Conyers, Georgia Residents Suffering “Prolonged Illness”, Trump/Iran Psyop & The Amsterdam Deception

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:21):
Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent news as we see it from the
last 24 hours.
Sunday, November 10, 2024. Thank you for joining
me today. A lot to get into, catching
up on a few other topics covering following

(00:41):
up on some we just recently touched on,
so no real preamble to start today. I
wanna get right into it because I wanna
make sure that this is not as long
as it might become as much as I
know a lot of you love those, always
the balance.
Today, I wanna make sure we get into
the opening port about something I really wanted
to highlight that just is kind of a
throwback to
something we just recently went through, but also

(01:01):
just to kinda demonstrate tea lab value before
we talk about something around health, and that's
gonna be starting today around Conyers, Georgia, which
I promise you we're gonna keep up on
the story. I've yet to hear more from
Scott Smith, but there is a recent article
that came out even from corporate media
that is it's just it's exactly what we
expected. And and the as they framed it
themselves, prolonged
suffering from their illnesses that have gone that

(01:23):
have continued since this happened. And showing you
the chloracne point we made and what that
shows you and making sure you understand the
depths of the story.
Then we're gonna make sure we get into
a conversation around the 2 party illusion and
the kind of what we're I mean, arguably,
what we should always be doing, holding to
account the current administration. Right? So as we
step into this, continuing to point out things

(01:43):
sorry. I have something to my eye. Point
out things that are good as any no
matter objectively good things. Right? Something like if
RFK steps in and suddenly changes something for
the better in the health field. That's good
objectively no matter what if, you know, if
you feel that way, obviously. But, I mean,
from my perspective, something that I would see
them do that's good, important to point that
out whether or not you think the administration's
heading in a bad direction. So we wanna

(02:04):
make sure we continue to follow-up on the
potential
appointments
while
cautioning that we shouldn't jump to conclusions before
they actually happen, which we'll make a point
again about one of the recent statements put
out by Trump around RFK, which are just
more statements
as much as they are doubling down on
those statements, which even myself seems to indicate
I would argue it indicates more likely that

(02:26):
this is gonna happen, but there's still just
political statements as more evidence and, you know,
people jump on it and say, see, we
told you. It's well, that's just more statement.
So make sure we're holding off until we
have action, which I do think is is
an important part of this.
We wanna I wanna make sure we fall
continue to hold to account the what I
see as kind of the growing technocratic direction
and, hopefully, that it doesn't continue, but things

(02:47):
that I see I want you to make
sure you're aware of, the appointments of Trump's
administration, and, of course, from that point, talking
about Iran.
And what I see as a very obvious
Trump syop around rather, Trump Iran syop, which
would be the Trump Biden or rather the
Biden Ron syop if he were in power.
It's not focused on one party or another.
It's that your government is using

(03:07):
many different things to convince you that war
with Iran is necessary
because there is be ultimately tying back to
Israel, which is not my opinion. It's very
obvious. And go over why it's very obvious
that this is an agenda and then show
you some really interesting standouts from a recent
accusation around Trump being assassinated. We wanna talk
about,
of course, continue, continuing to follow-up on Israel

(03:29):
in regard to Gaza, Lebanon, and some points
there. But, obviously, the Amsterdam store Amsterdam story,
which I think we did
an excellent job
breaking this down the day it happened because
the information we're gonna go over is just
bolstering what we already told you because it
was obvious and you could prove it. Now
that that even as much as you might
sound like I'm patting myself on the back,
it's not about, look what a great job

(03:49):
we did. The point there is that's what
anybody honest would have done because the evidence
was so shockingly clear, like a lot of
these stories. I simply just looked at it
objectively and said, well, yeah. Clearly. Here's what
the police are saying happened. Here's what all
the evidence shows. Here's what the people watching
show. Here's all the videos, and then here's
what corporate media and all the
leaders of the world were saying.
Well, obviously, here are the facts. Right? And

(04:10):
the and the evidence stands to this day.
And the overwhelming
drive behind it shows you a lot of
many
very important things,
the the power structures,
the screamers online that are adding to the
story, which are also weirdly connected to a
lot of partisan conversations.
It'll be important to highlight. So I wanna
start with, again, a shout out to an

(04:30):
older point that you've seen that we've talked
about a lot. Here's doctor Ben Tapper,
simply pointing out, which I hope you remember
and I hope you haven't forgotten about as
much as it is
there's again, even with so much going on
in the foreign policy realm with new stories
around you know, it it's it's it's amazing
with how many important things we have going
on that you actually find it, obviously speaking

(04:50):
for myself, actually find it difficult to to
find room for some of these stories. And
as much as they're all I mean, even
the fact that Israel is committing genocide, the
ongoing story that continues,
that seems to increasingly take a backseat to
the stories of today,
which is in which is a balance as
always, but it just kills me that there
should as much as you know what? It

(05:11):
comes it comes down to what I think
is impactful for the moment.
Whereas in some cases, these things, as much
as it's important to see it going, still
genocide, still happening, that maybe it'll reach people
even in the service of seeing that one
to focus on other stories. But I think
it's important to point out that we
have to objective continue to see that this
is the biggest story of anything. And this

(05:32):
might be the very well the biggest story
we will cover in our lifetimes around something
like this as much as that won't be
what a lot of people want to highlight
it as for obvious political reasons. But this
is not just a genocide, not to jump
into this right now, but just a it
is
in so many ways
intricately connected to a 1,000 different topics and
really just the growing power structure of the

(05:53):
world today.
And and the dismantling of it and the
showing you what they were really trying to
accomplish. I mean, it's crazy. So my point
in saying that is just that there's so
many things to cover.
And it's
in trying to balance the importance of these
different stories around what is currently happening in
the day versus what just feels what's most
important, what upsets you the most, which emotions

(06:13):
do play a part, but shouldn't be driving
it. It's just I anyway, I don't even
know where I'm going. I'm just it's just
it but it kind of is incredible to
me that we're we're
in the midst of this. You know what
I mean? Like, that we are watching this
play out and not even just the act
of genocide, but what it's doing, what it's
dismantling,
the people that are being exposed. I mean,
it's just you know, I can go off
forever. Yeah. I'm sure you all feel the

(06:35):
same. It is absolutely
interesting.
You know? Is despite the fact that that
it is such a terrible thing just to
see
for once such a clear insight to what
we're really dealing with. And I'm not even
talking about just Zionism.
Just the corrupt nature of the power today.
The people, you know, the leaders screaming about
a pogrom in Amsterdam when we all can

(06:56):
see that they're lying. I mean, it's
it's in a way, there is a positive
side to that. It is breaking down the
illusion.
What are those major illusions that I think
today is even still
being covered up, being called something else? As
doctor Ben Tapper points out, the number of
athletes who have died of cardiac arrest in
the last 2 years is roughly equivalent to
the number that died in the prior 38

(07:18):
years.
Let that sink in. Now, obviously, you wouldn't
be I mean, you guys all know this.
For many reasons, not least of which was
the fact that TLav was breaking this down
in 2020 and 2021.
Early data until it became very clear that
it was obviously something that was worthy of
not just
here are side effects, but there's a much

(07:38):
bigger thing going on here and that was
the early 2021 coverage for TLAB, which I'll
give you some to look at.
So first, I just want you to hear
that point, that it is absolutely
overwhelmingly clear that there was something that was
different.
Not just, oh, another illness or, oh, another
you know, there's some kind of a a
rise in the bad food they ate or
it was hotter that year. All the crazy,

(07:59):
dumb things they put out to try to
justify, which was a which was because of
an experimental gene therapy shot that was literally
being shown to cause
cardiac arrest. On top of other things, which
are, you know, tangential or even connected to
that, myocarditis,
thrombosis,
blood clots, all over the place. And yet,
still, we act like we're baffled about it.
Right?

(08:20):
The point is, in to 1, don't forget
it. Make sure you see that. And as
we have some new story that rolls out
to justify or explain why we have all
these different cardiac arrests in kindergartens,
which they still do here and there. Remember
that. But then secondarily, to recognize that TLAB
was indeed breaking this down.
And this is one of the one of
the most important early ones in November of
2021.

(08:40):
Children slash athletes are collapsing and dying from
sudden cardiac arrest and unprecedented levels. Now, I
challenge you to find
there's a few of them. But I challenge
you to find
anyone else other than the few that I'm
thinking of or even just see them in
this time frame where people were making this
claim. And it's still, to this day, not
even endorsed by a lot of people even

(09:01):
within the mainstream alternative media or independent media,
and it is clearly, obviously correct. And that
is to show you not that we
were guessing and got it right, but that
we were looking at the data, we broke
it down for you, and I made my
argument. And ever since then, just like we're
doing today for Georgia, it has been bolstered
by the facts.
So if you wanna recognize a place that
will continue to do that, TLAB is for
you. Or find others that are that same

(09:22):
boat. I just think it's important to demonstrate
our value because of how many times we
have gotten these stories right a long time
before
a lot. And here's another one.
A few days later, same same month, the
pandemic illusion and the ongoing cover up of
the collapsing athlete, myocarditis, sudden cardiac arrest. This
one is all the way to 2023 because,
yes, that's also the point. We continue to

(09:42):
follow-up on these stories and just don't lurch
into the new positive thing or the new
story that we're all pointing at, the undeniable
proof that COVID injections are dangerous and causing
collapsing athletes. You know, we'd when we talked
about it during DeMar Hamlin or any other
ones that popped up, here's just the ongoing
tag where you can look at all the
different
shows over the years and articles that have
tagged that as collapsing athletes. And realize there's

(10:03):
more conversations on this platform around this that
aren't tagged as collapsing athletes. We there's parts
of it that are around children. You've seen
it all.
But thank you, Jake,
Jake Tapper. Thank you, doctor Ben Tapper, for
continuing to highlight this because we should not
forget about this. It's it's sad because so
many children were harmed. Now, of course, also
important to include the fact that Donald Trump

(10:23):
and Kamala Harris and whoever else in the
political establishment continue to endorse and support and
even push this shot to this very day.
Now Brad Miller wants you to remember something,
and this is important as it this will
also dovetail with the conversation of the up
incoming
indoor, appointments,
Or the conversation will briefly point to around

(10:43):
the unelected bureaucratic structure, which will be there
no matter what Elon kind of lazily points
to as if he wants you to think
he's gonna change that. Brad Miller wants you
to remember that all
capital
a l l, all currently serving active duty
generals,
willingly went along with the treasonous COVID operation
under Donald Trump and continued through Biden.

(11:04):
They all violated their oaths, broke the law,
and willingly participated in an operation designed to
kill or injure Americans
and injure Americans, transfer wealth, and destroy freedoms.
Many likely didn't know the full implications of
their actions at the time at the time,
which means they're too strategically naive to hold
their positions. But even once the purposes and

(11:26):
effects of the op became clear, none came
forward to speak out. Not to this day,
in the context of who he's pointing to.
There are the occasional anomaly in the military
like himself that did speak out and usually
are still to this day cast aside like
himself. Remember, he was the and I'll I'll
I'll grab, some of the interviews we did
with him.

(11:46):
He was with the 101st airborne,
right, which is a a very, very prestigious
position. He had recently gotten command, and then
he was pushed out. Now he was fired,
but slash, you know, he chose to res
were to not comply,
showing you what it looks like to have
integrity.
Now he was also the one of the
first people I think the first person we
interviewed.

(12:07):
The other one's not popping up right out
of the gate.
He's the 1st person we interviewed
in in the studio, which I'm honored to
say because he's really
There we go. Perfect.
Very Just one of the most, you know,
full of integrity. Now, this one was important
because he discusses kinda what he's doing right
here, a declaration of military accountability

(12:28):
and talks about foreign influence over US policy.
It's exactly what you think it is.
Now, this was about him to refusing the
shot.
This one was, you know, the interview I
just pointed out. I'm just filling the gap
as I talk and put this in there.
Now, here is what now, what is what's
point here is to show you that
all these people are still, you know I
mean, I guess the larger the long point

(12:49):
short is that ultimately, under Donald Trump's administration,
these people are still gonna power. Now, of
course, that could change in some ways,
but just recognize that as much as they
really want you to see this as different
things, it's the same machine, the same government,
and he sees it exactly the same way.
So call them out wherever they land, whether
or not they're supporting Trump, whether or not
they're a democrat or republican. K? And and,
again, let's not lose sight of what's going

(13:10):
on with this because this will be folded
in with a lot of things. Even interestingly
overlap with East Palestine or Georgia in some
ways.
There's much more going on and we should
never just allot what's in front of us
to one story because there's a lot a
lot of intersecting problems that your government have
jammed into your life, whether it's glyphosate or
PFAS or dioxins or endocrine disrupting chemicals or
the shots they're jamming in your arm or

(13:31):
the food that has things that it never
stops. But this is what we hope to
change, and I get it. One of the
reasons why people hope r f k might
have a difference. I do too. I genuinely
hope that's the case. I'm worried that there
might be more going on around it if
it happens at all. But I really do.
I'm right there with you.
So on that note, let's talk about Georgia.
Because it really did upset me more than

(13:52):
usual
to see this continue.
Because part of me was hoping that this
was just something we're missing, that it just
wasn't there, that it just continued to go
away. And sadly,
even CNN, which kills me because of their
old article I constantly point to from 1995
where they openly discuss the horrors of Baxons
and what we're gonna do about it and
then never talk about it again. Same with
with everybody. Even the EPA, as I'll point

(14:14):
out in this article, claimed that they did
took action a long time ago to no.
There's nothing that happened. You can prove that
the reality is they there's things that are
on the books about this or that, but,
ultimately, end of the day, like we're gonna
see in this article, they never engage with
these problems as if we're dealing with dioxins.
They talk about chlorine poisoning.
Well, these people are not suffering from chlorine

(14:35):
poisoning weeks later, guys. We're talking about I
mean, as much as there might be a
possible of very high exposure, we're talking about,
as we're discussing in the article, burned chlorine
compounds
which literally cause dioxin.
And on in the main point we're gonna
get into is what they're highlighting as one
of the biggest issues in this, which is
TCCA,
which I'm gonna go through very extensively, as

(14:55):
you know from this platform, and show you
what that is and why that's exactly the
problem.
Just one of the things. We're not even
talking about the main chlorine burned on styrene
and styrofoam,
all of them together, which create the TCDD
most dangerous chemical on the planet, dioxin,
but this as another aspect of it that
also causes dioxins.

(15:16):
And my point is that they don't even
mention the first part, but they also, even
as they list t c
c a as one of the things that
were burned,
I can prove to you that they themselves
know that that is an e even I
mean, I'll jump ahead really quickly. Even the
EPA's got a page called dioxins produced by
backyard burning. And I'll show you what they
mean by that, is TCAA or TCCA.

(15:36):
That there's a whole thing about backyard burning
about that exact point. And they have a
whole page about it, and yet this comes
up, they'll tell you that's what was burned,
and the EPA is like, what's a dioxin?
What are you talking about? With East Palestine,
it took weeks for them to even acknowledge
that.
So my point, if you're only just hearing
this for the first time, I am convinced
that the EPA knows about this problem, doesn't
know how to deal with it, so they're

(15:57):
just ignoring it. Or whatever justification
or rationale,
they're ignoring it. They're not telling you about
it, rather. Whatever that means behind the scenes.
My opinion is that they're just choosing to,
at some level of authority, because either it
works for them or because they don't know
how to handle it, which both are true,
honestly,
but I never try to speak to intent
I don't know what their minds are. But

(16:17):
I'm telling you guys, this is worthy of
your attention. And it kills me that so
few are even talking about this. As I
jokingly, macabrely said before, I guess, you know,
this is just now the partisan draw of
the rest of these stories. Where are all
the Nick Sorters out there rushing in to
save the day? Oh, because it doesn't there's
no partisan draw. There's no glamorous story for
them to manipulate. It kills me because this
is a much larger story than East Palestine

(16:39):
based on all the evidence.
But no one's gonna talk about it because
there's something not there for them to catch
their eye, I guess. Weeks after a chemical
plant inferno, nearby residents say they're suffering prolonged
illnesses and financial upheaval.
Now CNN aside, which we should never blindly
trust anybody, CNN, Fox News, independent media, myself
included, you should be questioning these things. But
it's also equally ignorant to say, CNN, therefore

(17:01):
not true, or therefore ignore as I'll make
a point in a minute about. That's ridiculous.
That's just as willfully ignorant as blindly accepting.
Blindly refusing, blindly accepting are the same thing.
You should consider and question everything. Do your
due diligence. Responsibilities on you. My point is
that this is true regardless of where it
comes from because we can prove that. And
I'll show you the information going back to
the early points that show you that this

(17:22):
was already happening. The evidence is simply in
this article that it has continued to this
day,
and it's seemingly getting worse for some people.
There's no way you make sense of that
if it was something they're talking about. The
only way to me that lines up is
because of something like a dioxin
chemical release,
which does not go away. There's a 7
year half life in your body for this
stuff.

(17:42):
Kills me. So okay. Here's what it says.
The opaque plumes of noxious smoke billowing out
of a chemical Georgia chemical plant are too
are are long gone,
but the relentless effects of the biolab fire,
which is the company, and conures are still
visible, residents say.
From exacerbated
rashes,
that's the most important point for me, to

(18:03):
mounting bills to nagging symptoms and piles of
prescriptions.
So we'll come back
as one of the 2 other articles I'll
include as well. We discussed this in both.
This is called the CIDESO disaster or CIDESO
accident.
It's called a look
at 40 years of health research and beyond.
To sum this up quickly, you can see
right here, t TCDD or dioxin,

(18:26):
that's the chemical we're talking about. Again, according
to everybody that I've spoken to, experts, government
sources, TCDD is the most dangerous chemical in
existence.
Now, it's a byproduct in most cases by
something that's burned usually chlorine products or some
kind of other equivalent that is usually burned
alongside,
extra material like paper or something that causes
the overlap. Either way alone, as we we've
talked about, it can cause these. There's a

(18:47):
lot of different varying aspects. In this case,
like we'll go over today, weirdly a very
similar case here, it was because of a
chemical reaction. That's what the TCCA point is
and we'll get to it in a minute.
Because of the way that they had this
set up,
which is crazy to me. I'm only just
finding this out from this this recent discussion.
The company we're talking about, BioLab, had sprinklers
set up over things that they knew water

(19:09):
would cause a chemical reaction for. That's not
a joke. That's real stuff that even CNN's
reporting.
And And so the one of the questions
of the locals is going, well, why did
you have sprinklers over something that would, if
the water went off, would cause dioxins to
release? Well, let's not forget what the supervisor
who's now dead, the whistleblower, was saying. He
accused them of doing this on purpose more
than once. There's something I mean, this could

(19:30):
simply just be some kind of insurance scam,
but I find that it's bigger than that.
And maybe because they somehow know the dioxins
will be ignored by the establishment, maybe there's
more going on than we realize. Either way,
that is wild that's that's not just mouthful.
I mean, that's criminal.
That is almost manufacturing a problem.
Either or just shocking incompetence.
My point though is that in this case,

(19:51):
70 years ago in Italy, the same thing
happened. Some kind of overlapping issue happened because
of what they sprayed or because something was
used. There was a chemical reaction, boom, and
dioxins were released.
The point is that they highlighted the most
obvious example of what
what showed acute exposure, the dangerous high level
exposure, and they said that was the crow
the chloracne,

(20:12):
the rashes.
The people that had rashes were the people
that had acute exposure. This you can read
it for yourself. And they went on to
say, okay, looking back a decade or so
past it going, okay, we're gonna study this
now. And they found out anybody who had
a chloracne rash and they found out in
in people in the same area or a
little bit further away that did not. And
they compared those that had the rash to
those that did not because they, in the
article, made it clear. If they had the

(20:33):
chloracne, that was acute exposure. Then from there,
they studied this 40 or rather 40 years
past, they looked back.
So, over the 40 years past it, they
found that people who had chloracne versus those
that did not
were over were rife
with immune system problems, reproductive issues,
cancers, all sorts of stuff,

(20:53):
which is the whole point here. And they
still, to this day, call Cervaiso one of
the top 10 environmental disasters in history.
And yet, weird how they can't even say
the word dioxin out loud. Isn't that strange
to everybody? It's all it's written throughout the
whole thing. Time Magazine has a whole thing
about it. Dioxin release. That's what they they
call this, a dioxin disaster,
and yet they can't factor this in. I

(21:13):
I'm I'm beating this dead horse because I
hope people can recognize
how blatant this is. At some level, they
know this is a problem and don't care.
There's no other way to look at it
in my mind. Please come to your own
conclusions.
So that being stated,
and I hope you will read this through.
And my point is I go through this
entire study in both of these pretty in-depth.
It's very clear that this was something that

(21:34):
is aware or that they're aware of,
and that the chloracne is an important aspect
of this. So just that point means that
the in this conversation, they're telling you right
now that weeks later, they're dealing with relentless
issues, rashes.
Where was I just reading from?
Just starting from the beginning. The plumes, relentless
fire,
exacerbating

(21:55):
rashes, mounting bills, and so on. Now it
says, quote, my vision still isn't like it
should be, said one of the residents. And
this is weeks later, guys. Your vision not
being the same, that is actually pretty alarming
to me as it should be to any
health expert. Your vision is that that that
is to me shows something very different than
a little chlorine exposure or even acute chlorine
exposure.
Now it's and she's a nurse, by the

(22:16):
way, said she's visited at least 3 doctors
since the blaze. This sounds exactly like East
Palestine
and the and, since the blaze propelled chlorine
smoke,
see one point, for Miles. I don't know
if the chemicals had burnt so bad. Alright.
She's I don't know if the chemicals had
burned it so bad.
Chlorine smoke? You know another word for that?

(22:37):
Dioxin.
They know this, guys. Somebody in there is
making an editorial decision to make chlorine being
burned is not called chlorine smoke. There are
chemical byproducts, and one of the most specific
aspects of this is chlorine,
which I'll include this since I just wanted
to grab it for you. This is a
study from 2,201, chlorine
combustion and dioxins. Since every molecule dioxin contains

(22:59):
2 or more atoms of chlorine, chlorine is
an absolute necessity for dioxin formation. Therefore, when
no chlorine is present, no dioxins are formed.
You don't call it chlorine smoke, you call
it the most dangerous chemical in existence and
get everybody the hell out of there. But
apparently, not today. Apparently, today, you act like
you don't know what's going on even though
you've written articles about how it causes the
worst disasters in history. Isn't that interesting?

(23:21):
And CNN is one of those places that
have covered this before. Now it says CNN
spoke with several Conyers residents over the past
week who said they still have blurry vision,
shortness of breath,
irritation of the throat, chronic headaches since the
September 29th fire. They said their doctors haven't
been able to prove whether their ailments are
directly linked to the vial inferno. Joel, we
can't yeah. Because you never can. How what

(23:44):
are you gonna how what what where's the
trail of evidence?
Well, obviously, we saw a chemical release and
then you breathe in that air and now
you have headaches, but, you know, you can't
prove it. Could've been anything. Well, yeah, you're
right. It could've been. But this is the
kind of burden of evidence that they place
on people like this. This shouldn't even be
a question.
They're responsible for what's going on because of
either mal malfeasance, negligence, or deliberate action, but

(24:04):
yet we always kick it down the road
and blame it on something else, or they
spread the problem out like he's Palestinian and
act like it's anybody else's fault because the
government doesn't care.
Shortness of breath was exactly what the supervisor,
which I'll play in the clip for you
in a get in a minute. I forget
I think his name was I don't wanna
misquote it, but he he died. In the
meeting, he complained of shortness of breath, walked
out of the building after telling you they

(24:26):
did this on purpose, alluding to it, and
telling you that it has to change, it's
been going on for decades, and then dies
outside the building.
You could simply just call that acute exposure.
That would that's certainly possible. It seems a
high level it'd be very high high acute
exposure, but either way,
could be something else. I don't know.
It says Reed's husband, Aquino, said he still

(24:46):
suffers shortness of breath and chronic headaches, and
that won't go away with medication.
Now it says the biolab disaster has cost
the Reed's at least $20,000
in lost income. Like, so that that matters
too.
Hotel stays during evacuation, medical bills. Like, in
at least in East Palestine, they at least
pretended they were gonna do this, pay for
it, and then did everything they could to
not do that, which most people got screwed.

(25:06):
Here, I don't even see there no one
even seems to think they care. You know
why? Because, no, the spotlight isn't here. You
don't have the partisan screamers out here making
this a conversation, and then you're dumping a
lot of fake news over the top of
it, but at least it gets attention. Right
now,
these companies know no one's paying attention. So
they're just sorry.
You can't prove it.
You see, there's a big difference here. So
it's always a cut double edged sword to

(25:28):
that. At least, if if despite the partisan
lies around things, at least people look to
it. At least people care.
But I'm not I I would argue that
it's, you know, the point. I mean, either
it's it's a double edged sword. There's a
positive. There's a negative to it. The point
is that people should not be lying about
these stories to get attention. But either way,
right now, no one sees this.
A veteran of biolab fire says she has

(25:48):
symptoms again.
This is the 2nd major fire of the
BioLab to upend Brandy core Corner's
life. It's not I think it's the 4th
3rd or 4th exam
disaster from this company.
2nd time she's been affected by it. 20
years ago,
Connor had a to evacuate her from her
from her workplace with a noxious plume from
the same bio lab company filling the sky.

(26:10):
Crazy. She went home, only discovered her house
was in the was in the path of
building smoke. Now, again, I argue,
Now, I mean, I should I need to
make a note of this for myself. But
somebody else out there wants to take the
time to do this as well. We need
to compare this location
to another control location that you can do
your best to tell doesn't have a lot
of the ax and exposure.
I'm willing to bet you my life that

(26:30):
they have a shockingly high level of cancer
along with everything else. Immune problems, re but,
again, how do you really map that out
and prove it? We're dealing with cancers for
all sun sorts of things. 1 well, I
think it's something like 1 in every 2
people in this country will have cancer before
they die. Probably more than that by now.
So this is my point. You you make
this a problem, and it's impossible to be
able to tell. Is it the glyphosate, or

(26:51):
is it the GMO food? Now it's the
dioxin release. Who who can tell?
In 2004,
the 2004 fire prompted mass evacuations due to
the release of 12 point over £12,500,000
of chemicals.
Same plant, guys. We're talking about chlorine then
too.
This according to the Rockdale County officials,
I've I've said in a recent lawsuit.

(27:14):
Connor recalled that 2004 smoke plume was visible
for 1 to 2 days and said he
suffered nausea for about a week.
But he but she believes this year's disaster
was far greater, a far greater catastrophe.
Objectively, it was based on the amount of
chlorine compounds.
BioLab produces pool and spa water sanitation products.
The warehouse that caught fire contained

(27:37):
I'm all pre pronounce it. Just c TCCA,
which the longer something try to trichloro or
something acid.
A chemical used to make chlorinated tablets.
So this isn't a question. This is this
is a there's now this is now instead
of just chlorine,
it's chlorine with other things. So, it I
guess you could argue it less I mean,
despite what other things might be in there
that might possibly make it worse, that it

(27:58):
would be a little bit less removed from
purer chlorine and the worst dioxin release.
But either way, we're still talking about the
same problem.
Now on that note, we'll talk about TCCA
specifically. But it says it's not clear what
sparked the initial fire, which I find interesting,
which remains under investigation by US chemical safety
board. I'm willing to bet you we never
find out. But the blaze turned into a

(28:19):
raging inferno
after remember, the story was it caught on
fire, and then they even reported that it
was done, that it was out.
And then the fire started in earnest, the
huge fire. So the point was that they
started spraying water, and this was I'm not
aware the this is what makes this is
one of those anomalies. Who reported that it
was out? Why did the the local media
say the fire was put out? So because

(28:39):
my point is there's no point in time
where the fire apparently went out. The fire
was they started spraying water on it, and
it exploded.
And the point is but the blaze turned
into a raging inferno after a act an
activated sprinkler system that malfunctioned and doused water
reactive
that that reacted the TCCA inside the building.
Again, at least that's what we're being told.
So then my point in saying that other

(29:00):
part was, okay. So who's being who's reporting?
So if we know the fire started and
the sprinkler system was either turned on and,
again, even the way they're reporting this, if
it just turned on automatically, we wouldn't even
hear this part of the story. Right? See,
there's clearly anomalies here where somebody was being
told about the fire, then there was a
time frame in which where there was people
saying it was out.
And then the sprinklers are on, then the

(29:21):
fire gets larger. At least, again, either they're
lying about the whole process, which is possible,
or there's something in there that we're not
being told. Isn't it funny how these always
seem to line up like that? And it
could just be maybe there's something in there
that we aren't being told, but it's not
nefarious. I don't know. The point is that
just like he's Palestine, there was something around
this that we weren't being told. The reason
that they rushed the whole train out of

(29:41):
there, covering it up to only take it
back up again or a number or forced
them to burn it even though it turns
out it was controlled or treated by a
chloride and probably wasn't gonna explode anyway according
to the court, according to their own experts.
Most people still don't know that.
So they turned what the water sprinklers came
on and suddenly, boom, it got crazier. Right?
Series of events, timeline don't add up for

(30:02):
me. When the TCCA touches a small amount
of water, according to CNN, but this is
true, and doesn't dissolve, quote, it can experience
a chemical reaction, generating heat and causing the
decomposition of the chemical, which in turn produces
toxic chlorine gas,
or it produces dioxin.
So my point so is it chlorine gas?
Now it's interesting

(30:23):
that you could point to the reality that,
you know, are are chlorine gas bombs just
dioxin weapons?
I need to look into that more. I
find that interesting. Because my point is, as
I'll show you next, we're talking about dioxin
right there. Now there could be chlorine as
well, which probably makes sense. But Would that
be called chlorine gas if dioxin is what's
really dangerous there? It's interesting.
Nonetheless, it seems that every chance they get,
they lean into chlorine smoke or chlorine gas

(30:45):
as opposed to what I argue is the
real risk, which if you look at their
own work, there are no they know that.
It says the federal report came actually,
yeah. Let me read that too, and I'll
jump over to that real quick. The federal
report came after a 2020 incident at another
biolab facility in Louisiana.
That's the same companies. Something is obviously wrong

(31:06):
here. This could be some government experiment for
all we know. And I'm just I'm not
saying I've evidence that, but isn't doesn't this
why would nobody ever do anything about this?
This come this place has had many disasters
like this,
and and they just I mean, it's like
anything else. In a real free market, a
company that was always doing this wouldn't exist.
So there's something else keeping this going.

(31:27):
It says, quote, after the buildings at the
BioLab facility were damaged by hurricane Laura winds,
rainwater
contacted the TCCA
stored inside, same exact thing, initiating a chemical
reaction and subsequent decomposition.
How so the same things have before and
they still have sprinklers over the top of
a chemical they know water will react with?
This sounds like a deliberate accident or accident

(31:47):
in quotes. The heat produced from the reaction
and decomposition initiated a fire, and the decomposition
released a large plume of hazardous gas,
including toxin toxic chlorine into the air.
Okay.
What I find really interesting about this,
TCCA
burned. It says based on the provided the
results.

(32:08):
If it's if, basically, they're showing you examples
of this in the past.
This is the one we're talking about, Conyers,
Georgia. Here's Lake
Charles, LA, same biolab in Los Angeles in
2020.
Or excuse me. No. That's just, is that
the same place? Oh, so Louisiana. Sorry. LA
being Louisiana, not Los Angeles. Sorry. I thought

(32:28):
that was, anyway, the point is
Louisiana,
Conyers, Georgia, and and this is number 3.
And there's more than 3 because there's 3
at least that we've talked about in Georgia.
But either way, we're talking about the same
conversation, the same TCCA,
the same company
over and over and over. How is that
possible? How can we have this many examples?
Now here's what's interesting. The point is that

(32:49):
TCCA
is a chlorinated compound
commonly used as disinfectant
or sanitizer.
Dioxins are formed through the incomplete combustion of
DCCA. The same thing we keep talking about.
So unless it's a controlled burn,
which is not what we're talking about, then
there this there would be dioxin release. And
it says, typically occurring at low temperatures and

(33:10):
oxygen levels. This can happen during backyard burning.
That's my point. So even EPA has a
whole post about dioxins produced by backyard burning.
They're talking about TCCA. So they're very aware
that when this happens, let alone
backyard burning compared to a huge plant catching
fire that they're aware of what was happening
and don't care.
Or at least don't tell you,

(33:30):
doesn't seem they're taking very much action around
it. Now it says even after the blaze
was snuffed out, a chemical haze shrouded neighborhoods
for more than a dozen miles.
A haze.
That's the problem right there. That's your dioxin.
For days, shifting winds swept the chemical haze
back and forth in multiple cities, including parts
of Atlanta. Around 30 miles away, Rockdale County

(33:51):
issued a shelter in place advisory for 90,000
residents, and about 17,000 residents had to evacuate.
The health effects of chlorine exposure continues, quote,
depend on the duration of exposure and exposure
concentration, says the CDC. Oh, so now we're
pretending it's chlorine exposure?
So when you burn chlorine, the gas that's
released from chlorine being burned is chlorine exposure?

(34:13):
That's not true. That's the straight up deception.
They're pretending somebody spilled chlorine in a room
where you were trapped? Yes. That would be
chlorine exposure. Chlorine aerosolized
or left in that's chlorine exposure.
Burning chlorine
is not the same thing
as Scott will tell you as we just
reviewed. But yet the CDC, when asked about
what this is, they say, well, chlorine exposure

(34:33):
will do x, y, and z.
Are they this stupid? Are they this deceptive?
Or are they this
nefarious?
Quote, exposure to low levels of chlorine can
result in nose, throat, and eye irritation. At
higher levels, breathing chlorine gas may result in
changes in breathing rate and coughing and okay.
But when you push the point is if
you read about it, they're saying, oh, it
has to be crazy high levels for it

(34:55):
to be any long term risk. Okay. Well,
then that's not what we're talking about, and
it isn't any way. We can prove that.
The the EPA set up air quality monitors
the day of the fire and tested for
almost 3 weeks for chlorine. And according to
Scott,
for asbestos,
which they they will they they'll find chlorine,
of course, in some levels. And that's what's
crazy is you're still finding finding

(35:16):
higher levels just in the air, which means
that's just what ended up not being burned.
And it says once there had been 3
or 4 days of essentially
only low level detections of chlorine
and other officials believe the plant would no
longer emit uncontrolled releases into the air, then
the county made the decision to lift the
shelter in place and evacuations based on the
new data. So they put up a test

(35:37):
just like he's Palestine, test for, let's see,
VOCs,
like he told you,
knowing that wasn't the real issue
and saying, okay. We're good. Come on back.
And then later revealing, oh, guess what? Sorry.
Our bad. It went 16 states across, and
it was dioxins and all sorts of dangerous
things. Yep.
Same thing's happening right now.
So here, I'll play Scott's clip from this

(35:57):
that shows just what he said before, showing
you this happened from the very beginning. People
being sick, nosebleeds,
nausea.
Challenge with the idea of how Oh, that's
That's
not that's not the one.
We'll come into that in a second. Oh,
you know what? That's right. I didn't add
it. Let me grab it real quick for
you. I was playing in the beginning on
the the looping clip. Here's this.

(36:18):
Blood passing out. And I was, you know,
around the perimeter and the people around me,
we all had intense headaches. And,
now I got a sore throat. So,
I really feel for these people. Fortunately for
me, I'm, you back where I live
and have relatively fresh air. But these people
that are continuing to be inundated by the
ongoing plume, I really feel for them. Also,

(36:40):
I want to give a special acknowledgment to
Kenny Johnson who died. He was the
supervisor for the,
water
for the county,
for the water and the soil. And he
was speaking out
almost like a whistleblower. And he has been
talking about this. So these are 2 deaths
too many. As you know, Courtney Miller was

(37:01):
the first one to reach out to me
in East Palestine,
and she passed away,
recently. And,
just my heart and thoughts go out to
Kenny Johnson's family. You know, I've been a
whistleblower with EPA Region 5 in East Palestine.
I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
I want to put things in perspective
from the scientific team today
that it has been verified

(37:23):
that at least £12,000,000
of chlorine compound
has burned,
could be as high as 20,000,000,
we don't know yet. East Palestine, as bad
as it was, was £2,000,000
of chlorine compounds,
including vinyl chloride.
And in and in English, to dummies like
me, what does that mean to the average
person? 12 years Here's what it means. The

(37:44):
products of incomplete combustion,
dioxins,
and cancer causing benzene compounds that are called
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
I, Jordan, we were both involved in this.
I never thought there'd be an event that
is now 6 times
greater of chlorine compound burn.
And it's worse than that. All these chlorine

(38:05):
compounds were sitting on plastic pallet,
and there was styrene
and styrofoam in the building.
And all of these, all of these compounds
when they burn create dioxin.
And I I would clip it to make
it exactly 2 minutes so I could play
it in the beginning, but he goes on
to say, and and other dangerous chemicals. And

(38:27):
and I and you've seen it, all that's
included in the the shows here from before
where he first made the point to say
that it's 6 times greater just based on
the chlorine compounds. But then our discussions with
me and I I I spoke to him
on the phone about this, and he said
it could be the greatest dachshund disaster in
history based on what he's seeing so far.
I'm still waiting to hear from about the
follow-up on the docs and results.

(38:47):
So he goes on to say and the
article goes on to say, once there had
been 3 or 4 days of essentially low
level, we just read that, they removed the
the risk. It says, quote, the EPA did
not do any indoor air monitoring,
which is just pretty crazy. I mean, obviously,
you could argue that my outside probably would
that that probably mean there wouldn't be inside,
but it just seems a very irresponsible thing
to do, especially if we're dealing with something

(39:08):
other than the one thing you're assuming was
probably there. But
But it didn't do any indoor air monitoring.
The the ad
advisement of the health officials was that chlorine
is typically nonpersistent.
You see my point?
So it's chlorine, and that's it. Right? So
that won't be a problem. What if it's
more than that, which we know for a
fact that it is.
This is this is my point about chlorine

(39:29):
exposure and gas. They're only focusing on the
product that was burned.
It's the same point we said from east
Palestine. They're focusing on first, even VOCs in
general, but then even a step further just
of vinyl chloride. Well, vinyl chloride, what was
is what was burned. That's not the focal
point. It's one of the things we should
consider simply because it's dangerous in its own
right. They know what they're doing, guys. I'm

(39:49):
convinced of that.
Now it says Connor believes intense chlorine exposure,
again, triggered her low now and this is
my point. So they are being misinformed.
They're being told by people around them that
it's the chlorine exposure. So when they do
their research, they're looking at chlorine.
But that's not the point.
She's believing that that's what ex that triggered
it. Right? Her headaches and so on, which
can be pounding and resistant to medication.

(40:12):
And when it says, quote, to this day,
I wake up with a headache weeks later,
and I go to bed with a headache.
She says, I have had an MRI and
an eye exam, and there's nothing going on
that the doctors are attributing to the daily
headaches.
Exactly.
It may be difficult to prove whether the
chlorine exposure, CNN writes, might have caused long
term damage to Connor's body and resulted in

(40:32):
chronic headaches even after the smoke has disappeared.
Because it's not that.
You're chasing you're chasing an an an
illusion. Because when you dig into that, they're
gonna make a case that and they can
prove it. Well, here, chlorine wouldn't do it
not this long, not not not based on
what was there.
So they'll sidestep it.
Quote, there are no medical tests to determine

(40:53):
whether you have been exposed specifically to chlorine.
By the way, and and there is, by
the way, tests for dachshunds. Just why why
in East Palestine, they were being refused the
testing, even though they were told to get
testing.
They kept speaking out loud to pretend like
we should you guys should get your tested
for dachshunds once we forced them to have
that conversation. Then they went in, and on
the record, she had a video where the
woman was told that they weren't being allowed

(41:13):
to give them.
Every time it's this obvious.
And now they're telling you that, wow. We
don't even know for chlorine, so it's not
worth it. But we're not talking about chlorine.
Chlorine, they say, is transport
is transformed in the body into chlorine ions,
chloride ions, which are normal components of the
body.
An enormous amount of chlorine has to be

(41:34):
inhaled or ingested in order to detect a
significant increase in chlorine. Exactly.
Which is why that's not the point.
So what they're simply saying is we know
it's not that because it would have to
be a crazy high amount. And then even
if it was,
it turns into something that's already in your
body, so we wouldn't be able to tell.
Funny how easily that works out, isn't it,
when we're looking at the wrong thing?
Almost like this has been something organized. Maybe

(41:55):
when a plant has 5, 4 exact disasters
with TCCA that turns into the oxins, they
they just blame chlorine and they know they
get away with it. See how easy this
may work? I mean, it's so hypothetical. But
look, I don't know how you explain this
track record
without there being obvious criminal activity.
Keisha Reid laid out about half a dozen
prescribed bottles,
prescription bottles, creams, and inhalers for what she's

(42:15):
been dealing with just since the fire. None
of which is helping. She says, those are
the things I went to the doctor to
get. My eyes wouldn't stop burning. I got
this inhaler from urgent care for the breathing,
shortness of breath,
hydroxy hydroxy hydroxy
hydroxyne
for the itching and and burning.
They gave me that too because it affected

(42:35):
my skin so bad. I mean, look at
this, guys.
Talk about chloracne or these reactions to the
skin, that this is exactly what we're worried
about. And this is we've been hearing this
as they reported from the beginning.
She said the burning sensation in her eyes
was unbearable and ended after 3 weeks,
but her vision to this day is still
blurry. She goes, I don't know what's in
the chemicals, but it affected my vision and
my eyes so bad.

(42:57):
It says her husband said he's also visited
a doctor to get relief for his symptoms,
but to no avail. He says, quote, I'm
still having the headaches. Shortness of breath, headaches,
long term effects. Right now, they're telling me
that they want to monitor the situation and
see how it progresses.
BioLab did not directly address the resident's complaints
of lasting aimless. Why? Because no one's looking
at them, so they know they can ignore

(43:18):
them.
Other than to advise anyone with ongoing symptoms
to consult a health care professional. Right? Go
pay for a doctor. That's on you.
No difference that he's pal What's the difference?
An accident which people are hurt by. Why
wouldn't it there be responsibility?
Because no one's no one's caring. The government
sure doesn't care.

(43:39):
Now it says the complaint filed October 28
says BioLab and and KIK file failed, quote,
to properly secure and manage hazardous material hazardous
materials. So one of the many lawsuits being
leveled at them
that were stored on the site. And to
properly install and maintain fire suppression systems adequate
to quickly and effectively extinguish fires that are
volatile and reactive.

(43:59):
Meaning, they which again, for the 4th time
at the least, the same exact problem. They
don't they don't have it set up in
a way to stop the thing that will
happen when water inevitably hits the chemical that
caused the reaction.
That's not just malfeasance. That not that's not
negligence, guys. That's either deliberate
criminality
or just, I guess, will willful negligence,

(44:20):
knowing that nobody will actually hold you accountable
for it if you do it the exact
same way.
Now it says Rockdale County is also seeking
damages as a quote as quote expenses
associated with emergency response efforts, evacuations procedures, public
health measures necessitated by the explosion of the
plant. Well, yes, obviously. Again, it's the same
as any other situation.
They are responsible

(44:41):
whether it was just a even if their
plant just something just randomly happened, it's still
their responsibility.
But especially because they you can prove that
they were
haven't learned from the last three times this
happened
or didn't care.
Quote, the damages also encompass economic losses due
to the business interruptions, decreased property values. It's
all the same stuff, long term impact, community

(45:02):
health, safety, which collectively represent a substantial financial
burden on the city. These damages are directly
caused by their pollution
and has been a a huge topic in
this community for years.
You know my you know how infuriating it
must be for them to be screaming about
this, Point it out. Have a disaster. Keep
screaming about it. Keep pointing it out.
Carry lawsuits out. Another disaster. Keep screaming about

(45:23):
it. Keep pointing it out. And now they're
being told deal with it yourself.
Go get go to the hospital. It's not
our responsibility.
I mean, think about how helpless that must
feel.
And they're in the right. This company is
disaster this company is problematic.
It is responsible and it doesn't seem to
care about its fallout.
When asked whether BioLab plans to shut down
its facilities in Conyers, the company spokesman declined

(45:45):
to comment. But, of course, said that people
are already back to work. Okay. So it's
not shutting down. Right back to work. How
much you wanna bet? So here's what's crazy.
You're going back to work, and you don't
have new sprinkler system sprinkler system, so it
could happen again tomorrow for all we know.
Now it says accidents are going to happen,
but an accident like this, in my opinion,
was a 100% preventable in the fact that
you have a water's fire sprinkler system over

(46:08):
chemicals that react
to water.
That should that's that's that's something we that's
like a something we should laugh about if
it was on some kind of sick this
is so disgustingly obvious.
How do you not think that they know
they're getting away with
this? It says, quote, that's the most asinine
part of the whole situation. You don't put
foam over something that acts badly in the

(46:29):
water.
BioLab spokesman did not directly answer repeated questions
about why the company had a water sprinkler
system over water reactive materials. But he said
finding the root cause is of the fire
is critical.
You mean the root cause of you having
sprinkler systems over things? I mean, that's the
that's the cause right there.
But until somebody hold their feet to the

(46:51):
fire, and clearly the EPA and the rest
of it are completely captured or involved,
they're gonna keep going, well, we don't know.
We're we're gonna we're gonna investigate.
Go see a doctor. We don't know. And
eventually, people look out look elsewhere. Nobody cares.
They're gonna scream. No one's gonna look. It
continues forward.
On the drive to Texas, it says, my
dog started throwing up and defecating on herself.

(47:11):
This is one of the people that tried
to flee. That sounds normal. Right? That's not
chlorine, ladies and gentlemen. That's not chlorine that
is causing your dog to throw up and
and and defecate on himself.
She says, I have let my dog outside
in the backyard, and of course, in the
view of the bathroom, and of course, he
was sniffing all over the ground. Well, there
you go.
So I wasn't even really thinking after it
until it happened. So she when she returned

(47:31):
4 days after the fire, the smell of
bleach was still so heavy. When I got
back, my symptoms returned.
See, that's my point. 4 days later, chlorine
would not be still in the air. That
would dissipate. That was what even the CDC
said. So if you're going back 4 days
later or 3 weeks later and you're still
having headaches and you're still your eyes are
blurry,
guys, we're talking about acute dioxin exposure. With

(47:52):
the rashes we're seeing, that's my opinion.
Everything about this adds up.
My throat was still kind of itchy the
whole time we were gone, but it seemed
to get worse the moment they got back.
People from East Palestine should really reach out
to them. They could their their story is
the same.
Smith said the stench of chlorine stayed heavy
for 2 weeks. She believed the chlorine also

(48:13):
damaged her car,
leaving white specks on the exterior and eroding
parts of the paint before she drove to
Texas. Remember the white
material we saw in east Palestine that was
drifting down states across? We're talking about the
same thing.
That is the byproduct. That is the material,
the burnt the the
unburnt compounds that Scott's talking about.

(48:34):
Weeks later, Smith said she still can't shake
the throat irritation.
Now the biolab buyer has forced her to
consider selling her home that she loves despite
that that she helped design in 2006.
Makes me sad.
So I'll include all these for you to
make sure you can look into this yourself.
All the information,

(48:55):
the studies. And here's one more that I'll
include that I've shown many times that I
won't go in-depth, but just to re repeat
the information so you can look into it,
which is so if we're talking about something
like this, unless I mean, even more accurately
on the East Palestine, or not accurately, but
more easy to understand since they've acknowledged the
dioxin release there. Right?
Which, again, it's an it's an objective fact.
There were dioxins released here. It's not not

(49:17):
a question.
Question is how much. Or if they'll ever
acknowledge that if no one pushes them to.
My point is, I could show you the
1995 CNN article that goes over how they
know this is in your fast food, and
we don't know what to do about it,
and no one's ever changed that. And it
was 100 of times
they know this.
This is 2,000 year 2000, a study discussing
an important

(49:38):
dynamic.
Long range air transport of dioxins, you know,
the thing that they forgot even exist today,
specifically from North American sources, so your backyard,
these plants that are existing wherever you are,
like this biolab facility in Georgia. Okay? Take
that as the example. One of the many,
they say here are North American sources that
we can prove that have dioxin release.

(50:00):
Now, this is a disaster. But, for example,
there are companies and things that still have
byproducts of that when they make stuff. They
pump it out in the air. The point
is, you can prove, because of this study,
that the Inuit community
so some in this case, some people mistakenly
call Eskimos, so you understand what I'm talking
about. And that those exist, but in this
context, they're called Inuit, and they are in
Nunavut, Arctic Canada. And they prove with the

(50:20):
study that these women were having high levels,
dangerous levels of dioxins in their breast milk,
despite the fact that there was not a
single source of dioxins within 200 miles of
where they were. And they proved that it
came all the way from North American sources.
So logically speaking, if you can prove that
it was dangerous in their breast milk, 200
miles or rather even further with not dioxins

(50:42):
sourced with 200 miles.
The from your
biolab facility
or whatever company, whatever lab, or whatever plant
in the United States,
all the way to Arctic Canada, enough to
be dangerous in their breast milk. Don't you
think it's dangerous for the people to live
next to the planet?
Or the people to state over? Or the
state over from that? Or the state over

(51:04):
from that? All of those places are x
are are far short closer than Arctic Canada.
So why don't we have studies talking about
the dangerous breast milk dioxin sources for people
living in Georgia?
Because that's not what they want you to
think about.
Guys, that's not up for debate. This is
a provable peer reviewed study that shows this.

(51:24):
So if in Arctic Canada, they're dealing with
dangerous levels,
it's happening to you.
Period.
I'll keep come come come back to this
again once we sadly, when we have another.
I'm sorry to be so kind of defeatist
about it, but it kills me how obvious
this is, and yet it just seems that
we can't get anything to actually shift unless
we get people that are willing to manipulate

(51:45):
the story for some other reason to talk
about it.
But all I'm hoping about aside from the
change is to reach you wherever you are,
Georgia or East Palestine or anywhere else, with
the truth of it so you can take
actions in your life to keep yourself safe.
That's really the focal point of this because
as much as you could probably tell, I
know these people don't care about change. But
even on top of that, we always hold
out hope that we can change it.

(52:06):
So here are the the are the last
ones there. I'll conclude these for you to
watch.
Let's get into the next point.
Okay.
So I want to talk about the 2
party illusion.
And, of course, you know, on the positive
side of it that these some of these
things may actually change. Because if RFK actually
falls through or even gets his position first,

(52:27):
and then actually falls through with those things,
some of these things may change. And that
will be a net positive no matter what.
Or just a positive, I should say. And
the reality is that it could still be
used for, you know, the it could be
a ploy. But that still means that's a
positive change, and that that would still be
seen for me as a positive. But I
want you to con continue to think of
it that way.
People that are playing team sport politics won't

(52:47):
it won't matter. That is they don't they
don't care if you if you expose all
the things and do every as long as
they're winning. That's how people like that think.
But I know most of you don't think
like that. I'd believe I'd like to believe
that, and it's about objectivity.
That you believe that you you chose him,
you believe in him, but at the end
of the day, you're still kinda go, okay.
But I still don't like the vaccine thing.
I'm still gonna question this. I'm still gonna
be honest. I'm still have integrity. And I'm

(53:08):
still gonna call these things out when they
go awry at what we were promised or
what I don't believe we should be doing,
whether or not as Trump or a
republican. Same thing for democrats.
We all need to start getting there. So
David and I put out a a great
clip about what he said back in 2016.
And weirdly, eerily, it's he says that he
stands by today. He would say the exact
same thing today. And I do think this

(53:28):
is a great clip talking about
the same point we're just making. Right? The
idea that this is you know, we we
can see some positive momentum in some ways,
but we shouldn't blindly be accepting that. We
should be ready to challenge.
100,000,000 people in
more than 300,000,000
people in America
were given the choice, in my view anyway,

(53:51):
between a catastrophe
and a disaster.
It's not difficult to
Again, this is 2016.
That's this is this is old, and it's
exactly the same thing today.
Manipulate choice if you control
what those choices are going to be. However,
there are some positive things about this which

(54:12):
reflect
something that's happening, and that is a change,
a very
obvious change,
in increasing,
swathes of the collective human psyche,
which is
looking at the world anew
and rejecting
the political establishment.

(54:33):
Now I don't think for a second that
Donald Trump is an outsider,
but that,
is irrelevant
to the fact that he was perceived
by vast numbers of people to be an
outsider.
So it's not so much
what Donald Trump is
that brought this about. It is what so

(54:55):
many people perceived him to be, which is
an outsider of the system.
Where does it go from here? Well,
it depends
where Donald Trump goes from here and how
much,
he himself
becomes in office just another clone
of, the political establishment. And I I think

(55:15):
people are gonna be disappointed.
And I hope that should that happen,
that people will go on to the next
stage
of this awakening.
And that's
to
realize that the political system itself,
no matter how you
perceive the person

(55:36):
you put in office to be,
is the problem and realize that it's not
the political system that's going to change anything.
It's
the vast majority
ceasing to cooperate
with the actions of the few and the
dictates of the few Yep. Because

(55:56):
the few
can only dictate
to the vast majority
because the vast majority
cooperate.
When we stop
cooperating
with laws that are unjust,
with laws that are simply designed to take
our freedoms away, that are designed to control
our lives,

(56:17):
and what we can do, and what we
can't do in terms of,
free choice and free thought,
when we stop cooperating
with them and say we're not doing it.
No. We're not abiding by that. We're not
abiding by that. This is the next stage
of awakening to how the world works. Not
seeing some person as,

(56:37):
an outsider who's gonna come and change everything,
But to realize that the only way to
stop the few imposing their will on the
many is for the many to stop cooperating
with the few.
Exactly.
I mean, it's what you've been hearing from
us this time for, you know, a decade,
but recently more than ever. Right? The idea
that it's simply about recognizing

(56:59):
that you're being driven in to comply with
the control structure.
You know, I'm I'm I'm obviously, people disagree
with that, but, you know, he it's he
called it then. And despite the
deliberate,
you know, willful,
willful ignorance around what Trump actually was a
part of and what, you know, the the
the I mean, it's it's people that stand

(57:20):
back and see both sides as simply your
government are capable of pointing out the absurdity
that is Biden and the disgusting that it
the the everything about the left and the
right, it's all the same difference. And that
Donald Trump did not carry out this life
changing administration or that if you at best,
you argue that he was going to, but
the democrats wouldn't let him as always. The
point is that he called it and that's
what happened like a lot of us did.

(57:41):
And here we are. That's why even Gareth
was saying, like, maybe this win will help
them see that if nothing's changed, well, if
if it was gonna happen, it would happen
last time. So even if this goes the
same way as the last time, they'll simply
point the other side. And the point is
we need to stop playing this game.
And the reality is I sense it. I
know most of you out there don't maybe
don't even like hearing this, but you sense
it. You sense it. You recognize

(58:01):
that there is something wrong.
Just consider it. Don't stuff it away somewhere.
Think about it. Now Andrea Lynn points something
interesting out. Now I made this clip the
other I point this clip out the other
day and the same thing that it's the
weird, you know, like, the whole argument this
whole time was that they're gonna kill us
all or rather they're gonna destroy the country
and they're gonna buck, you know, all the
which by the way, most of which I

(58:22):
agree with, it's simply your government, left or
right. Okay? So it's not that I'm denying.
It's that all of it is the same
entity. These Your government would love to put
you somewhere where they can control you. You
would love to jam things in your arm
without that's all of them. As much as
you like to personally identify with some character
they put in front of you, the point
is it's all the same thing to me.
But my point is that all of the
narrative was from the right that the democrats

(58:42):
would never let this happen. You know? And
maybe we still got a couple few months
left. Maybe they will have some big move
that they argue they cheated and we'll try
to take who knows? It wouldn't surprise me
because a lot of us did sense that
just it was chaos from the other side.
You know? Now they're gonna claim Trump stole
it or whatever.
But what's weird is they came out and
and he said, basically, I'll I, you know,
I I support that and we need to
come together. And I called Donald Trump and

(59:03):
I congratulated him. It just felt very different
than what you would've if you asked any
republican, they would've probably told you that they
would've gone, ray you know, raise heaven than
ever, you know, whatever. They would've taken extreme
lengths to stop him because well, that's what
they kept telling us. Right? That he was
the gonna kill everybody. That he's a fascist
Nazi. He was gonna put people in camps.
What's interesting is all I'm trying to show
you is that when these moments come, guess

(59:24):
what? Usually,
they just go
they show you that they're the same thing.
That it's about
this seems to indicate to me that Trump
was the one that they they're leaning into
it at the very least, which challenges what
a lot of them said you would should
see. And she also points out that all
of a sudden, he's super sharp. And I
I I mean, I'm not one to lean
into a lot of these kind of subjective
things like, oh, he looks different this day.

(59:45):
His voice is different. He's a clone. You
know, whatever the people are saying. Well, not
always possible. I just find it to be
hard to prove, so I tend to look
away or just, you know, engage with it,
but not spend too much time on it.
But I do agree. He speaks he seems
very, very sharp in this clip. And she
simply goes, Biden is down and by the
way, she's one of these rep she's a
republican. At least I believe she is, but
she has been calling out the republican side,

(01:00:07):
you know, this whole time. Biden is now
speaking clearly and sounding coherent. This is pure
trolling. Biden and Kamala and I agree with
this. We're purposely acting like morons, so people
beg for another Trump administration.
I actually agree that seems to make make
the most sense. And I believe I did,
maybe I didn't grab it again.
Come do it in a second. But I

(01:00:28):
put that clip thing out just saying, you
know, I think it is in here in
here somewhere that we should consider
Maybe it's that one right there.
Yep.
I'm sure it's in here twice now. But
the point was, I just simply said in
regard to Rania asking how they could be
so stupid to let this happen. I said
everyone needs to really consider that this was
not stupidity at all, but an engineer plan

(01:00:49):
to drive another Trump presidency for the interest
of a long term government agenda. I argue
that's probably a technocratic direction, but you can
decide. And I and, of course, the what
people just lost their minds about this and
I didn't say it's for sure. I simply
said we should consider it. Anybody that would
react that crazy just simply considering another point
of view,
it's it's ridiculous. It's worthy of ridicule in
my mind.

(01:01:11):
So
they're acting like this. They're all they're act
they're all actors on the same team, she
says, rep playing roles in the scripted game
called politics.
Something to consider. I
do think it's interesting. Now here's also interesting
shift is now you got Alice Jones
saying CNN reports the Pentagon is meeting a
secret plot to to act against Trump.

(01:01:31):
Now because, like, it like, I get the
sense weirdly enough that it seems almost likely
now that this may be just uneventful.
And yet, the hype is necessary either way
to get you to keep acting a certain
way. But what's funny to me is I'll
I'll I'll again, from my perspective, it's just
your government. So whatever they're doing in this
is to get you to drive a certain
direction when they already have power. That's how
I would look at it. But what's funny
is that if this were something like, for

(01:01:52):
example, with the Telegraph article, which I'll point
to in a second about RFK Junior. I
think it's right here.
Where I very clearly simply said this could
be hype, could be lies, but I I
but I wanted to point it out because
it's something I worry about. Which is such
an obviously
balanced stance. Like, it could be, just consider
it, same thing, and the re I'll show
you in a minute. The response is, like,
I can't believe you're trusting them. And it's,

(01:02:12):
like, did you even read what they list
what I just said.
The idea that you should dismiss it without
consideration because they lie to you is just
as dumb as blindly accepting it.
Anybody honest would consider it while questioning it,
not taking it face value. That's at awe
no matter where it comes from.
So the point is that I think it's
funny that the response is, I can't believe
he trusts CNN, which is what I would

(01:02:33):
get if I did even though, as of
earlier with the George article, the point is
not that I'm blindly taken at face value.
I've checked the information and other source material
but still pointed to that because that's where
I saw it first. Not that I trust
CNN.
But isn't it funny that we here's Alex
Jones saying CNN says this. Well, you trust
CNN?
What if they're lying? Making a joke. But
it's the same interesting overlap where suddenly the

(01:02:54):
things that were taboo are now we're the
unity party where it's all whenever you want
it to be, we're all working together except
that's not even remotely what the real dynamic
is happening in the group. But overall,
this clip is simply about the Pentagon
having meetings,
about the idea of I mean, honestly, who
knows? You can't verify what they discussed, but
the discussion is unelected bureaucrats essentially collecting to

(01:03:16):
discuss
how they can stop Trump. Well, the indication
for me is not that that's at who
this is assumption.
And they're coming from CNN,
secondly. So maybe you should listen to maybe
they're lying to you. But either way,
the idea that we can prove it's about
Trump or the idea that them discussing things
in the next 3 month period is somehow
an indication of it. Again, my point is,

(01:03:36):
of course, it could be. Of course, it
could be them angling against this to change
something against what you want. That's that's what
your government does to you. But I think
it's hilarious of this being a slanted one
way thing and about how CNN reports and
just it seems I think this is an
indication of
Ian, journalists are not supposed to be cheerleaders
for a political side. That's not what real

(01:03:56):
journalists do. Which is why I think it's
funny that we see things like this, which
I do arguably I I took it as
a joke,
but maybe it's not. And my point is
that I'm already seeing a real thread in
here about how he would actually be a
good or that people that we would laugh
about being something like this. But he Alex
Jones writes, I formally accept the offer to
serve as president Trump's new press secretary. So,
again, I feel like it was a joke.

(01:04:18):
But how much you wanna bet if he
was offered the job that he would take
it?
I think you all know that. I think
that's pretty obvious. And I think my point
would be that doing that is not that's
not something that even a a journalist would
you know, why would you want that?
You're literally flipping sides. You are now somebody
who obfuscates information. Of course, they wouldn't frame
it like that. But, anyway, let's wait and
see what happens. I've seen a lot of

(01:04:40):
really crazy things floated around this. My point
is that this is showing you partisanship,
pandering.
The idea that you are willing to go
out of your way to obfuscate, to lie,
to influence for a chosen political entity. A
journalist should be
holding them to account no matter what.
I just wanna point that out. I think
that's happening a lot right now where a
lot of these right wing, quote, journalists are

(01:05:01):
just all in on a Trump campaign. And
they simply argue it's because that's our best
chance to save x y whatever whatever. It's
all narrative. Even if you're right, the point
is as a journalist, you should be actively
holding them to account, which they tend to
throw your bone to make it look that
way, but I think we all know that's
not how this works. Just like Fox, just
like CNN, they are partisan, which is counter
it's the antithesis of being a journalist.

(01:05:24):
So it's actually about this. We'll come back
to this this point about Iran.
Personally, breaking. FBI's thwarted an Iranian plot to
assassinate Trump. You mean the FBI that wants
to kill him or, you know, who cares?
Right? It all works the way you want
it to. The point is it says, I
sure would be wonderful to have some evidence
to back up these, you know, any evidence
to back up these intelligence says claims that
they would take at face value because they
like it at this moment.

(01:05:45):
Same difference. Why are you trusting what the
FBI is to say? If it was about
democrat things, you'd say they're lying to us.
How about we just objectively question it all
all the time? You know, actually having
what's the right word?
Just objectivity.
But in any ways, the point is not
is not about that. It's about this, where
he says, have you take talked about this
yet? Only took 4 days to ask his

(01:06:05):
supporters to give money to his opposition who
allegedly tried to tried for the past 4
years to lock him up for life, or
as many of them would argue, tried to
kill him.
And he says this is all such a
blatant show. Now first,
always we should make sure these things are
even true. This is a a post from
Donald Trump. I'll read to you next, which
is true, which I find interesting.
So it's his point first is to highlight

(01:06:27):
this tweet where he's saying I should give
some of the money to democrats, is what
he's saying, as how ridiculous this is. And
it's all in the same vein of conversation
right here. The shift to suddenly being
pro this or anti that, it just changes
to where they've been in the past about
some I mean, for me, the overarching point
is not left or right, but how it's
simply showing you that when they want it
to, it all falls in the place they
want it to. They all work together.

(01:06:49):
They're the same thing.
I hope I that's what I want you
to really see. But even if you don't
think that, just recognize how weird it is
that these things are happening.
So here's the actual tweet.
Now I'll also show you how the some
of these key people in the background are
the ones going, screw them, which shows you
that this is a I think this is
a complete ploy. He says, I'm very surprised

(01:07:09):
the democrats
who fought a hard and valiant fight in
the 2020 presidential election raised a record amount
of money.
It says,
didn't have lots of money left over. Now
they're being squeezed by vendors and others.
Whatever we can do to help them during
this difficult period, I would strongly recommend we,
as a party, and for the sake of

(01:07:31):
desperately needed unity,
do.
We have a lot of money left over
and that our biggest asset is the campaign
was earned media, and that doesn't cost very
much. Make America great again. I just think
that's odd. Now look, I I I'll be
to be as objective as possible,
it's hard because I can very much convince
these people are not what they seem to
be. But, you know, in for a hopeful

(01:07:52):
hopeful note, that's the that's a good thing.
Right?
It's a good thing that you're trying to
bridge these gaps and make it and and,
you know, show that you don't want there
to be animosity.
I mean, it is. It regardless
of that, this is this should be seen
as a positive because it would alleviate some
of the hatred that shouldn't exist between Americans,
unless other than personal whatever else.

(01:08:12):
Of course, Kevin Somerville says, I say let
them handle themselves. They hate you.
Just showing you kind of mentality that's breed
it here. Even if they do, how about
you be a grown up about it? How
about you stop making it about petty disagreements
and hatred when both sides act the same
way all the time, which anybody objective can
see? The vitriol, the hatred, the laughing of
people suffering. It's all over the place.

(01:08:33):
But my point is to say that it
seems odd. It seems out of character. I
honestly believe, and again, this is because of
the way I perceive these people, that this
is simply knowing that their party would buck
this, putting it out to make yourself look
magnanimous.
Knowing that nobody would wanna do it and
probably knowing that it wouldn't even happen, simply
making it look like we wanna come together
when the part is that every aspect of

(01:08:53):
both sides of this paradigm are driving you
to hate each other.
It's very obvious. Both Trump and Vance went
on constant points to say these people were
the enemy multiple times, calling her trash, calling
the supporters ridiculous. I mean, it's constant. Yes.
The same thing happened reverse. Calling them garbage.
The point is that they're both doing it
if you're actually being honest with yourself.

(01:09:14):
So I find it to be an interesting
point. But here's the kind of thing you
get. Laura Loomer, again, apparently talking about Trump
too because he's the one that just said
that. Can't believe how many people are saying
we should forgive and hold hands with the
people who tried to destroy our country.
You see, that's what this kind of lowbrow,
lowest common denominator point breeds.
Blind hatred. Did every single person that happens

(01:09:36):
to be a Democrat do that?
Or are you only talking about the establishment?
No. Because you've seen her posts. She is
full of hatred and small minded attacks.
Even her own party is calling her out.
Eva Frey attacking her. People showing you that
she is not what but guess what?
Trump multiple times endorsed her. You don't have
there's so many people that are right around
him that he hasn't endorsed.

(01:09:56):
That was trying to tap in just like
plenty of people to the extreme.
Tap just like the left and the right
did. They tapped in to the most extreme
parts of the party, as even Weinstein pointed
out, acting like they're not there. And then
they drop people like this because they're ridiculous.
They only make you look stupid and and
gross and lowbrow. And that's why that's not
gonna I would argue it's not gonna happen.
But, nonetheless,

(01:10:16):
she's saying what you're doing is bad.
Even though objectively trying to find common ground
should be what everybody wants no matter what.
I just find that to be interesting.
And here, on the other side of it,
is the left side of the media doing
the exact same thing.
Literally talking about how you should not speak
to your family

(01:10:37):
if they vote in a different way.
This is a poison, guys. This is a
a parasite that is constantly working its way
through people in the partisan field. And it's
not left. It's not right. It is simply
partisanship.
We all know that.
And this should be disgusting to everybody with
you know, I mean, just the people that
don't want to breed hatred simply based on

(01:10:58):
a difference of opinion.
A challenge with the idea of how do
you interact with people who you know voted
for this. Right? If you are an LGBTQ
person and you know somebody in your family
voted essentially against your rights or you're a
woman knowing that, you know, this man was
calling people the b word
So what?
So he's calling someone the b word, and
that means he hates women's rights? I mean,

(01:11:20):
that's a stupidly logical point. Like, everything she's
about to say. Of course, I don't think
he has that much concern for it,
but I don't know his mind. And it's
a stupid small that's, again, like she's gonna
say next.
Some one person makes a joke about Haiti,
which I also thought was stupid.
And suddenly now, if you vote for Trump,
you hate Haitian people or you're racist. These

(01:11:41):
are stupid
these are
what's the right word for
it? They are stupid, but I wanna find
a better adjective for it. The these are
hollow points.
It is like saying somebody has a hat
on, therefore, everyone in this crowd is racist.
It's childish. It is wildly off the path.
They they want you to think that makes
sense because they're trying to make you act

(01:12:02):
subjectively or trying to make you act rationally
to hate your, your neighbor
simply because they have a different of a
pinch a difference of opinion. Didn't we used
to pride ourselves on being that? Yes. Even
if it wasn't real then, at least we
pretended to be. These people are driving hatred
and both sides while calling anybody that acts
that way the problem.
Jamie Vance was literally calling Kamala Harris the

(01:12:23):
trash. Is that what Well, she did. He
called her the trash, which I thought was
stupid. It was low brow. It was childish.
But does that mean that everyone around him
suddenly also thinks women are trash?
Maybe.
That's called an assumption though. We're gonna take
out the trash. I know a lot of
black women were incredibly triggered by that.
What what is so oh, because Kamala is
black. I forgot we're supposed to pretend that

(01:12:44):
while this is happening. Either way,
it has no bearing on the larger picture.
And, again, the point is what she's gonna
get to is that we should just basically
not talk to those people.
Is that supposed to be intelligence? Is that
the kind of thing we praise in this
country?
And if you may need somebody and you
know they voted for the people who called
you trash or if you're Puerto Rican Okay.

(01:13:05):
Who called you trash? One person called Kamala
trash, and yet now you're voting for people
to call you trash? You've just extended that
out to every woman in the country? Guys,
this should be made fun of. This person
should be laughed out of town. They should
not have this job.
You know, and you know someone voted that
way. Do you recommend just from a psychological
standpoint being around them? I've got the holidays

(01:13:26):
coming up. Right. Because we're so sensitive. Right?
And by the way, the right is the
same exact way.
I'm talking about the teams for politics side,
not every conservative or liberal, but the idea
that it's psychologically you shouldn't be around them.
Do you know how weak that makes you?
That you're you can't do you don't have
the do you don't have the the
mental capacity to just simply go, you know
what? He can have his opinion. I can

(01:13:46):
have mine. And that's just okay because I'm
a grown up.
It's it's it's embarrassing. I I would be
embarrassed if I was this person.
So I love that you asked this question
because, you know, there is a push. I
think just a societal norm that if somebody
is your family, they they are entitled to
your time. And I think the answer is

(01:14:08):
absolutely not. So if you are going to
a situate It's not about entitlement. If you
wanna see them, go see them. If you
don't, don't. It shouldn't be based on whether
they voted for somebody different than you. It's
childish. It is small.
Issue where you have family members, where you
have close friends,
who you know
have voted in ways that are against you,

(01:14:29):
like what you said. Against you? This is
the whole point. Language like this is the
point. This is what partisanship does. I know
the right loves to pretend it's only the
left. They love to pretend they're the unity
party while they they go out and attack
everybody else. Some of them, my point. A
lot of the leading elements, by the way,
that they're against you. We pointed this out.
They got really clear post 2016.

(01:14:51):
It had been building before that, but we
all saw that shift post his last election.
I'm not blaming that on Trump alone or
at all, really. Who knows? And my point
is that we all saw that shift. Whoever
you wanna blame, you can decide. But we
saw that. Suddenly, it wasn't just that we
disagreed. It was you were the enemy.
That if you disagree with me, you're gonna
kill everybody. You're gonna end the country. You
wanna lock everybody. It was like extreme hyperbolic

(01:15:13):
accusations.
You voted you're against me as opposed to
just feeling differently.
Against your livelihood,
and it's completely fine to not be around
those people and to tell them why. You
know, to say, I have a problem with
the way that you voted
because it went against my very livelihood, and

(01:15:34):
I'm not gonna be around you this holiday.
I need to take some space for me.
And I actually God, this is just so
gross. Like, of course, on top of it,
sort of the woke addition to the way
they frame this.
It's just sad. It is sad. And I'm
really like to believe that this that most
Americans are not this stupid.
They're not ease this easily played into simply
hating somebody because I mean, again, it's even

(01:15:56):
saying it out loud.
It's like we all grew up with the
same idioms and the same conversations,
generally speaking, and the idea that you would
simply
hate somebody because they feel differently. Guys, your
your your kindergarten teacher, your 2nd grade teacher
would set you down and tell you why
that's not appropriate. But here we are with
supposedly leading media personalities

(01:16:17):
waxing intellectual about how that's what good people
do. That's what adults do. Right? Lesser of
evils. That's what the adults do. No. You're
all being played if you're falling into this
from either side of the paradigm.
Now here is a great little clip from
doc,
I keep on saying doctor. There's a d
there. I mean, I I think he even
is. I I don't know if that's what
he the d is supposed to mean. But,
anyway, Alec Zach, who I really have increased

(01:16:40):
like, we've had difference of opinions on plenty
of things over the years, predominantly around, well,
again, not even different. It's just that I'm
not as
I don't I'm not is the point of
the terrain versus germ theory. Am I and
where I still stand is the idea that
I don't think either side fully addresses the
questions that I have. So I'm I'm not
really decided, which that's okay, by the way.
More often than not, we're in a position
where we don't know, and that's okay. Most

(01:17:01):
people just feel forced to pick a side.
My point is though he's one of the
few that have really you know, we've we've
talked to the past. He's he interviews with
Derek, and the point is that we disagree,
but we can have an amicable conversation. More
respect for that than anything.
And on top of that, beyond that topic,
I really do feel like he conducts himself
with integrity with with with you know, whether
it's about this conversation or just the idea

(01:17:22):
of other discussions around this and can call
out things that may be seen as part
of his side or whatever. I think that's
a I think that's worthy of praise even
if we'd ultimately disagree.
So here's a key breaks this down around
something that we've been talking about at the
the way that people are so emotionally invested
in these politicians.
Whether you think you should whether you agree
with them or not, it is a problem.

(01:17:43):
I I mean, our founding fathers would tell
you that. So I wanna play this clip
for me. It just says my thoughts on
what I'm seeing out there.
Morning, everyone.
Just wanted to comment on something real quick.
If you, like, sit back, zoom out a
little bit,
and just really observe what's going on,
It is pretty crazy
to watch as

(01:18:04):
a good chunk of one side of the
population, if you will,
is
overjoyed
and in
celebration
as if they had just won the lottery
with respect to a political victory. I wanna
be very clear here. I'm not saying that
this political victory

(01:18:26):
might not have real world implications
that impact
people in their daily lives. But just just
wait to see what I'm getting at. So
it's crazy to see one side so overjoyed,
so overcome with positive emotion,
and
celebrating
again as if they had just won the

(01:18:46):
lottery or as if a child was just
born or you know they just got married.
Some going even beyond
the emotions that you would typically see with
something like that.
And then on the flip side, a good
chunk of the other side of the population
is so emotionally distraught
just
overcome
with grief and sadness and anger and frustration

(01:19:10):
as a result of this same political victory.
And
the crazy thing to observe
with respect to this is that
whether you're overjoyed
or whether you are emotionally distraught,
it indicates
that you put so much importance

(01:19:31):
and outsource so much power
to men and women who call themselves government
that
your emotions are impacted on that level
by these political happenings. And again, I'm not
saying that these things don't have real world
effects.
But what I'm getting at

(01:19:51):
is, the only reason
that
that seat, the president,
and these other political seats have any real
power over anyone
is because
of that very same collective
belief that comes back to individual belief in
its legitimacy,
and we're seeing that play out in real

(01:20:12):
time.
My my core message is, like, look, if
you're gonna vote, if you're gonna, you know,
play into politics, great. Joel Salatin,
you know, being in charge of agriculture to
some degree now, that is gonna be incredible.
I I don't discount that.
What frustrates me though,
especially coming from the freedom community,

(01:20:33):
is how many people
are outsourcing
so much agency, so much authority
to these politicians to the point that they
are overjoyed,
like, overjoyed, like, uncontrollable
emotions surrounding
this political victory
when if those same exact people,

(01:20:56):
even just a small chunk of the freedom
community was like, I don't care who wins
that position.
I'm going to do what I can in
my own life
to ensure that I exercise my own god
given authority,
my own rights,
and
that I am committed to my own agency
in cultivating that

(01:21:16):
irrespective
of who's in that position.
Like,
if people focused on orienting their lives
in such a way, individually, more importantly, collectively
in groups,
finding other like minded people, and we're working
on that with a way forward. We'll get
to that here soon. We have a website
coming that will really, really facilitate those connections

(01:21:40):
both with like minded farms, like minded people,
alternative schools, etcetera, etcetera, like minded practitioners.
But
facilitate
and orient their lives in such a way
that it doesn't fucking matter who's in that
position.
That
whether it's a a victory in your favor
or not, you're not emotionally

(01:22:01):
overcome
whether
positive or negatively because you're like,
doesn't really matter what happens there. I know
that
no man or woman in that position has
power over me, and I know that I'm
orienting my life and I'm finding community around
me that are all orienting our life
towards
cultivating more freedom, more coherence,

(01:22:22):
more health,
more prosperity.
Like,
there's I'm not saying there's anything wrong with
being
happy about this. Like, I I'm I'm happy
with the things
that they're saying
if they come true, which is a huge
if.
But
I know that no man or woman in

(01:22:44):
that position has authority over me, and I
know that if
a lot more people took that posture,
dissolve those foundational belief systems regarding
other men and women having power over them,
the power
would not be there. It's not real. It's
not actually a thing in reality. It's predicated

(01:23:06):
and upheld
by our collective beliefs.
That's how it works.
So I just wanted to share that
zooming out. It's it's crazy. It's it's it's
really crazy to watch how people
become so charged
one way or another
over this,

(01:23:26):
which indicates how much power, how much importance
they are placing on it. And the only
reason
that that position has power and importance is
because people place power and importance on it.
If people withdrew
that power and support and belief in its
legitimacy,
there wouldn't be as much of an influence
that that that position has.

(01:23:49):
Just like what David Icke was saying, just
like what a lot of us did. If
if the many stopped
pretending the few
had the right over them,
they wouldn't have the influence they have over
you. And it's a very you know, yes,
that it's not as simple as there'd be
there'd be some level of violence and some
level of reaction, some level of of of
consequence.
Personally, I'd like to see how I'd like
to give it a shot. I'd like to

(01:24:10):
air on the side of liberty and freedom
over the side of safety. You know, like
our founding father said we should, but, you
know, that's just me. Now on the point
of
the obviousness of how clearly I see these
people showing you things that would, in any
other context, be called out, that it shows
you where we see this going.
This is interesting. So here, Alex Jones points

(01:24:31):
out, look out NWO, new world order, and
shows you
pants,
Elon Musk, and Donald Trump.
And it says, congratulations to historic victory. The
golden age of America is beginning. That's what
a lot of people keep saying. And I
simply said, yeah. Look out NWO,
and showed you the clip where he says,
novus ordum sequlorum, which if I remember correctly,

(01:24:51):
it was,
it's all it's what's on the the crest
and it's the same idea. It's like a
new or new world order essentially is what
the oh, yeah. I should just do this
so I can tell you exactly what it
translates to. I forget.
The new order of the centuries.
And it's it's it's considered the same conversation.
K? The point is, no, that doesn't prove

(01:25:12):
anything. He could say it because he wants
to believe it's a positive thing and somebody
commented, sure. I hope so. I'm not saying
otherwise. I'm saying well, my point was
I simply said, do I even need to
say it? You all know already. But many
of you are just pretending it's not there.
That's the larger conversation where all these things
are pointing. But, also, if there were anyone
else on the left,

(01:25:32):
Alex would be framing this quite a bit
differently. And I think we all know that.
If this was Biden or anybody else, they'd
be screaming about how obvious it was. Well,
he says it, and it's about, yay, good
things.
Well, maybe. I hope so. But it seems
a little bit one-sided, doesn't it? Think that's
important to point out. That's my point about
these people cheerleading instead of actually being objective.
And this is what I think is funny.

(01:25:53):
Somebody posted this. Klaus Schwab, who many of
them during this time said said the term
new world order.
And most of these people were screening, rightly
so. And it said like, the meme says,
no. Only evil globalists want that. By the
way, including Alex Jones.
Globalism.
While ignoring Israel who's a central part in
this globalist agenda. But as well as the

(01:26:14):
fact that all of this is connected. The
WEF agenda is being outrun through Elon Musk
right now. Of course, he comes out and
says new world order and they go based.
Alright.
Cool brain chips in AI. The good guy.
Right?
That's not even the majority of my opinion,
but it's too many.
So here is something he keeps doing, but
I think is just transparent. And again, I

(01:26:34):
hope I'm wrong.
It'll come out and point to something.
We not even necessarily say we should change
it or what we're gonna do, but then
the momentum rolls around it because the assumption
is this will change because he's pointed to
it.
Even if they real wanted to change some
of these things, the point is that you
would argue that they wouldn't be a first
pushback. They would put they would not follow
through. Or in most cases, I don't think

(01:26:56):
they even care to change these things. It's
about getting you to believe they will.
So this is a Vivek Ramaswami saying points,
pointing to this conversation about well, he he
frames it as the constitution is back in
fashion. There are 3 branches of government, not
4. Of course, the 4th branch can refer
to a lot of things, usually the media
or the 4th estate. But it can generally
just mean another structure, another power structure that

(01:27:17):
is not part of the government, but is
influencing that or controlling it. Usually regarded as
the media. But the point, regardless, is that
we're the the the conversation, changing future legal
leaders, yaw Yale Law School, is about the
general point of how we're gonna bring it
back to the core. You know? Okay. And
Elon says, the unelected and unconstitutional
federal bureaucracy
bureaucracy currently

(01:27:38):
has more power than the presidency, legislature, or
the judiciary.
This needs to change.
Okay. So the deep state oligarch insider billionaire
technocrat wants you to believe that these people
himself have too much power.
Now, technically, you wouldn't argue he's an unelected
bureaucrat, but it's the same conversation. Now but
taking him out of it, my point is
simply to highlight how funny it is that
we this needs to change.

(01:28:00):
I'm willing to bet you anything that none
of that changes.
First example will be when they continue in
the next 3 months or 4 months
to appoint
all of the unelected unconstitutional federal bureaucrats
who will hold power.
All of them.
Mark my words. So this is simply a
hollow point to make you go, yay. Change

(01:28:21):
and stuff. And then when they do the
same things, you go, yay. They did it.
Despite the fact that they're the same people
doing the same things for the same government,
for the same agendas, and we will continue
to march blindly through it if we allow
it. That's my opinion.
But here's the point.
Unelected,
unconstitutional federal bureaucracy. Okay. Well, let's look at
a list of the positions filled by the
presidential appointment with senate confirmation.

(01:28:42):
That's what he's talking about. The unelected power
structure. The people that don't go through a
popular vote for the average individuals in the
country who get elected or put in position
by the president and many other examples. And
my point is to show you all of
those unelected positions that Donald Trump will be
filling in the next 4 months.
Okay? So when Elon says this needs to
change, well, guess what? You are in a

(01:29:02):
position to change it. You control every aspect
of power right now. And if you wanted
to, you could change these things despite all
of the narrative that will come out about
how you can't just change. Yeah. You can.
You can. I don't care. If you can
break every law and be do anything unconstitutional,
I'm not advocating for those things. I'm saying
you could do that. You could change things
if you wanted to. Now, of course, if
they was doing if they did it in

(01:29:23):
a way that circumvented other things, I'd be
the first to call it unconstitutional. I'm not
advocating for it. I'm simply showing you that
in the first example, you could do whatever
you want because they, right now, do whatever
they want all the time. Laws and regulations
and agenda, they don't they don't matter to
these people.
First point. Secondarily,
they actually can change these things through the
system if they wanted to with all of

(01:29:45):
that control.
I'm going to bet you my life that
won't happen.
Here and this this is I mean, and
look. Just look at along this coast.
Every single one of these positions are unelected
positions filled by the president and through and
some of which go through senate confirmation.
The main part
to stand out is the Department of Defense.
And, you know, I should say Maine. There's

(01:30:06):
plenty of other concerning examples. But the secretary
of defense, the the deputy secretary, general counsel,
Department of Defense, this is all war focused
stuff. This is and all of these people
and will and many other examples throughout this
are connected to intelligence. These people are acting
unilaterally, in most cases, beyond the executive branch
all the time.
So if we wanna talk about an unlikely

(01:30:27):
bureaucratic, unconstitutional,
this is what we're talking about.
Well, I bet you it doesn't change.
I'd like I hope I'm wrong. Let's see.
Example 2.
He this is a meme that says, should
children be taught how to grow food as
part of their schooling?
And he goes, should we?
Yes. Easy answer. Yes. Obviously. No brainer. The

(01:30:48):
fact that we even have to float this
like maybe we would of course, the argument
is he they're gonna you know, the point
I'm making is the same that people would
point out, that he's not he's just floating
it for people to think about it. Well,
good. I and I will say that people
considering these things is a good thing, but
think about how crazy it is that we
have to open the conversation for should we
should we be learning how to
take care of ourselves? Should we be learning

(01:31:08):
how to actually grow food and be obviously.
And in most places of the world, they
still do that.
But what's interesting to me is do you
think this is gonna change something? Do you
think he's pointing this because he's taking notes?
Then everyone goes, yes, please do it. And
he's gonna make a change? I hope so.
But I don't think we're that naive.
And again, with the power they have, they
could make this happen.

(01:31:29):
But I get I'm almost willing to bet
you anything that won't.
This is about trying to throw bones in
with this little bot spread idea. Yes. A
100%. Absolutely.
Thumbs up. These are this, in my opinion,
has been proven to be bots. They're just
dumping out little you know, and then, of
course, when they do that, it gets
millions of views every time.
Whether it's his or somebody else's. That's usually

(01:31:50):
when he's break
raising up other things. Now that's more of
the example than his own tweets. But when
people share things and he just goes, yes.
And it gets 45,000,000 views.
I'll show you some points next about why
I think this is more obvious algorithmically. But
either way, I don't think we can be
this naive. We could we
I hope is one thing.
But using these things to argue, this is

(01:32:10):
like, this is what I keep bumping up
against is people that seem to be genuine
people that argue, like, well, we know for
sure that this will happen less under this
administration. And now, no, we don't know that
for sure.
Yes. I'll argue the indications seem to present
that because of RFK or what Trump said,
but we don't know
anything until it happens.
These are all assumptions. But yet you argue

(01:32:30):
with somebody about how this administration
is less likely to push vaccines than Kamal's
administration
or vice versa, that we know that. And
I simply go, well, we don't know that.
It seems more likely, but they will you're
wrong. We know that.
That's blind belief.
Even though I would argue that, yeah, probably
so. We don't know that. And the fact
that we even have to get into that

(01:32:51):
argument shows you how lost a lot of
people have become because of partisanship.
Same point with the Telegraph article. Do we
have to argue between considering
and pushing or believing?
These are very different things. Anybody objective can
see that, but I think the partisanship is
dangerous for that reason.
But Mike Fairclough,
Fairclough

(01:33:12):
points out, yes, children should be taught how
to grow their own food. As a head
teacher, I did this. Plus, every child in
my school was taught to light a fire,
cook over it. I also taught them to
shoot and use knives, which obviously you don't
this will never happen because of all the
screaming partisan nonsense despite the fact that, of
course, we should learn how to protect ourselves
and use knives and, well, whether other people
in the world may disagree because of the

(01:33:32):
obvious enshrinement of the second amendment, which is
an inherent god given right whether they wrote
it down, obviously.
But the parents loved it and so did
the authorities and the media at the time.
Things changed when I spoke out about COVID
vaccine roll off to children, and then he
became persona non grata. But you can look
at it for yourself.
Now this is something that killed me because
Bob, Marrone from Bob's cartoons put a really,

(01:33:55):
really crazy tweet. I wish I would have
saved it, taken a screenshot. I've some I
did can't do that with everything you see.
It would take too much time. But he
deleted his tweet for some reason, or it
was taken down. I don't know. But I
was nonetheless, it was I wanted to relay
to you what it said because I wrote
around it. This is exactly the type of
unseen social engineering and manipulation I've been discussing

(01:34:16):
and that I'm certain is happening on this
platform.
Something tells me this doesn't even scratch the
surface and that the full picture is far
more concerning than we imagine.
Now if you look at his
account, he is pretty critical of Twitter, of
Musk, of a lot of stuff, Trump included.
So I just don't know why this is
gone. I wonder it was deleted for him.
I don't know. Because here's the point. What
he said in there to try to remember

(01:34:36):
off the top of my head, if somebody
has a picture of this or something or
or archive, please send it to me. He
said that his account was deleted, essentially. And
they that they that there was some kind
of weird glitch. And that they basically auto
manufactured
some account for him
with a new name and everything. And then
when he tried to go back,
it just autofilled it and that was his
account now. All of a sudden, some new

(01:34:57):
name that they picked. And it's just it's
crazy. And then, apparently, through some process, he
was able to get back to their account.
But now, apparently, both existed no matter what.
And they kept kind of sorting out and
going one to the other. Now my point
is, that's not something we're supposed to see.
The overlap there with their forcing it to
kind of join and or glitching back and
forth, there's something else happening there. Whether that's

(01:35:18):
some kind of digital twin dynamic. I don't
know. But I'm telling you, I keep seeing
this stuff, and it's wild. And he was
he was the way he explained it, I
wish I could see it because it was
so much more in-depth about how weird it
was, how unnerving it was. And how suddenly
he was being forced into this different I
mean, it was so strange. And again, I'm
convinced this is social engineering at a level
we have never seen. But I hope I'm

(01:35:38):
wrong.
Yeah. It says his account was replicated by
not him in the chat. So other people
see saw the same thing. And you can
see down here the point is people just
simply saying, again, this page doesn't exist anymore
because, of course, it doesn't. This is the
world we live in today.
Yeah. It's other people commenting on you can
read for yourself. But so then here's another

(01:36:00):
example which I've yet yet to flush out.
Let's let me know in the chat.
What's, Polly?
What's the the name is different today but
fringe views was the name of, you know,
at at fringe views.
What was it originally? Polly questions or I
forget the name originally. But anyway, Polly, we
most people are familiar with who's got fringe
views on Twitter.
She and which I don't agree with everything

(01:36:21):
she has to say, but she's usually challenging
a lot of this stuff. And she and
apparently her account's gone.
And it is. It but it doesn't say
it says this doesn't exist. Now people did
argue that she argued earlier that she was
taking a little bit you know, stepping back
a bit from Twitter, so maybe it got
deleted by her, but I it seems unlikely.
But it's now, you know, just kinda gone.
So I wonder why there's more of this

(01:36:41):
happening, and we don't know about it, and
people aren't being heard because they you know,
who knows? I'm very convinced that there's more
going on around this stuff, whether that's one
of them or not. Now gal George Galloway
spoke up about this. For those of you
that are getting paid out by Twitter, he
had a good point about this. Amazing, Paul.
Thank you. That's what her name before was
amazing, Paulie.
George says, hey, Elon Musk. I had tens
of millions of views on your platform last

(01:37:02):
month, and you paid me $88.
That's some kind of joke.
I mean, this guys, I mean, it's there's
no accountability here. There's no process. We don't
get to see any information about how this
works, algorithmic or otherwise.
So even in the argument of, like, the
free nature of this where it's, you you
know, aside from their obvious statements that a
lawful but awful or reach freedom of reach

(01:37:23):
not speech or speech not reach or whatever,
Right there, it shows you they have their
own pick. They're picking and choosing who they
think is in the group and not. Simple.
But even within that supposedly good group,
how do we we we have no clue
about what and and maybe I'm not saying
we should have to. I'm simply saying that
that if you don't see it, the assumption
that somehow it's all equal and free speech,

(01:37:44):
why would you assume that? In every other
indication, they're going the opposite direction. Working with
GARM, working with the government 90 something percent
of the time according to their own lawsuit.
Censoring things around Israel and other things including
medical freedom. I mean, guys, this is everything
the opposite. And I'm I'm that's my point
about the social engineering part of it. So
why we assume that it's all free speech

(01:38:04):
when they're actually censoring is ridiculous.
So on top of that, my point is
that within this, people like him that are
even getting paid
hit millions of views, and so that means,
selectively, they're choosing to not allow that to
make money versus the others. Now just like
before with YouTube, oh, well, the advertisers. Well,
it's the same point. That's how this works.
Just like with Rumble, by the way, all
the same choke points. So why they're not

(01:38:25):
leaning into their advertising? Who knows? I think
we're being shuffled over there, quite frankly. The
point is that this doesn't make sense.
And, of course, nobody's gonna respond to him
because Galloway is talking about things you're not
supposed to say around Israel primarily argue.
Now the rest of them
just simply saying he's got a lot of
views and no money for it. Now the

(01:38:46):
point is obviously, there's people out there that
are getting half those views. They're getting 70
times the money. I mean, I've just pulled
out of nowhere, but a lot. Getting tens
of 1,000 dollars for dumping what I can
prove to you in many cases are blatantly
false information. But that's their right. And certainly,
false information is gonna be more entertaining for
some people, so it even makes sense.
Nonetheless,
it is leaning into that dynamic and as

(01:39:06):
you're becoming exactly what they're framing you as
in many cases. And people like George Galloway,
who I there's plenty of things I disagree
with especially during COVID, but he is I
argue somebody with integrity. And I only in
the context, I know some people disagree with
the COVID stuff. But my point is, you
can look at him consistently to see somebody,
I argue, is doing what they think is
right. And the point, in this case, that

(01:39:27):
is why you don't make money. If you
lean into it and you pat Elon on
the head and you bow to it, yeah,
then, of course, you're gonna make a lot
of money. Now David Icke says the same
thing. This is an excellent and and by
the way, this is a video from Owen
from Infowars.
And he's saying, this is an excellent video
from Owen. I I wrote in the the
reveal
about how certain people are boosted by a
rep repost from Elon's machine gun posting with

(01:39:49):
wow or interesting,
and how those on machine message are boosted
by the algorithm while others are suppressed and
shadow banned. This, of course, plays out in
income received. Now my point is not income.
Income is a byproduct of this. I'm talking
about the influence, controlling of the narrative, the
social engineering of all this. And the illusion
of who is popular, successful, and reach versus

(01:40:09):
not
based on the way they frame this.
That guys, that without question has an effect
on if you think voting is a part
that translates voting or the idea of influence
and control and information and what you perceive
to be real.
It says, I refuse to take any money
from x and declined to sign up when
registration for money was instigated.
Money is not the point here. He says,
as Owen says, boosting money people on message

(01:40:31):
and suppressing those with comments you don't want
people to see is not free speech. It's
not, guys. That's my point. Objectively, no matter
how you slice this, this is not a
free speech platform.
It says it is a policy, in the
words of of Yacarino, called freedom of speech
not reach. And as court and Sam Husseini
points out in an interview, that is freedom
of speech by precedent in history. They're 1

(01:40:52):
and the same. And they know that, don't
care.
But it says with lawful but awful, content
hidden. They they decide what is awful. These
blatantly anti freedom policies have boosted those from
the mainstream who have hijacked the alternative media,
sends COVID to mega prominence
to ensure that they that the genie stays
as close to the bottle as possible. So

(01:41:12):
that's one part of it.
And it's so crazy how obvious it is.
These Tuckers and the rest that are half
a separate move from the corporate media are
now the independent media. All funded by billionaires
and technocrats, but totally on the outside.
That's one part of it. Right? So there's
just they've just recreated the corporate media as
the men's freedom alternative media. But on top
of that even further, you've got people that
are being boosted that are deliberate missing like,

(01:41:33):
people that are almost in, like, gleefully
making fake information, like, completely fabricating information, which,
of course, is their right. But then they
are the ones boosting that. So you get
people like Matt Wallace with millions of followers,
which I don't it's not like some kind
of begrudging thing. Good. Do what you want.
Make your followers. My point is to highlight
that they are
egregious deceivers,

(01:41:54):
constantly putting out fake information, and then Elon
and the rest, point to them, share them.
Or the visregrat account from the Israeli propaganda
account that Elon still continues to share from
even though he was got to he they
made him share fake information around Venezuela.
A provably fake example, but that keeps happening.
And yet, weirdly, they keep rising them up.
So where is that direction coming from? Who's

(01:42:14):
deciding?
I don't think it's Elon, quite frankly, and
I'll play a clip for you next. But
it says, a fair and genuine system says
there is one algorithm for everyone so that
all of those who follow a a page
get to see the post they choose to
see. So think about it, guys. Isn't that
what he promised essentially in the beginning? And
then, of course, we find out that he
is allowed and, of course, then you get
the rational people. Oh, well, the gov he
has to comply with some because, well, the

(01:42:36):
government.
Well, then they okay. Whatever your rationale, that's
not what he promised. And exactly what people
me people like me always point out. I
never gave you a reason why. I simply
said I don't believe it will come too
fast, and here we are.
And you guys fall over yourselves saying, what?
Here's why. And it didn't I don't care.
I never argued why. I simply knew that
this was, in my opinion, never going to

(01:42:57):
happen.
And so I think the reality is that
you can see that this should be one
algorithm that clearly dictates what isn't you know,
through that algorithm that you can then understand.
But it's not. It's selective and it's individual.
And then he complies with government actions, and
he complies with GAR. That's what's already happened.
It's easy to prove their own lawsuit made
it clear.
It says we are nowhere even close to

(01:43:17):
that and quite the opposite. He says, I
personally and again, this is still,
David Icke speaking. I personally would not trust
Musk so long as his lips are moving.
And it is vital that people watch the
actions and outcomes. My god do we need
to hear that. Over everything, guys. Actions, outcomes,
results.
Words from politicians do not mean anything,
whether you trust them or not.

(01:43:38):
Because realize, even words,
they could mean them at the time, and
they could still oh, excuse me. I have
a hiccup.
And still change,
as we see every day. And it says
where Twitter is being taken
is the everything app and mega global banking
act ambitions is to impose the very agenda
that Musk and Trump claim to oppose.
Hurl your abuse at me, he says. I

(01:43:59):
really couldn't give a damn, but you'll see
very possibly when it's too late. Sadly, I
agree. And that was about a 12, 30
minute clip of Owen saying what he outlined.
I just find it interesting because clearly, Elon
and
and Alex Jones and Tucker, they're all kind
of part of this kind of anomalous thing
right now.
Blind towards Israel,
blind towards Trump and the rest of them.
But now you're getting ex interesting examples of

(01:44:20):
people that are tangential or even part of
the main part, like, oh, anyway, we're calling
some of these parts out. So, I mean,
that good on him. Credit where credit is
due. Whether it's part of an agenda or
not, the idea that someone like him would
call this out in the midst of all
that, I would argue that's integrity. But we'll
have to see how it flushes out to
know whether it's part of a ploy or
not, which we should also always consider. And
by the way, guys, my point is always
to consider that with me too.

(01:44:42):
Ask whether I'm, you know, whether you believe
you can trust me or not. My point
is just to counterbalance it with the reality
that this should always be what we do.
And to some people, that's exhausting, but that's
just the way the world is. So choose
to engage with it honestly or not. It's
up to you. Question everything. Now Greg Reese,
who I I I don't know if he's
still part of,
Infowars or not. He was. I don't know

(01:45:02):
if he still is or not. Either way,
the point is that he made a a
great clip, breaking down some very, very challenging
point. This is from 2023, by the way,
of Elon Musk. Now these points are all
important.
This and it just shows you that he
is just yet another construct, like Trump and
like the rest, that are being used and
put forward by people I argue are not
on stage.
The point is that you can all these

(01:45:23):
things whether he lies about where his money
came from or he was broke when he
grew up. And if you can prove he's
lying,
it's interesting how Kamala makes a statement about
something that she did growing up and we
can prove she's lying, and that's a story
for 15 days.
Right? Well, obviously, they're in power and they
make shit, but this is somebody who is
clearly more powerful than all of them and
about to be even more so with this
with this administrative position.

(01:45:45):
And what he what he says here is
worthy of consideration and asking yourself whether you're
being deceived about something much bigger than just
what cars he's making and what businesses he
starts.
Pop culture has touted Elon Musk as some
sort of eccentric heavyweight genius
with humble beginnings,
but this is demonstrably false.

(01:46:06):
Elon Musk was born in South Africa where
he claims he grew up extremely poor,
but his family owned an emerald mine.
As a teenager,
Elon would trade emeralds for cash in New
York City, and his father bragged how they
had so much money we couldn't even close
our safe.
Musk claims to have had about a $100,000
of student loan debt, but he received a

(01:46:28):
full scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania,
where he bought a 10 bedroom frat house
with his friend Adeo Ressi and ran an
illegal nightclub.
The pop culture claim is that Elon has
an IQ of a 155,
but this has never been tested. And after
being accepted into Stanford for PhD studies, he
dropped out after 2 days.

(01:46:49):
After dropping out, Elon began his first business
venture with his brother Kimbal,
Zip 2, which was essentially a digital version
of the yellow pages.
The brothers received tens of 1,000 of dollars
from their parents, and yet Elon denies this.
An associate of Elon's father, Greg Curry, got
involved to bring in investors.
But Elon's code was no good, so they

(01:47:12):
had to hire on professional coders to rewrite
everything.
Zip 2 was then sold for $307,000,000
to Compaq, who later shut it down without
ever earning a profit.
Elon made $22,000,000,
bought a $1,000,000
McLaren f one supercar, which made mainstream news
before he totaled the uninsured vehicle.

(01:47:33):
Musk then went on to create an online
bank, x.com.
He partnered with banking expert, Harris Fricker, Edward
Ho, and Christopher Paine.
All 3 ended up leaving the company after
accusing Elon of lying to the media about
the quality of their product.
Elon claims he founded PayPal.
Before the company was named PayPal, it was

(01:47:54):
known as Confinity.
It was founded in 1998 by Peter Thiel
and Max Levchin.
After losing 1,000,000 of dollars,
Elon's x.com
was bought by Confinity in a merger in
2000.
All Musk contributed at Confinity
was his own power struggle. He made himself
CEO
and pushed to change the name to x.com.

(01:48:17):
The executive team successfully petitioned to fire Musk
while he was away on vacation.
Part of Musk's resignation agreement stipulated
that all references to founders of the company
will be removed from their website,
allowing Elon to claim credit, which so far
is all he has ever achieved.
Peter Thiel then rebranded the company as PayPal,

(01:48:38):
went public, and sold to eBay for $1,500,000,000
Elon made 180,000,000
from the deal, which he then invested into
Tesla,
SpaceX,
and failed company SolarCity.
Elon falsely claims to be the founder of
Tesla.
Tesla was founded in 2003 by Marc Tarpenning

(01:48:58):
and Martin Eberhard who developed the Tesla Roadster.
When Tesla Motors began looking for venture capital,
they approached Elon Musk who had the fake
credibility as PayPal's cofounder.
Musk joined with the condition that he be
named chairman of the board.
In emails, Musk was upset that the media
was not giving him credit for Tesla Motors

(01:49:19):
and went after Martin Eberhard,
replacing him as CEO.
He then forced Eberhard out of the company
and rewrote the company's history to have himself
listed as an original cofounder.
Martin Eberhard, the man behind the Tesla Roadster,
was promised the 1st Roadster off the assembly
line, but Musk screwed him over on that
as well and sent that car into space.

(01:49:43):
You can tell it's real because it looks
so fake, honestly.
So who is Elon Musk?
Elon describes his father as being an evil,
abusive man.
His father, Errol Musk, has been accused of
being a pedophile
and fathered a child with his stepdaughter, who
is 42 years younger than him.
This spoiled narcissistic

(01:50:05):
failure,
son of accused pedophile,
wants to put computer chips in everyone's brain
so that we can merge with artificial intelligence.
His girlfriend is now bragging how this could
all lead to a communist utopia.
And strangely enough, former Nazi and head of
NASA, Wernher von Braun,

(01:50:26):
predicted a man named Elon would conquer Mars
in a 1952
novel that he wrote,
which is odd because NASA has partnered with
Elon's SpaceX to work towards colonizing Mars.
Elon Musk, like everything else in today's modern
society,
is a fraud,
a fake genius
to you by the fake news.

(01:50:48):
Here's a pro tip for dealing with the
mainstream media in all of pop culture.
Assume it's a lie and research everything.
Now last part first,
don't assume it's a lie, but the second
part research everything. Question it,
consider it, research it, do your due diligence,
everything. Now, in in general, you know, the

(01:51:10):
video you can watch, double check for yourself
as I have and look through the information
and realize the obvious nature of a lot
of the stuff he's discussing and the points
that aren't you know, the the more of
the connecting dots that he's putting forward, consider
for yourself.
But just realize how interesting all this is.
And, again, the only reason I would focus
on something like this is because of how
clearly I believe he's playing a central role

(01:51:31):
in something bigger than politics.
Because, I mean, realize, as much as everyone
out there tries to box everything we do
into some political game about left and right,
what are we always telling you that it's
just your government? We are beyond that. And
I could be wrong, of course. But as
I see it, that's not where I'm aiming
this stuff at. I'm aiming this at trying
to reach you with who I see is

(01:51:51):
building your technocratic panopticon
using the 2 party illusion to get you
to not see it. That's what I'm talking
about.
Now lastly, Derek simply points this out.
David Harris goes, hey. New robotic security at
president Trump's Mar a Lago home. Hey. Look
at that. He's using the great reset
DARPA dog.

(01:52:12):
Cool. As Trump says, will Trump embrace these
robot dogs for police forces around the US
as well?
Hope not.
Trump beeps up security with robot dog at
Margom a Lago. Guys, I just with everything
you just heard about that, every overlap with
I mean, the whole point is about the
must clip in general,
that you're not hearing the
long ago overlap before PayPal with Peter Thiel.

(01:52:35):
You're not hearing about 2 different times he
tried to turn companies into x.com, and here
we are with x.com
overlapping with the financial world. Every I mean,
this is like you could not pick a
more alarming
check every box individual.
The only thing that changes is because he's
on Trump's side. That's it, guys. If this
was Kamala, if this was Klaus Schwab, or

(01:52:58):
literally anybody else that's on even not just
even just not on the Republican side, they
would be screaming rightly so about how alarming
all of this is,
but not today.
Now on the idea of the cabinet picks
and the administrative, you know, the people being
chosen for position, Jason Bassler put out a
swamp watch 2 point o simply pointing out

(01:53:18):
some of the ones we're worried about. And
I will address the statement from Trump recently
about what he claims is coming. Again, just
another statement. He says, Susie Wiles, which has
already been chosen as the chief of staff.
The White House chief of staff has a
reputation for secrecy and influence. Former now she
is apparently currently a lobbyist for Mercury well,
to get the second part of the company.
But as well as a former lobbyist for

(01:53:38):
Pfizer and Big Pharma. She's one of Trump's
most trusted advisers, apparently. Also, former lobbyist for
tobacco and apparently also was involved with the
effort to get Trump removed in the power.
I mean, all sorts of crazy overlaps.
Like Pompeo, of course, which again Trump's distancing
himself from, but we have yet to see
what happens yet.
You all know, former CIA director, state department,
Zionist,

(01:53:59):
you know, aggressive,
a a Ron Hawk.
The guy is the worst. He is like
the top deep state element in all of
this, and he is seemingly right next to
this position right now, and we'll see how
it plays out. Brian Hook. And people have
also argued that Pompeo is such an obvious
example of the deep state. They float him
in order to make it look like they

(01:54:19):
listen to you and everybody else is just
as bad. But and that's something Daniel McAdams
put forward. Brian Hook, another Zionist known for
his hawkish stance on Iran appears to be
about to get a position if not already.
Just apparently, was just hired for the state
of the state department.
John, John Paulson, the billionaire hedge fund manager
famous for profiting off the 2008 financial crash
is reportedly the top choice for secretary treasury

(01:54:41):
secretary because, of course.
There's also a word about Trump campaign is
distancing itself from r f k junior, but,
again, these are all up in the air
right now.
Now this is where I pointed this out.
Again, I just wanted to quickly show you
this. I simply said in regard to the
telegraph, which did come from people inside,
but that but, again, the end of the
day doesn't prove anything. It could be floated
as a way to get people to jump

(01:55:02):
the gun from the right, or it could
be floated by the left in order to
trick peep you know, all of this can
happen.
That's why, objectively, I say this could just
be hype or deliberate political misinformation from either
side, but it's indeed what I am worried
about, which is why I posted this.
That they might use r k to get
things happen and and then, you know,
couch him somewhere where he has no influence.

(01:55:25):
Now Samuel says, this is BS. Don't give
this any attention. Many time how many times
we're gonna be burned by corporate media? Okay.
I mean, I get I get the sentiment.
I too. I see they're very, very dishonest.
And I did not mean this in a
in a negative attacking way. This is that
I argue a very balanced and measured response
because he he says something that I don't
want people to I wanna I wanna make
sure I balance it with what I think,

(01:55:45):
which is the only ones getting burned by
this would be those that are blindly accepting
it or blindly ignoring it. Or or ignoring
whatever aligns with their worldview. What most partisans
do on a regular basis.
Considering all that is said while not blindly
accepting it is what any honest journalist investigator
would do. Or should do.
In no way is that, you know, confrontational.

(01:56:05):
Right? I'm just simply going, you know, but
I disagree. It is people that blindly accept
or dismiss. That's the problem.
He responded by saying and, again, just seems
to be measured so far, and I I
appreciate it. He said there is a difference
between considering and promoting. 100% agree. This is
nonsense and everyone knows it. Okay. I disagree
with that. We don't know that. That's your
opinion. So he went from acknowledging, considering, and

(01:56:26):
promoting, which we all agree with, except then
saying this is we should ignore that, which
I and you can come to your own
conclusion. I obviously think that's wrong. He says
Donald Trump is not distancing himself from RFK.
RFK will most definitely be in the administration.
You see my point? We that that is
something that anybody objective is gonna say, well,
you don't know that, man. You can argue
it's clearly more likely,

(01:56:47):
but we don't know definitely. That is you
believing
what billionaires and oligarchs and technocrats tell you.
And maybe you're right, but you don't definitely
know that. And the fact that we have
to have that conversation is is kind of
concerning.
And I said, you're right. I'm quite obviously
considering it as anyone honest would.
You're blindly dismissing it, meaning you aren't.

(01:57:10):
Of course, you could be right, but your
false certainty is ridiculous. And, of course, that's
the first time I say something that I
mean, again, you could let's blame it on
me. That's my fault for making it about
something, you know, accuse accusing of something. Fair
enough. But I said, even if he intended
to, something could change that. Only one here
only one here is being objective.
And the point is it goes on where
he says, I'm not I'm not going to

(01:57:31):
consider or entertain anyone who has lied to
me repeatedly. So the best that's the best
place to leave it. And I simply asked
if you're intentionally conflating believing with considering.
I just don't understand this. How can people
actually not see that?
So I think it's important.
As well as the fact to say, okay.
You know, write like, a lesson for me
in, you know, in the sense of trying
to, like, I get the sense this was

(01:57:51):
coming as you can see from the rest
of the conversation
of an adversarial
kind of way.
But as always, as Derek pointed out in
a recent conference that we had, he pointed
out words like normie and and sheep and
blah. And He asked the question, how how
many times have used those words have they
gotten someone to change their mind?
Right? And I'm I, as anyone, can learn

(01:58:11):
from those lessons. It's easy to get pulled
into these things online or in the real
life. The point is is, was there objective
trying to change minds or just trying to
be right? Or
making fun of someone for being wrong, which
is somebody in my family does all the
time.
So I think that's important to consider. So
overall, the bottom line is, of course, he
could be distant and could be on there
that we don't know yet. That's the real

(01:58:32):
point. We still don't know no matter what
anybody says. It hasn't happened yet. And we'll
come to Trump's statement on on Pompeo in
a second to make that point even more
clear. But again, to show you who's already
there, as Shannon Joy points out, this is
Trump's new chief of staff,
Susie Wiles.
And it's important to read this stuff and
hear this. She became the show the
cochair of lobbying firm, Mercury Public Affairs in

(01:58:55):
2022.
And their clientele, Pfizer,
Gavi, the vaccine alliance,
connected with Bill Gates, which spearheaded vaccine funding
and distribution efforts during COVID 19.
All the a role also played by the
United Nations Foundation.
Another Mercury client. I think first I read
that wrong now that I'm reading it a
second time for for a 4th time technically.
But the idea of United Nations playing a

(01:59:16):
role in the same thing, not necessarily that
she's working for them. Mercury client, Gilead Sciences
developing a COVID 19 therapeutics, and this gets
even more crazy where it's saying that she
that their senior team on what she works
for is peppered with all sorts of pharmaceutical
lobbyists.
And it goes on to point out that
they work with the they're, you know, working
on COVID 19 products and tests.

(01:59:38):
Then the other main point was simply that
Short Life, which is a group that she
works advocates for, is run by the United
Nations Foundation, so there is an overlap which
played a leading role in funding in response
to COVID 19 in in regard to rapid
rollout of vaccines.
They launched COVID 19 response fund. I mean,
these are and with the WHO,
these are very clear issues and are exactly

(01:59:59):
the opposite of what we said. Are we
are we pretending there's nobody better for this
position?
Now when I get to the point again
about how people wanna argue, oh, it's so
difficult to pick. It's really not.
You don't have to pick a politician, guys.
You don't have to pick an insider. Pick
anybody.
Pick your uncle if he's got the best
intentions. The point is, it doesn't matter if
you believe the point is what they say
in the beginning. Now, I'm not saying I
agree with this. But in the beginning, it

(02:00:20):
was first term, it was well, Trump doesn't
know everything, but he's gonna surround himself with
people who do.
Okay. Well, that's all we should be asking
for. If you believe Trump's decision making process,
then let him pick out of everybody in
this country who might be best in order
to decide what the, you know, chief of
staff for the White House. Not a lobbyist
big pharma manipulator.

(02:00:41):
Because, well, she's got insight.
We're back at square 1 if you think
that makes sense. Gotta have insiders to fight
the inside. Well, that's the same thing as
last time.
Be be having the courage and the integrity
to call out what this is. You know,
by the way, you could still say bad
choice, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she is
on the right side. Maybe good things will
happen. Of course, you could say that, and

(02:01:01):
I would agree because it's possible.
But you have to have the integrity to
say bad choice, that's not what we promised.
And here's a weird one that has yet
to come to pass, but I've seen people
point to it, and I'll show you why.
It does seem very abstract, but I'll show
you why this got brought up.
Weirdly enough, I get the sense that the
republican side is sort of trolling with this.

(02:01:23):
Donald Trump news, a random account on Twitter
says, breaking news, Bill Gates wants to work
with Trump administration to build a better future,
which is not actually exactly what was said.
Brian simply points out the same thing a
lot of us did. This if this happens,
that would be ridiculous.
Being reported this and if it happens that,
you know, basically, if this maniac is there,
it shows you everything we're talking about. But

(02:01:43):
here's where it comes from.
This is just one of the many articles
that cited what he said, and he simply
spoke up despite donating to can't Harris campaign.
And very well could have done to Trump
too. We don't always get out see there's
so many different ways they can send money
around without us seeing it, by the way.
But he says, congratulations to Trump and Vance.
America is at its strongest when we are
use ingenuity and innovation to improve lives. And

(02:02:06):
he says, I hope I hope we can
work together now to build a brighter future
for everyone. So it's not the same thing.
That doesn't mean the it doesn't have to
be the administration. It could just mean, you
know clearly, it could mean a lot of
things. So I get the sense that they're
trying to use this to manipulate people like
me to jump the gun as well as
to just freak out democrats.
That'd be my opinion. But it's hard to
tell. But, nonetheless, is I'm just trying to

(02:02:27):
highlight all the different rising points.
Main point being we still have 3 months
or more to really see this come to
pass.
Laura Logan points another alarming example out that
we already highlighted. Brian Hook,
who is now currently on the administration, who
is a deep state a deep state swamp
creature. So we're with deep state swamp creature.
Tongue twister. Hook was against Trump, Laura Logan

(02:02:49):
writes, before and will be again. Laura Logan
being somebody who is arguably at least leaning
in that direction. Right? Or I think she's
I think she was
saying she was going for Trump. I forget.
So much is going on. Frankly, I don't
put that much stock in what people because
I don't think it translates. But either way,
she said, look, this out. He's a problem.
And now he's part of the administration.
He says, Trump allies are warning him against

(02:03:12):
this would be Bolton successor. And he is.
He's part of the same circles, guys. These
people are Iran war hawks. They're deep state
monsters.
Daniel McAdams simply says, who would be Trump's
best choice for d defense secretary?
Overwhelmingly,
91% said colonel Douglas McGregor.
Now
I have a mixed opinion on that. I
think he says a lot of good stuff,

(02:03:32):
but it's all it's hard to to read
this one.
But interestingly,
91%
is pretty profe and that's, you know, 3,000
plus votes.
The others are Mark Rubio, Mike Pompeo, and
Rick Grenell, all of which are being floated,
discussed.
I get I find it personally really hard
to believe that Douglas McGregor is gonna be
the choice for
simply because the rest of them, if the

(02:03:52):
fact that they're even on the table, they're
all, like,
night and day.
Completely,
wildly pro federal government, pro Iran, you know,
anything is real, yes. Everything bad against Iran,
yes. Now just everything at the expense of
Americans and their rights and everything.
These people are monsters.
They are the they are the definition of

(02:04:13):
what he said he would not work with.
Now it hasn't happened yet. Okay? Now this
is where again, we'll show you this this
tweet. Tyler, I wanna make a point with
it first. Shares a screenshot.
And set where Trump says that he won't
be working with Nikki Haley, Pompeo, all the
rest of the obvious ridiculous cartoons out there.
Daniel says, is this legit?

(02:04:34):
This guy says, it's being reported all over
that this is true. It's a big wait.
Victory for sure. Okay. So first point, if
not not to Daniel because he was asking,
so good on him. But other people to
point this out and say, see,
we knew it. And it's like, okay. Well,
first of all, you haven't even verified that
it's real in some cases, where a screenshot
is being circulated around. No. It is real.
I'll show you next.
On top of that, it's another statement.

(02:04:56):
This is what I find so entertainingly hilarious.
Okay. So if we're over here going, guys,
we don't know because all we have is
political statements. All we have is promises from
politicians, which are 5050.
Obviously could, maybe not. Even if he means
that it could something could change, blah blah
blah.
And then so that's our response for people
saying Trump said he you know, Mike Pompeo,

(02:05:17):
whatever. Then he comes out and says I'm
not going to pick him. In response to
us saying political statements. And they go, see,
we knew it. You're going,
it's just that's another statement. I mean, do
you not do I need to say it
again? The point is I also agree.
This is the fact that he's doubled down
on it, I find even more likely that
that probably is the case. But also because

(02:05:37):
of the obvious nature of what, say, Daniel
McAdams said earlier that it seems very clumsy.
It seems like the
most of his supporters, which doesn't seem to
change a lot about the vaccine, but
obviously don't want Mike Pompeo because he's an
and they were at odds more than once.
And even Mike Flynn has called him out
as undermining Trump, and he was the CIA
head when they were going after Assange and

(02:05:57):
when, arguably, the CIA played a role in
the Russiagate
2020. You know, the whole thing. The whole
damn thing. Russiagate and the election park.
So he's a bad guy, and even the
supporters see it. So it could have been
that he floated this in order to make
it look like we pushed him aside and
see we did what you wanted when all
the rest are just as bad. That's what
Daniel put forward. It makes sense. But what's
interesting is that we would still blindly go,

(02:06:17):
he said this because and we're gonna believe
it,
which is right here.
Oh, actually, no. Not yet. I'll get to
that in a second. It's right here.
Right there. We'll get to it in a
second. That's just so you see it. That's
the actual that's on truth social. That's what
he said.
But first,
Gerald Salante says the fact that a nothing
of a man like Apex Marco Rubio is

(02:06:38):
even considered for this position
is scary.
Now it could be a counterbalance to make
you think the terrible choice other than them
or the one we should like. That's always
how this works. Right? Just like the lesser
of evils, give us 2 really bad options
so the one they want you to pick
is the lesser of evil. Same thing here,
probably. Either way, the fact that they're even
put forward is so crazy. Because they are.
But, of course, this is showing you that

(02:06:59):
RFK spoke up and said, we don't Marco
Rubio shouldn't be chosen because we want someone
less neocon. Are you actually kidding me?
So here we are again. We're past the
supposed election, and we're picking pat and we're
still playing lesser of evils?
Do we need I mean, do we need
a a lesser neocon? How about we just
pick somebody who doesn't wanna blow the world

(02:07:19):
up or fight Iran or blindly fight for
Israel? Oh, sorry. Apparently, that's everybody in this
cabinet, including you. I don't understand this.
There are so many people in this country
who aren't politicians or even who are who
are better fit for this position. But I
again, my point is people who aren't even
politicians, people who are educated
about whether whatever position let's just say for

(02:07:40):
for foreign policy, for for secretary of defense
or whatever we're talking about. There are so
many people in this country that are wildly
more in informed about Iran, about basically every
foreign policy dynamic,
because they're not being blinded by in by
the intelligence apparatus that has a duty to
lie to you about these things. Now they're
smart enough to consider the information, like I
would talk about, but are aware of the

(02:08:01):
bigger dynamic that would actually bring this country
to a place of something other than constant
war. But no. We wanna lean in to
people like this.
Or
Rick Grenell, many the ones we just saw,
who is a he's a but Bolton Lackey,
Danny McAdams.
This is here he is with his boss.
You don't see how obvious this is? This
is one step removed from the people they

(02:08:23):
claim they hate. They know this, guys. They're
playing you.
Michael Tracy points out another example from Rick
Scott, saying that the coalescence of the MAGA
squad around Rick Scott for senate majority leader
on the ground that he's the only
candidate who really agrees with Trump is telling.
Rick Scott has consistently denounced the Biden administration

(02:08:44):
for not arming Ukraine aggressively enough, which by
the way shouldn't be shocking because that's exactly
what Trump will do despite you pretending his
statements meant he wouldn't.
He simply said he wouldn't have happened this
way, and he'll end it right away. Well,
he will continue that just like with Israel.
Ending it right away means can he finish
what you're doing? He said that publicly.

(02:09:04):
Excuse me. He's a master of giving you
an answer right down the middle and letting
you believe what you want.
His argument is that Biden has imposed excessive
constraints on Ukraine. Think about that.
And their ability to defeat Russia.
He says, I've interviewed Scott myself multiple times
across multiple years, and he's never been anything
but consistent on the subject. So when MAGA
declared that Scott and Trump are in firm

(02:09:24):
agreement on core issues, presumably, that means Ukraine.
It's all there if you pay attention.
Candace Owens says neocons are privately bragging to
people that they have guys inside Trump's circle.
Big surprise.
And who can push him to pick Mike
Pompeo for secretary of state.
If this happens, America First is dead on
arrival. Hopefully, Trump is aware of them. Now,

(02:09:45):
again,
if he picks Pompeo, which still wouldn't surprise
me, there you go. You have even leaders,
if you will, of the Republican side who
are calling that out. But I get the
sense this is all easily manufactured to make
you make this statement.
So, hypothetically, if he does this, it's dead
in a rival. But if he doesn't, that
means we're good.
Well, that's not how that works. But, ultimately,

(02:10:06):
that will be the perception. You see, we
didn't get Mike, so we're on the right
track. You see how easy that is? Daniel?
I think Daniel nailed it.
But here's what he said.
Just another statement on 9th.
I will not be inviting former ambassador Nikki
Haley
or former secretary of state Pompeo to join
the administration, which is currently in formation. I
very much enjoyed and appreciated working with them

(02:10:27):
previously, which is ridiculous, and would like to
thank them for their service. Make America great
again. Okay. So maybe. More likely, I would
argue, but it's just another statement until something
actually happens.
That's that's how anybody honest would engage with
this.
But I again, it seems most likely. And
I I get the sense that that was
part of a bigger ploy. Now, miss O'Leary

(02:10:48):
points something out. Ian Carroll said this.
And I'll play this for you.
I think I will. Did I have that?
Maybe not.
Anyway, the point is it says, when all
the alt woke
super truthers,
which is very interesting thing to break down,
asked me,
quote, how would how could you vote for

(02:11:08):
a Zionist puppet Trump?
Despite, by the way, this having a very
measured and and seemingly
honest and and open, heartfelt conversation with Derek
about all of this, He says, this is
how. And an Internet bill of rights.
Oh, okay. So something Trump said. So nope.
Just simply something he said he would do.
You know, I mean, it doesn't matter who
you're talking about. Do you know how often

(02:11:29):
these kind of statements come to pass? They're
they're political promises.
So, again, may that that's maybe still, if
you if you engage with that exactly the
way it is, you can still argue that
that was enough for you to vote for
somebody over committing and supporting a genocide.
For me, that sounds crazy. But you each
your own. And he said a federal ban
on all censorship and thought policing with consequences.

(02:11:49):
I mean, do you really think this is
gonna happen? Do you realize how he's been
screaming about censoring people around Israel, removing the
Jew haters from the country? Which Ian was
they talked about this stuff.
So simply because he makes a video about
how these things will happen, like, Elon points
this stuff, you I I can't believe that's
enough to circumvent the facts we have on
the table. Now with all of that, maybe
you still think he's the lesser of evils,

(02:12:11):
and you know my opinion about that dynamic.
But this is interesting.
And he says, I think I can I
think I can think of nothing more vital,
especially to journalists today? Well, yes, obviously. If
that's gonna happen and if he falls through
with it, then, yes, that would be good.
But I still would have I wouldn't
balance that against openly supporting a genocidal regime.

(02:12:32):
That's why I argue that there's no good
I would abstain on the record if that
was a choice that we are supposed to
have that's never removed from us. But either
way, that's not the point. It's, first of
all, what is an alt woke super truther?
Because what's interesting about that well, actually, I
should read this first because here's what old
miss O'Leary reads it as.
I don't know if this is the case
or not. I'm not gonna take it as

(02:12:53):
Ian at pointing this at me or anybody
that we work with because I don't know
that for sure. But she seems to think
that this is him talking about Derrick Rose
and by extension, Whitney and myself. And she
he says one that has a long and
now Derek would make sense because they've been
kind of nipping in each other's heels about
a couple of things recently after the interview.
She says one has a long history of
exposing the elite, backed by years of research,

(02:13:14):
Derek,
interviews in a website archive where you can
find it all, the other is Ian. That's
how she frames it. And she says, that's
not to say Ian hasn't done some amazing
work, but what the f? She says, no
one in the truth movement organically would see
Derek as an adversary, let alone smear him
to millions of followers while to touting Donald
day Trump j Trump as an ally. What
the f is an alt woke super truther

(02:13:35):
anyway? I do find it pretty strange, I
gotta be honest, because I think it's
whoever it's aimed at, what you're ultimately doing
there is saying people that rightly criticize
and that I mean, look, I can I
have like, I even reached out after the
discussion he had with Derek? I mean, like,
I I very much respect the the way
that that was done.
Respect. Period.
Which I I think I commented that or

(02:13:56):
something. Either way, the point was I I've
said that publicly. I I do. I think
they did that really well. And I have
a lot of respect there.
What's interesting though is that I'm able to
say I aggressively disagree with that decision, but
I can still have respect for many the
way you conduct yourself.
So when people are saying, how could you
vote for that? That's the that's the same
conversation.
But the idea is ultimately

(02:14:18):
making it about all woke super truthers instead
of just somebody who sees that that's contra
that's a contradictory stance or has that opinion.
So my point is woke
does not mean awake. We all know the
difference. So I guess he's trying to say
that we're the or people in that position
are the
alt woke truthers that they're
lefty woke democrat minded. I mean, I can't

(02:14:40):
read that other than some kind of nod
towards the left, which seems the kind of
lazy left right paradigm argument that if you're
bad, you're on the left because democrats are
bad and they're gonna destroy. I can't I
just I that's surprising to me. Horey meant
to say, like, super awake, but I don't
think it would be framed as alt woke
because alt doesn't necessarily mean more. It's just
a very weird thing to do. And saying

(02:15:00):
frankly, it kinda disappoints me based on what
they talked about before. Because the obvious reality
is, well, yes, what you're highlighting and what
you had in the interview discussing was that
he was bad, but less bad than her.
That was what your argue that was your
main premise.
And the idea that that that that is
okay to vote for, which again is up
to you, is simply the answer is that
he said that he'll do this. I just

(02:15:21):
find that to be shocking.
I hope you're right. And, yes, for a
journalist, these things would matter. But the reality
is the idea that he's gonna build an
Internet bill of rights, and that's not going
to include censorship or more control over what
we're allowed to say online while opening that's
how this has always worked. Not the left
or the right, but your government manufacturing
left right paradigm drives to get you to

(02:15:43):
choose your own censorship,
to choose your own subject subjugation
under the guise that this will give you
more when in reality, like the War Powers
Act, the Patriot Act, the damn near everything,
it ends up enshrining the problem as opposed
to solving anything.
I really hope I'm wrong.
Thought policing? Exactly. That's what Bill Barr and

(02:16:04):
Donald Trump rolled out in his first administration.
But he says bill of rights for Internet,
so we'll ignore all of that, I guess.
Seems crazy to me. Now as Brad Miller
rightly points out, it's frustrating to see widespread
naivete
infect most Americans.
Our need for hope is often in our
intentionally weaponized against us. I hope everyone can

(02:16:24):
listen to this right now because this is
everywhere.
Too many people believe absurdities about the government
despite countless historical examples to the contrary.
Now that's where we I'm always coming from.
In no way does that mean I'm never
accepting a positive.
The point is that people often criticize for
not accepting what is presented as a positive
when it's things like that.
If that happens, well, absolutely.

(02:16:46):
Sadly, it rarely seems to come to that
point, and so they pretend that we're always
dismissing everything good as never being good. Show
me one of the things that have come
to pass and not had some caveat to
it.
My point is that this is what they
always do. And if you're objective about it,
it seems to be very transparent. And but
there have been plenty of examples of things
that I go, yes. I agree with that
over the years and you've all seen them.

(02:17:06):
In this case, should that happen with us,
I will praise that. If RFK removes dioxa
or create some dynamic where we seem to
be healthier through, yes. That's a positive thing
even if more negatives are behind it.
So right now, we have an obvious track
record. Even just on Trump alone, his own
administration shows you these things. But historically, for
the government,
clearly,
we should be on a very defensive stance.

(02:17:26):
We should recognize that what they do is
never is rarely in our interest.
And people that wanna believe their statements, again,
that seems to be erring on the side
of belief versus fact in front of you.
He says, have you never heard of 911?
Have you never heard of the Gulf of
Tonkin justification for Vietnam? Remember JFK? How about
operation paperclip, MK Ultra?
Or our import the or our importation of

(02:17:47):
the culture and methodologies of the notorious unit
731 of the imperial Japanese?
What about the operation Mockingbird? Now that's in
regard to bio biomedical
manipulations,
which we talked about a lot, doctor Ishii.
What about operation Mockingbird or the illegal creation
of the Federal Reserve?
What about operation Gladio? What about operation Condor
or the phoenix program or the concept of

(02:18:09):
a maturing candidate? This is what you need
to understand about the military and intelligence services
because this stuff happens here at home too,
constantly. These are the the past. God only
knows what we're dealing with now. How about,
operate event 201? COVID 19 operation. That's his
larger point. The average American doesn't know anything
about its own government. If this is you,
and it probably is, get the hell off

(02:18:29):
here and open a damn book.
Just a thought, points out the obvious. I
think Trump talks out of both sides of
his mouth by promising the American people that
he will take down the deep state while
simultaneously surrounding himself with deep state CIA players
like Pompeo. But, again, yes, we saw the
statement. We'll have to wait and see how
it plays out. But he is trotting him
around and Peter Thiel, which is there, along

(02:18:52):
with Vance.
No actions, not words are what is important.
Listen here. That's the only thing we should
be looking to right now.
Actions, not words.
And this is the statement down here about
how he'll dismantle the deep state.
Words mean nothing until they actually come to
pass, especially with a politician.

(02:19:12):
Or rather, specifically with a politician.
Now Glenn
Greenwald,
same tweet, but then backs that up with
this clip, which I've already played for you
of of,
what's his name?
What's this guy's name again?
Sam Harris and,

(02:19:33):
Ben Shapiro.
Both of them openly discussing this conversation. But
Ben Shapiro being explicit,
saying he knows the people in this guy.
They're telling you that Pompeo is most likely
to be in there. So the point is
again, that that that like what Glenn is
doing. He's not making a statement. He's just
simply going, here's what Trump said. Here's what
people on the inside are saying.
You can choose what you wanna believe more,

(02:19:53):
but none of it matters until it actually
comes to pass.
So Bennet Johnson
says one of the most critical roles of
the next Trump administration will be the CIA
director. Again, during that time, before rather before
in past, it was Mike Pompeo who became
secretary of state. My point is that Mike
Pompeo played a central role in all of
this,
having direct influence over that role in his

(02:20:14):
time with Trump. And as Flynn and plenty
of others have made it clear that he
was ignoring,
had had knowledge of, but did not say
anything about all these different attacks on Trump.
The CIA, he continues, was ground 0 for
every vicious attack on Trump in his first
term. From COVID origins to Russiagate, to the
impeachment hoax, to Hunter Biden's laptop, all these
ops began at the CIA,

(02:20:35):
which again is is
I guarantee there was a role there, but
I don't think we can prove that in
the context of who else might I mean,
I think I can prove to you in
many of these that Israel was directly involved.
But it says, I fully support, Kash Patel
to serve as CIA director in the next
Trump administration. Or how how about we just
get rid of the CIA? How about that?
Isn't that what we're all talking about? The
unelected con oh, I guess not now. I

(02:20:56):
guess that's for the next administration except all
the promises they keep putting forward.
Of course, we'll never talk about that because
that's this part this part of the argument
is gonna say we need these things first.
National security. While arguing about getting rid of
the analogic power structure, which is literally the
CIA, but, you know,
contradiction everywhere.
It says we must we must have rock
ribbed fearless leaders to bring the radical leftist

(02:21:18):
activists inside the CIA to heal. Of course,
that's what it's only about.
I just can't I can't express enough.
He's he's just either how willfully
dishonest
or wildly
naive and blind it is to pretend that
it's only one side. As Whitney recently pointed
out, if you think it's the deep state
is partisan, you're in for a big shock.

(02:21:39):
I argue a lot of these people probably
know and don't care. It's about engineering their
the ongoing benefit of the partisan screaming. But
either way, the idea that it's only left
leaning is shockingly stupid. The CIA is using
these things against you, and seemingly Benny as
well.
But it says, I support Kash Patel to
serve at the CIA.
He's a he has pedigree and worked with

(02:22:00):
the federal prosecutor with the seal team 6.
I mean, that doesn't sound good to me.
Cash worked in congress to expose the Russia
gate and was critical of department defense in
implementing Trump. Oh, so he's pro Trump. So
that's that's what matters. He could have deep
state ties. He could have defense ties. He
can have all the but if he he
likes Trump, so we'll ignore all of that
or pretend like they're positives.
Most importantly, Cash has been an unshakable defender
of Trump over the past 4 years through

(02:22:22):
every Biden political yep. That's what matters.
So cash for CIA.
Hooray. Good guy. CIA. Right? They're on our
side now?
Well, as bad kitty says, hiring the team
is extremely difficult task. No. It's not. Washington
really is a swamp. Yes. It is. Trump
needs to branch out to the state governments.
Well, I I agree with that. And FBI
fit offices in conservative areas, etcetera, which is

(02:22:43):
what I think he's doing. The the point
I'm making here is this argument that's becoming
a prominent
thing because they already see that positions are
being made that are not what they thought
they would be.
So instead of going, wrong. You lied. That's
not what you promised. They go, well, it's
really difficult. There's a lot of stuff going
on. There's moving parts and, know, he's gotta
pick some battles to get some of the
good
every single time you get the QN on

(02:23:05):
nonsense.
Right? Well, he's gotta throw a bone, so
they think he's on their side. So, it's
just like you just guess whatever you want.
The point is, they promise one thing and
are already seeing the opposite, but I'm gonna
hold off the complete
opinion until we see the full thing finish.
Right? Because nothing has actually fully happened yet.
These people have been stated,

(02:23:25):
the ones even that have been picked, but
have yet to actually take the position. That's
what matters. It it very well may happen
that they don't confirm him in the senate.
And and this is what I expect with
RFK, quite frankly. So they can try to
blame somebody else for why he didn't get
the position, which was always the plan.
There's a lot in the air. Either way,
it's not difficult, guys. You know, easy it
is to find good people that care, but

(02:23:47):
the reality is they don't want that. They
want deep state creatures that kind of maybe
look like the republican sided so we can
keep the same thing going and pretend that
you all chose the good people, and it
oscillates back and forth
forever. Here is David Bernstein,
singing. It's a good sentiment.
One thing that really puzzles me about MAGA

(02:24:10):
about MAGA World is why they hate the
likes of Haley and Pompeo,
lifetime conservative Republicans.
But they love the RFK Juniors, the Tulsi
Gabbard, the lifetime
left wing Democrats.
And it can be that Haley it can't
be that Haley and Pompeo ran against Trump
because so did RFK.
So

(02:24:31):
any logic there? Any thoughts?
Well, I guess because they were directed to.
That's what I believe.
Suddenly, they don't like we're not gonna do
that. Th this is some kind of a
driving or
problem reaction solution. Like with Pompeo,
probably moved away to get to justify the
rest. The point is that it seems to
be a democrat run administration.

(02:24:52):
And for for all the conversation of coups
and surreptition and conspiracy
theory, I said this before. Isn't it funny
that no one wants to engage with the
possibility that they've been cooed by the Democrats?
Which,
you know my bigger opinion about the voting
and all the rest anyway. It's all the
same thing, but it's a funny thing to
think about with how unwilling anyone is to
engage with that. These are lifetime conservative republicans,

(02:25:13):
and now they're calling them rhinos.
And you point at people that just recently
tag teamed over to here, and they're the
ones that are on your side. This seems
like a very hollow way to look at
things, but that's because they don't think it's
honest.
Excuse me.
So Mike Pompeo.
One of the obvious points in all this
with Brian Hook and the rest as well

(02:25:34):
is such aggression obvious aggression towards LeBron.
Here he is on 9th saying, I'm grateful
federal law enforcement officers disputed the Ayatollah's plot
or disrupted, excuse me, to kill Trump. Oh,
you mean a plot that no one's ever
proven that comes from intelligence that, like, been
caught lying and manufacturing things basically their entire
well, constantly, forever, as far back as you

(02:25:55):
can look.
We've had many things floated like this. Since
we know all the plots, no, there's been
nothing.
Literally nothing. There's been statements made. And if
there's anything that means less than political statements
for politicians coming up to an election, it
is statements ever made by intelligence.
Just look for yourself.
He goes, the murderous Iranian regime should face

(02:26:17):
consequences.
Why? Because Mike Pompeo wrote a lie on
Twitter?
That's how dangerous these people are.
This would be enough for them if people
would listen.
So here is what they're talking about.
This is from the 9th from 9th. Three
charged in Iran linked plot to assassinate Donald
Trump, sources tell ABC News. Well, it's a
standout point to this that I find ridiculous,

(02:26:38):
as many people have already pointed out. Now
first, it says, 3 people have been charged
in alleged
Iran linked plot. What you love about the
first sentence? You've already got 2 things removed.
So we we so it's alleged. We haven't
even proven this. And it's Iran linked, which
means we can't prove it's directly tied to
Iran, but they're Iranian.
Not I'm not even gonna dispute any of
that. I just think it's so dumb how
this is always how this goes. But it

(02:26:59):
says in a plot to assassinate Trump. So
what is that? The 47th plot? No pun
intended.
Iranian American activists
and 2
Jewish
Americans living in New York, according to a
criminal complaint. I'll show you next. So just
because people are Jewish does not mean they're
Zionists and does not mean that they're Mossad
or working for Israel.
But I find it pretty interesting that you've

(02:27:20):
got 2 Jewish Americans and a one Iranian
linked entity,
and this becomes an Iranian plot.
Should it be a Jewish American plot that
worked with Iran?
Probably not. But what's interesting is that this
is how they frame this.
Now the obvious point to make,
twofold,
is that if you're talking about a Jewish
American in New York, it's a very not
a very hard thing to assume to consider

(02:27:43):
rather that they're Zionist.
Right?
Because that's that's what Israel will tell you,
even though that's not even the truth. There's
a lot of Israel a lot of Jewish
people that are not Zionist. But they're the
ones that make the case that Jew being
a Jew is a Zionist. The same thing.
It's not. Plenty of Jews out there are
calling out Israel and Zionism.
But what's funny about it is that that's
clearly an indication that might with what's going

(02:28:05):
on, that you go, okay. Well, maybe there's
Israel's involved. Because they I mean, we've talked
about this. The effort to kill Trump by
Israel would clearly suit their interest right now.
Because Vance will be the same thing and
he's wildly anti Iran. Either way, the point
is clear that this is hollow, I think
so far. We haven't even gotten into it
all. And on top of that, that well,

(02:28:25):
before I get too far away from it.
So for the point was simply that just
because you're Jewish does not mean that you're
Zionist. But obviously, there's an overlap there. Just
like we've seen in all of these conversations,
like from Israel's point as well as the
fact that this is what the
fervor is right now.
So right there, there's an indication that there's
something that is off the beaten path with
all of this.
And I think that all I don't see

(02:28:47):
any, any at all, benefit to Iran to
do this.
The argument is all about how Trump's bad
for Iran, but they put out a statement
early saying that we'll we will we will
work with Trump's administration and we hope we
can rectify the past. And then even then
in the past, Trump himself has made statements
about how it does not seem to make
sense. Even if you think that they hated
Trump enough,

(02:29:07):
to do so would be so
obviously outside of what would benefit them right
now. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I think it's more likely or at least
just as likely to consider the fact that
it could have been somebody else in order
to do that or a frame,
a lie from the FBI to justify the
same things we're gonna see next, which is
the war against Iran and that Trump is

(02:29:27):
somehow persecuted hero.
But it says,
Farad
Shaqiri,
the Iranian linked entity, and then Carlisle Rivera
and Jonathan load Lodholt
are charged with murder for hire according to
this Department of Justice.
Rivera and Lodholt have been arrested, while Shaqiri,

(02:29:49):
who is the FBI described as an asset
of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,
is believed to be in Tehran.
Okay. So so far, we have an entity
that's not around that could be anywhere in
the world that we're being told is in
Tehran, and then 2 Jewish Americans who were
arrested. So now it's getting even more abstract.
And now we're talking about 2 Jewish Americans
who were involved in a plot to allegedly

(02:30:11):
kill Trump, and then somebody they're telling us
is in some another country. It could be
anybody anywhere, knowing how often they lied to
us and could also be in Tehran and
in a plot from Iran. All possible.
The Iranian guard tasked Shaqiri, we're told, with
surveilling and killing Trump to avenge the death
of Soleimani,
the leader of the Iran elite, Quds Forces,
in a US drone strike in Baghdad in

(02:30:33):
2020. But guess what? It says according to
the complaint,
that's not what the complaint says.
Well, I'll show you this next.
I find this to be really hollow in
every possible way, just like the supposed assassination
attempts post the first one that were, like,
a gun fell on the ground somewhere. A
guy 500 yards away was grabbed and we
never even saw a picture of the I
don't believe most of this stuff. I think

(02:30:53):
we're being lied to. Not that they aren't
capable or that the point is the same.
So it's interesting
where were we right here?
The the complaint or the the rather the
the,
affidavit, I think that's what the right word
is for it, in itself doesn't say that.
It simply says that they believe that's why.

(02:31:14):
And yet here's ABC News posting it as
if that's why. They they did this for
Soleimani.
You know why that's, I think, being done?
Because that's the most obvious narrative role. Because
they said they were gonna do that. But
guess what? They've already claimed they responded to
that. They already said that that was the
response from last time, but doesn't matter because
they want to drive this towards Iran. And
if we don't remember this, I've done plenty
of shows on this. The US government has

(02:31:35):
been manufacturing this for Israel for a very
long time. Now it says there are a
few actors in the world that pose as
grave a threat because of national security of
the United States as it does Iran according
to the justice department.
Yeah. You know what you know one of
them that's more? Obviously, Israel. Another one, Saudi
Arabia.
I mean, over and over I mean, the
idea that Iran is a threat to US
national security only exist on paper in US

(02:31:57):
intelligence.
Now you they could be right, and I
could be wrong for sure. But demonstrate it
for
me. Hezbollah is not Iran.
Hamas, not Iran and funded by Israel. The
Houthis, not Iran.
This is not this is an easily provable
reality. The State Department itself just not too
long ago admitted that they're not even working
towards a nuclear weapon.
So is that all they have? I mean,

(02:32:17):
just my point is always, if you take
every claim Israel's ever made about Iran,
even though most of it's false, and pretend
it's all true, and then compare it to
even what we can prove Israel and the
US have done, it is a fraction. It
pales in comparison.
It's shockingly obvious. 1 is terrorism and the
other is a manufactured narrative.

(02:32:37):
I think you know which way what which
way that goes.
Shaqiri immigrated to the United States, but was
deported in 2008. Now it gets even more
obvious.
The point being is that so we have
an example of somebody who moved to the
US
and then was deported in 2008
for and served time in prison for robbery.
You know how you know how often so

(02:32:58):
you have somebody you wanna turn into an
asset. You make them you pretend to put
them through prison. You make them a criminal
on paper, and then you quote deport them
so they have plausible deniability.
Now this is not provable, but I'm saying
if you look through history or if you
look at groups like the what's the group?
It's called the base.
It's a it's a state department cutout that
was created to make it look like a

(02:33:18):
terror organization in Russia. The base literally translates
to Al Qaeda. It's not a joke. The
The guy is a former state department asset.
He has worked worked for the CIA, worked
for the state department, had been in many
more and he just decided one day to
move to Russia and start a terrorist organization.
While obviously possible,
I think it's pretty silly.
In this case, this is what I'm reading
this as, an asset.

(02:33:40):
He also stated he was tasked and, again,
obviously, my opinion. He stated he was tasked
with surveilling the 2 Jewish American citizens or
different, by the way. This is what's interesting.
He stated he was tasked with surveilling 2
other Jewish American citizens that they have yet
to identify
and was offered in the article anyway in
in the affidavit,
was offered $500,000
by Iran
for the murder of either victim

(02:34:02):
according to the complaint.
He was also tasked with targeting Israeli tourists
in Sri Lanka.
Now you know how many massage operations are
the to create the illusion that Zionism or
this needs to exist to protect Jews? And
how many times they've been caught faking things
like this? And I mean, caught even by
the US government. Caught just since October 7th.
Over and over and over and over. So

(02:34:23):
the idea that they would aim this at
Israeli tourists
and Jewish individuals in America would make sense
with what Mossad has done in the past.
So I find it interesting that you have
2 Jewish Americans that they've named. That's the
people they've listed. Working with an alleged Iran
linked entity who are trying to kill other
Jewish Americans.
If you pluck out the one anomaly, which

(02:34:43):
is the supposed Iran linked entity that's not
even here,
What you see is Jewish Americans targeting Jewish
Americans.
Now who'd be pushing that forward? Well, we've
seen how this works. This is all up
in the air. Just my opinions.
Quote, actors directed by the government of Iran,
this is what they're claiming, continue to target
our citizens. Now realize, Robert just wrote an

(02:35:04):
entire article, and we're gonna talk about Amsterdam.
How you can literally see how the leaders,
the rulers, and all of their tech their
intelligence apparati,
would you say apparatuses?
Maybe either way,
Are lying to you blatantly, and you can
prove it. So it shouldn't be that much
of a stretch to wonder if they could
lie to you about this for the interest
of something they've been trying to do for
decades.

(02:35:26):
But it says actors directed by the Grubbin
of Iran target
continue to target our citizens. Oh, yeah? Where?
I'd love to see one provable example that
actually fleshes out to where we can prove
it was an Iran attack against an American
entity. I don't see it. It doesn't exist.
Not to say that it couldn't or wouldn't,
but I don't see it.
Not there.
They've never done they've never been able to

(02:35:47):
definitively prove. They just give you floated arguments
and saying, including Trump on US soil and
abroad. This needs to stop. Who cares that
Israel's murdering
67 children a day right now? Who cares
about that though, right?
Quote, today's charges are another message to those
who continue to in their efforts. We will
remain unrelenting in our pursuit of bad actors

(02:36:09):
except Israel and except the ones we work
with though. No matter where they reside, unless
they're in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
And we'll stop at nothing to bring to
justice those who harm our safety and etcetera.
Same thing. Every time.
I love to make those statements, but that
ignore almost all of them and usually go
after people not even doing that, but that
they say they are.
This history is easily proven.

(02:36:31):
Oh, shoot. Oh, man.
I thought that was, for the podcast. Oh,
oh, well. I I can generally suss out
what I had here. This this I thought
it was the screenshots of the article I
was reading, though this is the actual complaint.
Is that what you would say affidavit? Is
that what this the right term is? Give
me in the chat so I can reflect
on that. So this is
this is from December

(02:36:52):
or at least from at least December 2023.
So this is not new. So what's interesting
is this goes well back before the election
fervor.
And what what I suss suss out from
this is that ultimately
oh, I did have the screenshots. That's good.
So this one, really quickly, this was
find the spot. I think it was victim
4.

(02:37:19):
Oh, oh, dash 4. Oh, well. There we
go. There we go. Okay, guys. I wanted
this so I can read from here forward.
But so my point
is this is from a while ago. And
if you read through it, it seems pretty
clear that this was aimed at the other
Jewish Americans until, like like, this month, where
they just kinda or, like, very recently, if
I remember the date, then veered into going

(02:37:41):
after Trump.
To me, it seems very cobbled together. It's
my honest opinion as always.
But so here's what the spot the only
spot that mentions Trump. Oh, and then here,
just to show you this, that was one
of them.
Soleimani.
So what did the NBC ABC article write?
Well, that they did this to go up
to to get back for Soleimani. Right? Well,
there's only 4 mentions of this in the

(02:38:01):
entire article. And this is the overview written
by the US government that simply says, the
regime also seeks to target nationals of the
United States in retaliation for Soleimani. That's not
they're not saying there's no evidence to indicate
any of this seem connected to that or
let alone Iran other than Iran linked. The
point is that they're saying that. They're claiming
this happened because of that even though that's
just so ABC framing it as that's what

(02:38:24):
we know is dead. That's how this works.
The US government wrote in an overview, therefore,
we know that. That's not true. And if
you can search through this, you'll find all
that here.
So, Soleimani, three examples.
That one for the overview.
And then 2 in here where it references

(02:38:44):
this one guy, the Shaqiri, the supposed Ron
linked entity.
And it says
that his name was Majid Soleimani, but did
not know if he was his real name
or if it was something else. That's it.
So you see how easy it is to
manipulate the corporate media who just blindly goes
along? How much you wanna bet the person
that wrote that didn't even read this?
Otherwise, they would know that that's not what

(02:39:05):
they said. Or they're doing it because that's
the agenda. That's corporate media before I do.
So here under victim 4, it says, also
according to Shaqiri, in approximately
mid to late September 2024.
So that's when this shifted.
Late to mid September 2024. Before that, had
nothing to do with Donald Trump. It says
September 2024, mid to late, he put aside

(02:39:26):
his other efforts on behalf of the Iranian
guard. That so the only thing we have
to go on is one
some guy in Tehran who they've cited. That's
it. And, apparently, he has had conversations with
the FBI. How does that make sense? Did
he did he call him and he was
happy to oblige?
And it says to to to focus on
surveilling and ultimately assassinating Donald Trump.

(02:39:48):
That's victim 4 herein. He in he indicated
to the r the Iran that is this
would cost a huge amount of money. Now,
obviously, they've denied this, which doesn't mean it's
not true. Certainly could be.
Doesn't this seem a bit weird?
So you can see in the in the
yeah. So here's supposedly his interviews with the
FBI.
It says from my discussions with other FBI

(02:40:10):
agents and my review of written reports, I
have learned that on or about September 30th,
October 8th, October 17th, October 28th, and November
7th
2024,
Shaqiri, the defendant, prince participated in voluntary
interviews with FBI agents. Are we are you
kidding me?
Why?
Why would this guy in Tehran who has
apparently been caught for trying to assassinate Trump

(02:40:30):
have voluntary interviews with the FBI?
Guys, they think we're this stupid.
Yeah. And so he's located in Tehran. During
his interviews, he stated in in substance and
in part, the following. And then it goes
on to talk about how we shifted to
go after Trump. But, originally, the first two
were

(02:40:50):
Jewish Americans. That's victim 23.
They were surveilling 2 Jewish Americans who they
don't give you the information of
and saying that they were provided information. So,
literally,
everything
comes from this random guy who allegedly lives
in Tehran, who spoke on the record with
the FBI because he wanted to. And he
tells them that this is they were going
after the Jewish Americans and and tourists in

(02:41:10):
Sri Lanka, and then randomly in September, mid
to late September, decided to shift to go
after Trump.
That's it.
And all they have that they've arrested are
2 Jewish Americans who were trying to kill
other Jewish Americans.
And I this is absolutely wild to me.
Lastly,
I think I think it was the similar
point. So it simply says, based on my

(02:41:31):
involvement with this investigation with the FBI, including
my conversations with our agents,
it's saying that the,
a review of the record, electronic data transcripts
of the interviews with Shaqiri, who apparently is
the guy, the defendant on or about September
30th and the other dates. They say that
the statements to the FBI during their interviews
appear to have been true, and others appear
to have been false. So even now, they're

(02:41:52):
going they're saying, well, some of the things
he told us were false.
Oh, really?
Maybe all of it. And it says, for
example,
and as detailed infra, the investigation has revealed
that Shaqiri has, in fact, directed his criminal
associates, including
one of the Jewish Americans, Carlisle Rivera,
and, aka Pop, and Jonathan Loadholt,

(02:42:13):
the the defendants to surveil and murder
victim 1, which Shaqiri denied until his most
recent interviews with law enforcement and electronic communications.
So it seems like them's stories all over
the place. So they just decide to believe
the parts that work for them?
Or this guy doesn't even exist, or he's
an FBI agent, or or or
it says he discussed with with a payment

(02:42:34):
for $100,000
from to finish the work, meaning to kill
the first victim. They've enlisted only one conduit
surveillance of victim 1 were false, which were
confronted with his most recent interviews. He ultimately
admitted to be false, though he even then,
he was not forthcoming with the full scope.
I mean, this is actually really bad. But
guess what? If you dig into these things,

(02:42:54):
it's almost always like this.
So this is what they want you to
believe we should be going on right now.
And as Sprinter rightly points out,
he says former Iranian president Mahmoud,
Ahmadinejad,
in an interview with Turkish CNN, spoke about
how deeply Israeli intelligence has penetrated the ranks
of the Islamic Islamic Republic.
Quote, we created a secret unit to fight

(02:43:16):
Israel, and its leader turned out to be
a Mossad agent. Now, of course, he could
be making that up, but that seems to
be something that most people wouldn't because it
makes them look bad.
Either way, guys, this is the reality as
even Israel's boasted about.
So how we obviously have to consider that
this is as dumb as it looks.
Scott Adams, which I think is hilarious. So
even if if a normie like Scott Adams

(02:43:37):
is gonna make this point, maybe you should
consider it. He simply says, I hate to
say it, but I believe Iran over the
United States on this topic. You know why?
Because they've been almost I mean, you can
go back almost as far as you wanna
look.
And their stories are false.
It's really stupid. And same with most places.
Look at North Korea.
Remember that whole the haircut of debacle? There

(02:43:58):
was a documentary made about it. To where
almost everybody in corporate media made an argument
that every man in North Korea was forced
to cut their hair the same way because
an intelligence apparatus said so. It turned out
to be a ridiculous false story. Shocking.
That's almost I mean, look. It's not we
should never blindly assume they're lying about everything.
Because the one time we assume is gonna
be used against us. But realize that it

(02:44:18):
is almost always what we see with the
stories that come out of intelligence because they
that's what their jobs are. That's Pompeo for
you. He says it would have been stupid
for Iran to be behind it, the the
attempt to understand Trump, which I agree with.
It's it is normal for the United States
to blame the wrong people.
He's right. Scott Adams is, you know, the
guy that said he was right even though
he was wrong about COVID 19, because that's,

(02:44:40):
you know, whatever. But the point is, this
is obvious.
Daniel McAdams says, the Iran linked plot, in
quotes, to take out Trump, stinks to high
heaven. What the hell is really going on
here? Sayap, false flag? I argue it's possibly
both.
And on top of that, here's Marco Rubio,
which I don't wanna wait. It's at, well,
it's 20 seconds.

(02:45:00):
Anyway, I I've the point is he says
Iran wants to kill Trump because he's a
their regime fears him.
Now that may not even be that the
fear may not be that off base because
he's irrational. And he'll do things for Israel.
That's dangerous.
But the idea that they would assassinate him
for it, I mean, it's certainly possible. That
would make more sense than anything. But I
argue as same thing Scott said that it's

(02:45:22):
clearly not in their interest right now.
Everything it's I think right now, their best
card is to continue to to show strength,
but not aggression.
And and
and allow the US and Israel to expose
what they are. That's happening every day whether
they do not as they do nothing but
hold their line.
So that's why these statements are made because

(02:45:44):
they're vulnerable.
They're desperate.
And they need them to react so they
can blame them at the back. That's what
they do. I mean, right now, it's almost
uncomfortable how vulnerable and and and threatened it
seems these people are. But Daniel says, imagine
this idiot.
Imagine an idiot like this in any position
of executive authority. Well, it's no different than
Bolton or Pompeo

(02:46:05):
or Lindsey Graham or any of the rest
of these lunatics
who are all blindly pro Israel and anti
Iran.
Now on the note of Iran in general,
once we get into more the Amsterdam, Israel
conversation, I wanted to point this out again.
This is actually crazy to me. So first
of all, the re the segue there is
simply because they're Pompeo and Bolton and Rubio

(02:46:26):
and all the rest make the same clumsy
and and and baseless
argument that Hezbollah is Iran and that Hamas
is Iran despite the obvious funding that you
can prove going directly from Israel to Hamas.
But any of the rest of them, it's
the same point. They wanna make it all
about Iran because that's the agenda. And the
Rubios and Trump's of the world are blindly
going along with that. Whether they know it

(02:46:47):
or not, I think they do, and it's
part of an agenda.
My point was to show how in this
conversation,
this interesting overlap of the
both the ceasefire, but also this conversation about
getting rid of Qatar. Or, excuse me, getting
rid of Hamas from Qatar.
It turns out, surprise surprise,
it's not real. At least so far as

(02:47:07):
Cutter is saying, which seems to be the
main point. So first, I saw this floating
around. This is separate. This is about what
Joe Rogan posted. And and this is the
same conversation though. So the moment that Trump
is deemed to be the president-elect,
all of a sudden you start seeing these
strings get pulled. The the the negative Iran
conversations, but also stuff like this. I'm telling

(02:47:27):
you, this is not by accident. This is
so my point has been this has not
stopped from the beginning. The 1st week, Hamas
has been calling for exchange of all prisoners
and ceasefire. That's all been that's been proven
to 40 times over, and even Israeli media
is pointing that out. As the article you
can see, how Netanyahu has systematically foiled talks
to release hostages. Everyone knows that other than

(02:47:47):
people lying to themselves and people listening to
liars.
But then this comes up on November 8th,
And it says Hamas calls for, quote, immediate
end war after Trump election win. So realize
that's even Newsweek
posting a lie
that is favorable to Trump. Don't miss how
that happens too.
The point is because that's a bigger agenda

(02:48:08):
that goes beyond the partisan nonsense.
And that is to make it seem as
if Trump's already changing things. Even though Hamas
has been calling for an immediate end every
nonstop since the 1st week. I'm willing to
bet you that this isn't even a new
claim. I'm willing to bet you that this
is just saying what they've been saying in
the context of Trump now being in power.
But everyone like Joe Rogan going, well, would

(02:48:29):
you look at that? Is taking that as
Trump is already having a positive effect.
Now, again, I'm not going to pooh pooh
on there actually being a positive effect. That's
this is a misrepresentation.
And this is why it's frustrating for people
to claim that we can't take a positive
thing. That's not what this is. You're being
tricked into thinking that, and that needs to
be called out. So I simply said, Hamas

(02:48:50):
has been calling for this since the 1st
week, and Netanyahu has been ensuring it never
happened. It scares me how people like Joe,
who influence a huge amount of opinions,
either never knew this and still don't,
or lie about it for
politics. I mean, think about how crazy it
is that he can have interviews the peep
and not know this.
And this is a the leading newspaper. I

(02:49:11):
mean, people like me, which is kinda the
point, and people even much larger than me
are making these points, but Joe doesn't see
it. Now, again, it could be that he
just sees it and doesn't care. But I'm
I would lean more towards the idea that
this is the algorithmic manipulation. He doesn't even
know this exists.
Or maybe not. But, I mean, in that
in that world, hypothetically, that's a scary thing
to think about. How easy it is to
keep you blocked in in in a a

(02:49:32):
dark corner,
thinking you see everything.
That's what I'm talking about when I say
this scary social engineering that we don't even
begin to understand yet.
But the point is, this is not new.
And and we and remember, we saw this
already. So this is a state department correspondent
claiming, I can confirm this. Well, that's crazy,
seeing as how it seems that it didn't
happen. It says US officials tell me this

(02:49:53):
has been under discussion for some time. Okay.
This is about
Carter
moving Hamas out. And here's the Jerusalem post
saying, after Hamas rejection of deal, which didn't
happen. Right? The point is that there have
been on the same point. They're not gonna
accept a false half measure. We want all
the exchange for all people. And that's what

(02:50:14):
they're that's what Netanyahu pretends they're fighting for.
So every time they give you this, we'll
give you 4, forgive me 6, their own
people are screaming that we don't want that
to him.
My point is that they would offer the
full exchange, and then Netanyahu says, no. We
want this half exchange. Like, what are you
talking about? It's because they're desperate to keep
it going.
So they frame it as Hamas did it,
like every other time before. And it says

(02:50:35):
specifically US asked Qatar to expel the group.
Okay. So now you have Israel lying about
this as always. The US government trying to
make it look like they're playing a role
in all of it. And then you get
the state department correspondent repeating what they're told.
As well as the Zionist manipulators,
like Avi on Edward the rebel news. Cutter

(02:50:56):
had been reportedly decided to finally kick out
of Hamas.
Okay. And I simply said, at before I
had seen this next part, as I was
considering this in last night's show, this was
the day before yesterday, it appears to be
engineered. Just like I was saying, like, may
rolling this out to make it seem as
if think things are changing because Trump's in
power, but he's not even in power yet.
So arguably, if this happened, it would be

(02:51:16):
Biden's respond that would be like a pro
for Biden. Right? But of course, that wouldn't
be how you frame it.
But here's what's interesting.
So again, o s I n t defender
post this
and was hilarious as pointed out by plenty
underneath it, including propaganda and co,
Asaf, MD, which you can read for yourself.
I'll show you right now. Is the opposite

(02:51:36):
of what he's saying.
You think is that because he is trying
to deceive you or did he not read
it?
So he says, following them having ordered Hamas
officials to immediately vacate the country, the Qatari
Ministry of Foreign Affairs has announced that it
is suspending its participation
in the ceasefire and hostage negotiations between Israel
and Hamas, stating that they will only rejoin

(02:51:59):
the negotiations once the parties that primarily be
being Hamas, excuse me, Hamas, show their seriousness
and willingness to end the war.
It's it's it's it's ridiculous.
Because first and foremost, they have continued to
be the one, even Israeli media showing to
be actually engaged in the process. And even
Qatar and Egypt made this point more than
once.
So what's funny is if you read the

(02:52:20):
statement right in the beginning, it says, spokes
person for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Qatar's
efforts to mediate between Hamas and Israel are
currently stalled. And it says, doctor Majed
bin Mohammed als Ansari,
the spokesman for foreign affairs, for Qatar,
said that the media reports about the state
of Qatar's withdrawal from mediation regarding the ceasefire
in Gaza are not

(02:52:42):
accurate.
That's the first sentence.
Or
that's the first sentence. And that the state
of Cutter notified the parties 10 days ago
during the last attempts to reach an agreement
that it would stall its efforts to mediate
them between Hamas and Israel if an agreement
was not reached in that ground stating that
Cutter will resume those efforts with its partners

(02:53:02):
when the parties show their willingness and seriousness.
See my point? See how aggressively dishonest that
is? He said parties.
Now if you read the actual sentiment, the
point is that Hamas has been there, and
they'll make that clear in many
every other dynamic.
That if an agreement was not reached, then
you can prove as even Horetz has point
shown you that it wasn't reached because Israel's

(02:53:23):
been making sure of that. Then they go
on to say that because of that, that
they will
that the, partners will show the partners, both
of them, their willingness and seriousness.
And this guy takes it upon himself to
pretend that they,
showing you that Hamas will be that way.
You know why why that works? Because most
people on this platform, a la Twitter files,

(02:53:44):
are taking it at face value. They go,
oh, it's a lot, or we'll just put
we'll just read what he wrote about it.
You're being engineered to be stupid. Don't fall
for it.
As propaganda and co says, they never asked
them to leave. You're lying. Probably probably stupid
and lying. And but he high at the
bottom where it says, they pointed out that
the media reports regarding Hamas' office in Doha
is inaccurate.

(02:54:06):
It's on the post that he put out,
right here,
is inaccurate.
Stating that the main goal of the of
the goal
of the goal of the office and Cutter
is to be a channel of communication between
the concerned parties.
And Asaf MD says the same thing. It
seems you haven't read the statement that you
posted, but I think he has. I think

(02:54:26):
he's just lying about it.
Who knows though? That's crazy. So the reality
being, it as I can tell right now,
this is a floated narrative that doesn't seem
to be true. At the very least,
it is being used in order to drive
certain political action. But let's not forget,
Hamas, regardless of your converse whatever you put
is funded by Israel. Has been right up

(02:54:48):
until 2024. Here it is showing you that
the Assad chief urged cut Qatar to continue
financial aid up in 20 in 2020.
All this is on the record. And the
obvious reality is they've funded them. Not giving
them aid money because you can't buy aid
in Israel, that's why it's shipped in. They
gave them 1,000,000,000 of dollars in suitcases
in order to manipulate them as even Horetz

(02:55:10):
wrote. So they would not see a 2
state solution. So you're saying Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately
boosted Hamas to try to prevent a Palestinian
state? Yeah. Sure. He deliberately and systematically
even even told this on record whoever wants
to avoid
the threat of a 2 state solution

(02:55:31):
has to support my policy of paying protection
money to the Hamas. So what we did,
with the permission of our prime minister is
to
let
Qatar
to transfer
a huge amount of money in cash,
probably more than $1,400,000,000

(02:55:53):
By doing it, we increase the power of
Hamas.
We
did everything in order to make sure that
Hamas will go on controlling Gaza,
and Palestinian authority
will control the West Bank so they will
fight each other.
Imagine how crazy it is to live in
a world where this can be so easily

(02:56:14):
proven and yet we still have to pretend
like it's not true. That's the former head
of Shin Bet, like the FBI equivalent, and
the former prime minister. And the evidence everywhere.
Harrettes wrote about it. Here you show the
docu the the article from Horetz discussing for
it's always, always, always been this obvious.

(02:56:34):
So in the point about Amsterdam since we're
discussing manipulations,
which is everywhere right now. And if you
missed that point from the beginning, whoever was
selected Trump or Kamala, they all would have
been in line with these same agendas,
in my opinion, but I think it's obvious.
So war monitor put this out, and then
this is I show s u I. I
just wanna give a shout to some of

(02:56:54):
the ones we showed in the last show.
I won't go over them all extensively again,
but this is one of the first places
I saw. This is a guy who lives
in Amsterdam breaking down the illusion and one
of the first places highlighting that Mossad agents
were there alongside them before this started. And
think about this in the context of everything
we discussed, whether it's Iran or anything else.
This is what they do.
Through deception, thou shalt make war is what
they're paraphrasing their actual tagline is for Mossad.

(02:57:18):
So this was a clip put out, and
this is the war monitor
showing you a 17 second clip that shows
an Israeli cowering in the corner saying, take
my money. Take my money. And the guy
simply screaming out in free Palestine. And without
context, it looks like a Palestinian supporter beating
up an Israeli. But you realize when you
break this down as we're gonna go to
yet again,
the evidence is overwhelming.

(02:57:38):
These were soccer hooligans or whatever you wanna
call them, football hooligans.
And it only used in that term because
in the context of understanding that this happens
a lot outside of the politic politics where
people they these teams fight each other all
the time. The point is these people were
on the record
burning Palestinian flags, chanting death to Arabs, and
you have no schools left because all the
children are dead. All of the things we

(02:57:59):
talked about.
And beating people up with wood planks and
so on. And so finally,
mostly Tunisian
and, what was the other one?
Basically, not Palestinian Arabs, and then other people
who aren't Arabs at all
chose to beat them up for it, which
I'm not gonna advocate
violence or breaking the law.
But I'll tell you what, that if you

(02:58:21):
ever wanted a better example of what f
around and find out look like, it's right
here.
Because they thought they can get away with
it, they thought they could do whatever they
wanted, and somebody who said, I don't agree
with that, decided to knock their teeth out.
And now, everyone who doesn't like that is
trying to make it out to be a
Jewish pogrom, when the reality is it has
nothing to do with that. It has to
do with people who are pro genocide,

(02:58:42):
screaming about hurting children, and others didn't like
that.
That's the reality. Moroccan. Thank you. Moroccan, largely
Moroccan and Tunisian. The peep the the
Arab side of the people that responded, which
many of them were not.
Now you can go through the thread again.
Here's the actual Jerusalem Post post that says
Mossad agents to join Maccabee Tel Aviv FC

(02:59:03):
trip to Amsterdam. It's on 5th November.
So right out in the open.
As ta on top of that, let's not
forget, there's multiple examples of Israeli IDF members
and specifically, Ghilani Battalion, some of the worst
of the worst out there, who were there
who were there while this was taking place.
This is one of the most famous one
or promoted ones you've seen going around. And

(02:59:25):
these are all these are people that were
there on the ground
while this happened. So it's with Assad agents,
so it's kinda hard when they start when
they're really trying to push the idea that
this seemed like some kind of planned thing
against Jews. Maybe that's because they're showing you
more than you realize that this was a
planned thing against Jews by Israel.
But that I'm not even saying that may
not even be the case. It could just

(02:59:45):
be these morons decided to act irrationally and
got beat up for it, and then they
made it this. Either way, you need to
consider how this happens in the past. How
just like with the Jewish Americans and the
Iran overlap, like, it very well could be
that that was manufactured for that reason.
Just like this could be. You've considered, is
all I'm saying.
Now as well as here's another example. There's

(03:00:05):
many of them. Just these are everywhere, all
over the place. And this is on 9th,
posted anyway, and this is before the all
the craziness happened, saying here are the videos
of them at Teddy Stadium attempting to burn
the Palestinian flags.
Can you just and and says,
and and the Netherlands flag while chanting Gaza
to cemetery.
It's all on the record everywhere you look.

(03:00:27):
Now if as everyone points out, if this
was a bunch of Arabs chanting about killing
Jews or or
Israel's a cemetery, we all know exactly how
this would be framed.
Such hypocrisy.
Now the point is this is not up
for debate. In case you're wondering, this has
been overwhelmingly
proven, not just by Internet sleuths and coverage
of what's going on on the ground with

(03:00:48):
people's videos, but by police,
by every, every possible account other than politicians
and Zionists who try to lie about this.
So remember, this is what's interesting. First of
all, this shows you how clear this is.
This is Ayanet who we point we pointed
to earlier. We also referenced her in Derek's
article or Robert's article I'll point to in
a second.
And she posted this video.

(03:01:09):
Now the video, as she testifies to, is
of Israeli supporters,
Israeli
the Kabi Tel Aviv Israeli supporters
chasing down
Palestinian supporters or specifically people that they see
as pro Palestine.
Right in front of the station, she called
this out. Now what's what's crazy
is this guy who I've already identified as

(03:01:29):
one of these aggressive Zionist manipulators,
his name is Eli
Jacoby,
took her video without permission and said, Middle
Eastern migrants continue to hunt down Jews. See,
early this was getting started, there was a
directive. Somebody made this happen.
Where are the police? Well, she commented going,
I'm the creator of this video, and you're
lying.
So, by the way, here is this where

(03:01:50):
he's now deleted it. Do you know how
often this happens? That's Ali Bennett, Eli Levy.
They have both done it. I have I
have a whole folder of how many times
they have lied about the flower massacre and
then deleted their tweets like we don't know.
The point is, he got caught and then
he deleted it. And what she said was,
I'm the creator of this video, which you
can see here.
And he said and she says, you are

(03:02:10):
spreading fake news. This is a group of
Maccabi supporters starting a fight and beating a
single Dutch man.
But he made it about chasing down Jews
and Middle Eastern migrants. Do you not see
how obvious the agenda is? It doesn't matter
what's going on, it's about trying to create
the illusion that these are illegal immigrants or
just immigrants.
And by the way, even if you happen

(03:02:31):
to be there, you're just Arab and your
family's been there for 17 generations, you're still
an immigrant in the way they frame this.
I'll prove this to you. There are peop
the the the you're just like in the
US from the Republican side, many people, not
every conservative, but their teams weren't Republican side,
Just like I pointed out before with the
immigrants coming to the border. They hadn't even
crossed the border yet, and they're being called
illegal immigrants. How are they illegal yet? Maybe

(03:02:53):
they were gonna go through the right channels.
You don't know that. It's because that's the
narrative, and that's being driven by Israel. It's
transparent.
I'm gonna show it to you with the
with what's going on in Europe. They're pushing
this like crazy.
So they make it out to be chasing
Jews only from Middle East migrants, when in
reality, most of these people are residents in
in in Denmark or wherever the in in

(03:03:14):
this location.
Delete the content, and she says I didn't
give you permission. So he deleted it and
apparently even apologized.
We'll come to that in a second. But
so, again, here's the clip. You can watch
it for yourself. And here she is underneath
it so you can see that. And PBT
simply says masters of deception, which anybody honest
is very well aware of right now.
And she asked before he responded saying legitimate

(03:03:36):
questions, she says. This is on 8th.
What I explained to several media channels is
that the Maccabi supporters deliberately started the riot
in front of central station returning from the
game. They and they lost, by the way.
They came in from two directions.
Lit heavily fireworks
at Denmark at Danmark
Damrak, and gathered in front of the hotel.

(03:03:58):
From there, they attacked 1 or 2 Amsterdam
citizens,
hit them. The MET escaped, and the Maccabi
supporters gathered back into a group. From there,
they went into the city. This incident, misinformation
by Bild,
the German platform. Which every I mean, I've
seen seemingly
everyone,
from CNN to Fox News, MSNBC to international
media, they all, what blockstep,

(03:04:20):
lied about this. Jewish pogrom, so did every
leader it seems, ruler rather.
So she's like, I was there. I filmed
this. You're all lying about it.
Now she says this morning, she received an
apology from this from a different guy, Christian
Feld, apparently.
And it says
oh, so this this is the 1st news

(03:04:41):
outlet to apologize for using my footage. So
at least they so this seems to be
a smaller one. At least they have the
integrity to recognize they're wrong, but they should
have checked it first, don't you think? Good
journalist.
Saying that they they basically showing they've missed
they they lied about the context to frame
it as an anti semitic attack, anti semitic
attack when in reality, they were the ones

(03:05:01):
attacking Dutch citizens.
And that's why the other guy deleted it
because everyone's beginning to see this and it's
transparent. And that's in I would argue in
the interest of continuing to propagandize you and
you gotta get rid of that one because
you got caught.
These people are liars. That's what they are.
Now as I showed you the other show,
this is a post from November 7th, but
he's highlighting the video from March 7th the

(03:05:23):
year before saying or earlier in the year
saying, here is another example of Maccabi Tel
Aviv citizens or, excuse me, football supporters
who were jumping a random Arab guy in
Greece.
This got all sorts of coverage. Here's the
actual article.
Pro Israeli hooligans attack a man carrying a
Palestinian flag in Greek capital. That's from March.
And just in case you wanted to prove
it, which you should, here's the actual video

(03:05:45):
from March 7, 2024.
So you can prove it's before this. So
this is constant, guys. It's not new, and
they all know that.
Daniela Modos, shout out to her for continuing
to break this story down. This is 4
14 second clip. Now in the background, you
can hear everybody cheering as they take the
guy away. Different story.
This is in Tunisia,
I believe.

(03:06:05):
Oh, no. Excuse me. It's, Brazil, saying, quote,
Israeli tourist arrested in an act on
on Biopedba
Island in Brazil for, guess what,
racist insults and hate crimes against attacking and
calling a black baggage handler a monkey. The
crime is sparked outrage. The point is this
is not an a unique dynamic from people
coming from the Zionist Israel.

(03:06:27):
Owen Jones breaks down an important thing you
probably already seen. That Sky News actually put
out a good report on this that broke
down that they started it, that they've borrowed
a taxi. And guess what?
They deleted it and put out a story
that sold the lie.
Now this is a really important example because
it proves that they had the information,
the evidence,

(03:06:49):
knew it was true, deleted, and then for
whatever reason, clearly, you know what that reason
some of the reasons may be, funding
threats,
pro Zionism
decided to manufacture
a fake story on top of that true
story, delete this true story, and then pretend
that was the reality. They lied to you.
When they could you could prove they knew
the truth. As Owen Jones says, this is

(03:07:11):
a massive media scandal, which most people won't
care about because they are in the in
the media circle.
I argue in the in the, you know,
establishment rather.
Sky News posted a video that accurately described
what happened.
And it Well, in case for those who
are new to this conversation, I wanna quickly
highlight this. The reality being Oh, it's over
here. That

(03:07:31):
this is
the police.
I have the video into this is the
the Amsterdam police confirming what we were saying.
That they started it, they burned a taxi,
they were beating people up, and they responded
to that.
That's the truth.
So they deleted this, described the violence and
their hideous racism, then they deleted it. I'll

(03:07:52):
show you the original. Then they they posted
a re edit, except it's not a re
edit. It's a totally different video, which now
qualifies as disinformation.
They posted a tweet saying their previous video
didn't meet their standards of balance and impartiality.
Right? So if it's too racist and too
much negative Israel, we have to make sure
it has to be negative for everybody. That's

(03:08:12):
not how truth works. That's not how journalism
works. There's facts and you report the facts.
But they deleted that one too.
So they have a third version.
Can you imagine doing this in any other
context?
Somebody is holdings is they've got them under
their thumb. I don't know how else to
read this.
Now the new video strips away any crucial

(03:08:34):
context, downplays anti Arab racism, adds in testimony
from Maccabee fans, but none of the victims
of Maccabee the actual whole the their acts
of violence.
Now let's play the first video.
Violence in Amsterdam left at least 5 people
injured and does And note the original point
that it says right there. Injured and does

(03:08:56):
violent It says Israeli football fans attacked in
Amsterdam.
So even then, it still slants. But listen.
In Amsterdam left at least 5 people injured,
and dozens have been arrested.
But what happened? Supporters of Israeli football club,
Maccabee Tel Aviv, arrived in Amsterdam ahead of
their UEFA Europa League match against Amsterdam club,

(03:09:19):
Ajax. On Wednesday, social media videos verified by
Sky News show Maccabee Tel Aviv fans tearing
down
Palestinian flags from outside of homes. Oops. Other
social media videos appear to show residents chasing
Maccabee Tel Aviv fans. Come on. Come on.
On Thursday, just before the game, crowds of
Maccabee fans were filmed singing racist and anti

(03:09:42):
Arab songs.
It says, let the IDF win
to f the Arabs. That's what they're singing.
While a pro Palestinian
demonstration had been banned by the mayor over
fears there would be clashes. Of course, because
you ban the pro Palestinian protest because the
Zionists are chanting racist slogans or slurs, which

(03:10:03):
they tend to call
Palestinian things slurs, while we'll call theirs slogans,
which is the typical media nonsense.
Later that evening during the match, Israeli supporters
appeared to disrupt the minute silence for Valencia
flood victims with chants, whistles, and fireworks. Right.
So, a moment of silence for the people
that died, and they

(03:10:23):
sneer and jeer and laugh about it. Why?
Because Spain is pro Palestine.
In their which it they just pulled away
from Israel. It's all that really happened. So
you cheer for the death of innocent people?
Yes. That's Zionism for you.
McCarthy fans were seen attacking locals as a
police car can be seen driving by. Now
there's her video by the way, but they
accurately depicted it in the first case that

(03:10:46):
they were chasing local residents. That's what happened.
Not
Jews, not Middle Eastern. It has it's a
local debt Dutch person is what she reported.
And and now and by the way, the
point is they put a new video out
where they lie about all this.
People with Palestinian
flags were seen marching on the streets.
Maccabi supporters say they were beaten and attacked

(03:11:08):
on the streets of the Dutch capital
with videos showing some of the violence.
Safely Which again is too important to be
clear about. Whatever the motivation you can decide
for yourself, these things happen quite often around
these football matches. It's very common. So in
and of itself, some of these could just
be people fighting, which happens every time, or
one of the videos shared by one of
these liars, a bunch of white guys breaking

(03:11:29):
into a building. It's like, how do we
how do we possibly know? And the point
was they're breaking in to get the Jews.
It just seems so cartoonish
when none of this has to do with
Jewish people at all. Palestine,
we go.
Good. Skynese could Alright. So the point there
is, like, plenty of the videos,
they're out there screening anti Palestine content. They're
burning Palestinian flags and beating up anyone they

(03:11:51):
see that they even argue is that way.
And that's why these people are saying this.
In many cases, maybe because they're also pro
Palestine. But you can see the context. It
is obvious.
And and the reality being, as we've already
highlighted, that this was not directed at anybody
other than those who instigated violence.
Not independently verify
all of the footage shown. Police arrested

(03:12:12):
62 people. 5 were taken to hospital,
but have since been discharged.
Israeli far right ultras are notorious for Now
note
that there was no conversation about missing Israelis.
As far as I can tell, I'm not
that very well could be the case. But
it also could very well be an inserted
part of the story to keep it bigger

(03:12:33):
than it actually is. To make it seem
like they kidnapped and do well, maybe not.
Because at the fir the the original information
did not have anything to do with that.
The racism
and physical violence. Dutch, Israeli, and British leaders.
I mean, you get the point. So they
they just wrap it up at the end
saying they condemn the, you know, same thing.
So here is the next part.

(03:12:53):
So it's the new video, strips away the
crucial content, downplays everything that's happening there. And
here's another breakdown of this from Mark Owen
Jones
saying, this is nuts. After mysteriously deleting the
package coverage, they put on a new version,
which is really Aurelian, guys. It's crazy. It
completely changes the thrust to emphasize the violence
was anti Semitic. See the opening screenshot and

(03:13:16):
change below. There's the o just the opening
point.
They literally say what we know about the
anti Semitic violence. Anti Semitic violence.
That's crazy.
So here's the next one.
In Amsterdam left at least 5 people injured,
and dozens have been arrested.

(03:13:36):
But what happened? Everything should be done to
track down and prosecute the perpetrators.
This is simply anti Semitic violence against Israelis
that actually defies description. Supporters of Israeli football.
Defies description? Well, you just described it, and
you're lying about it.
Club, Maccabee Tel Aviv, arrived in Amsterdam ahead

(03:13:56):
of their UEFA Europa League match against Amsterdam
club, Ajax.
On Wednesday, social media videos verified by Sky
News show 3 men tearing down Palestinian flags
from outside of homes.
A second palace Notice how it doesn't say
Maccabee fans.
We anonymized it for your for your benefit.

(03:14:19):
Flag was pulled down from a building in
a clip verified by Sky News.
Another video uploaded to social media shows a
man being chased through the street with a
caption
And you I the the I'll play a
little bit more. What do you talk and
enjoy 6 Zionists chased away
free Palestine?
On Thursday, just before the game, crowds of

(03:14:42):
Maccabee fans were filmed singing racist and anti
Arab songs.
So imagine trying to frame this as anti
semitic attacks when you even include those points.
Alright. The idea that these people are responding
when we're talking about,
I mean, I you know, again, it's a
say it's the same point. Like, what what

(03:15:03):
kills me sometimes is I think, like, every
what you guys are this is transparently obvious.
The amount of misinformation around this is what
the real point is. But I just think
it's just create I I guess because sometimes
there are still people that are being, you
know, leaning into the lie. On that same
evening, a pro Palestine demonstration
took place at the Anton Du Compline Square

(03:15:24):
after authorities banned organizers
from holding it outside the arena.
Later that evening during the match, Israeli supporters
appeared to disrupt the minute silence for Valencia
flood victims with chants, whistles, and fireworks.
A video posted on social media
shows a large group of hooded men dressed

(03:15:45):
in black running down the street and striking
people at random.
But I want See how much that changed?
So it went from the the
the specifically Maccabee fans chasing a random Dutchman
in local area from there, which is the
point, and now it's changed that to represent
something entirely different. So an anonymized group that

(03:16:06):
we don't know beating people at random,
Well, that's that you literally reported the opposite
first. Or not the opposite, but something very
different.
This is it's shockingly bizarre. To make clear.
And and you overlap this with political statements
of people that just keep misrepresenting what happened.
They're used,
in Amsterdam that there can be tensions. There

(03:16:27):
are men
In interest of time, I'm gonna go forward.
It's it's the same difference. You go they
they basically the rest of it is the
last part you saw with more statements making
this about anti semitism.
As Owen Jones also writes, this is now
the 3rd upload. Here's the the third one,
and it's saying it gets worse. Sky News
also edited their online article. It sanitizes, erases

(03:16:49):
the thuggery of Maccabee hooligans, no longer describes
anti Arab racism, and distorts the timeline of
events. As a third the third example completely
washes it out. There's more. The Dutch photographer
filmed footage of Maccabee fans attacking Dutch residents.
Multiple media organizations then used that footage to
suggest Maccabee fans were the ones being attacked.
She's demanding apologies and retractions. That's the one

(03:17:09):
we're talking about.
So she saw it and there's now it's
gone even farther. So it goes from Maccabee
fans chasing a person, a Dutch person, then
it goes from random people beating at random,
then it becomes Maccabee fans being chased. They're
they how it's like they think we're this
stupid.
I think they do in some cases.
But here's what you get. So Owen Jones

(03:17:30):
has the nerve
to point out the truth.
This guy says,
the face of a man who makes up
excuses for a Muslim organized pogrom
of Amsterdam.
You simply don't hate Owen Jones enough.
I mean, I just I just am so
blown away by how

(03:17:51):
I it it I don't know what's scarier,
that this guy is stupid enough to believe
that this is the case or hateful enough
to to state this way, or that he
knows it's not true and is willing to
deceive people that aggressively.
33,000 followers.
The point is obvious. It's not a Muslim
organized anything. These were a smathering
of the different Tunisian,

(03:18:13):
or
I already forgot the other one. Moroccan Arabs,
some of them, and then just other random
people that live in this area.
That it's easily proven, and I'll play the
clip from the police and everything else. And
and they are not organizing anything. They were
reacting to what appear to be an organized
goading event to drive people in or not
organized at all, and they reacted to their

(03:18:34):
racism,
their open attacks against other people. God forbid
they should respond. You know? It's just funny
all these claims about self defense. They come
out and start beating people with wooden planks,
which is part of what happened, and then
they fight back, and now suddenly they're being
attacked. Yeah. That's a typically Israeli government nonsense.
This kills me.
Because the truth is you've seen I'll show

(03:18:54):
you another one of these tweets
across the board from from Trudeau. Weirdly enough,
at least unless I've missed it, absent from
Kamala or Donald Trump.
So much is there's we are all being
gamed, guys. The point is that across the
board, from Trudeau to everyone came out and
said, a Jew antisemitic
pogrom

(03:19:15):
with despite the evidence.
Now French Guilbeini's UN rapporteur said, pro Israeliism
is a cult in the west.
Dangerous, hypocritical, and shameful at the time an
entire people is being exterminated with a mix
of 21st century military technologies and evergreen genocidal
sadism.
And she cites the same thing we're highlighting.

(03:19:36):
A Dutch journalist is demanding an apology and
removal of her footage used by basically everybody
to misrepresent
what she knows happened.
That's how wild this is.
Here, Franchesca Albanese also highlighting
this clip that says, here's the segment from
Sky News that's now deleted, showing you the
lie they the truth they put out and
the lie they covered it with. And she
says, in the west, Israel and Israelis can

(03:19:58):
never be in the wrong. In Palestine, Israeli
officials, soldiers, and settlers commit crimes against
crimes against humanity, blame and smear Palestinians everywhere
else they provoke.
They may provoke, incite, and vandalize, and still
get a free pass for every act of
violence they commit or hide. Still, it is
other communities
into which they come who are blamed, smeared,

(03:20:19):
and arrested.
And Amsterdam police
the Amsterdam police have set the record straight.
The media needs to follow suit. To do
otherwise is to dangerously gut antisemitism
of any meaning, which they have already done.
Distort the facts, des
de responsibilize
Israel. That's an interesting term.

(03:20:40):
And Israel east and deny any possibility of
accountability.
The bottom line is this is the agenda
of Zionism. Dan Dan Cohen and I had
a whole conversation about this, which is a
great interview.
And this is about the idea that Zionism
needs to manufacture the illusion that they have
to be there
to protect Jewish people.

(03:21:01):
It's called the the manufactured
Middle East plight and the Zionism linchpin.
Dan Dan Cohen being a Jew himself,
openly speaking about this, which is important. Shows
you that it's not what they're trying to
make it out to be. The bottom line
is that this is about manufacturing this this

(03:21:22):
illusion.
The idea
that by creating this the idea that they
are being hunted and attacked and Zionism gets
to step in like they have to be
there to protect and present. And this gets
even more alarming when you I get the
sense where this is already going.
Now here is what Elon Levy wrote.

(03:21:44):
The this account that's, I guess, called the
Israeli citizens spokesperson, which is just another Israeli
propaganda account probably run by Israel's government. It
says the this account put out a statement
about the anti semitic pogrom. So they lied,
objectively.
And this was the response they received, guess
what, from an ABC news producer.
So from, actually, Australia.

(03:22:05):
But on corporate media platform. Okay?
They say,
the hateful views expressed below by Elon Levy
and this account are sick, racially biased expressions
of a fascist regime's propaganda campaign seeking to
justify genocide and arbitrary assassination.
That's crazy to me. It's a it's crazy

(03:22:25):
how much this has shifted.
So
Elon Levy is outraged because the truth got
shoved in his face. Elon says, further
to the earlier tweet about a hostile reply
from an ABC news producer about the Amsterdam
pogrom,
an ABC News spokesperson wishes to clarify.
See this how this works. The views expressed
by this individual do not reflect those of

(03:22:46):
ABC News. Okay. So they go above. Right?
So one of these people have the courage
to point out they're lying. And so Elon's
or the the Zionism machine jumps to the
next level. Oh, yeah? Well, we're gonna we're
gonna
we're gonna use our influence to bring this
down to call you racist. By tomorrow, the
entire world will be calling your name out
and saying you're an anti semite.

(03:23:06):
So they stand up and go, never mind.
That person's lying and they're wrong even though
they're not and you can prove it. But
that's how this works.
They that that is all they have. Coercions,
threats.
I guess that's it.
And, of course, actually carrying out the threats.
That's certainly what they do. But here, he
followed up and he says in response to
this, this was our statement.

(03:23:28):
He says Hamas supporters in Amsterdam planned an
attack. Oh, so now we're pretending this was
all planned. We already saw that, but this
is the lie on top of the lie
on Israelis in Amsterdam.
Or really just anybody screaming kill all the
children, you know, to be objective. And it
says this was a premeditated assault.
Okay. What's the evidence? Oh, there is none.
Okay. It did not get out of control.

(03:23:49):
It was not sparked by any perceived offense.
Oh, really? So, now you're not even willing
to admit that they were doing the things
that we all have on video? That that
didn't spark that offense? It just was because
they secretly hated Jews all the time, but
planned it to kill to go after them,
but let them carry out these offenses first?
Literally, in case you've understood, a pogrom means
an organized massacre of particular ethnic group,

(03:24:11):
In particular, that of Jewish people from the
history around the conversation. But the reality being
a massacre.
So you're are you saying people died, Elon?
Or do you not understand what words mean?
And on top of that, I'm about to
show you what pogroms actually look like. I'm
sure you know where this is going.
While they're literally killing 67 children a day,
they wanna point to people getting beat up
for calling pea for being the supporting of

(03:24:32):
these things as a pogrom. So yet again,
undermining the real meaning of what antisemite is,
of what pogrom is. And then which, by
the way, creates people who don't know the
reality,
hatred towards Jewish people by design because of
what Zionism is doing. Misdirecting those people that
are ignorant of the reality into that which
gives them more control over the conversation.

(03:24:55):
Jews are calling this out all over the
world right now.
Time to start paying attention.
The Israeli government sent, he continues, warnings to
Dutch authorities that went unheeded.
No. What you did is what you always
do. Anytime you wanna manufacture an event like
the woman at that award ceremony, you act
like they're all at risk. We have to
send 47 guards to keep her safe when

(03:25:16):
the only thing that pretends as a threat
was the fact that you sent guards.
There was no threat. You point to the
guards to say, see, that's we can prove
there was a threat because she had guards.
Well, no. You sent the guards to make
it look like there was a threat. It's
obvious. Now that there obviously also could be
a threat in some context, but that's we
could prove that what they're hyping around, let's
say, the 400% spike in anti semitism was

(03:25:37):
ADL's coverage of anything Palestinian.
They admitted that.
This is how lazy it is because they
don't have anything.
So they said, we're gonna send Assad because
we're all at risk, and they point at
the fact that they sent Assad to justify
that there was risk or prove it. In
reality, I think we can see that Assad
played a role in this.

(03:25:58):
Hamas
supporters in Amsterdam
filmed themselves attacking Israel. Oh, so now they're
Hamas supporters.
So not just the even the idea that
these were all pro Palestinian people is a
random is a stretch. Because I can prove
to you these are just people that fought
back or that recognize these people were disgusting.
Like the woman taking the video that lived
there. Or the I but the the main

(03:26:19):
point is that to pretend they're Hamas supporters
on top of that, it shows you how
completely desperate they are.
And it's not working less than ever, in
fact.
Ask passerby's. Again, this is what they always
put forward.
Were you Jewish? Demanding if you could see
an ID, I'll give your that's that never
happened, and there's zero evidence for it. Literally

(03:26:39):
nothing.
Just like the claim of marching through the
school to kill the Jews, chanting kill the
Jews. That's Stefanik pushed forward. Even though the
police in middle of congress said that never
happened, she continues to push that lie. I
wonder who's paying that to happen.
The October 7th massacre inspired millions of Hamas
sympathizers

(03:26:59):
back to day 1.
That's all they got. You mean the day
where you killed a lot of your own
people more than more than the other where
you continue to I mean, it's just such
a stupid lazy thing that everyone sees through
other than apparently people in power because they're
paid not to or they're threatened to not
to.
My opinion.
See, we warned globalization to FATA would call

(03:27:20):
for this. It just they this is such
a lazy. Art. They're trying to fold in
whatever they're manufacturing into pointing at what you
think is being
thrown at you.
I just it's you know, it's just it's
just so it's not even worth I think
this has already fallen apart. I think this
all this whole thing has such little influence
over anybody right now

(03:27:43):
that I I it makes me worry what's
gonna happen because of it. Now, George Galloway,
who has family there, says his largest extended
family lives in Amsterdam.
The the Maccabee fans, thousands of them, he
writes, came for rampage.
Tearing down flags, singing genocidal songs, chanting death
to Arabs during the middle of silence for
the Valencia
victims,

(03:28:03):
randomly harassing local Muslims, all on the record.
You can see it everywhere. Even burned a
taxi cab.
These are verifiable facts, he says. I added
the cab, but it's true. I'll show you
the police saying it. Zombie media are lying
even about this, even though ample video evidence
is available.
Here is BM
from Israel saying Maccabi Tel Aviv fans vandalized

(03:28:24):
homes in Amsterdam with graffiti.
Here you can see a star of David,
and it looks like it says,
like, ef Hamas or something like that.
And the point is, guess what, guys? This
is the modern Jewish quarter of the city.
So not only are these people out there
vandalizing homes, they're vandalizing Jewish homes.

(03:28:45):
Now, how much you wanna bet in some
context of this conversation, they're pointing at this
and saying racist.
Hamas supporters did this to Jewish homes like
they do every time.
That's not what it is.
Here's Vivid, a aggressive Zionist propagandist,
say apparently lying to you. 3,000,000 views, by

(03:29:05):
the way, November 8th, saying, breaking. Dutch police
have begun arresting many of the Muslim terrorists.
Even though I don't think any of them
well, I mean, I've I'll I'll put it
this way. I don't know whether just because
they're Arab or because they're certain that they're
Muslim.
But that's how it works for these people
because they're racist and disgusting human beings, and
so it becomes and and or terrorists now?

(03:29:26):
You already get the point. It's lazy. But
says that they're already arresting them who brutally
lynched Jews last night. I mean, think about
if you have to be this aggressively
dishonest around what everyone can see on video,
you're desperate.
You're vulnerable.
And it makes me uncomfortable how vulnerable these
people are. Like, how clearly desperate they are
to just use anything that we all can
see as a lie.

(03:29:46):
I guess in hopes they just convince one
more person.
What should the punishment be? Deportation?
Years behind bars? Alright. Deportation?
Because they're Muslim?
That doesn't mean that they're immigrants, man. Like,
these people are they can't even hide. There's
unbridled racism they have right beneath the surface.
Here is Aviva Clompas sharing the same thing.

(03:30:08):
They're not so tough now. Dutch police are
arresting the violent jihadists.
Now they're jihadists?
So if you're you're you're Hamas supporters that
make you I mean, I you get the
point. It's just my point is like I
said before, it's almost like I'm not even
worth the time anymore. It's just so bad
and so obvious who attacked Israelis last night.
But here's what I think is interesting. This
is all on the 8th. Right? Here is

(03:30:29):
Gert Wilder,
Wilders,
who is part of the government there, member
of parliament.
Here he is on 9th.
He says, I am speechless.
Amsterdam police just confirmed
that no one has been arrested during the
Islamic Jew hunt in Amsterdam. So you can
see where he leans on that.

(03:30:50):
Islamic Jew hunt. It's like terror tunnels. Like,
they're cartoons. These people should be made fun
of. That's so that even if it's exactly
what happened, to call it a Islamic terror
hunt, when you could when it's just it's
it's bad. It's insulting to your intelligence.
Because one, it's not what happened. And it's
like you and again, you couldn't just say,
here are

(03:31:11):
people attacking people that Israeli like that and
hurting them because that's bad enough. But you
have to make it a literal cartoon.
But it says all arrests have been made
before
and during the soccer match and not during
the program.
Oh, I see. So that means we can
effectively or make make clear that Eliva Clampas
is a ridiculous liar. They're just sharing videos

(03:31:32):
of what maybe not even be from this
location. I don't know. Or he's wrong, and
she's right. My point is that it's just
so funny how completely up in the air
all this is, and they will give you
whatever they can to try to convince you
for half a second that you need to
be on their side even if everything else
right after that shows you they're lying.
The point is I'm pretty sure at this
point, this stuff is not

(03:31:53):
don't trust anything you're seeing from any of
these people in this conversation on any side
for that matter because it is overwhelmingly rife
with misinformation.
But here is the Yuri,
this random guy,
say, graduated from Shukbang University.
Who knows? There's so many bots and fake
information online. But the point is it says
2 of the Muslim immigrant lynchers.

(03:32:14):
They should be deported.
My point is that simply these people are
so over the top disgusting that your pee
you're talking about people that live in this
location. And because you see them as different,
they're you should deport them. You know, there
are, like, 10th generation people that live in
this country. My point would be that just
because you think they're not from here guys,
that's everybody. At some point, that's everybody. Everybody

(03:32:36):
was eventually somebody that came from somewhere else
to even the United States.
How many generations removed do you have to
be before you're no longer an immigrant? Well,
in the mind of these people, never. Because
they're disgusting.
Says, if Egyptian or Moroccan hooligans rampage violently
through the states of Amsterdam, chanting, there are
no schools in Israel because all the Jews
are dead, they would be shot on sight.

(03:32:57):
Yet this week, the Dutch police, media, politicians,
and monarchy have thoroughly disgraced themselves by openly
embracing a violent genocidal Israeli mob and uttering
not a word in defense of their Dutch
victims because that's important.
This is like the US government ignoring Americans
being hurt because Israel's doing it. Well, here
is the Dutch government ignoring that their own
people are beat up by rabid, frothing at

(03:33:19):
the mouth, genocidal Israelis
because it was Israelis that did it.
Nothing new there.
Robert in Lakesh says it's telling that the
media is giving more coverage to Israelis beaten
up in Amsterdam than the Palestinian and Lebanese
civilians being slaughtered by Israel.
As I speak this,
what an absolute joke.

(03:33:40):
Not only the lies about what led to
the violence in Amsterdam, but the racist double
standards. And I'll show you his article next.
Now I'm gonna play this even though it's
right over here. I wanna play this really
quickly just so you see it. This is
the police and a little bit of a
montage afterward.
It's in it's in obviously language, the point

(03:34:01):
is seeing that they they
the Maccabi supporters
from a building on the rock on the
town square,
a central square, and they destroyed a taxi.
They burned Palestinian flags. They beat people up.
It's all on the record, guys. And this
is the police in the the the that's
why I use this image for Robert's article.

(03:34:21):
I'll show you next. In the
conference
admitting all of this. This was day a
couple days ago, I think. And yet, you
still have all these rulers around the world
and the media blindly lying to you about
it.
On the day of the match, a large

(03:34:42):
group of Maccabi fans gathered in Dam Square
in Central Amsterdam.
Some arrests were made after trouble between the
Israeli club's fans and pro Palestine protesters, police
said. Then on their way to the match,
some Maccabee fans were filmed singing racist and
anti Arab songs.
So here's Robert's article on it

(03:35:03):
entitled Israeli Football Fans Chanted Racial Slurs and
Cited Fights, Media Claims Antisemitism.
So there's a couple points here to highlight.
Make sure you read the whole thing. He
does a great job on this. But just
a couple of points on top of what
we already showed you. And I'll include all
these tweets that you can look at that
talk about the policeman saying this. The young
kid that was basically proving they were lying
about it and got threatened to buy the

(03:35:24):
Maccabi fans.
And a couple of other points I'll mention
here. So the this is an important article.
Now, it start he says, basically,
in fact and again, we go over the
main premise that they're lying about this.
This is in fact, they even attacked the
Moroccan taxi driver before they continued on to

(03:35:46):
tear down Palestinian flags from private property,
which all of this is more than enough
for rabbit average people to to respond to
them. Not I'm not I'm not rationalizing violence.
My point is that you can see why
people might respond to this. You're burning a
taxi cab? You're burning down people's you're pulling
down people's property?
Yeah. In some place in the world, that
will get your teeth knocked out. And then
you don't go on blaming it's them attacking

(03:36:06):
Jews because you did that.
As documented by a 14 year old Dutch
reporter, that's him right here,
who probably did the best job at covering
the events that transpired that day, Israeli who
football hooligans also chased down bystanders with wooden
planks,
all documented by the police, metal pipes and
rocks.
Totally, they're the ones being attacked. Right? In

(03:36:27):
addition to this, some of the Israeli hooligans
were allegedly soldiers.
Again, all and Mossad agents were present,
prompting Tel Aviv to ban military personnel from
traveling to the Netherlands. While it was reported
Israel's own media that Mossad agents were among
the football hooligans for protection.
Guys, it just gets so it's just this
is as bad as the Iranian conversation. This

(03:36:47):
is silly.
And it shows you I mean, you should
make you ask how they ever were able
to convince us of this stuff in the
past. Threats.
Control.
Now it says beginning with a pro Palestinian
counter protest, groups of young men, primarily Moroccan
and Tunisian, decided to confront these rally hooligans,
chasing them down and beating them up.

(03:37:08):
So the entire day of this happened before
they finally decided to react.
After hours of Israelis being beaten up, the
Israeli government declared it it was sending 2
civilian airliners with medical supplies and an evacuation
team. God, it's amazing how quickly you can
respond to a couple of people getting some
beat some some, you know, bruises and cuts.
Meanwhile, you've got Palestinian children starving to death,

(03:37:31):
and you can't be put well, obviously, you
know why.
So that they could rescue their civilians.
A total of 5 Israelis were hospitalized while
dozens were said to have been injured, prompting
the Dutch authorities to arrest over 60 people
connected with the violence.
Now, again, the point is we have a
whole day of them did anybody get arrested
for, let's say, I don't know, burning a

(03:37:51):
taxi cab?
Funny how those things get brushed right over.
But then you have people responding to violence,
which I could argue they should be accountable
too.
But you then they get pushed from somewhere
as we can see all the Dutch authorities
screaming about Jewish pogroms. Clearly, they're being influenced
by something, obviously.
Then they react and get 60 people. How

(03:38:12):
much would I bet that none of them
were I don't know it's for sure. But
they were
not the Israeli Maccabee fans.
It says, yet, when the Amsterdam police commissioner
spoke publicly as we just showed you, he
accurately depicted the events as being promote prompted
by the Israeli supporters.
Now it says, in addition to all of
this, Makkabi Tel Aviv supporters are well known

(03:38:33):
for their fascist and openly racist views. It
is. It's pretty commonly understood apparently in the
circles of their violent tendencies. And this is
really important, guys, because this shows you something
deeper.
As an example,
in 2014, the Israeli club hired an an
Arab Israeli player.
So he has Israeli citizenship, but he was
an Arab Israeli player.

(03:38:54):
His name was Mahran Radi,
which apparently triggered the team's racism.
Their own supporters were berating him,
and they berated the player every single game.
And the chant was, we don't want Arabs
at Maccabee, and Radi is dead.
Very publicized, very documented.
The Maccabee telling supporters also proceeded to write

(03:39:14):
these chants in graffiti all around the city
in the stadium. Jeez. So this is not
new.
The harassment occurred until the person was removed
from the team,
which they've never hired another Arab player since.
You know, can you imagine if that was
about Jews on a different team? Or it's
more to more accurately because this is that's
them with their over their clumsy framing, Israelis.

(03:39:36):
Can you imagine if it was Israelis that
were not allowed on an Arab team? Whatever
it is. You know how this would be
framed. This is so shockingly dishonest.
This is racism. This is exactly what the
all of them, whether it's Trump or Biden,
pretend that they're trying to stop
while openly sporting them more than anybody else
in the world,
the Israeli government. Now it says making things

(03:39:58):
even more clear after being evacuated by Maccabi
Tel Aviv, fans arrived back in Israel's Ben
Gurion Airport.
And guess what? Instantly began to chant,
let the IDF win and f the Arabs.
Why is school out of Gaza? There are
no children left there.
So clearly learned their lesson. Right? No. They
were taught this was okay. They got protected.

(03:40:21):
Nobody got charged the crime. Israel swung in
and saved them back to Israel. And so
they went on singing, yes. Kill them all
Arabs mad. Kill all the children.
And yet, we're pretending this was a pogrom
against Jews.
Despite all the evidence pointing to the fact
that the Maccabi Televi fans started the violence,
committed a litany of racial hate crimes, openly
advocated for genocide, and destroyed private property, which

(03:40:42):
led to a group of primarily Arab Dutch
citizens violently confronting them in a reaction, the
media and western governments decided to claim that
some kind of Nazi anti Jewish pogrom had
occurred.
This narrative also ignores the Netherlands based anti
Zionist Jewish collective,
Erev
Rav,
condemning the Maccabee Tel Aviv supporters too.

(03:41:06):
You don't hear that on corporate media or
in these screaming
irrational
Israeli supporters.
Here's that clip or rather the post right
here. Marco and Jones shared this. Netherlands based
anti Zionist, which, of course, to them is
you're no longer Jewish if you're anti Zionist
despite the fact that Judaism is Judaism. Zionism
is a political organization.

(03:41:26):
These people are Jews that don't like Zionism.
They stood up and condemned the violent acts
of the Maccabee fans. The one-sided media coverage
and the selective policing by Dutch police.
It's all it's all documented, but get you're
not gonna hear it.
To make this about anti Jew, it doesn't
make any sense when you address the facts.

(03:41:48):
Now it says oh, again, we showed you
this. This is saying she created this video,
and they're misrepresenting it. And BBC,
which I don't think it's about fact checking,
I think they don't care. But the point
is that they shared her video and framed
it incorrectly, so they didn't fact check it.
They're the ones that love to tell you
that they fact checked when they didn't even
look, or they didn't care that it was

(03:42:08):
false, which should make the same point.
Calling it anti semitic attacks.
The reality is
what's really going on in Gaza
or anywhere else they're involved,
nearly 70% of the Gaza war dead are
women and children.
Ages most represented, 5 to 9.
That's what's really going on and that's what
they're hiding with all this.

(03:42:31):
Now, again, here's the police speaking on the
record. Here's the Dutch teenager reporting exactly what
we just discussed and having Maccabee fans in
the back tell him that we're gonna well,
you better shut up or you're gonna be
what did they say exactly? It was,
he's reporting that they're throwing rocks and they're
hitting people, throwing fireworks.
And they also they told him to stop

(03:42:51):
filming. They said, for your own safety, turn
off the camera.
He's not a Muslim terrorist. He's a Dutch
individual reporting, and they they threatened him to
shut up.
Does this the dishonesty around this is just
overwhelming.
Max Blumenthal highlighting what we already showed you.
My point in showing you this next to
you is just to show you this was
not a a you may remember in the

(03:43:11):
reporting, you may just think that there was
only one example. Right? Here they are burning
the flag. Here they are chanting this. No.
You'd be wrong. It's endless. It's a mob
of people burning flags, attacking people, and chanting
this all over the place
from when they got there, from the day
they were riding, from the day they got
beat up to the time they get home,
which is
let the IDF wind f the Arabs. There

(03:43:33):
are no children left because the schools are
no school's left because the children are killed.
There's Max pointing out one of these examples
where they're standing in the streets.
Right? Here's another one where they're coming down
the escalator.
It let the IDF win to or rather
just simply chanting f the Arabs. That's it.
As he points out, if they were chanting
f the Jews anywhere, of course, we'd have
a different conversation. Right? As Ryan Grim writes,

(03:43:54):
the level of dehumanization required for the western
media to completely ignore this bigoted
and deliberate incitement in Amsterdam
is off the charts.
Mark Owens showing you the
Jewish organization calling out the Maccabees fans for
violence, which no one wants to talk about.
Now Francesca Albanese has been on this for
she's been calling all of this out, and

(03:44:15):
courageously so. But I just wanna highlight for
everyone who wants to make this about anti
Jewish anything. There's, more examples than you could
imagine.
From holocaust survivors telling you that we're on
the right side of history to the point
that we have 30 different Jewish organizations, large
ones, in around the world who have issued
a statement in support of
Francesca Albanese, UN Rapporteur,

(03:44:36):
because she's standing up against the toxic Israeli
agenda. That's their words what they're talking about.
30 Jewish organizations.
Kinda hard to ignore that. But here's Megatron
showing you what Israel is doing.
This is an agenda, guys. Just like in
the US with the right to convince you
that you need to create digital IDs to
stop immigration or whatever else they're driving forward

(03:44:58):
while manufacturing
that illusion and the actual immigration weaponized or
not.
Here is Israel trying to instigate international internal
unrest in Europe in every possible way as
he frames it. I agree. He says they
even put up a billboard in Tel Aviv
that says free Europe.
The aim is to provoke inter religious conflict

(03:45:18):
at any cost. Citizens of tel of Europe
should be cautious and not fall from Assad
orchestrated provocations.
Guys, how do we not see this? Who
if you don't, how do you not see
it? Now here's what really worries me. I
made this point the last show. This was
on 8th where Benjot Netanyahu went to the
foreign affairs situation room like it's some kind
of a war
to update and brief on what's been done

(03:45:40):
and to locate those who have not been
in contact. So, again, my point, I have
yet to see any evidence that anybody's actually
missing.
For all we know that was and I'm
not saying it's not. I'm just saying I
have yet to see any evidence. For all
we know, that was a floated part of
the story that wasn't even covered by Sky
News until after the fact.
So who knows?
But my worry,
real or not, is that will be used

(03:46:00):
to create a whole new dynamic here. We
already saw them rationalizing bombing entire buildings of
innocent people,
of course, only in certain locations so far,
but now in Lebanon too,
in order to claim they go after one
person. In one case, that guy wasn't even
there. 400 people died in the Jubilee refugee
camp, and Wolf Blitzer couldn't even swallow it.
My point is, what if they say, okay.

(03:46:21):
Well, this guy is being held in this
Muslim part of the territory in Denmark
or wherever in in the Netherlands.
Well, by their logic, they can bomb that
building. Right?
Is it only allowed in Muslim countries?
Doesn't that mean you're racist? How's that work?
The bottom line is you can see where
this might go, and it worries me. And
this gets only more worrisome with stuff like
this.

(03:46:42):
It seems the Israeli police will be deployed
in Paris
because of
a match in 4 days.
So now because of something they created,
that they've lied about.
The Israeli police are gonna be on the
ground in France,
Probably along with Mossad. I mean, guys, this
is getting out of control. So now we're
gonna start to see this as a common

(03:47:03):
thing. How long until this is everywhere? Like,
how do we not worry that this is
something bigger than just pretending to protect them
during a soccer match?
Realize they manufactured this, and that they're gonna
create something like like, if they keep going
forward acting like they've never been found, this
will be something much bigger than we're already
talking about. And it could be the guys
for any number of operations in your countries.

(03:47:24):
And you know what? Your governments are going
to let it happen.
Now here are just a couple more examples.
As as Al Rod point points out, let
the ed, the IDF win, f the Arabs,
what we already showed you.
All these are on the record. These are
all different examples. I've shown you 5 or
6 of them now. On the stairway, on
the streets, in the airport, and

(03:47:45):
everywhere. And they're saying the same things we've
shown you. And here is secretary Blinken on
the 8th saying, there's no place in our
world for antisemitic attacks like those against these
really soccer fans. Cause he's completely bought off
obviously or this stupid, probably both. The United
States stands with the Dutch Israeli authorities strongly
condemned. That's what he says. While you can
easily prove what happened.

(03:48:06):
The Zionist Observer says the threat of world
leaders lying about Zionist raids in Amsterdam might
make a website of this, not sure, just
considering it. Well, scroll down.
Justin Trudeau,
2nd, Blinken, but oh, there's Biden. I didn't
know he did did the statement.
Ursula,
David Lammy, Dick Dick Scoff,

(03:48:27):
Olaf Scholes,
Penny Wrong, Emmanuel Macron,
Wilders, we showed you. I mean, on and
on and on and on. There's ambassador Greenfield,
all of them. Jewish pilgrims.
They're either that easily manipulated or they're lying
to you. Simple.
Easily proven.

(03:48:48):
And the point is I don't think I've
seen either Kamala or Trump, which I do
find interesting.
Telling, but I'm not sure exactly what way.
My point is just that it's an odd
difference. 30 seconds ago, they couldn't stop themselves
from making now all of a sudden post
election, they're not. I find that odd. Either
way,
how is that possible? Unless they're completely controlled.

(03:49:09):
Now we are at almost 4 hours. So
I'm thinking I'm gonna give you a few
more of these and we'll finish up tomorrow
with some of the stuff we were gonna
get to.
So we were gonna talk I'm gonna play
some of these clips. I'll I'll finish up
the part about Amsterdam. But I wanted to
get into some stuff around both Gaza and
Lebanon,
which we I will get to I'm gonna
go ahead and try by, like, 99% tomorrow.
That's the plan. The only reason I do

(03:49:30):
that is because there's a lot of anomalies
in my background that have to do with,
you know, both family stuff but as well
as what else is going on that that
that's the problem today. I'm I don't get
into it much, but half the not almost
almost 9 times out of 10,
every day I'm organizing, getting stuff ready, and
then something pops off and I have big
these phone calls, the meeting with them, it
it goes on forever. But

(03:49:50):
that's not for you to worry about. My
point is simply to say that I'm every
day am I I'm trying I'm intending to
try to do this work and something gets
in my way. It drives me crazy. As
you guys know, that's why these shows are
that much longer when I don't do a
show. The putting things are so much to
get to. But, the point is this, I
really this my goal is to talk about
this tomorrow. Israel moves ahead with plans for
permanent presence in Gaza. Right? The idea is
that this is the ethnic cleansing we told

(03:50:11):
you about. Forcibly expelling them not to return.
What's that called again? Oh, yeah. Ethnic cleansing.
And remember, they promised they could return. And
now they're telling you just like we told
you they would that, sorry. Never mind. Never
mind.
They're not allowed to go back to their
homes.
We all said this would be the case.
Bling m Miller lying about it. Even Harrettes
calling it ethnic cleansing.

(03:50:33):
They're claiming no one's got in this in
the north, but there's actually over 500,000 people
still there. So what's gonna happen to them?
God only knows.
Genocide.
That's where we are. The New York report,
by the way, which I uploaded on my
TLAB website so you can read it. I
just showed you a part of it, but
it's shocking, guys. It is shocking. As I
just quoted from it, it says the number
of killings verified by UN, but just up

(03:50:53):
until September September second,
over 8,000 Palestinians, 7 100,600
were killed in residential buildings, 44%
were children,
predominantly age
5 to 9. And if you wanna be
blown away by a graph oh, that's coming
up here, I think.
Right there. Look at this graph.

(03:51:15):
For the podcast, it shows you the kind
of the like a dual graph showing you
the ages.
The right's females, the left is males. And
all you see is
predominantly
0 to 4, 5 to 9, 10 to
14.
Right about
over 30, it gets dramatically down. So the
vast majority are children.

(03:51:38):
Also to show you that the UN members
are being killed. 4 UN peacekeepers are wounded
in Israeli strike in Lebanon.
Guys, this is not UNRWA. We're talking about
Lebanon.
How crazy is it? No one even talks
about this anymore. 4 UN members were wounded.
3 were killed. We have this example of
UNIFIL again, where they're destroying just there's not
some engagement. They're just sending bulldozers to tear

(03:51:58):
down their fences now. It's just it's so
shocking how obvious all this is. Doctors Without
Borders,
screening that no one listened.
Repeated killings of our members in Gaza. They're
not even calling them a moth, they just
don't care. It's gone.
Lebanon, same thing. Apparently, Israel Defense Minister Katz
is going, hey, we defeated Hezbollah.
Yay.

(03:52:19):
This is a it's absolutely embarrassing.
They defeated Hezbollah. Now their job is to
continue to put pressure on to bring out
the fruits of the victory, apparently. But, oh,
yeah. By the way, despite defeating Hezbollah
today,
they've also been bombing today.
Because that's about when you defeated them, it's
right here, I think.
Or was it?

(03:52:40):
Did I delete that on accident? I hope
not.
Looks like I did. I do that sometimes
where I'm moving around and I accidentally delete
it.
Oh, no. Here it is. So my point
is on 10th, which is today,
they bombed locations of Northern Lebanon.
Killing civilians, 20 innocent people, 3 children,
also bombing Syria, by the way. But so

(03:53:02):
how exactly did you feed Hezbollah, but then
go on to murder civilians? Oh, that's right.
Because you're killing civilians, and that was always
the plan.
Here's Noam Chomsky simply telling you what? That
Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, that that
the US calls what they don't like terrorists.
Here is Max Blumenthal showing you Israeli soldiers
burning

(03:53:23):
a Hezbollah flag. Oh, no. Excuse me. That's
a Lebanese flag. So, yeah, guess what? They've
been always fighting Lebanon just like they've been
always fighting Palestine.
Turns out they were war with Lebanon's peep
Lebanese I can't talk right now. Sorry to
go too fast. A war with the Lebanese
people.
That's my point as always. Everybody everywhere everywhere
sees the truth. It's only about people that

(03:53:43):
are invested or lying that don't want you
to see it. And this is a image
of an whole
mountainside blowing up in Lebanon.
And it says Israel to Lebanese people. When
you're done, you can go back to your
homes. Their homes exploded.
That's what they're saying still in Lebanon now.
Please get out of the way. You can
go back to your homes just like they
lied to people in Gaza. They're not gonna
believe them. That's for the public to pretend

(03:54:04):
it's going on. Israeli soldiers now leaving Google
reviews
for Lebanese buildings that they've blown up.
The sadism, the the
psychopathic actions of these people is overwhelming.
And continue to bomb ambulances in Southern Lebanon,
37 villages destroyed across South Lebanon,

(03:54:26):
bomb putting toys and
bombs and children's toys.
And, of course, we have the example that
52 countries have signed a letter
at the UN calling for an immediate halt
to Israel. That's what the world looks like.
Not this game where
international community agrees. No. What do you mean?
You and the UK? No. 52 countries, the

(03:54:47):
majority of the world that's in this conversation
is saying, stop
arming Israel.
And in Canada, in Ottawa, they've announced a
lawsuit against the government of Canada for violating
its duty to prevent genocide. So it's coming
down everywhere, guys. Everywhere. So let's end in
general with some of these clips that overlapping
with the Amsterdam comp, Amsterdam conversation.

(03:55:10):
Here is, what was her name again?
Catherine Bogan.
Just pointing out what she has to say
about this.
I say this as a Jewish person. What
happened in Amsterdam was not a pogrom.
It was a around and find out. I'm
a Jewish girl. I've spent plenty of time
in Europe.
I'm 100%

(03:55:30):
confident I can travel safely throughout Europe. You
know why?
Because I'm not running around town screaming and
pulling down residents' flags.
I'm not in a huge group of aggressors
chanting death to Arabs.
Nobody would ever catch me singing a jingle
about the dead children of Gaza.
And in general, I wouldn't be walking around

(03:55:51):
trying to be a vile, violent nuisance
to the locals.
I know. I know.
I could post up on any public street
corner
and light my Shabbat candles
and wear my Star of David and invite
people to say the mourner's and talk to
them about being a Jew against genocide
and I would
be fine.

(03:56:12):
I would be fine. I would be absolutely
safe.
I could identify myself as a Jew as
so many people have
done by the way at pro Palestine rallies
and protests and either be welcomed
or ignored. I'm thinking about that woman who
tried to, like, disrupt the protest by wearing
the I'm a Jew shirt and everyone just
walked around her. That would be the experience.

(03:56:32):
I'm talking a spectrum from
confused disinterest
to neutrality
to being welcomed warmly with open arms
because that's what happens when you're not a
dick. This is some boy who cried bullshit.
Yep.
Now some some things that I actually pulled
I'm glad I saw before I ended that
I pulled aside from earlier on different different

(03:56:53):
browser.
Here is the same guy. Now this is
the guy who got caught, called out by
that woman that her video was used everywhere,
and deleted his post. I already showed you
that. This is the same guy. Look at
what he's saying right here. And this is
exactly what I'm worried about. With Netanyahu's
situation room and the future of what happens
and I the the for all we know,
this is a lie. My point is this
is a propagandist for the whole thing. Now

(03:57:13):
he is as seen on Fox and Washington
Post. So just to make sure he's not
some rando or some random person with no
one that doesn't mean he's telling the truth,
though. My point is that it could either
be the reality, which scares me, or him
floating this as the reality, which would scare
me the same way, but for a different
reason.
He says Israel is currently considering instructing Mas'ad
to help find the perpetrators of pogroms against

(03:57:36):
Jews in Amsterdam. So now you want Mas'ad
to investigate in another country? Do you realize
how alarming this is? But guess what? They
already do stuff like this.
Israel is showing the world what protecting your
citizens looks like. So you go over there
and beat people up, steal, burn down flags,
and then all of a sudden you want
to send your police and your intelligence just
to hunt down the people that you attacked?

(03:57:57):
And guess what? The Dutch government's probably gonna
let it happen.
This is what I'm scared about, guys. This
is alarming. When most people in the country
don't want that, don't agree with this, don't
even believe what they're saying, but guess what?
Their government lets it happen.
Talk about globalism or anything we're talking about.
This is alarming
and encroachment.
It's pretty wild. Now here's just another example,

(03:58:18):
by the way, of them singing depraved songs
outside of the area of the recent incidents
in Amsterdam.
Saying,
the horrors of Arabs were ashamed of you,
will f you, and drink your blood, or
whatever it says. It's just ridiculous
chant. The point is these people are lunatics.
Now here's what Tiberias says. We just saw
and again, that's not all Jews or Israelis.

(03:58:40):
These people, the anyone, whatever the religion where
they're from, saying those things are crazy. He
says, we just saw the US empire's minions
or so called leaders lie in unison
about something there is video evidence for, as
well as news organizations deleting footage to protect
this false narrative.
This is the kind of construct we're talking
about, guys. We need to see that. Whatever

(03:59:01):
you think that is, that shows you a
real obvious picture
of something bigger,
not just this one topic, something much darker
that actually runs things and controls things. I'm
not I'm not even pointing to Zionism. I'm
talking about whatever influences their decision making process.
It's not the truth. It's not objectivity. Whether
government or news, these people are guided by
something else. You can decide what that is,

(03:59:22):
but you have to acknowledge that.
It says the they don't now imagine everything
else they've lied about.
It's pretty chilling.
Those of us that have been doing this
a long time, that's not news to you.
You already know that, and you live your
life by that. But a lot of people
imagine how scary or uncomfortable this is that
you've never seen this before.

(03:59:42):
But the truth is more important.
But this guy says it's pretty obvious now
that without social media, a tremendous number of
completely false or concocted events would wind up
canonized as unquestionable
official history.
You know, 911, you know, things like that.
The point is that this is not a
nod to Twitter because I think they're part
of the problem in all of this. But

(04:00:02):
also, there's their platform, I think inadvertently serves
as part of the solution. But, you know,
you could read it the same way. Read
it however you want. I argue that this
platform does allow real time information to get
out, I think, even when they're trying to
stop it. My point, though, is wherever you
are, the idea of the social media, which
is where these next steps are going to
stop that because of Elon and the rest
of them, I'm convinced, but please decide for

(04:00:24):
yourself
that this is what we now see. When
before, how would we ever know?
They just tried desperately to hide this story,
but we all pushed past it. But think
about that. Think about the power that shows.
Same thing here. Just, you know, showing the
the western politicians creating a fake narrative, same
points. I just wanna I'm trying to wrap

(04:00:44):
it up here. Francesca Albany is saying the
same thing. Once again, western media should be
investigated for the role that they are playing
in obscuring Israel's atrocities.
In other contexts, international tribunals
have found media figures responsible for complicity, incitement,
and other crimes. So you're hearing that? Corporate
media?
There's precedent for finding you
legally accountable

(04:01:05):
for obfuscating genocide.
Think about that.
Same point here is see, because I'm starting
to think that Israel overplayed its hand with
this whole thing. The Amsterdam pogrom. He goes,
yes. The uptake among politicians was swift and
strong, but the people's backlash, once they realized
the stories were false, was incredibly damaging to
Israel's credibility and that of the media or,

(04:01:27):
you know, the lingering pieces that exist still.
Now he goes on to make other points.
I mean, check this out, guys. He goes
the the
through hyperbolic propaganda like this,
which is just ridiculous.
It's from a account called Jew Belong. That's
so stupid. It says for a Jew, Amsterdam
is Iran.
What the f does that even mean?

(04:01:48):
Like, that's coming from 2 fake stories. I
mean, it's just so crazy.
This person's making a joke, but rightly so.
It's a perfectly timed. It says, one of
the Israeli fans at the match in Amsterdam
last night was pregnant with a baby.
And Muslim Hollanders held her down, cut out
her baby from her stomach, which they baked
in an oven, then they cut her mother's

(04:02:08):
breasts off, which they used to kick balls
around the second half.
Now, yes, it's a pretty, you know, contentious
joke, but realize what she's trying to the
point is the only reason that would be
offensive to you is if you still pretended
those things were real.
We all know that's fake news. The undeniably
proven atrocity propaganda, which was admitted to even
by the Israeli media, caught even by corporate

(04:02:29):
media in the west,
admitted to now in every possible way to
have been manufactured lies that they still try
to pretend like emotional misrepresentations.
Whatever. Lies.
So the point is,
sort of just like this whole Amsterdam story.
That's the whole point she's making.
Arnab Patran simply highlights an example that this
is bigger than just Amsterdam or anything else,

(04:02:51):
which most of you already know. He says,
this is crazy. This is from 7th.
Here's an example of Israeli police
arresting
2 French military personnel
who have diplomatic status, meaning diplomatic immunity.
And they're going to a Christian church.
The point,
that's belonged to France for a 160 years

(04:03:12):
and is protected by diplomatic immunity.
So it says to make things worse, the
church is located in occupied East Jerusalem.
Theoretically, Palestinian territory. But because Trump decided to
say different words and they all lie about
it, they pretend otherwise.
It says, and the arrest occurred as the
French foreign minister was on his way to
visit.

(04:03:33):
He canceled his trip due to the presence
of Israeli police on a site that they
technically own, that's technically Palestinian territory, and the
breach of the diplomatic immunity.
He says yet another arguable proof that Israel
respects absolutely zero rule.
Check this out. K?
Here, just to be clear again, we're talking
about an a a French controlled area, which
we're still talking about occupied. I'm not saying

(04:03:54):
it should be that way, but that is
technically Palestinian territory. But however you look at
it, it's not Israeli
and but they claim it is. But then
now you have French nationals showing up with
diplomatic immunity. They get arrested,
beaten up, and thrown to the ground.
Just trying to be quick here. Watch. See?
Thrown to the ground.
I mean, guys, this is wild. So in

(04:04:14):
every possible way, Israel is in the wrong
here, legally, diplomatically,
international law, everything.
But they don't care because they do what
they want. You just can't have a better
example of that. It's everywhere. Everywhere you look.
Now what do you think? What what are
the French how much you wanna bet Macron
doesn't even care? Doesn't even mention this. Or
who whatever current person you think is making

(04:04:35):
calling the bottom line is that this is
showing you Israel has no respect for any
law anywhere other than their own decision, their
own
desire.
Pretty crazy.
And then lastly, as Caitlin Johnstone points out,
FYI, this is what an actual pogrom looks
like.
Armed Israeli settlers launched a wave of attacks
on Palestinian properties

(04:04:56):
in several areas of the occupied West Bank
overnight, torching homes, vehicles, and olive trees.
Now on top of that, the point is
people are killed
in every single example we're talking about.
Oh, guess this one's just more of a
Dan Cohen trying to make a point. He
goes, shocking video of pro Palestinians
carrying out a pogrom against Jews in Amsterdam.

(04:05:17):
Oh, never mind. Those are Israeli cops beating
up Jews. Carry on because that's what's
happening.
Look at this.
That, guys. An unarmed
completely unarmed orthodox Jewish person being beat relentlessly
by IDF
Israeli police.

(04:05:38):
It's
just absolutely crazy. I show you this all
the time. His point is that if you're
gonna call that a pogrom, what's that?
Neither are technically pogroms with regard to what
happened in Amsterdam or not because nobody died.
It wasn't ethnically focused. This, I would I
would even argue this is also not ethnically
focused. It's because they don't like this Jewish
person
challenges what their belief, which is Zionism,

(04:06:00):
not Judaism.
Whether they know that or not. Well, here's
an example. Israeli settlers attack Palestinian homes,
burning their
village every time we're talking about
genocide, ethnic cleansing, death, rape, murder, pillage happens
every time, breaking. While Western media is screaming
about genocidal Israeli football hooligans in Amsterdam, Israel

(04:06:20):
dropped bombs on residential buildings. Is that a
pogrom?
It's focused on specifically
Palestinians,
as they'll tell you themselves, and people died
killing civilians.
Yeah. Literally a massacre, by the definition of
the word. But, nope, we don't talk about
that one. What about this one?
Asal Rad says things that never get called

(04:06:40):
pogroms.
Jewish extremists torch Palestinian homes killing toddler.
Israeli settlers torch cars in Ramallah.
A family flees and a mother mourns after
Israeli settlers attack Palestinian village. Palestinian killed as
Israeli settlers torch West Bank village.
Or how about more death?
As Dan Cohen writes, this is on 9th.
Israeli soccer hooligans chanting racist slogans, starting fights,

(04:07:03):
and being escorted safely out of the country
is a pogrom
that demands international condemnation.
Palestinian children murdered by Israel,
67 a day,
don't even garner a headline.
Makes me sick.
I won't even play it for you guys.
It's just it's
dead children
everywhere.

(04:07:24):
Ryan Grim,
67 children are being killed every day on
average in Gaza. That's a fact.
Middle East, according to drop site news,
at least 39 Palestinians were killed and a
123 wounded Israeli attacks in the last 24
hours. This posted on
the 8th.

(04:07:46):
So the same time frame.
3 people killed, 5 wounded, Israeli airstrike
in Khan Yunus.
2 unrestchooled, sheltered, displaced families were hit by
airstrike, 17 dead. K. These are each individual
examples.
And they're screaming about people that got beat
up because they started fights.
It's it's incredible. And then, again, here's just

(04:08:07):
a a graph
showing you it's not a war, it's a
massacre of innocents
by
by metric,
by everything.
And then this was simply to show you,
I played this clip before,
which maybe I'll play on the way out.
Couple of Zionist Israelis

(04:08:28):
doing what they think is the kind version
of what they should do to Palestinians.
That's what they say. If you haven't heard
this, it'll shock you.
But more examples I've shown before, as this
guy simply says, are we all supposed to
pretend this just isn't happening when constantly you
have Israeli soldiers posting? And I mean leaders,
leading members of the military, posting on their
TikToks and Instagrams that they want everyone to

(04:08:49):
die, that no children should be left alive
over and over, or Israeli politicians, as I
said, for the 50th time directly from the
horse's mouth.
There is no such thing as innocent people
in Gaza, she says, in the Knesset recently
over and over and over and over.
As and this is corporate media, the leading
channel. This guy this is the same guy
that argued that raping people in prison was

(04:09:11):
justified.
The point,
people in Gaza deserve death, he says. A
hard, agonizing death. There are no innocent people
there. This is the corporate media. There are
leaders in the military, the leaders in the
Knesset, the leaders of the current administration, and
we're all pretending this isn't happening.
This is why people are losing their minds.
We should have seen the more revenge, he
says. More Goshen's blood.

(04:09:33):
He was the one that cheered on the
rape,
advocated they should do more of it.
My god.
Oh, by the way, and here's a video
of Israeli army people firing on horses, ran
up killing them and then laughing about it,
posting online.
Because they're totally not completely psychopath.
Ick. Psychopaths.

(04:09:56):
So I'll end with this. Says we'll go
over this stuff tomorrow. And don't forget, by
the way, that there are people marshaling against
them. You can see people signing letters to
stop the funding. People care. People in the
world or they care or at least see
that they need to look like they care.
Either way, lean into it. Not in the
sense that we trust them forever, but recognizing
right now, this needs to come to an
end. Question everything always, guys. That's the marching

(04:10:17):
mantra that we need to always consider that.
Even honest people that believe this is the
right thing may one day take a wrong
step. Question all of them forever no matter
what. While considering everything, guys, that's just how
we always have to be. It always should
have been, by the way.
So we'll end with this clip because it
is pretty shocking.
So thank you for tuning in, guys. I
appreciate your support. As always, we just don't

(04:10:37):
exist without you.
And we'll have more
trials and tribulations coming our way. I have
no doubt. But as I've said many times
before, I will this is I'm this is
I'm not gonna stop this. I I don't
care what I'm gonna continue whether in whatever
form this will continue. But the point is
we would love to continue to do more,
reach more, hire more.

(04:10:57):
There's so much we would love to do,
so much to plan.
At the end of the day, because you're
here, because you believe in this platform, because
you support what we're doing, we exist.
So first and foremost, share the content. If
that's all if the old I would rather
you share the content, talk about it with
your friends, then donate.
Straight point blank, period. Every day of the

(04:11:18):
week. Because that's what I'm doing this for.
But if you do desire to continue to
support this platform or for the first time,
it'll go to good cause.
As the demonstration of our value, the being
ahead of the stories, the recognizing these things,
that's what you're gonna get more of. Continue
to do that because we all should be
striving for that. So thank you for that
support. I'm honored every day to be a

(04:11:39):
part of this community.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Allison should just be kicked out? To say
the nice words kicked out, yes. Hey, guys.
What are you doing here? Hi. We're from
Israel. Okay.
And? We wanted to go like Trump. And
do you think that Trump could get a,
like, a a ceasefire negotiation? Yeah. And what

(04:12:01):
do you think about when someone says free
Palestine? They don't know the truth. Okay. What's
the truth? Because I'm living in Israel and
and I know what happened. And the terrorized
them have to kill all of them and
we love peace. The easier way is to
say to finish them out, but you really
can't say that. So basically, to free them
in their own place. You think the Palestinians

(04:12:22):
should just be kicked out?
To say the nice words, kicked out, yeah.
But to be in their own To say
it in Me and my own jail? In
their own place, we give them

(04:12:44):
too. They're all coming in. But at the
end of the day, if if you do
give an animal
food and I am trying to talk nice
here, but if you do give them food
and a nice place to eat and, they'll
be happy. Sorry to to live Mhmm. They
won't be happy because they wanna ruin rule
the world which they won't.
But at the end of the day, if

(04:13:04):
they would
be there and, you know, they'll be a
little bit more comfortable
with not wanting to do bad maybe.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Conyers, Georgia Residents Suffering “Prolonged Illness”, Trump/Iran Psyop & The Amsterdam Deception

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

All Episodes

Conyers, Georgia Residents Suffering “Prolonged Illness”, Trump/Iran Psyop & The Amsterdam Deception

Stuff You Should Know