Trump Team “Barred From Agencies” & Israel Working With ISIS-Linked Gangs To Starve Gaza

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.
Monday, November 25th 2024. Thank you for bearing
with me there to start. And I don't
know why I still take so much effort
to make sure we have a YouTube channel

(00:41):
going, but
YouTube continues to try to stop what we're
doing on their platforms. But since we start
like this, for those who don't know, we've
been censored on damn near every platform everywhere
you could talk about, and that's kind of
hyperbolic but not really.
And YouTube being one of the places that's
kicked us off many, many times. We started
doing pirate channels where we ask you guys
out there, which since you're listening now and

(01:01):
you if you'd like to take part in
what we call our pirate streams, not necessarily
the same as Pirate Stream Media, which is
another podcast that we started, but same thing,
we use them on that channel. We broadcast
on YouTube using our pirate stream or like
a pirate radio or like the matrix signal
where we have we have you guys let
us broadcast through your channels. Now, obviously, know
that that comes along with the possibility you

(01:22):
could get censored on Google platforms like d
Lab in general. I can't even start these
accounts without using somebody else's platform or somebody
else's login information. The reason that took me
a minute to get load started for those
that are seeing this live,
something happened. They pulled the channel right away.
So I just had to take a moment
in the background to kind of get another
channel up and so we shipped to the
new channels and that's where you're watching now

(01:43):
if you're watching on YouTube. And so thank
you for bearing with us.
I'm gonna go through a lot to talk
about today. I'm gonna address what happened just
day, day before yesterday with our website
which
seemed the it it started out seeming like
some of some major censorship action. It doesn't
appear that's what happened. We'll go into the
details, let you know for yourself, but ultimately,
it comes down to what the hosting the

(02:04):
the the new host we have is talking
is telling us. But end of the day,
it's important for you guys to see, I
think, where this goes
in every context.
Censorship is increasing. The technocratic level of it.
The point is to see the choke points
in all of this and how easy it
is for these things to be yanked. I've
I've been asking for a long time. How
long until it gets to the domain name,

(02:24):
the the hosting level? We've seen very few
of those happen, and I don't believe that's
what this was. And the point is that
I think we see there where this is
going, and that's obviously why we should be
very
vigilant about what we see happening. That we're
gonna we're gonna start with one point actually
that I just randomly added before it's it's
it's an important story I see. It well,
it it's let's put it this way. It's
a smaller story in the things that we

(02:46):
usually cover. But for some reason, this just
stood out to me, and I'm gonna use
it to make a larger point. Well, we're
gonna start there and then we're gonna go
into censorship and and ultimately what happened the
day before yesterday and how the larger point
of censorship and what's going on on Twitter.
We're gonna talk about Max Egan, Eunice Trawi,
and different accounts that have been struggling through
something very strange in regard to their

(03:06):
follower account, the being sort of being censored,
being brought back, having their accounts being removed,
their their followers being removed. And
I it's it's really weird. And so I'll
have to show you what that is. And
if you saw this the last show we
did, you already saw an an example of
that. But it seems to have been corrected
at least slightly. I think that's because of
people reaching out, which is not something everybody
has the luxury of, to have people on

(03:27):
their followers, you know, reach out and make
us think about it. We're also gonna talk
about which is a good thing, and I'm
glad they're doing that, but not everybody has
that. We're gonna talk about the a follow-up
on Authentics we mentioned in the last show,
which I think is very important. One of
the main things I wanna get into today,
and I don't even know how to articulate
this to start. You'll see what
what I see in this at least as
we get into it. That's the main part

(03:47):
about the barring from agencies part of the
title. Now the actual exact title from, I
think it's Politico,
Trump team barred from agencies amid legal standoff.
Now it's it's exactly what's happening, but there's
more to it. If, you know, if I
could have made it the longer title to
add more to it, the point is that
it seems, at least at the moment, they're
being held back from being accessing anything but
public information, at least. And this is all

(04:09):
just on paper or rather what's being publicly
said to us. That's important to think about
because,
you know, in my the mind, there's more
one government dynamic than more so left parallel,
left right fighting. Nonetheless, there's still different things
that we don't know, people acting individually. The
point though is that this is at least
what we're being told.
And not only is that interesting as it
relates to the foreign policy points I keep

(04:30):
bringing up, you know, the supposed peace deal
that they're working with Ukraine behind the scenes.
It's very concerning as well as this limbo
they're in sort of allowing
donations from foreign entities without any any transparency
within that, which is very relevant to seems
to be the large backer to Trump and
what that means into what they have access
to right now.
It's a really interesting overlap that is more

(04:52):
questions than answers. But I wanna make sure
we go through it so you see, you
know, at least what I feel this is
showing us. Come to your own conclusions about
it. We'll talk more about Trump's teams, the
picks, the continuing sort of awareness of the
problem from the conservative side of the conversation.
And we're gonna get into some bigger points
around the Israel, Gaza, Lebanon conversation,

(05:12):
the fake ceasefire. That's what I use for
the the image today.
The it's it's it's like everything else in
this conversation.
The evidence is there. Every news headline from
every platform including Israeli media will tell you
Netanyahu's been systematically foiling all of these talks
from the beginning. It's very clear. All the
evidence is there. Their own people call it
out. But yet some weird bubble inside the

(05:33):
western media western world, we just have to
we act like it's not true. And if
you dare say it, you're racist
even though it's very easily provably the case.
And everyone seems to know and accept these
people that I think also know that but
don't care and are being influenced, paid, bribe,
blackmailed in some way to get you to
pretend that's not the case. It's shock it's
really crazy because of how many people are
suffering through it using your name to do

(05:54):
it. They know you can see it, and
I guess they're just hoping that you care
more about TeamSport politics than you do about
human life and what's true.
I'd like to believe that's not the case.
In fact, I'll say I know that's not
the case for the majority. That's what my
heart tells me. That's what my eyes tell
me, but it's hard to tell. But a
couple other points we'll get into in regard
to the something we mentioned briefly about the

(06:15):
in that same conversation, the blocking of aid,
but working with ISIS affiliated groups
that I argue are being
what the bottom line is in Israel and
Israel government working through these groups. So how
that makes sense to you, why they might
be there, whether that's organic or whether that's
being placed there, whether that's been you know,
who knows?
The point is that this is what Israel

(06:35):
chooses to work with in Gaza. And this
is reported by Herez.
And that should be very interesting in the
context of what that mean the the context
of the larger conversation.
Is Hamas ISIS? If that's the case, then
why are they working with an ISIS backed
group to go after Hamas? It doesn't make
sense until you realize that most of what
Israel tells you about Hamas, Gaza, their entire

(06:55):
origin is all false. It's built on lies,
built on lies, and it's all falling apart
in front of us right now.
So I wanna start with this interesting story
that really did stand out to me. And
just simply, I guess, because of how random
it was and how I think it just
speaks to some larger like, that there is
something always going there's like, I think I
said this the other day that we that

(07:16):
we don't live in the world we think
we do. And it and it doesn't mean
everything. But it means that there's an entire
structure behind everything
that that is
the real structure. And whether that's about, like,
you know, just corruption and power or the
intelligence agencies and what they're ultimately operate. You
know, like, there's just this
we live in this construct where we pretend

(07:36):
like we're, you know, whether it's our old
government or our party fighting for good and
freedom and noble, righteous causes and they'd only
do this for the means to an end
for, you know, and I'd like to believe
that some people actually feel that way. I
know that most people do. That's why they
pretend to do those things. But I guess
my larger point is just that there's what
you're gonna see here is an indication of
something that I think just shows
where people bump up against that

(07:58):
and never get seen again or the story
rapidly disappears and we just nobody anywhere including
the in in, you know,
investigation
what's the word I'm looking for? Authorities
choose to go further. The government name you'll
you'll see what I mean as we go
through this. You know, maybe I'm making too
much out of this, but I just find
this to be a strange story that you
was worthy of pointing out anyway. Father of
missing Hawaii woman found dead and apparent suicide.

(08:20):
So the the basis of the story, the
father is missing. It's it the it's a
Hawaiian woman or rather a
yeah. A Hawaiian woman, Ryan Kobayashi.
The father of her, Ryan Kobayashi, died after
the parent suicide.
Only reason they say it's a suicide is
because they found him in the bottom of
a cliff. Now it says the 58, 8

(08:41):
year old father had been apparently searching for
his daughter, 38 year old Hannah Kobayashi, after
she went missing.
Her she missed her connected flight between New
York and LAX.
Hannah was supposed to meet with family on
November 8th according to her family.
Kobayashi died after he jumped off a parking
structure near LAX sometime around 4 AM on

(09:01):
Sunday, which this was
posted
on the 24th, yesterday.
It says he died after jumping off of
apartment complex or a a, parking comp parking
structure.
Quote, after tirelessly searching throughout Los Angeles for
13 days,
and so she she's from Hawaii.
He took his own life, they say, which
I guess is certainly possible. I I don't

(09:23):
even have any necessarily any reason to say
that's not the case. But this and this
just seems strange. It's a a vigil was
held outside of,
crypto.comarena,
apparently,
for her, who is still missing.
And then and again, what it says is
on November 11th, the family members say they
received strange text messages from Hannah
about someone trying to steal her identity.

(09:45):
All calls that day went right to voice
mail. They've never heard from her again. The
father goes out to try to find her
and kills himself off a cliff.
13 days into it.
I mean, I guess.
Of course. I mean, let's to be very
objective, of course, the point is that father
could have just just got maybe he found
something he didn't like. Maybe there's been more
to the story. Maybe it all was made

(10:06):
up and it was something darker. Maybe he
just got upset, couldn't find her. But based
on how much information is being shown and
and it seems to me like this guy's
going to look for his daughter who randomly
went missing after claiming something was going on
with her, and then he dies randomly.
I'm willing to bet you this story never
goes anywhere else. That's not because, you know,
maybe there's someone out there trying to investigate,
but I just get the sense from this

(10:27):
and this is completely my opinion
that this is the kind of thing that
happens out there. And this is more of
my point. The story was meant to lead
to something that, you know, that we brush
up against things. Like, suddenly, maybe she got
caught up in something. Maybe she was being
used by somebody. Maybe she was a an
asset for something. And the point is that
you brush up against those things and this
kind of thing happens. Don't you get, you
know, Clinton suicided as if you will.

(10:48):
Never heard from again and the story gets
brushed away. You know, Gary Webb shot himself
in the head twice.
We all know that's not true, guys. We
all know that's not true. Gary Webb did
not shoot himself in the head twice. That's
stupid. That's literally the story.
Or the doctor we talked about just from
the from the,
in Haiti, the Clinton Foundation doctor.
Not that worked in Haiti, we are supposed

(11:09):
to be working alongside them and so and
and he was screaming about what they were
stealing, what they were doing. People are in
the hospitals with maggots on their wounds because
they and there's they're claiming they're sending 1,000,000,000
of dollars who apparently stabs himself in the
chest with a butcher knife,
which we all know is not what happened.
And it's just it's incredible how this works.
So I just wanted you to think about
that as we go through a lot of

(11:30):
this stuff today that there is a level
of this whether it's, you know,
around the Trump administration, around Zionism, around the
Israeli government, around the deep state, which is
ultimately in long with pretty much everybody politically
we're talking about.
Just ask yourself or rather realize that there's
something
that there's a lot that we don't know.
Make it simple. There's a lot that we

(11:51):
don't know that influences their choices, which in
the same way you could be use you
could use that to give them a pass
and be like, well, there's pressure we don't
know. And that's fair.
But just consider that. We all love to
think, oh, well, he said this. He promised
that. He said all the right words at
that little setting over there. You know, historically,
these things never actually come to pass the
way they say they do. There's always something

(12:11):
that shifts or changes.
And it's really about keeping you always on
the precipice of thinking, well, they're just about
to do it, and we gotta fight a
little harder, vote a little bit more next
time, and we'll get the crumb that we
want when, really, the pie is what we're
looking at. That's what this is about. And
I think all of this shows us that
there is something, not that story itself, but
the larger point, that there's a world out
there that we don't really exist in. And

(12:33):
they want you to think you're evolved. The
truth is that you're just a passive observer
of the shadows in the cave.
So let's let's go to
one of the starting points here
for the censorship aspect. Now with this this
is what we put out on
this was 24th.
So I was very, very unnerved by this,
especially since we were already having

(12:54):
an incredible amount of censorship in a lot
of different platforms. And the on top of
this, right around this time frame, there what
was it else we were just dealing with
at that time? Oh, it was, you know,
the Restream thing, which shut us down midstream.
You know, there's so many things like that
that just leave you going. And similar with
this, you just need to go, well, I
don't know. I don't know. You know? And
so this is what we put out, and
this this was what was so different. I'd

(13:15):
never seen this for and and this for
some reason, people were confusing this with Twitter.
I'm not sure why. It it's definitely not
a it's a hosting provider and it says
tealab there, but this was not Twitter or
any kind of social media platform.
And it seems like people just forget websites
exist for these for these platforms. It's like,
would you get deleted from Instagram? It's like,
no, man. Not Instagram. It's not Instagram. But
so the point,
as I said here, this is what I've

(13:36):
this is so right immediately,
we didn't know what's going on. We didn't
know why it was down. He I was
trying to get ahold of my guy. He
was rushing to check it out. And so
I basically said we don't we got it
back up at the moment. We didn't know
exactly what's happening. I spoke from the next
day, and the bottom line is it came
down to, I'll just read what I said
and update the new host for T Lab
site no longer Hostgator
told me that an incorrect setting had caused

(13:57):
the site to be suspended despite being paid
in full, which you not that you guys
know this, but I that's the one no
matter what, that is one thing that I'm
making sure
historically because it's important that our we're always
up usually paying for the full year for
these different platforms. And the view first was
GoDaddy and then then HostGator.
I said, I have no reason to doubt
this and I don't. But I just shows

(14:19):
the vulnerability of today.
Now the problem here is that, you know,
we just don't we don't know. Right? I
have no reason this this this person has
done nothing but good by me, and the
point is we don't at the end of
the day, the point is that we always
have to end up leaning into something. Whether
that's an Internet provider, whether that is a
you know, and this this is what I
what I'm one of the reasons I'm leaning
in with people like,

(14:40):
I get her her Hakim now, formerly Romero,
from Above Phone. As I am so desperate
to try to find paths away from these
reliances.
Whether that whatever that may be. Like, if
we could build something in our own house
to where we have you know, that that's
kinda what I'm trying to angle towards in
my life even though it's very difficult and
expensive to do these things. How do we
circumvent these choke points?
You know? And so at the end of

(15:01):
the day, the site's back up. Everything's work
working fine. It does not seem to be
anything other than a mistake.
But my point is I'm here and and
I'm have to take at face value what
I'm being shown. Right? And so I just
think it's important that we recognize that we
have to not not passively sit and wait
for whatever happens next, but try to find
paths around this. That's I mean, on a

(15:21):
segway or a, you know, side note, that's
the whole greater people's reset dynamic. Right? Not
just waiting to see what happens, but trying
to actively build, exit, and build our own
path, our own
systems and platforms. It's
what I, you know, was at least briefly
trying to help do with Super You, you
know, with trying to find something else.
But on that note, I wanna go over

(15:42):
some of the other censorship that I see
actively happening. And so, I mean, the the
frustrating thing about all this is that this
is not over. We all see where this
is going. And I think a lot of
people in, specifically right now, the Trump camp,
are are rightfully so, like, we all should
be have hope for the best. But in
some cases, let that blind them to what's
being put around them right now. Because if
it was clearly Hillary Clinton or Kamala

(16:04):
Harris or somebody with a d next to
their name, any of these half of these
measures would have been immediately concerning, and they
should be, all of them. But because it's
somebody that they want to believe has better
intentions, and maybe they do, I hope you're
right, They tend to miss or ignore or
not give them much of a resistance. You
should be standing up and resisting and holding
them to account and being critical and skeptical
of more than anyone, the people you believe

(16:26):
in.
Because of what we were just talking about,
because of the different things that swirl around
behind that we don't know about. The different
pressures and and blackmail and threats.
So hold them to account. Let them know
that you're watching. So they so they don't
so at the very least, if they have
to decide, they know that you're going to
see them. And I think that influences your
choices. But if they know they've got a
passive base that's willing to support no matter

(16:47):
what they do, that also influences their choices.
So here,
Eunice Tiroi
was originally and the same thing we're gonna
get to Max Egan in a second. He
was originally based like, like, censored and then
emptied out his followers. It went down to
0, and then people were following
on top of that. And that this person
says Twitter has completely destroyed his account, nearly

(17:09):
200,000 followers removed.
And it took and this was on
the 24th.
Up to yesterday, it was still wonky
or yesterday into the day. Now it's as
of as of,
today, he's saying thank you from the bottom
of my heart to all of my colleagues
and fellow journalists and everybody who reached out
about this. Here's the Twitter response.

(17:29):
And it's saying, thank you for getting in
touch with us. Please note that it may
take an hour or so for your follower
and follower numbers to return to normal. Well,
here's what's interesting. This was this was, you
know, just
7 hours ago.
Here's where he's
at.
It looks like he gained, so I'm glad
that happened. So this essentially went back to

(17:49):
normal, but I'm not sure whether that was
because people refollowed him or because it repopulated.
I'll show you what I mean with Max
Egan, which seems to be going in a
similar
direction. So one, first of all, it's good
that this happened, but I think it's mostly
because he has enough influence and people scrip
crying foul.
You can't do that. That's censorship. And enough
people cared, and I think that's usually why

(18:10):
this happens. There's a lot of people that
never got their accounts back, even from the
beginning of all the free speech savior talk.
But I'm glad that happened first and foremost,
because he deserves. This is a man who's
been putting in amazing, un unprecedented work when
it comes to exposing what's going on in
Gaza and Lebanon. Mostly Gaza at this point
for what they've been show has been showing
on the ground and, you know, looking at
their social media accounts, doing amazing work.

(18:33):
Now what I thought was interesting, I wanna
see if this changed. I looked up the
social blade and you can see that then
they just
minused out a 172,000
followers.
What's interesting though is it doesn't seem to
have updated. I wanted to see if that
did.
Yeah, I know. It still shows none, so
that's interesting, or they didn't go back. I
wonder what that means. Because usually, this is

(18:53):
pretty up to date, like, moment to moment.
So I wonder why it hasn't shown them
back on there. On here, I will show
you the other one. I'm I wonder if
there's, like, something different changing the way that
this stuff is being like, I I I
know and I can see that they're taking
actions all over the place to block other
things like this from being able to sort
of monitor or access.
Like, you know, blocking out other platforms and
not being able to use links and things

(19:14):
like that. I I think there's more to
that, but that's my opinion.
Now, here
was is Max Egan. Now, this was on
the on the 21st. He said, hey, Elon.
How come I you might he they finally
restored his account, which by the way, had
been a long time he'd been censored. Nobody
was saying anything about it other than people
in the Independent Media.
They said, but removed all my followers.
But now that is somewhat back, but I

(19:35):
I wanted to show you this before it
went away. This is the this is it
has been going up since then. But remember
last time I showed you on the show,
it was up at, like, 13 or 14?
When I came back, it was at 7.
So it's just showing you this weird game
that has been going on where some were
following, it was being removed.
Up to 11 now, but here's what it
says today or, like, right now. Let's update
it.
So here's what's interesting to me.

(19:58):
Well, Eunice Sarawy, and I'm glad it happened,
got more I I I forget what his
real his original number was, But it appears
to have gotten more than he started with,
which is good, in my opinion.
But Max Egan, on the other hand, got
restored. And now, at the very least, you
can follow well, look. It no. It doesn't
it still doesn't even say I follow oh,
there it goes. Finally. You can get a
fall oh, no. That disappeared again. See?

(20:18):
All all accounts are not created equal on
this platform. I'm telling you I tell you
that right now.
Alicia oh, see? Okay. So clearly something's still
going on with his, which I doubt they're
ever gonna care about. That's my personal opinion.
But so let's just say they left it
to where you could kinda follow him and
I guess even not still. But at least
the number's going up, right?
Or not. I don't know. The bottom line

(20:39):
though is that if it stays like this,
what about his he he had a large
following,
Except on on his account, which I find
interesting. Look at what it says on on
the social blade.
For,
to be announced or whatever or fall to
be determined.
TBD.
Let's refresh it.
Something.
That's weird to me. Why why would he

(20:59):
the this this is what I was talking
about. There's some kind of boxing out of
the data flow. Who knows why his is
different? I think we all kinda know, really.
It's about specific,
you know,
people who are super are critical in certain
ways. The point is that if he does
even if they give it back to him
and he lets him keep he he lost
his following.
So is that a, hey. He got his
count back. Well, you if you get mixed

(21:21):
down to nothing and people have to refollow
you, you never really gain that momentum back.
Eventually, you'll get back to the place you
were at, but that's a huge moment of
of loss for following, for influence, for reach,
for people that wanted to follow you and
got pushed away by the platform screaming free
speech. So I just think that's really telling.
Hopefully he gets it back and hopefully he
gets his following back. Not because people re
follow him, but because they give back what

(21:42):
they stole from him.
Interesting. Right?
Now these are just very broad, current examples.
If you're of the mind that they're not
censoring on this platform, you're wrong. It's constant,
it's everywhere you look, And it's not as
maybe as flagrant and on the surface as
it was in the past.
Just clumsy, direct, you know but the it's
happening right now in ways that aren't just

(22:02):
removing your platform or hiding your like, this
is about social engineering. It is about suppression.
It is about reach,
not speech, not reach, or whatever these different
differentiations they make, which are all about the
same thing. So and I think we all
recognize this has to do a lot with
Israel more than anything.
Torah Judaism says we are being censored on
Twitter. I've I've already pointed this out. It's

(22:22):
very clear, like a lot of people talking
about Palestine in general. It seems that the
reason behind this is that we support Palestine
and are against Zionism and Israel. These are
Orthodox Jewish people.
For this reason, we need your support more
than ever. I mean, their very existence is
incredibly uncomfortable and inconvenient for Zionism. Israel, Elon
Musk, Yackarino, the rest of them working with
the ADL. Because they're not supposed to exist.

(22:44):
You're supposed to believe, as Ben Shapiro would
tell you, that they're trash and not real
Jews, even though they're orthodox Jews, and they
are very clearly Jewish.
Not my opinion. It's obvious. There's plenty of
orthodox Jewish Jewish groups around the world or
groups like Jewish Voices For Peace that are
actively calling this out and calling out what
Israel's doing, saying they don't believe in Zionism.
So you have to understand, you have to
be able to be honest enough to admit

(23:06):
that Zionism is not Judaism. It is a
political organization
that overlaps.
I'll give you that. Now I don't think
that's by I think that's by manipulation quite
frankly, but either way, it's important to recognize
how many Zionists out there are
are being exposed by Jews that have the
courage to call them out. But Twitter is
censoring that exact little pocket right there, and
I think that's important to highlight.

(23:27):
It says, for this reason, we need your
support more than ever.
Here's their account. You can follow them. There's
plenty of them on the platform.
Also, make make sure you don't forget, APAC
tracker highlighted this a while ago if you
don't remember where Grok essentially was exposing during
a gap in there. Basically, it was for
some reason there was a a gap when
you were able to see the set ship
tags on all of our accounts then they
immediately just pulled that away and stopped it

(23:48):
from being seen through Grok. But if you
remember, more than anybody else in the platform,
I had 60. TLabs account had 60 different
tags of suppression.
And still, yet, magically, somehow, we're able to
read people through these manipulation
suppression tactics. But it's crazy.
More than Alex Jones, more than everybody else
out there telling you that this is important
to recognize
because censorship is real and it is happening

(24:09):
on this platform.
Steven Monticelli says, Elon Musk effectively admits that
post with links are throttled, which we already
knew this. You know, is the sub stack
example made that pretty clear, like, just to
the point of pulling down the metadata, you
couldn't even see it. That thing with BitChute.
Same with my platform, by the way, t
lab for most more often than not anyway.
Or at least it was at the time.
I'm thinking right now, I can see it

(24:30):
pop up when I posted it today, but
you'll see them occasionally where it just won't
pump out the metadata.
But it says, if you've been wondering why
your post with links to journalistic articles haven't
been getting nearly the engagement, you would this
is why.
And this is Elon Musk responding.
This person is saying the deprioritization
of tweets with links in them is is
Twitter's biggest flaw. Now this is somebody who
argues, you know, at least who's engaging with

(24:52):
the platform.
I would agree with this. The only reason
you would do this is to and you
could argue from the first point that from
a business perspective that it might be something
you argue is, you know, basically stopping people
from going elsewhere.
But that's about control, very clearly. Like with
substat, oh, you wanted to post here. We
don't want you you know, there's way but
they're doing it in a way that's a
detriment to the platform

(25:13):
or to any platform doing it. It's an
irritation to the individual. You're cutting off outside
connection. The whole thing is about the ecosystem
that exists with the ecosystem of social media
or just the Internet.
And what they want is that they want
only Twitter. That's the WeChat focused x plat
that's what they're making this into. Your central
location for media, for which by the way

(25:33):
is what is not just Elon, that's the
government agenda.
And I think what's important to recognize is
these things as much as you might argue
might you know, give you stop people from
going else elsewhere, at least in the moment
you could click the link, but it is
also blocking up it's it's it is a
what's the right word for it? Not just
control.
It is making sure that you only see
through this lens.

(25:55):
And I think that's really important. But on
but the on top of that, I think
it's just in it's incredible.
The reason that these platforms exist for the
most part, like a Twitter with 240 cares,
whatever it is today,
is because people come to so to to
engage and to share their content and ideas,
not just type things out on Twitter. And
usually, that comes along with links. And what
I mean here's what's crazy about that though.

(26:16):
There are links being shared all over the
place that aren't being downgraded, but certain ones
are.
I'm sure you could piece that together.
Some outside information, they definitely want you to
see. Others, they don't. And they use that
blanket statement to act like, no. It's, you
know, applied to all equally and it really
is not. He says, just write a description
in the main post and post a link
in the reply.
Well, yeah, which gets

(26:37):
shockingly less engagement
every time no matter what, which is the
point? How how long until that stops too?
This person says, avoid posting links to, you
know, same thing because it will reduce your
reach.
That doesn't seem like anything other than their
influence over your perception.
Elon Musk, again, just seemingly

(26:57):
who knows? I mean, I you guys can
decide for yourself why he continues to lean
into this aggressive misinformation platform. That because of
his support, is now all the way up
to
1,200,000
followers. Guys, this is the thing that popped
up after October 7th, or rather for the
most part, to to prominence,
has been caught lying
more than almost anything we pointed to. Whether

(27:17):
that's the lying about bakeries being destroyed or
getting Elon Musk to share fake news about
Venezuela. It's been easily proven that we've done
it on this show, and yet he continues
to lean into them.
And the question was, how old were you
when you first realized others couldn't see the
matrix?
And this person responds, this vistra grad 24,
a straight up Israeli propaganda apparatus. That's what
it is. Most of those who are not

(27:38):
on x cannot see the matrix. They're just
lean they're just they're leaning into his whole
thing.
Time to get them on x and give
them at least a choice of pills.
Almost seems clumsy. Like, they don't even know
what the actual now. The point is
Twitter
is a part of the matrix. And, yes,
just like with the matrix, you can broadcast
your pirate's dream. You could be in Paul.
But Twitter is the machine, and this embarrassing

(27:59):
reality that they keep pushing. Oh, but don't
worry. He got bought by a technocrat el
elitist billionaire who is literally the richest man
in the world. Oh, and a Zionist. But
it it's it's the it's the outsider,
guys.
It's just embarrassing.
Of course, then he says, Matrix with an
x. Almost making my point.
Or and as I show you next, that
we are the mainstream media.

(28:20):
Yeah. That's my point. Like, again, I I
you I don't know if it's intentional or
not. But I actually get the sense that
there's a part of this that is trolling
you. When you think you're out there trolling
everybody alongside him, he's making fun of you.
You're in the matrix, guys. It is the
matrix. Twitter is the machine. And and, of
course, they keep tagging this platform as I
keep saying that it's just a part of

(28:40):
that manipulation, a part of the globalist agenda,
a part of the World Economic Forum, technocratic
overlap, all of these things. And they're literally
feeding this information to the machine that he
is high fiving and sharing to you.
It It is the matrix, and they are
the corporate media. I mean, it's almost too
much right there in your face. And which
comes to which come which comes to the
funnier point about this,
I was just talking about this.

(29:02):
And just as I keep saying, by the
way, as this gets increasingly, at least appears
to be more real, like the buying of
Twitter, like the others, it's a troll
right up until it's not. And I love
how it's actually a very smart way to
play this. So we come out and go,
oh, no. This looks dangerous. Or what is
this gonna what are the implications? And they
go, oh, you're falling for it. Oh, you're
you're so gullible, you snowflake.

(29:22):
And then he does buy it. And then
we go, well, there you go. Well, now
he's still like, I don't know how you
transition from that, which happens every time, to
suddenly this is the best thing for all
of us that was a joke 10 seconds
ago or he was playing making all the
the democrats lose their minds.
If you can't see that you're the one
being played in that dynamic by by dismissing
facts until they become real and acting like

(29:42):
it's still some kind of a long term
play, it's like
he is getting you to support
the new means for the new corporate media.
The new I mean, the point is for
those on the podcast that can't see what
I'm referencing,
Alex Jones shared this. Elon is openly entertain
entertaining this idea. What do you think?
And it says buying both Infowars and MSNBC

(30:04):
in viral x post.
Okay.
So how do we supposed to discern so
at this point, this is where it gets
more abstract. Where is it a troll? Alex
Jones didn't even make an an it didn't
say didn't put a hash
slash s or any kind of way to
make it seem like he's being funny? Because
I don't think it's I don't think it
is being funny. I think this is a
very real thing that is being kind of

(30:26):
obfuscated by the idea that it might be
a troll. So if it doesn't happen, we
were all just playing you anyway.
That's how almost kind
of insecure these people are. Either way, the
point is
buying Infowars and MSNBC. So my concern about
whether the whole Infowars thing was sort of
a manipulation
because I was talking about that when it
happened. Like, The Onion, they're gonna buy it,

(30:46):
and then he stands up and was like,
but now we're they stopped him or they're
about to do it or that it's it's
this up in the air thing, which I
can't find any information to actually verify half
of what's being said, sort of like like
most of these conversations. Like like them continuing
to hype this idea about an upcoming peace
deal, and now the democrats trying to stop
that peace deal. I'm like, this is built
this is this is headline narrative. That's his

(31:06):
goal. That's his go to. Point at a
headline, scream narrative for 45 minutes. How about
we get into the meat of it, the
facts, the actual background? No. No. Either way,
even if it happens, my point is you're
being led by a bunch of hype.
So and now
oh, and back to the point about the
onion in in Infowars. I will always stand
on the principle that even if he's a
part of the game and playing you, that

(31:28):
I'll still say that the censorship or suppression
or going after him financially because of what
he said. I'll say, look. We're all wrong.
I would say it even if I knew
he was a shield or a an agent
because they still use it that way. So
that's the point. Yes. They were going after
me legitimately, but on top of that now
that
Elon's floating buying this, how did that even
happen?

(31:48):
Seems like it was planned, if you want
my honest opinion. Like, this was the way
it was gonna go, and that was all
about gee like, this theater show. And on
top of that, you've got MSNBC
now coming into the mix. Literally, potentially buying
corporate media. So what happens then? What happens
if now we have Alex Jones and MSNBC
broadcasting
this what, by the way, I would highlight
just as little like, if you look at

(32:10):
what they're saying about most of this stuff
is even though it's coming from a different
angle, look at what the corporate media says
about a lot of this stuff. You'll find
that the agenda seems to align more often
than you might realize.
Anyway,
I simply wrote, and now it begins to
make sense.
My opinion.
But I think we're being
it's we're watching a puppet show. We're watching

(32:30):
this play out to where this was the
ultimate end goal to make it look like
Elon saved the day from the bad guys
trying to bring down the the outsiders fighting
for free speech.
And
I
I think that we're meant to go to
this position. And I think all it does
is shows you that these were all always
in the same boat.
My personal opinion. You guys can decide for
yourself, but I think it's really interesting how

(32:51):
this all played out. As David Icke points
out, Alex Jones literally posted this saying, I
stand ready. Put me in the game, coach.
This play case used to be very so
sad. And and this is about Alex Jones
and, you know, the, Elon Musk saying the
oh, this is about, you know, buying info
wars MSNBC. Elon
puts fire emojis.

(33:12):
And so David says, this is the, quote,
alternative speaking to Elon Musk.
Quote, I stand ready. Put me in the
game coach. And he says, what the f?
This is not about overthrowing humanity's masters. It's
just changing the guard and the source of
subs of subservience.
Infowars claim. Musk hints at buying both Infowars
and MSNBC
in viral post.
Handing Musk control of the, quote, alternative media

(33:35):
even besides Twitter would certainly push back on
the centralization of global power. Right?
Just as him taking over banking with his
Social Credit x Everything app would stop financial
control being in the hands of a few.
Right?
And the added bonus, which we can see
so clearly,
is that the quote alternative that worships him
and depends upon him stops calling him out

(33:57):
on his blatant transhumanist agenda. Everyone's a winner
except the people.
Are you getting it yet?
I agree.
I think it's very, very obvious. I actually
am both beginning to feel this I get
the sense that most conservatives see it too.
There's there's no there's no medium.
I mean, outside of obvious social media, but

(34:19):
there's no, like, comfortable platform for, like and,
again, I don't mean any social media platform.
Let's these are the word. There's no
like, right now, you have a lot of
people, I think, that see this. And the
people that it's like in the conservative camp
that recognize a lot of this stuff, they
get eaten alive in these platforms if they
point this stuff out. Most of them are
people that are, are, you know, are are
friends or they're on their side and they
it's sort of like with COVID 19. They
just keep it under they keep it under

(34:40):
their shirt. They don't wanna point these things
out. But I think the more this begins
to become obvious, the more you'll see people
like Viva Fray and Russ coming out and
going this is a bad pick no matter
what. Have the integrity and the courage to
do that. Because this is the only thing
that's gonna change it, especially if you recognize
where this is going.
So let's get into another manipulation, which I
think is just embarrassing. I already pointed this

(35:01):
out. I'm just kinda starting with some of
the things that overlap with some of the
the previous show. We'll get into the Authentics
next.
Updates, what we recently talked about. And this
is actually interesting because what Rebel News is
doing around this story is just embarrassing to
me. Now, I've seen there's been plenty of
things they've done in the past that I
thought were good. But around the Israel conversation,
Zionism in particular, it's very clear they've exposed
themselves in my opinion.

(35:22):
I I just I don't mean anything other
than being willing to lie for Zionism. It's
very clear to me. And their own audience
is calling them out on Twitter. I can
see it all the time. What I'm seeing
is this absurd thing that they just did
with the flag, which I I went over
it, I think, 2 shows ago. I'll play
the I'll play the clip for you. Actually,
we can just start with that, actually, right
here.
Where this they're literally recreating this ridiculous false

(35:43):
flag
flag false flag, where they're claiming this guy
hit him with a flag. And even in
the video, they show you right here, you
can hear the fabric rubbing on it. Like,
you wouldn't hear fabric rubbing on the microphone
if they were hitting you with a flagpole.
But on top of that, you can actually
see the video where at best this thing
brushes them.
Sure. Go make it a big deal if
you want. That's your prerogative. They they if

(36:04):
you feel they violated your personal sovereignty,
it's important to think about that word in
the context of what you're fighting for, then
make a but the point is do you
see them you you see
specifically ever go Ezra go after them like
they're going after him because he's Jewish. It
it it's it was forced.
It it feels absurd. It feels juvenile. They're

(36:24):
screaming at them. They they're trying to make
this about something. And my point is always
that they have to go this far
to force in some half thing that or
even if it even is that at all.
What you have to recognize they don't have
much, and so they're building narratives on top
of completely false on
false
constructs.
So here's what we showed you the other

(36:44):
day.
Right there. That's the flag apparently hitting this
guy.
Now there's there's one right there. The first
one very clearly does not hit him.
The flag.
The flag get the or her, whoever that
person was.

(37:06):
You're getting in my face now, sir. Are
you gonna rush me?
If I have to. So So my point
on this, guys, and I'll play this for
you, is that he wanted this to happen.
Whether you think it's justified or not, and
he hasn't read. The point is he was
trying to instigate this. That's my opinion, but
you can watch. The police were getting irritated
with him. I am not taking sides on
anything. I'm just simply saying this person was

(37:27):
out there to try to initiate something to
be used to call these people up for
being anti Jewish. Even though there are Jewish
groups right there in the crowd with them,
he won't tell you that, though. He was
assaulted. You're not gonna arrest the guy who
assaulted her. Like, you're gonna arrest me for
asking you questions about an
assault? Yeah. Real tough. He could be interpreted
in both ways. No. No. Right. Don't don't
let him don't give you any more of

(37:48):
the conversation because, god forbid, you hear the
logic around. He is clearly trying to incite
these people.
That's what the police were saying. That's what
people with the crowd that that is what
you can see. Trying and I'm not saying
he he can has has every right to
do that unless he's breaking the law or
being violent. He can stand there and do
whatever he wants to try to get them
to react so he can film it and
make them out to be the bad guy.
That's how desperate this is. But so this

(38:09):
is what we showed you. The full video
will be included.
So now what happened after that, after he's
standing there and screaming in the face of
the cops and trying to get them to
arrest him,
Alex Jones, of course, res reports what happens
yesterday.
Toronto police arrest Rebel news boss.
Okay. And he says, not allowed to offend
our Islamic masters.

(38:32):
What a ridiculous
framing because that's the game, guys. He's on
his side and your side is supposed to
make these arguments. That's not even remotely what
actually happened. You're talking about him
making a big deal about something that didn't
happen
and then screaming at these people to where
he get and the court of course, they're
telling you, look. You're trying to incite these
people. Now whether you think they're right or
not, they're telling you stop this

(38:54):
or we're gonna go after you. Now you
can get into the whether or not they
had the legal right to arrest him. I
would say they do not. I would say
what they did crosses a line, 100%.
See? Both these these things can exist in
the same conversation where, yes, he could have
been out there for the sole purpose of
trying to instigate exactly this to make it
look like there's some imbalance. The bottom line
is there is an imbalance, guys. It's all
over the place, but it is definitely not

(39:16):
blindly
supporting Palestinian supporters at the expense of Jews.
It's not the reality. Look at what's going
on in Canada. It's the exact opposite.
But this is all about trying to keep
you in this mindset for, I guess, just
get one more person lied to and distracted
about what the genocide Israel's committing. I don't
really know.
But it's really lazy to me. Tim Pool,

(39:37):
surprise, surprise. If a Jewish man wants to
take a picture of pro Palestinian protesters as
a breach of peace. Oh, because that's what
happened. Right? Are you this lazy? Are you
this bad at doing your job? Or do
you deliberately mislead people?
Because that's not what happened, guys. Here here's
the next video that he shares.
Because it's not up against the same group.
Well, yeah. Because you're inciting this crowd, and

(39:58):
then it's like it reaches And just to
be clear, he's not pointing to just right
now or him being there and taking pictures
like Tim Pool lazily put out. It's because
over the process of a couple of days,
he has been out there trying to create
drama, faking things with the flag, which clearly
went nowhere. So I guess we'll drop that
one.
No. That's what I told you. You're presenting
them. And that's exactly what you're trying to

(40:19):
do. Because I'm a Jew. No. Because you're
trying to incite them. I haven't tried to
See, right there is just silly to me.
Now let's be clear. I think their their
statements and stance is ridiculous from the police.
You're trying to are you breaking a law
or not? And just because they wanna make
it this comes more from an American perspective
from the constitutional inherent rights, but the point
is if you're breaking a law,

(40:39):
a a constitutionally valid law, well, then there's
then there's the allowance. But if you're just
simply saying you're screaming mean words or your
presence is making them uncomfortable,
that's ridiculous.
Whether it's Ezra trying to create something or
not, that's still ridiculous. And the fact that
they would arrest him for simply,
you know, violating some hate speech idea or
some, you know, whatever the whatever they're trying

(40:59):
to frame it as is ridiculous. But that
does not remove the fact that he seems
to have been trying to get this result.
I think I want to take a picture
of the hate crime that you're implying. On
the other side. He didn't need to walk
through. No. I didn't want to watch the
point he's making oh, and I forgot the
main point that he goes because I'm a
Jew, which I don't see that being anywhere
other than in his mind. But, again, I
could be wrong.
I know there are people out there that

(41:20):
just hate Jewish people for no reason. That
does exist. Whether that's what's happening here is
up for you to decide. But what's interesting
is he he's saying, you know, you going
over there and trying to get them to
get get a response. Now if he's just
standing there taking a picture, well, that would
be absurd. But I think based on what
else we can see, it doesn't seem to
be the case.
I don't know. I'm gonna tell you to
move over there. And I'll be I allowed

(41:41):
you I allowed you to retake that. I
allowed you to take that. Yeah. So you're
refusing to leave? I'm refusing to leave. Why?
Because I'm a Jew. I'm a citizen.
What the hell does that have to do
with anything? You see, he's so
gung ho in this mindset. So you're refusing
to leave because you're Jewish?
That's not I think that was the wrong
answer, bud. And I'm your boss, and I

(42:01):
don't leave if you say Jews are Well,
you know what? In the interest of keeping
peace here in public safety, you're under arrest
for peace of the peace. Take a minute.
And a part of me wonders whether that
was all part of some construct as well
because that seems like a really silly thing
to do right there. Knowing you're being filmed,
pushing the boundary, but this this is the
story, Ezra making a big stink about nothing
and getting arrested for no reason, which both

(42:22):
are problems.
That's stupid. Meanwhile, you've got people literally protesting
to stop a genocide of children being murdered
as they're standing there. He doesn't care about
that though. And clearly, Ol' Decide, you know,
obviously, you can look to his work for
yourself to recognize how absurd it is when
it comes to Israel.
But this is what we're defending. And, you
know, people like Tim Pool and the rest
will make it about how you can't take

(42:42):
pictures. Well, there's more to the story obviously.
Or Infowars
saying,
gotta bow to your Islamic masters in a
place where they're literally going after people in
every I mean, look. It these the Canadian
government has been so blindly locked up with
Israel and clearly supporting that and going after
people who are act who are pro Palestinian
as antisemites.

(43:02):
Yes. There are other laws that go into
similar
overreach
in, in regard to hate speech that you
could apply to anybody.
But this game they're playing where it's about
them blindly covering for, what, Hamas? Even though
it's not we're talking about. Like, it's just
so ridiculously
abstract and
and obviously dishonest.

(43:32):
Yeah. I very much think he got exactly
what he wanted. Are you being arrested?
Because I'm standing on the sidewalk in my
city.
So
this is the kind of stuff that gets
reached by people like that.
Meanwhile, we're not worried about the very, very
clear crimes being committed all over the place,

(43:53):
whether in Israel, by our governments in many
other countries, by our governments in Canada, in
the United States, to people that are standing
there, people that are not protesting with them.
The point is that you can clearly see
that these governments are
authoritarian.
And then you got people like this that
come in and try to contort the reality
of that into specifically going after one religious
group, which is not the case. In fact,

(44:14):
it's the exact opposite.
And all that serves to do is obfuscate
the the reality of what's going on in
the world right now. And let's not forget
that the main point of this as they're
screaming about suppression of rights and free speech
is that the people in Canada are suppressing
your rights and free speech for Israel just
like Donald Trump puts forward, just like the
rest of them are all clear about. Remove
the Jew haters from the country, which all

(44:35):
applies to whoever they decide to call that
to. Call whoever they decide to call that.
You'd be a disgusting person if you feel
that way for just about someone's religion, but
you have a right to feel and say
whatever you want. That's free speech. The reality
of absolute free speech. Or burning a flag,
put them in jail. No. These are all
constitutionally protected acts.
Until we start being
courageous enough, right, finding our honor again and

(44:58):
recognizing that we have to stand by what
we truly believe in and not just dip
aside when it works for the party, until
we find that path, this will continue.
And on the same note, talking about censorship
and information and, in this case, biometric,
Authentix is still very clearly being used on
Twitter. And this is what's so concerning about
people that are gaslighting for what's going on

(45:19):
while we're being driven into the social credit,
digital ID, biometric scan, you know, the technocratic
reality.
And so I went over this in the
last show. Vincent Kennedy says the past 7
days the the just quick cutting of the
chase. The point is they they show that
Authentix is still being used, and they they
look it up and and not not for
the one that I basically, I I go
through the reporting something and it brings me

(45:41):
to the page that shows that Authentix is
still being used.
They're showing you for ID verification.
For explicitly,
specifically, excuse me, the same thing that she
shows, but for
but she gets Stripe.
I actually think this is more important than
we realize, and I wanted to reiterate it.
So she's going, I just did this for
ID verification. So they're here are 2 people,

(46:01):
both in the same time frame, both using
Twitter.
One of them signs up and goes through
the process, and they get driven to Stripe,
which is what Elon Pretent said was what
they moved away from,
or rather what they moved to away from
authentics.
And so then but the point is at
the same moment, here is a guy being
given authentics.
So that's my whole point about this. Why

(46:22):
who who's deciding that? Why and I can
I can prove to you by many examples
this is not some country difference? There are
people in the same areas getting different things.
So why
would that be the case?
I think there's something much bigger around that,
and it's not just about this one thing.
I think we're all being sort of algorithmically
engineered around this, different platforms, different things. I
there's something bigger going on here that I

(46:43):
can't even fully articulate articulate.
Because honestly, because I don't really under I
don't really know what the breadth of this
is, but truly, I find that crazy. And
And so my point bringing this up again
is that I too am personally seeing that
Authentix is being used. Now if you don't
remember what this is, it is an extension
of the Israeli intelligence apparatus.
Not secretly, not behind the curtain, see but

(47:04):
on the on the surface, on the record.
I think it was Guardian that pointed out
there were they overlap with something like 90%
of their intelligence.
The point
is this is a group that is including
your ex extracted biometric data that they get
to keep.
Now it says up to 30 days, but
I think we all know how this tends
to work. No matter who we're talking about
in history, that almost never seems to be
the case. With COVID, they said, we won't

(47:25):
sell your private data, and then whoops, they
all got caught selling your private data. Nothing
happened actually,
as usual.
But this should be very concerning for all
of us, especially since we can see what
this what Israel is doing with this data.
What they're doing with their AI murder programs
in in Gaza for Lavender and Habzara.
These are these are public information. 972 magazine

(47:46):
wrote about both.
I don't know why this is not more
concerning for people that see what's happening.
Now,
Jason Bassett put out a great clip from
that last show just highlighting that point saying
we've all had doubts about Twitter's connection to
authentics, but the latest revelations raise serious questions.
Is it case of social engineering, technical glitch,
or something more sinister?
Now Casey Wright points out they actually he

(48:07):
asked Croc
how long Twitter is using Authentics for verification,
and it said from August 2023
to June 2024. So right there,
they're either lying to you, or it has
been, but it's being allowed to be used
for very specific things.
Like, maybe when Ryan Christian tries to go
through the process, or whoever else. I honestly

(48:27):
don't know, but you can see it. It's
public. I this is the refresh page.
So why then would they say it hasn't
been? But then it adds what he find
he I also find this interesting.
The it adds the information is based on
the timeline provided by x posts.
And he says he says, isn't that where
all of them come from, the answers? Which
I don't think. I think it's supposed to
be more broad, like just tapping into online
data. But he says, I don't recall ever

(48:48):
seeing that answer specifically before, and I agree.
That's that's interesting. Almost to go like, well,
but we're not sure
because it's not true, guys, and we can
prove it. Right now, there are people and
if you go through it, look at it,
don't I don't click the box. I wouldn't
recommend going through it all the way, but
go to that point, send me a screenshot.
I'd be it'd be interesting to find out
if there's a 3rd idea out there versus
a different group. I don't know. But I

(49:09):
I I know that anybody honest with themselves
can see that there's something when all of
these dots are put together that there's something
clearly different going on here.
Now, I'll include the article we or the
show we did. This was on July 29th.
Twitter is still using Authentix even though they
claimed that they didn't after that.
Eric Whitney had to say about, this person
posting about Authentix

(49:30):
on the 23rd.
And We've been talking about this for a
long time, guys. Why do we still have
to give our biometric data to the Israeli
company, Authentix, to sign up for Twitter? And
this was posted on the 23rd November.
He says our IDs and agents have already
been verified. Good question.
So they don't need anything. The printer is
not accessing or just asking for at the
moment your biometric data. It's just out it's

(49:50):
you you just have to confirm what's already
on file, but then Israel steps in and
demands your biometric data. Why?
Why is that?
I think there's something clearly going on. And
the point is he just did this and
you can see it's his autentics right there.
When he says you are cons if you're
concerned about governments arresting people for social media
posts,
which, again, is Elon and the rest, rightly

(50:10):
so, are pointing that out in other places
of the world, A trend set to worsen
and continue as can be seen currently in
the UK and Canada.
Never give a social media platform your ID.
The NSA and signal intelligence agencies already know
who you are, but it's tricky to prosecute
an Anon account for online speech if it
if it means

(50:31):
the the finding out who operates the account
is illegal.
Give the your give the site your ID
and docs yourself. It will make their job
a lot easier.
Then she says, isn't it this isn't some
far off concern. The last time Trump was
in office
it's amazing how many of these things overlapped
when he was in office. His AG, Bill
Barr, legalized precrime, which we've talked about many

(50:52):
times. And the DOJ has since arrested people
for threatening social media posts.
That's precrime, guys. That's literally what we're seeing.
But people in the Republican circles right now
don't wanna identify it when it comes to
dislocation or anything that ties back to Trump.
The Trump admin also considered a proposal to
use AI to monitor American social media accounts

(51:12):
for warning signs of neuropsychiatric
violence. Trump called in 2 2019 for social
media giants to monitor American speech to prevent
shootings before they happen.
Right? Don't think it couldn't don't think it
could happen again under, democratic regime or with
Trump's new ag pick, blonde Bill Barr.
I think,

(51:33):
Pam
Bondi, I think. I'm at the top of
my head. Personally, he says don't take the
chance. I don't give your Twitter your and
don't give Twitter your ID.
Well, if you remember,
I don't know if this is the exact
clip that she's referencing,
but one of them is specifically about this
point.
Because we're losing a lot of people because

(51:53):
of the Internet, and we have to do
something. We have to go see Bill Gates
and a lot of different people
that really understand what's happening. We have to
talk to them maybe in certain areas closing
that internet up in some way. Somebody will
say, oh, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech.
These are foolish peep
And realize he just said that about the

(52:14):
the flag burning called them
stupid people.
Both of which are fundamentally
incorrect.
Doing what he just said was was a
violation of your rights, and burning the flag
has been roundly deemed to be and is
constitutionally protecting it under your inherent rights. Whatever
you think about it, which I would find
disrespectful as well, but it doesn't change the

(52:34):
reality.
So here
is where this is going, which I'm sure
you all know, but this is actually pretty
crazy. Bernie just shared this. This is from
Australia.
And I mean, the point of this is
to show and don't let's let's obviously point
out as Kat Caitlin Johnstone would make very
clear from Australia that Australia is it's it's
same with, New Zealand, different locations, which interesting

(52:57):
enough haven't heard a lot from lately, New
Zealand,
is ultimately
kind of a testing ground. A vassal state
of the United States empire. Right? I mean,
that's at least how even they would frame
it. The point though is that you you
see things there. It's an indication of where
it's all going. And this is about digital
ID being now mandatory for children under 16
to access the Internet, which is exactly what

(53:18):
the UK is doing. It's exactly what the
US has floated more than once.
It's a big and it it's all coming.
And so and the the x in overlap,
I'm convinced,
is to make people that would be most
resistant to it
passive.
Emma points out the government can politely insert
their heads tightly up their behinds.

(53:38):
When they say it's mandatory, it's not. If
you're an individual,
you will not have to have For the
podcast, this is going from 2023 to today.
So the point is
saying it won't be, it won't be, won't
be, won't be, and now it is. That's
how this works, and it's almost always the
way it goes.
Have one of these,
digital IDs. The fact that it's voluntary, people

(54:00):
who don't want a digital ID don't have
to have one. Okay. And you're guaranteeing that
it's not gonna be compulsory. You've used the
word voluntary a few times there.
So I am really trying to say to
people, if you don't want it, don't have
one. We have been very clear. It is
a voluntary system, and it's simply a means
of verifying
yourself.

(54:20):
Right now, the one of the Israeli ministers
is saying that
under Trump's administration, there'll be a time for
voluntary migration out of Palestine. It's same overlap.
That's not what that will be. They don't
want to leave vol they voluntarily is a,
a euphemism
for basically saying that anybody that didn't do
it is a terrorist. It's how this works.
And how do you think this works? Right?

(54:41):
Once you don't comply, you're now outside the
law. It's how they work this.
In a way that gives you control of
your own documentation.
A world first. Australian children
under 16 years old will be banned from
social media under new legislation to be introduced.
We're making 16 years old the minimum age

(55:01):
for social media. Tech industry body Digi says
to enforce a blunt ban, all Australians would
have to provide their personal information,
such as an ID or an image of
their face, to verify their age. Can you
point me to the bid in the legislation
which restricts the eSafety Commissioner
from designating digital ID
as a means of age verification. There's no

(55:23):
Is there anything in the law that says
that? That says the eSafety commissioner There's nothing
on this law that says that.
Always.
Always. Always. Always.
I mean, that's my opinion obviously, but if
you look throughout history guys, that it's a
you know, and I I know I I
wouldn't even say that that was always the
plan from the start, but it it's it's

(55:45):
just an escalating it always continues down that
line. Right? So the next person wants more
control, more and and I think that is
the the agenda to start. Now this is
from December 14, 2022.
Digital ID blueprint for all 50 US states
published.
No big ask. The point is this has
been around for a long time, and they
are trying to slow drip this in to

(56:05):
get you to ask for it.
Now include the articles we've covered and some
many of some of them that we've covered.
I think there's one just popped in my
head that was probably a better one to
pick. I can't remember what it is right
now. But this is one Derek wrote in
the past, exposing with digital ID is a
human right scam.
And this is one one of our recent
m I IMA panels. Right now, I think
we have one set for the 29th coming
up, and it'll be around Bitcoin, Donald Trump,

(56:28):
rather as the reserve currency and and the
AI overlap and a bunch of interesting things.
This one's for 27th September. Digital ID, the
foundation for technocracy.
Bipartisan
digital ID is a part that I think
is definitely coming, and I wrote about this
here.
And then this one is the Save Act
Real ID and ID 2020. And this is
just an obvious trojan horse in my mind

(56:48):
to to get you into digital ID. The
the Real ID compliant identification, that's Digital ID
for you. And it's already there. It's being
it's being slowly put in front of you
right now.
And just on this note, I just wanna
point out the concerning reality of what Elon
brings to the table. You know, I just
think it's so alarming. How whether it's things
like this or just the overlap,

(57:08):
normalization of things that the largely Republican side
would be
aggressively resistant to if it came from anybody
not part of their team. And he simply
says, meanwhile, some idiots are building manned fighter
jets like f 30 fives because that's kind
of the news right now about as as
anybody honest has been saying this for a
long time. It's just the the blunder that
it is. But this video is crazy.

(57:28):
This is what's coming. This is what's here
right now. So I think it's interesting to
point out why this is not something that
is more in our faces.
I think the worrisome
kind of understanding of that is what stick
stands out. That usually,
when it's not in your face, even though
it's this prevalent, there's something going on.
It's a drone.
Drone swarm. This is the future of warfare,

(57:50):
unfortunately,
if on if not already. Right?
But look at that. It's incredible. And it
reminds me of the Starlink
satellite thing around the world.
That's terrifying to me.
And this is not really about being on
and sell or, you know, you get the
point. But just to show you these are

(58:11):
the kind of things that they're all leaning
into excited about, and I think this is
the the direction that is taking us into
our subjugation.
And then this last point was interesting.
Here he is saying, your phone is fine.
You're not going to cause like, basically, that
your phone doesn't cause cancer. And I know
recently there's been a lot of studies coming
out and going, no connection, which, you know,
they used to say that about a lot

(58:31):
of things that are deadly today. Or, you
know, how many times you got studies that
show you the COVID 19 vaccine is totally
safe for injection? My point is it's pretty
stupid to me that they can sit here
and tell you that there is no risk
that from your phone. Now we can maybe
your phone is not the risk, but I
can tell you what is. The EMF, the
the radiation coming from the the device the
Wi Fi,

(58:52):
the the, what's the right word for it,
receiver in your phone.
That's an that's a no brainer, guys, especially
when we get to the 5 g territory,
which we're already in. Are we really gonna
pretend like these things do not
have influence on whether your body your free
radicals? I mean, guys, it's not a question.
So it kills me, how many studies you
can find about the idea of the, you
know, the cancer developing on the side you

(59:13):
use your phone on. Like, these aren't definitive.
But if we're really gonna try to downplay
the obvious and unquestionable
risk of
5
g radiation
or anything like that from your WiFi devices.
These things are verifiable.
So I just think it's an interesting kind
of sidestep to say, don't worry about your
phone. You know why? Because I think there's
a whole ecosystem being built around that with

(59:33):
his empire.
Personal opinion. Either way, I find it really
alarming that we have this kind of things
stuff like this.
Putting it it's just like somebody today is
still pretending like cannabis is the most dangerous
drug on the planet. You know, it just
seems like a little bit of a deviation
from the reality.
On that, speaking about the deviation from reality,
let's talk about the
Trump cabinet conversation or specifically the dynamic within

(59:56):
it when the
what's the best, I guess, the
the worry I have about not just the
ethics, you know, documents and so on. I'll
make my points about all this. But what
this seems to highlight for me, I think
there's a lot of overlapping parts to this.
Now this is Matthew Van Dyke simply says,
this is what we call a red flag.
The refusal to sign standard ethics and transparency

(01:00:17):
agreements is the clear indication, this is his
mind, of what to expect from Trump's administration.
They aren't dark during the swamp. They're flooding
it just like last time. Now, frankly, I
agree.
But I don't agree because of these the
signing or not signing of these ethics. I
I care very little about these, quite frankly.
Because I don't think they matter any I
think they sign them and they don't care
anyway. But let me point out why I

(01:00:38):
think this is concerning.
There's a lot of things that stand out
to me in all this. Now remember some
of the stuff we've already talked about.
Again, the title from Politico, Trump team barred
from agencies amid legal standoff. My point about
the senate confirmations and what that might change
and who actually becomes in power, The Israel
funding through people like Miriam Adelson or things
that we don't even see and what and
whether what they're doing right now is to

(01:00:59):
allow more of that and what that might
gain those people access to before these things.
There's a lot of weird overlaps to this.
But my bigger point is around how this
might be this whole sit this time frame,
which I talked about before, this kind of
weird limbo,
is being used.
And you can decide exactly how. Oh, I
got it.
Screenshot it right here.

(01:01:20):
So it says advisors to Robert, to to
RFK Junior reached out to health and human
services multiple times after Donald Trump tapped him
to lead the agency,
hoping to jump start coordination before his takeover.
They were rebuffed.
So as you're gonna see,
that's a worry. I would hope so for
people to go, woah. Okay. Wait a minute.
So RFK's of the mind that he has

(01:01:40):
this he's going and he he's reaching out
and they they'll say, no. We can't. Because
Trump hasn't gone through the he hasn't signed
these documents, haven't gone through this process yet.
So first thought is to go, okay, well,
is that because they don't want RFK to
get his hands on the data that he'll
inevitably have access to that would show Trump's
been lying about these shots? Maybe that's because
he won't be put in that position, both
because because none of them want them there?

(01:02:00):
Something to very much consider, but just out
of their gate. Now it says, Kennedy's inability
to communicate with the agency he he may
soon manage, confirmed by an administration official with
knowledge of the episodes, granted an anonymity
to describe internal deliberations.
It's just one consequence of the president elect's
continued foot dragging on signing the standard trio
of ethics and transparency agreements with the federal

(01:02:22):
government.
Something his team pledged to do shortly after
the election and something he did last time
right away.
Which is, I think, is an important point.
Because, obviously, anything like this is the first
thought. It's gonna be, oh, screw them. Because
they're that's the the democrats they're trying to
go after, which I think is a ridiculous
oversimplification.
But from the my perspective of being, you
know, the what was I guess, outside of

(01:02:43):
the inclusion that he's part of this problem
of the deep state and so on, the
idea being that the the government is not
your friend.
So not leaning into these arbitrary documents they
want you to sign to pledge that you
don't have conflicts of interest or you don't
even though they always end up doing so
anyway, Seems kind of a ridiculous, un unnecessary
step especially because I don't think they care
about these things.
It's more about some kind of signing on

(01:03:04):
to being part of their process. So then,
rightly so, you might get people from Republican
sides saying, good. He's bucking the system. Maybe
maybe that's the indication. But once you see
the fuller picture of this, I think it's
more than that. But I get why that
might be the response. And I want you
to at least consider that that kind of
sentiment,
the the the assumption, the willful, the hope,
is being played being used against you. At
least consider that. To lean into hoping that

(01:03:26):
you know, or rather leaning into the hope
with no evidence to back it up because
that's what makes sense for what you believe
he is as opposed to just waiting for
facts that we can verify and hope
being more skeptical than you would against anybody
else because you believe in him.
This and it goes on to say, it
means they can't access cybersecurity support, and this
is for most this is for all these
agencies,

(01:03:46):
or secure email servers for transition related work,
or request FBI background checks for their nominees.
So one of the things is is about
the transition part of this. The senate confirmations
and and them claiming to do their own
due diligence, which I argue is an easy
way to set this up to fail.
If they keep dragging their feet on this
and and basically hold tie their feet or,

(01:04:06):
you know, tie the hands of the process,
whatever you think about it, it's not to
say that I believe in it,
they will then point to that as a
reason why they weren't able to get enough
background on these people. They push back. You
know? I'm I say I I feel like
in a way, this is being set up
so that happens, so they get the people
that there's always the plan from the government.
But it says both the Trump transition and
the White House confirmed to Politico that negotiations

(01:04:28):
on the agreements are still underway.
But until the standoff is resolved,
Trump's cabinet nominees will gain no more insight
than the general public into the workings of
the departments they're supposed to run. Now, alt
in in the same point on the other
side of it, they can then point at
that and say, they wouldn't let us have
access and that's why x, y, and z
didn't happen. Or that's why these things happened
and they weren't supposed to. Whatever that fills

(01:04:49):
the blank for. Even though, like, every time
this happens, it's both sides playing a part.
They could've just signed these documents, but you
can argue they didn't have to. They could've
just gone through the process even though they
didn't. And, like, you know, you always is
how this goes. Very interesting to me. And,
also, what are we talking about in the
negotiations?
For what?
We're talking about them signing ethics agreements and
then negotiating what those things would say?

(01:05:11):
That's not what I understand to be the
process. So it's a weird way to say
that. That stood out to me.
But it says without the agents the agreements
in place, Trump's team can't access any non
public government data.
Because for example,
surveillance data on the COVID 19 side effects.
But it says that includes classified elements of

(01:05:31):
the administration's involvement in conflicts in the Middle
East, Ukraine, and details of high level conversations.
So that stood out to me for obvious
reasons. So we have again, which I don't
seem seem to be able to I I
don't see any evidence to prove this is
happening other than statements made by people like
Alex Jones. But the idea that Donald Trump
and Elon Musk are conducting secret peace negotiations
with Ukraine and at Mar a Largo, and

(01:05:53):
and now the Democrats are trying to secretly
stop that from happening.
Building a narrative on top of a narrative
that we can't prove. But either way, the
point is, well, okay. So that means we
can prove right now that they don't have
access to inside information that they would add
to what they might need to know,
or they don't know whether there is a
conversation going on that we're not privy to.
I made this point just today. I was

(01:06:14):
speaking with Sean from SGD report. Like, I
I don't this is a striking this stands
out over everything else.
You have a current person who was not
sworn in, does not have the legal authority
to be conducting these conversations. That's if it's
happening at all. I do not trust blindly
what Al Jones says.
So but if it is though,
isn't that a problem?
Whether you think he has good intentions or

(01:06:35):
not. If they're not if they don't have
up to date information, if maybe they make
a mistake, and then who's the then get
then it's the current administration's fault or problem?
And then the bigger point is if they
are doing that, why is why wouldn't the
Democrat administration go after them for it? Because
we're we're led to believe that they're go
they're cheating and stealing and lying, doing everything
they can to to ruin Trump's chances and
remove him from power. Well, here's your opportunity.

(01:06:58):
Make a point about this if that's the
case. I think they're all working in the
same agenda, and that's why it's happening this
way. But you can decide. To me, that
stands out pretty pretty clearly. We we even
have the argument that Elon Musk in his
own right reached out to an Iranian ambassador
about some kind of a conversation. These these
are unverified, but statements coming from internal circles.
I mean, you I mean, you could look

(01:07:18):
at Alex Jones page. He post 75 things
about that over the last couple of days.
Just, like, about the same show really. You
get, like, 7 posts from different angles and
different clips, but it's the same idea. They're
secretly working to achieve peace. And I just
don't know why that wouldn't be a problem
even with the best of intentions.
That's that is an overstep right now, more
than anything, especially with somebody who's like Elon
Musk, who does not even have a position
and, at best, is gonna become some co

(01:07:39):
runner of a nonexistent place right now, if
at all.
And he's conducting up the negotiations. I mean,
I don't know. I just I feel like
I'm the only one saying how crazy that
is, and I don't know why.
And, again, it's not because some hate Trump
dynamic. It's about anybody doing that. It seems
like a wild overstep to me. Now it
says members of congress in both parties are
also alarmed with 3 senate Democrats suggesting to

(01:08:01):
Politico that the lack of FBI background checks
could prevent Trump's nominees from securing confirmation.
See my point? Pointing to revelations this week
about Pete Hags Hagseth and Matt Gaetz who
decided to withdraw.
So I mean so you could argue that
this is the democrat trying to stop it.
But if they effectively drag this out to
where they argue they don't have,
basically,

(01:08:22):
preventing these stuff from securing confirmation because they
didn't have the time to do it.
I mean, it's all narrative. Right? But at
the end of the day, it kinda seems
like they're fulfilling exactly what we
thought was the likely possibility
To stop people like r f j RFK
Junior from being in position that the government
doesn't want, left or right.
Now it says, quote, if there's a lack

(01:08:43):
of proper investigation into a nominee, I don't
think the senate armed service committee
would allow the nomination to move forward.
See?
As as one Republican close to the transition
sub suspected that Trump officials are in no
rush to sign the agreements because they believe
the operation is running smoothly for Mar a
Lago without federal assistance, which probably is the

(01:09:04):
case.
Few things, the federal assistance will improve.
But I that that doesn't change the fact
that there's a a a give and a
take from this. And on top of that,
that if you really wanna lean into these
things, which I'm the last one that wants
to, but the idea of whether there's a
a a process that's supposed to be followed.
Right? Whether there's legal avenues that are supposed
to be taken.

(01:09:24):
But it says and and many on the
right are urging Trump's team to buck the
rules by continuing to use private funds
to pay transition staff and conducting their own
personnel vetting as they prepare to take over
the government. Okay. So, again, hypothetically, what if
they take this all the way and say,
look, we don't need your money. We're getting
funded from Israel or whatever else. All the

(01:09:44):
high level elitist oligarchitectocrats
that are funding us.
Both sides, by the way, if we remember
correctly. Both of them had the same kind
of backing.
But they take it all the way.
Alright. So they use their money, which it
gets into more. That's kind of this doing
getting past this phase with unlock federal funds
and so on. But there are no but
but it also opens the door for them
to be vetting who is funding them. You

(01:10:06):
see? So right now, they're allowed to take
money from foreign entities, but they have to
use their own money. So they're continuing to
do that,
and then they
pay the staff to conduct their own vetting.
So, okay, we get to the end phase
where they're supposed to be confirmed. They argue,
well, here's our information, but they didn't have
the opportunity to do it themselves. But again,
right there, you would argue, why wouldn't they?
Couldn't they just do it on their own
right right now?

(01:10:27):
Bound by some kind of bureaucratic process? Yeah.
Stupid. But either way, my point is not
coming to the end of which it seems
like this is going to be the inevitable
outcome.
And then you're gonna have people on the
right saying, good, screw them. We're not gonna
go through their broken system, which partly I
would agree with. But you can see how
this is a they both add to it
ultimately happening the way that I think the
government wants it to. And everybody points at

(01:10:47):
the other side.
Now it says, quote, they don't need the
hassle, argued one republican familiar with Trump's 2016
transition and the and the current one, granting
anonymity to speak about private deliberations.
It says, quote, without the public funding,
they'd be left to organize the transition the
way they want instead of taking the public
money, which opens them up to opens them

(01:11:09):
up to a GSA
and the quasi public organizations
whose sole mission will probably be to derail
them. Fair point.
Right? I mean, to argue simply that there's
clear whether it's the left or just something
else
or just individual personal actions, people that could
use that to try to, you know, slow
it down, derail it, which largely, if you
look back in a larger, you know, 10,000

(01:11:31):
elevation view,
it suits them all
to keep this ongoing process. Like, the whole
government shutdown fiasco per theater that happens every
time.
Well, while they're pretending that's the case, which
is not pretend, but it's it's
I think that's an absurd play.
Bill, good. Let it shut down. The the
way that we even have a system where
that even possible, it seems so it's it's

(01:11:52):
manufactured in my opinion. The point is they
they're not doing other things and then that's
happening. In this case,
I I think at the end of the
day,
stopping this or allowing, like, to create or,
like, having 4 years of investigations, acting like
we're trying to go after them. We're trying
to investigate whether they stole the election. Well,
now we just end up in this 4
year cycle where it's basically the the selection

(01:12:13):
and then the theater pretending they're fighting back
and forth until the last couple of weeks
they start the selection game again.
So that's kind of what I think we're
talking about here. But I do understand the
idea of people, you know,
trying to derail it for their own personal
agendas.
At the end of the day,
they're using their own personal money to carry
out this process.
Where is that coming from?

(01:12:33):
They're all very wealthy, but doesn't that matter
where the where the not during the selection
process, but during the actual so now they're
coming into power. Doesn't wouldn't it matter if
you've got, let's say, I don't know, a
foreign entity funding things like that? Now it
says even as ethics experts worry that Trump's
team hasn't yet begun the agency review work
that's needed to ready the ready to govern

(01:12:55):
ready to be ready.
They warned against starting the work before signing
the 3 memorandums of understanding with the General
Services Administration,
the White House, and the justice department.
He says, quote, there's no basis for a
president elect's team to enter federal agencies
and have discussions without signing these memorandums of

(01:13:17):
understanding.
The director of the Center For the President
to Transition said this. Now to jump ahead
quickly, the point is I understand it. These
are legally required.
But I'm not one to you know, is
it constitutional? You know, you know my opinions
on these things. The point though is just
for process. Democracy Now refuses to sign the
ethics agreements required by law. Now you can
read about them. That is the general sentiment.

(01:13:38):
We'll come back to this.
Now it says the main thing that it
says is that the members of the transition
team will be bound by an ethics agreement
that ensures that they're using information appropriately, that
they limit the use of lobbyists and foreign
agents,
and that individuals who leave the transition and
go back to the private sector won't use
the information for personal gain. Well,

(01:13:59):
okay. If there's something in these things that
they wanna point to as why, oh, here's
how they manipulate us. Bring it up. Call
it out. Show us why it's corrupt.
But it's a weird thing to kinda push
back on and just let the crowd go,
yeah, screw the government, which I agree with.
Well, what you're really pushing back on is
pledging not to be unethical, pledging to be
constitutional, pledging to

(01:14:20):
up you know, to not use insider information
against other you see my point?
Or use lobbyists and foreign agents while you're
in a position of power?
Well, I think this is the classic idea
is where you're using what we want and
care about to cover the bigger problem.
And there's no better example of this when
we see, like, with COVID 19, the Democrats

(01:14:42):
or the Republican side of this and Israel
right now or the free speech that they
use, like, with Donald Trump and COVID 19
in his time frame, where they him being
in place pacified the most resistant. Same thing's
happening now, in my opinion. So that's interesting
to me. So as we now know, they're
using they're not being accessed to access given
access to federal money, because they haven't signed
these yet, so they're using personal funds.

(01:15:03):
And this allows them to not have to
divulge who is giving them money. Foreign, lobbyist,
whatever else. Doesn't that seem a little bit
organized?
The justice department, meanwhile, offered just days after
the election to start briefing the Trump team
on ongoing operations and processing security clearances for
its incoming officials,
but cannot do so until the Trump team
signs the agreements.

(01:15:24):
Without the DOJ agreement, the FBI also cannot
conduct background checks of his cabinet picks, which
has already emerged as a potential hurdle to
confirmation.
Back to the point.
So what what if they just drag I
mean, even the fact that they drag Elsa's
side, they sign tomorrow.
And even if it doesn't stop any actual
process, I guarantee you're gonna hear about it.
They're gonna say, this is why we have
to push back or why we didn't have

(01:15:45):
enough time just to make a point. So
that's it's not about whether truly we'll have
the consequence. It's about whether that's the excuse
used to fulfill the agenda that I think
was the plan for the government.
Soon to be senate majority leader John Thune
said Thursday that in the absence of the
federal scrutiny,
so under the, you know, pledging these documents,
which I scrutiny. I mean, the idea is

(01:16:06):
simply they're pledging to not do things that
are against the law and whether that's, you
know, the point the scrutiny simply is
opening them so that's that's actually important.
It's not about whether they're ethical or not.
That's just what they can sign and go
along with. It's whether they're scrutinized for where
their money's coming from. That's what seem the
lobbyists, the foreign agents. And it says he
and his fellow lawmakers who will be voting
on the slate, and officials will have to

(01:16:27):
be, quote, very thorough embedding these nominations and
ensure that the correct background information is available.
Well, okay. Well, they're gonna take their word
for that? Do we not know how this
works? They're gonna say that this is not
full, even if it is, because that's how
politics works. So all you're doing is setting
up the justification to push back on exactly
what I think they want to. Now, since
still, the Biden administration remains hopeful,

(01:16:48):
Trump officials will ultimately sign at least some
of the agreements
as both publicly and privately offered the incoming
team whatever assistance they need to be ready
to govern on day 1. So I keep
hearing all of this hype. I mean, Alex
seems to have kinda dropped it, but this
idea that they were secretly working to stop
it from happening, maybe. It wouldn't surprise me.
But that would mean to me that that's
what the government wanted, not the individuals.

(01:17:08):
I know not everyone agrees with that.
But I find it interesting that everything that
you can see seems to be showing you
the opposite, which adds to what I'm saying,
that this is the plan.
And that these people are really hell bent
on getting you to think that the they're
secretly fine gold because that keeps you in
support of the blind support of whatever they
do. Even if it challenges what we'd otherwise
say maybe isn't right. Maybe you should sign

(01:17:29):
the ethics pledge. Maybe you should make sure
we know where your foreign money is coming
from. Maybe that matters. But not if they
point that at, like, you have to, and
they say they're trying to force us deep
state. They go, oh, never mind.
Right? Clinton couldn't get this done. Biometric wall.
Oh, then we should. It's so easy to
play people like that.
Like, basic reverse psychology.
Now, it goes on to say, in 2004,

(01:17:50):
the 911 commission published its investigation that found
the legal battle over who won the 2000
election that delayed the transition from getting underway
was one of the reasons the event the
eventual winner, George w Bush, and his administration
were caught off guard by the terrorist attack
months later. Now that is the most ominous
part for me because now we see we're

(01:18:12):
not just the senate confirmation
or the excuse of why they have to
push back on Trump's picks. Now, you have
the justification even they sign tomorrow. All they're
saying is the delay.
The delay in getting this done
is that's exactly where they are right now.
There's they're apparently way past the time it's
supposed to happen.
So I guess normally in the middle of
November.
So what happens later? They go, well, you

(01:18:34):
we we were waiting to get this process
done. And so, ultimately,
that's why we were caught off guard because
we were delayed. Even if it's their delay,
it's an interesting point to make that that's
why,
you know, Ukraine happened or why Israel happened,
whatever it is.
Just an an interesting precedent for the same
thing happening
before something major.
Now it's just Trump's decision thus far to

(01:18:55):
forego federal transition assistance
and cooperation is unprecedented in the modern political
system.
So why again?
I my my gut tells me it's because
of where money is coming from right now.
And that means seems to be one of
the main things that gets boxed out as
this money now that also makes you worry.
Let's just say the government decides to go,
well, you didn't sign these. Like Biden kinda

(01:19:17):
said, sign some of them.
But we wanna get you moving anyway. And
all of a sudden, you get access to
all these things, and maybe the people through
Trump have access to all of those things
because this was not fully done. See my
point? If you're out there denying that Israel
is not actively working through Trump, then I
don't think you care about the truth. The
evidence is so shockingly clear. And it's diff
no different than Biden or Kamala.

(01:19:37):
Now it says Trump's team,
the first time he ran, they did the
same thing. Or they did they did it
the the way you would argue is normal.
Signing this in the middle of November. And
then Joe Biden's team did the same in
2020.
Holding off on signing the agreements with has
freed the Donald Trump transition team from having
to abide by a $5,000
cap on donations.

(01:19:58):
Well, look at that. And a requirement to
disclose their donors.
So now you have you have no cap
on what foreign entities can give to you
or anybody, and you don't have to divulge
where they're coming from. Same point.
But in addition to delaying coordination with federal
agencies, it has prevented them from gaining access
to secure government email servers, office space, FBI
background check for incoming officials, sparking concerns beyond

(01:20:22):
the incoming administration's readiness to govern.
So, again, that's my point. Is what happens
if they decide to go well? Just I
wish I doubt will happen. But if they
do,
you've got people that are, I argue, funding
and acting through them. And then they open
up the email servers and and information,
which is about classified information.
But either way, my point is action 1st

(01:20:42):
and foremost, is about the money.
And or whatever else is happening around this.
This is amid an uptick
in hacking this year. Includes breaches of Trump's
own team as recently in August. Of course,
these were the narratives we were told about
Iran. Never seen this stuff fully fleshed out.
Experts are alarmed, it says, that the transition
is issuing federal cybersecurity support,

(01:21:04):
particularly as they begin to receive intelligence briefings.
Okay. So here's the overlap. Are are they
getting intelligence briefings? Or is it like the
Pentagon said we want to, but we can't
yet? Like, I bet you it's both. I
bet you that this is getting so convoluted
and because Trump does have influence and access,
especially being a former president,
that maybe we are. Now who else is
getting access to that intelligence? And what is
that doing?

(01:21:25):
An idea that you're pushing back on cybersecurity
support. So what happens if a major thing
happens? And, you know, I mean, do you
realize how many times Israel has, acting through
other other channels, just blatantly themselves hacked and
manipulated US intelligence, stealing
nuclear technology, bombing US ships. I mean, there's
so many different things in history you can
see.
And now that they are and by the
way, the the secure cybersecurity usually run through

(01:21:47):
Israel anyway. But I think it's it's not
about, I think, some kind of opening gap.
It's about giving the impression that that is
what you could point to later or the
justification for what later happens. These are all
my thoughts
where I see this going.
Quote, it ends, until they sign this agreement,
they're not yet government employees. Now that's my
point from the beginning.
If they are not, which they're not based

(01:22:08):
on the legal reality of this, how are
they out there conducting major world changing discussions?
If that's even happening. If it's not, then
someone needs to call out who these people
are saying that.
But it says they can do they,
they can do anything they want. They can
they can have any conflicts of interest they
want. Oh, so, yeah. Sorry. You have to
read that in the context of the quote.
Until they sign this agreement, they're not government

(01:22:29):
employees. They can do anything they want. They
can have they can have any conflicts of
interest they want. Think about that in the
context of who's funding him.
They could be taking money from foreign governments
for all we know. Wink wink. I think
that was said for a very clear reason,
guys.
Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer
in the George W Bush administration said this.
The guy who I mean, obviously well, and

(01:22:50):
he and he worked for the Republican administration.
The point though is that he's clearly tapping
on the foreign government dynamic there. He said
it explicitly.
They could be taking money from a foreign
government, and this is exactly why this would
be done, to facilitate that, to hide that.
And that that would not
be Miriam Adelson, which I believe is the
same exact thing. What they're talking about is

(01:23:10):
literally they could be Israeli government funded, and
we wouldn't even know because of this gap.
I don't know why they would be that
lazy, but, hey, what they've been doing this
whole time seems to show you that they
don't care.
But it says, Trump and his team need
to convince the American people, including the people
who voted for them, that they're working to
help the country, not just make a bunch
of billionaires even richer. Not signing these agreements

(01:23:33):
is a great way to tell all those
working class voters, thank you very much. Now
f you.
I really find this a concerning dynamic.
I think what we're watching is is
something that it's it's the gap in information
and transparency that's allowing something to begin before
Trump's administration really starts.
And you know what my thoughts are on

(01:23:53):
this. We're getting into some more stuff in
regard to the Israeli overlap. I think, I
think it's very transparent, quite frankly.
Now, these are different posts just simply highlighting
why this is the case. Legally required to
sign these. But, yeah, I I'm not one
that I'm not that I'm not really worried
about him signing something that, you know, that
none of them even care about. None of
these people are ethical. But I am worried

(01:24:14):
about the use of this opening for other
things. And whether that gets overlooked anyway, which
then opens this gap for his entire administration,
which would say a lot to me.
Now, in regard to the picks,
again, I wanna highlight that there there are
people that are having the courage to call
this out, which I think is very important.
Eva Frey came out and said, I don't
care if Trump's pick for surgeon general's apologized

(01:24:35):
because apparently, that's the narrative now that she's
changed her mind, doesn't take these things anymore.
I find that really hard to believe.
Suddenly, she's not pro mask and pro vaccine
and pro hardly. That's what you're I that's
I think this is I mean, let's realize
that even Donald Trump is still promoting the
vaccine, promoting operation Warp Speed. So it doesn't
really make much sense.
But even if Frey is calling it out
And saying, I don't care what they said.

(01:24:56):
This is a bad pick. That's how we
have to be.
If you think that, then say it. Don't
be count along by other people in the
team sport politics side of it. They don't
care about the outcome. They care about winning.
They care about certain agendas.
Hopefully, we all care about what's best for
the country.
Now, here is Greg Reese with a video

(01:25:17):
about,
basically, the video well, it's it's not just
Oz, but it's just you can go you
can see in the different people he's highlighting.
It's saying, Trump is surrounding himself with operation
warp speed accomplices.
He writes, you are you getting it yet,
Alex?
Joe? Tucker? Russell? Jordan? The Tates? The Weinsteins?
On and on and on. He says, you
think the self proclaimed

(01:25:39):
father of the vaccine
was going to appoint people who would expose
his central front man role in the death
and health destruction of untold numbers? What a
Trump Musk SIOP has been played on you
and you've fallen for it big time.
Now I know a lot of people don't
want us to, you know, you don't have
to blindly believe it because we say it,
or he says it, or I think it.
But I do want you to I I
would really hope that you'd be willing to

(01:26:00):
at least consider that possibility
based on how much evidence really does show,
at least indicate that that's where we are.
There, I'll I'll play you what, Reese was
pointing out.
If I can grab it there, I just
download it real quick.
Is that it?

(01:26:21):
Yeah. Here you go.
The, bioweapon that was released on us, the
vaccines,
That needs to be communicated,
effectively in the new administration that something bad
happened.
Many of I mean, think about even saying
that.

(01:26:42):
Like, okay. So what if Trump comes out
tomorrow and says, you're right. It's all bad.
Most of them are gonna go, got it
outright.
They just completely ignore
half a decade of lies.
There's nonstop just continuing to push it and
say it's good and then save people and
nobody gets hurt by it. That's lunacy.
At the very least, he has to go,
well, here's why I've been saying that for

(01:27:02):
5 years. But that won't happen.
So I just think it's crazy. Like, I
get that they they I I mean, I
get in in these partisan circles, you gotta
be very careful, which I I wouldn't. But
I'm saying I get why they would do
that because they get eaten alive by people
that, you know. But that's the problem, isn't
it? We should just care about the truth,
our integrity.
And at the end of the day, it's
obvious that this is not an honest situation.
So I think we just need to say

(01:27:23):
that. But now now, obviously, you can give
them the opening and say, well, maybe there's
more to the story that we don't see.
And that is not a justification. It means
this is wrong. We know it's wrong, but
maybe there's more to it. We'll find out.
That's the best you can do right now.
That's what the evidence shows.
Of us would like to see justice for
the millions murdered by the nanotech infected shots,
but don't hold your breath. If approved, our

(01:27:44):
next cabinet will include, as administrator for Medicare
and Medicaid,
doctor Oz, a television personality
who pushed implantable chips,
transgenderism for kids, and pushed the deadly COVID
vaccines
repeatedly.
Should people have their children vaccinated?
Definitely. Yes. Definitely. Yes. Definitely. Yes. As a
doctor, even I'm in awe of the incredible

(01:28:05):
advances made in search of a COVID 19
vaccine. Never in the history of mankind has
a vaccine been developed at this speed. But
just because we're moving fast, doesn't mean we're
moving unsafely. We're cutting red tape, not cutting
corners. I trust the science and the scientists
behind these COVID 19 vaccines, and you should
too. What can you do after you get
the COVID vaccine?

(01:28:28):
Area of state. Marco Rubio will be our
new secretary of state. He pushed the vaccine
and boasted that operation warp speed was a
huge success. Can say a lot of things
about the way America responded to the pandemic
in the early days. But the one thing
that's without dispute is that no one has
done back vaccines better than the United States.
I mean, look around the world and look

(01:28:49):
here.
Just on a side note, how much you
wanna bet who his team gave him the
shirt and the hat?
And said, we gotta make you look like
a normal guy.
Not that these people don't have football teams
they like, but I just I just I
wanna always think about that. Like these people
are literally a construct.
When you actually find out a lot about
them, you find out that these things are,
you know, half of them lie about, like,

(01:29:10):
we know where they come from, what they
grew up doing, because it's a it's a
construct.
Sure. And look at the fact that right
now, basically, if you're at this point, if
you're 12 years of age or older and
you want a vaccine, you can get one.
If approved, Tulsi Gabbard will be the director
of National Intelligence.
She helped get all the older people vaccinated
early on. 3 weeks ago, I urged our

(01:29:31):
leaders to put those over 65 years of
age at the front of the line for
vaccinations
alongside health care workers
and first responders.
Now, today, I'm happy to report that the
Department of Health and Human Services
has now agreed to this strategy.
So if you or your loved ones are
65 or over,

(01:29:51):
you will now be able to get the
vaccine if the leaders of your state comply
with these recommendations.
At the time and well before,
I was screaming about how crazy that was,
how dangerous it was. Here's what their data
shows you. It's more dangerous than anything for
elderly and children right there in front of
you, and they would force it on them
first.

(01:30:12):
Trump, Tulsi, all of them, all to this
day support this.
If approved, doctor Janet Neshawat will be our
new surgeon general. She was also pushing the
masks, the deadly vaccines,
and the censorship.
First of all, vaccines save lives, and I
am so excited. And I thank and I
commend Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg for taking action,

(01:30:33):
and I hope and pray that other social
media platform
For censorship, by the way, for censorship. Will
follow suit and do the same thing. If
you are fully vaccinated, then it is safe
to go outside, to go hiking, bike You
think she just changed her mind when Donald
Trump still says the same thing? To enjoy
outdoor dining, to be around other people who
are unvaccinated without a mask. Now that is

(01:30:54):
if you are fully vaccinated. It's also important
that if you start your first dose, you
get your second dose because there's many who
are not making the appointments for their second
doses. And you will not get that 94,
95%
safety and efficacy if you don't get both
doses. Pedalized. Right? And, again, don't forget, we're
talking about relative risk. That's relative, not absolute.
So it's instead of 95% difference between taking

(01:31:16):
and not taking it, which amounts to about
0.08%
of actual like, this is all provable information.
This was directly from I mean, I've shown
you this from day 1, and I still
bet you most people don't know that.
She didn't care.
Now, of course, it's possible she changed her
mind.
But I think it's important that if they
did, they come back and go, yes. And
I was wrong right there. And here's why

(01:31:36):
that was wrong and day but you'll never
get that. And frankly, I think it's pretty
clear that's not the case. You can go
back to the very beginning of operation warp
speed. Trump's been pushing the vax the whole
time. He even called himself
the father of the vaccine. And, look, I
guess in a certain way, I'm the father
of the vaccine because I was the one
that pushed it. We I pushed the FDA

(01:31:57):
like they have never been pushed before. It
shows you how
unpainful that vaccine shot is, so everybody go
get your shot. I recommend you take it.
People that do get it get better much
quicker. That's a very important thing to know.
They don't get nearly as sick, and they
get it they get better. Lindsey Graham's Exact
opposite. Sample. He said, if I didn't have
this vaccine, I would have died. I recommend

(01:32:18):
take the vaccines. I did it. It's good.
Take the vaccines. I think I saved many.
I don't think. I know. I saved millions
and millions of lives throughout the world. Because
we saved
tens of millions of lives. Ted, how can
you possibly make a rationalization with this?
You can either say that you think he's
wrong and doesn't know it. If you try
to I mean, look, if you try to
pretend like he knows what he's doing right

(01:32:39):
now, that's horrifying.
It's more horrifying almost that you think that
rationalization makes sense. If for some political benefit,
even if you think at the end of
the day it saves more lives over the
next 100 years, you're still allowing children to
die. I just don't this is an immoral
rationalization.
Credit. Don't let them take that away from
you. Okay. So the president made new Do

(01:33:00):
you agree with that?
Mhmm. Both the president and I are vaxxed,
and, did you get the booster?
Yes. I got it too. And just right
there. The idea that it wasn't just the
way so you got a I mean, I'm
I'm I don't even know whether they got
him.
Got a booster on top of it. Like,
you know, you know, I need to keep
adding to it. The clear point is he

(01:33:21):
said it right to this day. Recently, on
November 22nd,
Trump wrote that operation warp speed saved 100
of millions of lives. Mhmm.
There is no signs of justice for the
millions murdered by the deadly shots. And if
the nanotech in the shots is the interface
between humans and AI world, then I would

(01:33:42):
expect another fake pandemic and more shots.
I mean, that's obviously a fair point to
make, but the point is to be critical
about whether you think you you know, look
into this stuff for yourself.
Just realize there is evidence to back up
the possibility of exactly what he's talking about.
But whether that's really the full picture, you
guys can decide for yourself. But the the
point is, wouldn't that just perfectly overlap with
exactly what we're talking about?

(01:34:04):
And if this all really does come together
like that,
the question is whether people will be willing
to accept it or acknowledge it and then
truly recognize that Elon and Trump and the
rest of it played their roles perfectly.
Now, in the conversation of kind of I
mean, I'm glad to see that here's what
Del Del Bigtree is saying about RFK Jr.

(01:34:25):
Or the whole thing. It's a little bit
of criticism, but realize that this is still
like, a lot of these people were the
ones that were were kinda pushing back on
anybody else that was trying to highlight the
problems
as we were coming into this this point.
So we and this is what I think
this is what frustrates me about this. Like,
Jimmy made the same point. That while we
know RFK wouldn't allow this, while we don't
know any of these things, we don't know
what his true mindset is, we want to
believe we know. But on top of that,

(01:34:46):
why do we pretend he's got influence over
this right now? He may.
Doesn't have to. He may be told that.
He may he maybe he thinks that it's
not true. I mean, if he's reaching out
for information from HHS and they're going, we
can't give you that yet, then he's not
in the know.
And it says, if you were RFK Junior
and we wanted to make lasting change to
the vaccine program and would be embraced by
all people and eliminate vaccine injury forever, would

(01:35:08):
you? A,
nominate outspoken doctors that were critical of the
vaccine program and had been labeled anti vaxxers
by your legacy media, or, b, nominate trusted
mainstream doctors who saw the value in releasing
all of the existing safety data to the
public and promised to be transparent with the
nation about the their own journey of discovery
in the process. Now this this is the
wrong one, by the way.

(01:35:30):
Give me 10 seconds to make sure. I'll
see if I can grab it real quick.
Son of a gun.
Oh, I'm like, you wait. So the point
was there's ones where there's a lot of
people are coming out and at least being
a little bit critical about where these things
are going. Now this is interestingly different because
what he's saying here is the opposite.
The idea is simply saying, like,

(01:35:52):
what would you wanna do? Like I say,
if you're in this position and you're not
recognizing that you're bad choices and you're instead
rationalizing it like this, I I I doubt
whether you have clear mind in this in
this discussion. Because what we're talking about you
don't have to pick anti it's not between
anti vaxxers that they hate versus mainstream doctors.
There's obviously people in the middle of that
conversation that are very well regarded doctors that

(01:36:13):
see the problem, but are not screaming about
that are not all or nothing. That you
know, my my point is that clearly,
I if if I had to choose,
absolutely, I would go with the doctors critical
of the program that were labeled any bachelors.
Absolutely. Because at least they see what we
all can prove, that what you proved, Dell
Why wouldn't we? Because they don't like what
they look like? Doesn't that seem crazy that

(01:36:34):
you're cowing to the same structure that you
are all we're all pointing out as part
of the problem? I I'm not I love
his work in 99% of the time. My
point here is that I think this is
the problem of the paradigm.
That honest, good people out there fall for
this if you think that's what he what
he is, what he's doing,
fall for the the partisan manipulations.
That at the end of the day, we're

(01:36:54):
falling into the ideology or rather the, you
know, the persona of what these people are
instead of just going, yes. Pick the people
that got it right. Period.
Frustrates me. Now the other point was just
about them being mildly critical about some of
the things happening, which I think is a
positive point. This is actually more important. And
he said Toby Rogers responds by saying, Maha
voted for a for a based on assurances

(01:37:16):
from you
that Trump was a changed man and had
learned his lessons, which I don't think anybody
should believe that. Now you're trying to sell
us on b, picking mainstream doctors because they
it's crazy. Right? We won the election, election,
which I don't think is what happened, but
I I don't think we are actually in
a voting process personally. We should be. It'd
be paramount in an actual representative government should
we want a state, which I don't. But
it says no need to keep giving the
keys to the kingdom to the same mainstream

(01:37:37):
liars who have been genociding us for 38
years.
I agree.
Now, this person points out our the account
oh, that's right. It's it's Elon's pack, the
America pack or whatever. Very, very original. America.
It says despite the meltdowns from legacy media,
the American people support president Donald Trump's handling

(01:38:00):
of the transition cabinet. No. They don't. Guys,
it's hard to tell the the majority of
people are, at very least, a little bit
unworried about what's happening. The fact that they
have to rush out like a very Israeli
kind of propaganda,
Everyone loves everything, and you're all wrong. No.
That's not what's happening. We all see it.
But it's nice that you wanna scream at
us about what we should think. But Elon
just says popularity of real Donald Trump grows.

(01:38:22):
That's probably true. But my point is that
most people out there are very clearly
you know,
I would argue most people in the conservative
movement, which is the majority of what I
think is the the point here,
are not they're willing to consider different things.
I I I have a much higher opinion
of most everybody, the average American,
but yet are still trapped in the ideological
game of left right paradigm. My point though

(01:38:43):
is that they see the Israel picks, they
see these things, and they go, god. That's
that's not what I think is America first,
but I'm gonna hope he's got it inside.
You know, they they also get played like,
I would argue, by the Dell point where
they want to believe that Trump's the right
guy. And maybe he's being played. And you
know, whatever the justification is that keeps it
going down the road. My point is though,
I think they see it. So this is,
I think, ridiculous.
I think most people are recognizing this is

(01:39:05):
not going the way it should.
For example,
Daniel McAdams, who had it was very supportive
of this possibility through Trump before we got
here and maybe still is. But ultimately, one
of the people I more than anybody,
standing by his integrity, his principles, and saying
this wrong bad pick, not what we were
promised, good on him. This one is crazy.

(01:39:26):
He says, listen to this carefully. This is
the buffoon that Trump has named a senior
advisory position. That's Gorka. He says, this is
the opposite of what people voted for when
they voted for Trump. Opposite.
Sebastian Gorka.
Now this is on
a, spaces
where they're talking about I mean, I'll I'll
just well, I'll speak for itself, but it's
actually pretty crazy to me. The things that
he says

(01:39:47):
around Syria, around Ukraine, I mean,
again, I actually agree. I don't even think
most conservatives agree with most of this. I
think it's a this is a blindly pro
state department government perspective.
And really, if you listen to what he's
saying is it's well before Donald Trump has
been like the go to talking points for,
you know, Russia bad guy, no NATO did
nothing wrong. It's like, it doesn't I mean,
that's not even what most conservatives think in

(01:40:08):
my opinion. But here's what he says.
With regards to the war in Ukraine, I've
been very clear from the beginning as as
former strategist to president Trump,
The idea of any murderous KGB colonel using
the forces of the Russian Federation
to invade a neighboring state for territorial
aggrandizement
is wrong. We've had a taboo since 1945

(01:40:31):
on the Eurasian landmass.
You do not use military might to make
your country bigger.
Whether it's Oh, is that true?
Don't be surprised if we don't get to
Israel next because he doesn't know about that
problem.
Crimea, whether it's South Ossetia, whether it's Moldova,
or whether it's, eastern Palestine,

(01:40:52):
Syria,
Lebanon. No. No. Those don't count, though. Ukraine,
that is what, Putin is doing. It has
nothing. And to be clear, they all matter,
but obviously Ukraine, Russia has a very different
dynamic than what's going on here. And, of
course, once this actually stops, like, there has
been plenty of gaps in what's going on
with the occupation of Palestine, what we're what
Russia does then will make a big difference.
And because if ultimately Russia then pulls back

(01:41:14):
and allows the peoples that were in these
war torn areas to go back to their
homes and does not try to take that
territory, well, then we'd be in different then
we'd be in an entirely different position. Because
what Israel did is never give that territory
back and continues to take more of it
and continues to displace and ethnically cleanse and
destroy land and just murder and rape and
kill and torture, all verifiable.
The point though is that this is we
have right now with what's going on with

(01:41:35):
Russia despite can being driven into this by
the US NATO apparatus,
there's been a lot of lies spun around
what happened in general. But I can I
would be any with any wartime, I'm gonna
guarantee that governments commit crimes? Almost always in
my opinion. I think that's what they do.
But I have not seen examples of Russia

(01:41:56):
trying to, like,
on the aggressively, like, just take more territory
and absorb more locations. I mean, clearly they've
had the opportunity to.
But they I mean, I I would really
be willing to argue at this point they
probably could have taken overall of Ukraine. But
I don't think I I don't think that
was ever the design.
Now I'm not a military expert, but I
think that seems to at least more territory
that they have not taken.

(01:42:16):
But, ultimately,
once this stops, there'll be a larger indication
of what the real point is. So he's
just simply saying he already somehow knows that
Russia was only doing this to take more
territory. You know, it has nothing to do
with the neo Nazi elements that were ethnically
cleansing all of the Donbas for a decade
or in Crimea in the same regard to
some level,
or the simple fact that you have a
growing entity there that is being primed against

(01:42:39):
you and you can prove it and see
it like I have myself, none of that
matters. They just want territory because he's a
monster. Guys, that is straight up CIA US
government talking point stuff. This is the guy
that's gonna be working for Trump. To do
with NATO aggression
or because
the west caused, whether it's Crimea, whether it's
South Ossetia, whether it's Moldova,

(01:42:59):
or whether it's, Eastern Ukraine. That is what,
Putin is doing. It has nothing to do
with NATO aggression or because
the west caused it. Vladimir Putin for the
last 20 years, remember, former KGB colonel, has
stated that the Ukraine
is illegitimate.
Not only illegitimate,

(01:43:20):
it is also,
not does not have a right to exist
as an independent state, and he's said the
same things about the Baltic states. This is
really interesting in the context of Israel. Now
what's well, first of all,
specifically, the Donbas in Crimea. Again, do we
really have to go through the same this
is my point.
I don't know what you think about his
intelligence level, but I would argue he's smart

(01:43:41):
enough to know that Crimea was not taken
by Russia. That the evidence, aside from the
European, Western, Israel lie dynamic,
is very, very clear on paper a 1000
ways over. It was in a referendum with
the vast, vast majority who chose to go
with Russia
Because they're mostly ethnic speaking Russian. That's provable.
Same with the Donbas, who then you can
prove 10 10 years back up until they

(01:44:03):
started, they were being killed and murdered and
tortured by the people in the Azov movement.
And even CNN and corporate media were covering
that until suddenly they changed their narrative. You
think he doesn't know all that? He has
an agenda here
covering up all this. Now you can still
argue that Putin has designs to take the
territory, but it has to stand out to
you that you have to hide all of

(01:44:24):
the facts to get to that point. And
then there's no real indication of that other
than is other on the other side of
it, you see Israel and the US government
and OSAV movement themselves
straight up telling you they're gonna do that.
It's funny how easy this stuff is, but
people go along with what they're I mean,
whatever you think is driving his mindset. And
about Poland, which are actually NATO members. Oh,

(01:44:45):
and then about Ukraine, that's I wanna make
sure we touched on that, not existing. It's
so fascinating to me. Now look, you can
argue from a lot of different angles that
there's for for example, the going back to
the pre Ukraine general and how that got
established or the continued manipulation from outside forces.
2014
along with a lot of others, literally putting
their own puppets in place. So you can
argue that ultimately, at this moment, is a

(01:45:06):
that doesn't exist in the context that as
a state and sovereignty, that it's an asset
being used by foreign countries.
But or you could simply say that he
doesn't think it should exist or have a
right to, which I would disagree with. The
point though is about what the outcome shows,
and I think that this is being taken
intentionally out of context or manipulated to make
it seem like he's saying that they don't
exist and shouldn't as opposed to saying, here's

(01:45:26):
why it's illegitimate in the context of foreign
policy. But once we're done, Ukrainians can have
their country, which is what I think is
gonna happen.
If I'm wrong, we'll talk about it then.
I don't think that's the case, and I
think everything shows you that's not the case.
And if you look to people that are
still critical, but know more about Russia, like
an Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Bailey, they'll tell
you that this is not what they believe
is gonna happen. But we all have to

(01:45:49):
wait and see what actually comes to pass.
Hopefully, when if Trump creates a peace cease
fire and everything stops. I hope that happens.
I don't think it will, at least not
in the way we think it is.
But think about that about what he's saying
here. You know? And it's like trying to
create this dynamic that makes it about Putin
and genocide
almost clear almost using all the same tenets
to make it seem like that's what we
should look at. He doesn't think they have

(01:46:10):
the right to exist. He's trying to take
their territory. He's trying to kill everybody. You're
literally talking about Israel's genocide.
Right? Well, just kinda conflate that with what's
going on with Russia and and try to
pretend like the US government was not literally
trying to force this into happening for a
long time. I mean, Ford Policy Magazine literally
wrote about it right before it happened, that
they were trying to cause it. It's just
the evidence is overwhelming.

(01:46:31):
The idea Can you source that you Excuse
me? About the Baltic states and about Poland,
which are actually NATO members.
The idea
So you didn't hear him. It's just I
love this whole interaction. It's hilarious to me.
This guy is the hubris and the smug
nature of the way he acts, it just
kills me. It's very uncomfortable for me. Like,

(01:46:52):
it just it makes me it's gross. The
point though is that the guy jumped in
and just said, do you have a source?
I mean, this is a Twitter spaces. Right?
This is not a monologue.
And the way he reacts is hilarious to
me. And clearly, he feels like he's on
the defensive. My point though is that he
rat lashes out of people interrupting him, and
then you'll you'll hear him doing that every
moment he can when he doesn't like what
they're saying. Typical for partisan hypocrisy. Excuse me?

(01:47:14):
Can can do you have a source on
that? Because Yeah. I can I can send
you I can send you all the translations
in Russian and in English?
Send you all I can send you all
can I For example? Right? So you ask
him a question. He starts to answer, you
jump over him, and then get mad that
he doesn't let you keep speaking.
These things are comical in my mind.
Not does not have a right to exist

(01:47:34):
as an independent state. I'm sorry. I was
asking for same things about the Baltic states
and about Poland, which are actually NATO members.
The idea is that you
Excuse me? Can can do you have a
source on that? Because Yeah. I can I
can send you I can send you all
the translations in Russian in English? In Spain.
Send you all I can send you See

(01:47:55):
what I mean? Do you have a source
for that? And he's, excuse me? What'd you
say? And he said, do you have a
source for that? Because
and he jumps over him. And then chastise
him for interrupting him. Just that's what that's
what this person like this, in my opinion
of him, very full of hubris. Right? It's
all it's that's that's the usual kind of
smug response. Can I finish? I I can
send you all the sources going back 21

(01:48:15):
years and beyond, so that's not a problem.
I'm a Or you could just say it
out loud. That'd be nice. Former
Mi guy. It's what I do.
Beyond that, he has said I said on
the record on multiple occasions, and you can
use that very high highly classified
TSSCI
system called Google to look it up. He
has said on the record
that the greatest geopolitical

(01:48:38):
tragedy
of the 20th century, tragedy,
was the Like you're in kindergarten. Right? You
following along? The loss of the Soviet
Union.
So Because ethnic Russians were left to the
whim of other states. Finish the quotes. Can
I can I finish? I was asked to
give my take. Obviously, see, there's a very
important reason why that was left off the

(01:48:59):
quote. Right? Because we're talking about what was
being done to the people in Donbass and
Crimea.
Ethnic cleansing.
But, yeah, it's not important to brush right
over the top of that and yell at
you for jumping in.
Because ethnic Russians were left to the whim
of other states. Finish the quotes. Can I
can I finish? I was asked to give
my take, and you can just hold your

(01:49:19):
fire. You wanna talk? You wait till I'm
done.
And then,
my take on on this war
is is a very simple one.
Ukraine is fighting for their survival.
Because of the Holomoridor,
because of Stalin starving to death, at least
between 808,000,000
Ukrainians in the 19 twenties thirties,

(01:49:42):
the Ukrainians will fight to the last, not
man, they'll fight to the last 12 year
old who can actually lift an AKM
so that they will fight to the last
child level. What's the off ramp, Sebastian? Are
you seeing it up? Wasn't an off ramp.
Again, listen to what I'm saying.
I said there isn't
an off ramp.
You don't have an off ramp with KGB

(01:50:03):
killers, and you don't have an off ramp
with proud Ukraine. Especially when you blow up
the
I mean, think about how wild this is.
So you're promoting as a positive,
which by the way isn't true, that Ukraine
is gonna fight to the last child. So
now we're okay with child soldiers if if
desperate. Like, the point is that's not true.
You can see the Azov movement scooping up
people and forcing them to fight, and the

(01:50:24):
US government, like Lindsey Graham,
forcing that,
kept driving them, telling we're gonna make sure
that happens. And you're promoting this like that's
some kind of a a noble pursuit,
that's not what Ukrainians want, at least by
and large. But and look. There's public conversations
about this, sorta like with Israel. They're hiding
from you what most Israeli people are saying
about what's going on for a reason.
So it's just kinda crazy to me that

(01:50:45):
that's the point.
Wasn't an off ramp. Again, listen to what
I'm saying. I said there isn't an off
ramp. You don't have an off ramp with
KGB killers.
Oh, so there there's no off ramp for
them because it's their fault.
There's clear fault on all. If you I
mean, there's gonna be objective about this. They're
not devoid of fault, but the rich pretend

(01:51:07):
like this is just the fault of some
Soviet Union era dynamic is just lazy.
And, again, it is completely
whether Trump or Biden, it is a government
talking point, guys. And this is the opposite
of what we would talk about. That's what
that's this is what,
Daniel was saying. He is not what they
were promised. He is a this is the

(01:51:28):
exact opposite. You don't have an off ramp
with proud Ukrainians. Especially when you blow up
to North Street, you don't have an off
ramp
with
a
Ukrainian
nation that is proud to be an independent
nation. When we blow up Nordstrom, there was
no off ramp. The off So
when we and this is now declassified so
I can discuss it. When we were in

(01:51:49):
the White House, so we saw
Bashar al Assad decide to use chemical weapons
again in Syria. We act Oh, here we
go. Now note that Eren Mate is in
the conversation.
This is crazy to me. So now now
we burst into the Syrian conversation. Right? You
mean, also, the the chemical weapons they use
that have been roundly disproven by damn near
everybody?
I mean, I'm gonna show you some examples

(01:52:09):
in a second. That's just the one that
I tend to, but the major point is,
guys, this has been roundly. And more than
most anything, Aaron Mate more than anybody,
nail this to the wall.
And here he is just kinda casually throwing
it in like a Nikki Haley quote. They're
gassing children, you know, even though you can
prove exactly what she's pointing to is not
true. Or any number of other dynamics. I'm

(01:52:30):
sure he'll tell you that the, you know,
current the government shot us protesters from Ukraine
even though we can prove it's not true.
I can play the clip for you yet
again, or in Syria or anywhere else. How
much you wanna bet he has all those
lockstep narratives too?
She saw the movement of the munitions from
a certain,
air base in Syria.
President Trump said

(01:52:51):
he said,
hit it hit it with 52 cruise missiles.
That wasn't Right. Commit a crime, please. Hey.
Let's cheer about that. That's a crime. There's
no declaration of war, incident never has been.
And on top of that, what you're talking
about is not a crime. You're saying that
they have weapons, so does literally everybody.

(01:53:12):
There it's it's incredible to me. Many things
he says in this are complete and obvious
war crimes.
Just because you say bad guy Syria or
you claim he's committing chemical weapons attacks when
we can prove it's the opposite, doesn't mean
you can just murder whoever you want.
Let's get ready for another Trump administration where
this seems to be the guidance. For Bashar
al Assad alone. That was for little Kim.
That was for Putin. That was for the

(01:53:34):
mullahs. He sent a message saying,
you screw around with weapons of mass destruction
against civilian targets.
We're gonna send you a message. But more
import I wanna play this really quick then.
So that here's Carla Dibonta. This this goes
back to the early 2000. This is about
one of the or earlier examples of them
claiming
that Syria had used chemical weapons. Now this
is she's from the United Nations, and her

(01:53:55):
investigation showed that it was the rebels, otherwise
known as the people the US government were
funding. And that got very quickly put to
bed.
This is very public, but not public in
the sense that corp media covered it or
that anybody else other than the
international entities that wanted to highlight it cover,
but nobody cared. Because just like we're seeing
in a lot of ways today, but more
so before the October 7th dynamic, that it

(01:54:16):
was so easy to shout people down for
being a racist or being a you know,
what is it? You know, Siri I was
at a what are the attorneys to use
a I forget now. There was a happen
that they use the same kind of terminology
over in Iraq. Same kinda thing like an
Iraq toady or in Iraq. As I forget
what it was. The point is that it's
very easy just to shout people down and
scare them away from being the one highlighting

(01:54:38):
the the thing that makes you the bad
guy when in reality, the evidence has been
there from the beginning. Our investigation
for crimes against humanity and war crimes,
we
collect
some
witness testimony
that,
that made to appear that,

(01:54:58):
some,
chemical weapons were used,
in particular,
Nerven Gas.
And what was
what appear on,
to our investigation that
that was
used by the opponents, by the rebels.
And we have no no indication

(01:55:20):
at all
that the government, Syria, the authority of the
Syria government have used chemical weapons.
It's incredible how much there is out there
like that. And this goes back to the
beginning of it.
Then you have, for example, Robert Fisk,
who went and investigated on one of the
other examples. Douma, I believe, and
openly exposed what happened. Now, Aaron Mate, again,

(01:55:41):
got a lot of promise for that, rightly
so, because he nailed that to the wall.
Here this guy is just telling you the
fake news.
When it comes to Vlad specifically,
when we had the intel, likewise, un declassified,
that there are
300 Wagner Group Russians. And you know what

(01:56:02):
Wagner Group is? They're not an independent PCC.
They they are actually they're actually working for
the Kremlin. When we Yeah. Either way, regardless
of whatever we wanna tell ourselves in the
United States, I would argue that the truth
is probably more
complicated. Like, we would pretend that we know
about Iran and their military or what these
groups are, or they're all Iranian proxies. They
lie about everything. That doesn't mean that there's
not some truth to it. My point is,

(01:56:23):
whatever they wanna pretend it is, it is
still a part of the what Russia's government
has decided as part of their military, what
part of their group. It's the same as
the US working with Blackwater,
if you wanna look at it that way.
Or who knows? But the bottom line is
it doesn't change the military, legal, and international
law dynamic of what Russia deploys.
So the point is when they go on

(01:56:44):
to tell you that they just decided to
bomb them all, even though they were there
legally, even though their part that Syria invited
them to the country, doesn't matter because we
can do what we want. Right? Might is
right.
That's what these people prune. So Russian
little green men running around Syria, president Trump
said to Mattis,
kill them.
Now I don't know if that's true or
not, but think about how crazy that is.

(01:57:06):
With a nuclear armed country who is legally
allowed to be in Syria, either the US
government is not.
And just because they're present, just murder them?
Yep.
I mean, that's what he's saying. Now Gorka
could be lying about it. My point is
that we've seen
Trump take similar action. And no matter what
your political stance, that should be concerning.

(01:57:28):
Just
kill them. Turn them into red mist because
we're not having Russia destabilize the Middle East.
Oh, because Russia's destabilized the Middle East. It's
not your illegal occupation,
ethnic cleansing bombing campaign, and then, you know,
rapid stealing of oil and resources from Syria.
No. No. It's not that. Right? It's not
your starvation tactics against Iran. No. It's not
your complete 10, 20 year destabilization. I mean,

(01:57:50):
every single location we could talk about. But
you wanna pretend that Russia being there, which
by the way has been the saving grace
for why Syria still exists today. Easy to
verify. The point is that Russia has been
fighting off their attempts to balkanize the entire
Syrian area.
But they're the ones causing Middle East destabilization.
No. No. That's the support for the Zionist
entity that is destroying the entire area. And,

(01:58:10):
by the way, everything else under the guise
that are fighting some evil villain. Like, it's
just lazy.
The evidence is right in front of you.
I think he knows that.
We killed every stinking last one of them.
Now just stop for a second. The guy
who's supposed to be colluding with the Kremlin
killed
300

(01:58:32):
Russian mercenaries
in Of course. Now that's supposed to be
the point. Right? How can he be pro
Russia when he murdered them all? So you
get war crime
or a Russian puppet,
both of which are complete like, the bottom
line is he whether or not Gork is
telling the truth, whether they bomb 300, I
find it really hard to believe that that
would not that would go over without a

(01:58:52):
problem from Russia.
My point though is that clearly there has
been a an incidence where they've been bombing
back and forth in Syria, for example, and
things like this have happened. But I just
think this is such a a a deliberate
game that's being played to make it seem
like he's because we want pushback on the
democrat narrative that he's secretly working for Russia,
which I think is silly.

(01:59:13):
That way it rationalizes
the illegal action of murdering
Russian entities who are legally allowed to be
in Syria because you just don't want them
there or because you claim that they're destabilizing
something that you're destroying.
I don't know why anybody takes this seriously
right now.
Like, this is like old school neo concept.
We should be laughing at this. One operation.
No president, not even Reagan has done that

(01:59:35):
since 1917.
That sent a very simple message. Oh, by
the way, little Vladipoo
in Moscow
didn't even hold a press conference about it
because he shat his pants. Oh, I'm sure
that's what happened. Right? Clearly, we can see
how that worked out.
This this is the kind of thing I'm
talking about. Like, you can argue that he

(01:59:56):
didn't respond because he thought it'd be his
detriment or
does that sound like that makes sense to
you? Clearly, there's no indication of that. Like,
the the world stage seems to show us
quite the opposite right now, but we'll go
along with whatever makes them feel proud about
themselves. Usually, the game is if you have
to pound your chest and say, look at
how great I am, you're probably not that
great. Right? You have to say, look at
how strong I am. I'm better than you.

(02:00:16):
You're probably the weakest one in the room.
That's why I like president Trump back in
the White House because America is strong and
bad guys,
they get a little bit worried. Oh, okay.
So, yeah, bad guys get worried. You mean,
like, the Israeli genocide? Doesn't seem to be
slowing down. Like, the idea that we say
the bad guys get worried, who are you
talking about, Gorka?
Are you talking and like, Trump is just

(02:00:38):
like in the last president. He's part of
the government, not left versus right. So the
US government who actively funds the worst people
in the world, who actively work with the
authoritarian government of Saudi Arabia, who actively blindly
support Israel's genocide, who actively continue to support
elements like the moderate rebels or allow Israel
to fund Hamas to keep the area weighted.
This is who we're talking about.

(02:00:59):
What bad guys exactly are you talking about?
People that are fight I mean, I don't
even know who I can make an example
of right there. What bad guys are trembling
because Trump's in power?
I'm not even gonna say that there there's
probably an example, but I would argue it's
not because he's going after villains of the
world, but probably because their agendas contradict
each other. And that might not even be
a bad guy. But to them, they'd make

(02:01:19):
him the bad guy because that's how politics
works.
You really exemplifies the Yeah. Power of
intellectual,
acuity that we can expect Carry on the
ad hominem, dude. You have no qualifications
to be in this conversation. Carry on the
ad hominem. Well, by the way You're like,
that's great. Great. Don't address what
he's saying. You're down and not welcome here,

(02:01:39):
and we're not right. You know, just that's
and interrupting him while doing so. I I
can't blow the mask as much confidence as
you, that's for sure. Sebastian Gorka is accurately
pointing out Yeah. Okay. Here's here's Aaron Mate.
Everyone
in Trump's opposition in media was accusing him
of being a Russian agent. Trump was indeed
being very hawkish toward Russia. What I think,
Sebastian misses is how that played a role

(02:02:00):
in this current crisis. Look at Russia's proposals
from December 2021
when it submitted these draft treaties to the
US and NATO. A major issue was addressing
the problem created by Trump killing the INF
Treaty. The INF Treaty negotiated by Reagan and
Gorbachev
had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons

(02:02:21):
pointed at both countries.
Trump killed the INF Treaty while his opponents
were claiming he was a Russian agent, and
that
that created a a very big threat of
a new arms race. And Russia submitted draft
treaties trying to address that in December 2021,
right before the invasion. So this was just
about Ukraine. Trump also also Trump also
did what Obama wouldn't do, and that he

(02:02:42):
sent weapons to Ukraine. Obama was under a
lot of pressure
after the 2014 Maidan coup to send weapons
to Ukraine. Trump came into office. His opponents
are calling him a Russian agent. He relented
immediately, and he gave the weapons that Obama
wouldn't send, and that also played a role.
See how that works, guys? This is always
the game.
The the the partisan narratives

(02:03:03):
rationalize that so it it ultimately happens. Like,
so it's too hard for Obama to do
it, so Trump comes in from another side
of the argument and does it from a
different angle. But say, yay. He's fighting back
against the deep state or whatever becomes the
justification. The point is it's the same agenda.
If you really stand back and look at
this, it's all it always goes the same
way.
In keeping the war going

(02:03:24):
in the Donbas rather than having everyone respect
the Minsk Accords, which was the,
agreement to,
end that war. So I think Trump played
an overlook role in actually fueling this war
in Ukraine no matter what what he tries
to claim now. So I wanna ask Sebastian,
2 questions. Can you So the the gist
of it meaning that what Trump's action Trump's
actions led to the creation of the war
as opposed to Gorka's point that he'll be

(02:03:44):
the one that's gonna stop the bad guy
democrat war. It's clear that it was the
government.
But clearly, his actions through Trump's administration absolutely
led to this. But that's the point I'm
making is that it's always a tag team.
Right? There's always one part from either side
that comes together to make the real picture.
We recognize how policies
like
that contributed to the war in Ukraine. And
on the question of Syria, I know this

(02:04:05):
isn't the topic, but since you mentioned it,
you claim that, the Trump administration received intelligence
that Syria committed a chemical attack, and that's
why Trump bombed Syria.
Well, we also have reports that there was
intelligence doubting the case that Syria committed a
chemical attack Mhmm. And that the incident was
in fact staged by sectarian guest squads
on the ground. The Funded by the US
government and other NATO elements. There's a report

(02:04:27):
by Seymour Hersh about that for Khan Sheikhoun
in 2017.
And we know from whistleblowers in the OPCW,
that investigated the 2018 incident in Douma that
they undermined the case that a chemical attack
was carried out by Syria. So I'm not
I wanna ask Sebastian, are you saying that
there was no intelligence inside
the US government saying that in fact, the
claim that Assad was guilty of an an

(02:04:49):
that basically questioning the case that Assad was
guilty of a chemical attack. Are you saying
there was no intelligence that undermined
the the official pretext for war, which is
that Assad was guilty?
Yeah. I I I'm not gonna fall into
a trap talking about classified information because I
still have my clearances, and I'm not going
to risk them. So you won't deny Oh,
he's so cool. He's got his clearance, and
my information is just too top secret. I

(02:05:11):
can't get into that. You're you're beneath me.
Wow. Yeah. Good. But I will I don't
That's good. So you want tonight? No. Tell
me to take care. Another person who can't
listen? Are you another person who can't listen?
I couldn't give
While you interrupted them.
He's clearly always the smartest person in the
room. Clearly, at least it's in his mind.

(02:05:32):
A rat's ass, what Seymour Hersh says. Because
I was in the skiff. Wow. I was
in the building. And I Oh, because he's
insider. Right? I know because I heard what
they told me. And I know because I
I but Seymour Hersh,
a world renowned investigator who proved this with
many my point is that it comes down
to what he believes whether because he's forcefully

(02:05:53):
telling you that, but it
my opinion, it's either because he does believe
these things, which I think is pretty embarrassing,
or because he that's the narrative that's being
spawned. Either way, it's coming from because he
was in the room. You mean with a
bunch of liars and career politicians that have
manufactured
entire stories around these false yes.
I'm gonna go at least more so consider
the investigative journalist that's broken down facts to

(02:06:15):
prove that you're lying. That's just me, though.
I saw, and I can talk about it.
Another person who can't listen. Are you another
person who can't listen? I couldn't give a
rat's ass what Seymour Hersh says because I
was in the skiff. I was in the
building, and I saw, and I can talk
about it because it has been declassified.
I saw the incontrovertible

(02:06:36):
evidence based upon the prior
chemical weapons attack from the same Syrian Air
Force Base that they were moving munitions from
that base to use them against civilian targets
again. So I already played you, caller Del
Ponte. He's referencing one of the early examples.
Every single time like that, we can prove
the evidence point the other way. So what
they're saying is because of our narratives. So
you stand in a room with career liars

(02:06:58):
who justify the bombing of people who are
there legally because of other actions. But, look,
they're moving vehicles around because that you fill
in the gaps with, they use these things
because we can prove it. What's the incontrovertible
evidence, Gorka? I'd love to see that. Seeing
as how that's not on the table, All
these examples we can prove, like Aaron's talking
about, have been shown to have been manufactured
lies.

(02:07:19):
That is the reality of the evidence, just
like we can see the reality of the
evidence around Israel's lies in in currently committing
a genocide, in which you'll also desperately avoid.
Yes. I'm on the record because that is
declassified,
and that is the certitude that we had.
23. Declassified what that you said you're in
the room and that you know because you
saw?

(02:07:39):
Wow. We're blown away by the declassified intelligence.
The attack had to happen, had to take
place. And I can't comment to your prior
utter utter counterfactual.
Oh, sorry. We insulted the Russians on INF
therefore, but the fact that they did nothing
for 4 years is irrelevant. I I can't
talk about pie in the sky and, you

(02:08:00):
know, unicorns. I can talk about what happened
or what That it's just so childishly dismissive.
What you're saying is really stupid. Like, you
could make those arguments and make it more
factual and analytical,
pie in the sky unicorn. What he's talking
about is a factual event that I've covered
myself, the reality of the the different treaties.
There's more than one that we've talked about
over the build up to this that were

(02:08:20):
that were backed out of by the US
per primarily, which caused these things to become
more complicated, which caused them to become more
tense. And on top of that, you can
literally prove how much they've been trying to
manufacture
exactly what we're watching right now more than
once.
That didn't happen. Under Obama, they invaded.
Under Biden, they all invaded. Under us, they

(02:08:42):
didn't. If you wanna embroider that into an
alternate universe, dude, I can't help you. I
am. That's that's the only thing that proves
this to you because this happened then but
didn't now. I mean, guys, this is the
this is the way they play the 2
party paradigm against you.
There's a lot that this has been an
ongoing agenda that's more than just one example
in one time frame and one in the
what they have done is build this, and
it goes back long before the current situation.

(02:09:04):
That's where we talk about the CIA being
involved, talked about the building of the fascist
entity, the Operation Arrow, Aerodynamic.
I mean, this has been going on a
long time. And this was during the Soviet
Union time frame. Right? That we talked about
prologue,
What was it? By Kole Lebed, who was
a Nazi war criminal that they brought in
and put him in New York City and

(02:09:24):
let him run a media agency who was
a known war criminal from Poland. And this
became the basis for the, it was the
Organization For Ukrainian Nationalists. And they built this
if that is what we're dealing with today,
and they're using it today yet again.
But let's let's not let's let's pretend like
we don't know any of that. They'll act
like they haven't been destabilizing this country for
their own purposes for a very long time.
It wasn't about insulting the Russians. It was

(02:09:46):
about
killing a treaty that had barred an entire
class of weapons.
It was a huge achievement of the cold
war when Gorbachev and Reagan Exactly. Negotiated INS.
And the administration killed that. You're not addressing
the facts of Russia. Oh oh, now it's
okay to interrupt.
Got it. And when Trump and when and
when when Russia put out proposals in December
2021 to address

(02:10:07):
the standoff over Ukraine, its main demands were
neutrality for Ukraine, so not joining NATO, and
also
addressing the placement of offensive missiles aimed at
Russia. And that problem was made,
exponentially worse by the US killing a treaty
that had limited those missiles. So I don't
see how you can dismiss that connection. In
in a in a weird way, it made

(02:10:28):
it exponentially,
worse because they didn't invade anybody. Yeah. I
got you, buddy. You're a geopolitic.
What a lazy argument.
So so the point is it very clearly
got more complicated.
But all you can do is fixate on
the one point that you think defines everything.
Well, these obviously but if you look at
the if you look at the actual dynamic,
the the media coverage of the time, what

(02:10:49):
the actions that build to where we are
now, this is not just what that this
happened, therefore, we know the truth. The reality
is that this continued to build. They continued
to drive this into reality. And it has
to do with a lot more than just
Russia and Ukraine. The Syria dynamic. Right? The
bot the sea Russia's involvement that get I
mean, there's a 1,000 different pool different levies
and pulleys that we can see where they're
manipulating the situation.

(02:11:09):
But if you're gonna fall back and say,
well, they didn't do this, but it became
more complicated. Well, the obvious nature of it
is that it was because it clearly led
to where we are. Are we acting like
there was some kind of complete
peace zone during Trump's I mean, it's just
not true.
I I think people live in this fantasy
world when it comes to their partisan beliefs.
They want to believe that he was this
good thing. It's like them saying that he's
just starting a new war. There was no

(02:11:30):
conflict, which is not the truth.
Your apologies. And, Aaron, remember, the forerunner to
that agreement between the US and Ukraine, the
bilateral
strategic partnership agreement that was declared in November
of 2021,
the forerunner
to the signing of that agreement by the
Biden administration was the work of Mike Pompeo
who after who throughout 2020

(02:11:52):
created the foundation for what would later then
get codified as the strategic partnership that included
among other things, an assurance, a codified insurance
that Ukraine would join NATO,
which was then cited obviously by Putin as
one of the primary grievances that led to
the initiation of the war. Right. Right. So
there's a exactly the point. Right? So that
was a clear push in that direction. Now

(02:12:12):
whether that immediately in the time frame led
to an invasion or not was clearly a
part during Trump's administration to build to the
point we're at now. That's called nuance. Right?
But you can just simplify, oversimplify it to
a point that makes your argument sound better.
Doesn't sound like an honest thing to do.
And it's very refreshing. I appreciate Sebastian's honesty
that he's willing to celebrate

(02:12:33):
a policy that made the world a much
more dangerous place by taking away a treaty
that had kept thousands of of Yeah. When
when Russia isn't invading countries, the world is
dangerous. How dumb are
Is is Russia invading countries the only metric
we can use in this conversation?
I mean, these are intellectually dishonest arguments. Are
you I mean, really. When Russia isn't invading

(02:12:54):
its neighbors, the world I might defending I
I and what about so is that the
only group we're allowed? I mean, what about
the conversation of who US invades? The US
is currently occupying more countries than anyone in
the world, and we don't talk about that.
That's not the issue. That's not about one
mattering more than the other. They both should
matter is the point. Or Israel currently doing
that to multiple countries right around. But right
at this moment, we're talking about we're talking

(02:13:16):
about Egypt on the border. We're talking about
Syria, Golan Heights. We're talking about Lebanon in
the north. We're talking about Palestine. These are
all legally proven
occupations
of
foreign land.
Why isn't that part of the conversation? Why
isn't that concerning to Gorka? I think you
know why. So you can't you can't gaslight
us. You can't gaslight us wherever you are.
I'm not saying that the Biden administration was

(02:13:36):
any better. I'm asking you because you served
in a certain government about your own role
in the current crisis. That's I I I
have plenty of criticisms of the Biden administration.
I think both of you, the Bidens and
the Trump administrations, had the same policy of
undermining diplomacy. There you go. Taking it seriously
and not taking Russia's security. I love that
because that usually takes the feed out of
the argument that usually comes about how you're

(02:13:57):
fighting from one side versus the other. And
I and I I you look at his
work. He does he he does. He's critical
of both. Seriously. So I I blame you
both.
The pre diplomacy is irrelevant without without force
behind. Yes. Yes. I mean, if you don't
understand that, you don't you don't get diplomacy,
but next question. It's it's really important to,
prioritize force when you're talking about the world's
top 2 nuclear powers. I didn't say that.

(02:14:19):
What I said behind the How do you
turn is behind it into prioritize it? Again,
you're gaslighting. Because the so called diplomacy is
being driven by the threat of force.
Pretty obvious.
Right? So that makes the the primary point
of it is that if you don't there's
force behind the diplomacy might makes right mindset
that you, Trump, is currently pushing or just

(02:14:41):
I think in our government's agenda at this
point is what leads to war. Pretty clearly,
we can look back through our own history
and see that because that's what's being done.
So I I think it's an obvious point,
and I think Aaron makes it well. The
point is just this kind of flailing deflection
act like you're so crazy. Unicorns and Nerimbo
is just the the responses speak for themselves,
I think. Stop gaslighting. Keep saying gaslighting.

(02:15:03):
Is that how you do diplomacy, Sebastian? You
just yell at people to stop gaslighting?
How does that work?
Michael Michael. Hold on. Okay, guys. You've no.
Yeah. You you get the point. So I
I I honestly think that there's
valuable parts of this that show you things
that are it's it's a it's a kind
of a mic a microcosm of the larger
problems that are happening.
Now, just to include for you to check

(02:15:24):
out for yourself, Pierce Robinson post this, this
was on the 25th of today. As of
September September 2024, the OPCW and states parties
have failed to address key questions regarding the
doom of chemical weapons deception and the murder
of 43 civilians. And so just this is
just for you to look into your own
time. This is the actual post from the
OPCW. The point of it, if you look

(02:15:45):
in here, here's the actual post
called 5 years on, the OPCW doom of
deception continues. Just to it's it's just reiterating
based on the facts that we could still
prove that this was a deception. We were
misled. Aaron's work has been foundational in that.
Be dip people like Robert Fisk, for example,
have highlighted that we were lied to. And
yet the apparatus
still pushes the lie. Just like with the

(02:16:06):
literal genocide happening in front of you while
they tell you you're you're lying to yourself
about it. Same way it always goes.
One one other point I wanna include before
we get to some other points about the
administrative picks. I find this to be really
interesting. So you know my opinion of Laura
Loomer, and I think that she's one of
the worst examples of what independent mainstream alternative
media has to offer.
But what I found fascinating in this is

(02:16:28):
that
through the, like, the the endorsement from Trump,
which is crazy,
more than once, like, in main stage is
pointing to her and saying and I think
there's a reason for that because she is
a shocking, rabid scientist supporter.
1,300,000 followers on Twitter now, which has gone
up crazy since all of that.
She has been boxed out of this whole
thing now. Like, for the most part. Like,

(02:16:49):
from she was seen like, being like, being
brought with Trump to certain things. And I
think people rightly were, like, look at look
at her work then. And we're, like, aghast
by how cartoonish she is.
And I that's my my opinion. But look
for yourself, guys. If you're neither if you're
either a blind follower of her, like, because
you just believe you like her so much
or you're a very clear partisan person that
doesn't care about the facts and you'll high

(02:17:10):
five about whatever supports the narrative for Trump.
If you just objectively look at the work
that people like her or Matt Wallace or
it is a cartoon.
It's ridiculous.
It's hyperbolic. It's assumptive. It's it's crazy. But
you can look for yourself. That's not the
point. The point is that I think what's
interesting is pea this is how the machine
operates. These people are used when they're useful
and drop when they're not. And she goes,

(02:17:32):
let's talk about what's really happening. She says,
there's no such thing as a political, realignment.
So here's the interesting part, is that right
now you're getting told that this is about
the Unity Party. Right? People are joining up
from all the parties because we're saving the
country and she hates that. I think it's
because it's make it they're that's boxing her
out. Not because it's at, you know, I
don't even believe that's really what's happening. I
think this is just more partisan games and

(02:17:54):
government agendas.
But what's interesting is to see how other
people are responding to this. But my point
is, she's going, that's not really happening. Which
I don't think it is it is either,
but from a different perspective perspective. Excuse me.
And she says, what you're seeing is people
who spent the last 9 years of their
life canceling Trump supporters
and conservatives wake up and realize they are
about to be irrelevant in the new media
landscape with republicans in power. So now you

(02:18:15):
have a bunch of high profile leftists coming
out to say things like, I was wrong
about Trump, All while these same people try
to actively sideline and cancel Trump's most loyal
supporters she's talking about herself.
Trying to make it a broad point, but
it's clearly about what's happening to her. Now
there's a part of that that I agree
with, but she pulls it right back into
left versus right. And that's my point. It's
not the case in my mind. But I

(02:18:35):
do think that it's a game
of trying to sort of the really the
opportunists in the media, different like, going the
other way. Trying to suddenly go, okay. We're
gonna show you about Israel. That's what I'm
seeing. And it's happening in the 2 party
part of this too.
But she says, that's all this is, which
I don't agree with. She says, the people
who tried to destroy Trump now want a
seat at the table, and they will do
whatever they can to destroy his closest allies

(02:18:56):
so they can remain
irrelevant. Excuse me. So I am of the
mind that she is a person who's been
used in all of this. Totally not in
the know. And that's why she's so frustrated
by the fact that she's getting like, so
ultimately, she gets used to get to reach
a certain audience, to get Trump
influence
for the government agenda.
And now she's lashing out at the people

(02:19:17):
that are trying to work. And, like, they're
whatever they do to destroy his closest allies
to her so they can remain relevant.
Saying the same leftist who attacked Trump for
9 years are currently at Mar a Lago
trying to blackball Donald's most loyal supporters, her.
But, again, my point is it's not left
and right. This this is just the agenda.
These are the people that are supporting the
government agenda,
and she is not aware of that. She

(02:19:38):
fell into the
she fell for her own BS. And it
says there's no such thing as a realignment,
she says. We will just need to work
extra hard to expose these subversive creatures over
the next 4 years. She's talking to her
audience.
Now she's essentially weaponizing parts of her audience
against the Trump machine, at least the parts
that she thinks are not on his side.
But there's parts of that that are being
endorsed by the Republican administration.

(02:19:59):
It's fascinating, isn't it? And this is what
partisan stuff does to you. Now it says
imagine believing this nonsense about a realignment.
Wake up. It's called being goddamn opportunist.
It's like she's trying to conflate, like, the
nonpartisan
the way I'm framing this with and jamming
in the square peg in the round hole
at the very end. But here's what Nicholas
Fuentes Nick Fuentes says. He repeatedly attacked me

(02:20:22):
for saying the exact same thing in June
to
ingratiate
yourself with the Trump team. And she really
was shamelessly trying to jam herself into that
position. And it says, now that they discarded
you, which that's what has happened, and you
have nothing left to gain, suddenly you have
this epiphany. Everybody sees what a craven hack
you are. Now I'm not trying to relish
in her downfall,

(02:20:43):
but I do think it's justified. I think
she's a she's not an honest person in
this conversation, but many of the people who
are pushing back on her, I don't think
are either. But I just I just think
it's very interesting.
And she says, no. I disregard you because
you attacked me and crossed me. Right? It's
really sounds very mature. But the point is,
you know, as even Khaleesi says, that's a
long way of saying you didn't get the

(02:21:04):
job.
Interesting.
The larger point is just to show you
that there are, you know, when you when
you kind of this rabid partisan dynamic has
started to eat itself alive. And I think
that's an indication of them pulling out shares
to get to the end game here.
Right? This was the the people it's it's
I think it goes to a larger game
where these people are no longer relevant. But
you guys can decide for yourself. In any

(02:21:24):
case, I think people like this, it's clear
that even as they use them to get
to where they are or not people that
will be used because it's embarrassing.
When they're standing next to them, people look
at the work and they go, well, there
are a lot of intelligent people that still
support Trump. And they look at this, and
they go, wow, that's that's crazy.
Now, the part the bigger point about whether
it's Israel or something else is that these
choices are

(02:21:46):
objectively
bad.
And and and whether you're a I mean,
I unless you're a Gorka mainstream government minded
person. People in Trump's supporter caps circle, I
don't think we expected big pharma overlaps or
lobbyist overlaps or defense overlaps or Israel supporter.
I mean, any of these things. So as
Mark,

(02:22:06):
Plasciano
says, it is it just me, or does
this look like the same swamp that promoted
operation warp speed, locked down in the country,
mRNA vaccines for children, masks for children, social
distancing, $2,200,000,000,000
printed and passed out in 2020. That's all
Trump for you.
Obviously, continuing with Biden, but the point of,
like, the money cares act.

(02:22:27):
But look at this.
You know, I mean, just look at these
individuals, 1 by 1, from JD Vance, Susie
Wiles, Elise Stefanik.
Every almost every one of them, we've already
gone over on this show and showed you
their aggressive
pro Israel at the expense of American worldview.
Or that these people are just deep state
monsters like Marco Rubio and wildly pro Israel.

(02:22:48):
But it's just shocking to me. Now, this
one, I believe actually,
Howard Lutnick, did he get no. Did he
get the secretary of commerce position or I
forget which I think he was moved moved
from something else. I don't know if he's
officially there or not. Now, some of these
could be up in I mean, well, again,
all of them are up in the air.
Until we see past January 20th, we don't
know for sure.
But the truth is, all of these being

(02:23:09):
tapped is alarming. And there's a lot of
conservatives find the courage to call this out
because it is obviously not we expect. Now,
I briefly had this conversation with Sean this,
earlier today. And this is a clip that
popped up after. I thought it was interesting
because I think the same thing. This is
largely what I see happening.
And I don't mean this as a way
that they're intently I think a lot of
people
are good intention,

(02:23:30):
but also still wrong.
But I could be wrong too. The point
here is that I think what we're seeing
is this willingness like, in all of politics,
left and right, willingness to believe
just what they say.
Right? They they just float the thing. Here's
what we're gonna do next. Here's what it's
gonna be. And we've been trained to take
that. And even when we engage with it,
like, well, those are just words. The point
is you later point at more words to

(02:23:51):
back up that those words were correct. We
saw this with Trump appointments. We saw this
with a lot of stuff. And it's as
if the people don't even realize they're doing
it. So here's what this guy has to
say. Well, Maverick points to this and says,
after listening to this, I finally understand why
MAGA voted for Trump despite his first term
and why they're dumbfounded by Trump's current actions.
Well, economist and historian, doctor Thomas Sowell makes

(02:24:12):
a very interesting point about how humans evaluate
political systems. And he says we make the
the terrific mistake of evaluating them based on
their kindly sounding intentions before the fact rather
than on their outcomes after the fact.
And he he proposes the idea that our
our world, our politics would look very different
if we had to judge each thing that

(02:24:34):
that politicians and governments try
based on the outcomes instead of the intentions.
At the intention stage, it is remarkably easy
for smooth politicians to stand up and say
kindly sounding things. Yep.
Now think about that. Like, so and we
all see that.
How why in the world would we not
be gauging them on their actual outcome record?

(02:24:55):
You know, easy that is to manipulate?
Like, I just think that's so crazy that
we choose not to and get we we
we just go along with what they say
they're gonna do next even though we keep
showing how they don't seem to ever do
what they say they're gonna do next.
And as usual, they use the game against
you. Well, he's an outsider. Right? Well, Trump's
gonna change everything because this is the different
one, and this is the most important election
of your lifetime.
Over and over and over. I get why

(02:25:16):
people fall for it. But I don't know
why they continue to with how obvious all
this is. Now we just point talked about
generally the cabinet picks, but we're gonna get
into the part that overlaps with Israel. And
this is what I think is being clearly
seen. As this show from November 14th, conservatives
begin to acknowledge Trump's cabinet picks reveal Israel's
first agenda.

(02:25:37):
And, also, I talked about Trump is solving,
in quotes, government created problems to roll out
your Israeli tested AI control grid, quote, solution.
Both those have information you should check out.
Now here, Carrie Burgess played this clip, another
one from Jeffrey Sachs, Simply saying the important
part out loud. Right? What people have been
afraid to say, which is that you right
now, what these politicians
are fighting Israel's wars.

(02:25:58):
We need to have the courage to be
honest about this.
Even or not, weird as it sounds, the
US has been fighting
Israel's wars for decades. It's been a disaster
for the United States, 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars. By
the way, the Israel lobby puts in, you
know, a 100
$1,000,000,000 and it gets out 1,000,000,000,000 on the
other side of

(02:26:19):
absolutely
horrendous,
useless, reckless wars fought on Israel's behalf. Well,
Netanyahu,
as I said, he doesn't view it as
a failure because the US keeps complying. It
keeps going along with this. It it hasn't
stood up and said, you ruined us in
2003. You promised we'd take out Saddam Hussein,
and all would be well. You told us

(02:26:40):
to take out Bashar al Assad. We tried
to do that, and that was in 2011,
and we're 13 years later, and we're still
at war. You told us to take out
more of our Gaddafi,
and we did that 13 years ago, and
now there's still chaos. You have done such
destruction, mister Netanyahu. Stop it. We don't say
that. No. So he just keeps
doing this.

(02:27:01):
And maybe and I I'm sure that he
thinks, with with Donald Trump, now I can
really do it. Now we'll go to war
with Iran.
The other side of this was the idea
that, yes, we'll do that for Syria, Libya,
Iraq,
Iran,
but the Saudis will come with us for

(02:27:21):
free. You know? We'll give them some,
some, weapon systems, maybe a defense pact, and
they'll sign on. That was also the idea
of Trump and Biden. No difference between the
2, in approach.
But that's over if it was ever realistic.
It's completely over. That's what the crown prince's

(02:27:41):
statement
today, but he's been making it repeatedly
in recent months. It's over. Now
I don't know whether the Trump people understand
this or not. Who knows? But they're gonna
find out, And Netanyahu is gonna find out.
And all of this is an extraordinarily
reckless behavior, and Netanyahu has been one of
the most destructive forces in world politics for

(02:28:04):
a long time now, and he's done a
lot of damage to the United States. Thank
you. And it's time for him to shut
up, basically, to stop trying to bring the
United States into war. And his latest is
to bring it into war with Iran.
Yep. That is the case, and it seems
pretty damn obvious. And then you got Trump

(02:28:25):
and Vance and the rest of them, even
before being put in position, aggressively ramping up
discussions about going to war with Iran.
It's not a secret. Now let's not forget
whether we're talking about media personalities or politicians
that there's obvious influence coming from not and
remember APAC. We already did the coverage on
this. It is it is an Israeli government
organization that has been shell game to make

(02:28:46):
it look like it's something else. It's all
very easy to prove coming direct. You could
look it up on Wikipedia.
And here they are going 97%
of APAC back candidates won.
Yeah. Exactly our point. That's not just about
don't give them the money in hopes that
they achieve. That these are these as MSNBC
even covered, that was just shown you many
times, that they are not just supporting them

(02:29:07):
on in a classic lobbying sense where they
give them money because they generally believe with
their policies and then letter next the cut
next year around, if we didn't like what
they did, we'll no. They are funding
on the promise of outcome. And if you
don't do what they like, they'll pull their
funding in real time. We've seen this during
the election process.
The and this is there's no other group
like them.
But that's okay, apparently, as long as Israel

(02:29:27):
doing it. It's wild, guys, and it's obvious.
Many are clips in general about the the
thread that I put together of Donald Trump
saying in a 1,000 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
different ways that they that he will support
Israel at your expense.
Along with every other politician, it seems, but
it's very important to see from his mouth.
And everyone seems to love to try to

(02:29:48):
make this about, oh, it's out of context.
It's not. Look it up for yourself if
you think so and put it in the
right context for us. The clips are obvious,
and I've played them all in full context
on the show. These each individual clips give
you different examples of why he's saying in
a different way, or in some ways, the
same way at a different time,
that he will remove people who hate Israel.
Right? That he will remove you if you

(02:30:10):
support Palestine.
And that ultimately down here, if you burn
the flag or do you know, you're stupid
if you think that's a violation of your
rights to put you in jail for doing
so. But no matter how much you don't
like that, it is a legally protected act.
All of these things, whatever your justification or
your reasoning are against are
counter to your inherent rights and are gonna
be used to suppress

(02:30:31):
speech the government disagrees with, which is already
happening.
Now from the media perspective of it, right,
this is what we already saw. I I
already played this for you, but it's important
to see. This is from BBC. But realize
from the dynamic that comes together, not just
Trump's administration, but the US government, the media
apparatus, and the continued control of information. It's
not a one stop thing. It's not a

(02:30:52):
one side thing. It is an all encompassing
thing, but it is beginning to fall apart.
But if we fall for more partisan side
steps and shell games, we might just fall
back into it.
Has a right to defend itself.
That was the It says the whistleblower reveals
that the BBC has direct instructions to safeguard
Israel's image.
The editorial line that was drilled into us,

(02:31:13):
into all of our coverage,
it was really an integral part of the
editorial stance.
To a guest talking about,
you know,
Israeli air strikes killing Palestinians in Gaza, that
would be the response from our presenters. Denying
access to food is collective punishment, and and
that's we should all be clear in saying
that. Israel will argue obviously that it has

(02:31:35):
a right to defend itself. What are the
most egregious examples?
Denying food is defending yourselves?
They really lost the plot. But the point
is, they those are mindless followers. They're order
takers. They love to act like they have
agents. Like the Piers Morgans of the world,
they're this
age. I can say and act, do what
I want. Hardly.
Just like Tucker exposed after Lee. The point

(02:31:55):
is they love to pretend like nobody was
telling him what to say, until later it
turned out that there were things he admitted
he was not to say. Oops. But, of
course, that's now it's looking back, and now
I can say what I want. Sure.
I I still think we're in the same
dynamic. I I can't I don't even think
we've ever proven that he left Fox for
all I know. I think remember, the point
was he was still building this through Twitter
and the rest of it while he was
still contracting with Fox.
Now, I'm not saying that that's maybe that's

(02:32:17):
ended. I don't know. The point is that
I just don't think I don't know why
we pretend to think these people are outside
of the system that they literally built in
our pot of.
And their narrative seem to be similar or
the exact same. I don't I think Fox
and CNN and the rest of it are
all part of what we're seeing. I think
it's quite obvious. And this is exactly the
point.
Why would I mean, if we know that
there's this much influence and control, not just

(02:32:37):
on one side or the other, but all
of it, we need to ask why people
would ever be a part of that.
Especially now, when the need to demonstrate that
we have some new dynamic, and you've got
people that were just moments ago part of
that and take half a step away and
go, we're the new media.
People were terrified of using the word genocide
in coverage. They still are.

(02:32:58):
You will very rarely see it in any
BBC coverage.
And if an interviewee says the word genocide
This is a genocide happening in front of
our eyes. Yeah. We have yeah. We that
that word is, as you know, incredibly emotive,
and the Israelis, as you know, will be
saying that they are targeting Hamas only. The
presenter will almost always panic. The Labour Party

(02:33:18):
of all political parties, which has always had
a strong peace contingent within it, is now
actually supporting genocide. Okay.
Maybe just avoid that language, if that's okay.
Wow. Just straight up going, hey, don't say
that word.
Think about that. How do you not show
that be as being compromised?

(02:33:39):
Now here's Khaleesi. I've I've shared I've shared
this as well, but this is in the
same context of even the leading Israeli newspaper,
Haaretz.
This is an update on this, but remember,
this is him speaking saying why
Palestinian
Hamas are resistance fighters. This is the this
is the editor of the Haaretz newspaper and
why what they're doing in Gaza is genocide.
We'll play that first, then we'll play what

(02:34:00):
just happened. The Netanyahu government doesn't care about
imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian
population.
It dismisses the costs of both sides for
defending the settlements
while fighting the Palestinian
freedom fighter that Israel calls terrorists.
In a sense, what is taking place now

(02:34:22):
in,
the occupied territories
and in part of Gaza
is a second Nakba, a Palestinian state must
be established.
And the only way to achieve this, I
think, is,
to apply sanctions against Israel
leader against the leaders who oppose it

(02:34:43):
and against the settlers.
And, of course, that was not okay for
Israel. Right?
You're not allowed to say what you want.
Otherwise, when we're a democracy and it's freedom,
only democracy in the least accept you can't
do and say what you want unless you're
a certain color or a certain religion. Like,
it's just crazy how obvious these things are
not true. So the point is we love
to talk about press freedom in Israel versus
the dangerous Middle East. Right? Well, guess what?

(02:35:05):
Netanyahu has approved sanctions on their newspaper. Why?
For saying what he believes. That's simple as
that, guys. Because Nazareth has been
it's been it's gotten a lot of attention
recently more than ever, even though it's one
of the most prominent papers in Israel, for
saying what nobody wants to say, for proving.
Because we can prove these things that what
the Western media and Western politicians are doing

(02:35:25):
are absolutely
lying. Whether it's Amsterdam, whether it's the ongoing
genocide, whether it's the ICC, or the blocking
of aid. All of them are explicit in
their newspaper
because you can prove these things.
Now point is they stand up and say
that or he says his own opinion in
this context, and now they're going after the
newspaper. You know, because freedom of rest. Right?
Including stopping all government advertising and arrests, which

(02:35:47):
they can that's something that's to their prerogative.
But it says, ceasing state funded subscriptions
and prohibiting any public institutions from communicating with
them. That's the one that matters to me.
The funding come from the government, that's to
be expected. But the but even though you
could make similar arguments for why that is
still punitive,
the point is that you're literally cutting them
off from communication with other newspapers. That is
a you're this isn't free speech then. You

(02:36:09):
don't live in a you don't live in
a representative government. You live in an authoritarian
apartheid state.
The sanctions that are in response to the
video below, as we've shown before.
Here is Nehaaretz
writing this for you. The opportunist rev resolution,
opportunist resolution
to boycott Herets,
which passed in today's government yesterday

(02:36:29):
without legal review, of course, because, you know,
independent judiciary. Right? Is another step in Netanyahu's
journey to dismantle Israeli democracy.
That's how crazy that is.
Now, obviously, they're the paper being attacked. So
even with this, they'll probably even be more
have more teeth to it. But this is
the reality.
Lindsey Graham loves to press the idea that
they're and they have an independent judiciary. That's
why the ICC and ICJ have no jurisdiction.

(02:36:51):
Well, they don't though because they've been proving
this over the years, and their papers have
been talking about this. A a pretty well
renowned Canadian judge spoke up about this in
2018 and said, too late.
Once they take this step, they no longer
have specifically an independent judiciary, and then they
took that step.
See if it pops up. Yeah. Look at
that. Boom.

(02:37:12):
Perfect one to bring up.
See how good my my memory is.
Yep. Look at that. 2018.
Without an independent judiciary,
Israel's cherished democracy will be at risk, says
the Canadian judge.
Well, they did what they did what she
highlighted as the problem. And ever and that's
the point. The people of Israel are the
ones also making this case. And so what

(02:37:33):
he's
doing, in the interest of just trying to
remove to a avoid prison,
which whether or not October 7th happened, he
was just about to go to prison for
multiple corruption charges. Which that's the whole Beatty's
file we just discussed in the last show.
Which by the way was deleted in real
time while we're watching it on Twitter, of
course. But what it's showing, it was the
investigation for his crimes. And everybody, including Miriam

(02:37:54):
Adelson, was on the record saying that if
she spoke about this, she would be killed.
It says, like Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Netanyahu is
trying to silence a critical independent newspaper.
It's pretty wild.
Now where are we? We're about 3 hours.
I just decide if I wanna skip any

(02:38:15):
of this. We'll go those this is actually
pretty interesting. It's about 2 minutes. So Richard
Meadhurst pointed this out. This is my point
about this is to overlap the idea of
why
a lot of these entities are falling for
some of this stuff or why the media
specifically, as we're just highlighting, the media influence
are say I don't know whether all of
them are even aware that they don't know
these things. But either way, it doesn't matter

(02:38:35):
because they're wrong. And what he's highlighting here
is this shocking,
embarrassing lack of information.
I mean, I don't even I mean, even
for, like, an average person, for this journalist
talking about Gaza. Now to be clear, I'm
not talking about the the language barrier. Because
there's parts of this that you could that
that you can make you feel like she

(02:38:56):
doesn't know what she's talking about, which are
really just language barrier gaps, like the words
she's looking for from a German German she
I think she's German speaking, originally.
Either way though, it's about what the core
message is, and it's she just does not
know what she's talking about
when it comes to Israel. And that's most
of them are are have an entire basis
of falsehood when it comes to their conversations

(02:39:16):
of Israel.
Arabic, Muslim, Islam Islamic world
is sort of behind the Palestinians, behind Gaza,
and supports them. Why are they not helping
them? Why are they not taking in the
Palestinian refugees? I don't understand it. I don't
understand why they can't
send humanitarian aid, and I'm sure they have
in limited capacity.

(02:39:38):
But why don't they take in the 2,000,000
refugees into their own country?
Now before he even responds to that, like,
because he doesn't get to this point. But
are you are you really actually suggesting right
now that they just have to send some
aid?
I mean, think about how ridiculously out of
touch that is. First of all, because everything
goes through Israel.
Everything.

(02:39:59):
Everything we're talking about. No matter what other
go they end up manipulating, processing, taking.
It's it's been proven so many times over
the year. On top of that, post October
7th,
they've been denying almost all of it as
has been continually proven. But she doesn't know
that because she goes along lying or believes
the false narrative.
And I'm also stealing it all. The point
is they keep turning it back. I think

(02:40:21):
the numbers were, like, 9 at least the
beginning. Like, 90% of them were waiting in
line, sometimes for days before being turned back
because of some arbitrary rule they change every
5 minutes. That's by design.
So, yes, they were sending aid from all
over the place. Wasn't getting to them though.
That's the main point.
And then he asked about, you know, why
don't they just take them in?
Like, the the shocking lack of understanding or

(02:40:42):
willful dis disregard
because this is their home.
Send humanitarian aid, and I'm sure they have
in limited capacity,
but why don't they take in the 2,000,000
refugees into their own country? Because they're Palestinians,
and that's their land. They don't wanna leave.
As a German, you don't wanna leave Germany
and move in Poland Yeah. But, I mean

(02:41:03):
or move into Czech. No. Well, but but
that's the fact of what happened after the
World War. You know, like So first of
all, going all the way back to the
World War conversation. Well, this look. If you
even you wanna go back to 76 years
ago, a lot this is even the argument
that they are made that's just made by
even Palestinians to rationalize why a 2 state
solution makes sense today. Giving Israel some of

(02:41:23):
the illegally stolen land because this has gone
on for decades. And and there's now more
people that have been born and families that
have nothing to do with it. The point
is we've moved so far past that original
point, even though legally speaking, the right thing
to do is give it back to Palestinians.
But I think most honest people recognize that
doesn't even because of what they've done. Don't
don't make other Israelis suffer that don't want
anything to do with this. Right? The point

(02:41:45):
is that,
clearly,
we're at a point now where you can't
just go move over there because you because
why aren't, you know, why aren't the Arab
countries taking them in? And it's just it's
it's so I I really don't even understand
how an an an an
I was gonna say honest, but also intelligent
person could make that kind of statement.
That it's just move away from wherever like,

(02:42:05):
because this is an inherent point about why,
like, they're somehow just taking advantage of the
system.
If you don't fully understand, even if you
think that somehow it was their fault that
they have been displaced from their territory, then
you haven't even barely
not even remotely looked into this. You haven't
looked into the documents from the origin point,
from the UN conversation, or even from Israel
themselves, because all of them show you a

(02:42:27):
massive displacement. No matter how you wanna frame
it for who's at fault.
The reality being that they massacred Palestinians and
displaced them from their land because the UK
said they could. Britain said they could.
Simple as that. And the the data's all
there. If you choose to look into it,
I hope you will because today people finally
care to look back. But she doesn't know
that or she's lying to you, and that's
wild to me. The the

(02:42:48):
the
the frontiers,
I don't know,
Countries get new,
how do you say? Grenson? Borders. Borders. Thank
you. Countries have new borders,
and then people get displaced. And I'm not
saying this is a nice thing that happens.
Right?
That's not what I'm saying.
But how But you're saying it's acceptable. You're

(02:43:09):
saying it's acceptable. I'm
just saying
that the Palestinians
are still considered refugees
after 7 after being there for 70 years.
Why are they still considered refugees? It's not
like in Germany
or after all the displacement half happened after
the second floor. Their land. In fact, they
want their land back. That's what Hamas is

(02:43:30):
all about.
If you go back to 1900, there are
hardly any Jews
in what is today Greater Israel. Okay. So
and this is why I'm probably so agnostic.
Zionist came in. Agnostic. I want like, she
doesn't care enough to, you know, to this
is a crazy thing to frame it as.
And they took the land. But that's not
exactly what happened, is it? I mean, there
was, like, a declaration. There was something going

(02:43:51):
on with the Brit with the Brits. Right?
Wow. Yeah. You mean the Belfort declaration?
How will you how are you not even
prepped for this? That's so crazy to me.
But realize that what he's talking about is,
what do you mean? Why are they still
refugees? Because they've never been allowed to go
back to their territory. So that means you
don't understand the basic realities of international law
when it comes to occupation. It means you
don't understand the documents that even though you

(02:44:11):
seem to know it exists, not enough to
look into what it's called or who did.
It just seems so crazy to me. How
is this that we world we exist in?
I think it's because this has been manufactured
this
way. It Like, manufacturing consent kind of a
way. That gave the Israelis the land or
the 2 the British had the right to
give the No. No. That's not what I'm
saying, but I'm but I'd and this is
why I'm so agnostic on this issue because

(02:44:33):
I'm not very, like, sure about certain historical
facts. Wow. You're gonna laugh about that?
Gosh. I mean, you can watch more of
it in the full thing. As Richard simply
says, I mean, there was, like, a declaration.
There was something going on with the Brits.
Right?
He says, Christ, it's like listening to a
toddler. The look on his face as she
crumbles apart like a soggy biscuit.

(02:44:55):
And these are the people that are informing
people about this conversation if they're not looking
into it for themselves.
It's just wild to me. And then here,
like, this these morons like this get away
with it because people like her don't know
the information.
This guy is one of the, you know,
is Zionist propagandist right now that's constantly popping
up my feed. Who knows why since I
don't follow him? That's the things you have
to ask yourself. And by the way, it

(02:45:16):
was happening before I was clicking on it
and looking at what I had to say.
I just started to notice how constantly I
was seeing in my feed before I ever
saw him before.
How is that supposed to work? Isn't that
supposed to be algorithmically what I like? Or
is it what Twitter is jumping in front
of you? Ask yourself that. Because it's pro
pal pro Israel stuff, guys. The point is,
he says 2 state solution
and has a line drawn through British Columbia
where left says Palestine, right says Canada.

(02:45:39):
I mean, the the they're just it's such
an ignorant play on such they they're trying
to confuse everybody
as if they're just saying just give half
of Israel to the Palestinians.
It's Palestine
that they've taken.
Again, where the most people that are honest
are saying, no. Let's just create the 2
state solution that Israel already agreed to, by
the way, and has never followed through with
and allowed the right of return to put

(02:46:00):
to air territory that they have taken from
Palestinians.
But saying things like this, people just go,
yeah. That doesn't make sense because they're they're
deliberately
creating ignorance for the benefit of Zionism.
As Zachary Foster points out, if you're a
Palestinian and you live in Shuhuda Street in
Hebron,
you might climb you you must climb onto
your rooftop

(02:46:21):
to an adjacent street to leave your house.
That's a fact.
You know why?
Because you're not allowed on the street.
If you're Jewish, you can come and go
as you like.
Not so complicated.
It's called apartheid.
This is a this is not a secret,
by the way. This is all over. So
the so it's that's just so you understand

(02:46:42):
what they're saying, those streets are for Jews
only.
Not a joke.
Robert has been there, covered this many times.
So these are streets in front of their
homes.
They're Palestinians,
and their front door, their street, they're not
allowed to walk on.
You have to walk you have to must
climb onto the rooftop
to use a an adjacent street because they've

(02:47:04):
deemed that street for only Jews.
You know, there was another time in which
that was happening, and that's, you know, Jim
Crow era where there were whites only
water faucets in streets.
If you think that's a different thing, you're
lying to yourself. Now it's important to recognize
that's not some Jew only dynamic where it's
about that is a Zionist manipulation
using Jewish supremacy, just like you see the

(02:47:26):
same thing with Christian Zionists.
Now, of course, you can decide what you
whether you think that's the case. I think
it's obvious.
But it it's a trap to fall into
that and make it only about one religion
that Zionism is simply using. But, nonetheless, there
is an overlap to that. To make the
point, here is the leading
Israeli human rights group,

(02:47:46):
B'Tselem,
and the headline of their report from 2021,
a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan
River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is apartheid.
In that case, it's correct because it is
it in in this area, it is Jewish
supremacy. But realize there are Zionist infill infiltration
all over the place. Please come to your
own conclusions about it. Recognize though this is

(02:48:07):
the truth, whether it's contentious or not.
Torah Judaism,
to make the point that I've made many
times. Look at this gigantic crowd.
Every almost every of them and every one
of them in orthodox Jewish garb.
They say, rabbi Moshe Sternbuck making his entrance

(02:48:27):
at the star Satmar anti Zionism rally,
while 100 of 1000 of anti Zionist Jews
greet him. The math the truth, excuse me,
that the the mainstream media ignores. There are
100 of 1000 of anti Zionist and anti
Israel Jews in the world.
See my point? I'm not trying to pretend
that's the majority. I'm hoping. It's getting there.

(02:48:48):
But just recognize this is not some small,
fringe, secretly hating Jews dynamic. These are Orthodox
Jews that are calling out a lot of
atheist Jews as long a a a lot
on top of a lot of extremist Zionist
Jews or religious Zionists.
Because those Zionists will call them not Jews
because they don't believe in Zionism.
It's all very public, guys. These people get
beat up in the streets of Israel all

(02:49:09):
the time.
For that example, it's right here.
The Zionist state of Israel arrested a Jewish
rabbi who was an anti Israel and anti
Zionist rabbi. Jews who resisted the police trying
to kidnap the rabbi from the neighborhood in
the car were attacked by police in Israel.
The state of Israel was the greatest enemy
of the Jews, they write. Israeli police began
to forcibly adopt anti Zionist Jews from their

(02:49:31):
homes. This is today.
Kicking him on the ground.
Hear that?

(02:49:54):
You get the point
all the time.
How do you explain that without rack recognizing
that there's an entire group of Jewish organizations
in Israel that are not allowed to be
part of that there that are seen as
outside.
So if the only idea was you're they
have to be Jewish,
well, that's not true. It's about being a
Zionist.

(02:50:15):
Daniel outlined here everything that's been wrong with
Zionism in 55 seconds.
Absolutely. There is an Israeli
position
that seems to think that if not by
force, then by more force. If not by
killing, then by more killing. If not by
destruction, then by more destruction.
Israel can somehow be hegemonic,
secure,

(02:50:35):
and maintain a regime of ethnic supremacy over
the Palestinians
and a regime of fear over other surrounding
states, including Lebanon.
Rather than
stepping back and saying, if we are going
to live in peace in this region, we
will have to come to terms with the
fact that other peoples
in this region have rights.
We'll need to have those rights realized and

(02:50:57):
secured if we are going to live in
security. But that has become antithetical
to actual existing Zionism as practiced by the
state of Israel, which is a danger to
itself and, of course, to all of those
around it. That's an interesting point. Right? So
it's kinda like what I'm saying. They they
out of their own
extremist met re re,
ideology, they become a threat to themselves

(02:51:18):
because of what they're doing. They're sort of
imploding right now. And that's it's the truth
because they're just irrational. And there there's actually
a point we'll come to in a second
about that. Or I think yeah. I think
it's coming up. In regard to Ben Gavir
verse verse Netanyahu and the point being that
old yeah. I think it was about Lebanon.
The point is oh, yeah. That's we'll come
up to you in a second about the
ceasefire possibility
that even Ben Gavir is going like, no.

(02:51:40):
We need to take this all the way,
you know. And it's just like, well, it's
just like they don't so
so devoid, like, what's the right word for
it? Like, because of their extremist ideology, I
think. They're so up in the clouds about
what they think is gonna happen without being
able to simply recognize the
on their inability
without the support of other countries to even
put up a fight in this regard.

(02:52:00):
The point is though that they just are
they like, my point is that Netanyahu at
least seems to be feigning towards some kind
of a ceasefire in Lebanon because they're not
going to win that. Or any of them,
I think, is which is pretty obvious at
this point.
So we're on that point of Lebanon in
general. UNIFIL, by the way, in case you've
seen this,
this and this is a really interesting overlap.
Now, this is the UN organization, this overlap

(02:52:21):
for, you know, the the the,
jeez.
I Irish. I was gonna say
I couldn't get the word mad. The point
is that ultimately, it's a group that was
being attacked by Israel and Lebanon.
And they just tried to lazily conflate the
UN, UNRWAHamas.
Well, Hezbollah is the same thing. Like, they
just didn't want you to think too hard

(02:52:41):
into it because they just wanted you to
justify murdering more people. And it didn't really
work, so it seems like they're just kinda
not talking about it now. Even though they're
still bombing buildings and bombing like, so basically,
Gaza moved over to Lebanon without the narrative,
without the justification,
the lies of the tunnels and the human
shield. They're still kind of lazily doing that,
but not really forcing it. Nobody's asking questions.

(02:53:01):
No one cared. You're bombing an entire building
full of people. Well, they must have had
an excuse because it shows you they're all
caught. All these governments are so blindly in
in either compromised or in line with Zionism
that they don't care.
That's what I'm keep point I keep bumping
up against. It's like, well, I think the
cat's out of the bag. So what do
we do now? What is our next step
as individuals, the populations that see who our

(02:53:23):
supposed leaders actually are.
I don't think violence is the answer, but
it damn well needs to be something other
than just continuing to point at it and
let it happen.
Now here's what's interesting.
Not only has that been happening. Now they
spoke up on today, and they said Unifil
is seriously concerned by numerous strikes by Israel
on the Lebanese Armed Forces, not Hezbollah,

(02:53:45):
inside the Lebanese territories
despite
their declared non involvement in the ongoing hostilities
between Hezbollah and Israel. So this is what
gets so interesting about this. I'm not exactly
sure where I stand on the full picture.
I've heard different opinions from people I respect
around the reality of the Lebanese army,
which is very different than Hezbollah,
which, arguably, a lot of people say that

(02:54:06):
the Lebanese army is sort of influenced if
not taken over by
Israeli is United States interests.
And then Hezbollah is the group that sort
of develop you know, rose to power in
response to that overwhelming influence on their country.
So the point is what's in whatever the
the full picture is of what they represent,
they're they are standing back and they're not

(02:54:27):
really taking part in this. And yet, Israel's
bombing them anyway.
And that's what they're calling out, going, look.
They're bombing the the Lebanese the armed Lebanese
forces the Lebanese armed forces.
I think what that has to show you
guys is either a complete lack of control
or that they're just going after Lebanon, which
was always the point. They they covet what
is Lebanon,
just like they covet what is Palestine. And

(02:54:48):
they make that clear when they've already posted
for you the new Hebrew names for the
settlements they plan to build in Northern Lebanon.
It's pretty obvious. Or was it southern? I
forget,
I'd look at which which location they're pointing
to. The bottom line is they have designs
for Lebanese territory.
Very, very clearly, and they're publicly talking about
it. That Western media and politicians just don't
care. Don't want you to see it. So

(02:55:09):
I think it's important that we see this.
It shows it shows the hand. Sarah Abdallah
points out, this was yesterday, Beirut.
Right? A a
major international city populated with civilians.
Look at this building.
Israel is wiping out entire civilian apartment buildings
without justification or restraint.

(02:55:29):
Again, deliberately terrorizing Lebanese families in the middle
of the night. Can you imagine this not
being discussed? Can you imagine if it was
Tel Aviv or
Los
Angeles? I it's just so obvious.
I this is one of the main reasons
why the average person
just can't make sense of this.
And I or doesn't want to. I get
it. Because the only way to make sense

(02:55:50):
of it is to recognize the people that
you point to as the saviors of the
planet. The ones spreading freedom and democracy are
the ones doing the exact opposite.
This is insulting.
So this is a clip
of an of a of, Israeli family.
All distraught, crying, and upset, which, you know,
whether they know what they're doing or not,
it's still heart wrenching to see a family's,

(02:56:12):
you know, but the point is what they're
doing is illegal to occupying territory.
And it says, this is a Tel Aviv
resident. Saying this morning, I left my beautiful
shining house in in with the location.
When I came back, I didn't have a
house anymore.
It's hard for me to process this, she
writes. I want to tell everyone, please go
find a hiding spot. I never took the
siren seriously, never went into shelters. But if

(02:56:33):
I didn't leave today, I would have left
for the shelters and I wouldn't I wouldn't
have definitely gotten injured or, you know, pawned
them on and I could've been hurt.
Okay. Oops.
Oh, come on. There you
go. So as she writes here, 0 empathy.
If you don't wanna lose your house, don't
live on stolen lands where you pay tax
to a genocidal regime. Now, I'm not as
explicit as saying, you know, I I do

(02:56:55):
I look. If you born in this born
in this location
and you end up living in certain I
I would argue there's an overlap there where
people are just kind of in they don't
I'm not trying to put a pass on
the obvious illegalities of what Israel is as
an entirety.
Or the people that live within it that
are act actively paying a part in that.
My point in this is that I find
it crazy that we can frame this in
the world as these people are worthy of

(02:57:16):
your compassion because their house was destroyed and
they're framing it as I don't even know
like, the the point being I came back
in half Seymour. It's hard to process. Well,
yeah. Maybe you should have some compassion and
some understanding for what literally every Palestinian is
going through right now because of what your
government's doing in your name.
That's just crazy, the lack of of of,

(02:57:37):
what's the word?
I just the god, there's word for that.
The bottom line is that it's incredible to
see this being given focus around the world
by US politicians
and not the obvious.
And recognize that what all this is is
because of what they're driving into reality. And
yes, all of it is on stolen land.

(02:57:58):
Here's a clip from Robert Martin showing you
that this goes back long before this. Now,
not just because of randomly carpet bombing all
of Palestine,
but because of late places like in the
West Bank,
where they literally go in there and destroy
them to build a swimming pool.
So maybe you should have some compassion for
these people that have been living like this
for 76 years.

(02:58:41):
And don't forget,
if you somehow are not capable of tearing
down your own house, they charge them for
this.
They tear down their house, they kick them
out of, and then they charge them for
the bit for the process.
And they're called terrorists.

(02:59:06):
Mensho Sint points out Israeli soldiers desecrate the
Saint Nemo Orthodox Church in Southern Lebanon.
Eunice Turali points out the this is the
same point here that the soldiers
from the Galani special operations unit, the one
of the worst, desecrate a Lebanese church.
Alright? So all the Christians out there that
wanna support this because you think they're fighting

(02:59:26):
for the same ideas,
they hate they hate they they are clearly
in a context from a Zionist position,
have negative and energy towards Christians. They're pretty
much trained to be that way. I've seen
this very public.
I find it interesting. There seems to be
a contradiction. Now, I'm not saying that every
Israeli. I don't think that's the case or
every Jew. But I very clearly see an

(02:59:47):
overlap from the Zionist mindset that is that
Christians are meant to be destroyed to bring
on the end times. They're they're basically I
mean, I've played these clips for you before.
Rabbis will talk about this endlessly. It doesn't
mean that's what everybody thinks. But there is
an element to that in the ideology that
drives the current administration. That's what makes it
important.
Here's CNN
from today.

(03:00:08):
Israeli cabinet to vote on Lebanon ceasefire deal
after Netanyahu approves in principle.
It's like it's just it's just I mean,
to me, that sounds exactly like what we've
already seen, which means it probably won't happen.
But they're gonna they're voting on a ceasefire
for potentially tomorrow. Israeli prime minister said he's
approved it in principle, which to me is,
again, like everything we've seen so far. But
with the Hamas dynamic, which then they push

(03:00:28):
back at the last second. But it says
Lebanese official familiar with the discussion say that
they expect it to be announced within 24
hours. So maybe.
Now the overarching point to get through this
too because we're I want I'm gonna wrap
this up. The point is
people are arguing that it might be these
might ask to be the case. And it's
more of an indication that Israel's aware that
they can't actually fight this battle.
Right? Whereas in home in in Gaza,

(03:00:50):
they can just keep this going forever as
long as their other outside forces support what
they're doing.
But their own their own people, largely oh,
and that's the point I was saying earlier.
The Ben Gavir is saying it's a big
mistake, and we should have the historic missed
opportunity to eradicate Hezbollah as they're bombing Lebanon,
Lebanese army, Lebanese civilians.
That's the narrative. Right? They know what they're
doing. They're the ones dancing in conferences about

(03:01:12):
taking all of Lebanon, so they're not stupid.
And so many of the residents deal it
as a surrender agreement.
A surrender agreement as you're the one going
in and taking their territory. It's it's crazy.
A government is going to sign a very
irresponsible agreement, they say.
Just like last time. They're they're saying, if
we do this, they'll be right next to
our families on the border.
It's it's just if you make them out
to be monsters

(03:01:33):
and then you murder them because it will
you're gonna create the monster and really be
guided by your irrational belief that they're a
monster when in reality, you've created this entire
situation.
It says the US backed proposal aims to
achieve a 60 day secession of hostilities. So,
again, a temporary dynamic, which, again, even then
would be a positive to end of the
killing.
But I think it'll probably be abused by
the powers like Israel, as usually is the

(03:01:55):
case. We'll have to wait and see what
happens.
And here is what Matt Miller had to
say in regard to the ending of the
This is about the ceasefire discussion.
And it just It's It is This is
what the point is for is Whether we
think in Lebanon, it's gonna actually come to
fruition.
So far, everything in front of us
gives us the indication that they don't engage

(03:02:16):
with this stuff, honestly.
So here's Matt Miller kind of trying to
fumble through acting like this is not something
new. When in reality, it's been the same
thing that's been happening. And by the way,
that is the actual that's the image I
used today.
It's just incredible to me.
From Herets to CNN
to Jacobin, like a like a intelligence connected
thing. Or, you know, all these every platform

(03:02:36):
in the world is showing you that Netanyahu
is lying to you about
a ceasefire.
And he's he's systematically foiled it from the
beginning.
And yet, here's Matt Miller gaslighting for the
genocide. Is final until everything is final. We
continue to work to try and get an
agreement over the line, and we're hopeful we
can get one, but, we need both of

(03:02:56):
the parties to get to yes. Okay.
Do you have
off the top
of your head any an
idea of how many times
you guys, US officials,
have said
exactly those words
as it regards to Lebanon dating back to

(03:03:16):
September,
late September Yeah. And as it regards Gaza
going back to,
you know, almost
a couple days or a week or so
after the October 7th attacks. I can tell
you we are painfully aware because this has
been an incredibly frustrating process, both getting to
ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution to the conflict

(03:03:37):
in Lebanon And also the,
many routes and negotiations to get a ceasefire
in Gaza.
There are any number of stages where we
have hoped that the parties
would get to an agreement. And remember,
that's what it requires in these cases. It's
not the United States, but the parties to
the agreement to say yes. There have been
many times when we thought we were gonna

(03:03:58):
be getting to yes in both cases, and
for various reasons, the parties didn't get there.
That said, we believe we are close here,
but that's why you heard me come out
and say nothing's final until everything is final
because,
we know we don't have a deal until
there's one that has been fully agreed to
by both sides. So why do you think
it is, and I'm not asking you to
get inside their heads necessarily,

(03:04:21):
but that there are people in this government
who are running around on background
repeatedly
giving overly optimistic assessments
of
where things
stand. Look. I am always reluctant to talk
to speak to the comments that people make
on background because, you know, there are any
number of government officials with oftentimes Right. Or

(03:04:43):
we're we're we're we're with different assessments about
the same situation.
I will say speaking to where I believe
we are, I've said we're close because I
do believe we're close, but that doesn't mean
we're gonna get there. We need the parties
to to say yes,
and hopefully that'll happen. Right. But I but
it but it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe
these assessments

(03:05:03):
because they've been wrong every single
month so far. So and I realize that,
you know, you're wrong until you're right. Right.
But
So you're right about wrong until you're right,
but there's also you know, there's the the
George Mitchell quote you often hear the secretary
referred to about diplomacy
being 500 days of failure leading to one
day of success. That's often how this agreement
works. But you should know that

(03:05:25):
when,
typically, when we say we're close, we have
the caveat that nothing is final until everything
is final. And that it takes the parties
actually saying yes and getting there. You have
to realize too that that I mean, there's
those are fair statements,
and they're not honest though because I can
prove to you that's not the case, that
they feel that way. But recognize there's been
countless examples where they were caught lying about

(03:05:47):
it. Like, literally coming out and have him
blinking blinking do his little,
you know, whatever his role is. It's I
I swear he has been chosen to be
the most used as the scapegoat
for all of these. He just they put
him out and say things that you can
immediately prove he knew were false.
But, like, in this case, it it Hamas
better agree because x, y, and z. Well,

(03:06:09):
that's not we we could prove that didn't
happen. That you can prove that as he
said that, they knew that Netanyahu was not
going to agree. This stuff has all come
out. So that's the point behind it all
that I I I argue if Matt doesn't
know that, it wouldn't surprise me, but I
I think he does. I think these people
are willfully dishonest. I mean, I think that's
an easily proven fact. But in this case,
they're being willfully dishonest.

(03:06:30):
Thank you. You've also heard the secretary say
that oftentimes,
the very last stages of an agreement are
the most difficult because the hardest issues
are left to the end. That, of course,
is true. Hopefully, we'll get there with an
agreement. We are pushing as hard as we
can to get,
a diplomatic resolution that will allow these tens
of thousands of people in Lebanon, Israel to

(03:06:52):
to return home. But, ultimately, that's up to
the party. Not to
us.
Yep.
Except they're actively working with one of those
parties to make sure this doesn't happen, or
at the very least being used by one
of those parties to lie for them. You
can look at it how you want, but
I'll include the links to all of the
ones I showed in that picture. Right? This
is the one I typically show because it's

(03:07:12):
just powerful and it's recent and it comes
from her at how Netanyahu has systematically foiled
talks to release hostage from Hamas captivity. You
think one of those would be enough with
source material that shows and proves it to,
you know, proves it to you. But here's
another Hervets article from a US official. Biden
realized Netanyahu lied to him about hostage deal.
Isn't it amazing how all this can be
so public and easily proven, but yet we
hear Matt Miller lie to us on a

(03:07:33):
daily basis?
That's the kind of unnerving reality that they
know you're seeing and are worried about what
happens.
But they'll rush you in to a technocratic
panopticon where it won't matter anymore. New evidence
reveals Netanyahu's relentless efforts to block hostage deal.
That's the rats as well. Here's Jerusalem Post.
Netanyahu
actively sabotaging hostage deal.

(03:07:54):
July this is July 16th. Surprise, surprise. Here's
CNN. Netanyahu derailed a potential Gaza hostage deal
in July. Same one, but different newspaper.
Got this is, from Israel Hayom. Gantz accuses
Netanyahu of repeatedly blocking hostage deals because he
was, and it's easily proven. Jacobin writes Netanyahu

(03:08:14):
is blocking a hostage deal.
The, democracy
now, former Israeli hostage negotiator,
slams Netanyahu for blocking ceasefire deal. Not
holding out for a better one or not
agreeing to Hamas' deal. You know, blocking it.
Having Hamas accept what they put forward and
then refusing it on top of that. We've

(03:08:35):
seen that provably
two times, but it's happened more than that.
But, I mean, like, cases where it was
so flagrant on the surface. Those are the
2 where Blinken was doing his rounds, and
it's up to Hamas, and Hamas called their
bluff by, I think, accepting it. And then
Netanyahu reeled back and said, never mind. And
they all made up an error to hide
it.
It's it's lazy.

(03:08:55):
Netanyahu ungrateful, it says to US. Lied about
hostage deals, says another US official.
Netanyahu doing all he can to block a
ceasefire deal. All these are reports you can
look and do for yourselves.
Now Dan Cohen puts out from this is
Times of Israel.
He's saying it's been obvious all along that
it was never about the hostages.
Now that they've been obliterated now that they've

(03:09:17):
obliterated Gaza and committed genocide, they're admitting
it. Our hostages this is from an Israeli
it's Times of Israel, but from an Israeli,
what was this again?
Let's just look it up real quick. I
remember looking at this before.
One second. It should pop up.

(03:09:45):
Let's see. Times of Israel should pop up.
Of course not.
Not in this world, right? So not in
a worse so you could type in the
exact headline
and that's how this is supposed to work,
right? Shouldn't they come up with an Oh,
there you go. Fuck. Good. And it's funny.
Google gives it to you, but Brave doesn't.
That's worth noting.
So right here, are the hostages worth it?

(03:10:07):
And this is coming from?
Where was it?
I mean, Times New Israel is why it's
important, but I wanted to get to the
gist of what he was again.
There it is. Jonathan Lipow. Yeah. We I've
we've referenced him in the past. A professor
of economics at the naval postgraduate school in

(03:10:28):
Mont at Monterey, California.
His views expressed in the article are solely
his and so on.
It's are the hostages worth it? I mean,
that's a that's a really crazy deviation from
where we were.
Meaning, the whole point was to save them.
And now it's like, well,
are they worth it? Yeah. I mean, that's
crazy. The human lives that you're pretending to

(03:10:48):
fight for? Yes. Objectively. Maybe not to you
guys.
Ryan Raspiani points this great clip out from
this I love these. There's some I don't
know who this person is. Some random person
on TikTok that just breaks it down for
you. You know, the point is that this
is I the reason it's showing you things
like this, not because they're an inform
a a definitive source, but because it just
shows you that the average people out there

(03:11:08):
see it. It's easy. It's all in front
of you. And most people can see through
the lies right now. Now the question is
what we do to change it. Palestine doesn't
want peace. They've rejected every peace deal.
Yeah. Do you know any of the details
of the peace deals? Do you know any
of the things that Israel offered in exchange
for peace? Let me tell you some of
them. Palestinians had to agree to give up

(03:11:30):
all of the land under Israeli control, including
all of the illegal
settlements. They also had to give up a
further 8 to 12 percent of the West
Bank, the most fertile land there in exchange
for 1%
of the desert near Gaza. So a tiny
patch of desert
in exchange for the most fertile land that
Palestinians have thrived on for generations.

(03:11:52):
Israel also wanted to have permanent control over
their airspace, permanent access and rights to all
of their water resources.
Three permanent military installations in the West Bank,
which was supposed to be Palestine, so why
would they be there? Israeli military presence at
all of the Palestinian border crossings. Israel would
retain the right to invade Palestine whenever they

(03:12:12):
chose for unspecified
emergency reasons. Right. And this is this goes
back to the larger point of the last
time Trump floated this, this the deal of
the century that Robert coined as the steal
of the century. It was the same I
same idea. Like, you can't pretend that they
have some they you know, they're an independent
state when you they you don't give them
sovereignty. You still control their airspace. You still

(03:12:32):
invade, you know, basically invade and then occupy
it whenever you want. Basically, so you always
continue to occupy it. Basically,
what's happening now with a little more land?
But in this case, it seems like the
opposite. So less land and the same thing.
We're good?
No. It's it's just anybody who is honestly
putting this forward,
no, is
choosing a side.

(03:12:53):
You don't care about Palestinian legal the legal
reality of the origin point of this. You
don't care about a, you know, 2 state
solution. You care about giving Israel what it
wants and creating the illusion that somehow this
worked out for everyone.
It's just it's very easy to see. Watch
Robert has a documentary called the steal of
the century. It's worth watching. Palestine would also
be demilitarized.
Israel would not allow them to have their

(03:13:14):
own military to defend themselves. They would also
not be permitted to enter into any international
alliance
without Israel's approval.
Yeah. Independence. Right? Most importantly, Israel refused time
and time again to allow the right of
return for millions of Palestinian refugees And that's
the one of the most important parts because
that would've that would allow people that were

(03:13:34):
in these locations to go back to their
land, which would include areas that God Israel
has made its own. They'll never allow
that. But, see, here's the problem is even
coming to a 2 state solution today would
demand that information be made public in order
to rectify it. Whether that means giving them
land somewhere else or but it has to
be established. It has to be acknowledged. UNRWA

(03:13:56):
has the records and the keys to these
homes that still exist.
Like, this this is why they're so desperate
to destroy this group. It didn't work entirely.
They they were still still trying to flail
about and scream UNRWA is Hamas or the
UN is Hamas, but they've lost.
And so if they end up being forced
into what would be the legal reality that
would be just, which they're never going to

(03:14:16):
agree to, I argue, it would force that
to come out, at least in some channels.
Some people out there that would have seen
it before would come to the realization
that they've been always stopping them and that's
why they've always been refugees, that it's always
been a design.
That's why I don't think they'll ever come
to this term. Living around the world, which
is a legal right they have, which the
UN has been telling Israel since 1948. Mhmm.

(03:14:38):
At the time of the Camp David peace
talks,
Israel's foreign minister,
who was present at the peace talks, said
this was not a missed opportunity for the
Palestinians. If I were Palestinian, I also would
have rejected the deal.
We're also busy listening and agreeing with Israel's
claim that they don't want peace. They reject
every peace deal. We've tried. But nobody ever
looks at the content of the peace deals,

(03:14:59):
which no sane human with any sort of
self respect would accept.
Yep. Except except here on TLav and you
guys watching because we do, and we'll go
through the ins and outs of the actual
agreements, the deals, and the points they're making.
Hold on. I wonder what the hell is
going to say. That they don't want peace.
They
we're also busy the deal.

(03:15:20):
We're also the Palestinians. If I were Palestinian,
I also would have rejected Oh, yeah. Yeah.
That's what it was. So it's important to
point out that in these past deals,
it's been it's been exposed through leaked documents
and also just Netanyahu's statements and videos
that they made sure these things were going
to fail.
Right? They made sure, as I think the
term they use is poison pills in the

(03:15:41):
in the agreement. So they knew they would
put things in that the you the Palestinians
would never accept so they could turn around
and make it look like they were the
ones that refused it.
And it this is a and this stuff
is easy to prove today.
Sort of like funding Hamas in order to
keep them divided. You know, things like that.
And then turn around and blaming them for
it.
Here's an article from United Nations. This is

(03:16:01):
from July 17th this year. Humanitarian situation in
Gaza, a moral stain on us all.
They're starving people to death while actively fighting
off the ceasefire agreement, which would save their
people. And you realize, while they're starving and
stopping aid from going in, they're starving their
own people.
There's just no way to
misunderstand how little they care about everyone.

(03:16:23):
Joanne Jones points out that in the process
of doing that, while they're starving them and
burning aid trucks that was admitted to even
Israeli media,
they're allying themselves with ISIS affiliated groups to
do so.
Funny how they're willing to contradict everything. They're
literally showing that they are everything they accuse
them of being in order to kill them.
As Israel is allying, and we already talked
about this briefly in the last show, to

(03:16:44):
ISIS affiliated criminal gangs to starve Gaza.
And here here's his post about it. But
here's the article we showed you recently. This
is from Haaretz
from from November 11, 2024.
The Israeli army is allowing gangs in Gaza
to loot aid trucks and to and extort
protection fees from drivers.

(03:17:06):
Some of the Klan's
members
that they're working with are involved in terrorism,
and some are even affiliated with,
the Islamic State. That's from Haaretz.
So much for fighting ISIS. You're literally working
with ISIS to fight Hamas, or rather specifically,
Palestine.
Now Roberts made the case, the ISIS ideology

(03:17:27):
and Hamas are are contradictory.
That doesn't mean they couldn't find an alliance,
but the point is that it's interesting to
highlight that the examples that you wanna make
about that in Gaza are working with the
Israeli government.
It's probably because it's in the construct of
the Israeli and US government. But different conversation.
Well, not really. But think about how crazy
that is. How how insulting it is as
they call everybody else Nazis and ISIS while

(03:17:48):
they're literally both.
Gangs looting Gaza, The Washington Post. Aid operate
going on Gaza aid looting Gaza aid operate
in areas under Israeli control. It's everywhere, guys.
The evidence of the documentation is everywhere.
Let's not forget,
from 2015 and, you know, from the origin
point, Israel treating Al Qaeda fighters

(03:18:10):
wounded in Syria.
They this is what this is, actually, I'll
grab this for you as well.
James Corbett's important documentary
or either our watch along with all three
parts. Worth watching the links to just the
docs are in here as well.
False flags. A secret history of Al Qaeda.
The reality is once you watch this, you

(03:18:30):
won't be able to see the facts.
All of it has source material you can
look into for yourself. So if you want,
just skip the video, look at the source
material, prove it to yourself, and then watch
it to recognize that the facts are there
no matter what. The evidence is undeniable. ISIS,
al Qaeda first, into ISIS. These are proxy
elements of the very powers pretending to fight
these things in the world.

(03:18:51):
Until you can rectify that, reconcile your you
know, come to terms with that, you'll always
be misinformed.
Now, last two point last main last one
main point is the ICC dynamic. And this
is actually pretty crazy to me. And it
just shows you how flimsy this whole thing
is. Sort of like the,
the holocaust survivors that were
more than 1, by the way, that were

(03:19:12):
standing alongside the protesters.
How many times we've shown you that, right?
Standing up and saying, you know, we're standing
with these people because they're fighting basically the
current
reality of a holocaust,
which is what Israel is super upset and
afraid to let you know. You say that,
you're a racist. Right?
A ICC judge, apparently, is also a holocaust
survivor. And I just find that crazy that

(03:19:34):
we live in the world a world now
where this is somehow
you know, that is again, doesn't this make
the point about Zionism versus Judaism?
That you can literally be a holocaust survivor,
and if you dare to call out
Israel or Zionism, you're suddenly no longer a
Jew, even if you're a holocaust survivor. Here's
the clip from the guy from the protest.
A holocaust survivor.
My message to the brave student protesters in

(03:19:57):
America is just keep doing it. Don't give
up. We are doing exactly the same,
and in the long term, we are going
to prevail.
Now he's alongside many others at these and
plenty of others. You know, it's and even
even Zionist online will call them an anti
semite. This is disgusting.
This is one of the 6 judges who

(03:20:17):
examined the evidence against Netanyahu and Gallant. He
decided the ICC should arrest war should issue
the arrest warrants. His name is Theodore Mil
Marrone. He's a holocaust survivor and a former
Israeli ambassador to Canada.
He knows the holocaust when he sees it.
Here's the link. You can read it for
yourself from the Jewish voice for labor.
It's pretty crazy, isn't

(03:20:38):
it? Now we've we I'm gonna skip over
this just for time in general, but I
just wanted to reiterate this. We just talked
about it in the last show. Netanyahu brought
the ICC ruling on himself, Harris writes, and
now he's whining about antisemitism.
That's the Israeli newspaper.
Now what I wanted to quickly go over
is just the overlapping points.
Obviously, they're telling you it's justified, but they

(03:20:58):
they make a bunch of other points in
this that highlights things that they say in
passing that we deny in this country.
Things like burning aid
trucks.
Right here.
Right? Saying, when the national security minister encourages
militias to set fire to aid trucks, the

(03:21:20):
responsibility falls the prime minister. It's like a
passing point that we would screech about this
guy, it's fake news. No, it's very real
and there's videos of it. But they just
casually acknowledge this stuff. Or many of many
others which are that are in this
prop you know, that they're lying to you
guys. Read them for yourself. It's very important
stuff.
Now Mohammed Jana points out that they are
saying the quiet part out loud on the

(03:21:40):
Washington Post. The ICC is meant to only
go after brown and black people, which is
exactly what the court the, Khan said publicly
that they told him that. This court was
designed to go after Russia and then and
Africa. It's like these people are inherently disgusting.
And that's what it's saying. ICC is needed
to help resolve in Russia, Sudan, Myanmar.
No. It's meant to go after people that

(03:22:01):
are committing international cloc
crimes under international law. That's what it's for.
This is Arnaud Petron pointing out that Biden
called Macron
to tell him that Netanyahu quote had a
right to be angry
at France for suggesting that it would go
along with the ICC.

(03:22:23):
It's just absolutely comical. I mean, the idea
that rules based order except when the rules
based order goes against what we want.
Just sad.
Brian Raspiani pointing out that, you know, so
group is pushing back on the ICC and
international law.
Here's a reason, you know, one of many
reasons why. Maybe because Israel is the only
country in the world that has a children's

(03:22:43):
military prison.
Maybe that's worth reflecting reflecting on.
After interrogation,
children are brought here for trial over Mainstream
corporate media for you, by the way. Military
prison near Jerusalem.
The army would not let Four Corners film
inside.
I've been behind these walls three times.
I saw children shuffling across the courtyard,

(03:23:06):
handcuffed and shackled.
Some hearings lasted 60 seconds.
I saw 1 boy shout the name of
his prison so his mother would know where
he was being held.
I saw the judge convict some children without
even once looking at them.
Through it all, what I saw was a
conveyor belt
of convicted children.

(03:23:28):
I think And the the rate of conviction
is, like, 99%. It's obscene.
Perhaps to give you some
indication of how efficient
from a a military perspective this system is.
According to the military court's own
records, their annual their annual report,
the,

(03:23:49):
courts have a conviction rate,
of around 99.74%.
Typically, a Palestinian boy convicted of throwing stones
will be sentenced to about 3 months imprisonment.
The United Nations Children's Agency, UNICEF,

(03:24:11):
last year released a scathing report on Israel's
system.
It found that Palestinian children had been threatened
with death, physical violence, solitary confinement, and sexual
assault against themselves or a family member.
The report found that that ill treatment was
widespread,

(03:24:31):
systematic,
and institutionalized
throughout the system from the moment that the
child was arrested right up until the sentencing
process.
Last month, under pressure from human rights groups,
Israel stopped the long standing practice of keeping
children overnight in outdoor cages.

(03:24:51):
Children had been kept freezing in the cages
during snowstorms.
It's just cray this that's not it's not
a that's an that's an older documentary,
well before October 7th. The reality is, guys,
this has been something that's been going on
for 76 years.
And in increasingly, you know, in varying degrees

(03:25:12):
of increasing over the years.
Here, just to make sure it's clear, this
wasn't October 7th forward. As we've shown many
times, this is from September 2023.
2023 marks the deadliest year on record for
children in the West Bank even.
But let's let's keep lying to ourselves about
why, you know, this all started because they
were attacked. Hiberias points out something I think

(03:25:33):
is important to consider. You got 2 pictures
in front of you.
A quote George Orwell. The party told you
to reject the evidence of your eyes and
ears. It was their final most essential command.
The top images of a pristine Tel Aviv.
The terrorized.
The bottom is a completely, utterly destroyed Gaza,

(03:25:53):
the terrorist.
Worth considering.
And, of course, in the context of breaking
international law, you know, things like bombing hospitals
and murdering children and killing journalists. You know,
those used to be violations. Apparently, in the
world of Israel impunity or the awareness of
it,
just nobody cares anymore, at least in the
context of the corporate media mainstream alternative media

(03:26:15):
dynamic.
Here's Sarah Abdallah from today
showing you that they are murdering journalists now
in Lebanon with impunity.
Has found an Israeli strike on southern Lebanon
that killed 3 journalists last month was most
likely deliberate and a war crime. It says
Israel's forces used US made arms in the

(03:26:35):
attack on the town of Hazbaya.
Don't forget, guys. We reported on a journalist
being killed in Lebanon,
a Reuters journalist in the first couple of
weeks of this.
This is not new.
The fact that they're getting away with this
is incredible, at least for now. Mohammed Safa
points out the number of journalists killed in
wars.
In Vietnam,

(03:26:55):
63 journalists killed in 20 years.
World War 2,
67 journalists killed in 7 years.
Gaza and Lebanon,
a 193
journalists in 1 year.
This violates article 79 of article
pro of additional protocol, Geneva Conventions. Protocol 1,

(03:27:16):
Geneva Conventions, but a national law clearly doesn't
apply to Israel. Now, whether you wanna go
into the argument that they're secretly Hamas, first
of all, that has to be verified and
proven. Even if you wanna argue as the
case, that should be something that's easy to
demonstrate. But on top of that,
there is clear lines that need to be
crossed for that to be not that you
know they're part of Hamas. They can literally

(03:27:36):
be a member of Hamas and still be
we're protected as a journalist unless they are
acting while a journalist in other ways.
But even then, we can prove that's not
happening. They've been caught saying people are Hamas
when you can prove that there's not even
an that they knew that that's not the
case, or they just murdered an entire group
of people and claimed they got a bad
guy that didn't even end up being there.

(03:27:58):
The Guardian.
An investigation by The Guardian can reveal Israel
has used US munitions to kill 3 journalists,
to target and kill 3 journalists in Lebanon.
It's coming out everywhere, guys.
They can't hide from this as much as
they see they seem to be allowed to
get away with it.
Ryan points out the 188 journalists,
and this is from Gaza,

(03:28:20):
in 14 months.
Here are their pictures. Here are their names.
In what other context does that happen?
If they really want you to believe these
are all terrorists,
there's your data for you.
They they this the the in typical circumstances
where you get the other side of the
narrative, you rarely get this kind of information.
When they try to hide it all from
you and tell you to trust the narrative,
intelligence says,

(03:28:41):
there you go.
They're murdering people right in front of you.
And here's another doctor.
She compares this to The Onion. Israel warns
Gaza still harboring hundreds of doctors. That's October
2023.
Well, today, November
20 1 23rd 2024,
another doctor has been targeted by Gaza by
Israel at the Kamal Adwan Hospital. Doctor Hussam

(03:29:03):
has been working tirelessly for the past
year under horrific conditions.
One after another, they're targeting everybody that's helping
Palestinians.
And here's the thread
of all the doctors standing up and telling
you what they're seeing.
How many of them this this doctor being
one that according to Sky News
was likely raped to death
based on the forensic information they have.

(03:29:25):
I just don't understand how this is not
more
how it's still happening.
Lastly, I'll leave you with this clip from
another
journalist on the ground saying she was literally
embedded with these people while they were attacked
killing medics.
The strikes are deliberately targeting medics vital to
saving lives.
So we'll end with this.

(03:29:46):
I'll leave you with this clip on the
way out.
Stand up.
Stand up and do something.
There's people's lives on the line and your
livelihood, your safety, your security, your country, whatever
you believe you're fighting for, it's all pretty
much on the line. That's not hyperbolic. I
think it's obvious. Whether that leads to world
war or not. I think it's obvious that

(03:30:07):
we are watching something
slowly encroach and take further further,
like, you know, ground inside of what we
believe is ours. And I mean, that's that's
kinda metaphorical talking about our rights. But in
this case, literally the country itself, you could
argue, is part of this. The the technocratic
side of it, the Israeli side of it,
we're watching things shift in rapid ways. And
I think people are blinding themselves to it

(03:30:29):
because of their hope that Trump is what
they wanted to be. I share your hope.
But we cannot allow that to blind us
to what's really happening in front of us.
Thank you for tuning in today, guys.
We're gonna be
coming up in the next month.
I have more gonna be just beginning to
kick off around these legal proceedings. I don't
know how far it will go, but ultimately,

(03:30:50):
this is this might be seeing more of
my time. At the same time, the cost
they're gonna come along with this are gonna
be ridiculous.
I'm already starting to kind of tighten the
belt when it comes to the the the
writings and the article work, which just kills
me because it's so important to hear what
Robert and Derek and everybody else has to
say. Because they
I think have been more impactful in the

(03:31:11):
conversation, whether it's been allowed to be seen
or not than any than most people out
there.
The point though is that the more you
can support us, the more you can step
up and help this platform. And most importantly,
it's just getting the work out there to
more people that see it, who might be
willing to support us in other ways.
But we are in desperate need of your
support in so many ways.
I'm never gonna stop doing this whether it's

(03:31:31):
in my room on a cell phone. But
to continue doing it in the way that
I think will have the most impact, your
support is needed.
If you believe in this platform, if you
believe what we're trying to do,
let us know.
I love you all. Thank you for your
ongoing support.
I just can't express to you how much
it means to me that we've built what
we have together
because you are just as much a part

(03:31:52):
of this as I am. This wouldn't exist
without you. So thank you for being here.
I love you all as always.
Question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
We're in Baalbek in the Daka Valley at
the location where an Israeli strike killed the
director of the Dar al Amal Hospital,
Ali Alam, alongside 6 others yesterday at 6

(03:32:13):
PM.
They were
sitting over here enjoying the evening when the
missiles struck. You can see some
bereaved relatives
over there trying to cope with the loss,
which is felt
among the people of Baalbek.
And this comes just days after another Israeli
strike targeted the civil defense, killing more than

(03:32:34):
a dozen people.
There's a feeling here that these strikes are
not accidents, that they're very much intentional
aimed at institutions and people like Ali Alam
who are critical for sustaining civilian life
with the objective of depopulating
this region.

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;}Trump Team “Barred From Agencies” & Israel Working With ISIS-Linked Gangs To Starve Gaza

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

Trump Team “Barred From Agencies” & Israel Working With ISIS-Linked Gangs To Starve Gaza

Stuff You Should Know