Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the show. My name is Matt. Our
Speaker 2: colleague Noel is on an adventure but will be returning shortly.
Speaker 1: They called me Ben. We're joined as always with our
Speaker 1: super producer Dylan, the Tennessee Pal and original Jugglo Faked.
Speaker 1: Most importantly, you argue you are here. That makes this
Speaker 1: the stuff they don't want you to know. If you
Speaker 1: are tuning in to our listener mail program the evening
Speaker 1: it publishes, Welcome and congratulations to all of us for
Speaker 1: making it to May fifteenth, twenty twenty five. Spoiler Matt,
Speaker 1: Dylan and I are recording this on May ninth, so
Speaker 1: we hope that things don't get too crazy in the
Speaker 1: next few days before this publishes. But we've got we
Speaker 1: got a lot to get to of course, you know, Matt.
Speaker 1: It's our listener mail program, which means it's time for
Speaker 1: one of our favorite parts of the show.
Speaker 2: You specifically Brock, who says, can we get an update
Speaker 2: on the humble Farmers are they still humble farmers.
Speaker 3: I haven't wrote written back to Broc yat and thank
Speaker 3: you for be the account of Bill of Buddy there. Yes,
Speaker 3: it's a question on everyone's mind, right step aside, new Pope, right,
Speaker 3: good job you had your time in the headlines.
Speaker 1: We need more about the farmers humble or no.
Speaker 2: Well we got good news, Brock thankfully. Oh man, it's
Speaker 2: it's so nice that Bethesda has gifted us a whole
Speaker 2: slew of humble farmers to check back in with. Yes,
Speaker 2: because they just re released Oblivion. Yeah, and there's so
Speaker 2: many humble farmers in that game. I don't know if
Speaker 2: you guys noticed. And they're great.
Speaker 1: They are, they are, you know, they're just keeping their
Speaker 1: heads down, they're farming, humble. You know what more? What
Speaker 1: more could you say other than we don't yet have
Speaker 1: We don't yet have Oblivion's opinion on Ruda Bega's, but
Speaker 1: we do have some inspiration for you. But that's the
Speaker 1: courtesy of none other than the legendary Tennessee Pal never
Speaker 1: gets old, never gets old ed ed folks, you know
Speaker 1: you are our You are our friends, our neighbors, are
Speaker 1: fellow conspiracy realist and we always aim to be transparent,
Speaker 1: so you do need to know the most important thing
Speaker 1: you will hear this evening. We are not stopping the
Speaker 1: rude bega references. We are not stopping rudebega jokes. If
Speaker 1: you want to write to us or call us with
Speaker 1: ideas about new Ruta bega stuff for Dylan to write,
Speaker 1: we welcome you. If you are writing to complain about
Speaker 1: this bit, we'll do that thing Corporate America does where
Speaker 1: we'll say we hear you, and then we'll keep doing
Speaker 1: this bit exactly.
Speaker 2: Ruda begas, by the way, have a two point two
Speaker 2: out of five rating according to Google, what basically not
Speaker 2: really our favorite this fresh Ruta begas, by the way,
Speaker 2: and a single fresh Ruta bega at Walmart right now
Speaker 2: costs approximately two dollars and ninety eight cents US. So
Speaker 2: hopefully you're joining us in our pursuit to increase the
Speaker 2: price of Ruta begas because we are trying to help
Speaker 2: all these humble farmers out there, or just making Ruta
Speaker 2: begas man.
Speaker 1: Also other name. You may know rudabagas by another name,
Speaker 1: the humble turnip or the neap as they say in Scotland.
Speaker 1: And I love that you're pointing this outmat because we
Speaker 1: want this to be exactly the same kind of misstep
Speaker 1: that we made earlier when we kept shouting out one
Speaker 1: of my favorite books, The Atlas of Remote Islands, which
Speaker 1: now is out of publication and relatively unaffordable.
Speaker 2: Wait, so we kill things when we talk about them
Speaker 2: a lot.
Speaker 1: No, we accelerate, we platform and accelerate knowledge thereof Okay, Okay,
Speaker 1: So hopefully this is going to be great. As you
Speaker 1: said for the humble Farmers, We're also going to hear
Speaker 1: from our pal Buford, We're going to hear from Lord
Speaker 1: V and Fozzy. We're gonna hear from none other than
Speaker 1: the Shucks, bringing us one of our favorite slash most
Speaker 1: terrifying hobby horses of conversation. Before we do any of that,
Speaker 1: Matt Tennessee, fellow conspiracy realist, I suggest we take a
Speaker 1: pause for a moment and appreciate the concept of democracy,
Speaker 1: as imperfect as it is in practice. It's a pretty
Speaker 1: pretty banger theory, and we've reluctantly perhaps acknowledged this on
Speaker 1: the show in various times in the past. It is
Speaker 1: historically abnormal to live in a country where you can
Speaker 1: complain about the country without getting black bagged. That's an
Speaker 1: a political point. It is a good thing if you
Speaker 1: live in a country with that superpower assigned to its citizens.
Speaker 1: But how long shall that be the case?
Speaker 2: Well, let's jump into that, which sounds it's like so
Speaker 2: much fun, super happy.
Speaker 1: You know, we're we're basically like one of those softball
Speaker 1: morning news shows, you know what I mean, only the
Speaker 1: light issues, only the fun ones.
Speaker 2: Softball light issues. Coming right up, and we've returned. Just
Speaker 2: a quick note here as we begin, everybody on the
Speaker 2: show looks at the correspondence that comes through from everyone,
Speaker 2: all of us. We all look at it together, and
Speaker 2: every once in a while we find things that make
Speaker 2: us go, oh, that sounds interesting, or that's a rumor,
Speaker 2: we should look into that kind of thing. A while back,
Speaker 2: we got this message from Lord V. And to be honest,
Speaker 2: I didn't think much of it initially, So let's jump
Speaker 2: to that. And there's nothing against you, Lord V. It's
Speaker 2: just I wasn't concerned at this moment. So here's the message.
Speaker 4: Good morning, gentlemen. This is Lord V from Pennsylvania. Wanted
Speaker 4: to run this past you guys to see information you
Speaker 4: have on it. I keep getting these interesting posts about
Speaker 4: our government's going to be institutionalizing a form of I
Speaker 4: guess you would call it domestic protection a martial law
Speaker 4: in our country, and I wanted to see if you
Speaker 4: were aware of this. Whatever information you can find, you
Speaker 4: greatly appreciate, jentleen, because this makes me very nervous. All right,
Speaker 4: all right, gentlemen, have a great day and take care.
Speaker 4: I just want to know these things.
Speaker 2: So, first of all, thank you so much for sending
Speaker 2: that to us, Lord Van, for having those thoughts. I
Speaker 2: would just say, we hear that kind of thing a lot.
Speaker 2: That concept of maybe United States wide martial law has
Speaker 2: been or the threat of it, has been around for
Speaker 2: decades and decades and decades, depending on what the political
Speaker 2: situation is, what the geopolitical situation is. The threat or
Speaker 2: concept of of countrywide martial law has just kind of
Speaker 2: been sitting there, right, So when fears about it arise,
Speaker 2: generally it's one of those things that we think about,
Speaker 2: we take it seriously. Right, Maybe I'm speaking for everybody here.
Speaker 2: We take it seriously. But also we're not that I
Speaker 2: was going to say, we're not that worried about it. Well,
Speaker 2: we got another message from Fozzi, this time with some specifics,
Speaker 2: which has kind of led us down a rabbit hole.
Speaker 2: So let's follow Fozzy's message to the rabbit hole.
Speaker 5: Hello there, gentlemen, this is fast still a long time
Speaker 5: government has recently put on its website something regarding possible
Speaker 5: marcial law and empowering police officers and law enforcements in
Speaker 5: that regards. It's even using the auspice of national security, which,
Speaker 5: as we all know, gives them quite a lot of
Speaker 5: power and money as well. So let me just share
Speaker 5: this really quickly, drinks the name and unleashing America's law
Speaker 5: enforcement to pursue criminals on White House dot gov. Check
Speaker 5: it out. Please tell you guys what you got to say,
Speaker 5: because really this kind of paints a picture that Ben
Speaker 5: has been describing a little bit about how to get
Speaker 5: possible on a little bit of terms promoting martial law
Speaker 5: or something I seem to recall. Anyway, Please check this out.
Speaker 5: All right, I'll talk to you guys later.
Speaker 2: Thank you, and there we go. That's Fozzy with some specifics.
Speaker 2: Thank you for calling in, Fozzy. What is being talked
Speaker 2: about there in that message is an executive order that
Speaker 2: was put out signed on April twenty eighth, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: and it is indeed titled Strengthening and Unleashing America's law
Speaker 2: enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens. Anything we
Speaker 2: want to talk about before we dive into that executive order?
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, this is coming at a highly divisive time
Speaker 1: for the US public. The leveraging of executive orders, or
Speaker 1: the issuance thereof, is always an inherently controversial thing in
Speaker 1: American discourse, because it doesn't really matter what the executive
Speaker 1: order is, political opponents will find will take issue with it,
Speaker 1: will find a reason to take issue with it. That
Speaker 1: being said, the idea here is worrisome to people who
Speaker 1: feel it is a precedent or it's an attempt to
Speaker 1: for into martial law, and Lord v. Fossierte love for
Speaker 1: us to spend just little bit of time talking about
Speaker 1: the concept of martial law in the United States. But
Speaker 1: before we get to that, let's talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about what this executive order means, especially in step with
Speaker 1: the recent deputization of so many law enforcement agencies into ICE.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, into ICE and specifically these things called hstfs, right,
Speaker 2: or Homeland Security task Forces. Okay, yeah, again, this one
Speaker 2: executive order exists alone. And to that point, Ben just
Speaker 2: the concept of an executive order, people taking issue with it.
Speaker 2: It is a an elected president and that administration basically
Speaker 2: saying here's a new rule, here's what we're going to
Speaker 2: be doing, rather than going through that lawmaking process that
Speaker 2: generally would go through the other branches of government, right
Speaker 2: or at least through Congress and the Senate and everything.
Speaker 2: So it is a different situation for a lot of people,
Speaker 2: especially those who oppose sitting administration.
Speaker 1: And it's one of two concurrent executive orders, the other
Speaker 1: being protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.
Speaker 2: So the is a current step, yes, that one. Or
Speaker 2: is that the protecting the American People against invasion that
Speaker 2: was signed on January twentieth.
Speaker 1: That's a different one. There's another one, Yeah, there are
Speaker 1: a lot. Again, there are a lot of eos here.
Speaker 1: The one we're talking about protecting American Communities from criminal
Speaker 1: Aliens is signed on the same day as the Unleashing
Speaker 1: law Enforcement one, both signed on April twenty eighth, so
Speaker 1: a little more than a week after the one we
Speaker 1: just mentioned, the protecting from Criminal Aliens EO. It's asking
Speaker 1: or it's ordering federal agencies in the United States to
Speaker 1: list state and local jurisdictions that are seen as limiting
Speaker 1: cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, so called sanctuary cities. Right,
Speaker 1: they're punishing sanctuary cities through the stick method of terminating
Speaker 1: federal funds wherever you can for those cities, and so
Speaker 1: on the same day, this act that Fozzy you're talking
Speaker 1: about in particular says, look, if you're a federal agency,
Speaker 1: you need to expand support aka funding for state and
Speaker 1: local law You need to increase training opportunities similar to
Speaker 1: like a cop city kind of thing, and you need
Speaker 1: to provide surplus military equipment while at the same time
Speaker 1: providing more legal protection for officers on the ground.
Speaker 2: So yeah, to dive deeper into the strengthening and unleashing
Speaker 2: America's law enforcement April twenty eighth Executive Order, just going
Speaker 2: down there under section four and section six, those are
Speaker 2: the two ones, the two sections that seem to be
Speaker 2: troublesome here. Under section four A, it says they're going
Speaker 2: to increase the provision of excess military national security assets
Speaker 2: in local jurisdictions to assist state and local law enforcement,
Speaker 2: which is the thing we talked about in the past
Speaker 2: where when the military has too many tanks, ATVs whatever.
Speaker 2: They can be sold to sheriff's departments and local police departments,
Speaker 2: and that kind of thing that's been happening for decades.
Speaker 2: They're saying within this provision, they're saying that's going to
Speaker 2: happen more. And they're also determining how military national security assets, training,
Speaker 2: non lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized
Speaker 2: to prevent crime.
Speaker 1: And they have ninety days to do so.
Speaker 2: They do they do. The third thing, which is the
Speaker 2: thing that gets that genuinely gets me a little worried,
Speaker 2: is utilizing the Homeland Security task Forces that were formed
Speaker 2: under that other executive order protecting the American people against invasion,
Speaker 2: to coordinate and advance the objectives in this order, which
Speaker 2: is to maintain law and order, and to do it
Speaker 2: in a way that is intense. It would be the
Speaker 2: way I would describe it. What it says in the
Speaker 2: original order is quote, safe communities rely on the backbone
Speaker 2: and heroism of a tough and well equipped police force.
Speaker 2: My administration is steadfastly committed to empowering state and local
Speaker 2: law enforcement to firmly police dangerous criminal behavior and protect
Speaker 2: innocent citizens. The problem, I think with all of this
Speaker 2: stuff is because it is language, is legal language that
Speaker 2: can be interpreted, right, And who is innocent? Who is
Speaker 2: an innocent citizen? Who is a dangerous criminal doing dangerous
Speaker 2: criminal behaviors? What does that mean? How are those things defined?
Speaker 2: Who gets caught up when certain other things are outlawed?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Right now, all of the focus of these executive orders
Speaker 2: are on individuals who are, at least according to the administration,
Speaker 2: not American citizens. Right. What happens when that just shifts
Speaker 2: a little bit and the language changes to someone who
Speaker 2: opposes certain things, someone who does certain things? Right, it
Speaker 2: feels as though, and I think to our callers, Lord
Speaker 2: V and Fozzy and everybody else he's writing about this,
Speaker 2: it feels as though, and maybe it is a bit
Speaker 2: of a slippery slope argument, but it feels as though
Speaker 2: that stuff could shift pretty quickly and in another executive
Speaker 2: order could come out that alters what this stuff actually means.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's an interesting and salient argument or perspective.
Speaker 1: It's one that we've talked about in the past, and
Speaker 1: it's one that I am on record agreeing with apolitically
Speaker 1: because we know that all historically all three branches of
Speaker 1: the US government seek to empower themselves, right, and in
Speaker 1: doing so, they often seek to erode the checks and
Speaker 1: balances of the other two branches, whatever those branches may be.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying one is better than the other, uh inherently,
Speaker 1: but what we what we need to understand about the
Speaker 1: concept of martial law. And it's always a worry, right
Speaker 1: whenever a new presidential administration takes hold, even if they're
Speaker 1: from the same party, there is always going to be
Speaker 1: some contingent of the American populace worried that democracy will
Speaker 1: fall descend into martial law. And it is mission critical,
Speaker 1: Fozzy lord V. It's mission critical to remember that the
Speaker 1: marshal like martial law, the removal of constitutional rights or
Speaker 1: suspension thereof, has occurred at multiple points in US history,
Speaker 1: even though it is still very much a young experiment
Speaker 1: in the long term. Sure, we're talking about stuff like
Speaker 1: the Battle of New Orleans, the time that leaders of
Speaker 1: the LDS Church themselves declared martial law just in areas
Speaker 1: they governed. So at times, not even not even the
Speaker 1: executive branch declaring martial law, just a group of people
Speaker 1: with enough influence over a specific geographic region. So we
Speaker 1: know President Lincoln suspended the constitution specifically a habeas corpus.
Speaker 1: During the Civil War. We know that striking like Union
Speaker 1: fights resulted in limited martial law. Of course, the heroine
Speaker 1: story of the state of Hawaii. Look at how all
Speaker 1: to say before monologue there all to say, it happens quickly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it happens quickly. And this concept of the Homelandsecurity
Speaker 2: Task Forces that the protecting the American people against invasion
Speaker 2: executive order put in place are going to be in
Speaker 2: all states nationwide. So it actually makes me less worried
Speaker 2: about some countrywide crackdown, you know, a militarized rule type thing.
Speaker 2: It makes me think about the nineteen seventy Kent State shooting.
Speaker 2: It makes me think about those things, those times when
Speaker 2: the National Guard was brought in when there's let's say,
Speaker 2: what is described as a riot, right or in fact,
Speaker 2: from another perspective, a peaceful protest, and then you have
Speaker 2: these new things that can come in and act as
Speaker 2: the police forces to crack down on what I would
Speaker 2: say is opposing viewpoints, right dissent people who are gathering
Speaker 2: together to protest what's happening in Gaza. Right people who
Speaker 2: are gathering together to protest what's happening in the courts
Speaker 2: or something like that, but it's happening on a citywide
Speaker 2: or statewide level. That's what maybe is what I'm worried about,
Speaker 2: that there would be this lever that could be pulled
Speaker 2: from high up above that could act in every state
Speaker 2: individually rather than one large sweeping Now every state is
Speaker 2: controlled by this one thing, and there is no more democracy,
Speaker 2: there's no more rule of law.
Speaker 1: That's not yeah, yeah, I agree, that's not usually how
Speaker 1: it would work currently. Right. The way it would work
Speaker 1: currently would be to carry out what is seen as
Speaker 1: retribution against so called sanctuary cities. Again, sanctuary cities are
Speaker 1: communities that have said, hey, ICE is ICE and related
Speaker 1: agencies are going overboard and not respecting things like due process.
Speaker 1: Right when we talked about people who may not be
Speaker 1: citizens but are legal residents of the US being deprived
Speaker 1: of their rights, being exported or deported excuse me, in
Speaker 1: some cases to places that are not their country of origin.
Speaker 1: And we've actually we've been doing some work with this
Speaker 1: on a wrong pul conviction, which do please check out
Speaker 1: the show if you have a chance, If this interest you,
Speaker 1: it is no secret that the US justice system is
Speaker 1: are trudishly imperfect. And it's also I think, in the
Speaker 1: age of social media, it is so devilishly dangerously tempting
Speaker 1: for everybody to feel like you're in the pivotal third
Speaker 1: act of a movie where everything goes terrible. When things
Speaker 1: go wrong, they do go wrong quickly, but they often
Speaker 1: don't occur with that cinematic snap that we love as screenwriters. Instead,
Speaker 1: what we see are acts of retribution carried out against
Speaker 1: people who are not marching to the correct tune that
Speaker 1: the administration, whatever it may be, will want. You could
Speaker 1: make now, this is dangerous and not everybody's gonna love it,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to I don't want to talk
Speaker 1: too much here, but the you could argue that under
Speaker 1: various democratic administration, more conservative communities got punished with some
Speaker 1: form of retribution or some form of, you know, an
Speaker 1: ugly side of a quid pro quo, a tit for tat.
Speaker 1: However this is and look, I appreciate everybody who wrote
Speaker 1: in responding to my earlier question about whether or not
Speaker 1: it is alarmist to see this as a slide into authoritarianism,
Speaker 1: slide into you know, the dirty F word, fascism, things
Speaker 1: like that. These are concerning not because necessarily of the
Speaker 1: immediate language, but to that earlier point, they are concerning
Speaker 1: because they provide opportunity and runway should things go in
Speaker 1: a a specific direction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I could see that. I think we did have
Speaker 2: that movie moment already or starting to happen already with
Speaker 2: the acquittal of three of the officers involved in the
Speaker 2: murder of Tyree Nichols, because that just happened. This got
Speaker 2: put out on April twenty eighth. Three of the officers
Speaker 2: involved in his murder were acquitted like ten or twelve days.
Speaker 1: Later, and we're recorded on May ninth.
Speaker 2: We are recording on May ninth, yesterday, May eighth is
Speaker 2: when I've read the news at least that they were acquitted.
Speaker 2: And just if you read the language within that executive
Speaker 2: order says, when local leaders demonize law enforcement and impose
Speaker 2: legal and political handcuffs that make aggressively enforcing the law impossible,
Speaker 2: crime thrives, and innocent citizens and small business owners suffer.
Speaker 2: And they're talking about establishing best practices at the state
Speaker 2: and local level to on leash high impact local police
Speaker 2: forces and to protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly
Speaker 2: accused and abused by state or local officials. So again
Speaker 2: it's just it's different viewpoints and then putting the language
Speaker 2: in there they would protect police officers if they did anything.
Speaker 2: I don't know, like in the case of Tyree Nichols
Speaker 2: who was killed on camera. By the way, he's beaten
Speaker 2: to near death on camera and then died later. Anyway,
Speaker 2: all this stuff just worries me. And just the concept
Speaker 2: of more military vehicles rolling up for you know, protests
Speaker 2: and things like that makes me really uneasy. So we'll see.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much Lord V and Fozzy for sending
Speaker 2: us those messages. We'll be right back after a message
Speaker 2: from our sponsors.
Speaker 1: And we have returned. We're also not returning alone. We're
Speaker 1: bringing a guest of sorts back on the show, none
Speaker 1: other then Big Shucks. And by way of Big Shucks,
Speaker 1: we're also going to hear from our old pal, Jordan Harbinger. Now, Matt,
Speaker 1: you may recall low several years ago you and I
Speaker 1: had the opportunity to go hang out with Jordan on air.
Speaker 1: I'm still mad that I had the wrong setting on
Speaker 1: my MIC. Just heads up to everyone, but it's still
Speaker 1: a fascinating conversation.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I remember that conversation.
Speaker 1: Well, so our pal Shucks says, hey, guys, this is insane.
Speaker 1: I don't remember the figure thrown out, but allegedly ninety
Speaker 1: five percent of cobalt is unethically extracted cobalt from the DRC,
Speaker 1: the Democratic Republic of Congo and then smuggled through Rwanda.
Speaker 1: And this is something conspiracy of which all big tech
Speaker 1: companies are aware. Shucks, You then introduce us and therefore
Speaker 1: all our fellow conspiracy realists. To transcript of this episode.
Speaker 1: This is part of a fantastic series that Jordan has
Speaker 1: created called Out of the Loop, and in Out of
Speaker 1: the Loop episodes, Jordan and his guest dig into something
Speaker 1: kind of like strange news, current events that aren't really
Speaker 1: well reported in the West, either due to lack of
Speaker 1: interest or in my opinion, sometimes due to dedicated enthusiasm
Speaker 1: for not informing the public. And in this conversation, the
Speaker 1: Shucks so wonderfully points us to Jordan. Harbinger speaks with
Speaker 1: two investigative journalists, Nathan Paul Southern and Lenzy Kennedy, and
Speaker 1: they talk about the DRC and Rwanda. They specifically talk
Speaker 1: about something called the M twenty three militia. Delia has
Speaker 1: been around for a little bit, right, they've been they've
Speaker 1: been around the block a few times, and they've been
Speaker 1: taking over parts of the country that have access to
Speaker 1: let's call them valuable mineral resources, so not quite rare
Speaker 1: earth metals in the case of cobalt, but still resources
Speaker 1: that are mission critical for all the modern electronics you
Speaker 1: could imagine, computer chips, electric vehicles. The way that you're
Speaker 1: able to listen to this podcast, which statistically speaking for
Speaker 1: most of us, is going to be on a mobile device.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're talking about gold, coal, tan, and not cobalt,
Speaker 2: but other minerals as well.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, and we know that this is this has
Speaker 1: always been a calculation, especially in recent decades, for geopolitical
Speaker 1: instability and freedom fighters or terrorist groups, especially when you
Speaker 1: get into their murky funding, right like, how like it's
Speaker 1: the old question that happens in Latin America so often.
Speaker 1: How did these students become so highly trained in tradecraft
Speaker 1: and you know, their political leanings purported or actual aside?
Speaker 1: How did they get those guns? How did they get
Speaker 1: that equipment?
Speaker 2: You know, what are those conflict free guns?
Speaker 1: Right? Right? Right? Those are those ethically raised, gluten free,
Speaker 1: free range Ak's and Kalishnikov's time will tell. This is
Speaker 1: what these journalists find when they're speaking with Jordan, and
Speaker 1: please do listen to the episode. The guy does great
Speaker 1: work and we're not blowing smoke. We're just fans of
Speaker 1: the show. The journalists we mentioned earlier, that being Kennedy
Speaker 1: and Southern, they find that there is some connection between
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom's Rwanda refugee resettlement program and the new
Speaker 1: resurgence of M twenty three. M twenty three had previously
Speaker 1: gone kind of dark. We're not saying everybody got arrested
Speaker 1: or went to the International Criminal Quart or anything. We're
Speaker 1: say they laid low.
Speaker 2: Interesting, So then this new thing comes through, this new
Speaker 2: program sponsored where the UK comes through, and then they're back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, exactly. Yeah. The timing suggests that funding
Speaker 1: from this United Kingdom resettlement program may have, in one
Speaker 1: way or another provided funding to the M twenty three movement.
Speaker 1: And let's talk a little bit about those folks too,
Speaker 1: because they are M twenty three aviation for the March
Speaker 1: twenty third Movement or March twenty three Movement. They're also
Speaker 1: known as the Congolese Revolutionary Army. They are a rebel
Speaker 1: paramilitary group. They are backed by forces in Rwanda, as
Speaker 1: far as we know, relatively young in that they were
Speaker 1: formed in twenty twelve, and they're largely constituted of former
Speaker 1: Congolese soldiers who came from Rwandan and Congolese communities in
Speaker 1: the northern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. And
Speaker 1: they originally, at least according to their statements, they wanted
Speaker 1: better representation within this area of the country. Rwanda is
Speaker 1: allegedly leveraging. Like here's the focus or the speculation, the
Speaker 1: conspiracy is that Rwanda is allegedly stealing these precious resources
Speaker 1: from the Democratic Republic of Congo, taking them across the
Speaker 1: border illicitly, and then saying, yeah, we mind all of
Speaker 1: this in Rwanda, which means it's conflict free, which means hey, Tesla,
Speaker 1: hey Apple, you can use these and you won't have
Speaker 1: any dirty MacBooks.
Speaker 2: Dang if they're doing okay. So I'm imagining a scenario
Speaker 2: where it's known locally that this is what's happening, and
Speaker 2: somebody is getting paid enough to make the minerals crossing
Speaker 2: borders like that make sense to them, Like where it's
Speaker 2: initially coming from. And then those are now conflict free,
Speaker 2: which means then they can get sold at a premium.
Speaker 1: And then we also see yeah, I would agree with
Speaker 1: that chain of custody. There we also see the emergence
Speaker 1: of pmc's private military contractors from a bevy of places.
Speaker 1: Of course, even with the continuing conflict in Ukraine, Russia
Speaker 1: is by hook Er by Crook, invested in parts of
Speaker 1: the African continent. Of course, various US billionaires leading tech
Speaker 1: companies need to keep making their products. So in this conversation,
Speaker 1: which again please do tune in, folks, in this conversation,
Speaker 1: we witness an exploration of how understanding things that could
Speaker 1: be called conspiracies can help you or challenge you to
Speaker 1: make more ethical consumer choices. But that's a very easy
Speaker 1: thing to say. It's a very difficult thing to do.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're not just talking Coldtan, We're also talking
Speaker 1: you know, like you said, cobalt gold, a bevy of
Speaker 1: other things. We know that these are stories the best
Speaker 1: honestly seems like they don't want to hear pretty often, right,
Speaker 1: we like our conflicts easily explained in the first sixty
Speaker 1: seconds and easily theoretically solved in the next three minutes.
Speaker 2: We like new iPhones, and that's.
Speaker 1: Kind of a hazard of the low attention economy, right,
Speaker 1: in which so many ephemeral conversations thrive. We know that
Speaker 1: the United Nations, in their opinion, has Rwanda dead to
Speaker 1: rights on the March twenty third movement. They believe Rwanda
Speaker 1: as the state actor created and commanded this rebel group
Speaker 1: to get up to Shenanigan's. However, the next question, the
Speaker 1: unavoidable question there is who helped to Rwanda do that?
Speaker 1: Did they do it on their own? Were they pushed?
Speaker 1: Were they encouraged? Was there someone holding an elbow and
Speaker 1: whispering into the ear of the leaders? Unfortunately, in this
Speaker 1: kind of milieu, that is an unavoidable question that has
Speaker 1: to be asked, even though a lot of people would
Speaker 1: prefer it not be brought up in conversation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, agreed. In the end, who benefits?
Speaker 1: Right, que bono?
Speaker 2: Where do those materials actually go?
Speaker 1: Right? They go, They go to you, They go to you,
Speaker 1: the consumer, in a way that can be very difficult
Speaker 1: to parse. You know that you're not ever, you will
Speaker 1: not currently see a sticker on a smartphone or in
Speaker 1: the window of a car to a dealership that says, hey,
Speaker 1: just you know, fair notice, we got all the stuff
Speaker 1: to make this without you know, destroying innocent communities. You're
Speaker 1: never going to see the opposite of that, like I
Speaker 1: if that would happen a conflict mining warning, like a
Speaker 1: tobacco advisory that says, hey warning, by the way, more
Speaker 1: people than you know died for this cell phone.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, twenty off, twelve dozen villages were attacked in
Speaker 2: getting these. Yeah, that's that's messed up.
Speaker 1: But I think this also occurred. This is the reason
Speaker 1: why it doesn't feel wing nut to ask some of
Speaker 1: these questions, because we know, especially Western or US based
Speaker 1: tech companies are scrambling to find alternative resource supply chains
Speaker 1: right as as currently look China, you'll often hear that
Speaker 1: the nation of China controls the rare earth game, and
Speaker 1: that is true. But there's an important piece of the
Speaker 1: puzzle that also doesn't really get shared out as often
Speaker 1: as it should, which is the following. The US also
Speaker 1: has access to stores of these resources as to China.
Speaker 1: The issue is that environmental regulation. I know I sound
Speaker 1: crazy when I say this. The issue is that environmental
Speaker 1: regulations and policies in the US prevent the same kind
Speaker 1: of manufacturing and harvesting and processing of these raw resources,
Speaker 1: so the US could if those regulations were repealed, the
Speaker 1: US could spin up some of this stuff, but it
Speaker 1: would have hard and measurable environmental consequences. The nation of
Speaker 1: China exists under a different regime of policies, so that's
Speaker 1: why they were able to become the world supplier.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you know, the US could just sign a
Speaker 2: big deal with oh, I don't know, Ukraine and then
Speaker 2: gain access to the moneies and materials being mined out
Speaker 2: of that country if they provide lots and lots of
Speaker 2: money for weapons.
Speaker 1: As we discussed earlier, called it a quid pro quo there,
Speaker 1: and it's similar to like a len lease agreement of old.
Speaker 1: It's also a what's the best way to say it,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a promise for action in the future
Speaker 1: or or words in the future, and it's always in
Speaker 1: human civilization, it's always easy to promise people the moon
Speaker 1: and stars in the future because you don't actually have
Speaker 1: to provide the moon and stars when you sign the thing.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it's making me think about all the companies
Speaker 2: that we don't know the names of that actually process
Speaker 2: these materials, you know, because it's when an Apple or
Speaker 2: a Tesla or a Google gets those materials are there. Well,
Speaker 2: I don't know. Maybe I'm fully wrong in my mind.
Speaker 2: Those companies don't do that, the actual processing and building
Speaker 2: of the things they buy, the microprocessors they buy. We
Speaker 2: talked about that with the chips episode a little bit
Speaker 2: redne deep into who's actually making the chips. They go
Speaker 2: into all the things that all the big companies buy,
Speaker 2: you know, then they buy.
Speaker 1: And how does it get from how so China controls
Speaker 1: ninety percent of rare earth processing. I was digging into
Speaker 1: some mining trade publications and some of their research. I'd
Speaker 1: recommend reading an article that came out today. Actually wow,
Speaker 1: I guess started early in the morning today on May night,
Speaker 1: as we record this mining technology by Caroline Peachey, exploring
Speaker 1: US efforts to find a secure supply of rare earth elements.
Speaker 1: As we're pointing out, it's not that other countries can't
Speaker 1: have this stuff in the ground, it's that China is
Speaker 1: better at processing it right now, sort of like how
Speaker 1: you can have tons of bubbling crude, to quote the
Speaker 1: Beverly hillbillies on the land, but you need it to
Speaker 1: be refined, and extracting the crude and refining the crude
Speaker 1: are two different skill sets, right, and they both have
Speaker 1: their own knock on consequences. This also leads us to
Speaker 1: another story. This was from earlier March seventeenth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Interesting engineering. Big shout out to the journalist Amir Colom
Speaker 1: who reported this is one of the first times I
Speaker 1: had heard of this reported that the US has found
Speaker 1: eight point four billion dollars worth of rare earths in
Speaker 1: coal ash landfills here in the goal US of a.
Speaker 1: We've been sitting on it for a while and now
Speaker 1: all we have to do is figure out how to
Speaker 1: navigate the faustian bargain right of processing that stuff, knowing
Speaker 1: that it's it's bad for the people living there.
Speaker 2: I want to look into coal ash dump sites now.
Speaker 1: M yeah, it sounds like perfect insult too you coal.
Speaker 2: Ash dump dump side.
Speaker 1: But this is uh, this coal ash stuff, which yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe we should research further. We know it has a
Speaker 1: million tons of rare earth elements, which is already nearly
Speaker 1: eight times the US is known domestic reserve. And again,
Speaker 1: rare earth elements or minerals. This is a group term
Speaker 1: that we've discussed in the past, so it means more
Speaker 1: than one thing. It means a lot of stuff you
Speaker 1: might really you wouldn't call them, like the main characters
Speaker 1: of the periodic table dysprosium, gadolinium, luteum, samarium, scandium, turbium,
Speaker 1: and of course yetrium. I saved yettrium for the end,
Speaker 1: Like when you hear the cast of an ensemble film,
Speaker 1: it's like and Tommy Lee Jones and gytrium and then
Speaker 1: someone yeah, yeah, yeah, not to be confused with uterbium,
Speaker 1: which is somehow also a real thing.
Speaker 2: Oh, congratulations, we did it.
Speaker 1: Congratulations we did it, And shout out to Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: lest we cast aspersion. Shout out to Tennessee pal who
Speaker 1: got so excited and said, my boy, yetrium. So you've
Speaker 1: got a big fan here. We would love to hear
Speaker 1: from you regarding this, folks. I know we ran a
Speaker 1: little bit long on this part, but it's an important
Speaker 1: conversation that needs to continue, because there is literally stuff
Speaker 1: they don't want you to know at play here and
Speaker 1: the world hinges upon it. So write to us, contact us,
Speaker 1: tell us your thoughts, especially if you have PMC experience
Speaker 1: or mining experience. We want to hear how all these
Speaker 1: red strings vibrate and connect. While you're doing that, take
Speaker 1: a pause for a word from our sponsors, and we'll
Speaker 1: be back with a little bit more listener mail. All right,
Speaker 1: we've returned. We spent some time on some very serious things.
Speaker 1: We can't wait to hear your thoughts. While we're doing that,
Speaker 1: We're going to round out tonight's program with a lovely
Speaker 1: little letter from home. It turns out very good news, guys.
Speaker 1: We have a new expert joining us. We love to
Speaker 1: collect experts. We've got some physicists, We've got some meteorologists,
Speaker 1: We've got truckers, We've got people from all sorts of professions.
Speaker 1: Shout out to our aviators as well, Matt Dylan. We
Speaker 1: got some clown love recently from Youuford. Who I will?
Speaker 1: I'll share this letter and then I'll nominate them to
Speaker 1: be our go to expert for one of the most
Speaker 1: phenomenal musical movements in recent US history? Are we ready?
Speaker 1: Can we guess what it is?
Speaker 2: I tave Matthews band, I don't.
Speaker 1: Know DMB, DMB. We do need a DMB director is
Speaker 1: to or corresponded. At least here we go. Let her
Speaker 1: from home. Beauford says, Hello, Ben Nolan, Matt, it's Beauford again.
Speaker 1: As always, feel free to use my name and message
Speaker 1: on air. Nice. I am writing to offer a correction
Speaker 1: to what Ben said on the recent listener mail segment.
Speaker 1: The Insane Clown Posse did not come out as a
Speaker 1: Christian band per se. Thank you for that correction, Buford.
Speaker 1: We prize that sort of stuff, Beewford. You continue in
Speaker 1: the song Thy Unveiling, they do say that their message
Speaker 1: is about God. However, Violent Jay has since gone on
Speaker 1: record saying that he regrets using specifically Christian terminology. And
Speaker 1: that's what I was referring to right when he was
Speaker 1: saying the big reveal of the Malinko and the Carnival.
Speaker 1: So they did originally say that, but now they regret it. Okay,
Speaker 1: but they don't throw the whole thing out. As Beauford continues,
Speaker 1: the point was more about believing in some higher being. However,
Speaker 1: they the Insane Clown Posse, take issue with the hierarchy
Speaker 1: of the church and do not advocate for any specific
Speaker 1: religion or denomination, similar to a more Buddhist outlook. And
Speaker 1: I love that point, Buford, because I can't remember if
Speaker 1: I mentioned it on air. I recently accidentally got baptized
Speaker 1: into Buddhism. Anyway, Buford says, it's about finding your own
Speaker 1: path to God and not promoting their own ICP's personal views.
Speaker 1: With how often the subject of juggalos seems to come
Speaker 1: up for you, guys, I do volunteer my services to
Speaker 1: be your resident Juggalo fact checker. I have been down
Speaker 1: with the clown as they say, since I was a
Speaker 1: young lad, since the Jekyl brother era. And yes I
Speaker 1: do have the hatchet man tattoo. Love what you fellas do.
Speaker 1: Keep up the good work much clown love, Buford. I
Speaker 1: don't know, Matt. I'm persuaded. What do you think?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I have two questions. What is the Jeckyl
Speaker 2: brother era? Is that an album or a song? Is
Speaker 2: that a I don't know that. The Amazing Jekyl Brothers
Speaker 2: is the fifth studio album by the Insane Cloud Posse. Okay,
Speaker 2: so that was nineteen ninety nine. Thank you Eilands for
Speaker 2: that second question. Have you, Buford, ever taken a helicopter
Speaker 2: ride at one of the gatherings? Because we need to
Speaker 2: know about that. How good was the helicopter ride?
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, And I remember also Buford, you'll
Speaker 1: enjoy this. Guys and I went through a phase where
Speaker 1: we would watch the very long infomercials for ICP gatherings
Speaker 1: every year. Every year. It was the closest we had
Speaker 1: to an established religion. I also, you know, I'll always
Speaker 1: have a special part in my heart for Vanilla Ice
Speaker 1: dressed up as an alien, remember that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember all the hits. Oh, they swim through
Speaker 2: my consciousness like some sort of clowns that swim.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, Mr clowns. I think they're called. Oh. I
Speaker 1: love that idea too. That's my new favorite cryptid. Imagine
Speaker 1: you're lost at sea in the eighteen hundreds and then
Speaker 1: you say, hey, that mermaid looks kind of goofy, and
Speaker 1: then the old first made is like a maybe you
Speaker 1: see that not to be a merriment. It is a
Speaker 1: mirror clown is you can hear you can hear the
Speaker 1: honkin in the night?
Speaker 3: Oh man, why is that so much scarier than a mermaid?
Speaker 2: It really is. It's such a beautiful movement that brings
Speaker 2: together like you in all the positive things of the
Speaker 2: Rainbow family with like Ringling brothers. Somehow, I don't know.
Speaker 2: It just makes me so happy. It's very it's a
Speaker 2: very positive.
Speaker 1: Movement, unfairly characterized as domestic terrorism by the FBI. We
Speaker 1: have to say that, yes, and and you know, the
Speaker 1: the energy is, as he said, quite inclusive. And even
Speaker 1: if you know what's funny is we have these conversations
Speaker 1: and even if you're not a fan of this very
Speaker 1: specific genre of horror core inspired music, yeah, have to.
Speaker 1: And even if you know how madness work, you have
Speaker 1: to acknowledge that they make a concerted effort to welcome
Speaker 1: everyone that they can with that. An example of that,
Speaker 1: we got a surprise from Tennessee pal. He just sent
Speaker 1: us his let's see what'd you call this? Oh? His
Speaker 1: favorite tweet assumingly favorite tweet of all time from the
Speaker 1: official Insane Clown Posse account quote, I don't care what
Speaker 1: we've said in our raps, women come number one. We
Speaker 1: all owe our lives to wemon.
Speaker 2: That can't be real. There's no way that's real, Dylan,
Speaker 2: he says, it's real with.
Speaker 1: So many exclamation marks. That's why it's your favorite. That's
Speaker 1: wemond spelled w E M o n by the way.
Speaker 2: Wemon, maybe they just mean like climax first. Is that
Speaker 2: what they mean.
Speaker 1: I think they mean, despite you know, the shock nature
Speaker 1: of some of the lyrical content, that in real life
Speaker 1: they are not misogynists.
Speaker 2: Okay, well that's.
Speaker 1: Nice unless wemon are different from women, which is unclear.
Speaker 1: We want to rhyme with peymon by the way, the
Speaker 1: way it's spelled us, that's what we've got. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Let's let's vote right now and you can vote with us, folks. Uh,
Speaker 1: the Court, I nominate Beauford to be our ongoing ICP
Speaker 1: subject matter expert. Do we have any eyes? Nay's a's eyes.
Speaker 2: I have two eyes for you.
Speaker 1: There we go, okay, and Dylan does the thumbs up. Judges,
Speaker 1: can we accept that? Okay, Yeah, it looks like we're good.
Speaker 1: Congratulations Beauford. Thank you to Big Shucks, thank you to
Speaker 1: Lord V, thank you to Fozzy, Thank you to everybody
Speaker 1: who took the time to join our continuing and increasingly
Speaker 1: strange endeavor here. We want to hear from you as well.
Speaker 1: You can find us online via Instagram, YouTube, all the
Speaker 1: social med should thou sip we are conspiracy stuff, conspiracy
Speaker 1: stuff show or some derivation thereof anywhere on the wide
Speaker 1: old Internet until we get black bagged. You can also
Speaker 1: give us a call on the telephone or hit us
Speaker 1: at our email address.
Speaker 2: Our phone number is one eight three three STDWYTK. It's
Speaker 2: a voicemail system. You've got three minutes when you call in.
Speaker 2: Give yourself a cool nickname and let us know in
Speaker 2: the message if we can use your name and message
Speaker 2: on the air. If you've got more to say, they
Speaker 2: could fit. Sorry, I was trying to do a micromachine style.
Speaker 2: If you got more to say, they can fit in
Speaker 2: a three minute message one. Instead, send us a good
Speaker 2: old fashioned email.
Speaker 1: We are the entities that read each piece of correspondence
Speaker 1: we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
Speaker 1: writes back conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.