Ron Paul thinks that basically all of the media is influenced by government spending that's channeled through this and that so it gets there. Well maybe.

Brian Stelter called the claim that Politico is receiving government subsidies "quote rampant right-wing misinformation." Well technically he's correct. Here's what he didn't say but the parent company of Politico is making millions of dollars and it doesn't seem like that number could be supported by the fact that people like subscriptions to your pro service. That would be the better frame.

All right, if you're getting lost in all this stuff because the DOGE thing is getting complicated, I would recommend that you listen to the explainers. One difference from 2016 till now is that the right-leaning part of the world has developed these incredible explainers. People who simply know enough that they can tell you what's really happening that's different from what the news is telling you. So some of them of course Mike Benz is the tip of the spear on this particular topic. But I would listen to Mike Cernovich who digs into it deeper than most and explains it better. Glenn Greenwald, Bret Weinstein. And look at podcasts not the news. The podcasts are where you get closest to the truth in this case. And the good explainers are the ones that can help you. So the bad explainers aren't going to give you anything. You got to listen to the good explainers that I just listed.

So here's an example. Bret Weinstein on Joe Rogan. I'm going to read the whole thing. I just like the way he said it. He said quote "As I was watching the confirmation hearings my sense was that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were dinosaurs who do not understand that the Earth has just been hit from outer space and that they don't live in the world that they're used to. That their corruption was immediately apparent and they're not used to that. They're used to having a whole phony journalistic layer that covers for them and that layer is gone. And the American public is awake and they're angry and rightfully so." And now look at Bernie Sanders and you see the same guy going after Bobby Kennedy like dude I just went through COVID. I see Bernie Sanders and I see him reading from a script that is no longer relevant to the movie that we're watching.

That's a good description. Yes, if you look at the politicians that are prairie dogging, the ones who've decided that they're going to be really noisy about USAID being cut and about the DOGE, those are all the corrupt ones. By accident. This wasn't what anybody was trying to do but by accident by poking the right part of the government it revealed all of the turds. Everybody who is corrupt in my opinion, this is just an opinion, they're the ones that are the loudest. If you see Jamie Raskin and Schumer and Warren and Sanders and you know Adam Schiff, those are all the designated liars. They're the ones who specifically come out when they're selling. They don't bring them out when the truth can handle itself. If the problem is the truth then the news can handle it. The news will just say fact check, this is true. But when the news can't handle it because it's such a big lie that even the news can't go there, they bring out the same cast of characters. Yeah, and Letitia James is obviously part of the corruption. She's the lawfare queen. So that's the world we're living in.

So this is from Mike Cernovich who was on Jesse Kelly's show and he said that USAID funds diversity. The money hits a nonprofit so diversity. Everybody loves that right? So you fund the diversity so that you've got a cover. And then the money hits the nonprofit that's going to do something for diversity and some lib in DC pays herself or himself half a million dollars. Power couples are pulling in millions of dollars per year stealing from you. I believe that is a perfect explanation of some large part of what's happening. That Democrats have figured out wait a minute if 98% of the people in USAID are Democrats and I'm a Democrat and they've got all this money and they give it out to all kinds of sketchy people all the time for sketchy reasons, all I need is to say I'm going to do something that sounds important like fix diversity. Then what are they going to do? If you're USAID and somebody says I'm going to work on diversity, don't you say oh yeah good good let's do that.

So it basically turns out a lot of this is I think literally just a scam. It's hard to know because there might be some legitimate ones that got in the mix but it does look like mostly it's designed as a scam. At least that's the way it operates. It's a de facto criminal enterprise. De facto might not actually be illegal.

Marco Rubio now ahead of a State Department where USAID got rolled in. So after it got gutted what's left of it got rolled under the State Department. So Rubio is in charge of that and he's going to reduce the staff of USAID from about 10,000 to 294 which is probably about 200 people too many but you know I'll take what I can get.

So this is very Musk-like. It just feels like a lot of what he did with Twitter. You know your common sense which wouldn't work in this case told you okay Twitter might have 20% more people than they need. Nope they had 90% more people than they needed. Well probably maybe 80 or 75% and that was the right number because X has apparently turned cash positive. Can you believe that? I think that's true. I'll take a fact check on that but I saw this morning just in passing somebody said that X is now beyond break even, that they're cash positive. Is that still true? I hope so.

Anyway, so Mike Benz is now being attacked by the same media that may be benefiting from these corrupt payments from USAID and similar NGOs. So would you be surprised to know that the Washington Post not only went after that DOGE guy but he already did a hit piece on Mike Benz and he says that a whole bunch of the media has contacted him asking him to comment because they're also working on hit pieces apparently.

It took him a while. Were you all wondering why hasn't Mike Benz been taken out by the deep state yet? I hate to say it but I've been wondering that for a long time. And the only thing I could think of is that he had not penetrated the bubble yet. Meaning that as long as they had a good bubble so that nobody in their base ever heard any Mike Benz argument. And by the way I tested this with my smartest Democrat friend a while back. I said all right just do me a favor just listen to one person. Just listen to Mike Benz. Figure out what he's saying about things and then you'll finally maybe catch up to a big part of what the political right knows. And my friend looked at one of his videos, dismissed it as I don't know a troll or something and would never look at another one. So that's probably what happened with any other Democrat who tried looking at it. The Mike Benz view of reality is so disturbing that if you're not already leaning in that direction it'll just make your head explode and your brain won't be able to process how completely wrong your impression of the world you live in has been.

Here's the most provocative thing that Benz said just on a podcast I think yesterday. He said there's no such thing as domestic policy. Just listen to that. There's no such thing as domestic policy. Everything that you think is domestic policy is fake. Meaning that is designed to control other countries or to control our own country to keep a populist scent of office. Now when I heard that my first thought was well that's not true because you know what about our emphasis on the government has on DEI? You know before Trump. And now we know that DEI is what we introduced to a country we're trying to destabilize. Because if you can get them to really be mad about racial division which is what DEI gets you, you can weaponize them and put them on the streets and have them rebel against their government.

But what about climate change? I mean that's obviously domestic policy. We want to save our lives and make sure we're doing the right thing, right? Well except that one of the ways you destabilize another country is to inject climate change into that other country. Say it's the most important thing and if the leaders aren't working on it well they got to be replaced. And so it goes that everything you think was a domestic policy is really a way to make sure that populists like Trump don't get power because the populist will rip into all that stuff.

What about trans rights? Were you all confused about why trans rights suddenly became the only thing we were talking about for a long time? Like how is that even possible? Like even if you agree or disagree with any of the topics on the trans stuff, nobody thought it should have been the top national talking point. That can't be natural. Do you know what we do when we try to destabilize other countries? We fund pro-trans things in those countries because the trans people can get the LGBTQs on board and suddenly they all hate their leadership. Now doesn't this sound exactly like what's happening in this country? It does.

So let's talk more about that. So I spent some time this morning so that you didn't need to on Grok. So Grok is the AI I used and I said to myself I want to use the most unbiased one because I'm going to ask some questions that I know will be censored on the other ones. So this is what Grok said.

So the first thing I asked it was about this Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. I'll bet most of you have heard of that, right? It's something that Democrats have no idea about. So the Smith-Mundt Act allowed the CIA or whatever it was at the time to do propaganda broadcasts in other countries so we could literally try to brainwash other countries. But it was very carefully walled so they couldn't do that in America.

Now the conservative story or the MAGA story is that when Obama came in office he changed the part about being able to do it domestically. So the very purpose of it, and nobody argues that this is the purpose. So both sides would agree this is the purpose. The purpose of sending media to other countries is to control their minds. It's brainwashing. It's propaganda. And nobody argues that. So that part nobody argues because we're okay propagandizing other countries. You know they do it to us, we do it to them. But the MAGA people would say yes but that all stopped. That all stopped when Obama said you can also use that same material that was used to propagandize other countries. You can now use it internally.

So I asked Grok if that's true and he said no that's not true. Here's what Grok says. The only change that was made was that if you wanted to get some of that external propaganda for research, just for research, you could request it and it would not be denied you. That's what Grok says. Grok is I think the least censored AI. Grok says that nothing like that happened. There was no authorization for the CIA to brainwash Americans. That didn't happen. The only thing they did was this little technical change that allowed somebody to request something if they want to do some research. Do you believe that? I don't know. I'm going to say I don't know. I don't think that the Smith-Mundt Act is terribly important to what we're seeing today. In other words you could see everything we're seeing whether or not the Smith-Mundt Act did or did not do anything. So I think maybe it's just a distraction. Not an intentional distraction but rather a distraction to spend much time thinking about it. Because we could argue all day whether that act has any difference but we could also just look at the difference. We could just look at what people are doing and that's probably all you need.

So the CIA specifically would be not allowed to use that stuff. But what about an NGO? Do you think an NGO, a non-government organization that gets funded by the government, do you think it could look at some of the propaganda and then repurpose it for the United States? Because I don't think anything says that a non-CIA entity can't do it. Do you think the CIA could ask somebody else to do it for them? Do you think they could talk to the Washington Post? I'll just use them as an example. It's not an accusation, just an example. Could the CIA say hey you know I'm having lunch with a journalist and you know there's this interesting story happening over in Europe right now and might be some application in the United States. Maybe the US market would like this story too. And then it's not really the CIA that's using it to propagandize. They're just, it's just lunch. It's just a conversation. It's just lunch.

So if you have lunch with your favorite journalist and you happen to know about a story that's kind of big in another country, maybe they'd be interested in looking at that story and how it plays out in this country. So I think if we're looking at the technical language of the law and this Smith-Mundt Act and what it does do and what it doesn't do and how it was revised, probably we're just going down the rabbit hole for no reason. Because you don't even need to be in that hole. Everything that you care about, know about, everything that matters, it can all be deduced without any reference to the Smith-Mundt Act. Because the one thing we can all be sure of is that any entity in the United States could get around that without any effort. It basically has no teeth because there's nothing that would stop me from let's say looking at some media in another country and saying oh I think I'll say that on social media because that looked good to me. That's not illegal. I could do it. I'm just a citizen. I just saw some stuff and I thought it'd be a good story. So it couldn't possibly be true that Smith-Mundt either caused anything or prevented anything. It would be far more reasonable to say it doesn't do anything. It's like you can forget that whole story. You know from the MAGA perspective it kind of gave some meat to a belief but you don't need it. You got plenty.

All right, so that's the first thing I found.

Now also you might know that Operation Mockingbird was the CIA literally in the 50s and 60s. They had favored news entities and journalists that they influenced including the Washington Post and the New York Times. Well they were implicated. So Grok doesn't say they were guilty. Grok says they were implicated. All right, so and it remains to be seen according to Grok whether they were really guilty of that. But I think most of us believe that Operation Mockingbird was real. And so that means in my lifetime, in my lifetime in the 60s, the CIA was managing our news. And they don't have to manage every news entity because if you get the Washington Post and the New York Times everybody else just follows them. They're called the newsmakers. Meaning that until it's in one of those entities, at least in the 60s, it wasn't really news. So if a local newspaper had a big story nobody cared. Didn't go anywhere. It has to be in the New York Times or the Washington Post in those days. That was before you know internet.

So allegedly there was this Church Committee in the 70s that exposed this evil and then it was ended. Do you think it was ended because it became illegal? Let's go back to lunch shall we? Hey favorite journalist who works for the Washington Post, would you like to have lunch? I work for the CIA and I know lots of things that maybe off the record you'd like to know too. All right well it's just lunch so let's have lunch. All right here's a scoop. Let me tell you this scoop. And they give him a real scoop and the journalist says wow that was worth it. I'm glad I went to lunch with that guy. And then maybe later he needs some context on the story and he contacts that CIA guy and says hey you know I'm doing a story on this. Do you have any context? And CIA guy adds it, makes his story better. Journalist is now killing it. He's got two great stories thanks to the CIA contact. And then there's another lunch. The CIA contact says you know what, God this terrible Trump guy. Wow yeah I don't know what the world's going to do with this Trump Trump Trump guy trying to break all of our democracy and doing racist things. You know what's your newspaper doing about Trump? Well I don't know. I mean I haven't, I don't have any stories about that. You know you really should think about it because it really is the biggest story in my opinion. I mean I'm not telling you any CIA stuff and of course the CIA can't tell you to do it but wow it's the biggest story. How are you missing that? And the next thing you know the journalist does not believe that they have been influenced by the CIA. They just think they have a good idea for a story.

Now this is just an example of course but if you think that the law or any kind of law like the Church Committee or whatever they found and whatever law changed, if you think the law can prevent somebody from having lunch, what world do you live in? All they need is a conversation. You don't think that the CIA is trained in how to manipulate somebody into doing what they want? That's exactly what they're trained to do. Not just in America but to anybody. If you sit down with somebody who's trained to persuade you, you're going to leave that meeting a little bit persuaded. So you don't really need to do anything illegal. It's just lunch. Just lunch.

Okay that's bad.

All right, so I would ignore the fact that there were any legal changes about what the CIA can or cannot do. Sometimes it's the CIA, sometimes it's the State Department, sometimes it's the Pentagon. So when I say the CIA did this or that what I mean is any of those entities because they're sort of joined at the hip for a lot of stuff.

So let me tell you what the MAGA belief is and then we'll see how it connected to reality. So the MAGA belief is that the CIA developed a bunch of tools allegedly for influencing other countries but they ended up turning those tools on the populist movement of Trump. Because stopping populists in other countries was mainly what they did. And stopping a Trump populist movement was apparently some say allegedly what they did next.

Now we know that there was some effort to censor Americans by controlling foreign entities. So if a foreign fake fact checker kept saying that X or something was fake, well then the European countries could say well according to our fake fact checker that's paid by USAID just as an example, I don't know if they are, according to the fake fact checkers this one Elon Musk owned platform is just full of lies and Nazis so I guess we can just ban it which would put X out of business. So we do know that our own government intentionally, not by accident, got a whole bunch of fake entities in other countries that we funded to do things that we couldn't do legally in this country. So it might have been technically legal but certainly a violation of everything we care about constitutionally. So we know that's true.

So here are the things we know are true. The things we know are true are that our own government has done a bunch of color revolutions in other countries. Now if you don't know what a color revolution is it's because a lot of these coups that are usually instigated by America, they often have a color associated with them. Not always. Sometimes there'll be some other label. But let me just give you an example of some color revolutions.

Now let me tell you that the way they do the color revolution is they first do capacity building. This is also Mike Benz's narrative. The capacity building means we bribe or somehow get control of various things within the country we're targeting. So if we could bribe or control their media or any part of it that'd be a big part of it. If we can control union heads they could tell the unions what to do that'd be a big part of it. If we can control the universities so we're educating the young people to be against their own government and for us. And you would try to control minority groups because they're the ones most likely to say hey the government's not serving us we better overthrow it.

So if you saw USAID going into a country and even if they said oh we're going to help you with your terrible problems, it is verified that in a number of cases, some would say not 100%, Mike Benz might say 100%, but that the CIA rides on the charity to get into the country and then do its CIA thing. And that all of the charities are basically cover for that activity because we don't do anything for another country unless it has a domestic purpose. And the domestic purpose is controlling other countries. So that's the claim.

So this is the narrative on the right. So if somebody were running a color revolution in the United States we know what to look for and I'll tell you that in a minute. But here are some of the examples. In 2000 Serbia had a bulldozer revolution. So they didn't have a color yet. The colors came later. There was a rose revolution in Georgia 2003. There was an orange revolution in Ukraine in 2004. There was a tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan 2005. Cedar revolution in Lebanon 2005. Jeans revolution Belarus 2006. Saffron revolution Myanmar 2007. Green movement Iran 2009. Velvet revolution Armenia 2018. Some say that Euromaidan which is also Ukraine that came later, the Arab Spring in Hong Kong protest and Belarus protest are sometimes also labeled as color revolutions. That's according to Grok.

So this comes from Grok. Now did you know how many there were? That's kind of a lot. And I think this is not a complete list. I think maybe it's just the bigger countries we're all we've all heard of.

So here are the things we know for sure. There have been decades in which the CIA controlled Americans by brainwashing us through the media. That's not questioned by anybody left right. We all agree on that. Some say has stopped happening but they are morons. They are morons. There's no way to stop that from happening domestically. There's no way. You know when I watch a movie like Top Gun it's all rah Americans are good at flying planes. I don't think that happens by itself. You know I think they maybe Tom Cruise makes amazing movies and he has the power to do any movie he wants and that was an obvious sequel but I know, do you think that's totally without any influence by our government? I don't know. I have no evidence that it is but it's exactly what they do so I don't know.

Well now let's go to 2016. Tie it all together. Trump wins unexpectedly. How did Trump win unexpectedly? Because the bad guys failed to believe it was true. There was such a thing as shy Trump supporters. That's right. The smartest people in our government, you know the spooks and the spies and the FBI and all the smart politicians, they all believed it wasn't real when people like me were saying you know what's coming, right? You know that you've made it impossible to say out loud who you support and you know it's so you can't even tell your spouse and you know it's so bad that if a pollster calls and you do support Trump you're not going to take the call. You know it's so bad you might be lying to your own spouse about who you support. Now that's what they missed. Now I didn't miss it. I was saying it almost every day. Almost every day I said you gotta watch out for shy Trump supporters. It's way bigger than you think. And there's a logical obvious reason for it because you've made it impossible to go public with your beliefs. And so sure enough Trump wins unexpectedly.

And then what do you think happened? So one of the tricks that the color revolutions use is to say that Russia or somebody else is behind who is in office now. So you can get a revolution going if you can say oh the current leader is a Russian puppet. See where this is going? What was the main attack on Trump? Literally that he was a Russian puppet. This is textbook. This is guaranteed every time. If America tries to overthrow a populist the first thing they say is that's not a populist that's a Russian puppet. And watch how hard they've pushed on the Russian puppet thing. And now as I was saying the prairie dogs, the people who have exposed themselves as being part of the corrupt machine, they were the ones pushing it. Hillary Clinton to this day is pushing the Russia puppet thing about Trump. It's not an accident. If all they wanted to do was say there's bad things about Trump you would just say a million different things. But the fact that they converged on a whole made up Russia puppet thing, that's textbook 100% indication that they turned their external tools internally. It's not proof but it would be the biggest coincidence in the world. Especially since it wasn't true. If it were true then you just say well it was just true but they made it up and we know that they made it up.

And then let's see what about the capacity building. If we were doing capacity building in other places we would fund things like universities. Huh look at our universities full of leftist anti-populist. Look at our media. Huh the media seems completely controlled just like we would do to another country if we wanted to take it over. How about racial groups? Oh Black Lives Matter. Well suddenly we can make a story out of this George Floyd thing that if it had been based on the facts would have been no story at all. But if you control the media you can turn the George Floyd story into a story about rampant racial problems in the country. That's exactly what we would do to another country. How about Antifa? And by the way BLM was funded by USAID. Did you know that? What about Antifa? Well I don't know where they came from but they disappeared as soon as Trump was out of office. And given that they're supposed to be anarchists they should be just as mad at Biden as they would have been at Trump. They're anarchists. Are you telling me the anarchists like Democrats? Oh that's Joe Biden yeah that's fine but you're an anarchist. Yeah yeah but only when Trump's in office, right? None of this ever made sense. It's obviously external.

What about the Charlottesville op? To me I think it's so obvious that the Charlottesville thing was a government op. It's exactly what you would do exactly what you do to overthrow another country. You would have some kind of event that showed the racial minorities that they better act because they're in trouble. You better act. You better get to the streets. You better vote. Well that looks suspiciously right on point, doesn't it?

Now what about district attorneys? Is there any history in which we tried to control the district attorneys in another country for the benefit of overthrowing the government? Have you heard of Joe Biden and his trip to Ukraine in which he said if you don't get rid of that prosecutor you can't have money from, was it from USAID? Somebody said it was but I don't know if that's true. So we watched the first thing Biden had to do is get rid of the prosecutor and get one in there that he liked. What did the Democrats and USAID and George Soros fund? They funded friendly DAs and attorney generals so that they can control prosecutions against who they wanted to prosecute. And then they engaged them and then they went after Trump. All the lawfare is the same thing we would do in another country to control their government. We would do the same thing. We would just find some fake reason that the DAs and the law has to go after them and they would be our people. The law would be basically bribed by us so that looks like exactly what's happening. Letitia James is still yelling she's going to be suing Trump and trying to put him in jail. She's still saying it.

The other thing you'd want to do is if you were taking over another country you'd want to weaponize their Department of Justice like I just said. But also if they had an FBI or something like that you'd want to control them too. These are all the things that happened to us.

Now is it a coincidence that the precise exact tools that are used in other countries and there's a long list of times we've used them and they're well established tools. Nobody's doubting that those are the tools. And also nobody would doubt what I just described. There was a Russia collusion hoax. There was our universities, media, Black Lives Matter, Antifa are clearly fake. I say the Charlottesville thing was fake because it never happened again. I mean that's your ultimate signal. If that had been real even after they all got in trouble there would have been some second wave, third wave even if it were smaller. But no it just disappeared. Okay it was never real. The racists were real but obviously was organized by some dark entity that was trying to mess with the United States.

So that's what we got going. And of course we know that in the United States DEI and climate change and trans rights became our big weapons to use against who? Oh it just turns out that all of those things can be used against the populist. Huh, coincidence right? That the things that you said to yourself why are these the top story they shouldn't be the top story even if you think they're important it's all fake.

So when Mike Benz says there's no such thing as domestic policy does that make sense now? Even getting rid of Trump is for the benefit of our international policy. And the things that they use to get rid of them that you think are domestic policy are only to get rid of them. Now there of course there are people who agree with all these policies but that's not why they're the big thing. The reason anything becomes a big thing is because somebody behind the curtain's pushing it. It doesn't become a big thing on its own.

All right, so did I already talk about Thomas Massie who says that USAID is gutted but I can't tell if I thought about talking about it or I did. So Thomas Massie was saying that the omnibus might just put USAID all back together. I think I told you that but yeah so that might happen. So we have a self-healing criminal system.

There's also something called DRL according to American Thinker. John Kski is writing about this. Here's what that is. Something that started under Carter. DRL and it's a has some human rights agenda and foreign policy and it's a practically independent element of American foreign policy. So the thinking is that that's just another one of these you know USAID things like USAID but different entity.

In other news Iran has unveiled its first drone carrier. So it's like an aircraft carrier except for drones only and it's already launched. So apparently Iran will now have the power to project drone swarms wherever they want. I'd like to make a prediction about the fate of their new craft. I'm going to give it 6 months before a catastrophic mechanical problem causes it to blow up in port. Just a guess. I think it might have a terrible mechanical problem that hey if they'd done a better job of building it it wouldn't have happened but sadly probably because they're bad at engineering they're going to make a carrier that just explodes on its own. Really? And we weren't even anywhere near it so don't look at us. It just exploded on its own. It's very bad. Very bad luck.

But Trump is calling for in terms of Iran he wants a verified nuclear peace agreement and he's sort of talking like a president in a good way. He said I would much prefer a verified nuclear peace agreement which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper. I like how Trump always says don't you want to prosper? You know that's his go-to for every adversarial country. How about we just stop fighting each other and you just make a bunch of money? How about that? Because it's a pretty appealing concept to at least the public if not the leaders.

He said we don't want to be tough on Iran. We don't want to be tough on anybody. But they just can't have a nuclear bomb. Now I love the clarity of that. I love the clarity. You're not going to have a nuclear weapon. When Israel says it you know they mean it as well but you wonder if the United States might prevent them from doi