Iran Fear-Mongering: Provoking The U.S. Into War With Tehran? The New York Times’ Predictable Rumble Hit Piece; From Mangled Puppy To Joyous Dog: Pulo’s Story
A member of Congress blames the New Jersey drone debacle on the United States' favorite boogeyman: Iran. Then, The New York Times predictably attacks Rumble for allowing free speech. Finally, Glenn shares the rescue story of Pulo: a puppy who made an amazing recovery.
-----
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
Follow Glenn:
Twitter
Instagram
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
That's Friday the 13th for those of you alarmed by such developments.
I am one of those people, so if you see me shaking or a little bit agitated tonight, you'll know why.
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern exclusively here on Rumble.
The free speech alternative to YouTube.
Not the right-wing alternative to YouTube as the New York Times today called it, but the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Israel has made no secret of the fact that its top priority, its number one geostrategic goal for years now, is to induce the United States into a war with Iran in order to change that regime from one that is hostile to Israel to one that is accepting, if not friendly, toward Israel.
Just very similar to what happened in Syria.
As we examined yesterday, whenever the U.S. wants to go to war, sell a new war, justify one that it ends up involved in, we end up drowned in a combination of government media propaganda designed to make us believe that whoever we want to go to war with next or bomb next is the epitome of all evil.
We have seen all sorts of indications now that this kind of propaganda is being disseminated when it comes to Iranian leaders clearly trying to prepare the groundwork for a US conflict with that country.
After the assassination attempts on Donald Trump earlier this year, for instance, the US security state began leaking to its favorite outlets that Iran is trying to murder Trump, is trying to assassinate Donald Trump.
Knowing that if he hears that, he will be more amenable to attacking that country.
Yesterday, when drones of unknown origin were seen hovering over New Jersey, news reports immediately suggested that they were launched by, you'll never guess, Iran from a so-called mothership lurking off the American East Coast, the Iranian mothership.
And now today, the Wall Street Journal, one of the outlets that first asserted that Iranian leaders were trying to murder Donald Trump, cited that report, their own, and others to claim that Donald Trump and his closest national security advisors are actively considering a variety of options to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to change the country's government, including, said the journal, having the U.S. start bombing Tehran and surrounding areas almost immediately.
The second Trump administration has not even formally begun And we are already being inundated with the very familiar tactics used to inflame the lust for war.
Then, one of the most remarkable and telling facts about American political life is that it is the nation's corporate media outlets and their so-called journalists who traditionally were expected to advocate aggressively for free speech and a free press who now perform the exact opposite role.
They have become, without exaggeration, the nation's most vocal and activist pro-censorship agitators.
There are few, if any, entities who despise online free speech more than these media corporations.
It is therefore unsurprising in one sense that the New York Times, enraged that Rumble refuses to censor on command, today published a hit piece on this platform, about this platform, that was as preposterous as it was predictable.
It is hardly the first time a large corporate media outlet has attempted to malign rumble.
But the Times script contained all the usual cliches.
Rumble is a far-right site, a wash in disinformation, lies, and ideological homogeneity.
The writer's ploy this time was that he disconnected from all social media except for Rumble.
He immersed himself in this platform for a full two weeks, a grand total of 47 hours, and now believes himself to be an Now, I obviously can't dissect every corporate media attack on Rumble.
If I did, I'd be doing nothing else.
They're really out to destroy the site because of its refusal to censorship.
But this one in the Times today, in terms of its tactics, its themes, as well as the reaction to it, is so highly revealing with so many key dynamics that really think it's worthwhile to break it down.
And finally, we have another new installment of our Friday night series, System Pup Date, where we profile one of the many dogs whom we've rescued and who became part of our lives, either at our home or at our dog shelter.
The star of tonight's episode is Pulo, who is familiar to our locals' members.
He appeared on the after show many times as a canine co-host.
And he also has one of the most extraordinary rescue stories and trajectories of any dog I've ever seen, as the title of this video reflects, which is From Malign Puppy.
To Joyous Dog.
As some of you know, we're ending each Friday night, each week, with an episode of System Pup Date featuring a new dog, and so that's what we're going to do tonight as well.
Before we get to all of that, we have a few programming notes for...
First of all, I want to start with the schedule for the rest of the year.
We will be here all of next week, every night, Monday through Friday at our regular time of 7 p.m.
And then starting on the 23rd, we'll take that week off, that week in between Christmas and New Year's off, as we traditionally have done the last couple of years.
And then we'll be back following New Year's Eve.
We'll be back on the 2nd of January.
So we'll be gone from the 23rd to the 2nd of January, but we're going to be here all of next week and then starting in the New Year as well.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after they first are broadcast here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program there, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
As a reminder, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, it works on so many different kinds of apparatuses.
It works, let's go through the list, on your smart TV. On your telephone.
It works on your Xbox.
And I learned today that it works on your PlayStation.
That has now been confirmed as breaking news.
It also works on your PlayStation.
And then once you download that app, you can follow the programs you most like to watch here.
And if you activate notifications, every time one of those programs goes live on the platform to cover the news or breaking news at an unexpected time, you'll be notified.
You can just click on the link and begin watching.
No waiting around.
No trying to guess when shows are on.
It really helps the live viewing numbers of every program on Rumble and, therefore, the free speech cause of Rumble itself.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is where we have our Locals community.
Each Tuesday and Thursday, we have our live interactive after show there where we take your questions, respond to your feedback, hear your suggestions for future shows.
Those after shows are available only for members of our Locals community.
So if you'd like to join, it gives you access not just to the after shows but to a variety of multiple interactive features.
We put a lot of exclusive original video content there that we don't have time to put here, sometimes written content and original reporting.
It is a place where we put the transcripts of every program we broadcast here.
Professionalized transcripts appear there the next day.
And most of all, it is the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now.
Back in 2004 when neocons still thought that the war in Iraq was going well and hadn't yet admitted or been forced to say that they regretted it, There was an anonymous quote that ended up circulating from one of the top echelons of the Bush-Cheney Pentagon that essentially said, "Yeah, it's easy to go to Baghdad.
Real men go to Tehran.
And eventually it became obvious that the goal of the most fanatical neocons in the Bush-Cheney administration was not just to invade Afghanistan and change its government and invade Iraq and change its, but eventually to go across the border, the Iraq-Iran border, and change the government of Iran.
This is something that Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, wrote about in the mid-1990s.
There have been memos circulating throughout the 1990s by people like Bill Kristol and Victoria Nuland's husband Robert Kagan and people inside the government in the Bush administration.
Who had a grand vision of transforming the Middle East by going to war with seven different countries and changing their governments to become more pro-Israel or at least less anti-Israel to keep Israel safe in that region.
Not Israel, but the United States would go and fight those wars for them and change all of their governments.
And six out of the seven countries on the list of those memos are all ones that the United States ended up in some way either directly attacking or invading or helping engineer a coup, the most recent of which was Syria.
And the only one on that list for now that the United States has not yet attacked is Iran.
And there are a lot of people desperate and eager to try and change that.
List of supporters and major donors who donated to Donald Trump and who have as their first priority the interest of Israel is a quite long list.
We covered Miriam Adelson, the largest of those donors, and their major dream, their number one priority, is to have the United States go and bomb Iran with the dual intention of destroying its nuclear facilities, but even more so to change its government.
And one of the ways that I know that that campaign is now underway is because for the last six months we have a series of very familiar leaks from the U.S. security state, amplified by their media partners, designed to clearly start provoking Americans to direct their attention away from the new Hitler and Vladimir Putin, even the new Hitler of Donald Trump, the new Hitler in Gaza called Hamas.
Remember, we were told Hamas is worse than ISIS and worse than the Nazis.
Away from other Nazis around the world and directing our attention to Iran.
And now, essentially, anytime there's any kind of an event, leaks start immediately suggesting that Iran is responsible.
On Wednesday, there were drones that were mysteriously hovering over New Jersey and people saw them and then saw more of them today and obviously were quite alarmed because nobody knows where they came from.
And immediately we were told that it was Iran that had not just launched these drones, but did so from this sinister vessel called the mothership, the Iranian mothership.
And this mothership, we were told, was menacingly lurking off of the east coast of the United States, very close to our sea border.
Here is ABC News.
The title is...
So the government had to come out and say...
We don't have any evidence that it's Iran.
There's no mothership.
There's no Iranian vessel lurking near the borders of the United States.
But the leaks that came tried to pin it immediately on Iran.
Here is a Republican member of Congress, Congressman Van Drew, who went on Fox News yesterday.
And this became essentially the way in which this all started.
In focus now, Republican Congressman Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, member of the House Judiciary Committee on the Hill right now.
How do you address this at this point?
Well, here's the real deal, Harris.
You know, I'm also on the Transportation Committee, on the Aviation Subcommittee, and I've gotten to know people.
And from very high sources, very qualified sources, very responsible sources, I'm going to tell you the real deal.
Iran launched...
From very high sources, from very responsible and reliable sources, he's going to tell us the real deal of where these scary drones hovering over our fellow citizens of New Jersey, the state of New Jersey, where these drones came from.
Iran launched a mothership probably about a month ago that contains these drones.
Does anyone know what a mothership is, by the way?
I remember Sam Harris once said that Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas.
And I remember when his protege, Barry Weiss, went on Joe Rogan, and we showed you that clip recently where she said Tulsi Gabbard is the motherlode of bad ideas.
But I don't quite know what a mothership is.
How is that distinguished from, like, a ship or a...
A naval vessel?
What is a mothership?
Is it like the ship that hovers over all the other ships?
The one that spawned them and gave birth?
Like the elevated one?
Like the scariest one in the arsenal?
What is a mothership?
What would that mean if Iran had a mothership hovering uh and lurking and sinking around the east coast of the united states and asking that genuinely i don't think i've heard that term before probably about a month ago that contains these drones that mothership is off i'm going to tell you the deal it's off the east coast of the united states of america they've launched drones is everything that we can see or hear and again these are from high sources i don't say this lightly now
you know we know there was a probability It could have been our own government.
We know it's not our own government because they would have let us know.
It could have been some...
We know that it's not our own government.
How do we know that?
Because they would have let us know.
Our government is globally renowned for their extreme transparency and honesty with the public, especially when it comes to the drone program and other Unidentifiable military instruments.
When they're going to do something, they tell us right away.
So if they were the ones who sent drones above New Jersey, they would have told us our government would have.
And since our government did not tell us that, we know for sure, says Congressman Van Drew, that it's not from the United States.
So we've already eliminated one country for sure.
In the mystery of who did this, the United States can't possibly have done it because they would have told us and they didn't.
We know it's not our own government because they would have let us know.
It could have been some really glorified hobbyist or hobbyists that were doing something unbelievable.
They don't have the technology.
But let's pretend that's possible.
The third possibility was somebody, an adversarial country, doing this.
Know that Iran made a deal with China To purchase drones, motherships, and technology in order to go forward.
The sources I have are good.
They can't reveal who they are because they are speaking to me in confidentiality.
These drones should be shot down.
Whether it was some crazy hobbyist that we can't imagine or whether it is Iran, and I think it very possibly could be, they should be shot down.
We are not getting the full deal, and the military is on alert with this.
I mean, he was allowed to babble on like that for almost two minutes uninterrupted.
He had zero evidence for anything he was asserting.
Also, kind of self-contradictory if our government is so transparent that they would tell us immediately if it were them who was operating these drones.
Apparently, according to him, our government knows for sure that it's Iran, so why isn't the government saying that?
And in fact, not only hasn't our government told us that, they had to come out today and deny that they have any evidence, not only that Iran is responsible for and behind these drones, but that Iran is hovering over or lurking near the east coast of the United States with its motherships, the mothership but that Iran is hovering over or lurking near the east coast of the It was just a kind of deranged fever dream that he decided to share on Fox News and claimed that very reliable and senior sources told him this.
Now, that obviously is something that you would do if you want to make America think, Americans believe that Iran is a very scary country because Americans don't wake up worrying about Iran.
It's very far away from our country.
There's been no attacks by Iran on our country.
And so if you want to convince Americans that they're endangered by Iran so that they will support a preemptive strike or a bombing campaign on that country, even though the Iranians have not attacked us, you need to start scaring Americans to believe that they in fact are in some way, some you need to start scaring Americans to believe that they in fact are in some way, some The Wall Street Journal is doing a good job, if that's what your goal is, in trying to fan these flames.
It was the Wall Street Journal that several months ago claimed that there was Iran that was trying to murder Donald Trump, knowing that if he won the presidency, that's something that would be quite important to him, especially if a bullet passes your head and misses blowing your head off by about a centimeter.
You're going to be pretty sensitive if you hear that there's a country that's trying to send assassins to murder you.
That might actually increase the likelihood that Trump, of all people, would want to go bomb Iran first and change its government.
And here, lo and behold, is the Wall Street Journal today.
Trump team weighs options, including airstrikes, to stop Iran's nuclear program.
Advisors of the president-elect, concerned economic pressure isn't enough to contain Tehran.
Consider military action.
Officials on Trump's transition team say they intend to enforce current sanctions and impose new ones, including redesignating the Tehran-backed Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization and prohibiting countries that buy Iranian oil from purchasing American energy.
But more needs to be done than increased economic and financial pressure because Iran, quote, is actively trying to kill President Trump.
An anonymous person on the transition said, quote, that certainly influences everybody's thinking when it comes to what the relationship is out the gate.
And of course, that would.
If I were Donald Trump and I was being told by people I trusted that the Iranian government is trying to murder me a month after I faced two very close assassination attempts, that's something I would probably factor into the equation about whether or not we should go to war with Iran.
I presume everybody would.
Hopefully, Donald Trump will be skeptical of those claims, understand the motive behind them, but it's not that easy to be incredibly objective when it comes to attacks on your own person.
That's why this story is so valuable to him.
And again, it's the Wall Street Journal, the same Wall Street Journal that was pushing that just last month, November 15, 2024. Iran told the U.S. it wouldn't try and kill Trump.
So Iran was forced to come out and give assurances In response to all of these claims that, no, we're not trying to kill Trump and we promise not to.
Quote, written communications last month came after the Biden administration warned Tehran against attempts on Trump's life.
I think it's important to note that these claims are coming from the Biden administration.
Which, obviously, has been very hostile to Iran, helped Israel fend off attacks, helped Israel in its attack on Iran, helped Israel in its initial destruction of the Iranian embassy in Syria.
And so, obviously, there's factions inside the Biden administration that are trying to fan these flames as well.
Here is the Director of National Intelligence, the position, by the way, to which Donald Trump has nominated Tulsi Gabbard.
And that's why a lot of these outlets that want the continuation of warmongering and endless war and favor the military-industrial complex are so opposed to Tulsi Gabbard's nomination, including the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has really led the way in trying to malign her and encourage Republicans to reject that nomination.
Because these are the kinds of things they support.
This is the annual threat assessment of the U.S. intelligence community.
It was issued in March of this year.
And it says the following, quote, Iran also will continue to directly threaten U.S. persons in the Middle East and remains committed to its decade-long effort to develop surrogate networks inside the United States.
Sleeper cells have returned, though this time they're not al-Qaeda sleeping cells or ISIS sleeping cells.
They're Iranian sleeping cells.
The report goes on, So, again, this is the only way you can convince Americans to support a war.
When they wanted to go and invade Iraq, we were told that the reason why the Iraqi WMD program was so dangerous was because Iraq had an alliance with Al-Qaeda.
And the idea that The Ba'athist government of Iraq would have an alliance with the Sunni fanatics of al-Qaeda from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates was laughable on its face.
But that was Jeffrey Goldberg when he was at The New Yorker who published several articles that convinced Americans that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were in cahoots with al-Qaeda and so that the attack on our country should be blamed on Iraq.
And that's the only reason people supported the invasion of Iraq, because we were told by Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and Dick Cheney that the grave danger was that Saddam Hussein would give these biological weapons to al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda would come and attack the United States with chemical weapons or biological agents or, of course, and al-Qaeda would come and attack the United States with chemical weapons or biological agents
And that's what Condoleezza Rice said in a speech in September of 2002, less than a year after the first al-Qaeda attack of 9/11.
She said, look, people keep demanding proof.
Well, we can't wait for the proof to appear in a form of a mushroom cloud over the United States.
They were fear-mongering to that extent.
Obviously, this is the same playbook that Americans need to believe That Iran isn't just a threat to Israel, isn't a threat for instability in the region, but is actually a threat to Americans.
They have sleeper cells here.
They're trying to operate on our soil.
They're trying to kill our political leaders, murder other Americans with sleeper cells inside the United States.
And that's being sanctioned by the Director of National Intelligence.
We went through the whole litany yesterday of official lies like this that emanate from these exact factions of the government every time there's a new war to sell.
It should be very familiar, this tactic.
In case you think that the belief about Israel's role in pressuring the United States to do this is some sort of unfair attempt to blame Israel or conspiracy to try and blame it on the Israelis, Yoav Gallant, who was the defense minister of Israel until about a month ago when he was removed by Prime Minister Netanyahu,
he was one of the people along with Netanyahu who was indicted by the International Criminal Court had issue arrest warrants issued because he was the one who promised at the start of the war against Gaza that Israel was going to cut off all food and water from entering Gaza as long as fuel and other necessities.
Now obviously the United States has made clear that we are going to ignore those arrest warrants and so we will have to go on and travel to the United States today.
And here's the post that he published on X We're good to go.
The, quote, domino effect ultimately led to the fall of the regime in Syria.
In this tweet, he also talked about the pressure that Israel is putting on the United States to go and change the government of Iran.
So if we can get that part as well, which is the relevant part, we'll put that up also, or at least I can read it, because he essentially says one of the things I brought up in the meeting was the need to take military action against Iran.
That's coming from the Israelis.
Another thing that was pinned on Iran throughout the year was the claim that Iran was financing and coordinating the protests on American campuses against Israel, and the Israeli war in Gaza in particular.
Not that these students organically decided that they were opposed to the Israeli war in Gaza.
They didn't decide that on their own.
They weren't outraged by all the pictures of dead Gazan children and bombed out hospitals and schools they were seeing.
No, it was because Iran was behind these protests.
Earlier in the year, in 2024, when Nancy Pelosi was angry that pro-Palestinian protesters were protesting outside her house and she supported financing the Israeli war in Gaza, originally she said, I believe that Russia is behind these protesters, that Russia, Putin, is paying for them and organizing them.
And then about a month later or two months later, after she went on CNN and said that, she walked outside and when she saw those protesters, she screamed, go back to China, that's who's paying you, that's who's organizing these protests.
So it went from, hey, this is Russia doing this, to this is China doing it.
But a lot of conservatives on the right, on the kind of traditional right, the Bush-Cheney right, the neocon right, want to pin this on Iran.
Here was a national review in July of this year, The headline was, Iran finances U.S. campaign campus protesters, according to a top Intel official.
A leading Iran expert and Trump administration alumnus Gabriel Naranya told National Review that it's a, quote, welcome if overdue acknowledgement of Iran's political influence operations by the Biden administration, which is otherwise sought to accommodate Tehran.
The revelation came in an unusual press release today.
Director of National Intelligence Averill Haines said, quote, we have observed actors' ties to Iran's government poising its activists online, seeking to encourage protests and even providing financial support for protesters.
This, Hines wrote, came in the context of Iranian regime actors, quote, Now again, this Republican idea that the Biden administration is somehow in bed with Iran,
When it was the Biden administration that paid for Israel's war, armed Israel's war, both in Lebanon and in Gaza, isolated the country at the UN by standing alone with Israel against the entire rest of the world and blocking resolutions condemning the Israeli war in Gaza, it was the United States standing up every day, its officials defending everything the Israelis were doing.
And because Joe Biden reversed or thought about reversing The seizure by the United States of Iranian money, Iranian assets that they gained from selling their oil, and we stole that $6 billion and we froze it and said, no, you can't have this, we're going to keep this.
And the idea that the Biden administration was saying, as part of a deal with Iran, including getting our prisoners back, this is their money, after all.
We're going to let them have this money.
It's not money that we're giving them, the way we give billions to Israel.
This is just letting Iran...
So that is the whole basis for the preposterous claim that the Biden administration is somehow pro-Tehran.
When these leaks, the ones about Iran trying to kill Trump and now Iran being behind the campus protests against Israel are coming from the Biden administration.
That's where these leaks are coming from.
Here was Jewish Insider in July of this year as well.
Quote, U.S. Director of National Intelligence says Iran is influencing and funding the Gaza war protests.
So you see how this claim just starts proliferating.
Republican Congressman Mike Waltz, who was just chosen by Donald Trump to be his national security advisor, went on Fox News in October of last year, in October of 2023, so two days after the October 7th attacks, and here is what he had to say.
This is going to be the person most closely advising Trump.
Although, as we pointed out many times, you can't read too much into this fact.
John Bolton also was a top national security adviser, and he left enraged that Trump also often ignored his advice.
But here is what Mike Walts had to say, who most certainly will have Trump's ear.
Well, not only do we have a high-level spy ring that's been uncovered, although Congress hasn't received briefings yet on exactly what is going on, we've got the high-level spy ring in Washington, and then we have a wide-open southern border with Lord knows who is being funneled through there.
Though we do have a pass of the Iranian IRGC working with Mexican cartels.
They attempted to bomb a restaurant in Washington, D.C. to take out the Saudi ambassador.
So it's not as though there's not a history of the Iranians working with Mexican drug cartels to take advantage of our open border.
And they could be doing it again right now as we speak.
So there absolutely is a lot of energy in both political parties.
That is geared toward wanting to confront Iran.
There's also a lot of energy in both political parties for wanting to confront China.
And there was a suggestion that the drones may have come from China.
That's starting to come from the government as well.
No, it wasn't Iran, it was China.
All done anonymously, all done with no evidence, all done through leaks.
Just like every time the government wants to spread lies, that's how they do it through the media.
Now, I just want to go back to the tweet from the Israeli, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who met with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin today.
This was the paragraph from his tweet that I wanted to highlight.
There you see the tweet on the screen.
He said, quote, I also emphasize, when speaking with Secretary Austin, the significant yet limited window of opportunity that we face in addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions.
This window, too, is the result of Israel's operations over the past year.
So we're constantly being told that Israel or that Iran is on the verge, on the precipice of getting a nuclear weapon.
You may recall when Netanyahu went to the UN. Eight years ago, ten years ago, he held up that huge childlike graphic of a bomb about to explode.
The fuse was lit and claimed that there was two months.
We've gone over before all the different times Netanyahu and Israel claimed that Iran was on the verge just weeks away or months away from proliferating with nuclear weapons.
And so, of course, that's going to be part of the claim as well.
And this is what you have to go on in D.C. to say, which is that thanks to us, thanks to our attacks on Iran, thanks to our removal of the Syrian air system, we have a very tiny window of opportunity to attack Iran and do something about the nuclear program, but that window is going to close very quickly.
So, President Trump, you need to act immediately.
And do the bombing campaign and the war in Tehran, in Iran, that we have wanted you to do, that we've been trying to deceive you into doing for a long time.
That is absolutely what's going on.
That's why I was very encouraged today when I unexpectedly saw this tweet from Elon Musk, who obviously is playing some influential role in the Trump transition and presumably in the Trump administration as well though how much remains to be seen may not have much of a voice at all in foreign policy it might be more common government cost where Trump trusts him Nonetheless,
Elon Musk posted this meme today in response to the attempt to claim that Iran had launched drones from its mothership and these other circulating claims.
And this is what he posted.
There you see on the screen.
The first part of the tweet reads, everyone, quote, everyone is saying, quote, please stop creating fake narratives for war.
I'm just glad that Elon Musk is saying that, that everyone is saying, please stop creating fake narratives to justify war, to induce war.
And then he says, in response, this is what the government has to say, here's Iran.
And you see the Ayatollah flying on what looked like 23rd century UFOs, Presumably that might even be what a mothership is.
And this is the government trying to say, oh look, Iran has these very sophisticated weapons.
Like when we were told that the Russians had the capability to run around the world shooting audio waves that injured and damaged the brains of American diplomats and other service members.
They had this 24th century technology.
That they could attack Americans with these indetectable sounds that ended up being basically the sound of what Caribbean crickets make.
It turned out to be a scam, but that was the attempt.
Russia has these super-secret advanced weapons.
That's the same thing that is being done when it comes to Iran.
And Elon Musk is mocking that.
And not just mocking it, but saying that it's obviously an attempt...
To do what people are urging the government to stop doing, which is creating fake narratives for war.
And the fact that Elon Musk recognizes what's happening, sees it that way, and is publicly denouncing it, not saying it's going to impede this from working, but it's certainly helpful.
Certainly more helpful than being quiet or doing the opposite.
It seems like Musk has some kind of an interest in avoiding war both in general and specifically with Iran.
The New York Times last month reported this, quote, Elon Musk met with Iran's UN ambassador, Iranian officials say.
This was just 10 days or so after the election when Trump won.
Quote, the tech billionaire top advisor to President-elect Donald J. Trump was reported to have discussed ways to diffuse tensions between Iran and the United States.
So there is some, I think, hope, some reason to believe that there are people in this administration who are aware of what's going on, who want to get into Trump's ear and encourage him to be skeptical who want to get into Trump's ear and encourage him to be But there's certainly a lot of people in this administration who are going to be exploiting this in every single way that they can, starting with Marco Rubio and Elise Stefanik and that whole crowd.
Basically, you can tell who they are because they're the Trump appointees who have generated no opposition whatsoever among Democrats or among the corporate media.
The ones they're attacking are the ones who are there to be heterodox, and that's why they're attacking them.
Here is the video that we showed you actually earlier this week, but I just want to underscore it when it comes to Iran, where Wesley Clark, the four-star general who ran for president in 2008 as a Democrat, I think 2004 rather, he was a very popular general in Washington.
And he revealed that right after 9-11 he started seeing memos making clear that the neocon master plan was to transform the Middle East by having the United States go to war with or engineer regime change coups in seven different countries,
six of which the United States is now done, with Iran being the kind of golden prize that is, at least for now, I wouldn't say left alone since we've definitely been doing destabilization campaigns in Iran, but no real hardcore military action or truly coordinated coup yet.
Here's what General Clark said in 2007 about all of this.
About 10 days after 9-11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz.
I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff who used to work for me.
And one of the generals called me and he said, Just to be clear, that's nine days after 9-11.
Somehow the United States government had decided, nine days after 9-11, That it was going to attack Iraq, even though Iraq indisputably had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on 9-11.
To the extent any governments were involved, the only real government to look to were the Saudis.
And yet, for whatever reasons, to this day we don't really know why, all flights were grounded, all air travel was grounded after 9-11 for obvious reasons.
It included passenger jets and private planes alike.
And yet, Saudi diplomats and other key Saudi officials were able to fly outside the United States back to Saudi Arabia.
Obviously a very close ally of the United States still.
But the idea that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 was something that was preposterous, and we've shown you before the history of the anthrax attacks and how they sought to blame that right away on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
John McCain went on David Letterman and said, we think this is Iraq behind the anthrax attacks, obviously starting this pressure campaign knowing that that was already their plan.
Here's the rest of what General Clark said.
He said, I don't know.
He said, I guess they don't know what else to do.
So I said, well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda?
He said, no, no.
He says, there's nothing new that way.
They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.
He said, I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments.
And he said, I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.
So I came back to see him a few weeks later.
And by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.
I said, are we still going to war with Iraq?
And he said, oh, it's worse than that.
He said, he reached over on his desk, he picked up a piece of paper, he said, I just, he said, I just got this down from upstairs, meaning the Secretary of Defense Office today, and he said, this is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.
I mean, that's not a leak, an anonymous leak.
That's General Clark, a four-star general, working inside the Pentagon after 9-11, recounting very clearly what the Pentagon was planning, what their scheme was for the Middle East.
And in case you're skeptical, all six of those countries have had U.S.-engineered regime change.
Obviously, we bombed Libya.
We did a dirty war in Syria.
And in Lebanon, we changed the government to make it very cooperative, very compliant.
In Sudan and Somalia as well, where we were very active with our military.
This is one after the next.
Exactly, obviously, Iraq, and now the only one left is Iran.
And the pressure to induce Donald Trump to go to war with Israel's biggest enemy is already well underway.
It's directed specifically at Donald Trump's emotional state, his obvious affects from the close assassination campaign, assassination attempt, but at the American people as well, suddenly trying to convince them that Iran, for the first time, now has sleeper cells in the United States, looking to murder American leaders and American politicians.
It's so transparent.
But it's effective.
They know how to do this.
Their success rate is almost 100%.
And so I hope people close to Trump, who he trusts, some of them at least, are aggressively attempting to make him see it this way.
Clearly, the fact that Elon Musk sees it this way is a very good sign, but we'll see whether he has company in that regard.
I don't think there's anyone who disagrees, especially after the last couple of weeks, that the health insurance system is overdue for change.
Premiums are sky high, the bureaucracy is overwhelming, and the focus is often on treating illness.
And not encouraging healthy living.
CrowdHealth is leading the charge for a much needed revolution.
CrowdHealth isn't health insurance.
It's a better way to pay for health care through crowdfunding for just $185 a month for individuals or $605 for a family of four or more.
You'll get access to telemedicine visits.
Discounted prescriptions and most importantly, a community of people ready to help each other through unexpected medical events.
No networks, no middlemen, just real help when you need it.
So why keep sending your hard-earned money to fear-mongering insurance companies?
Join the CrowdHealth revolution today.
Use code GLEN just to get your first three months for just $99 per month at joincrowdhealth.com.
To be clear, CrowdHealth is not insurance.
You can learn more at joincrowdhealth.com.
You You can join the CrowdHealth revolution.
You get help with your healthcare needs today for just $99 per month for your first three months with the code GLEN at joincrowdhealth.com.
It is not insurance.
and you can learn more at that site.
One of the most remarkable things about American political life, as I said at the top of the show and I've said many other times, it genuinely amazes me, is that journalists are obviously not supposed to be partisan or is that journalists are obviously not supposed to be partisan or partial when it comes to political debates, but there are certain values that journalists have always, by definition, It's part of the profession, or at least it's supposed to be.
It's part of the journalistic spirit, one of which is to defend free expression in general and therefore obviously free speech and a free press.
That's always been a defining journalistic value, and yet...
With the emergence of the formal industry and systemized government attempts to impose a censorship scheme on the internet, which began largely in 2017 as a reaction to Brexit and to Hillary Clinton's defeat by Donald Trump, corporate media outlets have become the number one advocates of online censorship.
And not just advocates for it, but activists for it.
One of the things the New York Times tech team does continuously and has done for years is if they see a person who is able to post on Facebook that they dislike and think should be banned or they see a YouTube video on Google that they dislike and think should be taken down, they will contact Facebook and Google and say, we're the New York Times and we're going to write an article about how you're platforming this extremism, this hate speech, these dangerous ideas.
And we want to know why you haven't taken them down.
And obviously it's not a real journalistic inquiry.
It's an attempt to pressure them to take those down.
And if they don't, the New York Times will run those articles.
Facebook has blood on their hands.
They're allowing this content.
They're allowing this person to speak.
Why isn't Google banning these people?
Why is Twitter allowing all this hate speech?
And in most cases, they succeed in pressuring these big tech companies to remove content.
It's been a very effective censorship campaign, and it's come largely from the corporate media, from the so-called journalists who work there who are supposed to defend free speech, not wage the primary attack on it as they're doing.
And one of the things that corporate media outlets hate most, maybe the thing they hate the most...
Are the social media platforms that refuse to capitulate to their pressure campaigns?
Basically, give the middle finger and say, we're not going to take censorship orders from anyone, including you, the New York Times.
Obviously, when Elon Musk purchased what was then Twitter, the reaction to the part of the corporate media was pure rage.
And that's because they had all kinds of special privileges.
They could pick up the phone and call Yoel Roth and the Yoel Ross of Twitter and say, we don't like this.
You may remember that a lot of times people would respond to journalists or news about layoffs or collapsing journalism by saying, learn to code.
It was a way of kind of mocking journalists.
They got that phrase banned on Twitter as hate speech.
If you said that your post would be removed, you could be banned from there.
They had all kinds of special privileges.
These journalists did who worked at these outlets.
They would call U.L. Roth or people like him in that unit that Elon Musk immediately dismantled.
And they could get anyone they want, or any post they want removed, anybody they wanted banned.
And they knew when Elon Musk came in that they were going to lose all the privileges because he came in based on a promise to resist censorship pressures and promotes free speech.
And though he hasn't been perfect with that at all, he's been inconsistent sometimes, he has largely gone in that direction, and that's why they all hate him so much, why they want to ruin his butt for him, why there are all kinds of different attacks at him, primarily because of this rage.
But no site has been more consistent, more steadfast, more self-sacrificing, meaning they are willing to sacrifice their own commercial interests to defend this cause, than Rumble.
Rumble is actually banned in several major countries, like Brazil, Because they refuse to comply with censorship orders.
And so the Brazilian government threatened to remove Rumble and make it unavailable.
And if you try and go use Rumble without a VPN in Brazil, this is what you see.
It says, Rumble, notice to users in Brazil because of Brazilian government demands to remove creators from our platform.
Rumble is currently unavailable in Brazil.
We are challenging these government demands and hope to restore access soon.
The same thing happened in France.
As I have discussed before, one of the most remarkable things is right after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022, when the EU decided it wanted to go all in on supporting Ukraine, one of the first things the EU did legislatively is enacted a law criminalizing the platforming of Russian state media like TASS or RT or Sputnik.
And once that happened, YouTube immediately banned RT and the rest of them from their platform.
They had millions and millions of subscribers, millions of people wanting to watch that.
But because the EU said you're not allowed to platform Russian state TV, Google's YouTube immediately blocked those accounts, removed those accounts, including the United States, just took them off the platform altogether.
Rumble, however, had both...
RT and Sputnik and refused to take it down.
And so the French government wrote a letter to Rumble saying, you either remove those Russian state media outlets because they don't want their citizens hearing the Russian version of events.
Or we're going to just cut you off at the IP level.
You won't be available in France.
And Rumble responded the same way they did with Brazil, was saying it's not worth it for us to have access to a market if the condition is unjust political censorship and we're going to refuse to take orders from you.
Here is Le Monde in November of 2022, the largest French newspaper, reporting on what happened.
There you see the headline in French, but it says, Rumble, an unmoderated video platform, is blocked in France.
So you see how absolute and steadfast Rumble is.
I knew That this was how Rumble is because I was paying a lot of attention to what they were doing.
I spent a lot of time talking to the founder and CEO of Rumble, Chris Pawlowski, who founded the site in 2013. And I, before I came here, believed in their authenticity and dedication to free speech and refusal to accept these censor supporters.
And that's why I came here to support this platform, to bring the audience there, to promote it, because I believe it's so crucial to preserve Major places on the internet where free expression can still reign where EU bureaucrats or US security state operatives or the Brazilian government or other governments cannot dictate what can and can't be heard.
As a result, Rumble has become extremely hated by these corporate media outlets that cannot abide any sort of free speech.
Or more so platforms they can't control.
They just feel like they have the right to control the flow of information.
And on the sites where they can't do that, they're determined to destroy it.
And I can show you dozens, literally, of major corporate outlets trying to malign rumble as this far-right extremist place of disinformation, all the things they always say about whoever's reputation they want to destroy.
Starting about a week ago, a New York Times reporter A man named Stuart Thompson started to send around emails to various people who have shows on Rumble.
Notably, they did not send one to us, even though, as you'll see, we were very much part of what they were monitoring.
They never sent an email to us.
But they did send it to places like Dan Bongino's show as well as Charlie Kirk's show.
And this is the kind of email they sent.
There you see texts to Jim Verge from New York Times' Stuart Thomas.
Hi, Jim!
I'm writing from the New York Times.
We're working on a story about Rumble that mentions the Dan Bongino show, an early edition with Evita.
I'm contacting you to let you know and also seek comment.
The overall story is about the universe of content that exists on Rumble, its audience, and how the news opinion on Rumble contrasts with coverage from other news sources.
Yes, it does contrast with coverage from other news sources like the New York Times.
That's the whole reason it exists, the whole reason it's valuable.
To complete the story, I deleted my other news sources and I relied on Rumble for all my news for a whole week.
A whole week.
He didn't read anything.
He didn't watch anything.
Just Rumble.
A whole week.
And now he's the expert on Rumble and the disinformation campaigns that flow here in unmoderated fashion.
Now he's ready to report for the New York Times on what Rumble is because he watched it for a whole week.
And then the email says, Now,
I'm going to show you the reaction of Dan Bongino and most people who got that email from the New York Times.
It used to be that if the New York Times dispatched a reporter and sent you an email, even 10 years ago, saying we're running a major story on you and your company, people would panic.
They would do everything they could to convince the New York Times that what they wanted to say wasn't true, that it should be transformed and changed.
Nobody cares anymore.
Nobody cares.
Rumble doesn't care.
The people they tried to smear don't care, as we're going to show you.
But they did publish the article, even though almost nobody replied to them.
And they thought they were being so creative here.
So here's the story, the big New York Times story.
The title is, I traded my news app for Rumble, the right-wing YouTube.
Here's what I saw.
It's so fascinating to me that Rumble is always referred to as the right-wing site or the right-wing YouTube because there are so many sites, so many shows, and so many creators on this platform who are not right-wing at all, who are identifiably left-wing or liberal or anti-Trump.
What Rumble is is a free speech platform, period.
Just try it.
Go upload a video that's far left, extreme far left, whatever you want to test, and you will see that as long as it's a political viewpoint and not violating some law, it will stay up because Rumble is a free speech site.
It's not a right-wing site.
It's not a left-wing site.
The problem has become that free speech is now coded as a right-wing value, even a fascist value.
If you advocate free speech, if you oppose the UL Ross of the world, the systematic online censorship campaign, you'll be called a fascist.
Even though one of the characteristics of fascist governments endemic to it is the use of censorship.
Somehow, if you oppose censorship, a core fascist value, you now get accused of being a fascist or on the right wing.
So any site that's a free speech site will automatically be called a far-right site even though It has and allows all kinds of left-wing opinion.
Acts is constantly called a far-right site, even though AOC and Bernie Sanders and every leftist you can think of uses that site freely.
Their tweets viralize.
Nobody impedes them.
Nobody takes them down.
Nobody blocks them.
But free speech is now considered to be a right-wing agenda item, and anyone who supports free speech is automatically declared to be on the right.
I find this so funny.
Here are the credentials that appear under his V-line in this New York Times article on Rumble.
Listen to how qualified he is to tell you what's going on at Rumble.
It's by Stuart Thompson.
Here's his picture right there.
And here are the qualifications.
Stuart Thompson has monitored right-wing media since 2020. For four years now, he's been monitoring right-wing media.
He's an expert.
He's a disinformation expert.
He's been watching right-wing media for four years, four whole years.
And then to gain specialized expertise, On this particular platform he's about to pronounce onto the world in the form of a news article, not even an op-ed, what did he do to qualify as an expert?
Quote, he watched 47 hours of video on Rumble for this article.
47 whole hours.
A week.
I doubt sincerely that he spent 47 hours and 5 days That would basically be nine and a half hours a day of just watching Rumble, not including lunch or other times when you're not watching, but that's his claim.
That's his claim to expertise.
Now, you can see, I don't know if you can see it well in the image, but they have here, I'll show you a clearer picture of this, but they have here a variety of the shows on Rumble that they included, that appear there.
And there's about 12 images here, and two of them is our program.
Right here in the upper right corner is me opening the show, speaking to the camera to my right.
And then here again is me in a close-up shot Looking like I'm looking at the screen.
So they obviously were monitoring the show, they understood that the show was on Rumble, and yet I never got an email and it's never mentioned in the article.
Why?
Because obviously that would severely undermine the narrative that they're pushing.
Not even New York Times, I think, is willing to call me right-wing or far-right, especially since I have years of them calling me the opposite.
And it would be very difficult, I think, for them to claim that I engage in disinformation.
They have defended me when the Brazilian government tried to imprison me for my reporting.
We partnered with them in the Snowden reporting to some limited extent.
So it is interesting that omission, we are one of the largest shows here on Rumble, we have one of the largest platforms here on Rumble, and yet we were notably omitted from this story because it would basically destroy the narrative they were trying to construct.
But it's just so funny.
This is who the reporter is, and that's his claim to fame.
He basically identifies as a disinformation expert because he's been watching right-wing media for four years.
Note how right-wing media is equated with disinformation.
There's no disinformation on MSNBC or in The New Republic or in The New York Times or The Washington Post.
It's right-wing media, far-right-wing media that has disinformation.
Here's part of the article, quote, As soon as President-elect Donald J. Trump won the presidential race, influencers on Rumble, there you see it again, the signal to the audience to hate it, the right-wing alternative to YouTube, flooded the platform with a simple catchphrase, quote, We are the media now.
Okay.
I've seen that phrase, Oliver X. I believe that it was Elon Musk promoting that phrase, the idea that it was only on Rumble or some special phrase for Rumble.
Okay.
I think it's just factually false.
This disinformation expert should go check that.
But also, who cares?
Let's say it did originate on Rumble.
That's not a right-wing idea that we, the individuals in independent media who have access to a free internet are replacing the corporate media because the corporate media squandered the trust and faith of the public that they once had.
And the election was proof of how little influence they really wield, given that everything they were doing and saying to try and sabotage the Trump campaign, everything they were trying to convince Americans of, that he was Hitler, a Nazi, a white supremacist, all of that failed.
The idea that we are now the media, meaning individuals in America can do journalism as well, you don't have to own a printing press, you don't have to have access to a cable network or satellite TV, that's not a right-wing idea.
But I understand why somebody who works at the New York Times would think that anti-media sentiment is right-wing because that newspaper, the New York Times, and everyone almost, not everyone, but most of the people around him and in similar outlets are in fact liberal.
They're servants of the Democratic Party, so anybody who's against them, in his mind, must be right-wing.
He goes on, the idea seemed to capture a growing sense that traditional journalists have lost their position at the center of the media ecosystem.
Yes, yes, actually that is demonstrably true.
As he goes on to say, quote, polls show that trust in mainstream news media has plummeted and that nearly half of all young people get their news from, quote, influencers rather than journalists.
All right, I gotta just stop there for a second.
Notice, and you will notice this in every article and every segment on TV from a corporate outlet, they were willing to note this polling data because they can no longer avoid it, that the public doesn't care about what they say anymore, doesn't trust them, doesn't turn to them for information.
But you will never, ever hear them asking, why?
What is it that we did, we the corporate media did, to lose the trust and faith of the public?
He should spend 48 or 47 hours in a whole week turning everything off except the New York Times or CNN and then go write about all the disinformation, all the false claims, all the biased segments that appear in those newspapers or on those networks that have caused the public to turn away and no longer trust them.
The reason the public turned away is precisely because they're the ones who spread disinformation in the most toxic and consistent manner.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't rumble creators who sold the Iraq war to the American people based on lies that appeared on the front page that it was proven that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
I'm pretty sure that was the New York Times that did that.
I'm pretty sure it was the New York Times that chased and amplified fake Russiagate stories and then gave themselves a Pulitzer for doing so.
And you can go down the list of every lie that we covered last night that I've referenced tonight that appeared in the New York Times.
It's what they do.
So the idea that they are in a position to judge and assess anybody else for being conveyors or disseminators of information is laughable.
Also laughable is the idea that if you're an independent media, you're not actually a journalist.
I would love to see the Journalism Awards and Journalistic Accomplishments that, what's his name?
Stuart Thompson has.
But I'm quite convinced that they're nonexistent or close to nonexistent.
And a lot of people in independent media have a shelf full of them.
And not just prizes, but a history of breaking major stories.
I know the Stuart Thompsons of the world want to believe that the only way you can be a journalist is if you go work for a gigantic media corporation and they control and constrain what you say and think.
And you have to work within the parameters of their accepted opinion, but that also is untrue, and no one agrees with it.
No one believes that any longer.
You can print it in the New York Times every single day for the rest of your life, and no one will believe it again.
That, oh yeah, if you don't work for the New York Times, if you work in independent media, you're just an influencer rather than a journalist like him.
He watched Rumble for 47 hours.
Do you know how complex a skill is required to watch Rumble for 47 hours and then write an article?
That was so predictable to everybody about exactly what he was going to say before he watched even a second of it.
This is a high level of complexity.
You need to be trained, highly trained, to practice this kind of serious journalism.
No influencer could do that.
You couldn't.
Turn off all your social media apps the way he did and spend 47 hours a whole week watching a single social media platform and draw conclusions from it.
That's way beyond anyone's competence except for official journalists who work for the New York Times.
Only he can handle an operation this sensitive.
He then goes on, quote, If Rumble was the media now, I wondered what it would like to consume an all-Rumble diet.
So on November 18th, about two weeks after the election, I deleted my news apps, unsubscribed from all my podcasts, and filtered all my newsletters to the trash.
And for the next week, the next week, one whole week, from early mornings to late at night, I got all my news from Rumble.
What did he find?
What did he find?
They fixated on a cast of perceived enemies to blame for America's troubles.
They fixated on a cast of perceived enemies to blame for America's troubles.
From Democratic politicians to TikTok personalities to Republican adversaries.
Just a few hours into the experiment, it was clear that I was falling into an alternate reality fueled almost entirely by outrage.
I received a statement from Tim Marta, a representative for Rumble, who was also Mr. Trump's communication director for the 2020 campaign.
This is what he says.
So this is how Rumble responded to the New York Times contacting them and saying, Hi, we're going to run a major story on how Rumble is a sewer of disinformation, propaganda, and lies, along with ideological uniformity.
And we would really like comment from you, the same way he asked Dan Bongino that.
This is what Rumble said in response, quote, The New York Times and its fellow legacy media outlets have lost their monopoly on deciding what information people can have.
So, of course, they're rushing to attack Rumble, a key alternative in the news marketplace.
That's all.
No defense.
No, oh, please don't say this about us.
Let us prove to you that we have responsible reporting.
No, it's just...
You don't dictate anymore.
You're not the arbiters of what information people trust.
You've squandered that through your own disinformation.
So you can attack us all you want.
Of course, it's predictable that you're going to.
We don't really care.
The next part of this reads, and it's a section headline, quote, you're going to become part of the show.
And he goes on, quote, after watching Rumble nonstop for days, days, I was so deep into this topic, I became a specialist in it.
Why?
Because I watched Rumble nonstop for days, for days.
I realized this very article was likely to fuel its own cycle of outrage on the platform.
But I was surprised when that happened before it was even published.
Why is a response to this article considered outrage?
I don't feel outraged.
I don't feel like I'm trying to work my audience up into any kind of a rage.
I feel like I'm being very analytical.
I'm definitely laughing at this attempt.
I'm drawing conclusions about how illustrative it is of how they think and what the dynamic has become.
Why is commenting on the New York Times article chasing outrage and generating outrage, but writing an article like this accusing thousands and thousands of shows on this platform of being sewers of right-wing disinformation, not chasing outrage?
Does New York Times not chase outrage, not generate outrage?
Is that not part of their business plan, their business model?
This is what he was forced to admit, and this is really interesting and important.
Quote, I wrote to everyone mentioned in the article to ask for their perspective about Rumble and its popular shows, but few replied, few, few replied, few even cared enough.
Imagine that, the New York Times saying, hey, I'm a reporter with the New York Times.
You heard of that?
The New York Times.
We're going to write an article, and we're going to Analyze and identify disinformation and lies that we think you've been telling.
I suggest you comment.
And most people just ignored it.
Just didn't even care enough to write a mocking response like Rumble did.
Just didn't care enough even to hit reply and even type a profanity.
That's how indifferent people are.
To the New York Times.
He goes on, quote, Mr. Pentland,
the co-host of the Roseanne Barr podcast, I guess she has a podcast on Rumble, posted the email I sent to his ex account.
Rumble's chief executive reposted it.
Then Elon Musk reposted that to his more than 200 million followers.
Exactly.
No one cares.
They're just like, hey, look what the New York Times is doing.
Are they so pathetic?
And that was it.
That's all really anyone has to say about this.
Now, here is Stuart Thompson.
I just want to show you how he talks about himself.
This is how he describes himself.
There's his face again, Stuart Thompson.
And he says, I'm a reporter for the New York Times.
I'm a reporter for the New York Times.
Covering how false and misleading information spreads online and how it affects people around the world.
Biography on the article itself, he said he's an expert in right-wing media.
He's been watching it for a whole four years.
Obviously, in his effort to cover false and misleading information and how it spreads online and affects people around the world, he only thinks that comes from right-wing media.
There's no question that the most damaging, prolific, and toxic disinformation campaigns come from the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the stories on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and many times Fox as well.
Well, That's where the government pushes all of its propaganda and lies, and that's who critically recites it.
Not all reporters at these places, obviously, but the institutions as a whole are designed to do that.
And yet these people continue to believe that they are somehow competent to be the arbiters of other forms of disinformation appearing elsewhere, but never in their own paper because they're the real journalist.
They do fact-checking.
He goes on in his own little self-glorifying biography, quote,"...I write about online influence operations and the spread of false and misleading information." My work usually focuses on how content gains attention online through social network and fringe websites before spreading to traditional media like television and radio as well as popular podcasts.
This content is often political and I frequently write about elections and elected officials.
Some of my colleagues focus on fact-checking pieces about particularly virulent content but on my beat, I generally try to understand the causes and consequences of false and misleading information.
False and misleading information, needless to say, Decreed and arbitrated by this individual who's been watching right-wing media for a whole four years, monitoring it, not watching it, he monitors.
Ordinary people, influencers, they watch, he monitors, he studies, he studies.
He's been studying right-wing media for four whole years, since 2020, all the way back to 2020. And to write this article on Rumble, I don't know if I mentioned this, what he did was Spend a whole week watching Rumble program.
A whole week.
One week.
And he has the whole understanding and ingests it all in his big journalist brain from the New York Times.
The funniest part about this attempt to call Rumble a right-wing site is that there are countless political shows.
Obviously, there are a lot of apolitical shows on this platform that talk about culture, sports, entertainment, whatever.
There are major Twitch streamers, Who are on this platform, like Kai Sinat and iShowSpeed and others who don't really do political content, who can never possibly be classified as right-wing or left-wing or put on that spectrum at all.
So that already negates this narrative, but there are political shows on this platform that are obviously and identifiably left-wing, even far-left, radical-left.
One of them is the Revolutionary Blackout Network, whose commentators we've had on our show several times, there you see the Revolutionary Blackout Network.
I mean, they just identify as a radical left-wing site in the tradition of Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, just black leftists.
They come out of the black, radical left tradition.
That's where their politics are from.
They talk about it explicitly.
And They frequently have all kinds of anti-Trump content on the program, on their shows.
Here, just this is from this month.
Donald Trump declares war on free speech.
Donald Trump filling cabinet with swamp monsters.
Trump sells out.
How can any honest person look at Rumble or claim for a whole week to have looked at it and come to the conclusion that it's accurate to call them repeatedly right-wing site?
How many segments have I done that could never possibly be classified that way?
On a whole variety of issues, from criticism of Trump's appointees and nominees to the Israeli war in Gaza to support for the U.S. security state and the endless war regime.
I could go on and on and on.
Views that 10 years ago I was also articulating to the same extent in an exact same way and was also often called left-wing.
Which is why our show was not put in there, both because of the journalistic pedigree we have and also the difficulty of classifying it that way.
Revolutionary Blackout Network is not difficult to classify at all.
They're affirmatively and obviously left-wing.
And they're right here on Rumble.
They post whatever they want.
They get whatever audience they get.
Nobody ever interferes with them.
Nobody ever tries to take down their videos.
Here is Breaking Points hosted by the liberal co-host Crystal Ball and the heterodox conservative Sagar Anjeti.
The whole function of the show is that you have liberals and conservatives on and they find common ground but they also disagree.
They're definitely not a right-wing show, that's for sure.
No show hosted by Crystal Ball.
She was an emphatic supporter of Joe Biden while recognizing his flaws.
She nonetheless was in support of Joe Biden.
She's a very vocal critic, unstanding critic of the Israeli war in Gaza and of U.S. support for it.
No one would ever call Crystal Ball, who's one half of the show, far right.
Here's Al Jazeera.
Do I even need to talk about Al Jazeera to make this point right here on Rumble?
I could spend all night showing you these articles that somehow escaped Stuart Thompson's very careful scrutiny, his professional, journalistic, in-depth, one-week scrutiny.
Or he did see this and he decided he was just going to ignore it because he knew that when he wanted to write about Rumble ahead of time, he knew exactly what narrative he was told to create and he ignored anything that might disrupt that or subvert it in any way.
You think that's possible?
Do you think he actually knew what he was going to write before he turned it on Rumble?
And knew what his editors expected him to write?
I think probably true.
And so if you're doing that, you're looking for the things that affirm your narrative and you're avoiding the things that negate it.
Here from Fast Company in November of 2023, he neglected as well to include this polling data.
The headline is, what if Rumble users actually lean Democrat?
That's what its CEO claims.
Quote, struggling with growth, the video site that positions itself as a YouTube alternative wants audience to know that its user base is not a monolith.
Quote, video streaming platform Rumble is famously the site that Russell Brand fled to after being demonetized by YouTube in the wake of her accusations of sexual harassment.
That's a complete and absolute total lie.
Russell Brand's show was on Rumble long before those sexual accusations emerged.
He would put segments on YouTube that were monetized, but his show principally was aired exclusively on Rumble like mine.
So that already is a false claim in this news account.
It goes on, quote, it's meanwhile been profiled by the New York Times as, quote, the right's go-to video site.
So that's already, apparently there was another New York Times article that repeated that claim.
This might make new assertions by Rumble's CEO, Chris Pawlowski, surprising.
According to him, 21.8% of, okay.
It's not according to him, it's according to a site that was published by Pew.
It's not Chris Poblowski can just make these numbers up.
He conveyed them, but you can go read them in Pew, in a Pew poll, a Pew survey that measured the political affiliation of users of multiple social media sites, one of which was Rumble.
So according to him, according to Pew, 21.8% of Rumble's users identify as Republican, while 28.9% describe themselves as independents and 35.5% say they're Democrats.
Rumble was launched by Pawlowski, a Canadian entrepreneur, in 2013 as a YouTube alternative for small content creators claiming that it is, quote, immune to cancel culture.
Rumble argues that it endeavors to, quote, restore the internet to its roots by making it free and open once again.
Which is exactly what...
Rumble did.
Rumble's massive growth was fueled in 2020 and 2021 by the massive avalanche of big tech censorship against conservative voices.
Donald Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook in one of the most shocking Examples of big tech censorship in the middle of the COVID pandemic, August 2021. Here you see just the news.
YouTube censors Rand Paul.
The senator accuses the tech giant of becoming an arm of the government.
And the article recounts that Senator Paul held a hearing in the Senate that Where he invited scientists and epidemiologists and they expressed alternative views on COVID than the ones that the government was insisting upon and that video got taken down by YouTube.
And as a result, Senator Paul said at the time, we can go back to that just a second.
He said, Paul says he's turning to other platforms like Rumble to upload content that YouTube censors.
That's what Rumble is.
It's a free speech site.
And because a lot of the censorship was about conservatives, there are a lot of conservatives on this site.
But a lot of people on the left have been censored by YouTube, especially over Israel and other things.
And a lot of people just like Rumble because they know that they're not going to be messed with based on their protocol and that they can say whatever they want.
That's the purpose of this site.
And only if you believe that censorship is a liberal value and free speech is a right-wing value, which is exactly what the framework holds now, only that could lead you to assert that Rumble is a right-wing...
A right-wing site.
So I found this New York Times article just so illustrative.
Obviously, it's quite humorous.
But it's very indicative of how these media outlets reason, how they work, how they function, how they think, what they see themselves as.
And I will just say one more time for emphasis that the most striking thing to me about all of this is Is that sometimes media outlets, especially after the election, are now forced to admit that they've lost audience, they've lost trust, they've lost faith, that their influence has collapsed.
They will never, ever, ever, ever engage in self-reflection or contemplation about what role they played in causing that to happen.
They're constitutionally incapable of looking in the mirror and asking.
So my advice to Stuart Thompson, The grand dean of investigative journalism, the highly decorated investigative journalist who studies, monitors right-wing media, and is a disinformation expert.
My advice, if I could offer it, I'm just an influencer, I understand, but nonetheless, I have an idea.
You should go and spend a week deeply diving into the New York Times.
Look at all the different articles they're publishing.
Look at the incredible homogeneity, the complete lack of diversity of viewpoint on its op-ed page.
Go look at the history of the lies the New York Times has told, not in the very far past, but in the very recent past.
The humiliations your paper has suffered, the lies that it got caught telling, the frauds that it ended up publishing, the damage it's done.
I think I'll write a good article on why corporate media, led by the New York Times, has lost the faith and trust of the public, so much so That 10 years ago, if you had written a letter saying, hi, I'm from the New York Times, I'm a reporter doing an article, and everyone would have scrambled and immediately responded as their top priority, and now no one cares, no one even bothers to reply.
You should go and ask yourself why that is.
Go study the New York Times.
Go delve deeply into its disinformation.
Write an article about that liberal pro-Democratic Party, pro-U.S. security state platform, as you should call it, and see if you can get to the bottom of it.
We like to end our show on a happy note, happier even than I just was, analyzing that whole New York Times debacle.
And one of the ways we want to do that, especially ending the week, is we have a new series that we're calling System Update, which is designed to feature one of our many, many dogs that we've rescued over the years.
We have 26 dogs at home, another 150 or so at our shelter.
Each one of them has a unique rescue story that I think really reveals a lot.
This is the third installment, the third week that we're doing it.
The star of the show is Pulo.
And it's a little bit sad.
This is the second of the dogs of the three that we've done who has recently passed away.
He passed away about four months ago, I believe now.
But he passed away basically from old age.
We rescued him in 2007. He was the second rescue dog that David and I rescued together, the third dog ever in our pack.
And we rescued a lot of dogs between 2007 and 2010, so a lot of them are getting to that age where...
They've had a long, full life, and that's why this is happening somewhat frequently.
But his rescue story is really amazing.
I find it actually quite inspiring to see what dogs can overcome and what they can become, despite a very, very difficult start to their life.
and here is the video illustrating and highlighting his trajectory.
Hey everybody, our guest starring dog of the week is Puo.
Poole has one of the most amazing stories of any dogs I've ever known.
He is obviously very old now.
We got him in 2007. David rescued him from the street in a story I'll tell in just a second.
That means he's about to turn 17, which for a dog his size, he's not a small dog.
He's very, very old.
So it's easy to look at him.
He's obviously debilitated.
He has trouble standing up or getting up and staying on his feet.
So we have a lot of physiotherapy for him.
Just a lot of ways to give him a good quality of life.
He still has quality of life in him.
It's amazing how old he is, actually.
We don't have any other dogs from that period in our lives that we rescued who are still alive.
And Poole's story is amazing in part that he had such longevity because when we found him he was in absolutely terrible shape.
He was living on the street with a woman who was homeless.
She had three or four dogs with her.
He was the youngest one.
I think he had just been born about Two or three months earlier to one of the other dogs that she had, and she kept him.
I mean, a lot of stray dogs, when they're babies and puppies, they wander away.
That's their instinct.
But Pulo stayed, and before he could get away, he got hit by a car.
And David was walking by and saw him on the street in obvious pain, really agony.
His body was kind of twisted.
And he talked to this woman and she said, look, I love this dog, but I cannot take care of him.
I can't get him any of the medical care that he needs, and I can't take care of him, like, even if I could in the recovery.
And if you would take him, I would be so grateful.
So David, you know, tried to say, like, look, we'll help you.
And she just, you know, refused because it was a lot of work on top of all the expenses.
And so we picked him up.
And among other of his injuries he had, you can see here his paw has always been, it was completely broken.
And we had to find, he also had a broken elbow, a broken shoulder here as well.
So we had to find these specialists, these surgeons, who, and at the time it was a pretty new procedure, it's more common now, but they put metal plates In his paw and in his shoulder in order to just give him support so he could use that leg.
And after those surgeries he had to stay in a tiny little box 23 and a half hours a day because it was important he not stand up and put pressure on those plates because they could break or become dislodged.
I remember it was so horrible.
We had to keep him in this tiny box 23 and a half hours a day.
We only just kind of let him out to lay on the ground.
We wouldn't let him stand up.
And it was terrible.
I mean, it was necessary, but I felt so bad for him.
And so if David were here, he would tell you that the minute Palua was finally able to get out of his box, I completely spoiled him.
I just treated him like a little tiny baby who deserved everything because of all that he had gone through.
And as a result, David would tell you he's a little bit of a weird dog and David would say it's all my fault because of how much I spoiled him.
So he has never been a normal dog.
He's just like, is always weird.
The way he walks is weird because of these metal plates.
The way he behaves is weird.
But with me...
And other humans, he could not be a more loving dog.
He's just very agitated around people he doesn't know.
He gets snappy with other dogs.
But given everything that he went through and had to get fixed and all the, like, injury and sickness he had when he was a small puppy, to see him 17 years later Still, look, you can just tell, he's super alert.
He loves affection.
As long as you sit with him, he's happy.
He'll whine a little bit if you don't.
He has to wear diapers because he can't stand up all the time in order to urinate or defecate.
You obviously don't want him doing that on himself.
But one of the hardest things when you have dogs, and it's also one of the most important, is to be able to know when The quality of life of your dog is no longer high enough to make their life have value, especially to know when their suffering outweighs the satisfaction and happiness that they get.
Nobody likes to have to make that decision to euthanize their dogs, but it's something you have to do for the dog, for yourself, even though you want to keep the dog around for as long as possible.
Sometimes for selfish reasons, even though they're well-intentioned, You know, you don't want a dog to just spend most of its day suffering.
And obviously, as dogs get older, like humans, they're going to have bad days, they're going to have some health issues that are going to cause some discomfort.
But as long as they're still able to interact well and to get the things that dogs We care about most, which is human love and human interaction and give that back.
Then, you know, there's not really a hard choice.
Pula for us is a very special dog because he was actually the second dog that David and I adopted together when I moved to Brazil.
I had one puppy that I had adopted in New York and then David and I rescued a second dog and Pula was the third one we ever got.
So he's like one of the founding fathers of our pack.
I mean, obviously, all of our dogs are very important to us, but for me, he has a kind of special symbolism.
And I'm thrilled that he's still around.
He's still having a, not such an active life, but still a happy life, like on balance life that's worth living.
But I do think sometimes, I know I had this a lot in the beginning with dogs, was...
You know, you'd make selfish decisions and postpone what you knew was the right choice because you didn't want to have to face the emotional turmoil and sadness and pain of signing a form that meant that five minutes later your dog was going to be euthanized, but over time you come to learn that You have to feel good about that decision because you know you made a hard decision that was best for the dog and ultimately for yourself.
Bull is definitely not at the point yet.
Obviously that point will come when he's so debilitated that he can't have a happy life or he will just die of natural causes.
One of the things you have to accept with dogs is they do have a shorter lifespan than humans and it's so important to accept that from the beginning.
Be conscious of that so that you're not Connecting to them like your children because you don't want to experience the loss of a child every 10 years.
I've seen people who treat their dogs too much like humans and when they die they're so devastated that they just never want to get another dog again to not have to go through that.
That's sad to deny yourself that.
So it's important to think about them in the right way.
One of the things they teach us is about the cycle of life and death.
This is one of the gifts they give us.
Even though we wish their lives were longer, the reality is it's not.
