Peasants Perspective
Peasants Perspective: A Voice from the Edge of Freedom
Join Taylor Johnatakis, a self-proclaimed “peasant” turned podcaster, on an unfiltered journey through family, faith, and the fight for American ideals. From the depths of DC Jail—where he recorded during a 14-month sentence tied to January 6—to his triumphant return home after a Trump clemency in 2025, Taylor delivers raw, heartfelt commentary for the common man. Expect a mix of gritty storytelling, reflections on liberty lost and reclaimed, and timeless lessons drawn from his life as a septic designer, father, and reluctant rebel. Whether he’s reading Dr. Seuss to his kids or dissecting the state of the republic, Peasants Perspective is a bold, unpolished call to stay grounded amidst chaos. Subscribe for a front-row seat to a story that’s as real as it gets—no filter, no apologies.
Peasants Perspective
From Flynn's Case to Obamagate: Unraveling Political Justice
The stark contrast between how political justice operates for different sides couldn't be more evident than in the Durham investigation versus the Mueller probe. While Mueller's team leaked constantly to friendly media outlets (spawning the infamous "walls are closing in" narrative), Durham maintains total silence as he methodically investigates the origins of the Russia collusion story.
Judge Sullivan's refusal to dismiss the General Flynn case despite both prosecution and defense agreeing it should end reveals just how desperate the establishment is to maintain their narrative. Each cache of newly unsealed documents from the case implicates higher officials, now reaching former President Obama and Vice President Biden directly. The longer Sullivan drags his feet, the more damaging information becomes public—an irony that underscores this entire saga.
Political capital explains much about the pace of justice. President Trump faces the challenge of addressing corruption while lacking institutional support in cities and establishment power centers. The DOJ cannot simply "walk and chew gum" because competing factions within government are aligned with different political interests. This explains why we see Roger Stone heading to prison while Flynn's case drags on despite evidence of his innocence being overwhelming.
Meanwhile, media hypocrisy continues unabated. Mayor de Blasio prohibits New Yorkers from gathering for concerts due to COVID concerns but explicitly endorses mass protests for Black Lives Matter as a "historic moment." Nancy Pelosi dismisses mob action with "people will do what they do" while suggesting some historical figures committed "treason"—a claim that goes unchallenged.
The language we use shapes our understanding of reality. America isn't socialist—it's communitarian. This distinction matters tremendously yet gets deliberately blurred by those pushing particular agendas. From rebranding quarantine (for sick people) as house arrest for healthy citizens to calling forced isolation "social distancing," the manipulation of language normalizes restrictions on liberty that would otherwise be rejected.
Ready to see beyond the manipulation? Subscribe now and join our community of critical thinkers who refuse to accept establishment narratives without questioning.
https://1776live.us/peasants_perspective
www.PeasantsPerspective.com
www.LeftBehindandWithout.org
www.givesendgo.com/GEJWJ
www.DollarsVoteLouder.com
buymeacoffee.com/peasant
And when they went to the queen To tell her Her subjects had no bread, do you know what she said?
Speaker 2:Let them eat cake. Here, you take the bomb.
Speaker 3:We're getting screwed, man. Every time we turn around we're getting screwed. Oh, the revolution's gonna be through podcasting for sure. That's the only way we talk. It's the little guys, the little guys that take the brunt of everything. It's gotta stop.
Speaker 3:Peasants, man, we're just peasants, every one of us. You watch those old movies. You see the peasants in the background with the kings and queens walking around. We're those people. We're those people. Hey, good morning, peasants. Glad to have you back with me another day. Okay, so you can find me. Get this out of the way real quick. You can find me on Twitter at PeasantsPod. You can find me on Parler at ThePeasantsPod or not the just PeasantsPod. You can find me on Parler at the Peasants Pod, or not the just Peasants Pod. You can find me on Facebook at the Peasants Perspective, and you can email me at peasantspod at gmailcom. Look forward to hearing from you, as always.
Speaker 3:So today, on our Friday show, we've got a couple cool things happening out there. So one thing that is starting to happen is we're starting to kind of hear some chatter on the Durham report, or the Durham John Durham, who is who is investigating, essentially, crossfire Hurricane, and he's, he's, he's looking into the Obamagate issue, the entire Obamagate issue, and we're starting to see some chatter from the right and the left, and the chatter okay. So, unlike the Mueller team, the special counsel, they leaked like a sieve. They were leaking all the time, pretty much everything you watched on CNN, msnbc. Every time you heard the pundits say the walls are closing in, the walls are closing in, the walls are closing. In fact, it sounded a little bit something like this, didn't it? Do you think?
Speaker 4:these attacks are becoming so much more frequent now. It's not surprising that Donald Trump is increasing his attacks. The walls are closing in on him.
Speaker 1:The walls are closing in on him. Don't just stand there, try and brace it with something.
Speaker 5:It feels like the walls are closing in on the White House.
Speaker 4:It feels as if the walls are closing in here.
Speaker 6:I think the walls of justice are closing in on the White House. It feels as if the walls are closing in here. I think the walls of justice are closing in on President Trump.
Speaker 5:Increasingly desperate, feeling like the walls are closing in.
Speaker 1:The president clearly feels all the walls closing in on him. In terms of the Russia investigation, the walls are closing in.
Speaker 4:I think at this point the walls are spinning.
Speaker 5:It does feel like the walls are closing in. I think that the administration at this point can start to see the walls closing in.
Speaker 6:He feels the walls closing in on him. Everybody he talks to says the walls are closing in. This is another potential wall closing in.
Speaker 4:This president is feeling the walls are closing in. The walls, meanwhile, are closing in on the president of the United States. I think he's feeling the Russia investigation. I think he's feeling the Russia investigation. I think he's feeling the wheels, the walls closing in on him.
Speaker 5:He knows that the walls are closing in. The walls may be closing in higher up at the White House.
Speaker 4:The president apparently believes that the walls are closing in on him.
Speaker 6:The walls are closing in on the president right now Donald Trump feels the walls closing in.
Speaker 3:Feeling like the walls are closing in around him.
Speaker 4:Yes, Does it seem like the walls could be closing in on this? President Feels like we are finally at a tipping point. The walls are closing in on President.
Speaker 5:Trump Feels like the president is sitting in the White House. The walls are closing in around him.
Speaker 6:And that's why there's this sense of the walls closing in, as it appears, the walls are closing in in terms of the Mueller investigation. The walls are closing in.
Speaker 5:The walls are closing in. I do feel that he feels the walls closing in on him. Legal walls are closing in on Donald Trump tonight.
Speaker 4:From a Democratic perspective, this is the president who feels like the walls are closing in as he feels the walls are closing in, any indication that, legally speaking, the walls are closing in on the president he?
Speaker 1:feels some of the walls closing in on him.
Speaker 4:He feels that the walls are closing in on President Trump. The Some of the walls closing in on him.
Speaker 1:The walls are closing in on President Trump. The walls are closing in on the president.
Speaker 3:So those were all newscasts, with the exception of a little bit of Star Wars, a little bit of Chewie and Luke getting stuck in that trash compactor. The walls are closing in. That was what we heard for years and years. So all of that the walls are closing in garbage all of that nonsense, all of the leaks and things that we got the selective leaks, by the way, and sometimes redacted leaks where they leak something, say it meant one thing, and then we'd find the redacted version 12 months later and the redacted version completely was the opposite of what everybody thought it was, because, you know, they just covered things up. So the special counsel leaked, leaked, leaked, leaked. And the other day on the show, remember, we read the two separate conservative treehouse reports that basically showed that the special counsel, one of its main purposes, was to predetermine the outcome of a leak investigation that was already going on. That would have implicated the special, the members of the special counsel, and this was the whole Dana Buente thing. So, anyways, the special counsel was leaking, leaking, leaking.
Speaker 3:Now the Durham probe is often been called it's really just the Durham investigation. He has not been leaking. I mean, we have gotten very little to just almost nothing out of John Durham and this has actually caused quite a bit of a frustration on the left and the right. The left obviously wants this thing just to disappear. They would like to see a report come out. So this is, let me give you a little bit of a legend or a keystone as to how to kind of understand what it is. Each side says so if you want Durham to generate a report, so if you say things like the Durham report which now you know, sometimes you get caught up. If you listen to enough news, you'll hear it enough. You start thinking this way.
Speaker 3:But the Durham report Mueller produced a report and that report in a normal circumstance would have ended up being indictments. But because there was no charge, he ended up producing a report which served as far as the House was concerned. Served as indictments Because the House just took that report and they used it to try to mock up impeachment, which they ended up using the roadmap of the obstruction of justice that Mueller did. But then they just took out everything Russia and put in the word Ukraine, because Trump was also chasing down Ukraine. So Mueller was always leaking. Durham doesn't seem to leak. We don't get anything out of Durham.
Speaker 3:People who want him to generate a report usually want him to generate a report because they don't want anybody to go to jail. They just want a report so they can have hearings, they can slap some people on the wrist and some people's reputations will be supposedly quote-unquote ruined, even though that never really happens, and then you end up with no prosecutions and maybe just a few low-level guys in jail. That's the Durham report model. I don't think there's going to be a Durham report at all. Bill Barr said if Durham produces a report, it's essentially just a byproduct of the whole thing. It's not going to be maybe tie a couple cases together or something, but he's not producing a report. He's there to see if the law was violated and if the law was violated, he's going to prosecute. I have some serious concerns about you know what we're going to see prosecution wise at this point. Um, I've got a couple of thoughts about it and let me let me tell you first of all what what Tom Fitton thinks about it. So Tom Fitton here speaking on a Fox News. He's a little bit more drab. Now remember who Tom Fitton is. Tom Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch.
Speaker 3:Judicial Watch is the country's largest organization that deals with mostly Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. They also do a lot of election fraud lawsuits and things like that, but their whole purpose is to basically just hold the government accountable. Right Work through the legal system of the courts to hold the government accountable. It is Judicial Watch that exposed the Benghazi scandal with Hillary Clinton. It was Judicial Watch that did that. No one else did that.
Speaker 3:Once Judicial Watch got documents released from the government on order of the court that spurred the Benghazi hearings and things like that, benghazi was just about ready to be swept under the rug. You remember Susan Rice went out and did a bunch of appearances and lied about the cause of it and then Judicial Watch found out that wasn't the case and then Susan Rice got essentially set aside and then Hillary Clinton had to go to Congress to testify. And that's where you hear the famous what does it matter anymore? Like, what does it matter that Libya was overturned and Gaddafi died? And what does it matter that our consulate was overrun and that three agents died and an ambassador? Like what does it matter anymore? And you know the obvious answer is that well, it matters because ISIS is on the rise, and ISIS is on the rise because of all that stuff.
Speaker 3:But this is Tom Fitt and no one was held accountable for it, mind you. Not a single person was held accountable for Benghazi. In fact, the main perpetrator of it went on to run for president. Hillary Clinton, you can go back and listen to my Libya. It all started in Libya, episode one, to get kind of a history of what happened in Libya. So let's go back. This is what Tom Fitton says about Obamagate, and he's got a point.
Speaker 6:Justice Department has zero interest in figuring out what went on at the highest levels. I'm sure someone else will be prosecuted at the lower level, but Obama in the least needs to be questioned under oath about Obamagate. And the fact that he isn't to me is an indictment of the Justice Department's to date failed investigation. Justice Department has zero Soment of the Justice Department's to date failed investigation.
Speaker 3:Justice Department has zero. So one of the challenges that Tom Fitton has is he believes that the government should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And while that should be the case, right, durham is a separate prosecutor than anyone else, so Durham, in theory, should be going at it if he sees a crime, send the indictment. Well, in a normal world that works. Except we just got off the special counsel and we just found out that the upper levels of the DOJ and the FBI colluded to oust, to remove a duly elected president. So it's not business as usual anymore. Okay, in order for the president to stay in power, what does he have to have? You go through this little checklist in your mind. Okay, he's the president of the United States, but he's got to get people to follow his orders. If you've ever done a little bit of a study of American history, you'll often find that, more often than not, the military wags the dog when it comes to the president. The military tells the president what's up, and the president gets put in positions where the only information he has is being fed to him from his you know, from government intelligence sources that have been around long before the president was because he's only just been elected. No, the president not been around longer than seven years, right, and that's if he's at the end of his second term. So he doesn't have nearly as much experience as some of these generals who've spent 35 or 40 years working with their co-patriots. So a lot of times presidents, especially with military stuff, get left more in the dark than you would think. A great example of this, where you get to get behind the curtain and see how it really works, is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Dan Carlin with Hardcore History has the best, the best podcast on the Cuban Missile Crisis. I highly recommend going and listen to it. It's a couple hours long but it is complete. It is a complete documentation and recanting of the Cuban Missile Crisis from multiple angles. I love it. But one of the things you'll see there is you've got the generals essentially staging the assassination, removal coup of the president because the president won't give him the green light. They've got so much power and things are so in motion with the military that it took everything everything John Kennedy had and Michelle Gorbachev Khrushchev had in Russia to stop the militaries from going head to head. It was like two freight trains had been pushed down a hill heading towards each other, and it took those men to pull them back. But you'll see, there, you know the record, like, uh, john f kennedy was recording all of his conferences, there's meetings with his generals, and so he's got a lot. There's a lot of video, audio recordings of like after john f kennedy leaves the room or after robert kennedy leaves the room, and then the generals are like we should just knock him off now. This is just silly. Yeah, you guys gonna get the whole united states up. We should just preemptively strike and just tell him that he either fesses up to approving it or we'll just take him out. You know, I mean just unbelievable stuff that you would hear from these generals, these four-star generals, chiefs of staff. In fact, some of them are American heroes. I think McNamara was in there.
Speaker 3:Mcnamara, that guy can go to hell. That's all I got to say about him. America, that guy can go to hell. That's all I got to say about him. I do not have the Kung flu.
Speaker 3:That guy is an unsavory character, but he's looked upon in Air Force history like he's some kind of amazing soldier and that guy just about cost humanity. That guy just about cost all of humanity. Sometimes we have to put these people's decisions into a little bit of context, right? I mean, that guy just about started the nuclear winter, but anyway. So you see behind the curtain, you realize the president is often, you know, the tail wags the dog when it comes to the generals and the president in many cases. And so, knowing that, knowing that that same can happen with the DOJ and any other branch, president Trump is a very strong personality, and I agree with what Rush Limbaugh said. It has been months and months now, but he basically said what Bill Barr and John Durham are working on is so big, it's so big and it's going to take out so many people that they've had to operate in secrecy. It's going to take the time it's going to take because they have to do it by the book, because none of these prosecutions are going to go easy. No one's going to just admit their guilt, especially at the political level.
Speaker 3:So back to why the Justice Department can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't it wrap up the Mueller investigation, which is still ongoing? Remember General Flynn, his case has not been dismissed yet why can't they prosecute at the same time? Well, let me tell you why. First and foremost, you've got different factions within the DOJ. You truly have a faction that is committed to truth and reason, right in the American Constitution. Then you have a faction that's more committed to an ideology or to cronyism or mercantilism. I mean they're in it for other reasons other than love of country and love of neighbor, and so that faction is still preceded with these prosecutions. I think they've been mostly run out of DOJ, main in the fact that you know DOJ has come out and you know to lessen Roger Stone's sentencing he's come out in the writ of mandamus for the Sidney Powell filed for General Flynn. They came out and supported her in that effort rigorously, by the way, and the reason I'm bringing all this up is there's some news on the General Flynn case. So, anyways, as long as General Flynn and Roger Stone are in the course of justice, so as long as they're like, roger Stone is due to report to jail any day I mean any day. He's begging for clemency, begging for a pardon, begging for a commutation of his sentence while he goes through the appeals process. I don't think Trump's going to give it to him and the reason I don't think that is Trump has not given a pardon or a commutation to anybody involved in the Crossfire Hurricane case, and the reason is because any pardons or anything he did, he would be accused of obstruction of justice.
Speaker 3:And this comes to the political capital. Politicians operate with a currency called political capital. It's essentially goodwill. So if you get an overwhelming majority from the electorate, then then other politicians look at you and say, okay, you have an or a mandate to rule. Right, you have an overwhelming mandate to rule. You've got 60% of the population voted you in, which basically means you know you've got the big stick. Now, if you barely won your election off some kind of recount, right, like the Washington governor did, by 133 votes, you barely have a mandate to rule. I mean you literally you got elected on a technicality, essentially, and that means that you're going to not be able to just get what you want. You're going to have to compromise, you're going to have to build coalitions, you're going to have to work, and so in the DOJ it's kind of the same and it works out the same.
Speaker 3:President Trump has a lot of political capital with the electorate. He's got a lot of political capital. When you look at an electoral college map, he doesn't have a lot of political capital, say in the city of New York or say in the city of Los Angeles or the city of San Francisco, he's got almost no political capital. And the way the political capital is distributed around the country right now is it's primarily concentrated in the inner cities. And that's why, you see, with these riots, I mean look at how it's covered the mainstream news but yet it's been a very small percentage, small portion of the country that's having issues. Most of the country, you know I mean 98% of the country is the same as it was before the George Floyd riots. Nothing's really changed. That could change really quick, by the way.
Speaker 3:I mean, oh my gosh, the Supreme Court decision on Oklahoma yesterday. Wow, we'll talk about that in just a minute. So, anyways, obama needs to be questioned about Obamagate, but it's not going to happen until the Flynn case is done. So the news yesterday was no-transcript honor the DOJ's request to drop the case. He won't do that because Flynn had already pled guilty and really he's just playing games. It makes no sense. So he waited. So that happened a couple weeks ago and there was a justice that dissented on the appellate court and what the judge Sullivan wanted was if that justice dissented, that justice could say, hey, before we officially rule on this case, because the case hadn't been heard right and it hadn't been heard by Sullivan or the appellate court. But they're ruling on the motions, and so what the judge Sullivan was waiting for was he was waiting for the district court, one of the dissenting judge, to request to hear the case. So actually have the case go through a trial before they executed their writ of mandamus. And normally in a case of like an appeal, if a situation like this, the dissenting judge is the one who, it devolves upon them to request the trial be, you know, hashed out before they make a final decision, and sometimes they'll go with that, sometimes they won't. Well, the dissenting judge didn't do that. Why didn't the dissenting judge do that? There's no case to be had.
Speaker 3:The evidence that's been exposed, that's been let out, that's been unsealed since Judge Sullivan didn't drop the case has gone right to the top of Barack Obama and Vice President Biden, right to the top the documents that were unsealed only because Judge Sullivan was dragging this out. Jensen, the prosecutor out of Missouri that came to DC that was assigned to look into the origins of this case, has been giving documents to Sidney Powell, who they go in under seal and then they get unsealed a few days later. He's gone two caches of documents. The first cache of documents implicated Barack Obama and Vice President Biden. The second cache implicated them as well. It was the Peter Strzok notes. And so we've got essentially Barack Obama and Vice President Biden almost dead to rights. I mean, the smoking gun was released in this case.
Speaker 3:Well, judge Sullivan's waiting for the case to be reheard. The appellate court judges have not requested to hear the case. So yesterday, in the most screwy oddball move ever, judge Sullivan, he requests that the case be reheard. This is super awkward. Okay, this is like a wildly awkward thing for the judge who hasn't heard the case, who's been told to rule on the case, to dismiss it because there's no party being injured.
Speaker 3:Flynn says he's innocent. The DOJ says Flynn is innocent. So what is there to investigate? So he did that. It's probably going to get rejected. I mean, there's an outside possibility it gets dragged on. But basically it seems like Judge Sullivan is doing everything he can to drag on this case, to not let Judge General Flynn be a free man, to not let the cloud of suspicion come out from under him. Same thing with Roger Stone. Okay, roger Stone has gotten. He had a horrible jury. I mean, the atrocities committed against these men from the judicial system or from the justice system is staggering and astonishing and beyond the scope of just what I'm saying here. But I don't think Roger Stone or General Flynn or Paul Manafort or Michael Cohen or George Papadopoulos or any of those people is going to get any help from President Trump until it's over. When General Flynn has run the course of justice and is released, when Roger Stone serves his sentence or is sitting in jail, they won't commute it.
Speaker 3:But once General Flynn is acquitted, that is, if there was no crime to go after General Flynn, then the entire premise, the entire premise of going after Donald Trump and calling him a Russian agent, is officially in the toilet. I mean, it's been in the toilet for a long time for anybody who pays attention. But for the MSNBC years, the CNNers, you know, the people who watch ABC and CBS news, the ones who just have not even been exposed to the truth, there will be nothing left. They will cry judicial foul, they will call it, cry all these, you know, but they will have nothing to point to. They will have no moment in the case where the Justice Department did anything wrong other than when Van Graak was prosecuting, they will find no reason why General Flynn should have been prosecuted. They will find no favors being pulled from a political level as far as getting judges to dismiss it or judges to vote one way or another. You will find none of that. They will have nothing to accuse him of Now.
Speaker 3:Once that's over, once President Trump is officially out of the crosshairs and his surrogates, then I think he will have not only the political capital but he will have so thoroughly defeated the other side's legal arguments against him that I think at that point Durham can go after whoever he wants. I think once General Flynn is officially free and Judge Sullivan has to admit that General Flynn is free, then I think you open the door to where you could possibly even go after Barack Obama himself. That's my thought on it. I don't know if it's going to necessarily happen. There's a lot of people who don't think it will happen that way. Fox News is running a headline that Durham is so close to the election that he's probably just going to punt until after the election, which I'll tell you. If that's the case, I don't even know. I don't even know. I have no words. I have no words to express my frustration.
Speaker 3:I mean, it reminds me of when Robert Mueller was saying that he was going to get a report, you know, get everything done before the midterms in 2018, and then he didn't. I mean it was like dragging on and on and then the midterms came and went, and then it came and went again and it took another four months it took Bill Barr getting put in as Attorney General and confirmed to finally go. Hey, robert Mueller, what you got? You got nothing. Wrap it up. I mean, that's really truly what happened. You got nothing. Wrap it up, write a report. And he took the better part of the summer to write a report. So with the Durham probe, I mean, it's possible. What they have is so big. They're waiting for, quite literally, the stars to align, which they did. By the way, on July 4th, the stars aligned the planetary alignment. It's kind of interesting.
Speaker 3:Another thing with the Judge Sullivan case because Judge Sullivan has been dragging this along, jensen has been giving these document dumps to Sidney Powell. Now, once the case is dismissed, there will be no reason, there will be no reason for Jensen to give documents to Sidney Powell, she will have no reason to receive them. She's not entitled to them, and neither will be General Flynn. So it's kind of a byproduct good news of Judge Sullivan not dismissing this case, which, trust me, he's not not dismissing it because he's wanting these documents released. This is not the case at all. This entire ordeal, for him, is a career ender. It is the end of his functional career. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets removed from the bench when everything is said and done. The way he's doing these political maneuvers is causing even the most, you know, adept legal analysts to have a hard time to understand exactly what's going on. I mean, here's a case right here. Here's Alan Dershowitz, who you know Alan.
Speaker 3:Dershowitz seems to be in the middle of everything. Alan Dershowitz might be a Mossad hack. Alan Dershowitz went to Orgy Island with General Epstein, but he also worked on the Trump impeachment committee. Epstein, but he also worked on the Trump impeachment committee. I mean, he's a far left Harvard law professor who is as probably good a civil rights or defense attorney as there is. If I ever got in trouble and I had the money, I'd hire Alan Dershowitz to represent me Now as a defense attorney. He might life through his teeth on my behalf but nonetheless, at least he understands law. But here's what he says about this Flynn case.
Speaker 4:A bar to throw this out, and if this judge has the gall to not throw this out, he ought to be impeached. Remember that judges only have jurisdiction for cases and controversies. There's no controversy here. Both sides agree, the case would be dismissed. This judge has no power to do anything else, and if he asserts that power, he has violated the Constitution.
Speaker 3:All right. So that's Alan Dershowitz's opinion on Judge Sullivan. So we'll see. I mean, we'll see, we'll definitely see. I want to touch on just a couple other things. I just want to highlight some more hypocrisy in my media hypocrisy segment. I should come up with some little catch tunes like media hypocrisy, or I should have little segments, because sometimes it's fun to do that. I might think about that. Send me a note if you think that's a good idea or not. Okay, so this is Wolf Blitzer and Bill de Blasio. Bill de Blasio is the mayor of New York City, which I mean. Yesterday they were out in front of Trump Tower painting Black Lives Matter on the road.
Speaker 3:New York is a mess man. It is so it's astonishing. So you know New York's still on a lockdown. New York has got, I mean, what's not happening in New York. It's got the most deaths. They've got the most genocidal governor who sent sick people into nursing homes. He got his own little commission to say that. He got the Cuomo commission to say that Cuomo's innocent after just a few days, even though everybody can obviously see he's not. I mean, it's a mess, but nonetheless, mayor Bill de Blasio is even more of a disaster, and listen to how he talks about the difference between you know just listen to it.
Speaker 5:Just listen to it. Outdoor concerts, and it means things like outdoor concerts and it means things like parades. You know, things here in the city can mean not just thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people. It's just not time for that. Now what? About protests If people want to march down.
Speaker 4:Fifth Avenue. Are they going to be allowed to do so?
Speaker 5:Look, wolf, this is always an area of real sensitivity. If you're just talking about health, we would always say hey, folks, you know, stay home if you can. But we understand. At this moment in history, people are talking about the need for historic changes. I mean today in New York City, you know, recognizing the power and the meaning of the message Black Lives Matter, which we did in front of Trump Tower today. This is a historic moment of change. We have to respect that but also say to people the kinds of gatherings we're used to the parades, the fairs we just can't have that while we're focusing on health right now. What about the us open? I'm curious. Uh, I love going to the us open. I love tennis, big outdoor concerts isn't that interesting.
Speaker 3:So no more outdoor concerts, no more outdoor gatherings, but but protesting Black Lives Matter, although it's different, because it's a historic moment in time and we want people to participate in that. What a joke, what a stinking joke, man. I mean, it's just what a joke. Here's another one. This is one of those Soros prosecutors. This is an old video, I won't show it. It's the New York City attorney who's talking about we're going to take Donald Trump.
Speaker 5:They haven't done anything yet.
Speaker 3:They're not going to get anything done. Here's Nancy Pelosi in another astonishing anti-American episode. Here Listen to her talk about statues.
Speaker 5:I mean, just listen to this Respectfully. Shouldn't that be done by a commission or the city council, not a mob in the middle of the night throwing it into the harbor.
Speaker 2:People do what they do. I do think that from a safety standpoint, it would be a good idea to have it taken down. If the community doesn't want it I don't know that it has to be a commission.
Speaker 3:Okay, from a safety standpoint, it would be a good idea to take down these standing statues. What kind of safety, I mean, you've got to ask yourself. These are politicians, powerful people in the world, talking. What kind of safety are they talking about? Safety of toppling the statue? Safety of coronavirus? Mental health safety? What kind of safety?
Speaker 2:But it just could be a community view and sometimes it's something that's been there, that view has been there for a while. But's just say I always say to young people who come, children, who come to the capitol, when you look around you see statues to people and washington monuments and the rest, who, uh who we respect washington, jefferson, lincoln, you know heroes they would want us to be talking about the future, your future. So everything we do here is about you. It's not necessarily they would want it to be about looking forward, not looking back. So let's just think about what are the values, the vision, the perspective that we enshrine and how that benefits our children, rather than having a big fight about was somebody worth it? We know they're not worth it if they committed treason against the United States. Thank you all very much. We know they're not worth it if they committed treason against the United States. Thank you all very much.
Speaker 3:We know they're not worth it if they committed treason against the United States. I'm trying to understand who she's talking about. Christopher Columbus, frederick Douglass, thomas Jefferson, john Adams, george Washington which one of these people committed treason against the United States? I'm super confused by that. Is she referring to Donald Trump? That none of them are worth it if they committed treason? And then she's saying Donald Trump committed treason? Or she's saying that we're never going to make a statue of Barack Obama because he committed treason? Is that just a throwaway line? Just throw a big word out there, make people think and question who. It is okay.
Speaker 3:Next thing you know they want us to look into the future, not the past. Okay, that's true, that's called a platitude. Platitudes are things that you say that have meaning but mean nothing, right? Because like, hey, have a good day. Like, do you really want me to have a good day? You're going to do anything about having a good day? It's just a platitude. You throw them around there all the time. Or you know another platitude is the golden rule. And then she said the principles, but we don't need the monuments.
Speaker 3:I mean these people are just talking at this point. I mean they're just talking and they've been talking for years. But unfortunately there's this running narrative and as this narrative goes it hits walls. Right? You can't continue to say General Flynn was colluding with the Russians when you see in plain writing an FBI agent writing saying he wasn't colluding with the Russians. Is our goal just to get him to lose his job, to try him or get him to confess, right? So you can't say General Flynn's a Russian agent when you have the smoking gun document that says it's a setup. So all of a sudden, right at the beginning, all the walls are closing in. The walls are closing in people. How do you think they're feeling right now? There were never any walls. It was false sources and false leaks.
Speaker 3:These people's entire reputation, their entire life has been tied up and going after Donald Trump. And Donald Trump is the most clean political figure in US history. He was a private citizen up until just a few years ago, which meant he was being investigated by every local jurisdiction around. I've heard someone say Donald Trump is the most vetted president in US history. I mean, they have been digging and digging and digging, looking for anything they can hold out over his head, and they have nothing. They have nothing. So they have nothing. They have nothing, so they have spent their political capital. The Democrats have spent their political capital investigating. They've spent their political capital making accusations that haven't been true and eventually, every time they withdraw from that bank account, you get down to the point now where I don't think they have a lot of political capital left. They've still got a base. They're always going to have their MSN CNN base whoever watches those channels. But I think most people are starting to kind of figure it out. They're starting to especially with the coronavirus scandal is people are starting to figure it out.
Speaker 3:One of the things that I've been also kind of harping on with people in my local circle and I think it's important for us to think about this as peasants is a lot of times we forget how important words are and how words matter. I want to show you a difference. One of the things you'll hear a lot of people say is they'll say well, america is already a socialist country, we already have socialism. Okay, that's false, it's a lie, it's a total lie. Let me explain two simple definitions that are different.
Speaker 3:Socialism, it's a noun, it's a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates the means of production, so the ability to make things, the ability to distribute things, owning the trucks and delivery systems and exchange the actual stores should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. So the community gets together, has an entity community as a whole. So the community gets together, has an entity. That entity then tells the means of production, distribution and exchange what to do. Okay, so, but it's the community. Notice how the last word there, you know regulated by the community. Well, how do you regulate something by a community? How big of a community are we talking about 10,000 people? We're talking about 360 million people. The bigger the community, the smaller the pool of people that can actually make decisions on behalf of the community.
Speaker 3:You see how this ends up being kind of a pyramid, right, you still have that top-down power structure where things are being decided by the community, but you're going to have to endow or empower people. It becomes a mess. Then you throw in democratic in there, and that's the idea that, well, we'll vote on everything. Okay, well, you got three people, two wolves and a lamb, and they're going to vote to see what's for lunch. Obviously it's going to be a two-to-one vote to have lamb for lunch. That's how true democracy works. It's mob rule. That's not great.
Speaker 3:What we do like is what's called communitarianism. Most people, when they say America is socialist, what they mean to say is they're a communitarian society. Communitarianism is a theory or system of social organization based on small, self-governing communities. So the idea that in our local communities, you know, we can handle things. This is churches or communitarianism. It's an ideology which emphasizes the responsibility of the individual to the community and the social importance of the family unit. So it's not an economic theory like socialism where the economy is controlled. It's an idea. It's communitarianism where, as an individual, you become taught and aware of your role in greater society. This is the idea that you drive the speed limit because if everybody drives the speed limit, the roads are safer. That's a communitarian point of view. That's what America is. America has always been communitarianism, a communitarian society. It's not been socialism.
Speaker 3:These words matter, the wordplay matters. So I'm starting to correct people in my sphere. When people just get it wrong, it's not because I necessarily want to be correcting everybody, it's because it's important to understand how these words they just need to be correct. I want to play a little bit of an audio link. This is from the Icon podcast and this is just a video he did and he posted on his Instagram. I got this sent to me, but I think he does a really good job of going through terms and just going through things that are happening right now, so I'm just going to let him kind of finish things off for me.
Speaker 7:What we're actually seeing is the systematic implementation of the fall of the republic and the rise of the corporation of the United States. Every major event is a step in the ladder to achieve that end. Covid is just another rung in the ladder, which is why there's a deliberate mixing of all the wordplay. Right, I mean, we should stop calling it. You know, quarantine. That's a term designated for people that are verified sick. This is a house arrest mandated by the state. You should stop calling it. You know social distancing. There's nothing social about forced isolation. We should stop saying safer at home when millions of Americans don't have basic necessities adequate to fit their needs. It assumes that everybody's home is equally as safe as the people that are making the statements. We should stop saying you know, this is for the greater good. Right, when you close the economy, killing millions of businesses that families have worked generations to establish, that's anything but good. We should stop saying this is the new normal. That's just blatant mind-control drivel. There's nothing normal about forced isolation. Treating your neighbor like they have the plague, breathing your own bodily waste, wearing masks, living in constant fear of contamination that's normal, I mean. After all, if the virus is so deadly, why hasn't it wiped out the homeless who don't social distance, wash themselves regularly, let alone, you know, live in or have access to a sterile environment? Last year, 1.5 million people died of tuberculosis. Why were you not wearing a mask during the tuberculosis pandemic? You were endangering, you know, public health and safety, along with billions of other people around the globe, so why don't you wear a mask? I'll tell you why. Because the mainstream media didn't tell you to wear a mask. Right? Because, though 1.5 million people died from tuberculosis, there was no tuberculosis pandemic, any more than there's a coronavirus pandemic. What you're really participating in is a beta test for AI systems and facial recognition. See, these cameras work best when people are, you know, distanced apart. Now they're actually testing, through machine learning, how to recognize, you know, a face that's partially covered. It's also a way to easily determine who's compliant, who's not, who does the propaganda work on and who it doesn't?
Speaker 7:Now get this. You know, there's some ironies that are here, right? So a society that kills millions of babies a year for convenience has shut itself down to prevent adults from dying. People that, on the one hand, slaughter babies in the womb by the millions, are now preaching to the masses about the sanctity of human life. It's double speak, double talk. It's the two doctrine policy One for the initiated, one for the uninitiated, one for the inner circle, another for the initiated, one for the uninitiated, one for the inner circle, another for the masses. It's like saying if I violate the stay-at-home order I can be arrested, but you're letting convicted criminals out of prison so they don't get coronavirus Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
Speaker 7:If there's a real pandemic, does it require faulty virus models, rigged test results 81% false positives, inaccurate news reporting, staged hospital overruns, manipulated death certificates Nope. When the government shuts down millions of small businesses but doesn't lay off any government employees, it's not about the health. When the state bans dentists from practicing but deems it necessary for abortion clinics to stay open, it's not about your health. When the state prevents you from buying seeds for your garden but allows you to purchase lottery tickets, it's not about your health. An institution that has the ability to destroy all of earth through alleged nuclear warfare should not regulate personal self-defense. An institution that's caught trafficking drugs shouldn't be able to regulate plants. An institution that's racked up $23 trillion prior to coronavirus in debt shouldn't be allowed to manage the retirement fund. An institution that was caught spreading STDs should not be allowed to run health care.
Speaker 7:If people are really concerned about public health and safety, you know in general. But you know they don't care. If people you know eat garbage, drink poison, smoke, cancer and take prescription drugs but think that toilet paper hand sanitizer masks are going to protect them from the boogeyman coronavirus, you know this is a special kind of stupid that I can't address here. You should ask yourself a couple of basic questions can't address here. You should ask yourself a couple of basic questions when did you consent from you know you creating a government to serve you to you serving the government ruling over you? If you want to know, you know who's in charge. Just think about who you can and can't criticize.
Speaker 3:What a great, what a great assessment analysis. I love that he took the time to put all that together, because it really is the case, right? It's thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and we're watching people literally have mental relapses right in front of us. I mean, you know, people who can't see the silly hypocrisy that's around them. And I have someone to blame. I have someone to blame for this.
Speaker 3:I blame the boomers for our current problem, because the boomers, out of necessity by their grandparents who fought or their parents who fought in World War II, have a keep your mouth shut, get along, you know, just don't cause a scene, don't say anything controversial, just get along attitude. And that attitude is why we allow our politicians to be held unaccountable. We don't speak up, we don't get in their faces when they make silly mistakes, we just go. Well, they've got more info than we do. They know more than we do. I heard someone say one time that once the internet came about, that the population of the United States was far ahead of the president in intelligence, because we can get information raw on the internet. He has to get it through filters and so sometimes we're way ahead of the president on what we know, what's going on around the world and I believe that today I honestly believe that today, I think the president cannot be on top of things like it's just someone who's surfing Twitter could be there's. You can't be, and you're going to get just as much real information on Twitter as as they get. In fact, 80% of intelligence gathering is open source. Yeah, did you know that? It means 80% of what our intelligence agencies work with they're just getting off the internet themselves. So we can be the judges here, right? We can't let the double speak rule the day.
Speaker 3:Boomers, that can hear me now. We need you to speak up. We need you with your wisdom, your knowledge, your life experience, to speak up and help take a stand for the millennials and Gen Z who have been bombarded by false indoctrination, marxist thinking, right Double like calling things like communitarianism socialism to make people think it's a good thing Because America is very communitarianism. When you've got a communitarian society, that's a good society. Don't call it socialist. That's something totally different. You can't find a socialist country where the economy is now controlled by the community, which basically means the elite within the community that does well. I mean Venezuela. We could go through a whole list of things, but the double speak. Stand up. Boomers, older people who've normally just consented, who've complied with whatever oddball rule. It's time for you to speak up. It's time for you to draw a line in the sand, too, to help the younger generation to give us a shot. I'm serious.
Speaker 3:Okay, I don't have anything else for today. It was great talking to you. I'm expecting some documents out today in the Flynn case. I'm expecting Jensen gave Sidney Powell some documents on Monday and usually it takes a couple days to unseal those. So I'm expecting some breaking news later today. So hopefully we'll get to talk about that in our next episode. All right, peasants Podcast signing off. You can find me at PeasantsPod, at Twitter at PeasantsPod. You can find me on Parler at PeasantsPod. You can find me on Facebook, at the Peasants Perspective, and you can find me on Gmail at peasantspod, at gmailcom. Thanks a lot, bye.
Speaker 1:Who are the Britons? We all are. We are all Britain and I am your king. I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working class is oh, there you go, bringing class into the gang. That's what it's all about. If only people would Please, please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle? No one lives there. Then, who is your lord? We don't have a lord. What I told you? We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
Speaker 1:We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, yes, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. Yes, I see, by a simple majority. In the case of purely internal affairs, be quiet. But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major, be quiet. I order you to be quiet. Order you to be quiet. Order.
Speaker 1:Who does he think he is? I'm your king. Well, I didn't vote for you. You don't vote for kings. Well, how do you become king then?
Speaker 1:The lady of the lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying, by divine providence that I, arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I'm your king. Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Be quiet. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. Shut up. If I went round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had loved a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. Shut up, will you Shut up? Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Shut up. Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help. I'm being repressed, bloody peasant. Oh, what a giveaway. Did you hear that? Did you hear that? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me?
