Embracing Self-Sufficiency and the Future of Cryptocurrency | 3min snip from When Shift Happens Podcast

Speaker 3
Can you imagine owning a store in California or other states where they let people rob and someone comes in when you're living on tiny margins in your little gas station, you deal with armed robberies, homeless, everything. And I know a lot of these store owners and maybe the whole family that works there is all together dividing up $300,000 a year between eight, nine people that work there. So they're all making like 30, 40, 50, 60 grand a year apiece. They're working long hours, and then people come in and just rob you of your stuff, and then you go bankrupt and close. That's George Soros. Is that George Soros? It's the same thingos? To destroy. There are little towns in Germany with 50-something people or 100 people. Little tiny villages, and they'll dump 500, 1,000 Muslim men on them. And they complain, they arrest you for being hateful. That's war against the West. We can't take it anymore. And then we're supposed to be so embarrassed about being American that, oh, well, Captain America shouldn't have anything to do with America. I mean, come on. Next, you're going to say that Terry Bradshaw has something to do with the Steelers. I mean, that's ridiculous. I don't think the New England Patriots should have anything to do in history with Tom Brady. I mean, that's coming. Come on. So
Speaker 1
this is what happens when people fake populism. You end up with this level of pretend concern about these store owners, which you're just faking in order to disguise your racism and xenophobia. So I don't care. Incidentally, Chris Evans said almost identical things about the character of Captain America. Of course he did. But no, I not mad then. Of
Speaker 2
course he did.
Speaker 1
That's weird. It is strange. Also, Alex's brain cannot make analogies. Saying that Captain America isn't just about America isn't like saying that Terry Bradshaw has nothing to do with the Steelers. It would be like saying that Terry Bradshaw has nothing to do with Bradshaw, which is a name that's derived from the Old English for broad thickets. His name would have to be Terry Steelers in order for him, Alex, to make this connection. That would make more sense, yeah. The point about the Patriots is just as bad, but in the opposite direction. They would need to be called the Bradys in order for this analogy to make sense with Tom Brady. Yeah. It's fine if Alex wants to say that he doesn't like how people try to sell movies to foreign audiences and it offends his sense of patriotism. But it's obvious that that's not what this is about. But he could make that argument if that was his actual complaint. Yeah. Yeah. But it's not.
Speaker 2
Also, once again, I'm not understanding the very concept of an individual in response to a government's action saying you shouldn't trust the government. They do not have your best interests in mind. I feel like that should be a message that Alex is pro. He's not very thoughtful. I feel like that might be true.
Speaker 1
Yeah. So he plays a clip of some protesters, some immigration protesters. People who think that the government has their best interests in mind. He says something shocking. Okay. Alright, here's
Speaker 3
some of the clips together. radio listeners it's illegal aliens waving mexican flags attacking people and beating them up that have american flags and stealing the american flag and stomping on it and throwing it just really friendly stuff i mean if you went to mexico and grabbed somebody at a mexican parade and grabbed their flag you'd get beat to death and you pretty much should i mean you know because they got a little pride in themselves what i'm so sick of taking this so
Speaker 1
i guess he's not so cool with free speech and seems very protective of flags i if alex thinks that the police should be protesters to death for desecrating the flag then he doesn't care at all about the constitution or his audience should eat him you know that's where that's where we're at yeah
Speaker 2
that's absurd he
Speaker 1
can sidestep that a little bit by saying that the police shouldn't do the beating but another citizen should be entitled to beat these protesters to death for desecrating the flag and waving another flag. You get the sense that Alex wouldn't defend that position, though, across the board. Like, let's say if, I don't know, someone were to get beat up for waving a Confederate flag. Yeah. I don't think that it'd justify
Speaker 2
that. He might have a different point of view on that. Yeah, he wouldn't. Because that would be hurting somebody's history and their, like, I suppose their heritage. Somebody who cared about where they were from, who cared about their past, who cared about the
Speaker 1
nation. You'd probably defend that person a little. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It seems to traditionally do that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Huh. Weird how that works. Yeah, these standards are all over the place. It
Speaker 2
does feel like there is not a single standard. Except for anger. Yeah. At the other. Yeah. So
Speaker 1
Alex is talking about Trump's great negotiation skills. Interesting. With foreign leaders. Okay. And he says something that I think were there to be a god
Speaker 3
lightning should have struck him. Okay. Trump is sending Marco Rubio the Secretary of State down to El Salvador and Bucale. Kelly has said that he's looking to make a deal with the United States to let them bring non-El Salvadorans there. And that totally freaks out all the international drug gangs, the rest of them, because, OK, you make a deal with us and pay us. We'll just keep them in our giant prisons. And that, of course, will shut them off. He's totally shut the crime off there. So they're going to turn that nice little prison planet for him.
Speaker 1
I want to be clear. Alex knows he's endorsing and pushing for everything he's pretended to stand against his entire career. He's celebrating Trump negotiating with the president of El Salvador to ship people to that country so El Salvador can lock them up there for a price. And Alex literally calls it a prison planet. That's the name of his website. That's his branding that he's now applying to this thing that he supports. Yep. And that's because he always supported it. After World War II, the people who supported the Nazi party really wanted to downplay how much they knew that what they were doing was wrong. Things like this, where Alex supports creating a prison planet in El Salvador for people that Trump deports, that should make clear to anyone looking back on this time that Alex Jones 100% knows that what he's supporting is wrong. He conceptually understands that treating people like this is wrong, but he also knows that all of the cultural groups that he's a member of won't be subjected to this treatment, so he doesn't care. It was always about white Christian identity. There's just no reason to pretend anymore yeah so you can say i want to send these
Speaker 2
people to a prison planet yeah i mean and that's that's even if you wanted to be like no this is a smart thing to do i i mean based on his own arguments about the cartels and shit like that i would probably say that if you were going to take a bunch of people who have no connection to a place no contacts at that place and no amount of money to take care of themselves at that place you have essentially given me a draft list of people who are going to join the cartels because they need so much fucking
Speaker 1
money it's absurd to to think it's possible there could be that kind of unintended consequence it
Speaker 2
would be easy it's the easiest oh hey do you hate america surprise buddy you are on a team
Speaker 1
and it makes it a lot easier to really not like america when something that uh captain america Alex Jones, is cheering on is a for-profit incarceration and extraordinary rendition type program. Like Alex lived through this. After the Iraq war and during the Iraq war, after 9-11, there were detention centers in third-party countries. That's a huge shame on the United States record. And one of the reasons that Alex was able to gain as much traction with his, oh, fuck the government kind of stuff, is because the government did do things like that. Yep. And you could rightly think that he cared.
Speaker 2
Yeah. But he doesn't. Nope. He does not care. No, you know, there's no way not to know on account of you are making the decision you are making is evidence that you know because if you say aha we can't have this prison in america it's against the law well then the answer to that is you don't get to have that prison. Not, well, we'll just put it, we'll pay somebody in another country for it. What? No, you're wrong. Otherwise it would be legal here. It's you who made it legal or illegal. It
Speaker 1
seems like there'd be a nice incentive to keep those prisons full too. I mean, absolutely insane. Oh, well. Yeah. So anyway, Alex goes to the first press conference that the uh press person is doing sure and i don't care yeah uh she does say that the new jersey drones
Speaker 2
weren't aliens that's nice were they were they i mean i know they were suspected aliens for quite some time but everybody was just saying don't worry about it they were totally cool okay don't worry
Speaker 1
don't worry about it yeah
Speaker 2
okay some
Speaker 1
of it's like people like drones all right i'm not gonna worry about it then yeah so um there's one big story that alex does touch on uh through this episode and it's that trump is firing a bunch of inspector generals sure and he keeps trying to cover this by not covering it and blurring the lines of what is actually going on okay so i
Speaker 3
said over and over again it's a no-brainer it's not like i'm saying something really not known but trump must immediately remove the fbi director will he quit before that he must immediately put his people into all the key agencies he must immediately fire all the globalist u.s attorneys he must immediately fire all these little illegal and turn out it was illegal jack was clearly not constitutional and then and then get rid of these crooks and that's his right to fire whoever he wants you got pencil neck adam schiff i got the clip here you don't want to hear from him but i'll show you the transcript you know oh this is illegal he's just stuttering because it's not Now, Reagan fired U.S. attorneys. Clinton fired 98 of the 100, 98 percent. Obama, half of them, on and on and on. And so Trump's doing what must be done.
Speaker 1
inspectors general. Alex is attempting to rationalize that this is a good and just thing for Trump to do. And the way he's arguing that is by saying that past presidents have fired U.S. attorneys and Trump was right to fire Jack Smith, who was a special prosecutor. That's all good and well, but Alex is comparing apples and oranges here. Inspectors general are not the same thing as U.S. attorneys or a special prosecutor. They exist specifically to be independent oversight entities within government agencies. They're appointed by the president, but their role is meant to be strictly nonpolitical. In essence, they serve as a safeguard to make sure the president can't just exploit government departments for their own purposes. This is not like Trump replacing U.S. attorneys, which is a fairly common thing the presidents can do in a new administration. This should be seen as a serious threat that Trump is making to the foundation of oversight within government agencies by attempting to place loyalists in positions that are meant to be watchdogs. The move is very clearly illegal, and even Lindsey Graham acknowledged that and said, quote, Just tell them you need to follow the law next time. Sure sounds like some members of Congress don't give a shit about the law. And yeah. So, I mean, it's just blatantly illegal and horrific.
Speaker 2
I mean, yeah.
Speaker 1
But, you know. It's what you expect. It's
Speaker 2
just a thing where there is no legal or illegal. There's just who gets laws enforced
Speaker 1
on them. And that's kind of it. And it's really, really sad to see somebody who is, you know, Lindsey Graham's. You are the person who should be saying that you can't do this. Don't just kind of, meh. I can't do anything.
Speaker 2
But I mean, the problem I have for these people is that this is their crowning achievement. And they don't even get to enjoy it. I don't understand. If I'm like Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham, I am crowing. I lied to all of you, you dumb fucks. Surprise, we own everything now. How is that not at least something you enjoy? I am now a duke. Right? Like, just enjoy it. It would make me feel better to know that they're like, yeah, of course, this was our plan. We did this. Thank you. There's nothing you can do about it. All of you are losers. Like, that would be great. I
Speaker 1
think that they're pretty concerned that that would cause a violent response. From
Speaker 2
whom? They're the ones who have the military pointed towards the cartels or whatever, I guess. Sure.
Speaker 1
Yeah. I don't know. So anyway, this is the rationalization and the justification that Alex is making for the firing of these inspectors general. Sure, sure, sure, sure. And he has one other rationale too. So
Speaker 3
here's a report I put out last night. This is Trump's most devastating move against the globalist deep state, and it's removing them. Sorry, Democrats, there's precedent. Obama fired inspector general in 2009. So
Speaker 1
this is what Alex seems to think is this slam dunk for defending Trump, that Obama fired an inspector general in 2009. When you hear an example like this, your mind should ask for details. What about these situations might be similar and what might be different? By figuring out those elements, you can parse out whether or not Alex's argument holds any water. The thing that Alex is trying to justify is that within his first week in office, Trump has fired like 17 inspector generals, including those in the EPA, Health and Human Services, the Veterans Affairs, State Department, and the Department of Defense. No concrete reason was given for the firings, and eight of these people have filed a lawsuit against the government because their firings were clearly illegal. Right. According to the Inspector General Act of 1978 and updates in the Securing Inspector General's Act of 2022, there are steps that you have to take in order to remove an IG, because if there weren't, then the president or government official would have a really easy time covering up corruption. Yeah. You'd just get rid of people who are looking into you. That's
Speaker 2
why Nixon was trying to fire everybody until somebody would fire people. Yeah.
Speaker 1
Yeah. The law says that the president has to tell Congress 30 days prior to the date of an intended termination of an inspector general, and they need to provide a thorough explanation with, quote, detailed and case specific reasons for the firing. Unsurprisingly, Trump did not follow that law. What? Conversely, in 2009, President Obama specifically decided to remove one inspector general that he'd lost confidence in. This was the IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service, Gerald Walpin. He was put on notice 30 days in advance, as was Congress. Congress received letters from the board of directors of the CNCS who were supportive of Obama's decision and said, quote, over an extended period of time, we observed how Gerald Walpins effectiveness as inspector general significantly diminished. Even though this followed the rules of how a president can excuse an IG, Walpins still sued the government and it was fully litigated and he lost. Looking at the basic situations here, you can easily see that these are not comparable, but Alex needs to make them seem the same because he'll do whatever he has to do to run defense for Trump's actions. There's an extra layer of manipulation that's going on here, which goes like this. Alex would call Obama removing this inspector general an act of a tyrant. He definitely would. but he's using it as an argument for why trump removing ids isn't the act of a tyrant right at least that's what the argument is supposed to look like in reality the argument alex is making is that removing inspector generals is the act of a tyrant but that obama did
Speaker 2
it so trump should be able to too our tyrant gets to do it if they're if your tyrant gets to do it
Speaker 1
exactly it's meant to look like an argument appealing to the constitution or principle but that's really just a mask on i have made this look like tyranny so i can do it now too yeah
Speaker 2
no it's it's an interesting i think it's an interesting side effect of the painting obama as a tyrant that i don't think they knew was going to happen in so far as it made it so oh well now our tyrant can do whatever he wants because it's
Speaker 1
not Obama I you know think that maybe that is more conscious than you imagine it's possible I mean there's a reason that the people in the John Birch Society were running around talking about Eisenhower being a commie sure
Speaker 2
right but I don't I mean i don't know if they meant to to like i don't know if they knew that people would catch on quite so quickly with being like yeah tyrants are cool as long as they're not obama kind of thing you know it's interesting i
Speaker 1
think that uh there is a a trend within that extreme right wing ideology sure that is make your enemy the devil and then you can do that and then you can be the devil yeah yeah absolutely you can be just a little bit now that's that's every politic that's politics that's politics it's more i think it it it's it's it's a problem that it does exist universally but more in that in right-wing JBS lineage than others.
Speaker 2
Yeah, but that's ironically exactly what we're talking about, is that by them being more of it, it allows it for other people. Yeah, maybe. So
Speaker 1
Alex talks a little bit about NGOs that are taking over the government. Sure. And this I thought was wild. Now
Speaker 3
let me get to the real key here. Because it's not enough to fire the operatives in the government. You've got to cut their money off, which he's doing. But you also have to expose these people. So this next thing that ties into this, I'm an expert on. And Anthony Sutton was the head U.S. archivist for more than 30 years at the U.S. Senate. He ran the intel for Senator Frank Church's committee hearings that were the biggest exposure of the deep state in history. It's about to get bigger with Kosh Patel. But he wrote at least five books that i read off of those documents and i was able to talk to him quite a bit but he was too old he said but he said he was too old to come on but he would he listened to the show the point was is that he's where we learned all this and there was other knowledge as well but around 1900 the big banks and the robber barons jp morgan and john d rockefeller were public about it then they were in the news saying americans are too informed they're too educated we've got to find out a way to take over society so they created tax-free foundations to get around the sherman antitrust act bill gates just follows suit with his so-called you know non-profit that makes even more money and lets you buy off government's regulatory systems and they get hundreds of billions conservatively a year of tax money and then whether it's brainwashing kids or transgenderism or open borders or chipping in migrants that's where the money comes from the government to the tax-free foundations to the non-profits to the NGOs and that they buy out the universities and the churches and the 2.6 billion to the catholic church in four years to smuggle kids in that's come out not not hundreds of millions 2.6 2.3 i showed the article yesterday so
Speaker 1
a lot of the stuff that alex says in that clip is just stupid and wrong but before i go any further i want to indicate where there is the slightest tiny bit of agreement that i have with alex okay in the way that our economy and system are set up the super rich are able to use foundations and charities to mask and redirect massive amounts of their wealth totally the system is very exploitable and we've seen how it functions in terms of aiding the already very rich in hoarding resources. It's an untenable system, and it needs to be changed, ideally in a way that doesn't hurt legitimate philanthropy, but stops massive corporations and billionaires from exploiting loopholes. And that is where our agreement ends. The rest of this shit is just John Birch Society nonsense. Anthony Sutton wasn't the congressional archivist he just wrote conspiracy books about bolsheviks and skull and bones he's considered a bad historian a shitty source and and and a bad writer this is all a fun story but it doesn't also make sense the globalists apparently set up this system because they needed to get around the sherman antitrust act but why would they allow the sherman antitrust act to be passed to begin with it's not like the globalist plot just started 50 years ago and they're adjusting to new realities their boss is the fucking literal devil if the whole system that we live in now was created just to get around the sherman antitrust act it seems like it would be easier for the globalists if they just overturned that or didn't let it pass they have magic powers and kill people all the time and it seems like they have free run of all the government's power for over 100 years. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume they could just undo this law. And interestingly, pretty much the only people who want to overthrow the Sherman Antitrust Act are folks on Alex's right wing libertarian side. Crazy. They believe that the market would sort it all out. And these are just limiting freedom by having, you know, like if you have a monopoly that actually works and gives people what they need, the market will allow that. But if you're a bad monopoly, the market will take care of that. That's why everybody loves Comcast and AT&T. They love them. They love them. Big business wants there to be no antitrust laws. And Alex's ideological forefathers were shills for big business. Whether he wants to accept it or not, his entire conspiracy framework and by extension, his religious beliefs are based in kissing the boss's ass. And that's all he's got. Yep. But I do like to point out those little moments where there is the agreement, which is like this is an exploitable system that the super rich can use. And the reason that I like to point out those moments of agreement is because those are the places where Alex lies to you. Yeah. Those are the places like 15 years ago you could have heard him say something like that and been like this guy's saying some shit yep he's on to something um but he doesn't care nope he's not going to resolve this he doesn't have a solution to this problem he just wants to kick out immigrants yeah yeah i mean it's
Speaker 2
it is just so clear like people do want to hear the truth said people do want to hear you say this is fucked up and not immediately followed up with but here's why the system says we can't do anything about it now or we have to wait until the next four years or we have to do it's fine
Speaker 1
yeah absolutely people want to hear you say this can't be going on anymore. Right. And here's what we're going to do about it. Tom Homan's going to throw people out of the country. Yep. It's a big difference. There is a difference between appealing to incremental change and hopefully in the future we'll be able to work this system better. Yeah. There's a difference between that and scapegoating. Yep. And Alex has proven that scapegoating is appealing. Well,
Speaker 2
I mean, the problem is whenever the incremental change doesn't work, people are going to go right to scapegoats. Love scapegoats whenever incremental change fucks up. It is an unfortunate reality.
Speaker 1
So
Speaker 2
another
Speaker 1
unfortunate reality is that Elon Musk, he spoke at the AFD conference. Great. And people are psyoping him.

E109: Meltem Demirors: Why Speculation Drives Crypto (And How To Win The Game)

When Shift Happens Podcast

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts