20260904-WAR-ROOM-LIVE-MP3-PODCAST

0:00Welcome ladies and gentlemen to War Room Live Friday edition. I'm your host Harrison Smith coming to you live from the Alex Jones Network studios share the link Alex Jones live dot com. Follow me on ex on my hair. So Nate Smith follow at AJ and live. Please do share those links hit like comment. It really does help with the algorithm. We're very excited to be here today. We've got a lot of news. I'm going to be joined in the next hour by Viva Fry. Lawyer is going to help me break down exactly what is happening with Lindsey Clancy and we'll probably get into a bunch of other topics as well. A mistrial has been declared in the Lindsey Clancy trial. The killer mom is going to remain in custody and they'll probably retry the case later. But again, we'll save that for the next hour when Viva joins us. And I want to begin today. Since it's Friday, you know, it's the end of the week yet another week of chaos and criminality

1:05and misery and everything else bad under the sun. So we're going to do so I want to be more uplifting. So we're going to show some some good stuff to start us off. And this video really is something to behold. I consider it beautiful to tell you the truth. If I could find it, if I could tell you which one it is. But this is one of the sort of more subtle effects. And I got to give Donald Trump credit for this clip 36. This guy went, it was basically kicked off of food stamps and low and behold, it improved his life. I really think this is something we, you say like we speak and say this all we want until somebody actually experiences it. You know, who's going to believe us? The idea that like no giving you things is actually bad for you. Getting things without earning it doesn't actually help you. It's actually a, you know, set of golden handcuffs. It's a present for you. Put it around your neck, you know, like a leash. Let's go to clip 36 here. You got to give credit

2:09to Trump for this. And hopefully this type of transformation is happening all over the country as people, whether they like it or not, are being forced to recognize how powerful they truly are. Let's watch. It's been about four months since I've been living without no food stamps been having to pay cash at the market. I mean, doing the shopping and whatever. They said no shade to nobody. Don't get any fillers at start. I mean, getting your panties in a bunch of the comments. This is just, y'all know this is my personal journal. This is G, BZ's journal. I'm talking about my what I've recognized down that I've been paying cash at the market these last four months. I used to think that I would be struggling if we didn't have food stamps. Even in my previous relationship with my daughters mom, we used to be for England for lessons in Germany and trying to run to be able to even get food stamps. And I've been living a life of carmic retribution. Meaning I'm putting out what I want to receive

3:10and return. I'm very fearful of doing anything backhanded or back doors on the strip. I think I'm going to fall back on me because I have been manifesting my reality. I haven't been doing those steam scan. No type for my fashion. Now, that's the way. I've been going to the market spending cash probably like $200 a week. I mean, to give the things that we need. But I'm recognizing that when I had food stamps, we would shop and gluttonous we was buying a bunch of really honestly didn't need. We would shop on with our eyes just because. But now that we got to be on a strip budget and we just buy what we need to last or the week. Make sure we got it. I mean, it's like bro, we really don't need food stamps. I never needed. Now only did I never need. I was doubting my own power of being able to survive and accomplish things off my own hand thinking that I needed. Being fearful of even trying to

4:13survive without. And it's like, I thought about that with the food. But when it comes to government assistance in general, stunts your growth. It definitely starts your growth. It starts our growth being the system being dependent upon government assessment. It takes away you believe in your own power to be able to take care of yourself and accomplish your goal. Whatever you want. That's like, bro, in four months, I ain't even realized that it's been four months since we haven't had food stamps. Now don't mind you. I can recognize that having the food stamps and being able to put that $500, $500, $800 a month that I've been spending at the market back into the household would definitely help go over to other places. No doubt. But at the same time, between time, but I just don't want to live a certain lifestyle. Now at this age where

5:13I'm speaking in living in the way that I want to find me in return. Breeze's journal on TikTok. Yeah, just absolutely incredible. Incredible stuff. He's literally just like, I didn't know my own power. He literally has spent his whole life being dependent on the government, thinking he was getting the good end of the deal. When he says, you know, I realized now how gluttonous we were shopping, right? Just add you want it, get it, why not? It's not your money. It just goes on the government bill. Do it. You think your benefit, you're like, I get to eat whatever I want. I get to just not even think about it and buy things and I just get stuff myself. I mean, I don't think I can elaborate on what he said anymore that he did, but you see what I mean where it's like we can kind of make this case. We can kind of be like, you know, spiritually and in the long term, it's actually bad to give people subsidies. It's not helpful. It's not good. It's not good for them. It's not good for the system. That can just, that can sound like an excuse.

6:18That can sound like, you know, a lie just because I want to keep my money. But like, no, it actually this is actually hugely damaging generation over generation of people being dependent feeling that their help is feeling they couldn't survive without the help. I love it. I absolutely love it. Just got to say the same thing. Who's that guy? I recognize him. Just grocery vial. So I love that. That was very uplifting video that I saw this morning, which was like, you couldn't have, you couldn't just, you know, Thomas Sol couldn't have scripted it better, folks. Milton Freeman could not have scripted it better. The poison pill of government assistance. And that is the reason. Like it's not an accident, right? Snap in section 8 costs, US taxpayers, 138 billion dollars last year. And that's before Medicaid, SSI and the rest. Food is expensive in part because 42 million people are buying groceries with a card somebody else funds. The damage is not only the bill with tens of millions of people organize their mouth around

7:23a government check. They stop voting on a, on the country and start voting on the benefits. Borders crime and debt become background noise to the one question that matters to them. Who will keep the groceries and the rent vouchers flowing? Milton Freeman put it plainly. You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. Well, that's a whole, that's a whole other issue. The open border welfare state is just throwing gasoline on an already dangerous fire. So again, you know, I don't know. I feel like I don't know how to express the depth of like spiritual truth that we just witness there. It's a type of thing that like we got to, we got to really internalize the consequences that were that were witnessing right here and understand that I mean, how many times have we talked about American greatness right here, smelling out EBT with the snack cakes. Glutiny manifest. Good Lord.

8:32But I mean, you get this was the plan. How many times have I said the same, I'd always say the same thing that like for a hundred years between abject absolute, you're not allowed to learn to read slavery to basic parity with white America in a hundred years. Black people made incredible gains. And right as they, you know, just looking around going, I think we did. I think we made it. I think hey guys, can we be equal now? I think we've kind of proven that where it's like, well, how about the government helps you the last couple of steps? We'll carry you over the finish line. It's just just downhill ever since. And that's why that's why right there. The second and third effects that come later. I really would like to stay with the fun stuff because most of the stuff is not fun at all. But on Fridays, I hate just like being a downer right before the weekend. But I guess that's what we have to do, although we do have a lot of good flock news.

9:33Well, like flock is being destroyed. A man claims to have taken down every flock camera in Bernalilo, Bernalilo County, New Mexico moments before he was arrested. In a video shared on social media, Jeff on Martinez said he was on his way to drop off all the cameras at the local sheriff's office. He filmed a video of himself with a truck bet. This truck bet is full of flock cameras. It's got an American flag laying on top. This man is a patriot. And I think we should build a statue for him. It's got a clip number four here. This is Jeff on Martinez. Our new founding father. Welcome to the ranks, sir. Let's watch. Our time. But yeah, they've been see us. So I love you guys. You guys are awesome.

10:34On the record for the record and let the record show, I'm simply not breaking them. Not still. I've got some more. I gotta be. Oh, it's like they already had a pre-planned. They're tearing each piece. The tyranny trees. I'm not cutting the lines like I usually do. He's a lumberjack harvesting the tyranny trees. It's a bit more. Those of you watching, I'm not breaking them. I'm not still in them. I'm returning the farm to it. Not in my city, not in my state. Here's getting pulled over. He's got his hands up. They're ordering him to turn around. He's wearing a Hawaiian shirt. He's being approached by the sheriffs and their undercover

11:37vehicle told the walk backwards. They're pretending like this guy's dangerous. Now he's being asked to go down to his knees. He's got his hands up. Man with truck full of flock cameras arrested in Albuquerque. I'm sorry. I think you mean hero. I mean you mean hero patriot with truck full of tyranny trees arrested in Albuquerque by jack booted thugs. His license plate says diplomat. Is he a diplomat? I wonder if he's like a sovereign citizen type. Looks like he's got a princess mononoki shirt on. I knew he was a cool guy. I don't understand why he's being arrested. He didn't break a law. I mean according to him, he's like, well, because what happens? Because here's what happens. Here's the secret behind this video. Flop cameras get put up by flock when your city signs up for flock. You pay and they put them up. Then they leave them up. Even if you cancel flock, those cameras remain up.

12:38Most of them have solar panels. It's not like the city has to provide them electricity. They just run perpetually. Once they're up, flock doesn't take them down. The city usually doesn't take them down. Even if your city cancels its flock contract, the overall nationwide flock network will still have access to your area. They'll still be able to access those cameras or the archives of those cameras. They cancel the flock contract. They were not doing flock anymore. This guy just goes around. He's not damaging the cameras. He's not keeping him. He's returning him to the sheriff's office. He's not vandalizing and taking down a piece of city property. The city doesn't want them anymore. The city voted to not have flock cameras. It sounds like he just did the city's job for them and they should be thanking him. It sounds like they should perhaps give him a purdium and let him do it all over the country because he's clearly very good at this. Even if you're one of these people, there's lots of views on flock here. Some people love them.

13:42It's always predicated on like, well, they don't like them. They got to go to their city council and get them done. It's like, all right, well, the city council did vote to take them down. You can't really be mad about that. You can't really be mad about people who are like, all I'm against flock cameras, but I don't think we should be chopping them down because you're putting your life at risk. Right. Young guys being sent to jail for felonies over cutting down flock cameras, but like, he didn't cut them down. He just, he just unscrewed them and took them down. So he didn't damage them. I don't know who could be against this. I don't know who would be against this. I'm for it personally. Richie from Boston at Inu, look, refinished on X, clip number nine. Posted these videos of night vision filter over flock cameras. We can go to clip number nine here. It plays, we were all just a few seconds long. But you may have seen this. You can actually see it in your own cell phone camera. A lot of times if you look through your

14:44cell phone camera at something like a camera with night vision, you'll see the flashes. Yeah, we can play this next one too. We go ahead and we can roll right into clip 10 because it's the same thing. But what this is is these are sort of infrared flashes capturing people walking by. So those people are not in a car just walking by and you can see the infrared flashing taking pictures of them. So obviously it proves it's not just scanning license plates. It's obviously taking pictures of just the people walking around and you wouldn't see that. Normally if you'd walk by, you wouldn't see the flashes. But when you look through a night vision camera or even through your cell phone sometimes you can see the flashes that occur. A little bit concerning, a little bit. So more people are turning against the flock cameras and it's not just flock. Obviously it's all of these. It's their competitors as well. Axon and others and I know that I think Josh Hawley is the senator who is basically trying to make them illegal nationwide and he's now added their

15:45competitors to flock cameras as well. We got a lot of news about Lindsay Clancy and we'll be talking with Viva Fry about that later today. Here's the story by the way of this guy futurism.com. Well, most vandals ripping down automatic license plate readers prefer to go incognito and albuquerque character named Yvonne Martinez or Jevon Martinez wasn't afraid to show his face weeks after Bernillo Lilo County officials canceled their contract with the controversial surveillance company flock earlier this year. Martinez noticed the automatic license plate readers were still up in a series of videos posted on social media and flagged by KOB4 Martinez filmed himself tearing the camera towers down in order to return them to the rightful owners. It's doing a service. I'm telling you. I love this. Can we get this guy on the show? We got to reach out to this guy. We got to find out what those guys' socials are so we can actually reach out to him.

16:46Although it wasn't armed and hadn't committed any violent offense officers made a dramatic show force as they arrested him. Clad with ballistic resistant plate carriers the deputies surrounded Martinez's truck trying their guns and forcing him into cuffs. Because that's what the flock cameras are for. They're for catching people that are against flock cameras obviously. Again, I mean, you know, yeah, I says I'm just liberating my people from tyranny. It's not we just keep making the same argument over and over again because the same thing over and over again. The flock cameras are not the reason the crime doesn't get solved. They're not going to help lower crime if the criminals that are captured on flock cameras are just let out again. As happens over and over, there's nothing that's going to reduce crime by just having high definition footage of the crimes that go unpunished. No, they're going to be used for other things. We can go clip 35 here. This is the type of stuff. flock cameras will be used to solve. These are the types of events that our law enforcement will prioritize over and above things like

17:51the teen takeovers that almost inevitably end in gunfire and violence and always end in property destruction and general disturbing of the peace. They're not going to use flock cameras to go after the homeless dude that's been arrested 175 times and they let him out in hand to a machete on the way. It's not going to help with that sort of stuff. It will help to stop you from carrying out your own acts of justice. If you defend yourself, flock cameras will be very helpful in charging you with that murder for defending yourself. We've got a lot of problems in the justice system, in the justice system. Lack of perpetual surveillance is not one of them. Let's go now to clip 35. This is the priority of law enforcement in America these days. Two of the kids were here on this way while several others twisted it so that when it untwisted, the kids would be dizzy. Well, that's when this swing fell to the ground and Hustles me her 10

18:56and 12-year-old daughters were charged with a crime. They were super scared. You are looking at the criminal charges filed against Katie Huss's young girls, each charged with criminal mischief and ordered to court for breaking the swing they were playing on. They're good little girls. They go out and they play. They're 10 and 12. They're not doing anything crazy. To Hustles charges were baffling but expected. She tells me after the swing was broken, police came to her door asking she pay for the repairs. And when she asked for evidence, the girls broke the swing intentionally and proof the park was inspected prior, Hustles says she was warned that things would get worse. Makes a comment that they are just trying to resolve this civilly and not jam the kids up with a citation or criminal charges. That's when Hustles says they found themselves in court. This is a copy of the transcripts showing the Springdale police officer who charged the girls

20:00testified that they were negligently not using the swing properly. And the burrow solicitor Craig Alexander told the judge, people do things all the time for the thrill to get a kick out of something and knowing that they're breaking the law. Hustles ultimately, her girls were found not responsible because there was no intent. But she fears this is not the end. Hustles, she was told the burrow is considering filing civilly and she says she will continue to fight back. I'm still waiting to find out if they're going to escalate it further as they promised. I'm not going to give it. So there you go folks. An 11 and 12 year old girl or 10 and 12 year old girl dragged into court, apparently where surveillance camera footage was shown trying to charge them over breaking a swing by swinging on it. They twisted up a swing and so they were being charged

21:02at 10 and 12 years old. It's just, you do not have anything better to do. You've solved all of the crime in the city and there's not a single outstanding criminal charge. It needs to be investigated. You're bothering 10 and 12 year olds like this is the future of flock cameras. And the future of flock cameras, I mean, they won't be sitting as the officer to deliver a citation to your door. No, no, no, they'll be it'll simply show up as a demerit on your central bank digital currency account. You want to have a chance to question the surveillance footage. You'll just be fined a certain amount. You'll just have to accept that. Matt Van Swole posted this. A mother is furious after a Pennsylvania town criminally charged her two young girls 10 and 12 and dragged them into court because because a playground swing broke while they were spinning on it. Like I think the correct thing actually to do is for the mother to sue the city and say that the kid broke her neck.

22:06Put the kid in a neck brace, sue the city for $10 million for having an unsafe swing. I think that is the answer actually. I think if they're going to want to give your kid a ticket for playing on a swing that broke, I think the correct thing to do is to sue the city for injuring your child by not keeping up their playground equipment. I think that would actually be the correct righteous thing to do at this point. Yes, you read that right. They twisted the chains to spin the swing around and that's illegal. Kids, you're not allowed to have fun at a playground. Go inside, put on your AI glasses, be a wally person. You're supposed to be a wally person. I'll play outside. We'll continue to talk about, there's got to be a term that encompasses the flat cameras and the data centers, the surveillance grid and the data center requirements to manage that grid

23:06because it's all the same talk because it's obviously the very same topic. The BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink, has says the US will have to spend roughly $10 trillion over the next decade to build out AI infrastructure. $10 trillion over the next decade. Now, where's he going to get that money? Obviously, your pockets, your retirement funds. That's who it's going to go to. That's where he's going to get it. BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink, openly announced that ordinary people's savings would be seized to build AI data centers. Mandatory forced, done deal, except that's not what he said. What Fink actually predicts is more nuanced and still with your attention, especially if you hold a 401k. The gap between viral version and the source reality is wide enough to drive a data center through. That's the article. Let's find out. First of all, let's watch the video. Clip number 13 here. BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink,

24:07just openly stated that the trillions of dollars being used to build data centers and power grids will come from ordinary people's savings accounts and pension funds, calling it mandatory that people will be forced to invest in, quote unquote, invest in their own prison being built. Watch clip number 13 now. If we can get more and more Americans to think about growing with the United States, we will have far than enough money to invest in this infrastructure. But as the governor was talking about, the need for electrons is growing every day. Some of these, you know, if we're going to be the leader in technology, which we are, if we are going to be the leader in AI, which we presently are, it's just going to require a trillion of the dollars of investments. And if we don't invest in it, China will be the global leader of this. And so to me, it's not weather. This is a must.

25:09And if you think about how that translates, it translates into a more dynamic economy, we need the United States economy to grow over 2%. We need the US economy to grow at 3%. Especially with the growing deficits the federal government has. And so much of this money, not just the private, it's going to be coming from the private sector, from savings accounts, from pension accounts, from insurance companies on and on and on. The whole world is in need of improving the infrastructure. We have to. I mean, it's for the sake of the world. The $10 trillion AI revolution, why it's bigger than the industrial revolution. Because the industrial revolution did not, in fact, create a prison planet to enslave the world. That's what the AI revolution is promising. You can just not listen to him. Like I could argue against him, but at the end of

26:17the day, he's simply asserting things without evidence that can be dismissed without evidence. When he says, there is no question, we must do this. The answer is no, we don't. Oh, but we must. Oh, but no, we don't. No, we must do it. We just don't. Like I don't know what else to tell you. It's just we, we don't need the data centers. We don't need the extra space. We don't need any of that. Again, China beating us today, I attend as many data centers. They run a social credit system for 1.4 billion people, one tenth number of data centers. The American data centers do service the entire world, the entire world when they get on the internet, accesses American data servers. Why do we do that for them? And where is the benefit to us? Because all we get are the negatives. Now, let's be clear. I don't know when that video is from. I don't know. I don't think it's a

27:17reason I think I've seen it before. Regardless, this article is the new one and they're obviously doing this. Maybe it is a new video. All I know is that several months ago, we were covering the private equity bailout of private retirement funds and saving accounts. In other words, private equity bought up a bunch of bad assets, you know, liquidated them, stripped them for all of the sellable parts, and then couldn't find anybody to sell it to so they'd package it up with something else and just sort of funnel it to another private equity group. And they would do the same thing over again. It was a giant Ponzi scheme. They made bad investments and then they went, well, we could be okay if you would just open up retirement funds for us. If you would just give us the money that individuals have saved for themselves, then we wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of our own bad greedy destructive decisions. And so that's what happened. Trump administration seeks to bail out private equity credit, private equity and private credit with workers 401K savings,

28:21PSP warn. So this was all the way back in March 25th of this year. Trump admin bailes out private equity, private credit with 401Ks. New rule expands access to private equity despite evidence of underperformance, high fees, and ill-equidity risk. The Trump administration, the Trump White House, yesterday, March 24th, 2026 concluded a review of a new rule expanding access to private equity investments in 401K retirement plans. Following the White House completion of this review, the private equity stakeholder project warned that the move could expose tens of millions of workers to higher fees, lower returns, and opaque risks that are poorly suited to retirement savings. This rule follows President Trump's push to open 401K plans to private equity and other alternative assets, a shift that could weaken logstanding a futitiory protection for retirement savers that benefit Wall Street firms. PSEP is especially concerned about proposals to provide regulatory safe harbor for private equity investments in 401K plans. President Trump's executive order directed the Department of Labor to explore safe harbors that would limit the ability of consumers

29:21to sue if private equity managers or 401K managers or providers make recommendations that are contrary to their fear dishy-ary duty to retirement savers and multiple US senators have pressed the department to formalize those. Do you understand like the real long-term point of this, is that if you tie up people's retirement funds into private equity, then if private equity gets in trouble, they'll be able to turn around and go, you have to bail us out again, or else all of these people are going to lose their retirement funds. So not only is it bailing them out with your money without your permission, but it's tying up your retirement with their funds. So if their funds do badly, it'll be you that suffers. If everybody in America has their retirement fund liquidated and emptied, the government's going to have to step in. They're not going to bail out the retirement funds. They're going to bail out the private equity to keep them afloat so they can give you the returns on your quote unquote investment, which was actually just a theft by them. We covered this

30:25extensively with Tiffany Cianci. Maybe we need to get her in next week to talk about this more, but you can always search Tiffany Cianci on my profile on x and find very, very in-depth coverage of exactly how this came about. But this article wants to debunk this idea that Larry Fink said and that the White House wrote about. Fink argued that the US will need roughly 10 trillion dollars of the next decade to build out AI infrastructure data centers, power grids, the whole backbone. Speaking at the milk and institute, global conference, he predicted that quote much of this money is going to be coming from the private sector from savings accounts, from pension accounts, from insurance companies. That's a prediction about capital flows, not an executive order. Fact checkers confirmed the quote is genuine that the quote mandatory framing is not. Well, he's saying that you don't have the ability to opt out. I mean, that is what mandatory. I mean, essentially, if you don't go in and direct your 401k to not be invested in this stuff,

31:27then it will automatically be invested in this stuff because the way that this works is, basically private equity was not considered a safe enough bet for 401k's to be put on. If you're retirement, this isn't like some high risk, high yield, quick turnaround. We're going to flip some stocks and make a ton of money. That's not what you want to do with your retirement fund because you depend on it. You want something that grows steadily and over a long period of time, you want to invest in just the general market. Private equity is a different beast entirely, so it was never considered safe enough to be a location for 401k funds. And basically, just recategorize it. Actually, now it can be invested in that, and so it will be. Your money manager will just basically follow that instruction, just like they did with ESG, even though ESG and DEI deliberately prioritized the ethnic makeup of the boardroom rather than the profitability of the company, that still was suddenly the instruction that was followed by

32:29the money managers. They'll do the same thing in this regard. So the key distinction, the fact that the checkers confirmed, Fink made a prediction about where capital will likely come from, not a policy announcement. Okay, kind of. Here's the problem. He's the guy. He's the guy that's ahead of BlackRock. He's the guy that decides. He's the CEO of BlackRock. So when he says this, it is in fact an order from BlackRock, like BlackRock is receiving these orders. He's not telling his executives that BlackRock is something different. So what do you mean? He's like, is just a prediction about where capital will come from? Not really. No. No, they worked very hard to open up the funnel into this pool of money that they're now siphoning out. You think it was an accident. He's just predicting. You know how there's always that? Like they're all, you know, the people who are in charge make their decisions look like predictions. Have you ever noticed that? What they're actually telling you is we are taking your money. We will be siphoning out the cash

33:33of your 401ks because we need it because we so poorly managed. You know, the previous chunk of money we had in our hands that we need you to bail us out and it won't be optional and we are doing it. And then, you know, you get a fact checker to come in and go, well, he was just predicting. He was just making a prediction about what might happen. No, he wasn't. I shouldn't have to tell you that. The word mandatory does not appear in the source quote. Fact checkers found it originated from social media commentary, not things from Marx. Nobody said it's not an option, which is a synonym for mandatory. So thank you for the semantic nitpicking. BlackRock clarified that savings accounts refer to long-term retirement style accounts like 401k is not checking or demand deposit savings. Well, not yet. I mean for now. And in fact, I don't know if I had the video, I don't know if I ever brought it in. Maybe the crew can find it. I believe those Ursula van der Lahn talking about this and basically being like, you know, Germans have a lot of money in their savings

34:36and their like checking accounts and they're greedily holding onto it when it could be used to help expand our markets. So I mean, they are going after all of the accounts. Those go after your savings first, your long-term retirement savings. The $10 trillion figure reflects Finks own estimate, not an independently verified projection. The underlying concern, retirement savers being steered into high-risk private market assets is legitimate, even if the quote unquote forced framing isn't. Yeah, but it is. And again, I don't remember the exact details, but we talked about it with Tiffany Cianci last time she was in here where like, yes, if you want to not be in these high-risk private equity, you have to get in contact with the company that manages your 401k and specifically tell them not to invest in this sort of stuff. Some 401k's don't even have that option. So it is mandatory for people like that. You know, your company chooses who your 401k is with. The company they go with determines what rights you have to dictate where that money goes. I mean, it's mandatory. It is mandatory. In fact,

35:39it is forced. Yes, you are forced to do it. Oh, yeah, found the clip. All right, let's go to Ursel of Anderlain saying this. It must have been an earlier this week, right? Let's watch. She said savings, unfortunately, are lazy. 10 trillion euros of household savings. Hey, there's that number again. Remain in bank deposits. And a significant portion of European savings is invested outside our continent. Europe must now put these savings at the service of these companies. And that is the goal of the savings and investment union. We have put forward proposals on securitization, on investment by banks and insurance companies, on the integration of our markets, their operation and their supervision. Together, they can unlock up to 470 billion euros of additional investment.

36:49So again, I mean, I don't think she's talking about retirement savings. That's how she said, she said, bank deposits. And how curious is that 10 trillion euros? It's the exact number. Gosh, what are the odds? What a coincidence that here in America, private equity is getting access to retirement funds at the same time that Europe is opening up their savings accounts to plundering by these private equity companies and they both do it for 10 trillion dollars. It's almost like we're not to distinct nations or political organizations, but rather it's almost like we're both being managed by the same super national unelected corporate oversight tyrants. Isn't that crazy? When I'd be crazy if that was the case. And this is why they want to have things like expiring money. They want all of your money to be digital and they want you to be required to spend it in a certain amount of time. They literally don't want you saving. They don't want you saving up.

37:50They don't want you making big purchases. They don't want you owning anything. Do you know that? Have they told you that enough? Have we told you that enough? They don't want you owning anything ever. And this is just a precursor to that. But they have the technological ability to do it and nobody's stopping them. So I guess, you know, it's moral in their view. Now, obviously he's talking about taking all that money to build data centers in the infrastructure for AI. The data center companies have in certain cases learned how to appeal to people, at least ostensibly. And there are examples now of places where they're actually benefiting from data centers arriving. Basically, data centers go, well, we'll make this many billions of dollars with it. So we'll cut you off a slice. And it's sizable enough to convince people to do it. That's not been the case up till now. That's only the case because of the outrage that we've been expressing. And you got to remember that too.

38:51Because the way this stuff works is they'll turn around in a couple of months. And they'll say the data center outrage was so stupid, they wanted you to not get a $10,000 check from the data company center, the data center company, right? They wanted you to miss out on this prosperity. It's like, you only made that offer because of the outrage. If we hadn't said anything, if the data centers had just been built in the background, they never would have made agreements with cities to actually provide benefits to the city. The pressure was necessary. These people wanted the data centers to go in basically paid for by tax dollars or the money they could get out of your retirement fund paid for by your money. In other words, and then they would reap all of the benefits entirely. And not only would they build it with your money, the taxes or the accounts that they plunder for it, not only that, but then your electricity and utility prices skyrocket. We have a video of that. Let's go to clip number eight here. From Wall Street apes, my jaw literally dropped American shows the increase in her power and water bill since her state became the data center

39:54capital of the world. This is Virginia power from 2024, 2025. And then they built the data centers and you see the consequence. Let's watch. I live in Virginia, which is the data center capital of the United States apparently. This was our power bill for August of 2024. $325. $375. $450. This is our two month water bill. 561. This increase in bills is really mind blowing. This woman lives in Virginia about 70% of the internet traffic in the world goes through Virginia. They are the data center capital of the world. As more data centers get built, you see these massive increases in electricity bills for residents and also in the water bill. That water bill was just insane. How many data centers are in Virginia? Currently, there's an estimate of about 370 344 of them are confirmed to be operating, but take a

40:55look at this. There is 600 to 850 plus that are planned or under construction. So residents that are already seeing these insane increases on their power bills. It's only going to go up, up, and up. And how many data centers were built during the specific time period? It was from 2024 to 2026. There is no exact figure, but in just one year, there was a 37% jump in power usage. So who's paying for that? It is definitely not the data centers. We can take one look at these bills and see it is the residents who are paying for this power increase. There you go. So not only data centers in northern Virginia consume almost 30% of electricity in the commonwealth. So your tax dollars will be going to build it. Your retirement fund will be plundered to pay for it. Then your bills will go up. For all of this, the return to you is that somebody somewhere is going to benefit. You get to make silly videos with AI, so that's good, isn't it?

41:58And it's like just imagine, I mean, what would you have to get for this all to be worth it? For you to be paying twice as much every month for your electricity. You think you'd have some sort of benefit that would be tangible, but no. No, no, no. We don't know. We don't have money to fix the potholes outside your house. We don't have the money to rebuild the Baltimore bridge that some Indian dude knocked over five years ago whenever it was. You know, they still haven't even like, they just finished clearing the debris from that, you know. In the meantime, China has built the tallest bridge in the world and could have done it many times over. The bridges that we bombed in Iran have been rebuilt. Did you know that? We can't rebuild this though. No, no, because we don't have money. We're spending all of our money on data centers and legal immigration. We don't have the money to repair, let alone improve the actual infrastructure that matters to you and you interact with on a daily basis. Just why a lot of people are feeling like this. Clip number 14, again, from Wall Street

43:05Apes, American in her car, breaking down in tears over the state of our economy and our future as we get older. Let's watch. I don't have a clue what is going on in America anymore, but I just came out of the Walmart out of my local Walmart. And this little lady, little hudged over lady was ringing me up and I asked her if she was having a good day and she said, I don't know, I just got here. She said, I just came from my other job. This lady was like 70 plus. She already worked at the college for six hours and she was going to be here. It's 316. She was going to be here until 11 o'clock tonight. Like what? I don't want to do this anymore. Obviously we need to keep raising awareness about the cost of living

44:10and that seniors are no longer able to retire and some seniors are now forced to work multiple jobs. But there's a whole other issue that we need to also talk about and that is the propaganda comment spam where you get anti-Republican and anti-Trump comments and then you get huge engagement on those comments and I swear it's boss. Just look at the comments on this post. It's horrible what Trump has done to this country. Thousand likes. This is Republicans America. This is what Republicans want. Keep voting red and our seniors will continue to work until their last breath. I feel like we're in hell. This is what Republicans want and all the comments are the same all the way down. Of course, we need the cost of living to come down. But by the comments, you would think, oh, this is a Republican's issue, but that is not at all the cases. Let's just look at the data right here. During Biden's term in office, we saw a 21.5% CPI raise. That is a true inflation right there. 21.5%. How does that compare to Trump? Trump was actually able to slow that down. Trump's current

45:13term is shorter because it only went there for two years. But the rate so far has been just 2.3% to 4.2% year over year. So who is the actual problem here? Is it Biden who skyrocketed over 21% or is it the person who slows it down to around 2.3% per year? Based on the comments, you would think, oh, this is a Republican issue, but really Democrats are the ones destroying our economy. They destroyed our way of living, our cost of living. Rentsman of 30% under them during Biden. So he's right, but it's both of them. It's both sides. Nearly half of US households can't make ends meet. And the problem of those comments is mostly a messaging problem that it mostly is the Republicans fault. How many times have you heard Republican Trump himself as I don't care about the economy? Who cares? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. I mean, this is the message you're getting. Meanwhile, videos like that keep coming out. And the only people actually responding

46:15to it are the socialists going, we know, we know this is the Republicans fault they're doing it. The reality is, as Wall Street Apes points out, the opposite, however, whose fault is it? I don't know. The Republicans aren't getting rid of the illegal immigrants to any sizeable degree. They aren't actually, you know, tangibly doing anything to make anything better for anybody. The Iran War is obviously driven up prices across the board on diesel, especially, which makes everything more expensive down the line. That woman's right. And she's pointing to something that goes way beyond politics. Fundamentally, our priorities are not just out of whack. They're completely and totally inverted. Some old lady wouldn't be working behind the cash register if she was a Somalian with a daycare, right? The scammers that succeed here. That's it. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Second hour of the War Room is on. I'm your host Harrison Smith. I will be joined to this hour by Viva Fry. We're going to break down what the hell happened with Lindsey Clancy and her

47:20trial, which has been a gigantic farce and is now ended in a mistrial. We'll get all of the lawyerly insights that Viva Fry can provide. But I wanted to read this about it. And I thought I'd do it before I brought him on so he didn't have to sit there and listen to me read. But I thought this was just, I mean, this sort of overlays the entire topic is it's a symptom. Like what happened with the Lindsey Clancy trial is a symptom of a society in a state of collapse. It's sort of like the crack in the dam before the flood where it's like, I don't know if jury trials are a thing anymore. I don't know if this can exist anymore. An old sister, the system that we've been running this whole time used to work. I don't know if it works anymore for a variety of different reasons. And I'm not sure who posted this. I don't know if the crew can pull up because I want to give them credit, but they say this. The jury that I recently served on was hung because one, three jurors refused to discuss the evidence with an open mind at the start of the

48:21deliberations. They simply declared, I will never change my mind on this. You could never convince me otherwise. They demanded a hung jury verdict in the first hour of deliberation simply because our initial vote was split. That of course is violation of jury instructions. Two, very few of the jurors were able to take the entire case in context and parse through it all the testimony and evidence to decipher what we believed was the truth. They all wanted to pick one testimony as the perfect telling and did not know how to decide given discrepancies between them all. Problem number three, two of the jurors kept objecting to points of discussion because of quote, bias that they claimed we were invoking into our deliberations. These jurors claimed that some of the evidence submitted during trial could not be considered by the jury because it would quote, trigger our biases. They kept interjecting quote, that's bias or you're just biased or that's your bias, tainting the evidence. Other jurors responded to this defensively and would back down at the accusations. So I don't know which is the bigger problem. The people who just assert

49:22bias when they don't like something or the people who are too cowardly to just stand by their stand by reality in the face of retard telling you otherwise. This is Matt Johnson, Matt Johnston at Matt informed on X. Number four, one juror in particular totally woke, viewed the entire world as groups, oppressors and individuals, victims. And so would not accept anything as true right or good that could come from the group that they were the accusers. So the group is the accusers. And they defaulted to the individual, the accused as the only possible honest person. She refused to accept any testimony or evidence offered by the group and became visibly shaken and angry if other juror questioned the integrity of testimony or testimony of the accused, a testimony that was filled with errors and contradiction. It's like it's like all of the threads that we've been observing over the last decade, all like coming together. Right? How many, I mean the me too movement, you have to believe all victims, right? This sort of communist, you know, a world view that

50:25says they're oppressed and oppressors and the oppressors are always evil. They're always bad. And it's whoever is the bigger and powerful one. So in the case of a accused person being charged by the state, I mean, you got to go with the accused. It's like all of these little poisons that have been seeped into our veins, all manifesting it once. It's kind of amazing. Multiple jurors declared it was quote, impossible to decide the facts of the case because there's no video evidence. They lamented that we don't have quote, surveillance like in the UK and all public places. And as such, it would be impossible to determine the facts of this case. If they cannot see the events, they would not believe them. Six, several jurors could not understand the written law even after being provided explanations and instructions from the court. They simply could not comprehend not that they disagreed. They just couldn't understand it. Finally, seven, two jurors kept interrupting the process of discussing, saying quote, you're wasting our time and they kept telling us they needed to vote and they wanted to vote and go home and put this mess behind them. Alas, a hung jury was the right outcome, not because of the case, but because of the deficiency

51:30in the jury. Now, this was not the Tiffany or whatever it is, Lindsey Clancy case. This is the different case. How many courtrooms around the country are being subjected to this? Juries that like don't have the attention span or the character or the intelligence to even serve on a jury, but they will be sitting in the box deciding your fate one day. And that's a problem. We'll discuss with Viva Fry on the other side. Don't go anywhere, folks. Joined today by Viva Fry to break down one of those bizarre legal sagas in recent memory, the now newly declared mistrial of Lindsey Clancy. Viva Fry, of course, well known to our audience. David Fry, you can follow him on accent Viva Fry that's VIVA F R E I and of course, Viva Barnes law dot locals dot com Viva. How are you today, sir? Good. I thought it was going to be a hung jury. And then when they were talking mistrial,

52:32I thought it was going to be because of chicaneery, but ultimately a single holdout is what brought this to a mistrial is a wild turn of events. So help break this down for us. Well, what's the difference between a hung jury and a mist trial? And what do you think actually was happening behind the scenes here? Well, as I've now been rightly corrected, all hung juries are mistrials, but not all mistrials are hung juries. So the second you have a jury, they declared a mist trial, I called a hung jury a little while ago just because I thought it would be more than one. I thought it would be like three or four people saying not guilty by reason of insanity and the majority saying guilty. I didn't think he was going to be a hung jury this way. But as of yesterday, when we started seeing the, I mean, I think it was over the top or to put it hyperbolicly, but certainly towing, tip towing a line of the conduct of Reddington by effectively putting on blast that jurors note, which singled out the lone holdout of a juror and basically put them on blast. And like if this is not some form of jury intimidation, juror intimidation,

53:36I don't know what is because you have a week of deliberation. You don't know if it's eight versus four, nine versus three, which way it goes. Yesterday they come out and specify that it's 11 versus one. And it was so shocking of a disproportionate number. A lot of people thought it was 11 guilty and one holding out on not guilty. I'm like, that makes no sense because you'd never have the defense Reddington trying to then have that juror removed if that's the sole juror hanging in the way of a conviction. Then we find out today it's 11 who are vote who are on the not guilty by reason of insanity and one lone holdout. And when Reddington comes out and says we know who it is, it's one guy, he's allegedly not following the law. And basically we want a public voire deer the next day. That is as much pressure or, you know, extortive measures that you can lawfully put on somebody, the holdout juror. And I just thought it was, it was wholly bizarre. But ultimately it just came to a mistrial because one lone juror refused to concede and they declared

54:38it a hung jury. And so yeah, and so I want to get it sort of into what's happening next. But I agree. I mean, especially there was already one woman who's actually arrested for jury intimidation, right? She was trying to, I guess, approach the jury and yelling things at them before is one of the protesters. So it sounds like the lawyers behavior would be out of whack regardless of the circumstance. But especially when you have what amounts to an angry mob outside and he's going, we've identified the one juror. I mean, how is that not jury intimidation? And what are the legal remedies when a lawyer does? Like, is it seems unprecedented to me? Has this ever happened before? And what would the remedies be? This is like, you know, I practice civil law up in Quebec. So I don't have any expertise. And I would know that I don't know something. I approach it with the requisite degree of uncertainty. So I see this. I'm like, this smells bizarre. Like just from a pure instinctual, you know, understanding of what justice and fairness is, it doesn't seem fair. You know, you're not supposed to disclose the deliberations to the public during the deliberations. And yet

55:42you have a juror, the jury for woman, submitting this note, which is, you know, to say it's drafted in a self-serving manner is an understatement. Basically saying, there's one big bad boogeyman left on the juror jury and he won't budge and he refuses to apply the law even though he acknowledges it. And then they submit it to a judge, ready to demands and obtains the concession that this debate be held publicly, not by a private sidebar. And you basically are in anticipation putting a target on the sole holdouts back for when this is all over. They're going to know exactly who it was. And he will have been vilified and demonized in the eyes of a mob that is already sort of borderline off the rails and that woman who's out there in a restricted area, taking pictures of jury members, then deleting them, then when she gets arrested saying, I was just looking for Lindsey Clancy and then they find deleted photos. And I think video in her phone, you know, it's, I don't know if it's lawful, if it really skirts a line. It's as close as you can get and having it be lawful and ethical to basically say, we know who it is. We know,

56:48and yesterday he was saying he heard, you know, just not specifying gender. Today he was like him. We know who he is. We know his number. And we want you judge to publicly basically cross examine him on the reasons for his opposition. Look, I haven't met anybody with experience that says, this was a typical normal stuff. I don't think it was. But at the end of the day, the judge just got to declare the mistrial because he had the one lone holdout. And before the judge could declare a mistrial, writing to him then goes and gets a stay of the declaration of a mistrial so that he could petition the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to basically ask them to order this public war deer of the jury members. And I'm sure it was only for the purpose of intimidating that soul holdout to bend the knee and to potentially replace that juror with someone who would bend the knee to the other 11 jury members. So it's wild. It's absolutely crazy. And at the end of the day, now they're going to have to do another trial.

57:48And that might not be the worst result here. But yeah, no, it sounds like, you know, it sounds like 12 angry men, right? I mean, this is what we want. I mean, it just sounds so crazy. I'm worried about the future of jury trials in this country. And I want to get into that stuff and sort of, you know, comparisons to other trials as well. But now that it's a mistrial, I mean, this is kind of, I think it's kind of a good thing, right? Because they're going to have to retry this probably in a couple months, I would guess. And by that point, probably the, you know, media outrage will have simmered down and maybe they can just have a nice quiet trial without all this interference, right? To me, mistrial is not the worst thing that could have happened out of this. No, it's not. I mean, I would imagine the worst thing. Imagine it would have been, yeah, a not guilty, a unanimous not guilty by reason of insanity where you have this woman institutionalized for however long or however short a judge so determines. But it's kind of shocking. Like, it's shocking that it was 11 to one not guilty by reason of insanity. And so they'll have a new trial and maybe the prosecution, you know, will do a better job. We'll know where the weak points lie.

58:52We will maybe craft their closing arguments a little better. Prosecution started off its closing argument literally with the concession. In the first sentence, Lindsey Clancy was mentally ill. She did try to take her own life, but she was criminally responsible when she killed her kids. But before she jumped out of a window and paralyzed just all from the sternum down. So prosecution in my view, obviously could have done a better job. You don't start off your closing arguments by repeating the defense of the defense. And so they'll have a new trial. But the fact that after this 11 of the 12 were prepared to find not guilty by reason of insanity, I think that's that's that's very, very surprising. And depending on your political leanings, very discouraging that all but one virtually unanimous would have found her not criminally responsible for what she did. I mean, especially when you look at the details and the fact that she clearly planned this out, she clearly knew what she, I mean, she knew what she was doing. I really don't think there's a debate to that. So yeah, it is shocking that even half

59:55of them let alone 11 to one. That is absolutely crazy. And then, you know, obviously the lawyer is reveling in sort of the prominence of this. And he's really enjoying and making the most out of the attention that he's getting. And the jurors showed up reportedly two or three of them, you know, wearing pink, which maybe they're just like pink. But that's what all the Lindsey Clancy supports are wearing. Is there any way for the judge to like, you know, investigate whether the jurors had done outside research? Is there, you know, admonished and not to? I mean, how do you how do you guarantee that this media circus doesn't influence the jury or you just happen to trust him? Well, I mean, I look, we've seen other cases where the violations by jury members were even more agree just in Roger Stone's case. I think it was Derek Chauvin as well. You, you, you, you, you, you have, you have actual activists like almost as bad as runaway jury, but not quite as bad on the jury. Nothing, nothing comes of it. The threshold from what I understand is very high. In this case, there's not going to be anything coming because it's a mistrial regardless. But

1:00:58I'm going to be curious to know who the jury for woman is. The woman who wrote that note, that disclosed that which even the judge acknowledged ought not have been disclosed to the public. But when he gives his statement today at some point to the jury to, you know, try to get them to follow the law again. He's like, yeah, you know, and in the future, if you have any other notes, don't specify the numerical breakdown of the deliberations. I'm like, if it was wrong, to do going forward, it was wrong when they did it. And the damage is done already. But it's, it's the nature of the beast. This is the risks and perils of a, you know, a jury of your peers. The only problem is, Reddington didn't seem willing to accept it. You do a jury of your peers. And like the judge said, you're going to have to abide by that jury finding for right or for wrong. You don't just get to, you know, pick and choose at the end so that you end up with the jury that will, you know, give you the verdict that you want. So at the end of the day, you had one guy who will hear his story sooner than later was not or was, was there was no doubt in his mind that she was,

1:02:02you know, criminally responsible, which he killed her kids and 11 other people who refused to accept that. And Harrison, you know, another prediction, I may or may not come to fruition. We're going to find, I suspect we're going to find out that there were a couple of more people within the last week were brow beaten into going on the side of the 11 because you don't get a week of deliberation. It wasn't a holdout of one from day one. And I think they managed to convince the other two or three or four. We'll find out. And you had one holdout who said, I'm not going to be pressured into this. I'm not coming to this conclusion because I refuse to follow the law. I've come to this conclusion because I am following it in my view and you have to live with that. And but the pressure tactics that that writing Tim, that that jury four person put out there today, it's as dirty as you can get within the bounds of the law to the extent it was within the bounds of the law. Right. Yeah. And definitely pressing up against the envelope there. And yeah, I agree with you. And I I would actually like to see almost a new version of 12-angry men. It will be, you know, nine angry men to nine angry women, two angry men and one cool dude. You know, we'll come up with

1:03:05the title later. But yeah, what happened there? What happened? It was almost the opposite. 12-angry men, you get one standout who slowly converts everybody. I wonder if, you know, there was one person that was the not guilty side and she maybe she's slowly convinced everybody fascinating how this, you know, could have turned out. And again, it's like, I don't know if you were listening for the first five minutes. I read this account from somebody about his experience with jury trials and just how it doesn't work. I mean, the people are like, we just want to go home, whatever answer we need to get. The other half people don't seem to be capable of actually discerning truth from falsehood and everything on the stand. They just take for the, I mean, what do we do about juries these days? Viva, I mean, I know the UK has already done away with jury trials. If the sentence is less than three years, you don't even get a jury. I'm afraid we're going in that direction. But I don't know if it's, I don't know what we have a better choice when our, you know, our population is too dumb or immoral to actually uphold their oath. Like, what do you do? What is the future of jury trials here, Viva? Well, I mean, in Canada, we've effectively done away with jury trials for any civil matter.

1:04:10You have them for some criminal matters. But it's a bizarre thing because you realize if you just take the average person you come across on any given day, you realize the fragility of the human condition and the, you know, the call it lack of education of your average individual and not education in a formal sense, just the lack of information in your average person on specific issues. And then you slap them on a jury. I still, you know, rather have that than have it be in the under the control of the black robe. No, exactly. And it's the way it was intended to work. The only problem is, you know, when it doesn't go exactly the way you want, then you try to start, you know, looking for ways to circumvent it. And in this particular case, it's interesting. People are going to be outraged that it was 11 to 1 in, you know, in support of not guilty by reason of insanity. It's still the better way for this to have gone because at the end of the day, you're not convicting it on innocent men. You might be acquitting or letting go a guilty person,

1:05:10but in this specific case, it would have been up for the system to decide whether or not she's institutionalized and for how long. And sometimes people say, you're almost better off in jail than in the mental institution. So it's not like, it would have been much worse in my view if it was 12 people, 11 people trying to pressure one person to convict an innocent man so they could go home as opposed to people saying we're going to acquit a potentially guilty person because we've manufactured a reasonable doubt in our minds for whatever the reasons. So it was still on the better side of problematic juries. But, you know, the other interesting thing is if this is the new precedent, expect to see, if not copycats, people raising this argument. And given the jury instructions that the judge gave, it's exceedingly difficult under circumstances like this, for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of a state of mind. Because I mean, that is what the jury basically told the judge, the jury. Prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsey Clancy was not impaired by a mental defect when she killed her kids. You got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a negative.

1:06:12It's very difficult. And regardless, expect to see this defense being raised a whole hell of a lot more now. And you know, with whatever consequences that brings. Well, and that's saying something because it seems like every major trial we cover has the insanity defense invoked. And is this a new phenomenon? It just feels like it's becoming way more common. Am I just noticing it more? And it almost seems like it's a self-fulfilling sort of thing where you go, the mother who killed her kids, she must be crazy. I mean, to kill your kids is crazy. So therefore, she's insane. Just like with, you know, Arena's Arunas Gets, like, the dude didn't gain anything. He didn't have a reason to do it. Who stabs a random woman on a subway? Crazy people. He must be insane. It's almost like the insanity of the crimes themselves become evidence of the insanity plea. I don't understand the value of the insane. I don't think we should even have an insanity plea. And I'd be okay with just getting rid of it and just going back to guilty or not guilty. I mean, what's your take on the whole insanity plea thing? Well, back in the day, it used to be guilty, but insane. And so you'd still be found guilty,

1:07:14but you would be insane. And so there's sort of a qualifier to the criminal intent. The argument is that if you commit a crime, you're necessarily insane by definition. I mean, the reality is there is jurisprudence. I mean, there's a distinction between being mentally ill and being criminally not responsible. And you can think of examples where your mental illness, it's a real thing. It basically renders you some form of automaton. In the case of the guy that killed Irene Zorutska, you're dealing with diagnosed schizophrenia. And in as much as there is under the law a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, that would fit the bill. And even in this particular case, you're also getting close to if the defense exists under the law, this is a pretty close case that fits the definition. Someone who's diagnosed with mental illness, there's several months documented a descent into some form of deeper psychosis mental illness, but it is true. It's not just because you're crazy that you're criminally not responsible, but there aren't cases of people who threw involuntary intoxication or voluntary intoxication,

1:08:19but adverse side effects or whatever, have breaks from reality where in a criminal sense to the extent that defense exists, it's applicable. This one was, I say, borderline for some, not borderline for others. The evidence was there that there was premeditation, that there was calculation, which people take to mean you don't get to plead insanity because even if you were mentally ill, you're still criminally responsible. But I don't know that we're seeing more of it now. I think we're definitely placing more emphasis on it now. It's making bigger headlines now, but these cases have been around forever. They've been around and they'll be around in the future. There is a defense out there. It's case by case. And then the only question is in this case, was it applicable? Was it the valid defense? And if one person says no, do you get to replace that juror just so you can come to a unanimous finding because you have one hold out? Right. And it just seems like, well, I don't know, it just seems like how are you going to have a jury system when you can pick and choose? You got the wrong decision here. We're replacing you. I mean, it just feels like a president that you don't want to set. We can go quickly. Let's go quickly here to clip 31 because you referenced this clip and we'll just show people that haven't

1:09:22seen it. This is the judge who instructing the jury about the note being shown to everybody with the jury members number on it. Let's go to clip 31 here. Good morning, everyone. What I want to do is first ask you those questions and then move on from there. So the first question is we all know is going to be, is any member of the jury red, senior or over or anything from any source about this case, it would affect your ability to be fair and impartial. Sure. Now, last of these questions is, is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your services of jury in this case that anybody needs to bring to my attention at this time? Thank you. All right. So I did get the note yesterday and one thing I would say, if there's, if there are any notes in the future and I'm not saying there are, but if there are, just don't make sure you don't put down where everybody is numerically. Okay. But what I wanted to do was give you, go over one thing. I want to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it's your

1:10:27duty as jurors to accept the law as I stated to you. You should consider all of my instructions as a whole. You may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction. You must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not. The law that I'm instructing you on is the law that's been established by our legislature and our pellet courts. And it applies to everyone and you must apply the law as I have instructed you that you have a copy of the instructions that I gave you. You should still have them back there with the jury. And with that, you may now resume your deliberations. All right. So I didn't even realize I got that video from from your account at the Viva Fry on X. I mean, what's your take from that statement from the judge? Can you appreciate how bad it is the what violation he felt the need to politely and monish just in the future. Please don't break it down because now we know it's one person, one single solitary individual and it's that much easier to pressure them, to coerce them into

1:11:33bending the knee. It's it's egregious. But in the after statements after the judge formally declared a mistrial, I don't know if you notice he referenced World War II and how the brits were the last force or the only force standing against the Nazis. And I honestly, I don't know if that was a shout out to the lone juror who stood his ground against the 11 other. Or you know, it was just a maybe a poorly advised analogy or comparison to people doing their duties and serving country. But people have to understand what that judge just said there. In the future, don't do that because it's a clear violation of the rules I presume and it's totally inappropriate and it could itself falsify and taint the entire process. But yeah, it's done now. So yeah, damage done, damage the damage was done. You just don't do more damage in the future. Yeah, no, it absolutely makes no sense. And that's so funny that you say that thing. Maybe the crew can find that famous picture where the one guy is not doing the Nazi salute. That's the that's the holdout juror there standing like a

1:12:36bullwork against the the crowd. I mean, it's just insane. And I mean, is this judge, is this judge have a problem with this stuff because there were a lot of complaints about his instructions throughout the trial. I mean, how much how much role does the judge have in this sort of mishap? So my understanding because I was sort of not critical but skeptical. It sounded like the judge was teaming it up for an acquittal or not guilty by reason of insanity by saying, you know, specifying what the burden of proof by all accounts of legal minds who actually, you know, have more knowledge than me. He was basically reading the instructions. And so he also said today, as a book, I'm just reading the instructions when when the reddington was asking him to like, be more forceful in his cajoling of the outstanding loan holdout. And the judge's like, I'm not an actor here. I'm not a player. I'm literally just reading the instructions. And so that is what it says. You got to abide by the law and here's the law. So whether or not the system is set up for a not guilty by reason of insanity finding in a case like this, I say, I won't second guess it.

1:13:39I've been told that his instructions were fair and just buy the letter. But what's clear is that other things were not a fair and buy the letter today. And he so much that he felt the need to tell the jury. Don't do it again. And then by the way, reddington after that said, I don't want to admonish the jury four person because it'll sound like she did something wrong in that letter. She did something wrong with that letter. And I suspect when this is all said and done and everything, you know, the fog clears, we'll see whether or not that jury four person was in fact an activist who was resorting to underhanded tactics to pressure the lone guy to bend the knee. This whole thing has been an utter circus. And we haven't even gotten into the media circus surrounding all of this. Just what's going on in the courtroom is sort of inexplicable in all this. Viva fries my guest will be back with me on the other side of a short commercial break to break this down more and get into everything else that this case comes along with the gender stuff, tic-tock stuff. I mean, it gets so much more insane from here on out. Stay with us. Viva Fry with me on the other side. Don't go anywhere.

1:14:40There you go. That's better. Yeah. Nine angry women, two sims and one lone man, the new blockbuster. That'll be great. I don't know. It'll be terrible, but it'll be great. The implications will be terrible for our civilization, our society where we're going from here. Of course, we'll do everything we can to maintain our Western culture. I hope you can support us by going to the Alex Jones store.com. Go to the Alex Jones store.com. Make a purchase. He keeps us on air and in the fight. And of course, the supplements are absolute bombshell. You will not be disappointed. Practically every caller we have talks about some way. It's literally changed their life. And no matter what you order now, you will get a free bottle of the CMOS gummies. One of my favorite supplements on the store, spend over $99. You get a free tub of towelo. No matter what, your contribution goes directly into this fight for Western civilization and all that entails. And of course, you get a fantastic product in return, the Alex Jones store.com. With that, I once again welcome Viva Fry to the show. You can follow him on X at the Viva Fry. That's F R E I's how that spelled. And of course, you can go to Viva Barnes law. Locals.com to find all of his content.

1:15:46There's so many sort of implications from this. And maybe it's just the paranoid conspiracy in me. Viva, but like, are we being set up to welcome AI juries? Do you think do you think AI is going to be the solution to the problems that the Lindsey Clancy trial has revealed to us? Sony, I thought you were going to go with the angle. Is this going to bring us to the post-natal abortion argument, which a lot of people think like if you tolerate or support abortion, then why limited at conception. And when you have people talking about, you know, actually aborting fetuses in delivery and keeping, you know, fetuses or eight month, eight month old born babies comfortable while you decide what to do with them. You know, it is interesting, whether or not you could ever use AI to adjudicate a case like this. I think before we even, the bigger risk of AI acting as a jury is basically having AI thought crime, prevent all crime to begin with. And we live in like a minority report type world. It is weird.

1:16:49Conceptually, if you eliminate the human element of the human frailties from this decision-making process, you in theory would have justice in all cases. I go from a more philosophical perspective. It's the human element. I think that understands what justice is. But I'm not so concerned about AI taking over the role of juries. What I am concerned about is in real time, AI bots, you know, creating not division, but creating social trends that would otherwise never occur on their own that appear to be organic, but are actually totally inorganic to the point where you mobilize people to get out there and literally stand in solidarity with post videos to X, to Twitter to the other one there, TikTok of women doing absurd inhumane things as some sort of standing with who they now view to be the oppressed. And the idea that you can frame this as Lindsay Clancy being the oppressed and the oppressor or the children, you know, this is a sort of

1:17:50a mass formation psychosis that I think is being spurred on by inorganic forces online. You know, at the end of the day, whether you agree with it or not, this case could shed some light on the psychiatric industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industrial complex, how these drugs are being just, you know, recklessly and negligently overprescribed how they carry with them certain invariable bad side effects that are on the labels themselves. And when there are mass shootings, people say, well, you know, was the kid on SSRIs. The only distinction being in those contexts, nobody says was the kid on SSRI to absolve them of criminal responsibility. It's only a question of determining whether or not there are contributing factors to this phenomenon. Yet in this case, it's were there SSRI contributors that would absolve the individual of the criminal liability responsibility of having killed her three kids. But of the forces that play right now that are inorganic, I think the artificially propping up and promoting of these support trends and these grotesque videos of women, you know, faking terrible situations with babies, you know, they're

1:18:56walking down the stairs with a real baby and then throw a doll over. That's where I think you have some very, very sick social conditioning. I would argue spawned on by foreign governments for the purposes of sowing discord within this country. That's where I think the biggest risk is right now. Well, absolutely. And that was that was the exact question I was going to ask you actually was was that exact thing in the crew? Y'all are both, you know, presiduring what I was going to say because I was going to play that video as well. There's this video of this bot farm and we've seen them before and I've seen them in China where you just have thousands of phones all running different accounts at the same time. You can really get things trending with that. And then I mean, if the crew can play the video again, there are thousands, these are thousands of accounts being run simultaneously by some advertising firm, by some firm that runs these bots on behalf of corporations or somebody foreign governments or interest groups. So it would not be hard to manufacture a movement like this and especially and you know, women are more vulnerable to it. They're more likely to sort of go along with trends than men are and it's just a matter of testosterone. And they know how to manipulate

1:19:58people into this sort of stuff. That is very scary. And I wonder if it's not, if it wasn't the big pharmaceutical companies because you know, I saw a video today where somebody was relating this to Crispin, why Crispin, why was the champion, you know, professional wrestler and actually very similar circumstances using exercise equipment to kill his children and his wife. And at the time, people looked at the steroids, steroids he was taking and said this could have been an aggravating factor and there were processes put in place for testing and they limited the use certainly at the wrestling, but at the nationwide level, a big discussion about the effects of steroids was had after that. And it feels like the first time I heard about Lindsey Clancy, it was this woman on dozens of SSRIs killed her children. And I could see big pharma with billions of dollars in SSRI profit yearly going, okay, we need to, we need to change the discussion here. It can't be about the SSRIs. What if we try to blame it on the dad? What if we try? Because it really is inexplicable

1:21:00where all these theories came from. There's no proof for any of them. Again, this is my, this is my conspiracy theorizing, but obviously the damage that this has done already to women, relationships. I've heard about marriages that have come apart because the mom is posting things in support of Lindsey Clancy and there have been copycat murderers. I mean, clearly, if there's one group of people that would sacrifice the well-being of the American populace and the cohesion of our social structure for profit from medicine, you know, it'd be big pharma. So yeah, I think this whole thing could have been manufactured by all sorts of people with bad intentions for the American people. Would you, jeez, I forget the name of the experiment. It's not the Milgram experiment, but it's the experiment where they took one person of 12 and everyone else is in on the experiment, except for the person and they, you know, they have two lines and one line is clearly longer than another. The actual experiment, I think. And every one of the 11 says, oh no, the shorter one's longer to the point where the only person who's not in on it concedes and basically makes up fiction

1:22:02because he thinks he's got to conform to the crowd. Here, it's, you know, similar idea, but a little bit different. When people see or perceive that there's some form of broader support for their views, or when they see what they think is a popular opinion, they're going to be more inclined to agree with it, adhere to it, and even if it is totally anti-human. And so there's no doubt in my mind either it's by trolling, either it's people looking for attention, either it's looking to monetize it, but you manufacture not a consensus, but what looks like public support for a movement, and you can then get people to like the use felidias that they are partaking it on their own. There's zero doubt on my mind that that's going on right now. The only question is, is it foreign nations doing this? Is it bought accounts? Is it just trolls looking for attention? Is it people looking to monetize it? Is it just the algorithm sort of rewarding this type of stuff? Nobody could be directing it. It could just be a natural consequence of the particular algorithm

1:23:04that's running on TikTok, right? There's that too. That which people engage with is typically negative, and even if they engage with it negatively, so be it, but if they see enough of it, they think it's actually real, they'll engage with it positively. But even going back to the wrestler guy who killed his wife, kid, and then took his own life, you know, back then people were looking at CTE as a potential angle, steroids as a potential, but not for the purposes of eliminating criminal responsibility. And that's where in the Lindsey Clancy case, one of the more nuanced issues was how they could get to manslaughter. And there are cases where you have involuntary intoxication. When they spike somebody's drink with LSD, if they flip out, go psycho, and kill somebody, they've got a legitimate defense of being out of their mind and not because they voluntarily took drugs. If you voluntarily take drugs and you have a psychotic episode, the argument is that you put yourself in that position in the first place, you may not be guilty of premeditated first of remurder, but you're guilty of manslaughter. Even with the steroid drugs, it was never a question of washing the hands of the individual and saying, beyond his control,

1:24:08it was you took drugs and you didn't take the proper precautions to protect those around you from the potential side effects of the drugs you were taking. I mean, you had that question in this case, but it's wild what happens when things get so politicized and just oversimplified to black and white, where it's conceivable that drugs had a role to play here. It's conceivable that they might have had a pivotal role to play here. But then at the end of the day, the question is, you take these drugs, you know they come with warnings of homicidal, suicidal ideations, you know that they've been involved in situations like that in the past. And then it's just a question of, you get to wash your hands of this and give basically a literally a get out of jail free card of potential to anybody who's taking these drugs and then does something that says, whoops, side effects of the drugs. Flip side, however, just you got to argue it. Up in Canada, there was the case of David Carmichael. This is a Canadian dad who took, I think I don't know if it was Zoloft, there was one of these drugs. Had a psychotic episode strangled as 11-year-old killed kid in a motel room, he was found to be

1:25:09criminally not responsible. He tried to sue the pharmaceutical companies. It was dismissed due to stature limitations or something. But he started an awareness movement for this. If at the end of the day, people become sensitive and sensitized to the idea that these drugs can trigger homicidal and suicidal ideations. And so maybe exercise the utmost of precautions before taking them as a mere quick fix, easy solution to whatever temporary problems you're going through. That might be a fringe benefit. But at the end of the day, if this is going to be the new defense, expect a whole hell of a lot of people to raise it. And then going back to the jury instructions, it'll be very difficult for the prosecution to prove you on a reasonable doubt that when you did what you did, you were not suffering from a mental defect. Yeah, and it just seems like regardless of the guilt or the innocence, the discussion should be had. And I've just been so disappointed really, because I sort of go, well, you know, this is, these women are kind of crazy. But if this turns out to generate a discussion nationwide about SSRIs and the dangers of them, you know, you can believe that they're so dangerous, they made her do it. So therefore, she's not criminal

1:26:12responsible or they're just dangerous enough to push her over the edge. And she saw, regardless, where's that discussion? But I've seen none of that, which is why again, I get suspicious of it, it's probably big farmer or somebody like it, who doesn't want that discussion to be had, because that seemed like the natural course that it was initially going. And all of the sudden, people started talking about the dad doing it when there was no evidence for that at all. All of the evidence was the contrary. I look for the source since the source is not reality, right? That's got to be coming from somewhere. So yeah, I just think where's the conversation about it, even outside of the determination between guilt and not guilty? Where's just the talk about the danger of these, you know, I keep saying, we're lucky she didn't shoot up a school, right? I mean, at least she only went after her own kids, because SSRIs are very often connected to some of the worst mass shootings, mass killings in American history. And every time we avoid this, this topic, we avoid this conversation. Because the easy fix is, you know, to go after the tool of the of the killing or, you know, it's the guns, it's the guns, it's the guns. The reality is,

1:27:16there is, there are multiple forces at play for this. You're dealing with a society that is mass overprescribed to these drugs that ultimately people don't even really know what they do. You know, they have a rough idea they tinker with the brain, but they really don't know what they even do how they function. And they prescribe them after a, you know, a 10 minute consult with a general practitioner, as though they have no negative consequences, you get people addicted to them in many cases where you can't even come off them. And they know that they, they, you know, they trigger, they remove inhibitions for suicidal ideations. And it happens time and time again. But then the bottom line, you take these drugs, the argument here is you don't get to use that as a defense when you do it in full awareness of fact and law. And this nurse that was Lindsey Clancy taking these drugs in full awareness of fact and law. There are a number of issues at play in this particular case, but I'll just, you know, going back to it. The fact that it was 11 to one was mildly surprising.

1:28:19You know, these cases, you know, the Aurora shooter, people have done a stand also. There are psychopaths out there, it skits a frenix, evil people who are still criminally responsible, even though they are certifiably insane. And at the end of the day, also, you take, if you agree with the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, there's going to be cases where you're going to have to adopt it. If you don't agree with it, and I can fully understand, he was like, no, once you kill someone, it doesn't matter why you did it. If it was beyond your control, this is sort of where I'm at. Once you do that, you're either in jail for the rest of your life, or you're in an institution for the rest of your life. But you are, no one's going to convince me that at some point in the future, a woman who murdered three kids is not going to be a potential risk for society at large. There was another case in Canada of this guy who has psychotic skits a frenic episode on a gray-hound bus, randomly stabs the person sitting next to him. His name was McClaim. He cuts his head off, cuts the ears off, disassembled, and bonafide psychotic, and no one would deny

1:29:21that he was criminally insane, gets out of an institution seven years later, changes his dam and and end up sconsent anonymity. Once you've done certain things, you've eliminated yourself from the table of society, and so whether you're in a jail or an institution, you've relinquished, you're right to be at the table of the humans. And I think that's arguably what most people are with this, just to see 11 of the 12 say that's not where we are with this, and that she could be out in a matter of a few years is disturbing to say the least. Yeah, and there are other examples I was hearing about as well. I think there may have been another one in Massachusetts, or somewhere in the Northeast, but it was a long, long time ago. I think it happened in like the 50s or so, but it was the same type of thing. Woman killed her three kids went to a mental hospital, got out, the husband actually stayed with her through the whole time. She literally did it again. They had they had more kids and she killed her kids again, a second time like 20, like 12 years later or something. So it's like once you've shown the you of the capability to do something like this, I agree. I think that's it. You're no longer

1:30:23sitting at the table with the humans. I think that's the it's just the best way for the public to deal with this. It's unfortunate, but some people just can't handle being in public. And that's just how it is. And go ahead. Or if there's if there's so detached from reality, like you come back, once you've gotten that detached, there is nothing to say you won't get that detached again. And there's plenty of people who are schizophrenic, crazy and don't show violent tendencies. And so that's it. It's like the bottom line. It's through it's not your fault. Fine. It's not my fault or the judges fault that they have to put you in an institution for the rest of your life. That's how it should be. And you know, once once they go to the mental hospital, it's sort of out of the law's hands, right? I mean, the mental hospital can say, well, they're cured. So they get to go or we're covering a case last week of a guy who was in a mental hospital, haven't been convicted of murdering his landlord. In the hospital gave him, you know, 48 hour day passes. And he used his day pass to go get a passport and flee a country and flee to Turkmenistan where there's no extradition policy. So, you know, it's not the same. You know, people sort of treat us well,

1:31:26even if they get declared not guilty by read, they still have to go, you know, be locked up for the rest of their life. Well, not necessarily. It actually kind of goes into a whole different realm of very arbitrary decisions in a lot of cases. So I just this whole, you know, the whole thing about not guilty by reason of insanity. I think it's got we got to have some real solid definitions because I keep seeing it crop up in cases where I don't think it belongs. There's no question about that. But also when people say bring back insane asylum and, you know, out of necessity, even then, yeah, I was following that story as well. This guy killed his landlord. He gets off his 48 hours unsupervised release and then goes to Turkmenistan. And it's, it's some, I appreciate, you know, you don't want to lock up an innocent person. I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than one innocent person get locked up. We're not at that point. I'm the only question it mentally ill. If that's the conclusion prone to violence and extreme violence, that's it. You're done. It's not like a bipolar episode where you go get lithium for six months and then

1:32:30you get released if you haven't shown violent propensities. You are unreliable much like any dog that has ever shown aggression again. You just can't have them around kids. Period. They can be a nice dog nine out of 10 times, jack him up on whatever, you know, medications you want. They can't be in the company of the vulnerable. And that should be the same. It's for mentally ill people who have shown propensities for extreme violence. Well, and the other impl, you know, very disturbing implication is the, what's the family of the landlord think? I mean, they, you know, we offload our you know, desire for justice and revenge on this system. If the system just lets the guy fly to Turkmenistan, I mean, you know, there's going to come a time where people go, I'm not turning this guy into the police. I'm going to deal with him myself because every time the criminal goes to the police, they get let out. I get dragged through the court for three years and then they're free to go. I'm not going to trust our system. I mean, it seems like there are big chunks of our system that are sort of falling down to the wayside. There's going to be a point where it's less efficient than just handling it yourself. And then we're in like full on anarchy, which

1:33:30may be preferable to tyranny, an arco tyranny. But on that note, well, anything to say about that, we're running a little bit out of time. So I got a few more things I want to ask you, but just on that note, what do you think? I would just say that you're describing the dissent into anarchy tyranny because anybody who takes justice into their own hands, they'll get the full brunt of the law. Exactly. Who they were talking about locking up for years for the Dometrio Daga, the guy up in New York state who owned unlawful firearms, they're going to try to put him away for 40 years. The people who they can punish, they'll punish, but the gang banger, well, we need restorative justice. So anybody who takes the law into their own hands, they'll come down with the full force of the law while simultaneously absolving the repeated criminals and the most culpable. That is the anarchy tyranny that I think they do want to go for because then it allows for the full AI surveillance law cameras surveillance state. Yeah. And I'm just, you know, it's I'm fine with anarchy. If we want to do anarchy, I'm kind of fine with that like that. I'm kind of okay with that. But yeah, it's the combination that is is really deadly. And then but then there's stuff like this.

1:34:32And you know, just expanding out from the Lindsey Clancy trial, this is this vice president at Bank of America who was stabbed and you've got leftist celebrating it. So we've gone from like, you know, kill the CEO of the insurance company to like, it kill a mid-level manager at your local bank. And and people think this is righteous and good because they've damaged society, you know, somehow and they call it societal murder because the insurance company blocked the payment that caused somebody to die. So really everybody in the insurance company is, you know, guilty of murder. So there's really these are big, big problems. How do we solve this? I don't know that people even know all the details. I'm sure your audience does. This was a 32-year-old mother who just came back from maternity leave for five months to go back to work. And it wasn't a targeted assassination like with Luigi Mangione. It's just some bat poop crazy person with a history of mental illness, but who had never shown any signs of violence. If you believe that part of

1:35:33it, who randomly stabbed her and another guy, she got stabbed in the abdomen too. It's like, it's a trophy, but you have people, and again, you have people celebrating it. Do I believe it's organic and do I believe it's a real people? I'm not sure, but at some point when other people who are on the fence morally speaking see what they perceive to be real people celebrating this, that's how you create this unnatural momentum. And you sort of inorganically make something look organic, these socially destructive movements. And when you have, I won't name any names, but people out there who seem to celebrate or condone it of identifiable notoriety, you create your own monster. And with this particular situation, the fact that anybody started celebrating it once they discovered it was a mid-level executive at a bank, a 32-year-old woman, a mother like, it's all crazy. I don't believe that the people celebrating it are naturally or real or organic people, but then their presence makes other people think,

1:36:34oh, some people are doing it, let's get behind it. And that's how you create these very, very dangerous movements. Well, it's just your typical extremism, isn't it? It's all of the nuance of who the person actually is fades away because it's the oppressors versus the oppressed. And anything is justifiable because it's a fight for human liberty. So anybody in our way has to die. I mean, it's just, it's your classic or a communist extremism, affecting people to a very large degree. And I just, I worry that one day I'm going to be on trial somewhere, there's going to be four of these women on the jury who they know I'm not guilty, but I am a right-winger. So I should probably be punished for that. They'll just do it this way through being on the jury. As we saw with Derek Chauvin and the guy wearing the Black Lives Matter, the shirt with the George Floyd on it, yet when he took his oath to be a jury member, he promised that he had no preconceptions about it. So I really, you know, I don't know, I don't know what the solution is here. All I can do is identify the problems, I guess. No, and put them on blast. The idea that, again, the Derek Chauvin case,

1:37:36you live through that, you see the witness intimidation with the expert witness. In this particular case, I mean, we sort of already moved on from that woman, Dawn Light, who was arrested for the jury intimidation, another registered nurse who seems to be very satisfied with the limelight that she put herself in. It's a question on the one hand, you have your victimhood status, a society that's governed by your victimhood status, and your oppressor status that you constantly invoke in order to give yourself the social credit, the social legitimacy to basically be vigilante criminals or whatever. And then you love the attention that you get with it. So it is, it's a very, I don't know that it's new. I mean, I'm pretty sure that they've written about this in the Bible, Harrison. We were talking about this in Austin. This is the human condition, and this is just the latest iteration of either revelations or Sodom and Gomorrah or whatever, but it's the latest iteration of the human condition, which is people will do atrocious things when they think they have the

1:38:37political permissions to live in moral paths to do it. 100% or if they think they're standing up against some imagined oppression by killing their babies at nine months in the womb or after for that matter. I mean, you can really just file a lot of stuff in people's minds, especially when you have the AI algorithm driving them insane. Incredible stuff. Viva Fry, follow him on x at the Viva Fry, Viva Barnes, law.locals.com, incredible coverage of all of the top legal questions of the day. Thanks so much for being with us today, sir. Thank you very much for having me anytime. All right, we'll be back on the other side. Don't go anywhere, folks. Society where you can have surveillance. We have chosen to have a lot of strength in this country, right? Diversity is our strength. So there's kind of the toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube. We're not getting the mass deportations. It's a bummer, but it's not happening. So if we're going to be a diverse country, no, we're not. If we're going to be a diverse country, which apparently we decided to be, you're going to have surveillance. Now, the question is not whether but which. My concern with all the surveillance, right? Because it's a popular talking point because you can get a bunch of left to sun boards with, you know, banding, flock cameras and all that kind of stuff. It is

1:39:40concerning though, indie objective. And the reason why is there's one thing in a high-trust society where it's actually manned. It's manual, right? And you have appointed officials that you trust that are fellow Americans, right? Red blooded Americans who are watching, you know, this traffic intersection and watching this and that. But when AI comes into the equation, when you have Palantir, when you have all these different companies and you're being governed not by people that you elected, but by an algorithm. Social credit. That's what's ultimately going, that's where it's headed. That's where it's always going in. It's a credit control. It's a credit control. It's higher problem with the whole thing. That's a concern. So this is what I'm saying though, is nobody's advocating that there be some federal mandate for these. But these are local ordinances. It's the locals who are bringing these things in. I understand. So that's going to go to local level. So you're going to have to make a choice, right? Do you want the feds in so that they step on the 10th? Or no, the feds will have access anyways, just like the government's not sure. We're Americans this since they shouldn't spy on our Congress. But they're not the ones that are going to hide it. So a big problem we have with all this, whether it's Pfizer, whether it's patient

1:40:42act, whether it's flock, a problem that we have is that no one has ever been held accountable for the abuses, especially of Pfizer and the tools of surveillance that we trust the government with. So if we were actually holding people accountable, then the argument could be made that like, hey, you have nothing to hide around the public anyways, etc. We have control measures if there's just these people that have accountable. But that just simply has to happen. Part of the concern for the American first side is because you guys are saying, well, you know, the left, they're going to use it to spy on patriots. But the right, they're going to use it for deportations and to spy on petty criminals and legal. There's one more girl that the right are side broadly speaking uses it to look at. Why am I concerned about Palantir, who is super based and right wing? True. I'm concerned because you guys don't have to be concerned. You especially will don't have to be concerned, right? Because you're a raging Zionist. I have to be concerned because I'm a father of six children. I passed their church of 200 people. You can find out who goes to my church. I'm a married man. And I would be labeled by the ADL and by Palantir and by

1:41:44Outscarp and Joe Launsell, who just tried to destroy 19 year old boy's life. I would be labeled as an anti-Semite. So I'm not just concerned about the technology being wielded by the left against patriots. I'm concerned that I'm screwed on both sides. If the left has power and they're using it, I'm screwed because I am a patriot. And if the right has power over it, they're not just going to get the illegals. Eventually, they're going to try to get me. No, they're not. They use your cell phone and face in like public name to talk about Israel and Jewish people and all that. If they want to do the so far right, I don't think that's the concern. I'm sorry for them to have dragged to sell the stuff to the EU that we've crushed your right wing nationalist movements. They help with Germans fly out of the country to have a mile free speech debate. They arrest them when they arrive using Outscarp. That comment was in reference specifically to far right European groups were flirting with violence and terrorism. An offhand comment made it a panel discussion doesn't translate to what Palantir does. I don't think we have to be concerned about a company that's in charge of like data processing. I mean, it's a danger number one because no one has been held accountable

1:42:47within our federal government when they have invaded our rights and trampled our civil liberties. I think that's that's the fundamental issue. Every other tool that you give them is going to give them another avenue and until people are actually held accountable, it's going to continue regardless of whether it's left, right, whatever. But then with the proliferation of AI, a lot of the technology that could be put to a good use that Palantir is developing and Palantir is just one company. There's a bunch of them out there. But with AI, it's going to accelerate all this to the point where even if we wanted to get Patriots back in control and put some guardrails on this, it will become increasingly more and more challenging to do. So that was a clip from the MAGA Divide debate. I don't know if that was part one or part two. You can find both on Alex Jones Live.com. Alex Jones Live.com where you can watch that full debate that I think the American First Side won handily in just about every exchange because the other side only has that classic argument of it's not happening so don't worry about it until it happens. Then it's like, well, it's happening. So what's the big problem? Don't worry about flawed camera. It's not going to be used to tyrannize you until it is in which case it's too late. So where is the foresight

1:43:53in these people? It's not hard to figure out where all this is going. In a second, we'll cover the news in a second because I want to go to clip 44 here. This, you know, MAGA's got a new champion. It's got a new character that it weirdly vibes with. Apparently, we showed you the first iteration from We Are For Bidden, For Bidden HQ at We Are For Bidden on X. They write this. Some of you called him Goyslob. Others called him Chudley, Uncle Ham, and it doesn't other names. Then a whole lot of you embraced him, claimed him, and probably said, quote, literally me, but just remember this account, the For Bidden HQ at We Are For Bidden Account is the only place where Magatard Law is actually canon and canon matters. So here's the second canon edition of whoever this guy, whatever you want to call him, King Goy. We go clip 44 here, the latest iteration of the new MAGA champion. Let's watch.

1:45:20Would you idiot stop winding about the 200 Iranian schoolgirls? We got to them before the Iranian government did. You're welcome. Shout out, Andrew Wilson. Hey. Sir, you are under arrest for possession for CP. The President's gonna pardon me. I'll be on the flight to Israel in no time. Yeah. Pretty good. Pretty good at We Are For Bidden. I guess R has no E. So where For Bidden? Where For Bidden? W-E-A-R. For Bidden on X. Really brilliant stuff. In fact, we can go to one of the fan-made creations here. Don't stop believing. I think I'm not sure which number this is. We can go to the, I'll find it here. Because yeah, so a lot of people taking this character are now making their own thing and you've

1:46:21got MAGA's, you know, die hard Trump supporters still and they're like, yep, that's me. That's who I am. Let's go to clip 53 here. This is one of the fan-made creations. I think this is by Jason Rink. I'm not sure. Let's watch. Anyway, all right. We take down, but hey, the canon expands. I think he's great. I think I think he should embrace him. Embrace the slob. Amazing stuff. So like I said, I mean, I don't know what comes next. Yeah, Jason Rink at Jason Rink, MAGA Influencer's Slob. Other column's Slob. Don't stop believing. Never stop believing. So I don't know where we go from here, but I'll tell you, you want to predict the way the political wind is blowing. Follow the memes. Let the memes be your guide. And right now, the memes are not on Trump's side anymore. Trump memes are lame. They're not funny.

1:47:23They just go to reinforce the lack of action that Trump has actually shown during his second administration. You know, the White House is coming out with like White House Arcade and now and it's like all these games you can play. You can play Snake. Okay, remember that game Snake these plan your mom's old Nokia 30 years ago. Well, now there's a version where they're illegal immigrants. So that's pretty much as good as deportations, right? I mean, you can play a game designed in the 60s. Only it's got little cartoon figures of ice and illegal immigrants. So I mean, that's basically as good as deportation, right? It's basically the same. There you go, Border Patrol along the Rio Grande. There's the Snake game. Oh, they have a version of Tetris and that nice flappy bird. You know, all these amazing games. So this is the meme quality coming out of the Trump camp. It's not the best. It's not so good anymore. Games aren't even that exciting.

1:48:28They were probably made on cloud in about 45 minutes and now the crew will be playing them for the remainder of the show. It's our patriotic duty after all. Now let's go to clip 24 here. This is this is where the energy is going. All right. This is the you know, outflow section of the meme energy. It's not going to be centered around Trump anymore. It will be centered around young people who see Trump for what he is. See the system for what it is. Have the same impetus and basic feeling as Trump supporters did back in 2016 only nobody put their hope in and no trust for anybody that will offer themselves up. And in this way, I think Trump may have ruined everything forever. As I've said before, let's go to clip 24 here. A young person who knows what's going on. Let's watch. Is this person a traitor or a patriot picture Trump? He deceived the American people. He didn't hold up on his promises and he wants to give all of her money to Israel. It's not

1:49:31American. It's not America first. Now what I voted for, I don't believe in it. He's a traitor. He didn't follow up on his promises. He sucks. I was Republican. I'm now Democrat. No. I don't even know. I'm America first. I want to see money go to the American people in whatever shape or form. At L Spears at Florida speaks at FL speaks on Instagram there. It really is that simple. This is not a complicated new launched political stance here. It's like we want a president that doesn't sell us out. Please can we please have a president that doesn't on the Democrat side just openly despise our country. And on the Republican side, openly avow themselves to Israel over and over again. As they do, they just keep doing like they keep coming out with more and more statements. Mike Huckabee once again, you know, insisting that he tell us how wonderful Israel is. I know Alex covered it a little bit yesterday

1:50:33in terms of Mike Huckabee claiming all these things that were made by Israel. In fact, none of them were actually made by Israel. But they do want to lay claim to basically every technological advancement in recent history. Let's go to clip 48 here. Mike Huckabee says partnership with Israel is really good for us. I mean, really, we're playing them for suckers, guys. Do you believe that? Let's watch. I wish every American understood that our relationship with Israel. And let me call it a partnership because that's really what it is. It's unlike any we have with any other country in the world. Yeah. And it is to the advantage of every American whether they know what or not. I'll give you a few examples. If a person in America enjoys their cell phone, if they enjoy things like facial recognition to open up their iPhone, if they like car navigation, if a family member has been saved by something like a heart said, if they have ever used voice over internet protocol, boy, which all of us use when we make up WhatsApp call, if we've ever

1:51:35been able to enjoy the very fast chips in our microchips and our computers, whether it's an Apple computer, if it's made by Intel, Nvidia, then there's a real good chance that if it weren't for Israel, you wouldn't have those things. So the people who say, I hate Israel, I want nothing to do with it. Okay, fine. Give up car navigation. Give up your cell phone. Give up the thumb drive. Oh, and by the way, let's throw in give up Seatless Watermelon Cherry to mate as well. Well, what would we do without them? That's all that's all I'm going to say, but I mean they've invented other things too, haven't they? They invented the genocide. They invented genocide. I know I could go on about the other blessings of Israel that we've received. I think we understand, though. I think we understand where it's going.

1:52:40I mean, who do you have to thank for the fact that former governor, governor candidate can get kicked out of city council for daring to question somebody's allegiance to a foreign nation. I mean, that's an invention straight out of Israel, right? Anti-Semitism laws here in America, if you want to get rid of Israel, do you know that you're not going to be able to do in prison people for anti-Semitism after that? That's one of the primary inventions. I think we have to thank for them. James Fishback is a hero. I just obviously his run for governor of Florida was extremely forward thinking. You know, this type of thing, you don't I not like it, your kids are going to love it, right? Oh, look, wait a second. Wait, was my cuck be lying to us? Hold on, cell phones were invented by the US. Seedless watermelons were invented by Japan. Cherry tomatoes were invented in the Americas. Israel is just made commercial. Oh, they just sold it. Okay.

1:53:46USB flash, Israel, M system patent, 99 car nav, early Japan. Ways is Israel. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So most of those things weren't true, but you know, this is a tried and true propaganda lie, right? How many times during black history months do we have to hear that the stoplight was invented by black people? So if you don't like crashing your car, I guess you have to stop being racist now. Okay. I guess great. Can you stop killing children, please? You understand it's not some sort of misconception we have about Israel. If we we understand perfectly what they're up to, we don't like it. I don't care about seedless watermelons. Seems kind of unnatural actually. Telling me that these rallies deprived the watermelons of their ability to propagate naturally. That's interesting. What other GMO advancements have they blessed us with? I wonder. Praise to everything you mentioned, it was just not true.

1:54:51Sorry, back to James Fishback. So James Fishback, I like obviously didn't win the governorship and that's unfortunate sort of disappointing, but not totally unexpected, not completely out of the blue. Do you know James Fishback absolutely dominated on every single college campus? Every single county with the college campus went to James Fishback because it's the young people that recognize the impotence and won't really deception the lies behind the Republican Party and they refuse to vote for it. So just wait a few years and James Fishback will likely be in an even higher office than the governor of a state, but he's not stopping. He's not slowing down and he's doing. I suspect he's doing exactly what we should all be doing. I actually advised Josie, Red Headed Libertarian, she was telling me about the anti-Semitism laws in Florida, and I'm not giving any bilingual advice, but I was saying at

1:55:52the time you kind of have to violate these. These have to be put to the test. Because what happens is these laws come down. It's like it's illegal, it's anti-Semitism, it can be charged as a hate crime if you dare to suggest that people from Israel might be loyal to Israel. People's sort of adopt that. They just sort of go, okay, I won't say that or I'll say it in a work around way. I think the actual thing to do is to say it and then go, you need to arrest me so I can take this to court and challenge this on the First Amendment stance. I need to take this to the Supreme Court. These laws should not be able to stand and sort of longer there in place. The more precedent they're setting, the more accustomed people are going to become to these things. Being the law, I think we have to challenge this right now and I think that's exactly what James Fishback is doing. It's sort of the exact type of strategy that we need to be taking against people trying to destroy our freedoms,

1:56:52against the people trying to institute anti-Semitism laws. It's not necessarily playing dirty with them. It's not that you're doing anything dishonest, but what James Fishback did was he basically went up and he told the line, he went up about as far as you could maybe a bit over at the city council. He questioned whether the people in the city council are more loyal to the people of Florida or to the people of Israel who are getting all of their money. Then he was kicked out and then he immediately filed a lawsuit about getting kicked out. I think this is the exact right way to do this. I think you need to sort of force them to show themselves and then legally go after them. I think this is brilliant, this is opposed from Anthony Sabatini, I believe, who says this, today I filed a lawsuit on behalf of my client, James Fishback, against the Miami Dade County Commission. At a meeting of the Miami Dade County Commission, the chairman opened the floor for public comment on a resolution approving a $155 million bond financing transaction benefiting

1:57:58a local hospital. Plaintiff James Fishback used that opportunity to argue that the county's financial priority, priorities should favor Miami Dade residents and institutions. To explain that position, Fishback contrasted the local financing proposal with the board's decision that very same day, to expand investments in Israel, government, Israeli government bonds, asking whether the commissioners served the people of Miami or Jerusalem and insisting the public money should be invested here in this community. Although this was a coherent and sharply critical argument about local versus foreign financial priorities, chairman Anthony Rodriguez cut Fishback's microphone and caused his removal because he referenced and criticized the Israeli bond decision. First amendment permits enforcement of reasonable viewpoint neutral rules, governing time, decorum, and germanneness. It does not permit Miami Dade County to silence an otherwise germane speaker because they disapproved of the viewpoint from which he addressed the county bonds

1:58:59and financial policies. So he's now suing the Miami Dade Commission Chairman and federal court for violating the First Amendment. Citizens must be free to question how government uses our money. It could not be more clear of a legal argument and the implications are abundantly clear as well. If you're able to merely claim that some aspect of some government procedure falls in line with a preconceived notion about bias against Jews than you therefore can't question the government spending. So the government can spend money on Israel. You're just not allowed to question it. That's essentially what it comes down to. They can send hundreds of millions of your taxpayer dollars to a foreign state. And if you dare to question that action, question the propriety of that action, question the priorities that led to the foreign government getting half a billion dollars in funds from the Florida sovereign fund when they won't spare 155 for the local hospital.

2:00:00You're not allowed to question that. So there cannot be an America a category of question that you're not allowed to put to the government. It has to be one of the other either the government's not allowed to do certain things. So therefore you're not allowed to question it. Like if they weren't allowed to send money overseas, then nobody would ask questions about it. But they are allowed to send money overseas. So you are allowed to question it. That has to be the way that it works. You cannot have certain government actions being uncontestable, which is effectively what happens here. That is to impose a theocratic restriction on the American people. And we don't live in a Jewish theocracy as much as some people are dragging us towards that. Investor James Fishback sued Miami-Dade County Commission Chairman Anthony Rodriguez federal court for violating the First Amendment for illegally ordering deputies to remove fishback from Tuesday's commission meeting after fishback criticized the board's decision to move up to

2:01:02$450 million in taxpayer money to purchase Israeli government bonds. 38 states have formally adopted measures to define track or discourage anti-symmetism in the United States. Innocentic speech is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, meaning states cannot pass an outright ban on anti-smetic speech or beliefs. Instead, states combat anti-symmetism through two main types of legal frameworks, adopting a legal definition of anti-symmetism to help investigate hate crimes and discrimination. And by passing anti-BDS, that's anti-boycott divestment and sanction laws that prohibit the state government from doing business with companies that boycott Israel. And in the case of James Fishback, they weren't saying that he broke a law. They were saying that he broke a rule in addressing the committee. But as his lawyer notes, the rules that exist mean that you have to be talking about a subject or main to the conversation. You can't just fill a buster and get up and start talking about something totally off the wall. And that is how free speech should work. Like, right now, this is how sort of out of nowhere and in nonsensical free speeches. And maybe the crew can find this

2:02:07guy. I wasn't able to confirm it. But I read a headline that a court decided that AI-generated child pornography was legal. It was legal to have because it's the first amendment because you have free speech and who's the government to say? And it's like, it's the worst decision at work. Why would you make that decision? Why would you all you're doing is setting up decades. Yeah, federal judge rules that AI-generated child sex abuse material is protected under the First Amendment. Here's the thing. Let's just go going back to the basics. The point of the First Amendment was absolutely not to allow the most perverted and degenerate of society to make child pornography on the computer. Okay, that's not what the founding fathers had in mind. What they did have in mind explicitly was the ability to criticize religious institutions, to criticize the government, to question the government, to petition for redress of grievances, including the grievance of you sent all of our money to a foreign actor. That's the purpose of the First Amendment. You are not protecting anybody's

2:03:13rights by allowing them to create child pornography on a computer. If you don't allow that, it's not like, oh, now you won't have a political stance. The point of the First Amendment is for politics and religion and things that matter, important things that we need to be able to discuss so that we can be informed when we go to vote. But now, this is how whack it is. Apparently, the First Amendment does apply and does protect you when you are making child pornography. It does not protect you when you are making a precise criticism of a government policy. Does that make any sense to y'all? Is that why the First Amendment was written? Is that what this is supposed to be about? Today's announcement sends a clear message using AI to produce sexually explicit depictions of children is illegal. Okay, good. And the Justice Department will not hesitate to hold accountable those who possess produce or distribute AI-generated child sexual material. All right. So what the hell? But last week, Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 7th Court granted the defendant's motion to

2:04:15dismiss the charges. Yeah, that's not what this is for. And it's not even a matter of principle or what the First Amendment is about. It's like, just what is the precedent you're setting? So now what? Now, people can generate AI child pornography, but they can also have real child pornography. And now, you have to have some sort of system to determine what is real and what is fake. How are you going to do that? So now you can have people with real child pornography who can claim it's AI-generated, which is why set up what will amount to you? So like all this, so you have two options. One, you can just say, nope, it's not allowed. We're not carving out, you know, a section of the First Amendment to allow for this unjustifiable act. Just no, we're not doing that. And then from then on, anything even remotely closed, even it's like, well, it's debatable. It's like, no, it's not debatable. It's all, it's all wrong. It's all wrong. Oh, well, this is AI and this real, well, we treat them the same. So it doesn't matter. And you just from then on, it's just AI, CP is the same as real CP and it's easy. You're just handling it like you handle everything. And it would be no

2:05:17problem. But now, because there's apparently distinction, how many trials are going to be held to determine where the line is drawn, where how many trials or how many arrests are going to be made. They're going to have to be reversed because, oh, it's AI and we're going to have to go through the trial anyway and argue this over and over again. How about just no, just a blanket no about all of this. And then you don't have to ever talk about it again. We never have to have another discussion because we all understand that the First Amendment protects people like James Fishback at his city council. It doesn't protect you from violating the law virtually. What the hell are we doing here? The First Amendment exists for a reason and it ain't to protect the Jews. I just tweeted it out. You can follow me on acts that Harrison H. Smith and there's a new off-limits news episode, one hour dissertation on the plan for planetary theocracy, Noah Hyde laws and the third temple in the establishment of a one-world government, one-world religion, the building blocks of which

2:06:19are being laid out right now. And you can find it on YouTube on NXR Studios and just went live, but you know, wait till we're wait till we're done here. Okay, we got still a lot more stories to cover today here on War Room. But once we're done, please do hit the like button, hit the share button, hit the subscribe button, hit the hype button if you're on mobile. We really appreciate that and it really helps. And I, you know, maybe maybe we can get back on YouTube. I don't know, you know, I'll try to get back on YouTube and they asked that right away. But have we tried to do a War Room channel? Maybe we should because I really feel like it's valuable to be on YouTube. It's where a lot of people who wouldn't see us otherwise can get a chance to see us. So I really appreciate that off-limits news, at least is on YouTube where we get introduction to a wider audience because as you may know, our mission here at the Alex Jones Network, previously at Info Wars, was always about waking up the most number. We do not want to be preaching to the choir.

2:07:21We know a lot of you are more awake than a lot of us. We need to be appealing to normal people. We need to be trying to explain to normal people what's actually going on. Normal people, they can see what's happening. They can see the prices getting higher and the war going badly. We need to instruct them. We need to let them know that none of this is an accident. They're following a script. They're following a plan. The outcome is predetermined and they're simply shepherding us towards the jail cell and we can resist at any point. And their power is actually not that great. It's almost entirely imaginary. It's ethereal. It's persuasion and manipulation and intelligence withholding. It's an information war. And if you're not constantly trying to inspire and convert normies, then you're just wasting your time. So we need mass involvement in all of this. And of course, the easiest way for you to help us is to go to the Alex Jones store.com.

2:08:23Right now, we have a Labor Day blowout sale happening. 40 to 50% off site-wide. Through the weekend plus every order gets a free bottle of CMOS gummies no matter how much you order, but the more you order, the more you get folks order anything. You get a bottle of the CMOS gummies and incredible stuff. And just like the shillage it, we think that once you take these gummies, you're going to like them and you're going to want more when you're done with the bottle. We could send you just one or two gummies and you probably like them and maybe get them back. But now we're just sending you the whole bottle. It's like a month supply. Enjoy it on us. And when you're done and looking at the bottom of the bottle, wondering where you're going to get your next gummy fix, go to the Alex Jones store.com. And we appreciate it. So no matter what you order, you're getting the bottle of the CMOS gummies. Spend $99 or more. You get a free bottle of the beef tallow and free shipping on your order. Spend $125. You get a free hat. It's going to be one of our incredible designs, all of which are super awesome. But it's a mystery to you. But you will get a free hat plus the bottle of beef tallow plus the bottle of the CMOS gummies. If you spend $125,

2:09:28if you spend $249, you get a dagger. All right. You get a dagger, a hat, the beef tallow and the CMOS gummies. If you spend $250 at the Alex Jones store during our Labor Day blowout sale and folks, if you're a fan of the products of the Alex Jones store.com Labor Day is the time to stock up because you're getting 40 to 50% off everything, including our best selling supplements and a peril. That's 40% to 50% off every single item in the store, including the bovine colostrum, the methadone blue, the T3 atomic iodine, this sale ends Monday night. So do not wait, say 40 to 50% off site wide at the Alex Jones store.com plus the more you order, the more you get the free hat, the free dagger, free beef tallow, free shipping and the free CMOS gummies for the big spenders at the Alex Jones store.com. Go to the Alex Jones store.com slash Harrison to let them know who sent you. Now, this is a video that I wanted to play while Viva Fry was here, but I realized I hadn't grabbed it because I had just seen it right before the show went live, but it fits in perfectly with

2:10:30what Viva and I were talking about the, I keep wanting to say, and no pun intended, the insanity of the psychiatric system in America. The fact that when we show you the article, SSRIs are a mystery, even to the people who prescribed them. They have no idea how they work or what they do. They just don't. And I've got a bit of a problem with this. We've got a medical industry, a big aspect of our medical industry that seems totally arbitrary, totally arbitrary. This video basically proves it. It's a guy who went to multiple psychiatrists with a hidden camera on and he told them the exact same symptoms. All right. So this guy filming with these hidden cameras you're about to see said exactly the same thing to all of these different psychiatrists yet the results he got from each psychiatrist wildly different. Let's watch.

2:11:33Man visits every psychiatrist complaining of the same symptoms. The difference is that we're the rest. Do you have a brain chemistry disorder? Is polytomatic? You have a lot of the symptoms of depression. So it seems like it doesn't make spature. But that means it's like we got some, the different symptoms of some, you know, high symptoms. You're my pulverone, you give you the moves that you want. And we know I can't have the habit of this. Consider it low-grade by forward. You are more of the 18 patients, and as far as medication, it's better pressure because I would recommend that you start a medication which I'll close at. Zola, pancel, phthalic, phthalic, phthalm. Usually a focal point x-bar is pretty good. I'll give you some, I'll mix the brown one and some chrasin and whatnot. The mechial is a better medication for that. It works on your depression also. But the treatment for any five-holder cycling is the same. The lithium.

2:12:37Brown one is another one. The chrasin, the old. The chagridol. Good for good for block of change. The mix of brown. The make-fold. The equatorway. The equatorway. The lithium. The lithium. You may need an adiapresant also with a put-vidliorecto. We don't know if I give you a medication if it is going to work or not. Until a certain degree, it's trial and error. As trial and error, it's just, you know, your brain chemistry that we're tinkering with. So how is this even considered like a medical thing? I mean, if you go to four different psychiatrists and they give you four different prescriptions for different diagnoses, it seems like it's entirely arbitrary. I mean, what the hell? Of course, this is related to Lindsay Clancy. And you heard in there, it's like, you know, what we're going to prescribe you this and then we'll need to prescribe you this other thing because we prescribed you this thing. And that's

2:13:37usually how it works. And the crazy fact is those were all the first visits. Right? He visits a psychiatrist one time and he walks away with three or four prescriptions from every different psychiatrist and it's different every time. When you go to the ER with a broken arm, they know it's a broken arm and they put it in a cast. Right? I mean, if you test for a disease, they give you the medicine for that disease. But what is this? What is going on? It's literally just whatever the psychiatrist thinks might work and you try it out and it doesn't really work. Or maybe it does, but you don't know why. I think it's a giant, I think the whole thing is a giant scam that we would be better off without entirely. It would be amazing. And the thing is like, everybody knows this is the case, right? It's like, this is a surprise to anybody. It would be unbelievable if you went to every,

2:14:42you know, a bunch of different psychiatrists said the same thing and they all gave you the same diagnosis. That would actually be incredible. Wouldn't that be so? That would prove that it was legit at least if you go to a psychiatrist and you say, I this symptom, this symptom, this symptom, and they say your bipolar, your medicine is lithium. And you go to the next one and it's your bipolar, your medicine is lithium. Then you could go, okay, there's a consistency here. There's clearly a rubric that's being followed. There's a guidelines that are being adhered to. But in this case, that's sort of whatever, you know? 50 years ago, many psychiatric hospitals closed. Did that cause today's mental health crisis? It probably didn't help. Probably didn't help. Just insane. We're going to go back to the first amendment here in just a second since it's, we really got it. We really got to insist on people understanding the first minute. People do not understand it, which means it's applied retardedly. Tardedly? That's a word. Before we do that,

2:15:48I want to go to a couple videos here. The first is a video that Spencer Pratt posted, but it's Ryan Reynolds talking about the 80s, the 1980s. And this goes right in line with what we talk about over and over whether it's, it's my meme. Where is it? I told you I had to have this meme laminated because I'm going to reference it so many times. Somebody get rid of my meme. Where's my meme? Somebody stole my meme. There's a meme thief around here somewhere. But obviously it's about demonizing the past. There it is. We'll have a digital if not physical. You have to demonize the past. We have to believe everything was worse before. If you understood that things were better before, you might start asking questions about what went wrong. And if you start asking questions about what went wrong, you might look at liberalism and socialism. You might look at tolerance and the civil rights movement. You might look at everything that's changed between now and then and you might want

2:16:49to reverse those things. And God forbid we reverse the things that made society worse. God forbid we identify and correct the problems that were being subjected to now. So you have to believe that it's it's almost doubly sinister because not only are you saying the past was evil and bad and wrong, but it's like the fact that it doesn't seem that way. How do I explain this? It's like when I look at the 1950s, I go, what a pleasant and lovely time period. Look everybody's nicely dressed and respectable and safe and it looks like fun to raise a family there. Because that's what it was like and I'm looking at video of it. But if I've convinced myself that actually everything was not just as bad but worse back then than it is now, then suddenly that that shiny, nice, happy appearance is actually sinister. It's actually because they're hiding. It's not just that they're

2:17:54as bad or worse than us. They're as bad and worse than us and dishonest. So yeah, okay, things aren't good now, but at least we're honest about it. We're just we're just more upfront about how bad things are back then. It was worse, but they were liars. You see what I mean? That it's like doubly sinister. Not only you demonizing a past that never actually existed, but now you're saying that the people that live back then were all just pretending they're all just putting on an act. They're deceptive and dishonest on top of being miserable and angry. So you have to paint the past as bad. You have to paint all of the beautiful footage from those days as somehow sinister because they're tricking you into thinking how good it was and really just under the surface. It was worse than it is today. Nope, it was better. It was actually better. And it turns out when you constantly insist on bringing up and in fact celebrating the worst of your society, you don't actually make it better. It's not just like, oh, but we're at least

2:18:57we're honest about our desires. No, actually those desires should be kept to yourself in suppressed. Actually, that actually is the most healthy thing to do with some of these desires. Okay, we're getting it. I understand it. But it's not just the 50s or the 40s or the time before the civil rights movement that people are desperate to tear down and destroy. It's all the way to the 1980s now. I've referenced it before. I got to find the clip from the Norman Rockwell documentary because it's so shocking because these things break into mainstream stuff. Of course, you'll see lefties demonizing the 1950s and lying about it and claiming it was all terrible. Like, I'm watching a documentary about Norman Rockwell. That's celebrating it. I mean, it's about him. It's like celebrating him. It's like a PBS documentary. And yet it goes out of its way to try to explain that Norman Rockwell, the paintings he painted, didn't depict a real world. That didn't exist. Okay, these were fantasies of his. All right. This wasn't the 1950s. It didn't

2:19:57look like this. And then like the next scene, they're showing archival footage. It looks like a freaking Norman Rockwell painting. And they're going, you know, this never had, you know, he painted an idealized version of America that never existed. The people yearned for, but it was a fantasy. And they're like, but you know, his paintings were based on photographs of real life. What? How does that, how does that work exactly? And here's footage of the people that are, like, in Norman Rockwell paintings, they're all real people. You would get people from a small town to model sometimes, like the famous one I was just looking at. Actually, there's a really cool story behind it. It's the marriage license. Guys, pull up the marriage license by Norman Rockwell because it was a photograph that he modeled and had, you know, had people stand up and he took a photograph of it and then painted it. But in the painting, the man and the woman were either just about to be married, like they were in real life, fiance. I think that's the case, or they

2:21:02just got married. Yeah, so here's the painting. You see the young woman in her high heels, standing up on her tiptoes to sign the marriage license, the husband's hand, protectively around her. And then you have the clerk of the marriage license office sitting kind of shrouded a little bit in shadow. Well, that couple was a real couple who really was getting married and had to sign for their marriage license. And the man sitting there is a real man who had in real life just lost his wife of 30 something years. So is this real? Is it real? I mean, it was staged. You know, he had to actually had the people go and, you know, stand there so he could frame them up and take a picture and then paint it. But the people were real. The situation was real. The new love was real. The grieving man was real. It was real. It was all real. But even in the PBS documentary, they go out of their way to try to tell you what wasn't real. Because that's how desperate they are to demonize

2:22:02the past because they want to demonize the morality that built the past. And like I said, it doesn't go all the way back to the 50s. Even the 1980s now are to be questioned and demonized and described in the worst possible way. Ryan Reynolds is an idiot. Let's go to 26 here. Spencer Pratt posted this and then we'll go to his response after. But first, the offending video. Let's watch. What's interesting about when you get far enough away from time period, that's quite distinct. I think there's always a lovely feeling associated. It's almost like you pave over all the trauma with like puppy dogs and ice cream. And the 80s was a brutal, brutal time for people. It was like, people forget that it was like, that was a tremendous stripe. Social political tensions everywhere. We're still pretty fresh off a Cuban missile crisis, which is only like 15, 20 years before. So it's a tumultuous period. But you look back at it now and you're like, oh yeah, top gun. Oh, gain. No, it was a really scary. So I think when you look back at 20, 26 in this era,

2:23:09I think you're gonna like pick on the big ticket items that don't really, didn't really leave the footprint culturally that you would think it would. Like, I don't know so much of the odds were like a mix of all the decades previous. Whereas the decades previous, were their own thing. So I don't know. I wonder what it's gonna be. It's gonna be like the, oh, the COVID era or something. I have no idea. No, you're probably right. It'll be Rose color glasses. Of course, this we are living in the friggin' salad days right now. We just don't know it. The hijacking of the maternal instinct didn't start with social media. It goes way back to 1995 when she watched Dead Man walking as a teenager. When that film planted a sea that bile criminals deserve her heartfelt tears. Don't execute this man. You can stop this from having inserted. Then Dexter injected it with steroids. This is the prolonged conditioning that accelerated with the ascendance of the bironic hero. We got so cute with finding redeeming qualities and irredeemable villains. Gone are the days of the true bad guy. Now the cinematic Vanguard is in love of finding the humanity in the bad guy telling the sympathetic origin story. Our parents had

2:24:12superheroes. We have anti-heroes. I'm right. Breaking bad was so brilliant, but it made us cheer on a narcissistic, murderous, criminal drug kingpin who destroyed his family over money. When Tim Burn did Batman, the Joker was a lunatic. But now that Joker gets his own movie where he is the hero and the climax of the film is him murdering the orderlies at the asylum. The arts dog walked us here over decades with films and television that inverted the paradigm of normal virtue. Cops are the bad guys. Outlaws are the heroes and manned you see that manifesting in reality today. Spencer Pratt saying it makes perfect sense that Ryan Reynolds' view of the 80s is the inverse of what normal people think in 80s movies. Bad guys were villains. Today the bad guys are the heroes. Hollywood now bends over backward to redeem wickedness and mental illness. And I think he's just wrong. I think he's just wrong. I think the reason why we look at the past through rose colored glasses is because they were genuinely better. I mean that's what the stats say.

2:25:14You look at happiness over time. That's collapsing. You look at the outcome of happiness being marriage and kids and the ability to believe in things and dream of great things and actually accomplish stuff. All of that, all of the negative is depressing. It's just like it just crushes you. So you can look at all the stats and see that we have been in a very clear state of decline for a very long time. So when we look back in the past we're looking uphill. We're looking at what used to be better because things have gotten worse. Okay. So when Ryan Reynolds said he thinks we're going to look back at this time with rose colored glasses. He understands us not true. This literally is going to be considered the COVID period. And hopefully in the future people realize that this was a period of absurdity and stupidity and madness. See, I have a belief that we're going to progress into the future to the sunny uplands to a better place. I think we're going to convince

2:26:20everybody around us that everything that's happening that's bad is not an accident. It's on purpose precisely because our leadership believes like Ryan Reynolds does that somehow things are getting better when they're driving us off the cliff. Ryan Reynolds, he just sort of assumes that everything is going to get worse. He believes that we're going to look back at 2026 and say, wow, what an amazing time that was because I think internally he understands like it's not going to get better. He can't imagine a time period where in 2040 people are looking back and going, wow, 2026 sucked. That was terrible. I'm so glad that we got out of that and are no longer like that and aren't living in that world. You know, probably the way that people in the 60s felt looking back at the 30s because things were still on an upswing at that point. So when they looked around and they're you know, clean and bright surroundings, they went, wow, this is so much better than the dark and dingy 30s. I remember, remember the Great Depression? That was terrible and now things are

2:27:20better because we're going in the right direction. It's like this is a just fact of human nature that people always look back at the past and see it as better than the current day. When things were progressing in the right direction, people felt it and understood it and looked forward to the future. That's why you had optimistic, futuristic cartoons like the Jetsons, right? You don't have much of that these days because everybody, whether they acknowledge it or not, subconsciously recognizes we're going in the wrong direction. There's no, you know, future, I'm just like I'm blown away by the videos that we're watching. This is what America used to be like. It said, nae, i, we didn't invent this. These are real home videos of real people in real locations. This is what their life was like and the left tards want you to look at this and think that oh, all these poor little boys would just want to wear dresses and are just aren't being allowed to. Oh, all these,

2:28:21all these, you know, poor little kids, just they're desperate to go be in pornography and just the oppressive evil Christians wouldn't let them. All the women here are just miserable. They're all just slaves of their husband. They're all desperate to be freed by feminism. And just imagine the type of mind that sees the images you're seeing on screen and feels a sense of hate, feels a sense of outrage. They're bad people, lefties, they're all bad people. I think, I think in a lot of ways they do what they do understand what's going on and they're in favor of it because they're bad people. But it's all their entire mind says, it's just dictated by lies. So, so what are you going to do about it? Well, we're going to re, we're going to recreate the past, not technologically, but morally and in character. We're going to take all those values that once built an incredible and happy place and we're going to force those into the modern world whether you like it or not. So,

2:29:25I believe that our best days are ahead of us. I just think we got to get people like Ryan Reynolds out of the way. These idiot lib tards who try to justify America's collapse by claiming it never happened by claiming we're actually better now than we were despite all the evidence of your eyes and statistics and just basic reality. They want you to believe that we're improving things as everything collapses around you. Oh, the dirt all over the place, the hobos and the criminals stab each other with machetes. That's just progress, baby. That's just that's freedom manifest. If you want to go back, what do you want to enslave black people again? How dare you say we go back to a previous time period? We're a progressive society. Hey, we're off Monday. We'll see you Tuesday, folks.