Latest / V / FDA Approves First Step to Cheating Death - Early Edition With Evita (Ep.167)

Transcript

FDA Approves First Step to Cheating Death - Early Edition With Evita (Ep.167) · V

0:00
Speaker 1: Good morning and welcome to Bongina Report, early edition. A
0:04
Speaker 1: journalist crashes the Trump administration's secret war group chat. Ben
0:10
Speaker 1: Shapiro defends the official narrative of the JFK assassination. The
0:15
Speaker 1: FDA approves a drug aimed at extending the lifespan of
0:19
Speaker 1: dogs with potential future applications for humans. Joe Rogan promotes
0:25
Speaker 1: the Shroud of Turin and a Shroud of Turin video
0:30
Speaker 1: to his millions of followers, and Rachel Zegler, a.k.a. Disney's
0:34
Speaker 1: new Snow White, lands a role that is actually perfect
0:39
Speaker 1: for her. All this on Bongina Report Early Edition. It
0:54
Speaker 1: is Saturday, March 15th. in the U.S. is about to
0:59
Speaker 1: rain bombs on Houthi targets in Yemen. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
1:05
Speaker 1: of The Atlantic, knows it's coming two hours early.
1:10
Speaker 2: Why?
1:12
Speaker 1: Because Pete Hegseth, Trump's secretary of defense, accidentally texted Jeffrey
1:16
Speaker 1: the war plan at 11.44 a.m., complete with targets, weapons,
1:22
Speaker 1: and timing. Bombs drop by 1.45 p.m., And the world
1:28
Speaker 1: finds out soon after. But for Jeffrey, the story starts
1:32
Speaker 1: days earlier. Jeffrey gets a signal invite. If you don't
1:35
Speaker 1: know what Signal is, it's an encrypted messaging app. He
1:39
Speaker 1: gets a signal invite on March 11th from Michael Walsh,
1:44
Speaker 1: presumably Trump's national security advisor. Suspicious but intrigued, he joins
1:50
Speaker 1: only to land in a messaging group chat called Houthi
1:54
Speaker 1: PC Small Group. with heavyweights like J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio,
1:58
Speaker 1: and Pete Hegseth himself. The chat buzzes with war talk.
2:03
Speaker 1: Vance worries about oil prices and Europe's freeloading. Pete Hegseth
2:08
Speaker 1: pushes for action to restore deterrence. On March 15th, Hegseth
2:13
Speaker 1: drops the bombshell update, literally. Jeffrey waits in a parking lot,
2:18
Speaker 1: checks X at 1.55 p.m., and boom, the attack is
2:22
Speaker 1: carried out, and he confirms himself. on his own that,
2:25
Speaker 1: of course, these messages are real. It's not a prank.
2:28
Speaker 1: He's actually inside a very secret group chat with very,
2:32
Speaker 1: very important people in the Trump administration. Now, the group,
2:37
Speaker 1: when this happens, they celebrate with fist bumps and prayer
2:41
Speaker 1: emojis as these bombs drop, including a viral Michael Walsh message,
2:46
Speaker 1: which is a fist, an American flag, and a fire emoji.
2:50
Speaker 1: And this kind of went, John Ratcliffe says, a good start.
2:53
Speaker 1: Michael Walsh responds, fist bump American flag. It's gone viral
2:58
Speaker 1: because people are sort of observing the ludicrousness of having
3:06
Speaker 1: war plans and dropping bombs. And there's just a regular
3:10
Speaker 1: group chat. You're with your friends. You're talking. You're sending
3:13
Speaker 1: emojis to one another. But this group chat, they are
3:17
Speaker 1: going over war plans and have decisions that have major
3:22
Speaker 1: real world consequences. So Jeffrey, He's stunned. He exits the chat. Now,
3:28
Speaker 1: what we think happened, this is a really good theory
3:30
Speaker 1: from Emily Jasinski, who I had heard. She thinks that
3:36
Speaker 1: they were trying to add United States Trade Representative Jameson Greer.
3:41
Speaker 1: And because the JG and his contacts is the same
3:44
Speaker 1: as Jeffrey Goldberg, then they got them mixed up. It
3:49
Speaker 1: could be. I use Signal a lot. I use them
3:53
Speaker 1: for encrypted messaging. It's supposedly more secure, although we'll talk
3:56
Speaker 1: about why that's not. I don't think that's actually the
3:58
Speaker 1: case a little later on in the show. But when
4:01
Speaker 1: you send a signal message, it doesn't show up as
4:04
Speaker 1: the full name of the person you're messaging like it
4:07
Speaker 1: would on iMessage. Usually just the initials appear. So it's
4:12
Speaker 1: very possible that whoever added Jeffrey Goldberg into the chat
4:17
Speaker 1: didn't do his due diligence, didn't actually say that it
4:20
Speaker 1: was supposed to be Greer and instead added Jeffrey because
4:23
Speaker 1: all they could see was those initials. This is kind
4:25
Speaker 1: of how Signal is. Now, obviously people are flipping out
4:30
Speaker 1: over the security concerns here. I got to tell you guys,
4:32
Speaker 1: to be honest, I'm pretty concerned about it. A journalist
4:35
Speaker 1: got added to a non-secure group chat and witnessed very
4:40
Speaker 1: secret military decisions being made in real time. That shouldn't happen.
4:44
Speaker 1: It especially shouldn't include somebody like Jeffrey Goldberg, who is
4:47
Speaker 1: the worst of the worst, like one of the most untrustworthy,
4:50
Speaker 1: horrible people and media, like the worst. And I will
4:55
Speaker 1: say though, and it's not a good thing, I will
4:57
Speaker 1: say that it does fall on a little bit of
4:59
Speaker 1: deaf ears that the Democrats are freaking out about this
5:02
Speaker 1: and all the security concerns that we have. I can
5:04
Speaker 1: talk about it as a US citizen, as a concerned citizen,
5:07
Speaker 1: but when you are a violator of national security constantly,
5:11
Speaker 1: when you do things to put this country in jeopardy
5:13
Speaker 1: and then you're gonna pontificate about how, oh, it's super
5:16
Speaker 1: bad that the Trump admin is not using a secure
5:20
Speaker 1: chat room that they let in a journalist when you
5:23
Speaker 1: yourself are guilty of violating national security and putting our
5:27
Speaker 1: country at risk all the time really falls on deaf ears.
5:29
Speaker 1: So Hillary Clinton, of course, she has to weigh in.
5:32
Speaker 1: She tweeted this, you've got to be kidding me. And
5:35
Speaker 1: I don't have that up there, but if Michael wants
5:36
Speaker 1: to look for it, he can. Either way, she says,
5:39
Speaker 1: you have to be kidding me. She shares the story.
5:41
Speaker 1: She's horrified. Hillary Clinton's horrified. What's important to know about
5:43
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's ex-account is that she has all of her
5:47
Speaker 1: replies turned off. So nobody can quote tweet her. Unless
5:51
Speaker 1: she follows them, nobody can comment unless she follows them.
5:54
Speaker 1: And this is on purpose because Hillary Clinton is constantly
5:57
Speaker 1: clowning herself. She's constantly getting made fun of because she
6:01
Speaker 1: is a ridiculous person. Not just a ridiculous person, but
6:04
Speaker 1: a very bad person. And I'm going to tell you
6:06
Speaker 1: why it's really ridiculous that Hillary Clinton would be so
6:09
Speaker 1: scandalized by the fact that this Trump bad man was
6:13
Speaker 1: using an unsecured chat room that included a journalist to
6:16
Speaker 1: talk about war plans. Because Hillary Clinton could care less
6:20
Speaker 1: about national security when she was Secretary of State. Like,
6:23
Speaker 1: could care less about it. I can't even believe that
6:27
Speaker 1: she's gonna comment on national security and the Trump admin.
6:31
Speaker 1: A technician for Hillary Clinton's computer service provider deleted approximately 30,000
6:36
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton's emails using Bleach Bit. She claimed that
6:41
Speaker 1: they were personal emails that she was using on this
6:44
Speaker 1: personal server that she wasn't supposed to be using. But
6:48
Speaker 1: if they were really personal, why would it matter if
6:51
Speaker 1: other people saw them? It was just a personal thing.
6:54
Speaker 1: I'm setting up a hair appointment. I'm sending messages to
6:59
Speaker 1: my personal assistant. OK, fine. Why do you have to
7:01
Speaker 1: delete them then? Why do you have to pay for
7:05
Speaker 1: Bleach Bit to delete approximately 30,000 emails? Just claim that
7:10
Speaker 1: they were personal. Were they really? In 2016, the State
7:13
Speaker 1: Department's Office of Inspector General deemed more than 2,000 of
7:18
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's messages classified, including 22 that were upgraded to
7:23
Speaker 1: the most sensitive national security classification. That is top secret.
7:27
Speaker 1: That's Hillary Clinton. She did that. And those are just
7:30
Speaker 1: the emails that they had, right? Because she took a
7:31
Speaker 1: bleach pitch to all the other ones. What kind of
7:34
Speaker 1: corruption would that have revealed? And on an unsecure server,
7:38
Speaker 1: on a personal one. And let's talk about maybe the
7:41
Speaker 1: classified documents. We heard all about classified documents with President Trump, right?
7:45
Speaker 1: That he's got all these classified documents in Mar-a-Lago. President
7:48
Speaker 1: Trump said, well, I was president. I declassified them. What
7:50
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden? What was Joe Biden before he was
7:54
Speaker 1: president of the United States? Oh, he was vice president?
7:56
Speaker 1: Does the vice president have the power to declassify documents?
8:01
Speaker 2: No?
8:02
Speaker 1: No, he doesn't. He doesn't. So Joe Biden, Joe Biden
8:05
Speaker 1: had troves of classified documents in his Delaware garage near
8:10
Speaker 1: his 1967 Corvette. He had no power to declassify any
8:14
Speaker 1: of these documents. Seems pretty not secure to me. It
8:17
Speaker 1: seems like a little bit of a national security risk
8:20
Speaker 1: to have these classified documents that he had no power
8:22
Speaker 1: to declassify sitting in his garage. But of course, he
8:27
Speaker 1: had no consequences for that, just like Hillary had no
8:29
Speaker 1: consequences for the email scandal. What about even the fact
8:33
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was working for Burisma,
8:39
Speaker 1: Ukrainian company, putting his father and this entire country in
8:43
Speaker 1: a compromising position? opening up the Bidens to sell their
8:48
Speaker 1: father's influence and therefore sell out the American people to
8:51
Speaker 1: foreign nationals. That seems like a little bit of a
8:54
Speaker 1: national security threat to me. By the way, bumbling idiot
8:58
Speaker 1: of the century, Tim Walz, he decides to chime in
9:02
Speaker 1: and dunk on Team Trump. And he writes, Pete Hexeth
9:05
Speaker 1: texting out war plans like invites to a frat party.
9:09
Speaker 1: Joey Jones had the greatest clapback of all times. Joey
9:12
Speaker 1: Jones from Fox News writes, you should sit this one
9:15
Speaker 1: out like your deployment to Iraq.
9:18
Speaker 3: It's amazing.
9:19
Speaker 1: I mean, all these guys need to sit this one out.
9:22
Speaker 1: And we're going to talk about it more, you guys.
9:23
Speaker 1: I want to have a serious conversation about national security
9:27
Speaker 1: here and these messages. But I just got to tell you,
9:30
Speaker 1: I don't give a crap what the Bidens or Tim
9:33
Speaker 1: Walz or Hillary Clinton or anyone in the Democratic Party
9:37
Speaker 1: who's excused this kind of compromising national security situations in
9:43
Speaker 1: the past when it's Democrats to comment about what's happened
9:46
Speaker 1: with President Trump. It's completely absurd, and I don't want
9:51
Speaker 1: to hear it. We're going to take a quick break.
9:53
Speaker 1: When we come back, I do have some very funny
9:55
Speaker 1: memes about this whole situation to share with you all.
9:59
Speaker 1: Don't go away. anywhere. All right, you guys, I forgot
10:03
Speaker 1: one response from somebody who, again, does not care about
10:05
Speaker 1: natural security at all. I can't even believe that this happened.
10:09
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell decided to tune in, to chime in here.
10:12
Speaker 1: He says, wait, Pete Hexeth hasn't resigned yet. And What
10:18
Speaker 1: makes it so rich for Eric Swalwell to be deeply
10:21
Speaker 1: concerned about national security? Drop a comment if you know
10:24
Speaker 1: why it's ridiculous that Eric Swalwell of all people would
10:27
Speaker 1: be commenting about national security, that he cares so much
10:30
Speaker 1: about it. Eric Swalwell banged a Chinese spy, Fang Fang,
10:36
Speaker 1: who then magically fled the country immediately after the FBI
10:40
Speaker 1: told Eric Swalwell that she was a spy. Like, he
10:43
Speaker 1: literally had a commie girlfriend. He had a commie spy
10:46
Speaker 1: girlfriend that he was just, literally, I can't even believe
10:52
Speaker 1: that he's going to comment about national security concerns when
10:56
Speaker 1: he is a walking national security threat himself. Like, any
10:58
Speaker 1: spy that comes in, a hot chick, Asian girl, Chinese spy,
11:03
Speaker 1: she's working for Xi Jinping, he's like, yeah, I'll bang you. Like,
11:06
Speaker 1: he's just completely not thinking with his brain. He's completely in,
11:11
Speaker 1: a ridiculous person who cannot be trusted with any information
11:15
Speaker 1: that's top secret because he himself is just a walking
11:18
Speaker 1: national security threat, totally compromised. And now he's going to
11:21
Speaker 1: be commenting on Pete Hegseth and the Trump admin. Give
11:23
Speaker 1: me a break. Give me a break, Eric. I can't even,
11:27
Speaker 1: I literally, I can't believe that one.
11:29
Speaker 3: All right.
11:30
Speaker 1: I want to talk about these memes. We're going to
11:32
Speaker 1: talk about the serious stuff, but I do want to
11:33
Speaker 1: talk about these memes because I, last night, as the
11:37
Speaker 1: story broke, I was just sitting, I was sitting on
11:39
Speaker 1: my computer and going through these, collecting the memes, and
11:42
Speaker 1: just dying, like laughing out loud by myself in the house,
11:47
Speaker 1: prepping for this show, just saying, this is the most amazing,
11:50
Speaker 1: this is the most amazing meme material that I've ever seen.
11:53
Speaker 1: Somebody tweeted, girl group chats versus boy group chats, and
11:57
Speaker 1: it's girl group chat names, the girlies, with a bow
12:01
Speaker 1: and sparkles. The boy group chat name is hoothy PC
12:04
Speaker 1: small group. Of course, you have the two different Two different,
12:09
Speaker 1: men and women are different, you guys, but I thought
12:11
Speaker 1: that was amazing. Houthi PC small group. Someone did a
12:15
Speaker 1: spoof on those automated messages that you'll get, the really
12:18
Speaker 1: annoying ones that constantly show up in your phone, especially
12:21
Speaker 1: if your information's been leaked somehow or sold online. It says,
12:25
Speaker 1: here are the secret war plans of the United States. Reply, stop,
12:29
Speaker 1: to opt out of these texts. Another person wrote, During
12:32
Speaker 1: the first Trump administration, I accidentally added Mike Pompeo to
12:36
Speaker 1: a group chat about setting up a night playing Super
12:38
Speaker 1: Smash Brothers. Like, everybody's just joking. Like, the absurdity of
12:41
Speaker 1: it all. Like, a random journalist has been added to
12:44
Speaker 1: a group chat talking about war plans. Like, it's insane.
12:48
Speaker 1: It's insane to even think that this is how these
12:50
Speaker 1: decisions are being made. Like, over a group chat. Like,
12:52
Speaker 1: a casual group chat that you could have with your friends.
12:56
Speaker 1: Babylon Bee writes, 4D chess. Genius Trump leaks war plans
13:00
Speaker 1: to the Atlantic where no one will ever see them.
13:04
Speaker 1: The Atlantic is pretty ridiculous. The Atlantic is very bad.
13:07
Speaker 1: This is the best one. This is my favorite response
13:10
Speaker 1: of all time. Somebody wrote, people are rightfully upset about
13:14
Speaker 1: this Atlantic story because it gets at a truly alarming issue,
13:18
Speaker 1: being added to large ongoing group texts without consent. And
13:23
Speaker 1: I called my dad when I read that one because
13:26
Speaker 1: my dad he is, he's like, he loves, he likes
13:29
Speaker 1: to talk on the phone. I don't think my dad
13:30
Speaker 1: likes to get like a lot of texts as, as
13:33
Speaker 1: most people don't like, just, let's just talk about it.
13:35
Speaker 1: And he has been added to multiple family group texts.
13:39
Speaker 1: And if you don't know, we are, I'm one of nine.
13:42
Speaker 1: My dad is one of 11. My mom is, is
13:45
Speaker 1: one of four, but there's a lot of cousins on
13:47
Speaker 1: my mom's side too. And he's been added into many
13:50
Speaker 1: different family group chats with various people. And He can't
13:53
Speaker 1: stand them. He's like, I don't need to be getting
13:55
Speaker 1: 80 messages a day from these group chats from my
13:58
Speaker 1: family that's super massive. When the information is not relevant
14:00
Speaker 1: to me, just call me. And I totally understand why
14:03
Speaker 1: he says that. I love the group chats. I'm like, well,
14:05
Speaker 1: let me be in it. Let's talk. Let's like, let
14:06
Speaker 1: me just tune in and chime in and keep up
14:08
Speaker 1: to date with everybody. But my dad and my brother
14:11
Speaker 1: cannot stand it. And so I do think this does
14:13
Speaker 1: get to the heart of an issue of being added
14:15
Speaker 1: to massive group chains and it not being in your,
14:19
Speaker 1: you're not being consented to. I think a lot of
14:21
Speaker 1: people struggle with that. Here's how Trump responded to this
14:25
Speaker 1: news yesterday. I don't know anything about it. I'm not
14:31
Speaker 1: a big fan of The Atlantic.
14:32
Speaker 4: To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business.
14:35
Speaker 5: I think it's.
14:50
Speaker 2: Not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it.
14:52
Speaker 2: You're saying that they had what?
14:54
Speaker 4: They were using signal to coordinate on sensitive.
14:58
Speaker 1: Materials and- Having to do with what? Having to do
15:02
Speaker 1: with what? What were they talking about?
15:03
Speaker 6: With the Houthis.
15:05
Speaker 1: The Houthis?
15:05
Speaker 3: You mean the attack on the Houthis?
15:08
Speaker 2: Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack
15:10
Speaker 2: was very effective, I can tell you that.
15:12
Speaker 5: I don't know anything about it.
15:13
Speaker 2: You're telling me about it for the first time.
15:16
Speaker 1: I love how he just, attacks the Atlantic. It's like
15:20
Speaker 1: the Babylonian would be like, nobody's going to read this
15:21
Speaker 1: publication anyways, which is very funny. He says, I don't
15:25
Speaker 1: know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of
15:27
Speaker 1: the Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out
15:29
Speaker 1: of business. He's right. The magazine is a total disgrace.
15:33
Speaker 1: And let's talk about Jeffrey Goldberg for a second. This
15:36
Speaker 1: guy is a serial liar, like a total bad actor.
15:39
Speaker 1: This guy claimed Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were working together.
15:43
Speaker 1: He's a supporter of forever wars, of the war in Iraq.
15:47
Speaker 1: He is just a liar for the machine, for the
15:50
Speaker 1: war machine. He prompted the Russia collusion hoax, the suckers
15:55
Speaker 1: and losers hoax. The Atlantic is one of the worst
15:58
Speaker 1: purveyors of disinformation in the media apparatus. Jeffrey Goldberg is
16:02
Speaker 1: the editor-in-chief. I mean, what do you think? This guy
16:05
Speaker 1: is completely untrustworthy. He's the worst of the worst, which
16:07
Speaker 1: actually makes it pretty bad that he was added to
16:09
Speaker 1: this group chat because they couldn't have picked a worse journalist.
16:12
Speaker 1: They could not have picked a worse guy. Everybody's fawning
16:15
Speaker 1: over him, saying like, oh my goodness, He didn't leak
16:19
Speaker 1: the war plans until after the strikes were carried out.
16:25
Speaker 1: It's like, OK. But he had no idea whether this
16:27
Speaker 1: was real or not when he was added to the
16:29
Speaker 1: group chat. So it's not like he's some sort of wonderful, amazing,
16:33
Speaker 1: integrity-driven character. He just couldn't confirm until after they were
16:37
Speaker 1: carried out. I don't know. But that sound bite from
16:43
Speaker 1: President Trump, I loved it yesterday, especially. because it brought
16:49
Speaker 1: back the memories of the most iconic moment of the
16:52
Speaker 1: Trump admin ever. And maybe people will disagree with me
16:55
Speaker 1: on this one. This is my favorite Trump video of
16:59
Speaker 1: all time. It's when he says, when he finds out
17:03
Speaker 1: that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died, and he says the
17:06
Speaker 1: exact same thing that he said in that clip. He says,
17:08
Speaker 1: you're telling me about this for the first time. You guys, iconic.
17:12
Speaker 1: This video is the most iconic Trump video of all time.
17:15
Speaker 1: Here's a reminder.
17:24
Speaker 2: She just died?
17:27
Speaker 6: Wow.
17:30
Speaker 2: I didn't know that. I just— you're telling me now
17:32
Speaker 2: for the first time. She led an amazing life. What
17:38
Speaker 2: else can you say? She was an amazing woman. Whether
17:41
Speaker 2: you agreed or not, she was an amazing woman who
17:44
Speaker 2: led an amazing life. I'm actually sad to hear that.
17:50
Speaker 7: I am sad to hear that.
17:51
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. The way that he walks away,
18:01
Speaker 1: it's so dramatic. It's so iconic. It is like the
18:05
Speaker 1: end credits of an amazing movie, like a movie from the,
18:09
Speaker 1: from the seventies or something. And you're just, you're so
18:12
Speaker 1: emotional at the end of it. Just, it's so powerful
18:15
Speaker 1: and moving. That's what that clip felt. I don't even
18:17
Speaker 1: know why he's talking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I hate
18:19
Speaker 1: that woman, but there was just something about that clip.
18:22
Speaker 1: I just, It was iconic. It was cinematic.
18:26
Speaker 8: It's amazing.
18:28
Speaker 1: And, you know, you guys, everybody's really concerned about how
18:34
Speaker 1: this is making America look at a national security level,
18:38
Speaker 1: whether we're secure in other realms. Is this admin able
18:42
Speaker 1: to protect us, able to protect its war movements? This
18:46
Speaker 1: whole thing comes off as very sloppy. At the same time,
18:50
Speaker 1: you guys, sometimes you have to laugh. Sometimes you have
18:53
Speaker 1: to laugh about these things and the absurdity of it all.
18:55
Speaker 1: This is a serious situation. Yes, it is. As someone
19:00
Speaker 1: who comes from politics, though, I'm going to say politics
19:02
Speaker 1: is always more like the TV show Veep than House
19:06
Speaker 1: of Cards. It's unbelievable, and it's absurd, and sometimes you
19:13
Speaker 1: just got to laugh. Sometimes you just got to laugh.
19:16
Speaker 1: It's like a cosmic prank where a journalist accidentally crashes
19:20
Speaker 1: the Pentagon Signal message group chat like, It's absurd. It's crazy.
19:25
Speaker 1: And the memes from this have been gold. I do
19:30
Speaker 1: want to get serious for a moment and talk about
19:32
Speaker 1: Signal because I did wonder why they chose Signal. There
19:36
Speaker 1: has to have been a better route for a conversation
19:42
Speaker 1: of this level, of this high level. Because Signal is
19:47
Speaker 1: not secure. I know Signal is. not secure. Conservatives know
19:52
Speaker 1: this better than anyone else. Tucker Carlson was famously spied on, allegedly,
19:58
Speaker 1: by the NSA for a trip that he was planning
20:01
Speaker 1: to take to Russia to interview President Vladimir Putin. The
20:06
Speaker 1: security apparatus under Biden wanted to stop him and they
20:09
Speaker 1: spied on him. Here's Tucker explaining.
20:11
Speaker 4: The NSA broke into my Signal account, which I didn't
20:15
Speaker 4: know they could do.
20:15
Speaker 1: How do you know the NSA broke into your Signal?
20:17
Speaker 4: Because they admitted it. I got a call from somebody
20:20
Speaker 4: in Washington. This person said, you know, are you going
20:23
Speaker 4: to come to Washington anytime soon? Yeah, actually, I'm going
20:24
Speaker 4: to be up in a week. Meet me Sunday morning.
20:26
Speaker 4: So I go and this person's like, are you planning
20:29
Speaker 4: a trip to go see Putin? And I was like,
20:31
Speaker 4: how would you know that? I haven't told anybody. I mean, anybody,
20:33
Speaker 4: not my brother, not my wife, nobody. How would you
20:35
Speaker 4: know that? Because NSA pulled your text with this other
20:39
Speaker 4: person you were texting. How did you know that?
20:41
Speaker 1: Yeah. So they're spying on his messages. I mean, and
20:44
Speaker 1: here and here's the other thing about if I had
20:47
Speaker 1: to guess, I don't know. I don't know exactly what
20:50
Speaker 1: went down. I don't even think Tucker does. If I
20:52
Speaker 1: had to guess, FISA Section 702 played a role in
20:54
Speaker 1: this because if the other person Tucker was messaging was
20:57
Speaker 1: a foreign national, and the government could justify spying on
21:03
Speaker 1: that individual and then spying on Tucker Carlson inadvertently through
21:08
Speaker 1: the messages that they have with the American citizen, with
21:11
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson. So this is why FISA Section 702 was
21:14
Speaker 1: such a horrible law, such a horrible statute, because it
21:18
Speaker 1: allows for the government to circumvent the Constitution and, without
21:22
Speaker 1: a warrant, spy on American citizens like Tucker Carlson, especially
21:27
Speaker 1: journalists who are trying to do their job by interviewing
21:30
Speaker 1: foreign leaders. This was a good thing that Tucker Carlson did.
21:33
Speaker 1: I don't know if you guys ever listened to the
21:37
Speaker 1: interview that he actually did with President Putin, but the
21:40
Speaker 1: people have a right to that kind of content, to
21:43
Speaker 1: hear from President from Vladimir Putin, what do you think?
21:47
Speaker 1: What is your reasoning for being in Ukraine? How do
21:50
Speaker 1: you view yourself and the world and Russia and the
21:52
Speaker 1: United States and the global political order? These are questions
21:56
Speaker 1: that we deserve to not be censored on. It doesn't
21:59
Speaker 1: mean we have to believe everything that Putin says. It's
22:01
Speaker 1: a ridiculous thing to think. But to prevent Tucker Carlson
22:05
Speaker 1: from interviewing him and spying on his messages to thwart
22:09
Speaker 1: it is clearly an assault on the American people who
22:13
Speaker 1: deserve to have that information, who deserve to hear all
22:17
Speaker 1: sides here. Doesn't mean we believe everything Putin says because
22:20
Speaker 1: we love Putin, but we deserve to have all sides.
22:23
Speaker 1: And this law, Section 702, allows for warrantless surveillance. And
22:28
Speaker 1: it's also a sign that if our government can spy
22:30
Speaker 1: on your signal messages, that it's supposedly encrypted but it's not,
22:33
Speaker 1: then any government can spy on signal. So why were
22:38
Speaker 1: the admin officials using signal? And maybe I'm naive here,
22:44
Speaker 1: but I have to imagine that there's a better route
22:48
Speaker 1: for the members of the highest level of government. There
22:52
Speaker 1: has to be something better. I know for regular people,
22:54
Speaker 1: for you and I, there really isn't. The signal can
22:57
Speaker 1: be hacked. Your iMessage can be hacked. Anything that you
23:00
Speaker 1: do on your phone, it is not secure. It doesn't matter.
23:03
Speaker 1: I don't even trust VPNs. I just assume that everything
23:06
Speaker 1: I'm writing or typing or saying online can and will
23:10
Speaker 1: be shared by anyone. It's just not secure. It's not.
23:14
Speaker 1: But You would think that members of the highest level
23:17
Speaker 1: of government here in the United States would have a
23:19
Speaker 1: better option, and apparently they didn't. And that, I think,
23:21
Speaker 1: is a sign that they need to reevaluate and figure
23:24
Speaker 1: this out. There has to be a better way. Even
23:28
Speaker 1: if there wasn't a mistake where you accidentally add in
23:31
Speaker 1: the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, you still need a better
23:33
Speaker 1: route to be communicating these things. It's not Signal. Signal
23:37
Speaker 1: is not the answer. All right. Why is Mike Walsh
23:48
Speaker 1: communicating with Jeffrey Goldberg? This is a question that a
23:52
Speaker 1: lot of people are asking online. This is a question
23:55
Speaker 1: that is even deeper, I would say, than how sloppy
23:59
Speaker 1: this admin looked. Well, here, I'll just read you what
24:05
Speaker 1: Sean Davis wrote. Why Mike Walsh is regularly talking to
24:09
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Goldberg, a dead-end neocon war pimp who has been
24:13
Speaker 1: involved in every major foreign policy hoax, in the last
24:15
Speaker 1: quarter of a century. And this is true. Why do
24:18
Speaker 1: they have a close relationship? Why is he in his contacts?
24:21
Speaker 1: Why are they communicating with one another? That's a question
24:23
Speaker 1: that I would like answered as well. Because again, as
24:26
Speaker 1: Sean Davis articulated, as we articulated earlier in the show,
24:30
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Goldberg is not to be trusted. Jeffrey Goldberg has
24:33
Speaker 1: done very negative things for this country over and over again,
24:36
Speaker 1: including targeting President Trump with the Russia collusion hoax. He
24:41
Speaker 1: is not a journalist. So he shouldn't have access to
24:44
Speaker 1: this admin in a secret group chat, and he shouldn't
24:46
Speaker 1: have access to this admin as just a source because
24:52
Speaker 1: he is a neocon and a serial liar. Jeffrey Goldberg
24:55
Speaker 1: does not deserve any kind of award for the lies
24:58
Speaker 1: that he has peddled in his career as a journalist.
25:01
Speaker 1: And I'll also say that there's a little theory going
25:03
Speaker 1: around that the Trump admin is playing 4-D chess right now,
25:06
Speaker 1: that they are, I guess... I guess Jeffrey's in on
25:12
Speaker 1: it and they purposely added him to this group chat
25:15
Speaker 1: so that he would then leak these messages and make
25:18
Speaker 1: the Trump admin look good. That somehow this is maybe
25:20
Speaker 1: that they're signaling to Europe something or or to the Israelis.
25:23
Speaker 1: I don't know. But to me, that's a ridiculous theory.
25:26
Speaker 1: I don't think that makes any sense because this made
25:28
Speaker 1: the admin look very weak and very sloppy. So I
25:31
Speaker 1: don't think this is 4D chess. I don't think this
25:33
Speaker 1: is on purpose. I think this was a genuine mistake
25:35
Speaker 1: because Jeffrey Goldberg is in Mike Walsh's contacts. And a
25:41
Speaker 1: better question, like I said, is why is he? These
25:43
Speaker 1: guys shouldn't even be communicating. He doesn't deserve to have access.
25:47
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Goldberg does not deserve to have access. I will
25:50
Speaker 1: say that after reading these messages, I was really impressed
25:53
Speaker 1: with J.D. Vance's instincts in these text exchanges. The vice
25:56
Speaker 1: president urged restraint on the Yemen strikes. He wrote, 3%
26:03
Speaker 1: of U.S. trade runs through the Suez Canal. 40% of
26:06
Speaker 1: European trade does. There is a real risk that the
26:09
Speaker 1: public doesn't understand this or why it's necessary. And then J.D.
26:12
Speaker 1: goes on to highlight a potential moderate to severe spike
26:16
Speaker 1: in oil prices. And he suggests that we delay these
26:19
Speaker 1: strikes by a month, saying there is a strong argument
26:21
Speaker 1: for delaying this a month, doing these messaging work on
26:24
Speaker 1: why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc. And
26:28
Speaker 1: then he notes that it aligns that that that would
26:31
Speaker 1: align better with Trump's stance. He says, I'm not sure
26:34
Speaker 1: the president is aware of how inconsistent this is with
26:36
Speaker 1: his message on Europe right now. So we're not going
26:38
Speaker 1: to be we're not going to be freeloading. We're not
26:41
Speaker 1: going to allow Europe to continue to freeload. And J.D.
26:42
Speaker 1: Vance is warning that this signals that we are going
26:44
Speaker 1: to continue to bail Europe out in a way that
26:47
Speaker 1: is not America first. And now J.D. Vance eventually relents
26:53
Speaker 1: to Pete Hegseth and he says, if you think we
26:55
Speaker 1: should do it, let's go. I just hate bailing Europe
26:58
Speaker 1: out again. So he concedes, because everybody else is pushing
27:02
Speaker 1: for this, and J.D. Vance is not ultimately the end-all,
27:06
Speaker 1: be-all in charge of all these decisions. That would be
27:08
Speaker 1: President Trump. But I did like this pushback from J.D. Vance.
27:12
Speaker 1: I liked his instincts. I like them a lot. They
27:16
Speaker 1: reflect an America-first mindset by prioritizing U.S. interests over global policing.
27:22
Speaker 1: He isn't interested in footing the bill for Europe's benefit,
27:25
Speaker 1: and his push to delay and refine messaging avoiding a
27:29
Speaker 1: rush to war breaks from knee-jerk interventionism that, frankly, you
27:34
Speaker 1: see from somebody like Mike Walsh and also people like
27:37
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Goldberg. It's favoring strategic restraint unless the payoff clearly
27:44
Speaker 1: serves America, not just America's allies. And I think that's
27:47
Speaker 1: a really refreshing shift from the endless overseas entanglements and
27:52
Speaker 1: its grounding action in tangible national gain. So I will say,
27:57
Speaker 1: A bright side out of all this was two things.
27:59
Speaker 1: It was the memes, and it was that I really
28:02
Speaker 1: liked what J.D. Vance had to say. It made me
28:03
Speaker 1: really confident in his instincts. All right, let's switch gears
28:07
Speaker 1: a little bit here, and let's talk about Ben Shapiro.
28:09
Speaker 1: I thought I was done with Ben Shapiro after yesterday,
28:11
Speaker 1: but he's back. Ben Shapiro is back in the news,
28:14
Speaker 1: and he's reiterating that he does not care about the
28:17
Speaker 1: JFK assassination. He says, I don't care. I wish that
28:20
Speaker 1: people would stop talking about it. So he wrote this
28:22
Speaker 1: article in Real Clear Politics. It's titled, why does it
28:25
Speaker 1: matter who shot JFK? And that framing is a little bit,
28:29
Speaker 1: it's a little bit confusing because that could be, well,
28:32
Speaker 1: why does it matter who killed JFK? And like a,
28:35
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter sense, or it could mean, why does
28:37
Speaker 1: it matter who shot JFK? And you're saying, here's why
28:42
Speaker 1: it matters. And he's going to explain why. That is
28:44
Speaker 1: not what he did in this article. He did not
28:46
Speaker 1: explain why it matters because what he meant by that is,
28:49
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter who killed JFK. In this piece, Ben
28:53
Speaker 1: Shapiro says, recounts how 65% of Americans doubt Lee Harvey
28:57
Speaker 1: Oswald acted alone despite evidence supporting the lone gunman narrative.
29:02
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro says there's evidence of the lone gunman narrative.
29:04
Speaker 1: I am not saying that. And the evidence, of course,
29:07
Speaker 1: is a magic bullet that's impossible to explain. But okay, whatever.
29:12
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro wants to say that this lone gunman narrative
29:15
Speaker 1: is totally fine. It makes a lot of sense. But
29:18
Speaker 1: the text argues that disbelief stems from the improbability of
29:23
Speaker 1: lone assassins historically common in US presidential attacks, but from
29:28
Speaker 1: declining trust in government since the 1960s, dropping from 77%
29:32
Speaker 1: in 1964 to 22% in 2024. And this distrust unlike
29:40
Speaker 1: the founders' skepticism of power, fuels conspiratorial thinking. This is
29:45
Speaker 1: what Ben Shapiro is alleging, blaming bad actors rather than
29:49
Speaker 1: government overreach. So he acknowledges that there are real conspiracies,
29:53
Speaker 1: but he warns that unsupported theories distract from addressing the
29:58
Speaker 1: real issue here which isn't some sort of government conspiracy
30:02
Speaker 1: to kill JFK, which isn't really bad, nefarious actors in
30:06
Speaker 1: our government, but simply the size of our government more generally.
30:11
Speaker 1: And so he writes, if we attribute broad and epidemic
30:14
Speaker 1: problems of government to such conspiracies, despite all available evidence,
30:18
Speaker 1: we miss the point. We maintain the size and scope
30:21
Speaker 1: of government while hunting shadows and training ourselves to distrust
30:24
Speaker 1: our own eyes in the process. A country that falls
30:27
Speaker 1: for conspiracy theories without any supporting evidence, is a country
30:31
Speaker 1: ripe for the plucking by demagogues on all sides. I
30:36
Speaker 1: guess the question I have is, is this a conspiracy?
30:40
Speaker 1: Is the JFK assassination attempt really a conspiracy that's wild
30:46
Speaker 1: and conjectured by crazy and on accounts who don't care
30:49
Speaker 1: about the facts or science at all? There's crazy people
30:54
Speaker 1: making this up. And I would again reiterate that The
30:59
Speaker 1: lone gunman theory is, an essential component to the lone
31:05
Speaker 1: gunman theory is the magic bullet, which failed to match
31:10
Speaker 1: ballistic tests, deforming into twisted lumps, unlike the pristine bullet
31:14
Speaker 1: that was found, the magic bullet. And it directly contradicting,
31:19
Speaker 1: this directly contradicts the Warren Commission's narrative. Eyewitnesses reported multiple
31:24
Speaker 1: gunmen and shots from the Grassy Knoll, while Oswald's potential
31:27
Speaker 1: ties to Officer Tippett and Jack Ruby suggest a cover-up.
31:31
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of evidence here, you guys, and
31:33
Speaker 1: especially the magic bullet, which there's no way that the
31:36
Speaker 1: bullet could have been as pristine as it was and
31:38
Speaker 1: have gone through all these different people and the path
31:43
Speaker 1: that it took being so unexplainable. It just doesn't make
31:46
Speaker 1: any sense. And for some reason, Ben Shapiro just brushes
31:49
Speaker 1: all this off. He doesn't even address it. He just
31:51
Speaker 1: says this is conspiratorial and crazy. And he ignores the
31:55
Speaker 1: evidence undermining the lone government theory that he just says
31:58
Speaker 1: makes the most sense. He says that the corruption of
32:02
Speaker 1: government is innately connected to its scope. I mean, I
32:05
Speaker 1: might argue that it's a little more sinister than that.
32:07
Speaker 1: But it's a fine take. But why does it mean
32:09
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't care about JFK? We can care about
32:11
Speaker 1: the size of government. And we can also care about
32:13
Speaker 1: who killed the JFK. And we can also care about
32:17
Speaker 1: all of the problems with the official narrative around his assassination.
32:21
Speaker 1: And I think this gets to my real critique of
32:23
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro's argument with JFK. It's that we do need disclosure.
32:29
Speaker 1: It does matter. If we want to regain trust, if
32:32
Speaker 1: we want to justify limiting the scope of government because
32:34
Speaker 1: that's what you really care about, then we need to
32:36
Speaker 1: know the truth about JFK. I don't know why anyone
32:39
Speaker 1: would think that we don't need disclosure, that this doesn't matter.
32:42
Speaker 1: That's a very bizarre take to have. It doesn't make
32:44
Speaker 1: a lot of sense. I'm skeptical of anybody who has
32:46
Speaker 1: that take. Because oftentimes it's a sign that you're in
32:50
Speaker 1: on the cover-up. I'm not saying that about Ben Shapiro.
32:52
Speaker 1: But when you look at the Warren Commission, you have
32:54
Speaker 1: to wonder with these individuals who promoted this theory about
32:57
Speaker 1: the magic bullet and the lone gunman, why? Why do
33:01
Speaker 1: that with so much evidence suggesting otherwise? And so I'm
33:06
Speaker 1: going to keep pushing for disclosure on all these things.
33:08
Speaker 1: I think they matter. I think they matter for regaining
33:10
Speaker 1: public trust. And I think they matter if you actually
33:13
Speaker 1: want to limit the scope of government and justify limiting it.
33:16
Speaker 1: as Ben Shapiro says that he wants to do. Speaking
33:19
Speaker 1: of zero public trust, there's not a lot of trust
33:23
Speaker 1: in the science anymore. Ben Shapiro, he got double vaccinated infamously,
33:28
Speaker 1: and he urged a lot of other people to get
33:30
Speaker 1: vaccinated as well. I don't know if he still would have,
33:33
Speaker 1: if he went back in time and knows what he
33:35
Speaker 1: knows now, would have gotten double vaccinated. But most Americans
33:39
Speaker 1: who got the COVID vaccine would not have done so
33:42
Speaker 1: in hindsight. The vaccine doesn't prevent you from contracting or
33:45
Speaker 1: spreading COVID. lots of mistrust in the science after COVID
33:50
Speaker 1: with the ineffective masks, with the lockdowns, the lab leak coverup.
33:55
Speaker 1: And I actually think this is a good thing. I
33:59
Speaker 1: think it's a good thing to, in this era, be
34:01
Speaker 1: skeptical of the science. And I say that because we
34:06
Speaker 1: are entering a very dystopian era in science, really dystopian.
34:13
Speaker 1: If you thought that The lockdowns and the mass mandates
34:15
Speaker 1: and the VAX mandates were dystopian. All of the businesses
34:19
Speaker 1: closing down forcibly. The greatest transfer of wealth in American history.
34:22
Speaker 1: If you thought COVID was dystopian, you don't know what's coming.
34:27
Speaker 1: A San Francisco-based biotech startup called Loyal is developing a
34:32
Speaker 1: drug designed to extend the lifespan of dogs with the
34:36
Speaker 1: potential for human application if successful. Loyal received approval from
34:41
Speaker 1: the FDA last month, and it could be available on
34:43
Speaker 1: the market within the next year. The way the drug
34:47
Speaker 1: works is it mimics the metabolic benefits of calorie restriction
34:52
Speaker 1: on an approach known for extending lifespan in animals. Unlike
34:58
Speaker 1: weight loss drugs such as Ozempic, this drug apparently does
35:01
Speaker 1: not act as an appetite suppressant. And per the company's CEO,
35:06
Speaker 1: the idea is, can we emulate the benefits of caloric
35:09
Speaker 1: restriction's and its beneficial impacts on metabolic fitness, but without
35:15
Speaker 1: suppressing appetite, because nobody wants an appetite suppressant for their dog.
35:20
Speaker 1: I think people being able to go to their veterinarian
35:24
Speaker 1: and buy a drug to extend their dog's lifespan, they
35:27
Speaker 1: inevitably going to ask the question, why does this exist
35:30
Speaker 1: for my dog and not my grandma? It's the cultural normalization.
35:33
Speaker 1: So she's saying, we'll have this for the dog, the
35:37
Speaker 1: dog we want to live longer. And then you'll ask, well,
35:39
Speaker 1: why can't we have this for older people in our lives?
35:41
Speaker 1: We want to live longer. Yes, Mikey. Thank you.
35:47
Speaker 8: Yeah.
35:47
Speaker 1: So it says that more time with the dogs we love.
35:50
Speaker 1: So this is how it's being branded. I totally understand
35:52
Speaker 1: why people want their dogs to live longer. We love
35:54
Speaker 1: our dogs. Why we want your grandmother to live longer.
35:57
Speaker 1: You love your grandma. But I want to talk about
36:00
Speaker 1: this more deeply. There's a distinction between wanting to unnaturally
36:06
Speaker 1: prolong life, and normal medicine. When we're talking about treating
36:10
Speaker 1: a disease with medical care, say curing pneumonia with antibiotics,
36:14
Speaker 1: you're aiming to restore a person to their natural state
36:16
Speaker 1: of health. A longevity drug, however, isn't about curing a disease,
36:23
Speaker 1: but enhancing or prolonging life by mimicking a metabolic state
36:27
Speaker 1: that's not inherently pathological to lack. It's preventative or argumentative
36:35
Speaker 1: not restorative. It's a step toward manipulating the natural order.
36:40
Speaker 1: And if you're a Christian, you believe in death. We
36:44
Speaker 1: actually have a deep respect for death. Death is actually
36:49
Speaker 1: a beautiful thing in the Christian religion. It's a transition
36:52
Speaker 1: to eternal life. It's not an enemy to be indefinitely postponed.
36:56
Speaker 1: But if you're not a Christian and you don't think
37:01
Speaker 1: there's anything after life, after death, then you want to
37:04
Speaker 1: live forever Why wouldn't you? There's nothing else after this.
37:07
Speaker 1: You have to. You have to prolong life as long
37:10
Speaker 1: as possible. You have to make life as rich as possible.
37:13
Speaker 1: You have to live it to the fullest. Your priorities
37:17
Speaker 1: become distorted and backward. Brian Johnson, very famous, since a millionaire,
37:24
Speaker 1: tech entrepreneur, he's spending millions of dollars on developing a
37:29
Speaker 1: life extension system called Blueprint, in which he outsources people.
37:33
Speaker 1: every decision involving his body to a team of doctors
37:38
Speaker 1: who use data to develop a strict health regimen to
37:41
Speaker 1: reduce what Johnson calls his biological age. The system includes
37:46
Speaker 1: downing 111 pills every day, wearing a baseball cap that
37:52
Speaker 1: shoots red light into his scalp, collecting his own stool samples,
37:56
Speaker 1: and sleeping with a tiny jet pack attached to his
38:00
Speaker 1: penis to monitor his nighttime erections. According to Johnson, any
38:05
Speaker 1: act that accelerates aging, like eating a cookie or getting
38:09
Speaker 1: less than eight hours of sleep, is an act of violence.
38:12
Speaker 1: Here's Brian.
38:14
Speaker 3: The levels of ambition I think are possible. Level one
38:16
Speaker 3: of ambition, start a company. Level two, start a country.
38:20
Speaker 3: Level three, start a religion. Level four, don't die. Level five,
38:24
Speaker 3: become God. No time in history has someone been able
38:30
Speaker 3: to express an aspiration to become God. You now can.
38:36
Speaker 3: And it's not crazy, right? So yeah, I'd rather go
38:39
Speaker 3: down that path than I would do the debauchery of
38:43
Speaker 3: some momentary pleasure and miss out on this amazing future.
38:49
Speaker 1: That was pretty creepy. That was pretty unsettling. I don't
38:52
Speaker 1: know if you guys picked up on that, but he
38:54
Speaker 1: wants to be God, using AI and living forever. And
38:59
Speaker 1: that's the slippery mindset this drug to a naturally prolonged
39:03
Speaker 1: life takes us in. Instinctively viewing this as disordered is
39:10
Speaker 1: a very Christian thing to do. Living forever or coming
39:13
Speaker 1: back from the dead actually is deeper than Christianity though.
39:16
Speaker 1: It's a reoccurring horror story in the Western tradition. This
39:21
Speaker 1: is a theme that we see over and over again.
39:24
Speaker 1: All of us in the group chat probably looked at
39:26
Speaker 1: that video and thought, creepy, weird. There's something wrong with that.
39:31
Speaker 1: And there's a good reason. There's a mythos. There's a Western,
39:34
Speaker 1: maybe just a human aversion to this idea of living
39:40
Speaker 1: forever and becoming godlike and subverting the natural order of things.
39:47
Speaker 1: The ancient Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh is the old, it's
39:52
Speaker 1: one of, if not the oldest story, recorded story in existence.
39:57
Speaker 1: And in the story, after Gilgamesh's friend Enikdu dies, Gilgamesh
40:01
Speaker 1: seeks immortality only to learn from a man granted eternal
40:06
Speaker 1: life by the gods that it is a hollow gift.
40:11
Speaker 1: The man that he encounters eternal life isolates him from
40:15
Speaker 1: humanity and a survivor of the flood who outlives, so
40:19
Speaker 1: he's a survivor of the flood and he outlives all
40:22
Speaker 1: of his loved ones. And in the story, immortality is
40:26
Speaker 1: presented as a burden, as a separation from the natural
40:30
Speaker 1: cycle of life and death that gives life meaning. If
40:34
Speaker 1: you can live forever, then what's the point of living?
40:38
Speaker 1: In Pet Sematary by Stephen King, a grieving father uses
40:44
Speaker 1: an ancient burial ground to resurrect his dead son only
40:46
Speaker 1: for the child to return wrong, violent, soulless. Coming back
40:53
Speaker 1: from the dead twists the person into something unnatural. The
40:57
Speaker 1: resurrected aren't truly themselves. They're corrupted shells, like a mockery
41:02
Speaker 1: of life that brings suffering to those who dared to
41:06
Speaker 1: defy death. Here's a scene from Harry Potter and the
41:11
Speaker 1: Deathly Hallows where Hermione Granger She recounts a part of
41:16
Speaker 1: the Deathly Hallows myth in the book that the book
41:21
Speaker 1: and this movie are named after. Really, I think this
41:24
Speaker 1: is a great example of this Western tradition of aversion
41:29
Speaker 1: to living forever or coming back from the dead.
41:32
Speaker 6: There were once three brothers who were traveling along a
41:36
Speaker 6: lonely winding road at twilight. In time, the brothers reached
41:43
Speaker 6: a river too treacherous to pass. But being learned in
41:48
Speaker 6: the magical arts, the three brothers simply waved their wands
41:52
Speaker 6: and made a bridge. Before they could cross, however, they
41:58
Speaker 6: found their path blocked by a hooded figure. It was Death,
42:04
Speaker 6: and he felt cheated. Cheated because travellers would normally drown
42:08
Speaker 6: in the river, but Death was cunning. He pretended to
42:13
Speaker 6: congratulate the three brothers on their magic and said that
42:16
Speaker 6: each had earned a prize for having been clever enough
42:18
Speaker 6: to evade him. The oldest asked for a wand more
42:23
Speaker 6: powerful than any in existence, so Death fashioned him one
42:27
Speaker 6: from an elder tree that stood nearby. The second brother
42:33
Speaker 6: decided he wanted to humiliate Death even further and asked
42:37
Speaker 6: for the power to recall loved ones from the grave.
42:41
Speaker 6: So Death plucked a stone from the river and offered
42:44
Speaker 6: it to him. The second brother journeyed to his home,
42:47
Speaker 6: where he took the stone and turned it thrice in hand.
42:50
Speaker 6: To his delight, the girl he'd once hoped to marry
42:52
Speaker 6: before her untimely death appeared before him. Yet soon she
42:58
Speaker 6: turned sad and cold, for she did not belong in
43:01
Speaker 6: the mortal world. Driven mad with hopeless longing, the second
43:05
Speaker 6: brother killed himself so as to join her. And so
43:10
Speaker 6: death took the second brother.
43:12
Speaker 1: Really creepy story. And the third brother's attempt to defy
43:15
Speaker 1: God's natural order by forcing, or I guess in this case,
43:18
Speaker 1: death's order, by forcing his lover back into the living
43:21
Speaker 1: world only deepens his despair as he realizes that true
43:25
Speaker 1: connection and joy cannot be restored through these unnatural means.
43:31
Speaker 1: And ultimately his suicide to join her in death reveals
43:33
Speaker 1: the lesson that circumventing divine boundaries doesn't bring fulfillment, but instead,
43:39
Speaker 1: traps you in a hollow, unresolvable longing. What do you
43:47
Speaker 1: think Brian Johnson's life is like? Does it seem joyful?
43:51
Speaker 1: 111 pills every day, wearing a baseball cap that shoots
43:56
Speaker 1: red light into his scalp, collecting his stool samples. And
43:58
Speaker 1: he admits in videos that he, yes, thank you, Mikey.
44:03
Speaker 1: He admits in videos that he forgoes joys in real
44:08
Speaker 1: life now so as to become a God later. So
44:13
Speaker 1: I will not have fun right now. I will not
44:16
Speaker 1: eat what I want now or stay up late with
44:18
Speaker 1: my family. I'm going to live this regimented, obsessive lifestyle
44:24
Speaker 1: in order to become God later on. Brian clearly is
44:28
Speaker 1: a miserable creep. How many would like to be just
44:34
Speaker 1: like him though with this upcoming drug? How many would
44:40
Speaker 1: make that call if it was easy, if it was
44:43
Speaker 1: just a pill or an injection? And in a dechristianized society,
44:50
Speaker 1: which we are in, actually I'd say we're in a
44:52
Speaker 1: pagan society, I'd wager there's a lot of people who
44:55
Speaker 1: would do what Brian Johnson's doing right now with this drug.
45:00
Speaker 1: And COVID is a reminder that the science doesn't always
45:03
Speaker 1: get it right. They're often dogmatic and they're often wrong.
45:08
Speaker 1: But even more dicey is that it often lacks basic ethics,
45:13
Speaker 1: basic morality. Only one person has ever and will ever
45:18
Speaker 1: conquer death, and that is Jesus Christ. And in the Bible,
45:22
Speaker 1: Jesus' resurrection conquers sin and opens the way for real
45:26
Speaker 1: eternal life. And as tales from Gilgamesh to Pet Sematary
45:30
Speaker 1: and the Deathly Hallows warns, cheating death, death's natural order,
45:36
Speaker 1: God's natural order, It's a lesson lost on those like
45:41
Speaker 1: Brian Johnson, apparently, whose obsessive quest for immortality through pills
45:45
Speaker 1: and gadgets reveals a hollow existence, chasing godhood at the
45:49
Speaker 1: expense of life's meaning and the risk of a fate
45:52
Speaker 1: worse than death. Speaking of the resurrection, Joe Rogan shared
45:59
Speaker 1: a near hour-long video on the Shroud of Turin yesterday.
46:04
Speaker 1: The video was uploaded by medical academic Dr. John Campbell.
46:10
Speaker 1: And what is the Shad of Turin, you might ask?
46:12
Speaker 1: Shad of Turin is a linen cloth believed to be
46:15
Speaker 1: Jesus' burial shroud. And the cloth bears a miraculous image
46:19
Speaker 1: of a crucified man. And the image of Christ is
46:22
Speaker 1: not painted, drawn, or applied by any known artistic method.
46:27
Speaker 1: This is a miraculous cloth, the Shad of Turin. Instead,
46:32
Speaker 1: it's described as, A superficial discoloration of linen fibers and
46:37
Speaker 1: how this image was created is still unexplained by modern science.
46:42
Speaker 1: The image itself behaves like a photographic negative, which is
46:46
Speaker 1: created with a spurt of light. So when the image
46:48
Speaker 1: is photographed and a negative image of the shroud is made,
46:52
Speaker 1: you can see the body and face is in much
46:54
Speaker 1: greater detail. Really amazing and unexplainable. Also, the image on
47:00
Speaker 1: the shroud is incredibly shallow, affecting only the very top
47:03
Speaker 1: fibers of the linen. So the depth of the discoloration
47:06
Speaker 1: is less than the thickness of a human hair. Like
47:11
Speaker 1: razor thin, which again, has been very puzzling for scientists.
47:15
Speaker 1: Here's Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson recently on the Shroud
47:18
Speaker 1: of Turin.
47:20
Speaker 5: I mean, just recently they verified the Shroud of Turin.
47:23
Speaker 5: Have you seen that?
47:24
Speaker 7: They used to think that it was only a couple
47:26
Speaker 7: hundred years old, and now they've changed that.
47:29
Speaker 5: Yeah, they've said, no, it's back then.
47:30
Speaker 7: They also don't understand how it was made, which to
47:33
Speaker 7: me is very fascinating, because it's not paint. They don't
47:37
Speaker 7: know what caused the image itself and how that technology
47:41
Speaker 7: would have even been available a couple thousand years ago.
47:45
Speaker 5: An intense light, I mean, atomic, to leave almost like
47:48
Speaker 5: a photographic imprint on a piece of cloth.
47:50
Speaker 6: Yeah.
47:51
Speaker 1: Urged, beaten.
47:52
Speaker 5: The hairstyle was from the first century. And the pollens
47:57
Speaker 5: that they found in the cloth were from that region.
47:59
Speaker 6: Yeah.
48:00
Speaker 5: Also, the weave was a first century weave. And another guy,
48:04
Speaker 5: an archaeologist who I knew, told me that if you
48:07
Speaker 5: look close, you can see the image of a Tiberius
48:10
Speaker 5: coin marks on the eyes. Now, I don't know if
48:12
Speaker 5: that's real or not. I've never actually checked that, but
48:14
Speaker 5: there's images of Tiberius on the coin.
48:17
Speaker 7: So they would put the coins over the eyes?
48:19
Speaker 1: Amazing episode. Some people were commenting that they've seen it.
48:22
Speaker 1: If you hadn't seen that Joe Rogan, Mel Gibson episode,
48:24
Speaker 1: it was excellent. Joe Rogan talks about the Shroud of
48:26
Speaker 1: Turin a lot, honestly, recently. And it's amazing because Joe
48:30
Speaker 1: Rogan is arguably the most influential podcaster in the entire country.
48:35
Speaker 1: He is the most influential podcaster in the entire country,
48:37
Speaker 1: like reaches millions of people. And here he is talking
48:40
Speaker 1: about the Shroud of Turin and potentially the divinity of
48:44
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ. That's a suggestion because Joe Rogan really seems
48:48
Speaker 1: to believe in it. The Shroud is a big deal,
48:53
Speaker 1: and it bridges the gap between mainstream pop culture and
48:56
Speaker 1: centuries-old religious mystery that's often dismissed as niche and fringe.
49:02
Speaker 1: But Joe Rogan, his curiosity and his skepticism, he's bringing
49:05
Speaker 1: this enigma to a divisive secular audience that might otherwise
49:10
Speaker 1: ignore it. And it's a beautiful thing to witness. It's
49:12
Speaker 1: a huge deal. Tons of celebrities right now, I'm noticing,
49:16
Speaker 1: are becoming red-pilled, rejecting the liberal order and secularism. and
49:20
Speaker 1: they're converting to Christianity, and especially Catholicism, in an amazing way.
49:24
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan has been talking about Christianity a lot more.
49:28
Speaker 1: There's something happening where you have people like Brian Johnson
49:31
Speaker 1: going to one major extreme, and then you have people
49:34
Speaker 1: like Joe Rogan and others who are converting to Catholicism,
49:39
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson's wife, a lot of others, and they are
49:45
Speaker 1: going in the complete opposite direction. And I think you
49:47
Speaker 1: have to do that. I think the division between good
49:50
Speaker 1: and evil in this modern era is becoming more and
49:53
Speaker 1: more black and white, and people are having to choose
49:56
Speaker 1: a side. And the moral gray area is no longer
49:59
Speaker 1: an easy space to occupy. People have to choose. And
50:04
Speaker 1: there are two routes. And one of them, I will say,
50:07
Speaker 1: is terrifying. Brian Johnson is scares me a lot. He
50:12
Speaker 1: is a creepy man. And I think a lot of
50:15
Speaker 1: people are looking at that and they're choosing the light.
50:17
Speaker 1: It's a beautiful thing. They're also, I'll tell you guys,
50:19
Speaker 1: they're rejecting subversion tactics in our culture like Snow White.
50:25
Speaker 1: And I got to talk to you guys about Snow White.
50:27
Speaker 1: I didn't get to it yesterday, but I want to
50:29
Speaker 1: cover this because I do have some positive news for
50:32
Speaker 1: you all on Rachel Zegler and Snow White. But first,
50:36
Speaker 1: Snow White is apparently projected to be the lowest weekend
50:39
Speaker 1: opening weekend among Disney's live-action remakes ever. It's getting horrible reviews.
50:44
Speaker 1: This is from The Guardian. The movie does earn points
50:49
Speaker 1: as a bedtime story, however, because it will definitely put
50:52
Speaker 1: you to sleep.
50:53
Speaker 8: Burn.
50:54
Speaker 1: This is just bad. The reviews have been terrible from everyone. Critics,
50:59
Speaker 1: regular people alike. Rachel Zegler finally has a role now, though.
51:03
Speaker 1: that will work for her. Because in the wake of
51:05
Speaker 1: this disaster of a movie, Rachel has been cast as
51:09
Speaker 1: Evita in the upcoming Evita revival on West End. West
51:14
Speaker 1: End is, of course, London's main theater district. Now, who
51:17
Speaker 1: is Evita or Eva Peron? Eva Peron was the wife
51:22
Speaker 1: of Argentine President Juan Peron, a left-wing authoritarian socialist. Evita
51:27
Speaker 1: was sort of the face of her husband's regime in
51:29
Speaker 1: the 1940s and early 1950s before she died. And Evita
51:33
Speaker 1: used her carefully crafted public image and state-controlled media propaganda
51:39
Speaker 1: to present herself as a champion of the poor while
51:42
Speaker 1: at the same time amassing immense wealth, fueling government funds
51:47
Speaker 1: and foreign donations into secret bank accounts, allegedly. So Evita doesn't,
51:52
Speaker 1: I love my name. Evita does not have the greatest
51:57
Speaker 1: legacy in my view, the Eva Peron. She promoted class warfare,
52:01
Speaker 1: implemented socialist welfare programs, and created dependency on the state,
52:05
Speaker 1: all while crushing political dissent and amassing a lot of money.
52:11
Speaker 1: She really was the evil queen of a left-wing hellscape.
52:15
Speaker 1: That is Evita. I don't know about you guys' chat,
52:19
Speaker 1: but I think actually Rachel Zegler is perfect for this role.
52:22
Speaker 1: She's perfect. Leftist feminist who let down millions of people,
52:27
Speaker 1: perfect for the role, unlike Zegler. the role of Snow White,
52:31
Speaker 1: because Rachel is, of course, not white. So it'd be
52:33
Speaker 1: completely inappropriate for her to play Snow White. Like I said,
52:36
Speaker 1: you guys, I love my name. And I hope that
52:39
Speaker 1: one day Evita will be a traditionalist right-wing name. Like
52:43
Speaker 1: that'll be, all the negative left-wing socialist connotations behind that
52:48
Speaker 1: name will go away and it will have a different meaning.
52:51
Speaker 1: But for now, I like my name. At the same time,
52:54
Speaker 1: I recognize that Eva Peron sucked. Eva Peron was the worst.
52:59
Speaker 5: All right.
53:00
Speaker 1: And let's come back to Snow White for a second
53:02
Speaker 1: because people are asking, will this bad reception hurt Disney?
53:07
Speaker 1: And my answer to you guys is, I doubt it.
53:10
Speaker 1: Philippe Gosselin has a great substack about Hollywood in general.
53:16
Speaker 1: It's titled, Stop Trying to Save Hollywood. And this article,
53:21
Speaker 1: it really opened my eyes to why this whole Snow
53:24
Speaker 1: White controversy, it's not going to make any kind of difference.
53:28
Speaker 1: I hate to say it, but it's not. And this
53:29
Speaker 1: article says, The Substack, Philippe argues that Disney and Hollywood
53:35
Speaker 1: more generally won't fail, even when producing unpopular content, because
53:41
Speaker 1: Disney's survival isn't tied to audience approval. It's deliberately engineered.
53:47
Speaker 1: It's a deliberately engineered system designed to prioritize financial stability
53:51
Speaker 1: over creative success. So what do I mean by that?
53:54
Speaker 1: Hollywood won't collapse, even if it turns out bad movies
53:59
Speaker 1: that audiences hate, because it's not built to depend on popularity.
54:03
Speaker 1: It's a carefully designed system that prioritizes financial survival over
54:08
Speaker 1: creative success. So imagine every movie as its own mini company.
54:13
Speaker 1: And when a studio like Disney or Warner Bros makes
54:15
Speaker 1: a film, they don't just produce it, they create a
54:18
Speaker 1: separate legal entity with its own budget and investors. If
54:23
Speaker 1: the movie flops, like say, Superhero Reboot or Snow White
54:27
Speaker 1: that nobody asked for, this mini company takes the hit,
54:30
Speaker 1: but not the studio itself. And the studio can write
54:34
Speaker 1: off the losses, claim tax breaks, and move on, protected
54:37
Speaker 1: from the real financial damage. This trick, combined with government
54:42
Speaker 1: handouts like tax credit, credits means that studios aren't gambling
54:46
Speaker 1: their own money. They're playing with a safety net. On
54:49
Speaker 1: top of that, Hollywood doesn't just make money from ticket sales.
54:52
Speaker 1: It's not a long game. It's got a long game
54:55
Speaker 1: called the profit waterfall. And think of it like a
54:59
Speaker 1: river that keeps flowing for years. And a movie starts
55:03
Speaker 1: with theater earnings. But even if it bombs there, it
55:07
Speaker 1: trickles into streaming rentals, DVD sales, toy deals, even in-flight
55:12
Speaker 1: entertainment on airplanes. So for example, a terrible movie might
55:16
Speaker 1: lose money up front. But over a decade, it could
55:20
Speaker 1: still turn a profit through Netflix licensing or a bulk
55:24
Speaker 1: deal with an airline. Studios have mastered this. Not a
55:29
Speaker 1: single weekend failure is going to sink them. It's just
55:37
Speaker 1: one drop in the bucket. And plus, their massive libraries,
55:40
Speaker 1: like Disney owning everything from Mickey Mouse to Star Wars,
55:42
Speaker 1: keeps growing with every release, making them more valuable no
55:46
Speaker 1: matter how bad the new content is. And then there's
55:50
Speaker 1: the monopoly angle, because Hollywood isn't a bunch of rival
55:53
Speaker 1: companies fighting it out. It's more like a private club
55:56
Speaker 1: where everyone's in on the same game. So the big studios, Disney,
56:00
Speaker 1: Warner Bros, Paramount, control the theaters through exclusive deals. So
56:04
Speaker 1: even a flop gets screen time over a great indie film.
56:09
Speaker 1: They dominate film festivals and awards like the Oscars, ensuring
56:12
Speaker 1: that only their projects get the spotlight. Even streaming, which
56:15
Speaker 1: seemed like it was going to shake things up a
56:17
Speaker 1: little bit, it got swallowed into the system. So Disney
56:19
Speaker 1: Plus and Netflix just play the same game, just play
56:23
Speaker 1: by the same rules now. And behind the scenes, this
56:26
Speaker 1: is the real thing. I didn't even realize this. It's amazing.
56:29
Speaker 1: Executives bounce between studios, like musical chairs, right? So companies
56:33
Speaker 1: like Fox own shares in Paramount, proving that they're not
56:37
Speaker 1: really competing. They're all collaborating. And then you add in
56:41
Speaker 1: foreign cash like China funding 30 percent of big films
56:44
Speaker 1: like the Martians. And you've got a system so intertwined
56:47
Speaker 1: and cushioned that it doesn't need your approval to keep going.
56:50
Speaker 1: Let me just repeat. It doesn't need your approval to
56:54
Speaker 1: keep going. So this isn't about making movies you love.
56:57
Speaker 1: It's about keeping the machine running. Studios use accounting tricks
57:01
Speaker 1: and they lean on cultural power that big corporations crave.
57:04
Speaker 1: like shaping what kids grew up watching. So while critics
57:07
Speaker 1: rant about how bad Snow White is, critics like me,
57:09
Speaker 1: it was terrible. It's not going to send a message
57:12
Speaker 1: to Disney. And I think, unfortunately, the fans complaining about
57:18
Speaker 1: these solo sequels, it really just is nothing. It rolls
57:21
Speaker 1: off their back. Hollywood just shrugs. It's failing on purpose,
57:25
Speaker 1: not to entertain you, but to stay rich and in control,
57:28
Speaker 1: no matter what you think of the latest remake. And
57:30
Speaker 1: I know that's a lot. And if you want more details,
57:33
Speaker 1: you should read Gosselin's Substack. Again, it's titled Stop Trying
57:35
Speaker 1: to Save Hollywood. But the message here is to start
57:39
Speaker 1: investing in our own art. We have to. We don't
57:43
Speaker 1: care what Hollywood's doing. They are a machine that's going
57:45
Speaker 1: to keep on running, and they could run for decades
57:47
Speaker 1: and decades. They could run for 100 years on this system.
57:51
Speaker 1: We have to fund our own projects and utilize the
57:53
Speaker 1: internet instead of traditional media sources. These big corporations will
57:57
Speaker 1: persist for a long time. But this is why, if
58:00
Speaker 1: you're a parent, encourage your children. to be in the arts.
58:02
Speaker 1: My mom took my siblings and I to art classes,
58:06
Speaker 1: and she encouraged us to paint and to draw. We
58:09
Speaker 1: weren't musical, really. But my brother actually became a filmmaker,
58:13
Speaker 1: and my mom was very encouraging of him. And if
58:18
Speaker 1: you think about it right now, there are no new
58:20
Speaker 1: iconic movies, none, like no generational standouts. I'm thinking Star Wars,
58:25
Speaker 1: Gone with the Wind, The Breakfast Club, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Wicked,
58:30
Speaker 1: that draws wicked or inside out in these new films,
58:35
Speaker 1: they're not going to be iconic. They're not amazing. And
58:38
Speaker 1: all of that's to say that while Snow White's flop
58:40
Speaker 1: might sting Disney's pride, it won't dent their empire. Hollywood's
58:45
Speaker 1: machine will keep churning, insulated by its own financial tricks
58:48
Speaker 1: and cultural grip. But that doesn't mean that we're powerless.
58:51
Speaker 1: And I think supporting independent art, supporting just your children
58:55
Speaker 1: in the art to go into these fields and to
58:57
Speaker 1: be their own voices, is a way to fight back.
59:02
Speaker 1: All right, with that, I appreciate all of you guys
59:04
Speaker 1: listening in. Make sure to tune into Vince's show. You
59:07
Speaker 1: can opt out of the raid if you want to,
59:08
Speaker 1: or you can join the raid. and we'll keep this going.
59:11
Speaker 1: But I, as always, I appreciate you guys being here.
59:14
Speaker 1: If you want to follow me, my user is Evita
59:16
Speaker 1: Duffy underscore one on Instagram and X. I'll see you
59:21
Speaker 1: all tomorrow. The Dan Bongino Show.
59:23
Speaker 8: I think a lot of people are underestimating the Trump
59:26
Speaker 8: effect in this midterm. You've heard it yourself. Act like
59:29
Speaker 8: I'm on the ballot. Why is he saying that? You
59:32
Speaker 8: think he doesn't know what he's doing? That is the
59:35
Speaker 8: X factor. Folks, elections are a math issue. That is it.
59:39
Speaker 8: This is not a football game. If you vote, we
59:43
Speaker 8: will win.
59:44
Speaker 4: It is not complicated.
59:46
Speaker 1: The Dan Bongino Show. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.