0:00

From the FDA, which has just approved

0:03

the emergency use of the Pfizer

0:05

vaccine for children ages five

0:07

to eleven, and we've already secured enough

0:09

vaccines supply for every single

0:11

child in America.

0:12

A new proposal would allow

0:14

children twelve and older get vaccinated

0:17

with no parental consent. A mom

0:19

in Louisiana plans to sue her son's

0:21

high school after he was vaccinated at

0:23

the school without parental consent.

0:25

Some new moms now quarantining from their

0:27

newborns. By the of this year, doctor

0:29

Fauci believes there will be a vaccine available

0:31

for kids as young as six months.

0:33

And that means millions of

0:36

young children can get their first dose

0:38

right now. This is like a gift

0:40

from God. Getting that shot really

0:43

was an amazing feeling.

0:45

It it it hits you. Nobody

0:47

will be safe if not everybody

0:50

is vaccinated. You've been patient

0:52

and our patience is wearing thin. The one

0:54

is the problem? Get over it.

0:57

Come on. People just get the shot.

1:14

hugging your family.

1:33

Just get a vaccination.

1:35

Wall Street and biotechnology companies

1:37

have been very excited about this idea.

1:40

And what essentially it is is

1:43

trying to pack

1:45

the cells in the body

1:47

in order to make them into drugs

1:49

afterwards.

2:10

Welcome to The Daily Wrap up. A concise

2:13

show dedicated to bringing you the most

2:14

relevant end ended news

2:16

as we see it from the last twenty

2:19

four hours.

2:20

Tuesday,

2:22

September twenty seventh twenty

2:24

twenty two. Thank you for joining me today. got

2:26

a fantastic show lined up for you.

2:28

I really gotta say I'm really proud of

2:31

how encompassing these shows

2:33

have become, even becoming exponentially

2:36

more difficult for me to title them seeing this

2:38

out there. It's just a, you know, anything

2:40

you might have missed kind of discussion, which is always

2:42

the real was always the point

2:44

of what the show was meant to be and has

2:46

broadened out into something much larger than I

2:48

ever thought it would be. But I'll tell you

2:50

today that we really are and especially when I

2:52

don't have a show, over the last couple of days.

2:54

That tends to be the times when we have the big shows

2:57

that are going longer than most people like, but

2:59

we're gonna get a lot jammed in today. So I hope

3:01

you will stay tuned till the end. I'm gonna do

3:03

a bunch on foreign policy to start today that I think

3:05

is really important. But jumping around

3:07

from point to point, not a long segment

3:09

on one talking point, but accomplacing

3:11

all of it, Ukraine, Iran, Syria, and

3:13

kind of just talking about how a lot of this stuff

3:15

is happening on the on the peripheral of the larger

3:17

discussions. a great little clip from

3:19

Taylor Houdak speaking on a song

3:22

that I want you guys to hear and show there's

3:24

a lot going on around all of this and

3:27

I tend to see most of it interconnected.

3:30

But that's just my opinion. It's regardless

3:32

of whether it's interconnected, they're all really important

3:35

not to miss with what's going on. Now we're going

3:37

to talk about the mRNA focus

3:39

is kind of the bulk of the show today around

3:42

the new peer reviewed JAMA

3:44

Network Study finding mRNA in

3:46

the breast milk, which shouldn't surprise anybody

3:48

that's watching this show or anybody

3:50

that's been watching any independent media

3:52

that has even tried to look into the facts. because

3:54

this has been blatantly obvious

3:56

from the very beginning, including various

3:58

reports of this from like the very, very,

4:00

very beginning, I believe, including the trials

4:02

themselves. all the way to now

4:05

with all the data science, observational, everything

4:07

under the sun, showing you exactly what

4:09

we're now confirming with peer reviewed science, which they'll

4:11

still dismiss. But

4:14

how clearly dangerous this is.

4:16

And on top of that or rather in

4:18

conjunction with that point, showing you that

4:20

there are some very prominent people on

4:22

top of the already very prominent people

4:24

that are standing up and going, okay,

4:26

guys, this is dangerous, including

4:28

as to one of the main points

4:30

of today, a doctor who

4:32

in fact was a very mainstream doctor

4:35

that promoted this on on

4:37

TV, getting his injection and saying

4:39

everybody should do the same who has now

4:41

singing a different tune after he had a very

4:43

personal experience that changed his perspective.

4:45

How can you call that a conspiracy

4:47

theorist? How can you call that a conspiracy theory?

4:49

How can you label someone who

4:51

once was on the other side who has literally

4:54

personally had the experience who has

4:56

now come along and said, guys, these aren't

4:58

very safe. These are hurting people and

5:00

dismiss that. My point

5:02

is, I don't think that's what's happening. I think

5:04

quite everybody can see that

5:06

something's wrong, and that's why the narrative

5:08

has now been coming out in the corporate media. And I'm

5:10

gonna make a point about that as well. Some

5:12

of the fourth Worst

5:14

of the worst, in my opinion, of the people that

5:16

were gaslighting and attacking, and still by

5:18

the way, doing that, are now coming out as if

5:20

they're the champions being suppressed. trying

5:22

to fight for the truth. Our our good old buddy,

5:25

ZdogMD, is out there

5:27

acting like he's the one fighting for the truth about

5:29

the new booster. It's just embarrassing.

5:32

Even if he's genuinely doing that, it's embarrassing

5:35

seeing how he's these a lot of these

5:37

people are the ones saying antibody dependent enhancement

5:39

wasn't a real concern and The

5:41

science has always been there. And

5:43

even now doctors acting like the ones

5:45

that are fighting for maintaining

5:47

masks maintaining mandates

5:50

are the ones using the hashtag, you're not

5:52

alone. I mean, this is not by accident,

5:54

guys. That's something that I feel like TLAB

5:56

really

5:57

championed, even making the bracelets, and our

5:59

rallies, and

5:59

everything, you're not alone. And a lot of us did that, I

6:02

think, Jason Berman's got a big push for that too,

6:04

saying, look, guys, you're not alone. And I think

6:06

right now that's the most important. You're not the crazy

6:08

conspiracy theorist in the corner. Everybody

6:10

sees what you see, including them. And that's

6:12

why they're trying to coop your discussions.

6:14

your movements, your persona, as

6:17

they're the ones being censored and

6:19

suppressed for pointing out the things that we've been

6:21

shouting about that they're only being allowed to talk

6:23

about now. very interesting. And we're

6:25

gonna finish with a climate change point about

6:27

how obviously this is all

6:28

tying into that direction. and

6:31

why many ways they're now just kind of getting rid of

6:33

the narrative they had before because they have another

6:35

fear mongering push right under the

6:37

or under what's the turn? What's the phrase?

6:39

Forgetting the turn of phrase. On

6:42

right on the next turn, and we can all see it coming.

6:44

Now, to start off with foreign

6:46

poll well, actually first, do that

6:48

clip that I played. I wanted to make sure you

6:50

guys, you know, as always, giving the credit where

6:52

it's due. This is just posted by Wichenstein.

6:55

I don't know exactly who made it. It might have

6:57

been him. There's no source link or anything.

6:59

So maybe it's him, but the the

7:01

great this is where I saw it. A great clip. really

7:03

showing you the ominous nature of all of this and

7:05

how disconcerting it is. It

7:07

doesn't really make sense. It never

7:09

really has. And finally, at the

7:11

very least, the media is admitting that that's what

7:13

people think, and I believe many of them always

7:16

have, and it's all falling apart in front of

7:18

them. Now, get into some foreign policy before

7:20

we come back to the the main point there.

7:22

I want you to see lot of these different things that are

7:24

happening. Sarah Dollar Point, that she's been doing

7:26

a great job keeping up on this. This is every

7:28

day. It's not the same old story. It's

7:31

a new leg of that same old story that

7:33

has always been happening. US

7:35

occupation forts, forces,

7:38

illegally, by the way, always been illegal,

7:40

Iraq, Syria, all of it, illegal. No

7:42

matter what, But just because they yell freedom,

7:44

everyone looks the other way, apparently. Occupation

7:46

forces quietly stealing Syria's oil

7:48

while all eyes on Ukraine. Still

7:51

every day, ongoing. This

7:52

is from the cradle. As of this is

7:55

posted on September twenty seventh, new

7:57

convoy of looted oil smuggled out of

7:59

Syria by the US Army. Oh, it's posted

8:01

on September twenty sixth.

8:03

Again, a new

8:05

convoy of oil looted by

8:07

the army Right. The good guys stealing

8:10

oil from the people they claim they're fighting

8:12

for, trying to save,

8:14

by

8:14

stealing their resources they need to eat their families,

8:17

house and feed themselves? Yeah, that

8:19

really makes sense. It takes the smallest

8:21

amount of barely I

8:24

mean, due diligence isn't even the right word. Like, just

8:26

opening your eyes to what's in front of you

8:28

to see that these people are not what they're

8:30

telling you they are. That doesn't

8:32

mean that the

8:32

individuals driving the trucks, let's say, are

8:35

aware of that, but the end the

8:37

agenda being driven by the people pretending to

8:39

represent you, they do

8:41

not care about the Syrians, about the

8:43

Iranians, about the Russians, they care about their

8:45

agenda, and those people are expendable,

8:47

just like you. and it is time

8:49

for us to see that. Now that's not meant to be this

8:51

sad all all

8:53

encompassing point, which they just paint

8:55

a picture of a dire future, the point

8:57

is that we're better than that. They know we're better

9:00

than that, and they know we want better than that.

9:02

And they're a dying entity, guys.

9:04

with a dying age. They're trying to force

9:06

them everyone into the thing they think is

9:08

next. We decide. And the bottom

9:10

line is, Seeing this is a

9:12

positive. We are waking

9:14

up. People are seeing through the

9:16

illusion. So it's time to realize that we

9:18

can be this, rather what they

9:20

pretend to be. should we care

9:22

to just be acknowledged what these people

9:24

really are. It's not just the US government,

9:26

guys. Governments in general, in my opinion,

9:28

but come to your own conclusions about it. Just

9:30

recognize that these are not the saviors that they

9:32

try to pretend that they are. Now

9:34

here's an interesting way that this could be a

9:36

couple intermittent out today about the

9:38

gaslighters involved in all this whether they see

9:40

themselves as that or not. Robert

9:42

Murphy points out, I think the most interesting aspect

9:44

of this proposal and it's like our good old buddy,

9:46

Scott Adams, is

9:48

that permanent military

9:49

occupation of Mexico is number three,

9:51

but educating Americans is number seven in

9:53

his hierarchy of what's important to do next.

9:56

This is really ridiculous.

9:58

Scott Adams says, right, it's what a

9:59

serious fentanyl policy look like. First of all, if

10:02

we can get into it. You're well aware

10:04

of the reality of this discussion because we've

10:06

talked about it on this show, which is that the

10:08

vast ninety plus percent of the

10:10

fentanyl in this country comes from

10:12

China. Now that even

10:15

in that conversation, there's a whole bunch to talk about

10:17

there, about allowance of certain things, but

10:19

that's for another day. We've talked about it in

10:21

previous shows. The fact that he's focusing on Mexico

10:23

tells you that he's either buying the

10:25

narrative without doing the due diligence,

10:27

which shouldn't speak much to his intelligence

10:29

or willing to look into his a

10:31

journalist perspective, or he's lying to

10:33

you about it? I don't know. There's usually more than two choices.

10:36

But as it says, no one has proposed,

10:38

one yet, So I'll give it a first draft.

10:40

A serious fentanyl policy. You know,

10:42

ignoring the massive insurmountable

10:44

war on drugs are supposed to be fighting that

10:46

whole thing still. But apparently, we need a whole

10:48

new agenda aside from the war on

10:50

drugs that's still going on apparently. Think

10:52

about how stupid that is. but it says

10:54

number one, remove prescription requirements for

10:56

NARCAN. Oh, good. So let's remove the

10:58

requirement for them to need some kind of a

11:00

medical treatment for over

11:02

dosing. That's the solution.

11:04

Give them a quick access to overdose

11:06

solving so they don't care about having

11:08

overdoses even though it's not as simple as

11:10

that because it doesn't always work and so on.

11:12

But remember, NARCAN was the the drug that

11:14

was leaned into by the very companies that

11:16

knew they were killing people with pushing opioids

11:19

and bribing doctors. and they on the

11:21

record were like, hey, let's push this thing to

11:23

fight the overdoses and we can get them coming and

11:25

going. Not exactly what they said, but it's on

11:27

the record they were caught. knowingly

11:29

ignoring the risks while promoting the thing

11:31

to make more money on the risks and the

11:33

dead. That's just crazy. But

11:35

remove that so they can all take NARCAN. Create an

11:38

app so volunteers with NARCAN can respond

11:40

to their own to

11:41

on their own block when

11:43

alerted. So now you

11:45

have NARCAN freely available, and

11:47

then you got like roaming people apparently with

11:49

NARCAN. I mean, this is crazy. This

11:51

is normalizing the problem as opposed to,

11:53

this is treating a symptom.

11:55

That's isn't

11:56

even the point though. It goes

11:57

on to say number two, in this plan.

11:59

Create a military unit specifically for

12:02

destroying the cartels of Mexico. So

12:04

literally create military occupation of

12:06

Mexico or at least

12:07

sending in

12:08

units in

12:10

which is a military action. You could

12:12

argue that's occupation either way.

12:13

So who cares about Mexico sovereignty?

12:16

Let's do what we want. Number three, give the

12:18

card to and all of this, of course, is why I made that

12:20

first point. That the argument is because

12:22

Mexico is the reason we have this problem,

12:24

therefore, That's

12:25

not true. It's a

12:26

fraction of the

12:27

total that comes from Mexico. They love to blame

12:29

the m s thirteen, very bad group.

12:31

But then it goes on to say give

12:33

the cartels a six month deadline because

12:36

apparently US government can give

12:38

dictates to these cartels and people in other

12:40

countries to stop all fentanyl operations

12:42

or we invade Mexico and establish

12:44

a permanent military base to eradicate the

12:46

cartels.

12:47

This is actually

12:49

what he's writing. that

12:50

this is just this is the mindset of the

12:53

all the

12:55

basically, the the

12:56

lawless nature of these governments.

12:58

As long as they pretend

13:01

that what they're doing is for the better interest of other

13:03

people, whether or not it ends up that way, they can

13:05

just do what they want ignoring sovereignty,

13:07

laws, borders, anything

13:09

else that they would freak out about if it was in

13:11

reverse. That's what it looks like to

13:13

think that you are the your divine

13:15

right to rule, if you will, numbers, this isn't

13:17

pertaining to Scott necessarily, but just the higher

13:19

the the what I think is

13:21

the driving mentality behind a lot of the leaders

13:24

of today. But number six, Titan border

13:26

security. Understanding this won't show fat, slow

13:28

fat and all by much because it's so light and

13:30

easy to smuggle in a variety of ways. yeah,

13:32

again, which ninety percent plus come from

13:34

China. Number seven, do a massive public

13:36

education campaign on Fed, doll facts, nor

13:38

can use. Right. So number seven

13:40

is educate Americans about what's going

13:42

on. Before that is occupation and a

13:44

complete dis misunderstanding,

13:47

disregard for the facts But

13:49

who cares? Right? So my

13:51

point is, this is the kind These are leading

13:53

talking heads in the discussion on Twitter

13:55

and other places. that drive people's understanding.

13:57

Now do they know that they're wrong? Do they

13:59

care?

13:59

Doesn't matter? This is

14:01

a guy who literally argued that he was right,

14:03

even though he was wrong, about COVID because

14:05

he did what he was supposed to. And we

14:07

were wrong even though we were right because we were

14:09

all guessing in this direction despite everything

14:11

else we did and all the peer reviewed science and the proof

14:13

and the Who cares? That's how they work

14:15

though. Pretty

14:17

bad. Now onto Iran,

14:19

another

14:19

example of an illusion that's taking

14:22

place Now there are real actions happening.

14:24

I recommend you read this great article

14:26

that Robert Inlakesh put out,

14:28

Iran's protests are no longer about women's

14:30

rights. Now the point in this article

14:32

There's a lot be discussed, and I hope you'll read it as always.

14:35

But overall, there's

14:37

a lot to be suspicious about here. One,

14:39

don't forget operation Ajax, which I've

14:41

written about a lot and had interview interviews

14:44

I've done entire segments on

14:46

for the show about the

14:48

original coup. It's now

14:50

verified, proven, admitted to, may mean to a

14:52

degree, that the US government carried

14:54

out in Iran. And then

14:56

later, we saw the Iran revolution

14:58

taking it back. What's

15:00

happening today

15:01

is at the very least

15:05

partly a manipulation. Now, as

15:07

always, even going back there, there's

15:09

an organic part of this where they

15:11

take us to stay a political movement

15:13

that's in Iran that is upset about something that

15:15

just happened. And they charge

15:17

them up from within, get some kind of protest

15:19

going, and then they use that momentum

15:21

to carry out what they want. And usually

15:23

within that, Those protests die off

15:25

after a couple of days, and then

15:27

suddenly there's just this massive movement

15:29

of violence and acts and doing all of the

15:31

guys that is still part of that original thing and

15:33

it's not. That's proven. That's history. That's

15:35

in operation Ajax. Now here is an

15:37

example of why we should ask whether that's happening

15:39

again. And this is not even the the

15:41

last there's numerous times over

15:43

the last couple of decades where they've tried

15:45

numerous even I think even

15:48

I don't I don't make sure I'm not getting the date wrong. I

15:50

believe it was during Trump's administration, if I'm hearing

15:52

correctly. It's so much going on. But there

15:54

was already an attempt to do this and

15:56

blatantly got caught for it. But

15:57

so here, guess what, guys, you know the prominent

15:59

aspect of these actions are right now,

16:02

the Kurds. Let's not pretend like we don't know that the

16:04

Kurds are actual constant

16:06

proxy force used by the US and Israel

16:08

and so on. Now, it's not to say that there aren't some of are

16:10

here involved that aren't part that are organically

16:12

a part of this, but you have to

16:14

realize that that is the primary movement

16:16

of this after the original kind of

16:18

focus died away. And there's all these

16:20

violent acts. And guess what? They're they're aligned

16:22

in acting alongside groups like the

16:24

MEK. The MEK, which is a known

16:27

terrorist organization that even the US

16:29

designated as that until Harold and Clinton

16:31

and others removed them from that list. The

16:33

point is that they are very extremist.

16:35

In fact, the opposite of what they're pretending they're

16:37

fighting against. So they're protesting its women

16:39

rights, and any k, and it says in

16:41

TV channels like Iran International,

16:43

are the ones that are promoting that idea? Well,

16:45

they are the very people, as he writes, they could

16:47

take money directly from groups like

16:49

Saudi Arabia. and

16:50

MEK is extremist far

16:53

more so than what you might argue was happening in

16:55

Iran today openly stated. I mean, you

16:57

could there's and this is what our US government

16:59

supports because it's about porting, the people that

17:01

they can use. Like they tried to

17:03

support the moderate rebels in Syria, which

17:05

turned out just to be the worst of the worst.

17:07

because they're the people they can just pay to do

17:09

things. They don't and are morally

17:12

ambiguous. I mean, that's my

17:14

opinion ultimately, but we see them use these

17:16

kind of people. So when

17:18

we have the Kurds predominantly

17:20

rushing through and creating the kind of actions, we

17:22

should ask whether there's some kind of action taking place.

17:24

I don't know if it's entirely. but my

17:26

gut tends to think that especially what we're talking about today.

17:28

And then on and then finally, just a real

17:31

this is a this is why I love Robert's work in

17:33

this regard. this

17:35

part of it is something that most Americans don't

17:37

understand. And I'll be even I wasn't

17:39

fully I didn't have this

17:41

much of a picture of this topic. I

17:43

had similar kind of mindset listen to how

17:45

Robert describes this. Now, this is ignoring how very

17:47

clearly the US government is driving this forward,

17:49

and I'll make up another point next.

17:52

for their own agenda that has nothing to do

17:54

with what's better for women in Iran or Iranians

17:56

in general. In fact, what they do

17:58

almost always has the exact opposite

18:01

effect by design, I would argue.

18:03

He goes back to the original, the

18:05

shot, who took power after the operation

18:08

Ajax coup took place. and he

18:10

writes under the shaw, and this is so easy

18:12

to look up. Not only

18:14

were ordinary running and starved to death, robbed

18:16

of their nation's wealth, subjected a torture, and

18:18

robbed of the right to free speech, but they were

18:20

also forced to change

18:22

culturally to mimic the west. Now

18:24

the shah and his white

18:26

revolution as it was called forced the issue of

18:28

women's rights. but in the

18:30

form specifically of simply dressing and appearing

18:33

primarily in regard to

18:34

the west or as

18:36

he I'd read

18:37

that funny and kind of paraphrase it. But

18:40

women's rights was this claim but

18:42

in the form of dress and appearance.

18:44

in a way to make them look more Western,

18:47

not really about women's rights as a means

18:49

of appeasing a minority of Iranians,

18:51

but also forcing Western cultural

18:53

domination over the Islamic linked culture inherent

18:56

in Iranian identity. Now that's regardless of

18:58

what you think about that and whether or not you agree

19:01

with it, The point is that it's just time pre

19:04

before the US manipulation, that this

19:06

was a general, cultural thing. Now,

19:08

some people didn't agree with that. that's

19:10

how the world works. And Americans

19:12

are well aware that people don't agree with what

19:14

their political government is doing at

19:16

the time. What it says is that

19:18

time, Iranian lived in when when the shah was

19:20

in power, the US government, they lived in

19:22

slums and were subjected to abject

19:24

poverty, not every single person, but

19:26

a lot of Iranians, whilst a mayor white

19:28

white American settler communities were established throughout

19:30

Iran. Beginning to sound familiar, don't forget

19:32

that Israel had their hands all over this.

19:34

well, of course, the zionist really at the time, but the point

19:37

was this is a big part of this. And we do

19:39

know that that's

19:41

the same kind of thing that's happening in occupied Palestine.

19:44

But the main point is that this is

19:46

something that was suppressed

19:48

past when it was

19:49

a predominant Iranian

19:53

culture at the time because of

19:55

what outside forces ultimately wanted, not to

19:57

say that some of people didn't agree with this. Now,

19:59

one

19:59

someone person

19:59

commented about this getting upset, and acting

20:02

like Robert was insinuating

20:04

that all Iranian culture was like this

20:06

before this happened. And there's I don't know

20:08

why people always read in and let their

20:10

assumptions drive what they're discussing. In no way,

20:12

as Robert arguing, that they were all

20:14

living in slum before this. The bottom line is

20:16

this is an in indictment of

20:18

outside forces taking advantage of the situation

20:20

and hurting Iranian culture

20:22

and interest not the other way around.

20:25

just so I don't know how that was taken that way just

20:27

in case anybody else misunderstood what this

20:29

point was. But it goes on to say, so when

20:31

the Islamic revolution over through

20:34

the I

20:34

think it was seventy nine from me correctly,

20:36

wearing a

20:36

hijab was a symbol of rebellion

20:38

against the west and a form of

20:40

defiantly preserving Iranian culture.

20:42

so you can see how that then became a

20:44

symbol of defiance.

20:46

Now again, even then,

20:48

not everybody agreed with it, but many

20:50

others would along with this whether or not they saw

20:52

it as a woman's right issue just as

20:54

a way to fall back into what they thought was

20:56

classical running culture. Now, distinctive desire

20:59

for a return to the culture of the past

21:01

in defiance of Western modern

21:03

modern modern entity, the weird

21:06

word, something that we see we he says

21:08

that we see instill a prominent way of thinking

21:10

today. When one simply

21:12

looks at Iran's enforcement of

21:14

the hijab, without historical context. It would seem

21:16

to be illogical, yet it makes a lot of sense when

21:18

it's placed in its proper context. And

21:20

really, the real point from my perspective is that

21:22

we have no right to judge or

21:24

or discuss their cultural differences in

21:26

a way that only applies

21:28

it to our way of looking at things.

21:31

there's a lot of people that do not see as women's right

21:34

issue. But again, that's not the point here. Because

21:36

as you made clear in the article, there are ways

21:38

even within Iran's cultural or

21:40

or religious the right

21:42

way to frame it? There's much

21:44

more religious political overlap in

21:46

places like Iran, but there are still

21:48

ways that people can petition this and make change

21:50

happen even regard to the religious side of

21:52

things. Anyway, the bottom line is, and it's

21:54

not who's I'm not you know my opinion, I don't

21:56

trust the Iranian government or any government for that matter. I

21:58

don't think any government should ever say over the

21:59

people's lives. But it's

22:01

a difference that we can't just pretend the

22:03

US government understands or wants us

22:05

to understand. This is being

22:08

abused. And here we are again, where

22:10

guess what? As Ron Pauls to do

22:12

right, doesn't it strike anyone as strange that

22:14

the leader of this supposed freedom

22:16

movement in Ron involves groups like the

22:18

MEK that do nothing except remove people's

22:21

freedom, is a

22:22

US government employee?

22:24

What a surprise? and bosom buddy of

22:26

the neo cons. Here he she is right

22:28

next to mister We Lively, cheat,

22:30

we steal Pompeo. But hey, sure. It's

22:33

totally legit. And here is Jacob

22:35

Sullivan's point a point about this strange

22:37

idea to cast this

22:39

individual, Alinajad, who lives in

22:41

New York City, as the leader of

22:43

the Iranian protests that are explicitly being

22:45

done in the name of the local woman murdered by

22:47

Iranian police. Alinajad

22:49

is a US government employee who meets

22:51

regularly with NeoCon You

22:53

can read this for yourself. This is New Yorker. But the other point

22:55

of this, guys, is that there is

22:57

zero evidence, not to say, didn't happen,

22:59

but zero evidence that the

23:02

woman who died in custody was beaten. In

23:04

fact, she died of cardiac arrest. My

23:06

thought was, did she get an

23:08

injection? Well, of course, because I'm conspiracy

23:10

theorist. Right? But interestingly enough,

23:12

I was talking to Robert about this, and

23:14

it's very, very difficult more than most places to

23:16

get that kind of information.

23:19

especially in Iran, but the point

23:21

is that all of the injections, including

23:23

Iran's injections, even though they rejected

23:25

the mRNA, are still based on the spike

23:28

protein. I confirm that the other day

23:30

myself. So it's why not

23:32

ask that question. Seeing us how we're having

23:34

this

23:34

pandemic of

23:36

random unexplained sudden

23:38

death, In

23:38

this case, that's something we should ask. But

23:40

either way, the quick

23:43

pouncing on this discussion without any

23:45

evidence of actual torture or beaten or, you

23:47

know, especially coming from the entities like US

23:49

government that actively torture around the

23:51

world. The point is that Iran's

23:53

government is absolutely capable of

23:55

this. But without evidence, shouldn't

23:57

we care that it's proven one way

23:59

or the

23:59

other? Of

24:00

course, we should. But everything

24:03

speaks to this being a manipulation yet

24:05

again, whether for distraction or to drive in

24:07

another angle of this agenda. Iran has always

24:09

been a focal point especially for the

24:11

NeoCon. But with all of this,

24:13

with the leader tied to the NeoCon's, a US

24:15

employee, the lies about what happened, and

24:17

everything else included. Why wouldn't we ask

24:19

these questions?

24:20

The Kurds

24:21

included?

24:23

Anybody honest really is. And that's the point,

24:26

especially when you have groups around the world

24:28

jumping on this discussion, when there's so many

24:30

other examples of things like this happening, places

24:32

like Saudi Arabia or Israel or

24:34

places where they don't want you talking about. But

24:36

here's a Justin Trudeau stood up and said,

24:38

and we're gonna have a whole part at the end about trusting Trudeau

24:41

and Trudeau must go from Canada. But

24:43

here's

24:43

what he just said. Canada strongly supports

24:44

people who are expressing themselves and

24:47

protesting peacefully in Iran. Right.

24:49

They're on, but

24:50

we don't care with that, you know,

24:52

truckers and banking accounts and, you know,

24:54

no. Only in Iran, though, we claim we

24:56

support those people because that's not even what's happening happening

24:59

in large regard for garden degree now,

25:01

but he says we are calling on the Iranian regime

25:03

to end its repression of freedom

25:05

of expression. I mean, god, think

25:08

about the I

25:08

mean, I don't even know the right word is here. For

25:10

someone in

25:10

this position, they just don't care how

25:13

dumb this looks, knowing that they're

25:15

literally even if they claim it's justified,

25:17

doing exactly that, expression

25:20

of freedom of expression, shutting

25:22

that down, stopping people from

25:24

protesting, stealing their money, He goes on to say, Anne,

25:26

to end the ongoing harassment and

25:28

discrimination against women. When we support

25:30

Saudi Arabia though, like his people

25:32

are clownish. They

25:33

are cartoons of the reality. I mean, in fact, they have become

25:35

the cartoonish versions of what we used to paint

25:37

them as. It's bad.

25:39

This one, the

25:41

real any leach show,

25:43

responds to him and says, dude, you froze the bank account.

25:45

He did.

25:46

did Numerous other

25:47

people as well. Think about how

25:49

ridiculous that truly is. but

25:51

he's real still willing to tweet that out.

25:53

Now onto another point about

25:55

Ukraine, here's Aaron Mate pointing out according to

25:57

The New York Times, The

25:59

shelling of Ukraine's nuclear

26:02

plant has

26:02

been carried out by Russian

26:05

forces, which would mean that Russia is shelling a

26:07

nuclear plant that it's

26:08

currently occupying. This

26:10

they don't even care how stupid

26:12

this stuff looks. It doesn't matter.

26:14

The

26:14

post truth world that they discussed

26:16

has clearly come to pass because

26:18

of their actions. Now in the

26:20

world, are you gonna argue with a straight phase

26:22

that they're literally occupying a territory

26:24

of a nuclear that they're then

26:27

bombing as if that doesn't I mean, how do you

26:29

even make sense of that? But thank you

26:31

ever for pointing this out. Here's the

26:33

actual post. from yesterday or two days

26:35

ago. It says the shelling

26:37

apparently by Russian forces, great

26:39

journalism apparently. Couldn't you find out?

26:41

What's the claim? What's the argument? So

26:42

Ukraine said it was them. So therefore, we're

26:44

gonna say that. That's the the

26:47

gist the gist of it.

26:48

Apparently,

26:49

Russian forces of the nuclear plant

26:51

has raised the specter of deliberately

26:53

turning a commercial facility into a potential

26:55

dirty bomb. This becomes this this is a

26:57

spy novel. Now, is

26:58

it, of course, that's

27:00

possible?

27:00

But what do you have in the way of

27:03

evidence to make such a claim? First

27:05

of all, Ukraine says that Russia is

27:07

doing that, so they just say that. But because they're bombing

27:09

themselves apparently, you jumped to the fact that

27:11

they're apparently gonna try to deliberately

27:13

turn this into a dirty bomb despite the

27:15

fact

27:15

that they have a thousand easier way

27:17

of doing exactly that in ways that you wouldn't even be

27:19

able to tie back to them. I mean,

27:21

this just takes a certain level of

27:23

stupid, a special level of dumb.

27:26

to actually think that makes sense. But this is

27:28

what

27:28

the journalists of the real

27:30

New York Times are actually trying to

27:32

argue. How embarrassing Now

27:35

here's what he

27:35

also points out. They've read another article. Russia's

27:38

occupation of nuclear plant gives Moscow a new

27:40

way to intimidate. They're

27:41

still going after this argument and be you know,

27:43

who's actually been relentlessly bombing this

27:46

area, the Ukrainian military.

27:48

And then going there, we're

27:48

gonna blow things up if they keep staying there

27:51

because we're gonna bomb them. So

27:53

you're doing it then. No. No. No. They're doing it. We're

27:55

bobbing them. Yeah. You're bobbing them. It just it's

27:57

it's narrative control. That's all this is, and

27:59

it's really stupid. Now, the

28:01

Nord Stream pipeline, which is another interesting point

28:03

in all of this, of course, as that ties

28:05

into the planned deacon's

28:08

demolition essentially of all of

28:10

these things, You may have

28:12

heard that there's action or

28:14

rather the investigation of action around

28:16

the Nord one in

28:18

in regard well, technically,

28:20

Nord Stream two was shut down, which

28:22

is very telling in the first place, the

28:25

whole Germany being involved, US threatening

28:27

them even though they're now lying, but now apparently

28:29

there was some kind of a leak in

28:31

even Nord Stream one. and had to

28:33

shut it down. What a coincidence, right, at the

28:35

same time as everything else. But then it turns out

28:37

that people are going, hey, I think this was sabotaged,

28:40

including the Danish prime

28:42

minister has just spoken up and said

28:44

this was an attack.

28:47

This is

28:47

what's happening. Apparently, slow news day caught

28:49

this. This is the of a

28:51

European parliament

28:53

who basically just said thank

28:55

you USA. Well, that's

28:57

pretty weird. What does that mean?

28:59

as Steve writes, seems like he's openly

29:01

admitting the US government blew up North one and

29:03

two in the Swedish and Danish economic waters.

29:06

So you get a mulligan

29:08

for that at the next security council meeting? Or does

29:10

everyone have a snack? I mean, this is just

29:12

crazy. What do you

29:14

mean thank you USA? What does that

29:16

even showing a picture of this explosion or leak or

29:18

whatever we're looking at? It's

29:20

pretty strange. Well, from the New

29:22

York Times, European nations are

29:24

investigating now possible sabotage. tied

29:26

to leaks in the nor in the two Nord Stream pipelines,

29:28

which transport gas from Russia. The

29:30

leaks underscore the vulnerability of Europe's energy

29:33

infrastructure as it tries to weed off

29:35

Russia gas. How do you miss the

29:37

coordination to all of this? From

29:39

plants and food distributions? I mean,

29:41

litter. When's the last time you saw

29:43

major fires at any distribution

29:45

plants in in quick succession

29:48

or anything like this. I mean, you

29:50

just there's gets to a point where you have a

29:52

mathematical possibility here.

29:54

that all of these things would happen right at the time when they just so

29:56

happened to want to reduce these things. But we

29:58

didn't do it though. But what a what

30:00

a happy coincidence. Right?

30:03

Well, on top

30:04

of all of that and maybe you could read into

30:06

the timing of getting twelve billion dollars

30:08

to Ukraine, right after we see Ukrainian

30:10

action taking place or whatever

30:12

you can look at. There's a lot of ways to read into

30:14

this stuff. But as Thomas Massey points out,

30:17

I never agreed to this as a member of

30:19

Congress. Think about how chilling that is. who are

30:21

the negotiators and what qualifies them to obligate the people's house to

30:23

give away the people's money. US Congress

30:25

negotiators agree twelve

30:27

billion more dollars. of

30:30

new aid to Ukraine. Right?

30:31

You realize

30:32

that this is a point where this is like

30:34

admitting

30:35

these injections aren't working, but then still mandating

30:37

them. Think about how wild this

30:39

is. Is

30:39

anybody question that there's open neo

30:42

Nazis and Nazis and fascists and openly

30:44

open CIA elements

30:45

in Ukraine being used? and they

30:47

openly now admit that the whole plan was essentially to destabilize

30:49

Russia. I mean, it's amazing and yet here

30:51

we are. Still going. And if you poke at this

30:53

in the middle of some kind of open context, you're a

30:56

conspiracy there. despite the things

30:58

they've already admitted. On,

31:00

you

31:00

know, the Twitter sphere, but in other discussions

31:02

and think tanks, they can hopefully talk about how we've

31:04

always known their nazis. It's just

31:06

mind boggling. This is my point about

31:08

how I think everyone sees this. It's all

31:10

about just presenting the controlled narrative and

31:12

acting stupid. If we don't push them on, they

31:15

pretend like we're the minority. Time to

31:16

stand up, guys. This is

31:19

wild. Now,

31:19

this is all taking place. during

31:22

the

31:22

the referendums in regard to Ukrainian

31:24

or Russian territory, rather

31:26

the discussions of places like the like Don Bass and

31:28

others that are trying to leave

31:30

the Nazi controlled elements where they are

31:33

attacking Russians, speaking people. But

31:35

Reuters' rights, big majority said

31:37

to favor joining Russia in the first

31:39

boat results on future of occupied

31:41

Ukraine regions. Pretty

31:42

telling? That's Reuters,

31:44

sort of like we saw with the

31:46

Crimea area where they this is exactly

31:48

the same story. even though you

31:50

can prove as best you can anyway, it's

31:52

always possible there's something you don't see,

31:55

but that prove that this what this it's crummy

31:57

I'm speaking of was a fair

31:59

balance but but these people voted

32:02

to leave Ukraine

32:04

and join Russia as

32:06

predominantly Russian speaking areas that we can now

32:08

plainly see why. as their open leading

32:10

attacked called Muscobytes being tied

32:12

and and beaten and I mean, it's just it's

32:14

everywhere. And they still argue that was

32:16

fake news and they occupied them and took them.

32:18

That's like, It's just so childish.

32:20

So here we are again, where Don Bass has been

32:22

outspoken. You can pretty much anybody

32:24

that went to speak to these people is

32:26

predominantly saying that they they are being attacked. for

32:28

eight years plus they've been bombed and attack and

32:30

burned. You can openly see the civilian areas

32:32

of the Don Bass region right now

32:34

being bombed and attacked and murdered with people being up in the

32:36

streets. Nobody's questioning that. That's a civilian

32:38

area. There's no way that's

32:40

not being targeted.

32:42

illegal

32:44

it.

32:44

And all people there you could speak to, people

32:47

journalists, people on the ground, this is not

32:49

Russia. Ukraine is bombing civilian

32:51

territory, and the world just pretends it's not

32:53

happening. This is why these things are

32:55

happening. So my point is, Anybody

32:57

being honest about this can clearly see that

32:59

this is an overwhelming majority that wants to leave

33:01

because it's a no brainer. They don't wanna be a

33:03

part of this fascist entity anymore that

33:05

is killing them. pretty simple. But

33:07

here,

33:08

stupidly enough, is how it's framed by other

33:10

media. Oh, wait. I I thought I had another point

33:12

there. Hold on. I'll come

33:14

back to that one. Oh, this

33:16

is ABC. You know, stellar journalism

33:19

outlets. Occupied Ukraine holds Kremlin

33:21

staged vote. Oh, they must

33:22

have evidence to claim. Right? No. No. They

33:25

just say that because, well, it must be.

33:27

This is the state of corporate

33:29

media. shouldn't

33:31

you prove that they staged

33:33

a vote? Or is that even what they meant?

33:35

I mean, there's not even If you look into this,

33:38

You'll find that there's

33:38

only two references or technically one. This is my

33:40

thing up there. I should look at that earlier. One

33:43

word

33:43

the word staged is only in

33:46

the title. isn't that telling,

33:48

well, what do you mean by that? Staged only

33:50

has really one meeting that you're

33:52

pretending. A staged and

33:53

why would a Kremlin staged vote?

33:56

Here's what says in the subtitle. The Kremlin orchestrated

33:59

referendum, it's

34:01

not Kremlin orchestrated, I

34:03

mean, you could maybe argue with that. This is a

34:05

Don Bass led this is what

34:07

they want, and Russia is simply

34:10

endorsing that. That's I mean, at least

34:12

that's what we can anybody can prove. There's no

34:14

evidence to the contrary other

34:15

than what the

34:17

media just says. but

34:18

it says got underway and occupied regions of Ukraine that sought to

34:20

make them part of Russia or rather they sought

34:22

to make themselves part of Russia. with

34:25

some officials carrying ballots to apartment blocks accompanied

34:27

by gun toning police. They're trying to make this sound

34:29

like some kind of so why is that

34:32

even a bad thing? You're

34:33

talking about a war zone for crying out loud. And so

34:35

you're you're gonna you're gonna fault them

34:36

for how I mean, you see the point.

34:39

This is a painfully state. This they're trying

34:41

to make this seem fake. without

34:43

any evidence to make that claim. But that's what journalism does

34:45

today. Just insinuations or rather

34:47

fake journalism by

34:50

just arguing, well, because Russia, Kremlin, it must be fake, because

34:52

bad guy. That's they they should have wrote

34:54

that. One sentence had been

34:55

done with it because that's all they have in this

34:57

discussion. Read it for

35:00

yourself. That's childish. Now here is an

35:01

example of somebody involved who can prove these

35:04

things to you. Valentina

35:06

Liszitsa, a famous Kiev

35:08

born pianist,

35:10

votes

35:10

today on the referendum. This was on the twenty

35:12

fourth.

35:14

This is not somebody who's invested in the

35:16

general. I I mean, I can't say for sure. You never know

35:18

with people, but you're a

35:20

person who's very well known.

35:22

Worldwide,

35:22

who stands up and

35:24

votes for what she believes in, she supported the

35:26

self determination of the Don Bass region

35:28

from the beginning, which she was then canceled by

35:30

the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. Not a

35:33

joke. She

35:33

was banned from Twitter for her

35:35

views. That's the world we live

35:36

in today where you're not allowed to disagree

35:39

with them. you're an extremist according to KGP if you

35:41

just think differently than the majority. That

35:43

is a recipe for

35:46

authoritarian control. to where they're

35:48

pushing you. Couldn't Isn't she

35:50

allowed to be wrong, let's say? If

35:52

you're so certain that she has the

35:54

wrong view, You're

35:54

not even gonna be wrong anymore. No is not an option. We're gonna come

35:56

back around and ask you tomorrow. Right? We've seen the

35:58

way they're building this.

35:59

It's crazy.

36:00

that's crazy

36:01

Now, I

36:04

hope you will

36:04

continue to look into that in general about how

36:06

all of us seems circling around what's

36:09

happening there. But to switch

36:12

over into Assange, which is

36:14

obviously relevant to all of these

36:16

topics every point in foreign policy for

36:18

that Taylor Houdak just gave a speech that I wanted to tell you the clip from that

36:20

she shared. She said the US government must not

36:22

extradite Julian Assange to the USA. A

36:24

country that

36:24

conspired to assassinate him

36:27

The prosecution

36:28

of Assange impacts us all, and it impacts

36:30

the public's right to know. Here's a

36:32

brief excerpt from her speech in Vienna raising awareness

36:34

on the case. She's doing great things

36:36

outside of TLAB too. So make sure you check out her work, follow her Twitter account. But

36:38

it's just so important to see how relevant this

36:40

is. Even for those that still wanna argue, and maybe

36:42

you're right, that this is some kind of

36:46

controlled discussion. It really doesn't even matter at this point. I mean, it always matters. But

36:48

at the end of the day, whether controlled or

36:50

not, I don't think so, it still leads to

36:52

suppressing your ability

36:54

to speak. your speech,

36:56

your your journalism, it's it affects

37:00

everybody. But from the UK's perspective, it's illegal no matter

37:02

how they spend it because matter what the claims

37:04

and they lie all the time, the government, he

37:06

could be put to death.

37:07

That's a possibility. And therefore, the

37:09

UK government's laws stop them from being

37:11

able to send it, but As long

37:13

as the US swears they won't do it, well then they

37:15

can pretend like they're allowed to. That's again the

37:18

childish nature of all of this. But check the speech

37:20

out two minutes. Please watch this. Stay tuned. This

37:22

is important. Intelligence Services, we believe that to be the

37:24

CIA, contracted the

37:26

Embassy's security firm. Oftentimes,

37:28

Embassy's have security firms. This

37:32

one undead, and it was undercover global, UC global.

37:34

The job of this company was to

37:36

protect Julian Assange, to protect

37:39

the people who worked at the embassy and

37:41

also the visitors. But instead,

37:44

US Intelligence invited the

37:46

CEO of this

37:48

company to

37:48

reen network and

37:51

rewire the security system into

37:53

a surveillance system to gather

37:55

information

37:55

on Assange. All of his

37:57

contacts his attorneys. His attorney

38:00

client privilege was being

38:02

violated.

38:02

The privacy of

38:04

his friends, his family members,

38:06

himself, was being violated. Some

38:08

of the very grotesque things that happened

38:10

as a part of this surveillance operation is that

38:13

there was a camera placed into the

38:15

women's bathroom and even the DNA of Assange's infant son was taken

38:17

from a

38:17

diaper. That is how

38:20

depraved these individuals are and what they

38:22

did to journalist who

38:24

deeply embarrassed the US government and the

38:26

intelligence apparatus.

38:28

Think about how creepy

38:28

it is in the overlap there

38:31

of taking his DNA. Why

38:32

would they need that? Right? They have them

38:34

in

38:35

custody. Right? I

38:37

mean, I

38:37

don't have the

38:38

answer to that, but there's some pretty weird

38:41

overlaps the whole future direction they're going in

38:44

and why that might be used for some things that we

38:46

can't even have our minds around right now, but I that

38:48

concerns me. Right?

38:49

I mean, why the child I don't know. I'm sure

38:51

there's stated reasons for it, but seems pretty creepy

38:54

with the bio economy

38:56

direction. And lastly,

38:56

I will point out as well that

38:59

the CIA in fact plotted

39:01

to assassinate Assange.

39:04

Many of you may be

39:06

looking at me like, okay, this is

39:07

maybe a step two far?

39:09

Come on. You're you're just

39:11

speculating. There's They wouldn't possibly do

39:13

that or how could you really prove

39:16

that? Well, the

39:18

reality is, We had thirty former US

39:20

officials who went to Yahoo News

39:22

and revealed

39:22

this that, yes, in fact, were

39:26

serious plans to kidnap and

39:28

assassinate Assange while he

39:28

was in the Ecuadorian embassy

39:31

in London. Fortunately,

39:34

this plan did not come to fruition, but there were

39:36

serious plans to kill this

39:38

individual,

39:38

to assassinate him, and

39:41

think about this.

39:42

the UK recently

39:43

just approved the extradition order.

39:46

How could it be that the UK

39:48

government approved

39:50

the extradition of

39:53

a man to a country whose intelligence agencies

39:55

conspire to assassinate him. That is the state

39:57

of our

39:57

media right now. That is the state of

39:59

the Western Empire the

40:02

Western intelligence agencies in Western countries, in particular, the

40:05

United

40:05

States government and the UK

40:07

government working in Kahoots

40:10

and together.

40:11

Well done.

40:13

She really is doing a great job out there. It's

40:15

it's just so alarming. And that one of the parts that

40:18

stands out to me is the fact that even

40:20

in the speech and discussion, you know, she says it that

40:22

way because people have a tendency to do

40:24

that. Wait a

40:25

minute. Really, they tried to kill

40:27

him, you know, like the this mindset where

40:29

that does that sounds pretty grandiou. Well, and

40:32

and, you know, the point is it's

40:34

admitted to. blatantly openly by numerous people and yet it's

40:36

still regarded as some kind of

40:38

quasi reality. You know, it's it's that's the

40:40

it because people have been engineered

40:44

or rather yeah, I mean, engineer is a good word socially engineer, but if they've

40:46

been trained and manipulated and seeing

40:48

it that way. Now, we've

40:50

seen a

40:52

lot happen sensorsons and and the information that he revealed

40:54

through WikiLeaks, but one of the

40:56

things that was very clear in

40:58

all of

41:00

that. one of the many things is that we, as the peoples

41:02

of our countries, are being focused on,

41:04

being tracked, monitored. Right? We've

41:06

all seen that come to pass.

41:08

But what we didn't really see or a lot of people didn't see

41:10

is how this would end up being turned into what

41:13

we're seeing in regard to

41:16

the domestic terrorism, January six kind of overlap here,

41:18

which, again, I really hope you can see it

41:20

as not as much as it's being used in

41:22

a partisan way. It's not a partisan

41:26

thing. Right? They're using part of the party illusions to drive

41:28

people to take action in my opinion. You know? And I

41:30

could be wrong, but I don't think that's really what

41:32

this is

41:34

about. But one of the overlaps before

41:36

I get into a couple parts about January sixth

41:38

is that we just saw the new

41:40

prime minister of Italy give a speech.

41:43

I'm gonna I'll just read it to you since it's a

41:45

translation, but it's important to see this first before we

41:47

get into all of it.

41:49

It's really

41:50

interesting. to come

41:51

out and say that we're going in a different direction, really calling out

41:53

as I wrote in

41:55

this the woke I

41:57

wrote, the new prime minister, vigil, just gave a huge speech taking a

41:59

stance against the new woke political direction

42:02

in all of it. A lot of different ways.

42:04

Her and this is and despite her

42:06

winning the election, which again, you know, from my

42:08

perspective is a huge you know, I'm just saying

42:10

that from the mainstream discussion point,

42:12

whether or not for those votes translated

42:14

to her being elected is I

42:16

would never say, I believe one for way or the other,

42:18

man. I don't know, and I my gut tells me

42:20

probably not, but call me a pessimist. But

42:22

regardless of that, despite that being the stated reality

42:24

that, you know, pretending

42:26

democracy is the thing that the election

42:28

translates to her being what people want, and

42:30

yet they still don't care, and her stance

42:32

being rooted in choice, which

42:34

it is. That's

42:34

the what's the point? Choice.

42:36

The same way they pretend

42:37

that mega people wanna take

42:38

your choices away. Now you could argue

42:40

that in a sense of, like, specifically

42:44

abortion that many people in certain

42:46

right leaning categories would would go

42:48

as far as to say they're gonna allow to do

42:52

that. And

42:52

yeah, that that that that but that's one of the the

42:54

main points, but within

42:55

the whole discussion, to pretend that they

42:57

are taking your choice away or who you

42:59

can marry and

43:02

so on. again, you can find some extreme discussion to the far,

43:04

you know, like from the old school

43:06

rightly. But that's not the way it is.

43:08

In a larger sense around

43:10

the general discussion coming from

43:12

just a conservative discussion. Especially when

43:14

it comes to the vaccine conversation, I've made this very

43:18

clear. It's not saying you aren't allowed to take it. It's saying that we have

43:20

a choice. The other

43:21

side is you have to. Right?

43:23

The other side is you

43:24

have be allowed to, women have to

43:26

be, you know, it's it's it's the way that

43:28

it is being framed is illusory. It's

43:31

not the reality. But again,

43:33

you could go in the whole two

43:35

party paradigm is meant to be a quagmire of nonsense in my opinion. But

43:37

this point is that she's

43:39

saying, family, family god

43:42

god, country I believe is kind of the talking points. And

43:44

I knew when this came out that she

43:45

would be framed as

43:46

an extremist, it's amazing to

43:48

see that series

43:50

of

43:50

points being framed as extreme today. When reality

43:52

is the push of all the new woke

43:54

direction and trends and all the different stuff

43:56

that has become the that's extreme.

43:59

really is. An

43:59

doesn't have to be bad. It just

44:01

simply means that

44:02

it's it's they're taking dramatic steps

44:04

in direction that the general consensus

44:06

of most people is not that's

44:09

okay.

44:09

Story drag drag queen drag

44:12

queen story time for preschoolers.

44:14

That's not normal and it's

44:16

not what

44:16

most people think is okay. So therefore, it's extreme. Now,

44:18

I personally also think that it's bad

44:20

and wrong because it's wildly sexualized. And

44:24

despite the arguments. Otherwise, it obviously is when they're standing in

44:26

Fishnet shirts with their boobs showing

44:28

except for the nipples. That's not okay.

44:32

just saw a picture of one of the mayor standing next to one of these people at

44:34

drag queen story

44:35

time and she's literally wearing a see

44:37

through

44:37

shirt. That's not okay.

44:40

Anyway,

44:40

the point is that's what they try to frame as extremist

44:42

to say that some people disagree with that.

44:44

And as

44:45

I said, that I have no doubt should be labeled

44:47

as such. In the very next

44:50

return of fascism in Italy. Fascist. Right?

44:52

So it's

44:52

fascist to argue I mean, just

44:54

because it's a

44:55

nationalist kind of perspective, they

44:57

call it fascism. despite the fact that the very clearly,

44:59

the people that are driving the other side of that argument

45:02

are wildly fascist in everything

45:04

they're doing,

45:06

including the public private partnerships and the four I mean, even the groups

45:08

like antifa, which he pointed out

45:10

before, who are perceived as left, are

45:12

literally fascist in everything

45:14

they do. despite themselves

45:16

being called antifascist. Now,

45:18

that point

45:18

first, which is clear

45:21

about taking this kind of direction

45:23

or even just a disagreement with their direction and calling it extreme, calling

45:25

it fascist

45:28

is

45:28

just

45:29

I

45:31

don't wanna say but mean, like calling this is like

45:33

that woman who called the world the

45:35

word normal, a

45:37

far right

45:38

term. I mean,

45:39

it's meant not make sense. Now, that being

45:41

said, the the next question should be

45:43

whether or not she is genuine, and whether

45:45

or not this is just being used as a

45:47

way to justify

45:49

the battle between

45:50

the sides. Right? They want

45:52

us divided. Don't

45:54

they? So just because she seems to be

45:56

aligning with what we think is the right direction or some

45:58

people may think, shouldn't just go, there you

45:59

go. She's on our side because that would be

46:02

naive. Right? Controlled opposition

46:04

is a very real thing. Now,

46:06

do

46:06

I know

46:07

for sure? No. Well, first

46:09

of all, the other point here was as media research center points out, the

46:11

headline would, of course, have been

46:13

first

46:13

female Italian prime

46:16

minister. which

46:17

is interesting point. Right? Because that's the they're

46:19

just desperate to make these points all over the

46:21

world except

46:22

when she's not going along with the

46:24

plan. Here's what

46:25

this news media

46:27

report said.

46:27

In Italy, tomorrow, a peer poised

46:29

to make a hard right turn, the

46:32

woman expected to become prime minister

46:34

leads a party with roots in neo

46:36

fascism.

46:36

The hallmarks of Italian fascism

46:39

like this motto. god fatherland

46:42

and family. They far god

46:44

fatherland in country as opposed to there

46:46

this is in in interpretation of the

46:50

of translation. I'll I'll merge you the other one. I said, by a political

46:52

party whose roots go back to post war. And here's

46:54

what actually, here's what's funny as

46:56

they're screaming the same

46:58

exact kind of thing, not god

47:00

in country, but in regard to the fatherland and

47:02

how they frame it, that's exactly what the

47:04

open fascist

47:06

in Ukraine that these exact same people are currently funding and supporting

47:08

are screaming. So how

47:10

does that make sense? Right? So it's bad for her

47:12

to be a fascist even though it's not, but I I don't

47:14

think that's what

47:16

this is. at least on the surface, except then we're

47:17

funding the very

47:19

same wildly outspoken version of that right

47:21

now in Ukraine. But because

47:24

freedom though, Right? So it's so it's

47:26

okay to support them when they are

47:28

doing something you want. So then you

47:30

don't care about any of it, really. It's just about

47:32

your agenda. Right? And somebody caught that the hard right turn. what

47:34

a child is framing of all this? So they

47:36

just voted to go with the

47:38

right side. Right?

47:40

So it's our right turn. Did you call it a hard left turn when it goes back

47:42

the other way? No. It's just it's just making it sound

47:45

like they took a wrong choice.

47:48

World War

47:49

two neo fascists. Far right political party whose roots

47:51

go back to post World War two

47:53

neo fascists. The roots in at

47:55

least post war Fascist

47:57

movement. Roots in Italy's twentieth century

47:59

neo

47:59

fascist movement. Ramani, herself,

48:02

was a a hardcore

48:05

neo fascist is military. It's done in because of

48:07

Italy's disastrous history, the last time a

48:09

hard right party rose to power.

48:11

The most far right government in

48:13

that country since Mussolini.

48:16

Most now now

48:18

remember, what

48:18

god. I just did it

48:20

again. I'm forgetting her name. Vaughn Ursula. I forget

48:22

her Ursula, I think, their her name. I don't know why I

48:25

keep linking her name. From the EU, who just spoke

48:27

up and said, well, you know,

48:29

if they go, in a certain direction.

48:31

We have tools. So so then you don't care about

48:34

democracy

48:34

then? Or is it only when you

48:36

don't get what you

48:36

want, you claim it's not legitimate? Okay.

48:40

Either way you take it. They just make this like with Bolivia. Fake

48:42

news, fake election, except nope. Not at

48:44

all. MIT proved it, but we never go back. Right?

48:47

They just get what they want.

48:50

The interesting part about this is if these people like,

48:52

if they're the ones that keep

48:54

screening about how we have to respect

48:56

democracy, and

48:58

then they vote and this person gets elected, you can't just be like,

49:00

well, then Italy's all bad, and they're all bad people,

49:02

which is essentially what they're doing.

49:05

either they're gonna pretend this isn't a fake election

49:07

or that they're just gonna be like, well, Italians want

49:09

statues of men, they're bad people. And even

49:11

if that

49:11

is the truth, it's none

49:13

of your business. don't they have

49:15

a right to vote

49:16

what they want? But that's not ultimately what's happening. This is all wild

49:18

Thank you. Vander of underlying, that's

49:20

funny. But the the that

49:23

the the point here is that this is not as

49:25

simple as they're trying to make it out to

49:27

be. Right?

49:29

But democracy only matters when they

49:31

get what they want to pair Right

49:34

wing government. Since Mussolini,

49:36

since Mussolini. A red

49:38

flag, if there ever was one, says

49:40

Edith Brooks, a renowned

49:42

poet, and Holocaust survivors. Italy,

49:44

about to see the country's most right

49:46

wing government since World War two. Most

49:48

you know, is it is it an embarrassing how

49:50

they all just have exact same talking points, like almost

49:52

down to the exact words because these

49:55

aren't actually critically thinking people. Our

49:57

right. Our right. Our government since World

49:59

War two. Since the end of

49:59

World War two. Maloney's win

50:02

will probably

50:02

send alarm bells throughout Europe. You

50:04

know, it's alarming to a lot of

50:07

people around Europe. Italy

50:08

is revered for No. No. It's alarming to the

50:10

people trying to frame that as being alarming to people in

50:12

Europe. Most people in Europe don't want

50:15

what you're selling. That's the illusion. It's history, but not

50:17

all of that history is beautiful and

50:19

many fear that one particularly

50:21

ugly chapter could

50:23

soon repeat itself. Oh,

50:25

you mean Nazis? Yeah. The unspoken word. I mean,

50:27

they're just they're they're they're subtle as a

50:29

almost custer as a

50:32

hammer. But It's

50:33

just so it's so

50:35

frustrating. Now any

50:36

government, any government, as

50:38

we can

50:39

see today in this country can very clearly

50:41

quickly lead to authoritarian them, especially

50:44

when they want that. So

50:46

is that will that end up being a situation

50:48

of so who that's up for the people and the

50:50

government themselves that country

50:52

to

50:52

decide? But it's a

50:54

question to be had about whether or not it's even the

50:56

world's decision. They're trying to make this out to

50:58

be that the world has a say in everything else now.

51:00

because of the multi polar, the great reset direction. Even though

51:02

it's nothing about its multi polar, it's an illusion

51:04

of thing. This is about government top down

51:07

control of the world. as

51:09

very being framed,

51:12

this is just an interesting development in all of it.

51:14

But the other point

51:16

was where was I here?

51:18

they are

51:19

Right. About her

51:22

and

51:22

and this it goes I mean,

51:25

it makes a lot of sense when you think about it that

51:27

this is a person that is Maybe

51:29

on Whittingly, maybe a Donald Trump situation, if you still think that's how it worked,

51:31

being put in this position. Alright. So this

51:33

is a person post in that same video, which oh,

51:35

shit. I didn't play for you yet.

51:37

Let me play She

51:39

says this is

51:42

about what we are doing here today. Please

51:44

answer me these questions. Why

51:48

is the family an enemy? Why is the family

51:51

so frightening? There's a

51:53

single answer to all

51:56

these questions. She says, because it defines us, because

51:58

it's our identity, because everything that

51:59

defines us is now an enemy. For those who

52:02

would like

52:04

us, for

52:04

those who would like us to no longer have an identity

52:06

and just simply be perfect consumer

52:10

slaves. And so they attack

52:12

national identity. They attack religious

52:14

identity. And so they attack

52:16

national identity. They attack religious identity.

52:19

when they attack gender identity, they attack family

52:22

identity. I define myself as

52:23

an Italian Christian

52:24

woman, mother, no. I

52:27

must be citizen

52:28

x, gender. Dang it.

52:30

I must be

52:32

citizen

52:32

x, gender x, she says partner

52:34

one, parent one, parent two, I

52:37

must be a number. We

52:38

all see

52:40

this. Damn it.

52:40

The stupid thing.

52:42

Twitter is

52:44

so bad. Like, see, and I don't know if it's

52:46

just some of us being censored or manipulated

52:48

or,

52:49

you know,

52:50

what's the word throttled?

52:52

it's

52:52

just so hope it's not like I I will I try to remember to take these these opportunities to be

52:54

like, look at how bad this platform is. Look at

52:57

how slow and crappy and

52:59

loading it is. Look at YouTube constantly glitches out and videos

53:01

don't work anymore. You know, maybe they censored themselves

53:04

into broken nature. You know, maybe they what

53:06

what's the term that corporate use? They

53:09

they broke themselves to censor us.

53:12

Right? Interesting.

53:12

Something's going

53:14

on. These these these platforms are clearly having

53:16

problems. in a lot of different ways they

53:18

didn't used to. So I do think that's part of

53:20

it. So every chance you get, take the opportunity to

53:22

point out how much worse Twitter is in a

53:24

functional way than, I don't know, parlor gab

53:27

to social, any of the

53:29

rest of them. Right? See if

53:31

it loads this

53:34

time.

53:36

Because when I'm a number,

53:37

she says, when I no longer have

53:39

an identity or roots, then

53:41

I'll be a perfect slave at the mercy of the financial

53:44

speculators, the perfect consumer. That's

53:46

for the reason why, that's why we

53:48

inspire so much fear. That's why the

53:50

events inspire so much

53:51

fear because we do not want to be

53:54

numbers. We we will defend the

53:56

value of the human being. Every

53:58

single human

53:58

being because each of us has

53:59

a unique genetic code that is

54:02

unrepeatable. It's weird point.

54:04

And like it or not, that is sacred.

54:06

We will defend it. We will defend God, country, and family.

54:08

See, fatherland is how they frame it. They want it to

54:11

sound like a fascist entity. Is it country,

54:13

fatherland? Does it make a

54:16

difference? of course, it does when they wanna

54:18

you know, like with Corvid's documentaries, how they wanna intentionally mistranslate and leave

54:20

out words to make it sound like they

54:23

meant certain things just like

54:26

this. Those things that dis

54:27

that disgust people so much, we will do

54:29

it to defend our freedom because

54:30

we will never be slaves and simple consumers

54:33

at the mercy of financial speculators.

54:36

That is our mission. That is why I came here today.

54:38

Charles Chesterton wrote more than a

54:40

century ago, let's see if I can find it.

54:43

fires will be mingled to testify that two and

54:45

two make four. Sources will be drawn

54:48

to prove that leaves are green in the

54:50

summer. The time has arrived and we

54:52

are ready. Thank

54:53

you. Now how in the world do you

54:54

frame that as extremist? The only

54:56

way they do that is by going

54:58

wink wink, nudge, nudge, here's what

55:01

she really means. which is what

55:03

they do with everybody. Here's what Putin mean under the words

55:05

he said. No, he said what he

55:07

meant. I mean, other I mean,

55:09

you can't assume otherwise, Otherwise,

55:12

you're apparently psychic. You somehow know what he

55:14

really feels. I don't know why people bought

55:16

started buying that kind of nonsense, but that's

55:19

all over the media today.

55:21

This is she stated what she meant. Now

55:23

because you wanna pretend that saying country

55:25

God and family is somehow

55:28

extreme, well, that exposes the

55:29

extreme nature of their current stance. There's plenty of

55:31

people as

55:31

we well know that believe that's the

55:34

most foundational point of

55:36

their of their lives,

55:38

really? I'm one of them.

55:39

I agree. Family, I

55:41

would say, when I

55:42

say country, I would argue that it's the people of

55:44

the country you're from, not the government,

55:46

Of course, these things are

55:49

important. And of course, they are dissolving them right

55:51

in front

55:51

of us. Now,

55:52

to the point

55:54

though, I

55:55

knew they would call this fascist extreme because that's

55:57

part of the agenda. Now, is she

55:59

actually

55:59

preaching these things? Or will she be

56:01

a perfect example

56:04

of how they do go in a fashion direction. And if that does happen, is

56:06

that going to be because there seems

56:08

to be things that she

56:10

doesn't want you to know?

56:12

For

56:13

instance, this person

56:15

points

56:16

out. In Sweden, she

56:18

has some

56:18

it says, don't

56:21

celebrate too too soon. Here

56:22

she is discussing the green pass on October twenty first,

56:24

or April twenty first, says, quote, we are

56:26

the first to support the green pass, and we

56:28

hope that it will soon be rolled out

56:32

across Europe. Well, wait a minute. I thought she's supposed to be

56:34

this triumphant leader pushing back against the

56:36

great reset. Here's what

56:38

it says.

56:38

with that So the code

56:40

I'm thinking for example of the

56:44

oh, I'm sorry. Of the theme

56:46

of the digital green certificate,

56:49

We were

56:49

the first to

56:50

support it. We

56:51

hope it will be adopted as soon as

56:53

possible. In a

56:55

in a horizon

56:56

of total, recipitate reciprocal. With all European states,

56:58

it is a prox a priority. It

57:00

is essential for restore freedom of movement and

57:02

above all the restart tourism.

57:06

I obviously want to say hello, and I go on to the

57:08

conclusion, representatives of the health professions.

57:12

You know,

57:13

you know and

57:13

the names in favor of a, you know, shield of the health

57:16

professionals, doctors for all

57:18

vaccinators. Right? So protecting them,

57:20

liability, green

57:22

pass, Okay. That doesn't really sound like what she just expressed.

57:24

This person says, damn, I got sucked

57:26

into listening believing in her sovereignty, family

57:28

country, rant, spiel before this one.

57:31

Good god. What happened? Was she taken into a world economic

57:34

forum or education camp or, you know, just people

57:36

just theorizing? Was she in terms of kind of being

57:38

facetious, but she lying to you from the beginning?

57:40

That's what I would ask. This

57:42

person

57:42

says, maybe just another coincidence. But

57:44

as this says, has been

57:46

she's been at who a number

57:48

of the Aspen Institute meetings a

57:50

US think tank headquartered in Washington since February twenty twenty one. This is

57:52

financed by the Gates Foundation among others. Okay.

57:54

So going to think tanks in meetings with the

57:57

very people that she seems to be

57:59

pushing back against promoting the green

58:02

pass, all of this seems to

58:03

be very concerning to me.

58:05

That in fact, it

58:07

could very well be exactly

58:09

what we're most concerned about. Setting you

58:10

up. Support the

58:11

very person that then becomes what they want

58:13

them to become. I don't know if

58:15

that's what's happening. but

58:17

I certainly am concerned about

58:19

it. Because

58:20

this whole push

58:22

to

58:22

create what I argue

58:24

was a trap, the maga

58:25

trap I called it,

58:27

in this country at the very least is

58:29

very transparent. They are trying to set

58:31

these people up and don't forget that

58:33

this ties back the groups in Ukraine

58:35

that the CIA under aerodynamic have verifiably

58:38

created for decades to be used

58:40

against Russia

58:42

and now we see them overlapping with the groups that are working out of Russia, the

58:44

groups that are in the United States, like the

58:46

rights above movement, which are on paper,

58:48

the international

58:49

arm of the Azov

58:52

movement, and all this ties

58:52

together. So what are they trying to create exactly? What are they trying to

58:55

set you up for? Well, there's

58:56

an obvious way to see that they're not

58:59

actually trying to go after everybody that was there, which

59:01

then suggested that some of the people that were there

59:03

as we know

59:05

were there

59:06

on an official order

59:08

official business. One

59:09

of these people

59:11

is Ray apps, who clearly

59:14

part of this who was listed as one of

59:16

the most number one sought suspects in

59:18

all this until suddenly he just got scrubbed from

59:20

the website and nobody got him and nobody

59:23

went after him. the point is, they know this.

59:25

They've seen the videos. We've all talked about

59:27

it. And now they pretend like they don't even

59:29

know who he is. Raskin

59:31

seems to suggest he doesn't even know who Ray ups

59:33

is. So he says, hey, January's SIS

59:35

committee, since representative Raskin,

59:36

who's on the January's SIS

59:40

committee, seems a claim he

59:42

just doesn't

59:42

know Reyes is, even while claiming time to speak against a resolution

59:44

requesting DOJ release information

59:47

about him. I mean, this

59:49

is transparent. These people are

59:51

caught. Listen

59:52

to to Thomas Massey calling this

59:54

out. Myself and three members of

59:56

this Mitty, Chip Roy, Kim Buck, and

59:58

Tom McClintock issued an

59:59

statement urging people not to come

1:00:02

here to accept the results of

1:00:04

the electors. And so today, I don't have an

1:00:06

ideological axe to grind

1:00:08

either. I find it odd that

1:00:10

you all are defending one of

1:00:12

the people. who assaulted the

1:00:14

capital. Defending who? Rehups.

1:00:16

I I literally have no

1:00:18

idea what you're talking about. That's the resolution.

1:00:20

Okay. Well, I'll reclaim my time here

1:00:24

the the the GOP side has

1:00:27

see,

1:00:27

that he put them in a perfect position

1:00:29

there.

1:00:30

Right? So the entire thing to

1:00:32

go back to it. The entire thing, the resolution they're putting forward, is

1:00:34

about requesting

1:00:35

information on him. And so when

1:00:37

they they attack that, they are

1:00:39

stopping that from happening. And so

1:00:41

how can you pretend you don't know who he

1:00:43

is when you're stepping in to

1:00:45

stop information about him from coming out? I mean,

1:00:47

it's this is how transparent all of this

1:00:50

has become. Now that doesn't mean I

1:00:52

know exactly how this is played out and

1:00:53

what they're really trying to accomplish. You know my opinions,

1:00:55

but this speaks strongly

1:00:58

to dishonesty.

1:01:00

Trying to cover

1:01:01

this up. Now here's representative Marjorie

1:01:02

Keller Green, regardless of your opinions about

1:01:04

her. I'm not I don't support any

1:01:07

of these people, including Thomas Massey, I am not a

1:01:09

supporter of any of these political people. At

1:01:11

all, I tend to think even someone like Massey

1:01:13

who seems to be trying to do the

1:01:15

right thing. Just if you're looking at the actions

1:01:18

being taken, I'm still very concerned about

1:01:20

some

1:01:20

call

1:01:23

me jaded call me pessimistic, but I am not going to

1:01:25

put my trust in his people probably ever

1:01:27

again. I've just too many times have seen

1:01:29

this go the wrong way. But as

1:01:31

she points out, here is right apps, and you've seen

1:01:34

this on my show before.

1:01:36

Here, there's

1:01:36

tagging rep representative Raskin.

1:01:38

and the committee, which I I promise you will still not see any action here.

1:01:40

Why is he a free man? While others who

1:01:42

were simply present and didn't even commit

1:01:45

crimes are rotting in pre

1:01:47

trialed prison in

1:01:49

America. Right? You know, you

1:01:51

know, being held without charge

1:01:53

or rather specifically in the case that there's a

1:01:55

lot of people that are being held

1:01:57

on presumptive charges. I mean, it's it's not new for

1:01:59

this

1:01:59

country. Derek wrote a great article in the past

1:02:02

about somebody who was apparently at least on the

1:02:04

record over in Syria trying

1:02:06

trying to as a journalist, recorded

1:02:07

what was going on there at the time, got arrested

1:02:09

as a terrorist for working

1:02:11

with ISIS, and

1:02:13

and eventually long

1:02:14

story, but eventually got released. But

1:02:16

the point

1:02:18

was he there was no evidence. There was

1:02:20

nothing proven. they held they held this

1:02:22

guy for over a year, if I if I

1:02:24

remember correctly. On the claim he's

1:02:26

worked with working with Isis. His story was a

1:02:28

a challenging

1:02:30

that. But the point was as an American, in the United States, he didn't

1:02:32

get a trial, he didn't get, you know,

1:02:34

into anything. Maybe a percent evidence

1:02:36

didn't get representation. I mean, this is

1:02:39

the illusion that we pretend rather the real

1:02:41

point is that this is what your government

1:02:43

thinks of the constitution. But it says he

1:02:45

organized people to go into the capital. Why

1:02:47

didn't you accuse him of insurrection? I mean,

1:02:49

and this is You guys have seen this, I'm sure,

1:02:51

but I'll play it again. This is him screaming. We

1:02:53

need to go and do capital, and people even around

1:02:55

you were going fed. Fed, don't do it. We

1:02:57

it's just this transparent, guys. But

1:03:00

tomorrow, we

1:03:00

need to go into the

1:03:04

capital. Zad,

1:03:11

vet, vet, vet, vet,

1:03:14

vet, vet, vet tomorrow.

1:03:16

I don't even

1:03:17

like to say because I'll be arrested. Well,

1:03:19

let's not say we need. We need

1:03:21

to go I'll say it. Alright. We need to go in. Shut the

1:03:23

fuck up, Uber. To the capital. Base

1:03:26

Fedposting. We need to

1:03:30

go in the capital. I didn't see that coming through.

1:03:32

Okay. I'm speaking.

1:03:34

Yeah. So think about that right

1:03:36

there, by the way. And that's just one example, but

1:03:39

this supposed to be

1:03:39

some coordinated effort where they all have the plan to do

1:03:42

exactly that, it doesn't seem like any of these people

1:03:44

are

1:03:45

aware of that. looks

1:03:50

far. It's not correct

1:03:52

yet. Alright. No,

1:03:55

David. One more task, after we go

1:03:57

out there? Nope. we go in We

1:03:59

need

1:03:59

to get a shot.

1:04:02

We don't need to get a shot.

1:04:12

hi It's

1:04:35

pretty clear.

1:04:37

Now it doesn't matter what you

1:04:39

think about the level I

1:04:40

mean, that's a person that was involved. period.

1:04:43

And if they've got grandmoms that were simply

1:04:46

present in jail, why wouldn't he be

1:04:48

arrested? Why would he be a top

1:04:50

suspect and then remove That's what happens when

1:04:52

you got contacted by somebody and says,

1:04:54

hey, that's an asset, remove it from the list,

1:04:56

and they do so. That's how

1:04:58

that looks. It's very

1:05:00

clear, guys. There's an obvious agenda here.

1:05:02

Don't forget, there's people involved in

1:05:04

the militias that were admitted to be in

1:05:06

the FBI. there's a woman from a psychological operations outfit that claims she was

1:05:08

just there. I mean, there there's a thousand

1:05:10

examples of the

1:05:11

government being present.

1:05:13

You can't

1:05:14

miss

1:05:16

this. It was not what they said it was.

1:05:18

They're hyping up the idea of how

1:05:20

people were only people were killed at the people was bludgeoned to death in

1:05:22

January six. It was an armed insurrection.

1:05:24

They wouldn't have to lie about all this if it

1:05:26

was

1:05:26

not an illusion.

1:05:28

It's very clear. Go and

1:05:31

we have to go into the capital and they

1:05:33

know this was about trying to create

1:05:35

the justification for using these people as the

1:05:37

scapegoat they want them to be. Now on

1:05:39

that note, I want us to consider the

1:05:41

fact that

1:05:42

all of

1:05:44

this outside

1:05:45

of two party

1:05:47

paradigm discussion, guys, is driving

1:05:48

in the same direction. I know we want to

1:05:51

believe in people like DeSantis and others and, you

1:05:53

know, maybe I'm wrong. I hope

1:05:56

I'm wrong. But this kind of thing stands out to me as the

1:05:58

entire state of

1:05:58

Florida just declared a

1:05:59

state of emergency because of

1:06:02

the because of the

1:06:03

hurricane. Now

1:06:05

sure, it seems serious, but why

1:06:07

do we need to declare an emergency for

1:06:10

weather?

1:06:11

or weather

1:06:13

Right? I

1:06:13

mean, really think about that. Well, they are y'all to remove the block it. Why

1:06:15

are their blocks? Why do we need the the

1:06:16

point is that there's already all

1:06:19

sorts of preplanned

1:06:21

setups for any kind of especially in places like Florida that

1:06:23

have this kind of weather. So just

1:06:26

organize things. You

1:06:26

don't need to declare a state

1:06:29

of emergency. What that does? is

1:06:32

normalizes the idea of anytime they see

1:06:34

fit declaring emergency, which

1:06:36

then does allow them

1:06:38

unilateral powers They might it allows them to

1:06:40

take action. They don't need to justify. This is the normal. Even

1:06:42

from places like this, now

1:06:43

whether it's because COVID or

1:06:45

vaccine mandates, or something else, it's all in the same It's

1:06:48

emergency governance. Now, this

1:06:49

same kind of thing whether you want to think

1:06:51

that way or not could be used

1:06:53

in other directions. or

1:06:55

maybe the next person that's in charge in Florida. Right? We have to

1:06:58

think past the current political

1:07:00

talking points. This is

1:07:02

the direction whether or not you're involved

1:07:04

in a two party paradigm. Now on the idea

1:07:07

of censorship around all of this, leading

1:07:09

us into the COVID discussion, Derek

1:07:11

Rose posted something really interesting here that I think

1:07:13

is important to consider. It's not COVID

1:07:16

related, but it shows you how these

1:07:18

controlled situations

1:07:20

take place. In

1:07:20

an interview, Hunter Lundy, an

1:07:21

attorney representing plaintiffs in two

1:07:24

lawsuits, alleging that cellphones

1:07:25

caused them to develop

1:07:28

brain cancer said he was

1:07:30

frustrated with the legal system's

1:07:32

slow pace and believes the truth is

1:07:34

gonna come out. The article is

1:07:36

reported from Trump's health

1:07:38

defense after twenty one

1:07:40

years of delay. Twenty

1:07:42

one years. The lawsuit

1:07:44

alleging cell phones caused plaintiff's brain

1:07:46

cancer forget the title again. It was, you know, comes to pass,

1:07:48

caused basically,

1:07:50

judge hears

1:07:50

the evidence, different title than

1:07:52

it says in the on the tweet or on the the

1:07:54

posting part of it. but

1:07:57

the bottom line is that twenty one years for something

1:07:59

that's just like commonly accepted

1:07:59

information. Now that I mean we know that's for

1:08:02

sure, but we

1:08:04

all kinda general, like, joke

1:08:06

about the idea of cellphones and cancer

1:08:08

and, you know, the idea that that's why

1:08:10

bluetooth and that's one of the sell selling

1:08:12

points. Right? Use

1:08:12

a Bluetooth. Don't keep an eye to your head. But,

1:08:14

yeah, they intentionally for twenty one years drag this out

1:08:17

because they don't want that

1:08:19

to be admitted. as

1:08:21

we rush into 5G. That's the

1:08:23

insulting part about this, guys. And so think about how long

1:08:24

the insulting part about this guy's the so think

1:08:26

about how long

1:08:28

I

1:08:28

mean, what we already know about

1:08:31

the dangers of these injections. They're doing everything in their power to drag everything

1:08:33

in their power to drag this out this

1:08:36

out. just like this. Meanwhile, people are getting cancer all

1:08:37

over the place and we pretend like we don't know because well,

1:08:40

twenty, we're

1:08:42

still waiting to find out. We know. guys, we all know. We know what this can We

1:08:44

know these things. It's just like knowing that

1:08:46

that Monsanto and Roundup are causing cancer.

1:08:48

round up are causing cancer Well,

1:08:50

now Bayer, along with them. or any number of things

1:08:51

we know are doing this as well as the fact that we

1:08:54

know that cannabis and lots of other things we don't talk

1:08:56

about are very clearly able to have

1:08:58

a very strong effect better than chemo

1:09:01

therapy. I'm always saying, you know, these things

1:09:03

are all fake news, even though we all generally kind of know them somewhere. is

1:09:06

this is frustrating frustrating. So

1:09:08

think about how is being

1:09:10

applied today, right now. And in the context of that, how

1:09:12

these topics are

1:09:15

being censored that be now and still what it

1:09:17

was and now is still because they

1:09:19

claim we don't

1:09:20

know. You can't say

1:09:23

that we don't know. Well,

1:09:24

here is an example

1:09:26

of

1:09:26

censorship. In fact, censorship of sensor censoring people for these exact topics and

1:09:31

this is congress. and

1:09:33

it was I'm forgetting his name all of a sudden, this senator

1:09:35

here. Discussing this with

1:09:40

the wasn't the CEO, I

1:09:42

forget his official title of meta or Facebook.

1:09:44

And admitting on

1:09:45

the record

1:09:46

that they're knowingly censoring people,

1:09:50

which it almost downplays the severity of

1:09:52

it because that's even the even the clip is

1:09:54

going, thank you for your candor. But this

1:09:57

is

1:09:57

them admitting the government is lewancing these actions,

1:09:59

which means this is state

1:09:59

censorship. That this

1:10:01

the whole argument, it's a private

1:10:03

company, therefore, over, gone,

1:10:05

done with no matter what you argue, even if you

1:10:07

argue it's for the right things in the right direction. Like, they should do this. It doesn't matter. It

1:10:09

still changes all of it, so you can't pretend they have a right to do this. They are

1:10:12

right now doing

1:10:15

committing state state this is the US government as a argues

1:10:18

in this clip circumventing the first

1:10:20

amendment. Now, I agree with

1:10:22

him that this will come

1:10:24

back. in

1:10:24

the future to be used again and

1:10:26

should be because this is important. The difference between you as a platform putting

1:10:30

forward information and censoring

1:10:33

your

1:10:33

users at the behest of the White House, the administration

1:10:35

more broadly in the CDC,

1:10:38

isn't there a distinction there?

1:10:41

We specifically wanted to work with public health experts to understand

1:10:43

the relationship between information

1:10:48

and behavior. And so

1:10:50

we did consult with the the an

1:10:53

experiment,

1:10:54

by the way.

1:10:57

Like, the the there are that's

1:10:59

in a that argue as a means to an end to stop bad things from happening, but really, they're

1:11:01

just experimenting on

1:11:04

that overlap. that's important for

1:11:06

a lot of things they're doing today. They being anyone want to point out, the this company, the the

1:11:12

bioengineers, to

1:11:13

understand how the platform policies we built were affecting public

1:11:15

health? Well, you didn't just consult with them to

1:11:17

understand how they affected public

1:11:19

health. You actually sensored

1:11:23

on their behalf. I mean, you took you took these emails,

1:11:25

I'm just quoting from a sample

1:11:27

of them, which by the

1:11:29

way, had been disclosed in litigation. These these emails

1:11:32

show that you took censorship

1:11:34

steps, you took down accounts,

1:11:37

you planned

1:11:40

misinformation policies, you adjusted your policies at

1:11:42

the behest of the United States government. I mean, that's not

1:11:47

just some theoretical that's actually targeting your

1:11:49

user's speech. But your your I appreciate your forthrightness, by the way. So but

1:11:52

you're saying that that was you

1:11:54

think that's fine and that was your

1:11:56

policy. Cinere,

1:11:58

we've been public about our policies

1:12:00

on COVID misinformation, specifically, as well as on

1:12:02

misinformation generally. And so you think there's

1:12:04

– you're not concerned about any of

1:12:07

this. than I just read to you. You're not concerned about it at all. Respectfully,

1:12:09

senator, I think the balance of how

1:12:11

to protect free expression as

1:12:13

well as public safety is

1:12:15

a difficult issue. You see, and

1:12:17

here we get to the problem,

1:12:19

one of the many. The idea that they have this altruistic stance like

1:12:20

Facebook

1:12:24

cares about helping public health. That's this

1:12:26

is not even in their real house. Like, this is an this is the problem, is that

1:12:28

suddenly

1:12:29

your free

1:12:30

speech is the issue.

1:12:32

that's

1:12:33

how they get this going. They act. This

1:12:35

is allowed

1:12:36

in so far,

1:12:38

you know, in to the

1:12:41

stand that it does not cause, no, you don't

1:12:43

that's not how that works. If a crime is committed, they can be held accountable for it. That's that's

1:12:46

the

1:12:47

end of it. You

1:12:49

can't just be like, well, we know

1:12:51

these things might do so, so you can't say these things or that these arguments lead

1:12:52

to this.

1:12:56

That's ridiculous. We are so off the

1:12:58

rails when it comes to this, but that's the problem. They're creating these issues to create the justification

1:13:00

for controlling what you can

1:13:02

discuss. They're hiding things behind that.

1:13:06

I mean, ask

1:13:07

yourself why it matters. Like, let's just

1:13:09

say you wanna take something that's an easy

1:13:11

argument to

1:13:12

make that by promoting, you

1:13:14

know, that you should go out and kill your family on some kind of

1:13:16

talk show or show you're doing and pushing the ideas

1:13:18

and the logic of it and why it might

1:13:20

be go like, the bottom line

1:13:22

is you're gonna argue that that show within league

1:13:25

of people killing their families. Okay? I mean, it's not even

1:13:27

that hard to see how that might translate

1:13:31

except problem is that you're allowed to have discussions about anything like even

1:13:33

crazy things like that.

1:13:34

You're not committing a crime, but

1:13:36

that's the trying

1:13:38

to criminalize. Now not arguing you should you should go out there and do that, but

1:13:40

you have a right to. When it

1:13:42

becomes a

1:13:43

problem is when somebody picks

1:13:46

up a gun and takes action. was

1:13:48

arguing that, it is still

1:13:50

the individual grown up with discernment

1:13:54

making a choice to hear those arguments and use that. Even if it's

1:13:56

a logical argument, you're still the one deciding

1:13:58

to kill somebody. But see, we've gotten

1:14:00

so far away

1:14:02

from accountability. and the idea that that person's accountable for their own actions,

1:14:05

but they're just gonna go, no, it's not my

1:14:07

fault. I was confused by

1:14:10

the media. yeah,

1:14:10

you know who does that all the time? The actual corporate media on

1:14:12

a regular basis. So it's the sort of a

1:14:14

key reason of that which you are

1:14:17

guilty point.

1:14:17

But you see how this works? They're acting

1:14:19

like they have some kind of charge to defend public health.

1:14:21

That's ridiculous. I don't believe for

1:14:24

one second, mister Cox

1:14:26

even cares about your health. But it's one we're committed

1:14:28

to working with outside experts

1:14:30

and publishing our work. Well, I

1:14:32

appreciate you being so forthright. As I

1:14:34

said, this is from litigation between the State Missouri and the state

1:14:36

of Louisiana and the federal government, I anticipate that your

1:14:38

remarks on Earth today are going to

1:14:42

be very interesting and helpful about litigation. I'll just say My

1:14:44

view is, is that the United States

1:14:46

government is bound by the first amendment.

1:14:50

They cannot encourage or coerced or

1:14:53

insight or collude with

1:14:55

a private party to get

1:14:57

around the first amendment that you've

1:14:59

just said to me today that

1:15:01

that's basically what they did, that

1:15:03

you coordinated with them repeatedly over a pattern of months and years

1:15:05

to adjust and target

1:15:08

your speech policies

1:15:10

for protected speech at the behest of the United States government. I have to tell you, I've got a big problem with that, and

1:15:12

I think all your users

1:15:14

should too. Thank you, mister chairman.

1:15:18

Well, I

1:15:18

guess we'll see what happens. Probably nothing. Probably

1:15:20

because that whole breakdown even in Congress

1:15:23

has never seemed to even be

1:15:25

genuine as nothing ever seems come to pass other

1:15:27

than the same old agendas. A lot of

1:15:29

talk, a lot a lot of

1:15:31

posed ideas. But

1:15:32

as I said, now all

1:15:34

of those out there who have been ignorantly grasping

1:15:36

to that lie that's been easy to

1:15:38

see through for a long time

1:15:41

now. that they don't censor on behalf

1:15:43

of the government, which does make it state censorship when they do and private company arguments out

1:15:48

the window Now they're all gonna jump to,

1:15:50

well, they have to protect public health without missing a beat. Sort of other people

1:15:52

that

1:15:52

said, vaccine passports were

1:15:53

a conspiracy theory right up

1:15:55

until they said you

1:15:58

were dumb and bad and evil for

1:15:59

not using them. Right? On a dime. Suddenly, they're exactly

1:16:01

what we should use and you're crazy for saying

1:16:04

we shouldn't. weren't you

1:16:06

just saying, I'm crazy for saying they were happening? Like, how do those people exist? But out

1:16:08

there? This

1:16:12

is the argument they

1:16:13

set up for you, like setting up for a spike in volleyball. Go ahead. Tell them with public health. We

1:16:16

got you.

1:16:16

ahead told the public health we got it

1:16:19

So now it's okay to

1:16:19

path of the government. You

1:16:21

see how quickly that happens? What

1:16:23

here is the goalkeepers

1:16:24

is the goalkeepers

1:16:26

at

1:16:27

the Gates Foundation goalkeepers Conference in twenty twenty

1:16:29

two arguing that they need to

1:16:31

censor you if you say the

1:16:33

things you're not supposed to say. Like, this

1:16:35

is an open public conversation. And this is

1:16:37

being seen as virtue to

1:16:39

remove ideas they think are bad. Why?

1:16:41

Because they're the good ones. Right? They're

1:16:44

your betters. They know what's right.

1:16:46

You don't. You're too dumb. And they know that these are bad ideas and we can't allow you stupid people to think these

1:16:49

ideas because

1:16:52

they're bad. I mean,

1:16:53

it really is as simple as

1:16:54

that. Now, do they believe that? Or is this

1:16:55

just a means to an end? I mean, it doesn't really matter, does it? Of

1:16:57

course, you have a right to

1:16:59

think these things. to

1:17:01

have ideas. Even the gross ones, even the bad ones. Even if you wanna go out and become a Nazi, you

1:17:03

know what? ears, everybody, you're

1:17:06

allowed to. Oh, no. Now

1:17:10

do

1:17:10

I think that's gross and disgusting and bad? Yes,

1:17:12

I do. But everybody has rights

1:17:14

to think and be as they

1:17:17

want to be. As

1:17:18

long as that's not being forced on somebody, you're

1:17:20

not breaking laws, you're not putting anybody in danger. It's pretty simple. But

1:17:22

we've gotten to a point to where we've now created the sit

1:17:26

situation where these things translate

1:17:28

to bad evil violence. That's what we

1:17:30

keep showing you with the corporate media.

1:17:32

And with independent media, They're trying to

1:17:34

act like by me having this conversation that I'm

1:17:36

somehow leading people to violence. Now certainly could translate to that, but it's

1:17:38

still not my fault that people take violent acts. But

1:17:43

if you wanna make that argument, the media today, the corporate media, is

1:17:46

the biggest influencer of action and

1:17:48

violent ways that if

1:17:50

anybody you could possibly look

1:17:52

at, It is everywhere. They're dividing people

1:17:54

and driving them to take violent action because they believe the other side is literally

1:17:56

destroying your country. Literally

1:17:58

putting your lives at risk.

1:18:01

and they act like, we're the ones doing

1:18:03

that. When that's like their stated argument, it's

1:18:05

crazy. So here are them saying,

1:18:06

well, these ideas need to be censored.

1:18:09

On

1:18:09

the supply side, I think we have a

1:18:11

bigger problem in some ways. We – I feel that we have to work with the platforms. I mean, the platforms

1:18:14

are already now –

1:18:16

so platforms are

1:18:18

already beginning to filter things. Now some of it might agree with it. Some of it some of it some of it might not with

1:18:20

it. But I feel

1:18:23

there is no choice. right

1:18:26

there, that's the idea. Oh, well, private companies, they can do it nope. Nope. Sorry, guys. It's proven. Beyond a doubt, it is that they

1:18:28

are working with the government. He just admitted

1:18:30

it in

1:18:30

front of congress. So therefore, what they're doing

1:18:35

is illegal.

1:18:36

Doesn't matter though.

1:18:38

We

1:18:38

have to work with

1:18:40

platforms

1:18:41

to ensure that there

1:18:43

is more authoritative information surface.

1:18:45

The platforms work with authoritative sources to ensure that

1:18:47

only that information surfaces. Okay. I'm

1:18:50

not saying delete stuff. but

1:18:52

maybe suppress the distribution of it, which some

1:18:54

platforms do already. But if I think this the

1:18:58

problem is technology linked

1:19:00

and would you even quibble at the idea

1:19:02

of deleting it? No. No. Just play it down. That's just that's just him trying not to be too extreme.

1:19:04

It's

1:19:04

it's obviously

1:19:05

that's what they

1:19:07

want. Distribution link. The

1:19:10

solution to, I think, will be technology and

1:19:12

distribution link at least to some point.

1:19:14

I do think, really, let me add one

1:19:16

plus one sense. In case you

1:19:17

missed that, just, you know, the idea of, you know, AI type, censorship and everything like that. And then gave to

1:19:19

media literacy, which is what what we

1:19:21

call having what

1:19:23

you're describing here is

1:19:24

Sorry, one more stop right there. This is what

1:19:27

they're discussing this

1:19:27

as. You see how they frame that? So if you're out there

1:19:28

spreading

1:19:29

conspiracy theories, it's because you're

1:19:31

not media

1:19:32

literate.

1:19:35

You know what that means?

1:19:35

You're too stupid. You just don't

1:19:37

understand what

1:19:37

the right information is. It's okay

1:19:39

though, we'll take

1:19:41

care of that for you. it's

1:19:43

it's so condescending. Everything about them is

1:19:45

that you're just too

1:19:47

low brow. You're too feeble minded.

1:19:49

You just don't understand. That's eugenics

1:19:52

talk, guys. where this comes

1:19:54

back to. I just think it's very, very obvious. You're not media literate.

1:19:57

I mean,

1:19:59

think

1:19:59

about the the hubris

1:20:01

it takes to make such

1:20:03

an

1:20:03

argument. It is it is key. I think the real challenge with trying to moderate

1:20:05

it as a supply problem

1:20:08

here is that

1:20:10

we see new platforms coming constantly

1:20:12

that are not willing to engage in

1:20:14

those conversations. And so Right.

1:20:16

So we're gonna stop that first

1:20:18

of all. Right? These new platforms or problems because they don't engage

1:20:20

with the woke political mindset. Right? So what

1:20:22

do you think they're gonna do so

1:20:24

what do you think we gonna do about that about that?

1:20:26

Dang

1:20:26

it. Howard Bauchner: It

1:20:28

is keys. I think

1:20:31

the real challenge with trying

1:20:33

to moderate it as a

1:20:35

supply problem here is that we see new

1:20:37

platforms coming constantly that are not

1:20:39

willing to engage in

1:20:41

those conversations. And So dealing on the demand

1:20:44

side means that regardless of what the

1:20:46

new platform is or what the new

1:20:48

technology is

1:20:50

or the decentralization kind of social media, which is

1:20:52

kind of beginning, but going to continue. We see

1:20:54

it quite directly here in the U. S.

1:20:57

Is that you create a very resilient public.

1:20:59

As you know, on any number of issues, health

1:21:02

and pandemics is only one. And so

1:21:04

teaching people to understand, here's how

1:21:06

information moves today. Here's what it looks

1:21:08

like. I think

1:21:10

just pays dividends in so many different ways and is really a global solution regardless

1:21:15

of what this specific nuance of a

1:21:18

particular emergent platform is. What does she need decentralized social media,

1:21:19

by the way? These things are

1:21:22

nothing, if

1:21:23

not completely centralized. It's on

1:21:26

a strange framing. Of course, that's just it's

1:21:28

up. Everything's yeah. It's opposite. We're the

1:21:31

opposite lifetime for these people apparently.

1:21:33

But within interesting, though, is the is the framing

1:21:35

of that at the end as well. Full solution, regardless of what

1:21:37

the specific nuance of a particular emergence of a particular emergence of

1:21:39

a large use. ways

1:21:41

and is really a global Oh,

1:21:43

to educate you on the way information moves. It's so so the way that they use

1:21:45

these like, what she's saying there is

1:21:47

to teach you how,

1:21:51

you know, how this misinformation can move in front of you.

1:21:53

I mean, they it's just condescending. Everything about

1:21:55

what they're doing

1:21:57

is very condescending. And this is what brings me to my next point,

1:21:59

which is that there is a very

1:22:02

clear effort right now for people, and

1:22:03

this is always ongoing, to

1:22:06

step into this as if they're

1:22:08

and these are the same people that have been

1:22:10

shouting you down for saying the things that are now arguing or being allowed to talk about. The same people

1:22:14

that are, you saying that

1:22:16

you are conspiracy theorist for arguing that any of these things are happening, that

1:22:18

you shouldn't get an injection, that masks don't work, that I mean, on

1:22:22

and on and off, the same people. are now stepping in this conversation about the boosters

1:22:24

and acting like well, because they're allowed to

1:22:26

talk about the boosters, that it's dangerous,

1:22:28

that we don't

1:22:31

have all the information. Here's

1:22:33

Dr. Vinay Prasad and Zdog talking

1:22:35

about this. You literally

1:22:38

saying they always want one size

1:22:41

fits all policy to satisfy the Lord Borla. Lord

1:22:43

Borla. Right? because it's only about the pharmaceutical companies, not not the

1:22:47

government. Right? not the obvious overlap, not the minute, because they're they're terrified to get

1:22:49

in anything they might be told it's conspiracy

1:22:51

theory. That's the problem with people

1:22:53

in these positions. But take

1:22:55

a listen to this. Don't forget these people.

1:22:57

This this Zdogg guy is exactly the person who was acting like

1:22:59

the antibody dependent enhancement that was found

1:23:01

in peer reviewed science in

1:23:03

December twenty twenty as

1:23:05

a problem that needs to be discussed, otherwise you're being

1:23:07

informed, there is informed consent, like conspiracy

1:23:08

theory. I mean, maybe he still does.

1:23:10

I don't know. I don't care to watch.

1:23:15

kind of nonsense they put forward. But acting like mass work,

1:23:17

all these different manipulative points. Here's what

1:23:19

they're saying today.

1:23:20

here's what they're saying today

1:23:22

wrap your

1:23:23

mind around this. What they

1:23:24

found was actually

1:23:26

the

1:23:26

bivalent

1:23:27

booster group did

1:23:29

worse and they look like it underperformed. More

1:23:31

infections now. Of course. Not the primary endpoint of the special sample size. the appropriate caveats. A many

1:23:34

caveats. Yeah. But Paul's point

1:23:38

was that it was not blatantly obvious that it is a better choice. That's right. Oh, except that Paul said

1:23:40

quite a bit more,

1:23:43

which I'll play next, In

1:23:45

fact, he very clearly said that we shouldn't

1:23:47

it. I it's it's that the way trying but

1:23:51

it's insulting. if there's taking this

1:23:54

stance and even even if they talk about, like,

1:23:55

well, let me just play it real quick. That's right. I mean, there don't know. There's even

1:23:57

more to start.

1:23:57

There's so many things problematic with this

1:23:59

booster idea. One

1:24:02

is, and this is what Paul does a great job of separating.

1:24:05

One is, what is the evidence?

1:24:07

How many boosters do you

1:24:09

need to avoid any symptomatic

1:24:11

disease? Right. Any zero. The answer to

1:24:13

that is in Infinity. Because there's it'll never happen. You need a booster. IV

1:24:15

IV draw list. Yeah. And even then they're saying, even if

1:24:17

they went from six months to four months to

1:24:20

two months, And

1:24:22

now they're like, if if they've withdrawn the needle from

1:24:24

the last booster, it's okay to slide one. slide another

1:24:26

slide one in. Right. So they're okay. So the boot

1:24:29

Like, it just kills me that they're joking

1:24:31

about this is exactly what we have been harping on from the very beginning. These people

1:24:33

acted like you were

1:24:36

an idiot. because

1:24:38

they knew better. And here they

1:24:40

are in a very very surface

1:24:42

level discussion of what they're allowed

1:24:44

to be poking at now talking about this,

1:24:46

sir, this isn't even the most important conversation right

1:24:48

now. You know what I

1:24:49

mean? Like, this is just what's already been

1:24:52

happening and what's been done to this country is

1:24:54

the biggest criminal criminal act I've ever seen

1:24:56

in my life. These

1:24:58

people allowed that to

1:25:00

happen. Boster, you

1:25:02

can never avoid that. And then

1:25:04

what is the optimal number of boosters

1:25:06

shots or total doses? Vera needed to minimize

1:25:08

severe disease in home. You don't need

1:25:10

any of these. They're all dangerous, and they're all hurting people. causation. And it's a very open question. We got to know. And it

1:25:12

may and I'll be yeah.

1:25:14

Yeah. We do know, though. You see, you guys are still walking

1:25:16

this tiled

1:25:19

this line acting like there's not an overwhelming waterfall

1:25:21

of evidence showing you that these

1:25:23

things are hurting people.

1:25:25

See,

1:25:26

this is the allowed stance right now.

1:25:28

We're allowed to act like we're being critical of the current thing.

1:25:30

Nobody's taking this. I think two

1:25:31

percent is the current uptake the

1:25:35

new bivalent thing. Nobody. You see, it's probably

1:25:37

different

1:25:37

for a ninety five year old

1:25:39

versus a fifteen year old. Probably.

1:25:41

But this administration doesn't seem to

1:25:44

understand that there's a difference

1:25:46

between the two because they always want one size fits all policies to satisfy

1:25:48

Lord Bourla. I mean Like, you see

1:25:50

the the oh, okay. I'm kinda kidding.

1:25:54

So that's the

1:25:55

joking insinuation that the CEO of a

1:25:57

pharmaceutical company is the

1:25:58

one leading all of

1:25:59

this. Really?

1:26:01

really Like,

1:26:02

what a willful ignorance stands?

1:26:04

Of course, he's involved. All of

1:26:06

them are

1:26:06

though. Why wouldn't it be calzack?

1:26:09

or, you know, Moderna or why the specific focus?

1:26:11

I just think it's strange. There's a

1:26:13

lot of

1:26:13

evidence showing you

1:26:16

a lot. like you bring up the word,

1:26:18

Bill Gates,

1:26:18

and they act like you're the dumbest person alive. Why not go compare us there? Oh, the great reset. Oh, you guys are hitting Foil hat.

1:26:23

Like, exactly in the pseudo

1:26:24

intellectual. Exactly. I

1:26:25

need the American

1:26:27

people. Orla

1:26:31

orla. rings of I will just say this. If any one of

1:26:33

those people involved in these decisions end up on

1:26:35

the border director of Pfizer or whatever. You you you

1:26:37

you we will make sure to point it out to

1:26:40

the world every

1:26:42

day. Oh, because you're doing such good

1:26:44

journalism. Right? The obvious and clear overlap involving door

1:26:46

from FDA, as they do mention, Gottlieb and others,

1:26:49

I mean, good god. This is as limited to hang out. This is truth light, guys. This

1:26:51

is not even truth light. This is truth light on

1:26:54