouple Israel from the obvious globalist,
you know, direction that they have as well. The important things to see that it's one and the same, and that it's all about keeping you compartmentalized in all of this, and by doing so, we're sleep walking into the very control structure that will allow this to continue.
Yeah, and it's about it's just okay, whoever wants to buy influence. It can be a foreign individual, yes, it can be a foreign government. But it's all right. You know, she gets a half a billion dollars in one month and three hundred and fifty million in the next. Man, that's fine, that's good news. That's good news. The medium likes that because she's going to spend that money with them, and so they're not They don't have a problem with it. And you know, Trump is the same thing. Yeah, the
Israel used to own Congress. And rightfully, so you said, is that right? You know, but when you look at it, as you're pointing out, they have they have their ways that they can channel both the left and the right to their common purpose, their common purpose of having digital ID and total surveillance. For the right, they're buying into it because they're concerned. They want everify, because they don't want their jobs being taken by foreign people coming in.
So let me have set up a system where I've got to get permission from Washington to work. Let's take a look at you know, what is going on the border. Well, let's put all kinds of the technology that we can down there at the border to keep people from getting into the country or getting out at the same time.
Right, right, And.
Then let's also look at you know, what is going on. Well, we don't want the kids looking at pornography, so let's have an id for people to be able to use the internet. You know, it's just you can find an issue as and I think, what do you think is the common thing here? I look at it as people every problem that comes up, they believe that the government should be the solution to it, and more importantly, that the federal government should be the one to solve it.
And that's what makes everybody so vulnerable to Well, Okay, we got a problem with the border, we got a problem with people taking my jobs, or we got a problem with the kids watching pornography. What's the government going to do about it? And that's what these debates are really feeding. What are you going to do about this problem in my life? You know, I've got an next door neighbor that I don't like. What are you going to do about it?
You know exactly?
Well, that's the thing is that that's what that we were just discussing, is it kind of you know, that's the point about how the majority in any election cycle of people that don't partake, and then the people that do, usually forty percent of them are independent. You know, it shows you that it's all about trying to drive you in to pretending that the left and right are the only things that matter in this conversation, and then making forcing you to have to pick between the lesser of evils,
and that there's no other option there. Right, there are people in this conversation that are talking about less government or burning it down entirely, but they're never going to
be allowed to be on that stage. And so a lot of the Americans that engage in this are of the mind that it's not either not there or that it's not prominent enough to be able to be considered because while they're not showing it to me, right, But that's obviously a false assumption, because clearly there are a lot more people that want this change, you know, the idea that only government can make a difference in your life.
I don't believe that most Americans even remotely believe that, but sadly enough, we get forced into it again.
Back to the point, that's why I think all this is happening.
They're cranking up the heat and the violence, because that's what drives people back into their comfort zone because right now there are people asking questions that they don't like. And so when war, people's lives are made more uncomfortable, so you become emotional, become vulnerable, and then you fall back into line. I genuinely think that. But whether we should want government our lives, I mean.
I think that.
I mean that it's a kind of quintessentially American to have less government our lives. And now here's Trump and Kamala and they're both representing basic you know. I mean, the funny thing is about whole communism versus that they're both authoritarian capitalist all the way through. And it's very clear that they have differences, but they are not as difference as they try to make them o to be. Like you said, more government, more control in your life period.
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, Yeah.
The old paradigms of you know, used to be, well, the government, you know, the Republicans are going to give you freedom an economic sphere, and the Democrats and liberals are going to give you freedom and your civil liberties and that kind of stuff. That's all gone away. They're all and this idea that well, there's government and then there's business, and they represent different interests. No, they've merged,
and so there's this merger of the parties. There's this merger of government and business and all the rest of the stuff. So these paradigms that have been out there that even people are in the third party aspect. And again Jeffrey Tucker touches on this when he talks about it, says, well, you know, we have the combination of these two things. I've been saying it for the longest time. You know, the liberals will say, well, business can do nothing right,
government can do nothing wrong. The conservatives or the libertarians go the other direction. The problem that they don't see is that they've merged. You've got a fashion system here where you've got corporations and government have merged for their common interest. And neither of these paradigms are capable of addressing that because that's not even part of their fundamental They don't want to. It's not a part of their fundamental assumptions, and so they can't deal with this problem
because their assumptions don't fit reality. Right.
Well, it's the same as a classic saying, or you can't solve.
A first step in solving any problem is simply acknowledging you have one, and they all seem to be pointing in any direction other than the obvious problem. And whether they see the problem or not, it's not being addressed because nobody wants to talk about it. And I think it's more so about the fact that you know, these are nascars, right, you just can't see all the patches and advertisements all over them, like they're being funded and
been lobbied. And I mean, you know, it's very very obvious, and we all joke about it, but yet weirdly, when it comes to these important moments, those we're told anyway the larger conversation, and this is usually people that have their entire wealth or identity invested in the system to convince everybody that might be somewhat aware of it that it's.
Not what you think.
You got to vote otherwise nothing matters, And we go through this form that's really the point of the four year cycle.
It's like, right when people start going maybe there is something, we get pulled right back into it.
You know.
It's like every single time, you.
Know, yeah, yeah, that's why you know, I look at this and I just you know, I want to try to get people focus on other things, and you know, rather than these things that are just kind of a sisiphus task. You keep pushing this rock up the same rock up the hill, over and over again, and nothing ever changes with Yeah, it is crazy. Well, what else is on your mind? What they're at last? American vagabond?
Well, you know, I recently covered a really terrifying story that I think my impression of where this goes. The thing that really worries me is that I see through it sort of like the outlines of maybe like a new form of governance. Like we've all talked about technocracy. It's not a new concept, and it goes back to nearly seventies, right, the idea clearly, whether with good intentions or not, it was it represents today, in my opinion,
the opposite of what it pretends to be. Right, This is just a very clear technogratic, elitist mindset about, you know, overlapping with with eugenics and all sorts of terrifying things in my opinion. And the point is that I see technocracy sort of showing itself in ways that I think
circumvent government. Is the best way maybe to put it, and so that in Honduras, Peerteal backs a company that essentially has tried to start or has started, what they are pretending is some libertarian utopia, not even remotely what it is in my opinion at all, based on every possible metric to sum it up.
Rather there quickly, there's a lot in this story.
But in two thousand and nine in Honduras the US government back to coup, which is pretty common knowledge these days. And yeah, it's Tuesday, right, it's probably happening here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But so essentially it caused the chaos that we might expect, which is usually the objective degree, so they can take advantage of all sorts of things. Now, what's important to recognize is a series of leaders went after that, which caused you know, it's even even to this day it's one of the most dangerous places in the planets as I understand it.
The point is at once that happened, it created the chaos that they allowed to happen, because these despots are doing what they want, taking what they want, and they used that chaos to justify the need for sustainable you know, special development zones is what we've heard them call before. It comes from sustainable development zones, which is a UN twenty thirty point. Now in this country they call them.
Z's or zed zede, which is just another name for the same exact thing. So remember it's important to recognize these comes from a UN twenty thirty objective.
This is Peter Thiel's back company.
They's back in dvanced, that's Trump's cabin It's important to see how these things are all connected. But the point is that they backed this pretend libertarian utopia city in a location.
Well, first they sorry jomp out.
They created the z zones under the guys that they were going to help people because of the chaos they tried. They started to set this up. They got push back from the Constitutional Court because they nobody wanted it. So what they do the legal thing. They kicked people off the judge positions and they put people in place that would vote the way they wanted them to, you know, otherwise completely illegitimate right, and they got this passed. So then once they got it passed, they then started to
set up these these bake huge libertarian cities. Now it hasn't really accomplished anything. People are worried it's already starting to absorb other parts of the area. It's a very weird dynamic now jumping forward to it. Right now, a presidential cabinet ran entirely on the idea that we're going to get rid of these zds. The people in Honduras are wildly outspoken about how they don't want this, and essentially it's importan understand that this zone, this area they
built one of them is called Prospera. I think it's rotan the island. They have their own laws, they have their own tax system, they have their own police force. Like there's no sovereignty, there's Honduras. They that area is no longer theirs. It's wild. So this new government world right exactly, This.
New government got put in place right and then they removed the law because they immediately voted for it. Nobody wanted it.
So now it's technically illegal, even though they're already starting to build another one, which shows you they don't care about the laws. Now, what the important part is they're now suing Honduras for eleven billion dollars. The GDP of Honduras is thirty five thirty six billion dollars. New York Times thinks they're going to win this. So here's my point in all this. Right now, they're going forward anyway. The current government is telling us. They just on September fifth,
they openly said they're doing it again. They get their marshaling their forces. The US government's going to back another coup, which I think they know, which is why they're not caring about this.
But here's what's important. What happens right now? How does that make sense? Like what happened?
Who has control over this area? If they're the ones that control, so what does the government mean in that context? What happens if they win, which it seems they might do they take all the assets of Honduras because of a bankruptcy, and what does that mean for the people. The government doesn't go away, but arguably this libert a technocratic feel backed entity owns everything, so they're technically in
control of everything even though the government's there. So my long point essentially pointing out there's lots of these things happening in the world. Is this an example of technocracy? These elitist oligar sort of taking control of land and land grabs without even going through some illusion of a
democratic process. It's kind of terrifying, and I think an important part is to see how this ties back to Teal And you know, Palenteer is Reel all these different overlaps, but just that concept alone worries me about where this goes and how they're sort of like reimagining the way that we should live under technocrats as opposed to elected governments, even though that's not even what's happening anymore.
It's interesting.
Yeah, you know, when you look at Palenteer, that's that's his connection to Palenteer is one of the things that really concerns me about Peter Teel as well. He's not what he appears to be. Musk is not what he appears to be. And yeah, I guess he wants to have like another Rhodesia or something where he's the we call it Teleisia or something, right heater Teal Villager. I don't know what he would call it, but you know, that's the whole thing.
And uh and.
Musk musk starlink by the way, I'm sorry, I forgot that musk starlink is being allowed to be used for these for these areas, but as I can tell, not for all of Honduras. So I think that's interesting. I think that relates to the military purpose that might be coming. Go ahead, Sorry, I just wanted to include that's interesting. Yeah, So what is your take on it now? I mean, are they just trying to set up an example here? Is this going to be like the home base for
them to flee to if they have to? Because in the past I tried to Hugo de Garis, he wrote about artificial intelligence. He worked in the field, and he was a true believer in it. He thought they were going to create a godlike intelligence and so forth. And he said, but before that, he said, when people realize what they're doing, in other words, the technocrats, he said, what I think will happen as people will come for
them in there and to defend themselves. He said, they'll most likely set up some kind of a high frontier type of thing George K. O'Neil talked about in the nineteen seventies. You had Jeff Bezos reference did a lot, and you saw it in Elysium, you know, where they got these toyoid shape things. And so he said, I think that they'll set these things up and flee to that and then you know, conduct war against us. With superior technology. He called them a osthmas. And the people
that be left on Earth, they call them terrens. And they said, you know, I think that they'll flee to their space spaces and then you know, as a refuge, maybe they're going to just go to Honduras. You know, it's funny, as I take as much as you, there's there's jokes we made about these people. But I'm tell you there's something about that that I take very seriously,
and that's a terrifying thing. Like even the space aspect, I've been saying this for so long, and I don't know why it doesn't get I mean, it's probably why it doesn't get much attention.
But how do we don't know what the hell is going on up there in space? Like there's been a long period where they have the ability to do all sorts of things. I mean even like, how do we know that they haven't even made contracts with other governments to be like, look, let's just black this out. People don't need to know like colonies, space wars. I mean, I'm not saying I'm thinking that's happening. I'm just saying the fact that we don't know is pretty crazy to me.
It's a wild West up there for governments and technocrafts. So you make a great point in regard to Honduras and all the By the way, I love your point there. It's a terrifying reality.
But we have to realize that the point he's making is these people are wildly powerful, influential in some cases overlap with government, and they could literally be creating a situation where they're driving into reality their worldview, which is technocracy. That's kind of terrifying, but yeah, the Hondura's point, it could be right. So my take on what it ultimately comes down to, it could be sort of a test bed, you know, like a litmus test to see how people respond.
Like the main point to make is that the people of Honduras, that's again one of the new administration was running on the removal of those but the idea that they violated their sovereignty, I mean, they're even trying to argue that they violated the original contract, even the contract
with the illegal governments. Both, by the way, the presidents that existed during those illegal contracts are both indicted by the current government, and even the US government acknowledges that both as criminals.
So it just it just shows you how ridiculous this all is.
But the point is that I think it's really about testing to see how we respond to what people will do, see how far they can take it. But I mean it could be more than that, you know, this could
be the beginning of something. I just think it's important to highlight that if it's that easy, you know, I mean it's easy, but military power, quick coup overlapping with a corporation swinging in, making a contract with the government the illegal government put in place, and then just saying, well, too late, you can't take this back, even though the laws have changed, even though it turns out you didn't
even meet the contract to begin with. And now my point is that, like I said before, they just posted something on Twitter where they're saying they're building another city on the island that Prospera's on now, But that law has been removed for a long time now. So my point is, I'm convinced the people behind this, that's the theal company, why would they do that if the law doesn't back it. I think that there's something in their mind that tells them they're.
Going to be able to get away with that. That's why my feeling is that's why she's saying that about the upcoming coup, that they think there's going to be a power swing and that they won't have to worry about it. That's completely my opinion.
But so that's all about where this goes and the shifting of power and whether government is a thing of the past. You know, it's just a thought, but it does worry me.
Yeah, it is interesting when you go back and look at it. And I've talked many times about how Peter Thiel's grandfather, you know, was fully on board a technocracy back in the nineteen thirties. Is hgu wels is doing things to come and shape of things to come that they did the movie, they had the book and he actually tried to enact that and Canada had to flee to South Africa. So there's a certain you know, this kind of resembles this in a lot of different ways.
The idea that you know, they're going to kind of hedge their bets to make sure even though they're making so much money out of government. And that's the key thing.
You know.
Elon Musk became the king of crony capitalism. Yeah, he made so much money and became so wealthy, and he's going to make even more doing the fact that he's able to get the satellites up and Boeing, you know, NASA said, well, we want to have another company's doing it. Boeing can't can't get their act together. He's able to do that. So he's on track to become the world's first trillionaire by maybe twenty twenty seven. So it's just, you know, a vertical takeoff in terms of the power
that these people have. But Teel and the powers and the companies that he's put in their palante here, that's unbelievably powerful. And so they put themselves into key technologies that the government is relying on, and a big part of that is going to be artificial intelligence, because in my opinion, that's the killer app of AI. It isn't that they're going to have autonomous robots that are going to come around and try to, you know, kill us individually.
They want to use their artificial intelligence as a way to propagandize and to surveil us. I think that's the killer app. I think that's what they've been working on for a long time. And so they're insinuating inserting themselves into all of these key choke points essentially through technology.
Yeah, one hundred percent. And one of the important overlaps that we shouldn't miss with all of it with Musk and Starlink and you know, is the idea that what this is overlapping with the conversation we just had by the way, with the pack of the future and the digital or I mean, this might very well be the beginnings of what this is meant to kind of the need that they're building that need the role to fill, and like for example, the fifteen minute city, the smart
city dynamic, I mean, it may not be exactly the same overlap, but it's the same general idea that we're simply in an area that is run by technoc or technocrats or run by people that are arguing they know better about your life.
You know.
And so it's a different flavor of the same kind of thing. And so what really should be worrying for the people that think they're on the side of the party that is against this, right, it's largely people tied right back to the administration that's running on Trump's side who are building this thing, you know, and that overlaps, and there's also so many overlaps to these people with the actual who overlap and the World Economic Forum if people are just kind of being willfully blind about it,
you know. But your point is right, and I think it's all about building into a position where artificial intelligence, digital identification, these things are not just necessary but paramount
to the way that the city functions. All of course always framed on the guys that it's better for you and it will make your life more convenient, you know, And you know, maybe that's in some minds, maybe that's what they're actually doing, but it's like that for that to turn into a technocratic nightmare, yeah, you know, and that's wh we're all worried about. Is I want the positive, if that's something that's genuine, I mean a technique.
I actually don't.
I don't want any of this stuff, but I mean, like, I'm open to the idea that things might be positive, but we need to realize that if you open that door, it's like a dual use concept. It is going to be used against eventually, and I don't think we should take that step.
Yeah, oh, I agree, that's what's happened really to technology. But you know, when we look at the technocracy versus Marxism versus you know, populism or whatever, you take these different approaches and the dangerous things about all of them. You know, we're talking about fascism or populism or Marxism or technocracy. The thing that makes them dangerous is the element of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And they all have that in there as a strong aspect of what they're doing,
and so they can all lapse into that commonality. You know, we're so used to thinking that Marxism is completely opposite from fascism, and it's not. When you look at the Nolan chart, you see that they're down there at the bottom because they're both authoritarian or tautalitarian. And the same thing can happen with the technocracy. It's just how they market it to us. One of them might come in and say, well, we want to have a brotherhood of man. That'd be Marxism, so you got to give all power
to me. The other people say, well, we got a different mcguffin. We want to focus around our culture and our nationality, so give all power to me. They've all got just like the other things. It's like, well, we need to depopulate the earth. Whatever it is. They've always come back to the same thing. They have different ways
to sell it to you. And the reason I mentioned this is because when you look at the dangerous tendencies that I see in the electorate, is the idea that, as I said before, we got a problem and he's to be solved by the government and we need a savior. Well, let's get a billionaire who says he's on our side. And I see that with Elon Musk. I see that so much with the people, the MAGA people who are
focused on Trump. Look at this guy is rich, he's powerful, he knows he's successful because obviously because he's got a lot of money. And so if he's on our side, and I think he's on our side because look, he's given us free speech on Twitter, and I'm not seeing any free speech on Twitter, but they imagine that. And you've got all these people who are cheering Musk and think that he's on their side and he's going to
be the guy. He's going to save us after Trump, and that's such a dangerous thing, and they're playing these people.
I think, I mean, here, the.
Thought one hundred percent I completely read everything you just said. One thing that's jumped into my head based on what we were just discussing. Right, So if we're thinking this out, let's just say for sake of conversation, the long play is to get Americans comfortable with the idea of technocratic leadership.
Right.
And one thing Matt Ritt and I have talked about over the years is he's under the mindset this is a very long play like this goes back to power structures, bloodlines that go back a long way in the mindset, being that at one point in time there was a shift from kind of a monarch mindset into something where at least we pretend we have the power to elect who we want.
And the argument is is that.
Was something that was a veils pulled over eyes where they convinced us we were choosing, but we really weren't. And now we're to point where that veil is being removed because they've decided, well, we're going to step back out of the shadows for whatever reason, you know. And so it's possible to consider the fact that this whole thing is about manufacturing Elon Musk into some kind of position he's already accepted a position, But whether it actually happens, that's still up in the air.
But he said it, he's accepted.
That's the Department of Government Energy, which just happens to be dozed, which I find ridiculous, you know, the coin.
He's always I don't know, but he said it publicly.
Trump stood up in an interview and said, I hope he's accepted it, and I think it's good. So my point is, what happens if Elon Musk takes a pretty prominent role, right and then runs for president next time?
M hm, right, I mean there you go.
It's just boom, just like that, and all of a sudden, you've got a literal technocrat, oligarch, elitist military contractor who's the good guy saving free speech.
I mean, that's a pretty terrifying step right there.
I mean, if that happened, my opinion would be that would be that's likely coordinated.
Yeah, oh, I agree. I agree. It is a crazy time that we're living in and things are accelerating very very rapidly, and you know, I think it is the again we go through. I believe these cycles of history, like they talked about Strauss and how talked about in the fourth turning. I think we're at the tail end of that. And I think this next administration, whoever it is, is really going to usher us in through this whole thing, because it's going to take us right up to the
end of it. They want to have their new society in twenty thirty. That means that they've got to tearry thing down and start rebuilding something else to get it there and in place by twenty thirty. And so that means whoever this next president that they select that they're going to use to do this thing. So it's people need to be aware of the overall landscape, understand how the you know, how the dangers are shaping up, and see what these threats are so that you can prepare yourself.
That's why I keep calling people, you know, focus on your own life and don't live vicariously through these people who really don't care at all about you. I mean, we can just see that with January the sixth. They just use people and cast them aside for their own benefit. It's just absolutely amazing. Well, it's always great talking to you, Ryan, and tell us a bit more about the last American vagabond and is it is it spelled out Last American Vagabond dot com. Is that the website?
Yeah, agree, the Last American Vagabond dot com. Okay, yeah, And we also have our substack at TLA Vagabond. I think it's at substack dot com. I think that's what it is, you know, But just it's all on the website. If you go to the Last Americanvagabond dot com, you'll find links to everything. As I say and dissed about every interview, don't don't let the platforms be the conduit between you and our information.
Right, go directly to David Knight dot com.
Go directly to the website, check out our content, you know, as opposed to platforms, because I think there's control happening through.
Those as well.
But yeah, the platform I think is is right now, by the way. I we're under some pretty heavy attack as always, I think, but the website.
I had a really amazing interview with Kathin Austin Fitz.
It was focused recipally about all this stuff around the two party illusion, the election, around Digitaliz's oh, absolute outstanding, and she had a really crazy conversation about important and crazy around neurological weapons.
I'm sure you've talked about and I've talked about.
The neuroscience, but like claim saying that she has experienced it, been there, seeing it, and her argument is that's part of what's happening in this election anyway.
People need to check that out at the last American vague all.
Sorry.
An excellent interview with Katherine Austin Fitz. Thank you so much, Ryan Christian, thank you all for joining us today.
Have a good day.
Let me tell you the David Night Show you can listen to with your ears. You can even watch it by using your eyes.
In fact, if you can hear.
Me, that means you're listening to the David Knight Show right now.
Yeah, good job. And you want to know something else, You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at Ndavidnightshow dot com. That's a website.