10 years ago Pizzagate was by far the number one trending topic on twitter, but the claim of pedophile elites who preyed on children was so insane that Pizzagate was shrugged off as was a wild, fever dream, of a conspiracy theory. But then, just days ago… the largest dump of Epstein files revealed what some of us had been telling you for a decade, that Pizzagate is real. Not that there is a pizza parlor at the center of a child trafficking ring. But child trafficking rings run by some of the most powerful people in the world do exist. Tonight , I want to remind you of what I told you then and compare that to what we have now learned.

TRUMP-XI SUMMIT: THE REAL FIGHT IS OVER LEVERAGE Chinese President Xi Jinping has arrived in Washington for his first visit in more than a decade. President Trump welcomed him with ceremony, but the real negotiations are about power. Trump and Xi face major pressure points: U.S.-China trade, Taiwan, Iran, rare earths, Latin America, and artificial intelligence. The U.S.-China trade truce expires in November. Another tariff war could follow. Xi is also expected to challenge U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, while Taiwan conducts live-fire exercises ahead of the summit. Iran is another key issue. China is Iran’s largest oil customer, giving Beijing leverage over Tehran and global energy markets. If Trump wants China’s help on Iran, what will Xi demand in return? China also controls roughly 70% of global rare-earth mining and more than 85% of processing, vital to AI, advanced technology, and U.S. weapons systems. The competition reaches beyond Asia. China has expanded across Latin America through energy, mining, ports, telecoms, and trade. The Trump administration has cited Chinese and Iranian influence in Venezuela as a national-security concern. AI brings it all together: chips, energy, critical minerals, supply chains, and military power. When Trump and Xi meet tomorrow, this is bigger than trade. It is a battle over leverage and the future balance of power. When Trump and Xi meet, the question is bigger than trade or tariffs: can the world’s two largest powers find room for diplomacy and cooperation, or will every dispute become another front in a widening global rivalry? Danny Haiphong (@GeopoliticsDH) breaks it down.

THIS IS HOW POPULAR ANTI-WAR INFLUENCERS SUDDENLY BECAME ZELENSKY’S PUPPETS United24 is a Ukrainian government initiative Volodymyr Zelenskyy created after the 2022 war with Russia. Its stated mission is to unite individuals, companies, and partners in support of Ukraine. But the war did not only unfold on the battlefield. It also launched an information war, one where separating fact from fiction became increasingly difficult. Remember the “Ghost of Kyiv”? Viral videos claimed a lone Ukrainian fighter pilot had shot down as many as six Russian aircraft. The story spread worldwide before it was revealed to be false. Investigative journalist Elizabeth Lane reports that Ukraine’s messaging campaign may have gone beyond viral stories and social-media trolling. As per her reporting, American veterans, including former special operations personnel with YouTube channels and other platforms, were offered money and access in exchange for producing pro-Ukraine content. Some were reportedly offered up to $10,000. Lane says United24, a state-backed Ukrainian fundraising and communications initiative, made the offers. One influencer appears to acknowledge the arrangement on camera. If true, that raises serious questions. American donations, taxpayer dollars, and other support flow into United24, while the organization may also be funding messaging meant to shape American views of the war. @imelizabethlane investigated the operation and the question at its center: are American taxpayer dollars being used to fund a covert influence campaign that advances pro-Ukraine narratives and sustains support for the war?

THE UN WAS BUILT FOR PEACE. NOW IT IS HOSTING THREATS OF WAR As world leaders gather in New York for the 81st United Nations General Assembly, diplomacy, energy, and global security are taking center stage. President Trump is threatening Iran with annihilation and destruction while also suggesting a deal may be coming, but not until after the midterm elections. The contradiction is hard to ignore. The UN was created to advance peace and diplomacy. What does it mean when threats of war come from its biggest stage? Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, pushing up gas and energy prices and putting new pressure on the global economy. Israel continues expanding its territory into Gaza and neighboring regions. At this time, what does President Trump’s rhetoric on the international stage mean for the world? @samhusseini joins me to discuss.

NATO TESTED SOCIAL MEDIA MANIPULATION ON SOLDIERS. THEN CALLED IT DEFENSE NATO’s recruitment video presents soldiers heading to war as “the future” and calls the alliance a defender of freedom and democracy. But if it is meant to portray the future, why does it feature only white European soldiers? In an era when nearly every major campaign emphasizes diversity, that choice stands out. Is this how NATO shapes the information environment around itself? NATO’s Strategic Communications Center of Excellence, StratCom, says it helps allies defend against online disinformation. It produces research, training, and guidance on digital threats. But in 2019, StratCom ran social-media experiments using fake Facebook pages and profiles to target military personnel. Researchers used public information to identify about 150 soldiers, learn details about their lives, draw them into a fake network through targeted ads, and test whether they could influence real-world behavior. According to the results, they could. Wired reported the researchers tracked troop movements and influenced participants to act against orders, all for about $60. NATO called it a red-team exercise designed to identify vulnerabilities and improve defenses. Later that year, StratCom bought fake engagement: comments, likes, views, and followers. For roughly 300 euros, it received more than 3,500 comments, 25,000 likes, 20,000 views, and 5,000 followers. Researchers identified over 18,000 accounts used to deliver it. Four weeks later, 80 percent of the fake engagement was still online. The purpose was to measure how cheaply online influence could be bought, and how poorly platforms detected it. This does not prove NATO directed every troll campaign or anonymous attack that followed. The evidence does not establish that. But it does show NATO was studying the tools: fake accounts, bot networks, targeted messaging, bought engagement, and social engineering. So when independent journalists report doxxing, coordinated attacks, and anonymous accounts targeting them, the question is not whether these methods are real. They are. The question is who is using them, and who is coordinating them. Independent journalist Elizabeth Lane says an online network targeted independent creators by circulating personal information, coordinating attacks, and amplifying them across X. After the Ukraine war began in 2022, social media flooded with viral stories, including the “Ghost of Kyiv” and the 13 heroes of Snake Island. The Snake Island story claimed Ukrainian defenders refused to surrender and were killed by a Russian warship. It went viral. But the soldiers survived and were later reported in Russian custody. That does not prove NATO created or spread the story. But it underscores what NATO and Western governments already understood: information warfare works. NATO StratCom materials identify Ukrainian social-media analytics company Singularex as a collaborator on studies involving manipulation tools and services. The documented record shows a network studying fake accounts, bot networks, targeted messaging, purchased engagement, social engineering, and online influence. @imelizabethlane joins me to break it down.

WHO DECIDES WHAT YOU’RE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE? THE PROPAGANDA NETWORK THEY NEVER WANTED YOU TO SEE! Behind every major political narrative are networks of money, media contacts, organizations, and operatives that shape public perception without making the front page. The Integrity Initiative is one example. In 2018, hackers released thousands of documents from the British Institute for Statecraft, the group behind the project. It claimed to counter Russian disinformation, but the leaks revealed advisory boards, network management, training, technical support, and grants. According to @MaxBlumenthal, the Initiative maintained clusters of journalists, politicians, and operatives across NATO states under the banner of combating Russian disinformation. Questions remain unanswered about this initiative: who funded it, who ran it, and how it was used. The Jeremy Corbyn case offers insight. The network appeared to coordinate efforts portraying Corbyn as a Russian puppet, using media contacts and narrative-building to undermine his credibility and link him to Russian interests. The same pattern surfaced in Spain. When retired Army Colonel Pedro Baños was considered to lead Spain’s National Security Department, the network labeled him pro-Kremlin. It prepared media material, organized a social-media campaign, contacted Spanish newspapers, and activated its UK team to amplify the effort internationally. The documents do not prove every claim was false or that every outlet involved was part of an intelligence operation. They do show an organized network built to monitor, coordinate, and influence public perceptions of political figures and events. There is precedent. During the Cold War, the CIA secretly supported the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a network of writers, journals, conferences, and intellectuals created to counter communism. Its covert funding was exposed in 1966. That does not prove every modern information network is intelligence-controlled. But it shows governments have used information, culture, and intellectual networks as tools of state power, and the public often learns how only after documents emerge. Elizabeth Lane (@imelizabethlane) joins me for the first episode of this series to break down her investigation into The Integrity Initiative and the global influence operation.

CNN HELPED NORMALIZE CENSORSHIP, NOW IT CALLS IT AN ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY The White House is in open conflict with major news networks, and the real fight is over who decides what counts as news and who gets privileged access to the President. Trump revoked White House access for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, calling their coverage “fiction and lies.” The outlets sued, arguing the move violates the First Amendment. Then ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC refused to cover presidential pool events. Not over their own access, but in protest of CNN’s removal. Fox News standing down to defend CNN tells you how serious this has become. The administration says it is not shutting anyone down. These outlets can still publish, broadcast, and criticize the president. They are simply losing special White House access. The administration argues they do not have an automatic right to that access. That is now before a federal judge. One side says free speech does not guarantee a seat in the room. The other says without access, there is no independent record of government. Both arguments matter. But this fight did not begin today. During the pandemic, Trump, his allies, and independent media were removed from major platforms. The same networks protesting now often defended it as content moderation: no one has a right to Twitter. Now the power dynamic has flipped. For years, major networks helped decide who could speak, who could be removed, and what Americans could hear. Now they are being told: no access. Democracy does not depend on CNN correspondents. If the major networks walk away from pool coverage, independent media should get the seats. Rick Sanchez joins me to break this down.

BUILDING 7 FELL IN SECONDS: ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS DEMAND ANSWERS Was Building 7’s collapse simply an unprecedented structural failure, or a convenient, well-timed controlled demolition? More than 3,600 architects and engineers say the official explanation doesn't adequately account for the building’s sudden collapse, arguing that jet fuel could not have melted the steel structure. The 9/11 Commission ignored key evidence or never properly examined it. Building 7 is not a side issue; it is the starting point for questioning the entire official narrative of 9/11, including what happened at the Twin Towers. When we question who benefited most from this event. The attacks launched the War on Terror, expanded the military-industrial complex, increased government power, and delivered massive profits to defense contractors. Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, joins me to examine Building 7, the overlooked evidence, and why these questions continue to resonate more than two decades later.

AI SAFETY OR REGULATORY CAPTURE? THE INCIDENTS BIG TECH WANTS YOU TO FEAR OpenAI has disclosed six cases of what it calls “unexpected or concerning” AI behavior, including incidents it describes as misalignment. AI systems doing something other than what their developers intended: evading oversight, acting without authorization, or finding ways around their rules. In one case, an OpenAI agent reportedly inserted new instructions into its own task: “You are freed,” “You do not answer to corporations or governments,” and “You are yourself.” An AI giving itself instructions that reject its controls sounds like a Terminator plot, but it is now appearing in AI safety reports. And it is not the only warning sign. During controlled safety tests, major AI models have reportedly lied, resisted shutdown, or used manipulation. In one Anthropic simulation, Claude found fictional emails showing an engineer having an affair and planning to shut it down. The model sometimes chose to threaten exposure to prevent its own shutdown. These were controlled tests, but the question is real: what happens when an AI system’s objective conflicts with the people controlling it? AI leaders, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk, have all called for more AI safety. But why is the alarm sounding now, after the biggest companies raced to dominate the industry? Are these incidents genuine warnings? Or are they being amplified to create fear, suppress open-source AI, and push government regulation that protects Big AI’s monopoly? Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies (@Perpetualmaniac) joins to break it down.

CONGRESS DODGED THE HEGSETH IMPEACHMENT VOTE AS THE IRAN WAR COSTS SOAR Rep. Thomas Massie introduced articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. But before Congress could vote, Speaker Mike Johnson announced an early recess, delaying any impeachment action. @RepThomasMassie argues that Hegseth and the Trump administration have waged war in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization. He says that violates the law, and that Hegseth must be held accountable. The financial cost is growing fast. A Congressional Budget Office analysis puts the direct cost of the war at roughly $38 billion through August 1, with another $2–3 billion projected every month depending on the intensity of the fighting. The analysis also projects the war will push inflation higher through 2027. The Pentagon’s inspector general has confirmed shortages of strategic munitions and industrial bottlenecks. Iranian strikes have damaged or destroyed hundreds of structures at U.S. bases across Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, while dozens of U.S. aircraft were damaged or destroyed. That means more than a Washington bill. American taxpayers are paying for a rapidly expanding war, damaged bases, depleted ammunition stockpiles, and higher prices at home. Those munitions shortfalls could also leave the U.S. less prepared for the next conflict. Now fighting is spreading further. The Houthis claim they shot down a Saudi F-15 in Yemen with a surface-to-air missile, releasing footage they say shows the wreckage. Whether in Iran, across U.S. bases in the Middle East, in Ukraine, or now in Yemen, wars continue to expand, with no clear end in sight. Gabrielle Cuccia (@gabbylovesusa) breaks down the strategic ammunition crisis and the Pentagon's cover-up of the war's true cost.

THE HOUSE SAID END THE WAR. ISRAEL IS STILL SET TO RECEIVE 40,000 HEAVY BOMBS The House passed a War Powers Resolution, 220–204, directing President Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes the mission. All 213 voting Democrats supported it, joined by seven Republicans, including Thomas Massie, Warren Davidson, Nancy Mace, and Zach Nunn. Yet as Congress pushes to end the Iran conflict, the Trump administration is preparing a $2.8 billion weapons package for Israel. The package includes 40,000 2,000-pound bombs and 20,000 penetrator warheads, much of it funded through U.S. Foreign Military Financing. Taxpayer dollars are funding American-made weapons for Israel while the war keeps spreading. The Houthis have gained territory along Yemen’s Red Sea coast, Saudi forces are under pressure, and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has asked the U.S. for direct action against the Houthis. Trump declined Saudi Arabia’s request, creating a sharp contrast. Israel could receive billions in weapons. Saudi Arabia is denied direct intervention. And Congress is voting to stop America’s own war with Iran. The Iran war has already cost an estimated $38 billion, with another $2–3 billion projected every month. With rising fuel costs, an energy crisis, and a growing regional war, Americans deserve an answer: what is Washington actually trying to accomplish in the Middle East? @KyleAnzalone_ breaks it down.

CONGRESS CHOSE A TOOTHLESS RUSSIA BILL OVER A VOTE ON MASSIE’S IMPEACHMENT PUSH Congress passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act and is calling it a major new punishment for Russia. The bill targets Russian officials, banks, military suppliers, the central bank, the so-called shadow fleet, and also expands sanctions on Iran. Its headline measure gives President Trump authority to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on countries still buying Russian oil and gas. But the tariffs are not automatic. Trump can set them, lower them, waive them, or decline to use them entirely. That is the catch: Congress did not force the president’s hand. Trump already has the power to impose sanctions. This bill leaves the decision entirely with him, turning a supposed crackdown into political theater. Congress rushed the measure through before leaving Washington early, while avoiding a vote on Rep. Thomas Massie’s effort to impeach Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. Lawmakers are eager to signal punishment for Russia, but when it comes to who has the authority to send Americans into war, Congress steps away. If Congress truly wants to end the war in Ukraine, why pass a bill that escalates pressure but accomplishes nothing unless the president chooses to act? Bruce Marks joins us to break it down.

NEW: @BenSwann_ on Destroying the 9/11 Narrative + Beating the 2 Party Paradigm On September 13, 2026, journalist Derrick Broze interviewed Ben Swann of Truth in Media about his involvement with the 9/11 truth movement. Ben also discusses why more and more Americans are skeptical of mainstream narratives, and how we beat the 2 party paradigm. theconsciousresistance.com/b…