Best of the Program | Guests: Bill O'Reilly & James Lindsay |

Only Murders in the Building, season five.

The hit Hulu original is back.

The Nightbuster died.

He was talking with this mobster.

Was he killed in a hit?

We need to go face to face with the mob.

Get ready for a season.

Ongiono signore.

This is how I die.

You can't refuse.

You're gonna save the day, like you always do, by being smart, sharp, and almost always find mistakes.

The Hulu Original series: Only Murders in the Building, premieres September 9th, streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney Plus for bundle subscribers.

Terms apply.

New episodes Tuesdays.

I really love Elon Musk.

I mean, he may end up being a dark lord.

You know, he may be like, I'm building the Death Star.

And I'm not putting any shafts that go right to the middle of it.

It's amazing because today the government is targeting him and NPR is pulling their

account from Twitter.

I love that.

And then yesterday, the Biden administration gave him perhaps the largest gift possible, basically an in-kind donation of multiple billions of dollars with his new electric car regulation.

Like, they have such a weird relationship with this guy.

They trash him publicly and then they just but I think that's everybody's relationship with him.

Yeah.

Because, I mean, I really like him.

Yeah.

But he also likes the government handouts, you know?

He believes the world is going to, you know, melt down and so we've got to get off this planet.

But he also believes we've got to get off the planet because of AI.

But then

he did the open AI, which became ChatGPT.

So I don't know how to think of this guy.

Anyway, we talk about him and so much more, all the news of the day.

You don't want to miss a second of it.

Relief Factor is our sponsor.

If you are dealing with daily pain, I know what it's like.

Now,

You have a choice and you've probably if you're dealing with pain every day You probably have already gone down this road You're gonna try everything?

I got to a point where I was like, yes, I've tried everything.

Okay, I haven't tried voodoo, but I'm not going to do that.

And then my wife heard about Relief Factor, and I had always just dismissed it because it's natural, and I really believe in better living through pharmaceuticals.

And then she's like, take this.

And I'm like, honey, it's not going to work because ibuprofen doesn't touch me.

It doesn't, but this attacks inflammation, which is the source of most of our disease and most of our pain in our body.

It attacks it four different directions where ibuprofen is only using one.

I've seen a remarkable difference in my life.

Please, just try it.

Trial Pack 1995.

Come on, that $20 bill is going to be worth like a dime in a couple of months.

Just try Relief Factor now.

Go to relieffactor.com or call 800, the number 4 Relief.

800, the number 4 Relief.

ReliefFactor.com.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Blandbeck program.

Stu,

this from the Washington Post.

A story that has one unidentified source.

Oh,

an entire unidentified source?

Yes, wow.

One nameless source.

But they feel pretty good about it.

Okay, good.

Now, they don't feel good about Seymour Hirsch and his one identified source.

That's immoral.

It's wrong.

It's all journalistic standards.

Except this time with the Washington Post.

The man behind the massive leak of the U.S.

government secrets that has exposed spying on allies, revealed the grim prospects for Ukraine's war with Russia, and

ignited diplomatic fires for the White House is a young charismatic gun enthusiast who shared highly classified documents with a group of far-flung acquaintances searching for companionship amidst the isolation of the pandemic.

What year is this story from?

What do you mean, the isolation of the pandemic?

Well, when they got together, that's when they all got together.

And that's when they met.

Okay, so they did meet several years ago.

Now they were united, according to the Washington Post.

They were united by their mutual love of guns, military gear, and God.

A group of roughly two dozen, mostly men and boys, formed an invitation-only clubhouse in 2020 on Discord, an online platform popular with gamers.

But they paid little attention last year when the man, some called OG, posted a message laden with strange acronyms and jargon.

The words seemed unfamiliar to the group, and a few people read the long note.

One member explained, it was pretty boring.

But he revered O.G., the elder leader of their tiny tribe who claimed to know secrets that the government withheld from ordinary people.

The young member read O.G.'s message closely, and the hundreds more that he said followed on a regular basis for months.

They were, he recalled, what appeared to be near-verbatum transcripts of classified intelligence documents that OG indicated he had brought home from his job on a, quote, military base, which the member declined to identify.

OG claimed he spent at least some of his day inside a secure facility that prohibited cell phones and other electronic devices.

I mean, it could have been a movie theater.

I don't know.

It could, this room could be used to document the secret information housed on government computer networks or spooling out from printers.

He annotated some of the hand-type documents.

Spooling.

What are they?

A dot matrix printer?

Spooling?

Yeah.

It's the government.

Yes.

Yes, you're right.

They probably got a printer in 1987, and they're still using it.

And what military base has this?

I mean, this stuff is highly, highly classified.

You're not going into a military base and like, I'm just going to log on to the secret parts of the military.

Right.

Okay.

The member said he was translating arcane in Telspeak for the uninitiated, such as explaining that no foreign meant information in the document so sensitive it must not be shared with foreign nationals.

The members swapped memes, offensive jokes, and idle chit-chat.

They watched movies together, joked around, and prayed.

But OG also lectured them about world affairs and secretive government operations.

He wanted to keep us in the loop, the member said, and he then seemed to think that his insider knowledge would offer the others protection from the trouble world around them.

He's a smart person.

He knew what he was doing when he posted these documents, of course.

They weren't accidental leaks of any kind, said the member.

The transcribed documents O.G.

posted traversed a range of sensitive subjects that only people who had undergone months-long background checks would be authorized to see.

There were top-secret reports about the whereabouts and movements of high-ranking political leaders, tactical updates on military forces.

The geopolitical analysis, insights to foreign government efforts to interfere with elections.

If you could think it, it was in those documents.

In those initial posts, OG had given his fellow members a small sip of the torrent of secrets that was to come.

When rendering hundreds of classified files by hand proved too tiresome, he began posting hundreds of photos of documents themselves, an astonishing cachet of secrets that had been steadily spilling into public view over the past week, disrupting U.S.

foreign policy and aggravating America's allies.

Now, this account of how detailed intelligent documents intended for an exclusive circle of military leaders and government decision makers found their way into

and out of OG's closed community is based in part on several lengthy interviews with the Discord group member who spoke to the Washington Post on the condition of anonymity.

He is under 18.

He is a teenager.

The Post obtained consent from his mom to speak to him and record his remarks on video.

He asked that his voice not be obscured.

Wow.

So we've got a teenager who is the unidentified source, but they did talk to his mom.

Dozens of highly classified documents have been leaked online revealing sensitive material, blah, blah, blah.

The Post also reviewed scores of additional secret documents, most of which have not been made public.

So this is, the Post reported, revealed that a man in his early mid-20s allegedly shared them with members of an invitation-only Discord group.

He said, let's see,

the documents revealed profound concerns about the war's trajectory and Kiev's capacity to wage a successful offensive

against Russian forces.

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, among the leaked documents, negotiations to end the conflict are unlikely during 2023.

The files include summaries of human intelligence on high-level conversations between world leaders.

How could somebody on a military base just get into this?

I mean, if this is all true, and I...

It sounds pretty true, at least it sounds like the beginning of the truth.

How did this guy get this?

He's working on a military base.

How did he get access to all of these things?

That seems to be a problem.

The files include summaries, human intelligence.

It includes intelligence on both allies and adversaries, including Iran and North Korea, as well as Britain, Canada, South Korea, and Israel.

Okay.

He released detailed charts of charts of battlefield conditions in Ukraine, highly classified satellite images of the aftermath of Russian missile strikes.

Others sketched the potential trajectory of North Korean ballistic nuclear missiles that could reach the United States.

Another featured photographs of the Chinese spy balloon that floated across the country in February, snapped from eye level, probably by a U-2 spy plane, along with a diagram of the balloon and the surveillance technology attached to it.

So this guy, I have to tell you, I don't know what his motivation was.

The kid says that

he had these access to these classified documents.

He was telling the group that he was preparing them for the world that they're living in because the government is lying to them.

Now, I don't know if he was grooming these kids.

I mean,

at this point, with what we know, don't write off that it was a FBI agent

who is acting as a military official who had access that was dumping these online to get this group of kids who loved God and guns and their country to react.

Now, this kid seems

really level-headed.

He said he's not a Russian operative.

He's not a Ukrainian operative.

The room on the server where he posted the documents was called Bear vs.

Pig, meant to be a sny jab at Russia and Ukraine, and an indication that OG took no sides in the conflict.

OG had a dark view of the government, the young member said, as he spoke of the United States and particularly law enforcement and the intelligence community, as a quote, sinister force that sought to suppress its citizens and keep them in the dark.

He ranted about government overreach.

Now, when I hear that,

I don't think this guy was doing what he did was heroic.

I don't think, I mean, the kid says he wasn't a whistleblower, but I do agree that our government is out of control.

The problem is law enforcement and the intelligence community,

they are suppressing information and they are suppressing people.

OG told his online companions that government hid horrible truths from the public.

I believe that to be true.

He claimed, according to the members, that the government knew in advance the white supremacists intended to go on a shooting rampage at a Buffalo supermarket in May 22.

The attack left 10 dead, all of them black, and wounded three more.

OG said federal law enforcement officials let the killings proceed so they could argue for increased funding, a baseless notion that the member said he believes and considers an example of his penetrating insights about the depth of government corruption.

Was there any documentation on that?

Right.

Or is this, I mean, what was that?

We know we started this making fun of them for having one unnamed source.

It's hard to know how much of this is real.

Yeah, I know.

And what the motivations aren't on anybody.

Discord servers eventually named Thug Shaker Central.

signaled to members that they were free to hurl epithets and crude jokes.

The young member expressed some regret for their behavior, but seemed to shrug off the offensive remarks as a clumsy attempt at humor.

That's much more serious than these leaked documents.

I know.

So how can we cancel these people for the bad jokes they probably made online?

He told the Washington Post this wasn't a fascist recruiting server.

Think of that.

A kid, teenager, is saying that to the Washington Post.

Right.

Again, like,

they want so badly to frame this in a certain way that they're like, well, we've got a 12-year-old, or sorry, 13, he's a teenager, a 13-year-old, could be 18, could be 18, could be 19 even.

And he's called his mom.

He's, oh, okay.

He's going to explain to us what is and is not a fascist recruiting operation.

Like,

I mean, is this journalism?

So listen to this.

The member said he is confident the authorities will find OG.

He recently talked to OG,

and he said he knew what he had done.

He said, I didn't mean to put anybody in harm's way, and he sobbed on the phone.

He then said he's confident the authorities will find him, but when they do, he won't be charged.

Instead, he believes, OG will be imprisoned without due process at Guantanamo Bay or disappeared to a black site if he's not assassinated for what he knows.

He says he will not divulge OG's identity or location to law enforcement until he's captured or can flee the United States.

I think I might be detained eventually.

I think there might be a short investigation on how I knew this guy, and they'll try to get something out of me.

They'll try to threaten me with prison time if I don't reveal his identity.

To date, no federal law enforcement official has contacted the young group member.

What?

Asked why he was prepared to help OG even at the risk of his own freedom, the young man replied, he was my best friend.

Help?

He went to the Washington Post and is telling them all these details about him.

That's not help.

I don't know.

And why hasn't the FBI contacted him?

Contacted him.

I don't know what to think about this story.

I can go anywhere, honestly, here from this kid is playing a prank on the Washington Post, all the way to everything he's saying is true.

To it's an FBI CIA plan.

Right.

I mean, you can go anywhere.

That's how little credibility the Washington Post has, the federal government has, and people have.

Nobody has any credibility left.

It's crazy.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

Bill, how are you, sir?

I shouldn't even ask yet because I know how you're going to say.

No, you don't know what I'm going to say, Beck.

I'm full of good ideas today.

I appreciate being on the Glenn Beck show, the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

Yeah, well, that's what we are.

And then also sometimes Bill O'Reilly.

And that's both.

So, Bill, let's talk about what's going on beginning.

Are they expecting the trial to start next week?

We should have the jury picked, right, by the end of this week?

Yeah.

Well,

look, anything could happen in these things, as you know, I mean, litigation is chaotic, but the judge in this case wants to move it along.

And the jury is the jury in Delaware.

You know, both sides, both lawyers on each side, they get to pick people that they feel don't know anything.

And that's the truth.

They don't want smart people on the jury who watch Fox News or may understand the core problem here.

They want people who have no idea.

So they're not biased.

It's in Delaware.

Why is it in Delaware?

Is Fox a Delaware corporation?

The

Dominion people are registered there.

Okay.

Many corporations corporations are registered in Delaware because they have very low corporate taxes.

Correct.

All right.

Dominion, the voting machine, just for you, and I'm sure most of your listeners know this, they say that their company got severely damaged because Fox News and Newsmax and One America, and there are lawsuits against those two as well,

lied about

what the voting machines did in the 2020 election.

And

that is true.

So the voting machines in Dominion, there hasn't been one shred of evidence produced that says those machines threw votes to Joe Biden.

And the Trump people,

Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, they were running around saying this.

And Fox News gave them a forum, in many cases, unchallenged.

So that is the heart of the lawsuit.

Now, there's only one

thing involved here, and this is what makes it fascinating.

A reckless disregard for the truth.

That's what the Dominion law lawyers have to prove to the jury that doesn't know anything.

A reckless disregard for the truth.

That means that when these guests appeared on Fox News, the interviewers and the hierarchy of Fox, Rupert Murdoch on down,

all knew this was bogus.

There was no solid evidence against Dominion.

Okay.

That would be a reckless disregard for the truth.

So they allowed someone to come on, say false things unchallenged.

Okay, so wait a minute, Bill.

Well, I had Sidney Powell on, and,

you know, I said, that's great.

If you have that,

you should produce it.

Well, I am going to.

Well, when you produce it, I'll have you back.

So that's not a reckless regard.

No, that's a reasonable approach.

Correct.

Now, so the recklessness comes from because I could have believed her, but I didn't because she would have produced some evidence.

So I could have believed her.

I might not have believed her, but I could still have her on.

The problem here with Fox is they had.

her on over and over and over again, right?

Yeah, but it was more than that.

So, according to the depositions and the internal documents that Dominion got from Fox, they had to hand them over.

That at the same time, Sidney Powell and Giuliani and other people were saying that Dominion did X, Y, and Z, they knew that Dominion didn't do it.

So, I mean,

that's pretty tough.

That's pretty tough to overcome, and that's what Fox's burden is.

Now, a couple of other things you'll find interesting.

There isn't one media operation in this country, not one of any note, that wants Fox to win this.

They all want Fox to lose it and be destroyed because from day one,

that's what the corporate media has wanted, destroy Fox News.

Correct.

And number two, hammers in the courtroom are not there.

That helps Fox because if the cross-examination of Rupert Murdoch

Tucker Carlson, the other people, it's going to be brutal.

It's going to be brutal.

And if it were on camera, then that video would be everywhere.

And now,

the American people and world, anybody watching around the world will have to rely on the print press primarily

to tell them what's going on in the courtroom.

Now, that's going to be brutal, too, but it's not as bad as seeing it with your own eyes.

Correct.

So,

what does this mean, not just to Fox, but if Fox loses, does this affect the rest of us?

Not really, because I sat in that chair for more than 20 years

at Fox.

I didn't sued ever

because I put the opposite point of view on.

If you had a provocative thesis or hypothesis that Dominion or anybody else was cheating in the election, I'll put you on,

but I'll cross-examine you hard.

That's what I do.

But I'll also put the other side on, which isn't hard to do, Beck.

That's not hard.

So is that if you do that,

then there's no malice.

So is that how CNN gets away and all the other media corporations get away with

the whole

rushagate experience they right pounded that here's the difference okay

there was no

monetary damage done to any person or corporation in the phony rushigate thing trump so some americans could and still to this day statute of limitation has not run out you could file a class action lawsuit against cnn and nbc news

you could do that it cost you millions of dollars, so you'd have to get somebody to pay for it.

But you could say that

there's a fraud, there's a reckless disregard for the truth on those networks because they promoted a phony story, Russian collusion.

You could do that,

but it's a lot harder to win that kind of a theoretical lawsuit

than this one.

Because of the monetary harm.

Yeah.

You've got to show damages.

Dominion says they can show it.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I think that the jury, the people who don't know anything,

the only thing that they're going to focus in on is reckless disregard to the truth.

So behind the scenes, Fox News commentator whoever said this,

but on the show, they said that.

That's going to be tough for Fox.

What does it mean if Fox loses for them?

Well, mass layoffs, number one,

because they're going to take a huge hit.

Remember, the jury can apply punitive damages against Fox in addition to the $1.6 billion.

And they don't have to award Fox $1.6 billion.

They can award, I'm sorry, Dominion.

They can award Dominion $800 million or whatever.

Okay?

And then a judge can also temper the money.

But you've got to assume that this is going to be, if they lose, FNC loses, they're going to pay an enormous amount of money.

They've already paid more than $50 million in legal fees.

Some of that is covered by insurance, but they're going to hemorrhage money.

That's number one.

So they'll have to lay off a ton of people over there.

And number two, it shatters them forever

as being a legitimate news agency.

The core people who watch Fox, the older, very conservative people, will continue to watch.

Right.

They're not going to bail.

They'll never bail

because there's nowhere else to go.

Right.

And the audience keeps getting smaller and smaller on all cable news.

Particularly the younger audience.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They're gone at Fox News.

They They never existed on the others.

But you mentioned CNN and the word doom.

CNN knows a lot about doom, Beck.

They keep

seeming to carry on.

I don't know, but they do.

Bill, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

We'll talk to you again when the trial starts

and get your take on it.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thanks for having me.

You bet.

BillO'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

James, how are you?

Hey, I'm good.

Good to have you on, man.

Yeah,

yeah.

So,

last night,

I was trying to explain to the audience, and I thought you are the

guy who can really explain it really, really well.

But it's the

world that we live in is no longer a free market world.

When corporations sat in their boardroom years ago, they would try to decide what was best for the shareholders and what was best for the shareholders was creating a product that the public wanted.

That's no longer their concern because you have BlackRock and everybody that is dictating or they'll sell the stock or fire people on the board and replace them.

You have all of these activists that will just make their life a nightmare.

You have the insurance companies and the banks who, if they're not doing the right thing with the right score,

they're not going to participate with you.

And you have the government breathing down your throat.

So

is the average

consumer even considered anymore in the boardrooms?

Barely.

The average consumer doesn't have anything like the power that,

even in large numbers of average consumers, don't have anything like the power that these big financial institutions in collusion with the governments have over these corporations.

So not so much.

That's why

the reaction to go boycott these companies, yeah, maybe it sends a message, but all you're doing is telling them that you're unhappy about something that they know you're going to be unhappy about, that they didn't take you into consideration when they did the calculation to do it in the first place.

So maybe it has a small effect.

Maybe it gets their attention.

Maybe in the, you know, enough of these will get some attention.

But for the most part, they are beholden to other forces that are not the consumer.

They are not

any of the traditional base of economic activity in a market.

I was talking to a fairly successful businessman a couple of days ago.

And he said, well, it's assuming we're in a free market, which I'm not sure.

And I immediately responded, we're not in a free market anymore.

This is no longer capitalism as we know it.

This is more fascistic in nature.

But it's not a free market.

Would you agree with that?

Yeah, that's correct.

I don't think that we've had a free market in the United States in a number of years.

When it actually tipped over, I think it's been a gradual process.

So it'd be hard to pinpoint and say, oh, it was 2015 or some specific year.

But these tools like ESG that we're talking about are much older than people realize.

ESG was devised at the United Nations by a man named James Gifford in 2003.

And it was devised to the purpose that it's being used for today, which is how do we take all of that latent money that's tied up in pensions?

All these people put their retirements away for 30, 40 years.

All that money is just sitting there.

It's not being invested in things that could have a social or an environmental impact.

How do we take that money and do social and environmental activist investing with it instead?

And they came up with that

20 years years ago.

And it's grown in

scope over the past 20 years.

And it's come to the point now where they are controlling, like you said, in a very fascistic manner, how the market is going to operate using that gigantic reservoir of money that they figured out how to tap into.

Can you explain CEI and the scoring system?

Yeah, CEI is actually pretty simple.

This also is older than people realize.

This is probably, for a lot of people, the first week they've ever heard of the Corporate Equality Index, but it was devised in 2002 at the Human Rights Campaign, which was a gay civil rights organization that eventually, in the 2006, 7, 8 era, seems to have received a large amount of money from the Open Society Foundation and George Soros' foundation and changed its direction to being very activist-driven in a new way.

And they've started, in 2002, they started this equality index to show how well, to score companies on how well they are

taking up with social causes related to the gay rights and the LGBTQ agendas.

And

this score is very useful because it's a part of the F, the social justice part of the ESG score.

So it's very useful to these banks like BlackRock that are trying to figure out, well, is Nike or Coca-Cola or in this case, Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light, are they doing their part

to be socially corporate responsible?

And so

they use this score, and it has a number, it's scored out of 100.

They use this score to determine, are you having internal policies at your company that are LGBTQ friendly?

Are you going out of your way and bending over backwards for them inside the company?

Are you making

LGBTQ visibility into the public?

Are you behaving in a corporate responsibility manner?

And they give you points based on whether or not you do these things.

And they can take away points if you do something they don't like.

And if you don't have a 100 CEI score, you're not listed as the best place to work.

And all kinds of consequences start to follow.

So much so that corporations brag about earning their 100 for the first time and on their websites and put out press releases.

And there are over 840 American corporations that have a 100 score from this human rights campaign Corporate Equality Index score.

And it's really not just about equality or, or, you know, treating people right or having an open workspace or anything like that.

A lot of that score comes from your advertising and your social outreach and promoting these things.

So Dylan Mulvaney makes total sense when you understand

the

CEI score, correct?

Yeah, that's right.

That's exactly right, Glenn.

They come to you.

The HRC, the Human Rights Campaign, sends

agents every year to tell you what you have to do as a corporation in order to promote more LGBT visibility, to promote LGBT activism and social change.

And if you want to have your score go up or you want to maintain your 100, you have to meet all these new demands.

This is, in other words, racketeering.

What do these demands look like?

Well, in the past, they have been specifically, you know, that there's some piece of legislation that they want passed, some kind of equality legislation.

So the corporation has to start to lobby for that or else they're going to lose their score.

There are these ad campaigns like you see to put people like Dylan Mulvaney and push a new set of values into the American culture while tarnishing the old values, mocking the old values.

And this is the kind of thing that increases allegedly LGBTQ

visibility.

So this can increase your score.

Last year, there was, as I've heard from some closed-door channels, there was a racket push on the three major airlines to give Pride activists free airline tickets to fly around to Pride events because airline tickets are expensive.

And if they didn't give away millions of dollars in free flights to activists to fly to these Pride events all over the country through June and July, well, they might lose their 100.

And all three major, actually, all four major airlines in the United States have a perfect CEI score.

So every single year, they come with new demands, new things you have to do this year in order to maintain your score.

And it's whatever their agenda items are for that particular year.

So if you had a company that, like Bud Light, that had a great reputation, not being about politics, it's not even about beer, it's about the stupid Clydesdales, you know, all the time.

They had a great reputation with the American people.

If they decided we're not doing any of this, you know, it's against our, it's against our corporate culture, or we might agree with you on a lot, but we're not going to be taken hostage.

We make the decisions here.

What would happen to them?

Well,

a number of things would happen.

First, they would get a shot across their bowel.

Their score would be threatened and it may go down.

At which point, all of the kind of ESG apparatus is going to start to rumble into action.

So the HRC doesn't have any direct power over Anheuser-Busch, but Larry Fink at BlackRock does.

So all of a sudden, they can say, well, you're not a best place to work anymore for LGBTQ, so let's go ahead and delist you perhaps from these these index funds.

So Anheuser-Busch stock right now is bundled up into all of these pension funds that states like California are dumping billions of dollars into every year.

And that's a huge amount of a huge reservoir of money that goes into your stock value.

Let's just take that away from you.

Let's just delist you.

And if that causes a spook in the market that causes people to sell your stock and run away from your stock, well, so be it.

And maybe we're going to have to replace some of your board members because your board members decided to take a stand against us.

And since they're going to have some huge portion of the stocks

controlling that company, they're going to be able to appoint and remove board members kind of at will.

They may just also directly vote.

So there's a lot of kind of carrot stick

incentives that they can press on this.

It's also been tied into,

what am I looking for, executive compensation packages.

So these executives are also, if they are doing what it takes to keep that score up, they get bonuses.

If they mess that score up, they lose their bonuses.

It's a very simple economic proposition at that point for them.

And so they aren't likely to take a stand because they're going to get the stick, as it were, if they try to take a stand against any of this.

So besides being an entrepreneurial kind of community and

a secondary economy,

what can you do about it?

Because, I mean, it's...

It's so far down the road.

People don't understand.

You don't matter anymore.

You're seeing it in the government.

No matter what you say, it doesn't matter.

We're doing it.

I think we're going to go to war with Russia and or China, maybe even both of them.

And we're never going to have the debate about it.

It's just going to happen because the elites are deciding.

So how do we reverse this?

Well, it's a slow process, actually.

Everybody, when we think about how we're going to reverse this, because the stakes seem very high, we hope that we're going to just reverse it like overnight.

This isn't what's going to happen.

There's not going to be some miraculous moment where we say, oh, this is really bad.

We're going to not do this anymore.

What there is the opportunity to do is to slowly start exposing this, to show how it works, to reveal that this is a racketeering scheme.

So Anheuser-Busch, if you stop thinking of them as the enemy for putting Dylan Mulvaney on a can and you start thinking

of them as being an American company that's in a hostage situation,

you start thinking about it in a different way.

How do we start trying to reach out to how do our leaders that aren't completely on board with the regime's plans start to reach out to these entities and say, look, you do business in this state.

You do a lot of business in this state.

You do business in the United States.

How do we help you get out from underneath this?

In other words, when you're trying to turn over a cartel or a racket, you've got to start to get people who are caught up in the system.

and want to get out of the system to start telling stories about how it actually works.

And in the meantime, we have to just continue to expose and delegitimize the process as much as possible.

It's fine if we want to do these things like these boycotts, but I urge the American consumer to realize that it's not even just these cartel running kind of scores and banks that are the problem.

With companies like Nike, which also has promoted Dylan Mulvaney, their largest market share right now is in China.

It's not even you anymore.

And so American conservatives can try to boycott these things, but they don't realize that

you're a very small percentage of the overall market.

So we've got to start thinking in terms of what do we need to do with these gigantic multinational corporate conglomerates, because they've become big enough and international enough where there is no accountability whatsoever to the American people.

And we've got to start rethinking how that happens.

But it starts by exposing it.

It really does.

James, thank you for everything that you do.

You're just, you're an amazing story.

You know, start at the University of Portland,

a guy that we would probably have never have talked back then, to somebody who has just been relentless on research and found the truth.

And now you're a machine.

I mean, you are really breaking things up.

And I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Well, thanks, Quinn.

You're back.

We're going to save this country.

Thank you.

James Lindsay.

Newdiscourses.com.

Newdiscourses.com.

You should also follow me on Twitter, ConceptualJames.