All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2025 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
01:06:00
Glenn Takes Your Questions: Billionaires, Bari Weiss and Journalism | SYSTEM UPDATE #509

Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok  

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening.
It's Friday, September 5th.
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.
Every Friday night, as you probably know, we do a QA session where we take questions from our locals members, and as usual, the questions that have been submitted throughout the week have been covering a wide range of topics, some of which we already covered on the show, some of which we didn't.
We always look forward to Friday night because it lets us speak to issues from a different perspective as a result of the reactions or views or criticisms or questions from our members, but also to cover topics that we wouldn't otherwise ordinarily cover because of the questions as well.
And if you want to become a member of our locals community, which gives you access to a whole wide range of exclusive features.
Sometimes we stream exclusively on the locals platform as we did last night when we spent two hours here on the show live and then did our third segment on RFK's appearance before the Senate.
Very contentious and I think revealing appearance, where we uh did that segment exclusively for our locals members.
All you have to do is click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page.
It takes you directly to that community as independent journalists.
We do rely on the support of our viewers, and that is the way that we are enabled to do this show.
As a final reminder, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
All right, I think by now everybody understands the format.
The format's pretty simple anyway.
You probably always understood it from the beginning without my explanation, so I'm gonna just skip that.
And we'll get right into the questions because we do try and answer as many as we possibly can.
We always have more that we want to answer than time permit.
So let's dispense with the prefa, the preface.
Um I already wasted 30 seconds on it anyway, explaining why I'm dispensing with this.
So now let's really dispense with it and get to the questions.
All right, the first one is from KK Towel uh Taois, who asked the following.
Hey Glenn, you've mentioned that you had some interactions with billionaires.
In your experience, what are they like?
What drives these people, what do they want?
At a certain point, it can't be money.
So is it just power?
I've always wondered this.
I have had experiences with billionaires.
Obviously, I've had experience with billionaires more extensively than others.
Probably the most extensive experience I've had with billionaires has been the uh founding of the Intercept, which I did in conjunction not just with my journalistic colleagues and friends, Jeremy Skahill and Laura Poitrus, but also with Pierre Omidiar, the founder of eBay, ultimately who purchased PayPal and ended up as a multi-multi-multi-billionaire.
I did a lot had a lot of extensive dealings with him, but I have had a lot of extensive dealings with the other billionaires over the years, over the last, I don't know, five to six years.
Obviously, it's hard to generalize about any group of people, but I did we'll make a couple of observations since I do think I think I do think it's it's important to differentiate between billionaires and extremely rich people.
Maybe there's not a fundamental difference between, say, someone worth two billion dollars and someone worth 800 million who's not quite a billionaire, so that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about somebody who's extremely rich.
Let's say somebody with a 30 million dollar net worth or a 50 million dollar net worth, somebody who's capable of having a very expensive and large mansion or second home, who can go on vacations and travel around the world without the slightest regard to the cost.
Kind of have that as somebody who's very wealthy, who has financial security into retirement, who could even stop working.
And then you have billionaires.
And what I think is so important, I'll try and convey it's very hard to wrap your mind around what it means to be a billionaire.
I mean, obviously, you can do it mathematically.
You think about having a hundred million dollars, a hundred million dollars already for me, places you way, way into the category where you have more money than you could ever possibly need or want, where it would be obscene to spend another second of your life trying to get more money.
It Unless you're using that money for some good that you think more money would help you achieve, except for that.
I can't imagine getting anywhere near that level of wealth and then continuing to care and decided about money, about spending your time looking at your investments and the stock market and the price of uh assets and the like, even though so many of them do.
But that's 100 million dollars.
So obviously you multiply that by 10, take 100 million dollars 10 times, that's a billion dollars.
Then there's that stack of money that's just infinite, and then you know, for Peter Thiel, there's six of those for Pierre Midriar, there's you know 14 of them for Mark Zuckerberg, there's 250 of those for Elon Musk, there's 400 of those, and you're getting to a point where Elon Musk is like to have a trillion dollars soon.
She's talking about an amount of resources that really is the equivalent of what small countries have as their GDP.
So at some point, obviously the money becomes secondary to the power that it bestows.
Like I said, if you wanted just to have a life of immense luxury, you could do that on 100 million dollars, fly around a private jet, spend your time in, you know, the whatever places you want, living as luxuriously as you want, not just for yourself, but for your children.
But to have a billion dollars or more gives you immense power because it means that you can endow not just yourself and your family, but others with that kind of massive wealth.
You can fund entire causes, world global causes, as Bill Gates has been doing for the last 30 years with the amount of billions that he has.
And so with that amount of not just wealth but power comes an entire ecosystem of people who surround you, who are there to constantly affirm what you think to gratify and validate and please whatever your desires are.
And I've seen this happen almost subconsciously, where that level of money and wealth and most importantly power generates this reaction almost instinctively in other people, including people who probably don't think of themselves as the kind that would just become immediately deferential.
And placating, I think just the level of power that it uh bestows is so immense that I think people can't really prepare for what their reaction is going to be.
I've just seen that all the time.
And then as a result of that, as a result of just being surrounded by utter sycophants and people who fear your power, who crave the benefits of your power, who are constantly trying to curry favor with you because what you can do for them, I think that creates a very kind of warped reality, a kind of very warped uh life that is extremely unhealthy.
You know, that the one thing I think that I've learned that I believe in in terms of how the world operates is the law of balance.
And this is something that you can go back thousands of years.
I think a lot of religions are founded in that belief that balance is the center of the universe, the overwhelming overarching law, I mean Buddhism and then yoga that comes from Buddhism and comes out of that tradition is all about balance, physical balance, metaphorical balance, emotional balance.
And it really is true that there's nothing that is just a benefit.
Every benefit comes with that countervailing cost, and every cost comes with the countervailing benefit, so that it always ends up equal in the end.
I really do believe that.
And so the more benefits you're receiving, the higher the cost is going to be.
And you see, you know, in very common examples like this, uh, where people who have immense amounts of fame and money from very early on.
Michael Jackson is a very good example.
He's somebody who from eight years old had everything that you're supposed to want and crave in the world to be happy, massive fame, extreme amounts of talent, adoration, endless sums of money.
And look at what it did to him throughout his life and caused a very early death.
And you see this over and over and over again.
And I think with billionaires, it becomes almost like a more of a mental cost that ends up getting extracted.
It's just not a way that human beings ought to live.
So again, I'm not trying to generalize.
I think that our billionaires who go out of their way to remove themselves from that.
Uh, I mean, Pierre Midiar, for example, decided he didn't want to stay anywhere near Silicon Valley once he got his wealth.
He didn't want his kids near it.
He bought a house in Hawaii, he moved to Hawaii, he lives in kind of a a life of somewhat somewhat isolation, some some isolation in order to try and insulate himself and his family from all of those influences.
But there's no way you can.
I mean, he flies around the world on a 747, his wife has her own 747.
Wherever they go, the doors swing open for them.
They can buy whatever they want.
I do remember a millionaire one saying to me it wasn't Pierre Midiar, it was somebody else, and this also stuck with me, which is uh that they kind of became billionaires overnight as a result of an IPO and of of uh a company going public.
And they recounted the experience where they kind of woke up and realized, like, well, I can go to a Lamborghini store and I can buy whatever Lamborghini I want, and actually I won't even notice.
And then you get to the Lamborghini store and they realize, you know what?
I can actually buy all the Lamborghinis here, not just one, and not even notice.
And then the minute you realize how easily attainable all those things are, they lose their value.
They lose their luster.
A lot of times things have value precisely because it's difficult for us to attain them.
And the minute it becomes easy to attain them, they lose their value.
Their value lies in the difficulty of the acquisition.
So I have always wondered, and this is, I think, why I'm not a billionaire, to be honest.
I have always wondered how and why it could possibly be the case that somebody who reaches a certain level of wealth, and for me that level is quite low, where basically you can have a life that is comfortable, you can provide security for your kids, you can do the things you want to do in life without worrying about costs.
It doesn't mean you're flying around in private jets, but you can fly to places and see the world and do those sorts of things.
You don't have to worry about bills, that level of financial security.
I've never understood why once people reach that, they continue to be motivated by earning more money.
But okay, maybe there are people who just want a even higher level of material wealth.
They do want to be flying on private jets, they do need to have multiple homes.
They want to be able to just buy the most expensive jewelry, that those things for whatever reason have value to them.
Okay, then they keep working and they keep trying to make more money, and then you reach a point, like I said, say 100 million dollars where you just have more money than you could possibly spend or want in your life.
I'll just give you one more uh anecdote about that.
Uh, and this was about Pierre Midiar.
I remember uh when we first announced the founding of the Intercept that we're gonna create this media company and the Intercept was going to be a part, and Pierre Midiar announced that he was going to invest 250 million dollars, not in the Intercept, but in the media company that he uh wanted to build, which is called First Look Media.
It had like a documentary division and a film division.
It was supposed to be a whole large media company.
Never really succeeded much.
Uh but I remember the media went ballistic, you know, like freaked out.
At the time, he was going to buy the Washington Post for 250 million dollars, instead, he decided to invest it in a new media company because he didn't think he could reform a stodgy, ossified institution like the Washington Post and wanted instead to create something from the ground up.
And when he announced his 250 million dollar figure, the media went insane because this was at a point where the media was really starting to die.
It was 2013, 2014, they were struggling to figure out a model.
And this was kind of a signal that, and Jeff Bezos' purchase of the Washington Post that the new center of wealth, Silicon Valley, was somehow going to save media, that that was going to be the thing that saved media in this 250 million dollar announcement kind of shocked the media.
And I remember shortly after that, I met with not just uh Pierre Midiar, but also his team, and one of the people who was responsible for managing his finances said to me how funny he thought it was that the media acted as though 250 million dollars was some gargantuoan amount of money that he was really like risking and investing in this new media outlet, and he was telling me when you have $7 billion or whatever his net worth was at the time, you just make a billion dollars a year in interest alone just from having the $7 billion.
You just make another billion every year.
That's why a lot of these people who sign these pledges to give away all their money, Don't ever do it, even if they try.
They're just constantly making so much money from having so much money that it becomes more and more difficult to give it away.
And he was laughing at the idea that 250 million dollars was some even notable sum, let alone a significant sum to PR Midiar, given that just from having that money, he makes a billion dollars a year every year if he does nothing.
250 million dollars is kind of pocket change.
And that's I think that's what is sort of difficult to comprehend.
And so I do think it does, it is something that I don't understand that once you reach that point.
I'm not even saying the $7 billion point as a hundred million dollar point, where you would wake up and still devote your time and energy, the finite amount of time and energy that you have on this planet, given all the options that you could devote your time and energy to that most people can't because they have to keep working because they don't have that level of wealth, to have that level of wealth and then continue to try and just get more money.
I mean, I've seen billionaires who I think feel inadequate because they only are worth a billion dollars, and they know people, friends of theirs who have 20 million billion dollars and are major owners of a sports team, and they feel inadequate because they're not at that level of wealth.
I mean, that is the kind of warp mentality that I guess maybe it's just it's just being human.
There was this uh show, Silicon Valley, it was called Silicon Valley, it was on HBO, it was I think last about three or four seasons, quite a good satire of the Silicon Valley culture.
And there was a guy who ended up making a big investment and losing in the investment, and as a result, he was no longer a billionaire, he was only worth something like 800 million dollars.
And he was no longer in the 10-digit club, which is what a billionaire is.
He was only in the nine-digit club, which is what you're worth if you have 800 million dollars.
And it was like a sign of like embarrassment for him.
He felt like he had lost a big amount of status and self-esteem, that he was no longer officially a billionaire.
And even among billionaires, they have this sense of inadequacy if they're only worth two billion and they see you know, Mark Zuckerberg worth 250 billion dollars.
Human beings are very irrational in how we function.
There's, you know, and you go back to the earliest writings of oldest religions and the Bible and how morality formed, and that's why there's all these junctions about injunctions about you know jealousy and coveting things and gluttony, because these are the kinds of things to which human beings are naturally inclined to do.
And I I do think that it is a choice for society to allow people to be worth 250 billion dollars.
It's a choice.
There you could very legitimately make the choice that people can't acquire that amount of wealth through taxation or other things.
I'm not saying that's what I favor.
I'm just saying you can have that choice be made without becoming a communist.
And I also do think with these new billionaires, and I'll just add this as my last point, which is that one of the reasons why Donald Trump just took a 10% uh interest on behalf of the US government in what was it, Intel, was on the grounds that the US government had done a lot to enable these companies to develop the technology on which this private wealth had been developed.
And the internet in particular, which is where all these new billionaires come from, all the massive billionaires, the you know, 250 billion dollar types, all derive their wealth, or most of them from internet companies that developed in the late 1990s, early early 2000s.
And we went over this before in the context of why the US government funds colleges and how Trump is trying to take away their funding if they don't provide curriculum on Israel or other topics that he approves of, and while he won't and and and we talked about how the the point of funding colleges is that it leads to the kind of innovation technologically that then creates entire new industries like Silicon Valley.
And we pointed, I pointed many times to an interview that Mark Andreessen did in the The New York Times with Roth DuFat.
I think it's so interesting that it's Mark Andreessen because he's a hardcore capitalist, very conservative, Trump supporter, uh, very opposed to left-ling ideology.
And yet he was saying that he thinks Al Gore got a very raw deal, a very unfair line of attack because Al Gore used to go around boasting about the fact that he was the one who led the way in funding what became the internet.
And that became shorthand for Al Gore claims he invented the internet.
And Mark Andreessen was saying, you know, actually there's a lot of truth to it.
Al Gore was the one in the 1990s who understood that what was then called the information superhighway, that was kind of the preface term for the internet, was going to become the kind of new what we're what AI is now to us, the new frontier of technology, of profit, of control, of power.
And Al Gore led the way in getting the funding that enabled internet browsers to be developed by giving funding to colleges for research of the kind that let Mark Andreessen ultimately develop the first browser, which was Netscape that he then sold to Microsoft that became the source of his wealth.
And there's a critique, and Noah Chomsky has long voiced this critique, but Donald Trump sort of did in the last couple of weeks as well when he took this 10% position on behalf of the US government in this private corporation, which is if it's the US government, meaning the American taxpayer funding the research into this technology, why does it all become privatized at the end?
And we allow very specific individuals to basically own it and develop a wealth beyond what any human being not only needs but probably should have, when in reality, it was the American taxpayer who paid for the research that enabled this new technology to be commoditized and profitized, and yet all of the benefits go to these single individuals who then become billionaires and privatize it, none to the actual people who paid for it, which is the public.
I think it's a very compelling critique without having to become a Marxist or a communist.
It's just basically, in fact, it's kind of a basic principle of capitalism that whoever invests, whoever develops the research, whoever takes the risk by investing the money in this early research should benefit from it and should own it once it becomes uh privatized.
But that's not what happened with the internet.
We just kind of gave the technology away.
We privatized it all, and now we have a bunch of mega billionaires who, in a lot of ways, are more powerful than even the most powerful, uh, many of the most powerful countries.
I'm gonna actually add one more thing.
Uh, last because it was yesterday that uh Donald Trump invited all of these big tech uh tycoons to the White House, and Mark Zuckerberg was there, and Sam Altman of OpenAI was there.
Uh Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple was there, uh, the CEO of Google was there, um, and a couple of others.
Somehow Melania Trump was the one who convened it.
I'm not really sure what the story with that was.
But basically, before the meeting began, they each of them all went around and heaped the kind of praise in Lonald Trump that we've routinely seen become part of his cabinet meetings where before anything begins, everybody has to begin by looking at Donald Trump and just heralding him in his greatness and expressing extreme gratitude for all the things that he's done for the world, for them, for innovation, for whatever.
This kind of humiliation ritual.
And I've seen billionaires go to the White House, and Trump loves this imagery where he sits at the desk and nobody else ever sits.
Trump sits and everybody else stands around him and stands behind him and makes presentations.
It's a very obviously engineered theater to keep presenting Trump as this kind of strongman figure.
And I've seen billionaires just in the most obsequious ways, come in and you know, uh, just perform for him.
And you would think that one of the benefits of being a billionaire is that you don't have to do that for anybody.
And yet they do because, and this gets back to the question itself is there does seem to be no ability to satiate the quest for wealth and power.
There's no such thing as having too much.
Like you, I think a lot of people would get the point be like, I have enough money.
I never want to think about money again, I never want to work for money again.
I don't want to ever be driven by money again.
But it doesn't seem like these people ever reach that point.
And the fact that they're just willing to debase themselves publicly in that way before Trump or before whoever can provide even more wealth and power for them, is something that I think is very striking.
And I just ultimately a lot of this is very interesting in terms of how political power is exercised in our country, but a lot of it also is just about how human psychology works and seeing somebody in such an extreme position, like a rare Extreme position of that level of fame or that level of wealth and how they react to it and how they respond to it and how their worldview ends up being shaped and how their they respond intellectually and psychologically and emotionally.
I think it's incredibly interesting and usually reflects quite poorly, I would say, on the human condition.
All right, next question.
Ivan Ovid.
Why am I so bad at reading screen names?
Ivan Ovisid DJ.
I think I'm gonna blame the people who create screen names that are not uh easy to pronounce.
All right, I'm sure the question though is very good, despite the screen name being uh annoying.
A question about your approach to journalism.
Hi, Glenn.
Jordi here from Serbia.
All right, you know what?
I apologize.
It's probably the reason I had difficulty pronouncing the name was because it was Serbian.
Um so I should have been alerted to that before I mocked the name.
I retract that.
What's that?
Yeah, it's probably Ivanovich, exactly, exactly.
Um anyway, I've been following your work for years now, and as someone who followed your evolution online, I have a question regarding your views on journalism.
Namely, I noticed that a while for a while now, you tend to talk about different actors openly, such as X is a blatant liar or why is a blithering idiot.
This approach is not common in journalism, so I wanted to hear your thoughts on it.
I'm not necessarily against it, nor do I believe the approach has compromised your work.
I'm just curious because I believe that I don't know another big profile journalist approaching things that way all the best.
All right.
Just to the record, blithering idiot is not a phrase of mine.
Um I don't what was the first one?
Blatantly a blatant liar or something.
Uh yeah, blatant liar.
That definitely is one of mine.
So let me say a few things.
I first of all, I think it's important to note that when I started writing about politics, I didn't think of myself as going into journalism or being a reporter.
I was a lawyer at the time.
Uh I was practicing law, I had a specialty in constitutional law.
I was extremely interested in uh and concerned by the attacks on basic civil liberties and constitutional rights under the guise of the war on terror.
And I felt as though there was nowhere near enough uh warnings being issued about the dangers to our core liberties.
A lot of people were cowled by the environment of 9-11, especially in the media.
And this technology that arose that I exploited and became the basis of my the early part of my career, which were blogs, was very much about citizens who felt like the corporate media had become cowed and had abdicated its responsibility in the wake of 9-11 and these radical theories that were invoked in order to justify all sorts of government acts that previously were unthinkable in the wake of 9-11 and justified in the name of 9-11.
And I began writing more as kind of a citizen, just trying to get people's attention.
Uh paid to the what I thought was the gravely dangerous developments in our country as it pertained to these warrant terror theories.
And so I didn't begin by, you know, going to journalism school and then taking some traditional route of covering, you know, zoning board meetings or school board meetings for a local paper.
I didn't get inculcated with the idea that if you want to be a journalist, you have to use this tone of voice, but not this tone of voice.
You have to speak this way, but not this way.
You have to try and defraud your readers into pretending that you don't have uh opinions about anything, that you're absolutely neutral, when in fact you're really not.
That was never something that was taught to me.
That was never something that I I had to embrace or or buy into or or comport with in order to have an effect.
I really just sat down and I wrote in a way that I thought was most persuasive.
And generally the way I write is I try and imagine that I'm speaking to the person for whom I'm writing.
And I don't try and use a different tone of voice when I'm writing.
I don't try and think about uh the right form of expression.
I remember early on, as my blog got very popular, some journalism critic or journalism professor talked about how I would constantly break the fourth wall of journalism in a way that was rarely done.
And I didn't really understand what that meant until I uh spent a little time trying to understand it better, and I would constantly just speak directly to the reader.
Like, if you believe this, what would you then say about this?
So I wasn't trying to speak in this like detached voice.
I was trying to speak directly to the people who were reading what I was writing in order to connect to them, in order to persuade them, in order to get them to see things from a different perspective than the one that I thought they were looking at.
And so that was really how I approached it.
I never once thought about what are the protocols of repertorial tone or like what are the rules of how you can speak and how you can't speak.
And then over time as I expanded my focus because I knew I had to, I couldn't I I realized early on I couldn't just critique the Bush administration legalistically or constitutionally.
There were all other sorts of real politic that you had to deal with if you wanted to have an impact including the role of the media and their corrupt methods and other special interests.
You couldn't just have this rosy eyed idea that as long as you presented rational arguments it meant that you could persuade people so I had to expand my focus to how corporate journalism was functioning, the propagandistic role they were playing.
And one of the things that I began to notice was that all of journalism was based on an obvious fraud such a blatant fraud.
These people would go around and they would say I'm not biased.
I don't have any opinions I'm not trying to push an agenda or an ideological worldview.
I'm neutral.
I'm a journalist I just report the facts and it was it's such an obvious lie you could read any news article and understand exactly what the reporters and the editors were up to.
We are not machines.
We do not interact with the world objectively we're all the byproduct of our subjective experiences, our subjective prisms, the culture and so the cultural and social influences that we've had of course we all see the world in a subjective way not an objective way.
And talking about politics or reporting on politics it's not mathematics which even how human beings do mathematics is not purely objective but it's closer certainly than journalism.
And you could just see based on obvious things like who they decided to quote early on in the article as an expert and what view that was presenting and who they didn't quote as experts what people with certain views were excluded from being warranted to be included in the article or what they emphasized or deemphasized in the article was very obvious what the political agenda was or at least the ideological outlook that they were promoting even if they didn't realize it.
And that's why I came to really hate corporate journalism early on was because I saw this obvious disparity between what they were presenting themselves as being and what they in fact were.
It was like consumer fraud to me.
Like the whole profession seemed to be based on this utter falsehood it's very self-serving mythology that they somehow had transcended the human experience and were able to see things from a mountaintop and free and liberate themselves from the ordinary political and ideological leanings that ordinary mortals have and I was determined never to do that.
So my writing had always been as honest as I can make it in the sense that I'm going to analyze certain information I'm going to present you with certain information.
I'm going to report on things that other people haven't yet found I'm going to analyze information in a way that I think should be dissected that other people aren't doing but I'm also going to be very honest with you about what I think about all these things.
And this is one of the things that created a lot of a lot of controversy when I was doing the Snowden reporting which was you know I got this gigantic archive that showed massive NSA spying without warrants indiscriminately on entire population including the United States and ways that were illegal plans to turn the internet into this incredibly repressive weapon of espionage and surveillance and control.
And I didn't pretend that I was neutral on it.
Like I didn't pretend that oh I don't have an opinion on it.
I'm just here to tell you what's happening.
I had been for years sounding the alarm about the NSA and about mass surveillance and about the erosion of privacy rights in the name of the war on terror.
And so I wasn't going to pretend that I didn't have a view on it.
I was very clear about what was my view on it but I still felt I was being very meticulous about adhering to the facts and that made my journalism in my view more reliable not less reliable because I wasn't trying to perpetrate a fraud on the public as I did the reporting by pretending that I didn't have any beliefs.
Of course I had beliefs on it everybody who was doing that reporting and any other reporting have beliefs on what they're doing.
And so I think hiding your beliefs is something that's going to erode the trust and faith in the public I'm not saying you shouldn't aspire to be as objective and neutral as you can.
I mean of course you should be you should be adhering to factual truth.
But the reality is none of us are fully capable of that.
Of course, our subjectivity is going to interfere.
That's what it means to be human.
And so for me, the honesty of that approach naturally led to the fact that I try and speak as honestly as I can.
I think there is a difference, by the way, when you're speaking verbally on video this way, which is a relatively new experience for me in terms of like having a show where I have to host it every night and I'm I'm I'm spending less time writing about these topics and more time speaking about them.
And there's a whole debate I have in my mind about which is most productive, probably a hybrid of the two are is most productive.
Some people only consume news and information through video these days.
So if you want to reach as many people as you can, you have to do that as well.
But some people still want to do it through the written form, and I want to find a way to kind of uh re-invigorate both types of communication.
But I don't see why if I believe that someone is blatantly lying, or there's a journalist who has demonstrated for years chronic lying, that I should refrain from saying that.
And that's why I kind of took objection and distinguished between this person is a blatant liar between versus this person is a blithering idiot.
I do try and avoid just childish insults for their own sake.
I'm sure I'm not perfect with that.
You know, there are people who I'm a human being, I get emotional about things, I try to control that those emotions as best as I can to be as professional as possible.
So I do tend to avoid kind of vacant insults, like, oh, he's a blithering idiot.
But when it comes to apt descriptions, like, oh, this person is a chronic liar, this person is blatantly lying.
I don't think you can do real journalism if you're shying away from those kinds of descriptions.
Obviously, you have the burden, if you're going to say that, to demonstrate that it's true.
And if you're just using it as a kind of, you know, unattached insult, it becomes very cheap, like kind of a cheap tactic.
Like you don't really have any substance to present, so you just want to convince your audience to think of this person as a blatant liar.
I think it always, or most always, mostly always, if I call somebody a liar or say that something is a lie, we'll try as my best to show you the evidence that demonstrates that it's true.
But I actually think that one of the failures of corporate media has become that people, and I think there's true politicians as well.
People don't trust you if they think that you're speaking to them in a condescendingly deceitful way.
If what you're presenting to them is not really who you are.
If you're trying to present a mask to them or a fake version of yourself.
No, obviously we all have, you know, they're all kinds of differing behaviors that are appropriate in some contexts and not others.
I try not to use profanity unless necessary.
I mean, I use it on rare occasions, but I try not to just go around cursing the way I might if I were speaking to a friend, and you know, you're speaking much more casually.
So I'm not saying that there's never any attempt to try and have your manner of speaking or expression align with what you're doing.
You speak differently in a professional context or a public context than you do privately or with your friends.
It's just normal human behavior.
But what I try really hard to avoid is pretending that I am I I think something that I don't actually think, or hiding what I think when it's actually part of what it is that I'm trying to express to people.
And I ultimately think that is a way that builds trust with the audience, not a roads trust.
For a long time, I think people thought that a road trust journalists are just there to be vacant vessels of the truth.
And maybe that worked for a while when there were just three television networks and no real way to dissent from anything that people were being told.
But the more information has been diffused, the more kind of alternatives there are.
I think people end up trusting more those who speak authentically than those who appear to be adhering to a script that's designed to present a false image of themselves rather than the truth.
All right, the next question.
Nitwituki, I really appreciated your episode on the Minneapolis shooter in which you correctly pointed out that anyone who points a gun at a small child and shoots them suffers from a deep spiritual depravity.
Sorry if I misquoted the exact words, I was working from memory.
I think that actually is pretty much what I called a deep spiritual depravity.
I was wondering what this means in the context of the IDF, where numerous witnesses, victims, and doctors report Israeli soldiers shooting small children and even toddlers with sniper rifles and drones, weapon systems where they clearly identify they are aiming at a child and then shoot them, and what it does for the community, some of the United States that these child shooters return to.
Yeah, I think it's a great question.
I think this is a question that extends far beyond Israel.
I think it's something people saw in the war in Vietnam, for example, where we sent, you know, kids 18, 19, 20, 21 years old, into the jungles of Vietnam, most of whom had no idea why they were there, and they were encountering a culture they didn't understand, and a group of people willing to fight in vicious ways because they were defending their homeland.
You see this in canine behavior too.
I actually was this just a couple weeks ago.
I had this little small farm that I go to on the weekends most weekends, where I just have a few farm animals that I just like being around, and I take a lot of my dogs there, and there were these three gigantic dogs that were from some other farm just wandering around and they wandered onto our property.
I mean, they're huge.
They were huge.
One was a German shepherd, I think one was like a government pincher type.
And I had like four dogs who were just kind of mutts, not very good fighters, but because it was their home, their territory, they became super aggressive in confronting these dogs who were invaders, and those dogs got scared, even though they were obviously much bigger and stronger and ran away.
It's just kind of like a natural human behavior or animalistic behavior to defend your territory in a way that you would not be able to conjure the strength to do.
So a lot of these American fighters were soldiers were confronting people who had that mindset.
And it forced them to engage in all kinds of massacres and killing.
And this went on for years, and we know that so many uh veterans of the Vietnam War came back with massive mental problems.
We didn't, I don't even think we called it PTSD then, but that's clearly part of what it was.
But also, I I I used to write about this after 9-11 in the war on terror, is that if you are a country that's engaged in constant war, endless war, you're necessarily having to ingest information and embrace beliefs that justify the ongoing killing that you're supporting, the ongoing eradication of human life.
And so you stop thinking about human life as sacred or even valuable when it comes to the people who you are told you're fighting against, and you kind of almost have to dehumanize them.
Certainly, if you're trained in the military, you cannot be trained in the military without learning how to dehumanize the people that you're the enemy, the people that you're required to kill, because empathy or humanization will impede your your function.
And that doesn't mean you're trained to just go around indiscriminately slaughtering children, but it does mean that you do have to detach yourself from the people who you're being killed.
There's a lot of those stories from World War I with all that trench warfare fighting where they could actually see each other.
They were very close to one another, you know, just yards away in that horrible trench warfare of World War One, and they had to learn to look into the eyes of some, you know, 20-year-old when they were 22, and lose the natural empathy for and connection with the person that they were whose head they were about to blow off.
And of course, this coursens not only people who have to fight in the military, but it courses the society as a whole.
And you can hear it now in our discourse.
Just listen to how supporters of the Israeli genocide in Gaza talk about Palestinians.
Not even like their animals.
Like they just, I mean, most people think animal life has at least some inherent value.
But when it comes to Palestinians, the way Israel supporters speak, certainly in Israel, but also the United States, is that's that there's no value to that life at all.
And there's lots of reports now about the trouble that Israel is having in getting a lot of its soldiers, especially its reserves, to be willing to go back to Gaza.
A lot of them do have PTSD, a lot of them have serious mental illness from the kind or emotional instability from the kinds of things that they either witnessed or were forced to participate in.
And that is probably not just a cost of a war, but one of the worst costs of a war for a country, especially when a war is enduring and sustained or multiple fronts, is that it absolutely courses in the population, makes the population more vulgar, less humane, less empathetic, more trained to devalue human life.
I was talking to uh a friend of mine uh the other day because here in Brazil, abortion is illegal.
And one of the main reasons abortion is illegal is because of the very influential role the Catholic Church has long played in Brazil.
Brazil, I believe, has the largest population of Catholic people of any country in the world.
There's been over the last couple decades a massive growing evangelical movement that has, I think, lessened the influence of the Catholic Church in favor of evangelical pastors, but still the Catholic Church uh exercises a very significant role.
And one of the things I give the Catholic Church a lot of credit for is that the foundation for its opposition to abortion is that we have to always honor the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of human life as a principle.
It's the most sacred thing there is.
It's created by God, it's something no human being has the right to exterminate or eradicate.
And therefore they see abortion as the ending of human life, and therefore it's a violation of the sanctity of human life.
And what I appreciate about the church's position, regardless of whether I agree with that part of it, is that they then apply that consistently when it comes to their steadfast opposition to the death penalty.
And they insist on the equal sanctity of the human life of a person who's accused of horrible crimes.
And yes, you can put them in prison.
But the death penalty is something that the church regards as immoral based on the same principle that causes them to be opposed to abortion.
And I think that this insistence that we embrace and observe the sanctity of human life, and for me, animal life gets included in that, but I'll leave that for another day.
But the sanctity of human life is something that can only be positive.
And conversely, if a side society is constantly being conditioned and trained to disregard the sanctity of human life because it needs to be inculcated into relinquishing that belief to justify endless wars and being able to watch people be blown up and be okay with it, I think that leads to some very dark and evil places.
I think we've seen that in Israel, I think we've seen that in the United States, I think we've seen that in a lot of countries that go to war for many years.
And I know people don't like to hear this, but for all that we're told about China and how aggressive and dangerous and domineering they are, how they're like just threatening military power.
China has not fought a war since 1979.
That's 46 years ago.
Which means that most of its population has never seen their country go to war in their adult life.
Probably half the population or more has never had a war by their country in their entire life.
And I just have to believe that a culture where there's no war like that produces a much different mindset.
And I would even say, on some level, a better mindset than a culture that is constantly at war, like the United States is like Israel is.
I think I talked about this before.
This is the last thing I'll say on this question, which is when I started living in Brazil and I moved from the United States, where I lived my whole life, 37 years, to Brazil, I remember there was just like this random moment.
I was watching the news, like the Brazilian news, nightly newscast or whatever.
And halfway through it, like it just occurred to me.
By this point, I was writing about American politics.
I was paying a lot of attention to American politics, too.
What a bizarre contrast it is.
That there's never a point in Brazilian political discourse where somebody says, hey, like what's the next country we should go bomb?
I've been here 20 years.
I've never once heard people in the media, the government, anyone saying, hey, like, I think we're getting close to a war with this country.
I think we need to like activate our soldiers should we go to war.
Whereas in the United States, we're constantly debating, like, which country do we bomb next?
And uh I and Brazil is the not the exception.
Brazil is the rule.
The United States is the exception.
Israel is the exception.
And I think the culture that ends up producing uh ends up being much different, and uh I would say a lot less compassionate, a lot less empathetic because support for endless wars requires you to be indifferent to the value of human life and to the loss of human life.
And I think you see that in lots of different ways in the cultures of the countries that end up in endless war.
All right, next question from Joker 99.
Thank you for one of the easiest screen names I've I've had, not just today, but in most of these QA's.
Hey Glenn, I don't know why I'm so contankurous about that.
I've been around screen names a long time too.
I used to use weird ones, so I'm not trying to be judgmental.
It's just uh more annoyance at the need to read them.
Hey Glenn, I just recently joined, been watching for a minute now.
I wanted to know what you think about the U.S.'s recent rhetoric about India.
Modi has recently spoken about going to meet with China to talk trade.
What's your opinion on the long-term results of the administration's provocative stance against pretty much everybody in the world, all because of the influence of one country?
Yeah, we were actually going to do a segment on that this week, because I think it's extremely significant.
It wasn't just uh India.
It was India and Russia with President Xi in China, all holding hands, making very flamboyant displays of affection and alliance, obviously as a message to the United States into Donald Trump, that we no longer live in the world of unipolarity where there's one single superpower that can dominate and dictate to and rule the world without consequence.
That was pretty much what the world was in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a single superpower.
The world is, I would say, bipolar, maybe even multipolar, in terms of how it's described, nowhere near unipolar.
And Trump seems to believe, and this is clearly his mindset, that he isn't just the president of the United States, but the leader of the world.
You saw this right away when he was thinking he could just order Russia and Ukraine to reach an agreement to stop the war.
And he would chide Zelensky whenever Zelensky didn't do exactly what he wanted, which at least makes sense because Zelensky is actually dependent on USA, but then he would treat Putin as though Russia was a colony or a vassal state of the United States, and it's not.
And he would say, I'm very disappointed in Vladimir.
As though like he's some kind of parent to the world, and if he expresses his disappointment and anger, Putin is going to say, Oh, wow, I don't want to displease my father.
And a lot of world leaders have started to understand this is Trump's psychology.
That's why you have that extremely creepy head of NATO, Mark Rudy, who talked about Trump as being like the daddy of Europe, who had to come to Europe and discipline it and tell it you're not spending enough on your GDP on defense.
Because they know that's how Trump thinks of themselves, and so flattery is all the Europeans can do because of how weak independent they are.
But Russia, China, and India are not in that position.
And I think it is worth taking note because I think there are a lot of MAGA people who seem to get some sort of vicarious sense of strength from watching Trump try to bully the world.
That there are real consequences to it.
I mean, just look what happened in Canada, where uh Pierre Palayev, I haven't said his name in a long time, I had mastered its pronunciation, but the conservative candidate looked certain, I mean certain to become the next prime minister of Canada.
He had a, and his Conservative Party had a 20-point lead over the Liberal Party under uh Justin Trudeau.
And then Trump was perceived as attacking Canada, which you know he kind of did.
He started calling its prime minister Governor Trudeau, started talking about integrating Canada against its will and become the 51st American state.
And when a country feels attacked by external forces, this is just basic human tribalism.
We're tribal creatures, we evolved needing to be part of tribes as our survival depended on tribe, tribal membership.
That tribalism kicks in and we unite behind the leader and against the country that we feel threatened by.
And it created this massive anti-American sentiment in Canada that then ended up translating into support for Mark Harney because his opponent, who was about to be president of Prime Minister of Canada seemed to be too close to Trump because he had modeled himself as basically the Trump of Canada.
The same thing is happening in Brazil.
Same thing is happening in Brazil.
Lula da Silva has been a very unpopular incumbent president.
He's old.
He's going to run next year.
In 2026, he'll be 80, runs for a four-year term, which means from 80 to 84.
He's, you know, pretty healthy for a 79-year-old, but he's 79.
And the economy hasn't been great.
They've had some scandals.
There have been some effective attacks on them.
Just Lua's been around for a long, long time.
It's very hard to maintain your popularity when you've been around for that long.
And he was very weak, and poll showed declining popularity pretty rapidly.
And then Trump, as we've covered extensively on the show, not only imposed massive tariffs, but also sanctioned Brazilian officials in part as punishment for the trial of Bolsonaro, which I do think has a lot of problems.
And I've talked openly about that.
So leave aside the merits of the sanctions, the merits of the tariffs, it enabled Lua to do what any reasonably politically shrewd leader would have done, let alone one as shrewd as Lua, which is pick up the nationalistic flag and say, F you, US, and F you, Trump, you don't dictate to us what we do.
Brazil is for Brazilians.
And a lot of Brazilians who don't like Lua united behind that message because they felt attacked by an external force, just like it happened with Canada.
But okay, Canada, not a big deal.
Brazil, not really a big deal in terms of being able to threaten the United States.
But China, India, and Russia.
We spent the entire Cold War trying to avoid driving Russia into the arms of China or China into the arms of Russia, two communist regimes that we kept wedged apart, that had their own reasons for being unable to unite against the United States.
And that was always part of the insanity of the Democrats and Biden's policy toward Ukraine, joined by a lot of Republicans like Marco Rubio and plenty others like that, of financing the war against Ukraine, because obviously, if we were going to fight a proxy war against Russia, which we did, Russia was going to stop trying to have positive relations with the West because we're now waging war on Russia, and they're going to seek out their alternative, which was China.
And China and Russia became closer than ever.
We managed to do what we spent 60 years during the Cold War not doing, which is driving Russia into the arms of China and China into the arms of Russia.
And now with India, Modi is a natural ally of Trump.
They're both, they're very similar.
They're very ego-driven.
They want the perception of strong men.
They're both right-wing populists, and I don't want to simplify it.
India politics is much different than American politics, but by and large that's the case.
They always got along well, and according to reporting, there's a lot of things that have wedged India and the United States.
But one of them is Trump's insistence on taking credit for having facilitated an end to the India-Pakistan war.
Because embedded in India culture, in the India political culture, is the notion that India and Pakistan's disputes is not for any outsiders to dictate.
Through war, through conflict, through diplomacy, whatever.
And so for Trump go around boasting that it was he who basically forced India and Pakistan into negotiations into an end of the war.
It's very politically threatening to Modi because it makes him look weak.
And so he's had to constantly reject that and resist it and deny it.
And then everyone knows that Trump's very eager to win the Nobel Peace Prize, despite arming one of the worst atrocities in the 21st century, of not clearly the worst in Gaza and continuing to arm the war in Ukraine.
He wants the Nobel Peace Prize.
And Pakistan decided to just flatter him and placate him and nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize like Netanyahu did too.
And he wanted Modi to do that as well and Modi refused.
Modi won't nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And so these kinds of petty grievances between the leaders ended up creating a breach, and then Trump imposed sanctions on them, which made that all the worse.
And now there's real acrimony and distance between the United States and India, which is the largest country on the planet now.
Its population exceeds China.
obviously the largest democracy in the world.
These countries are powerful.
These countries are not jokes.
And now you have this very shocking and unlikely but almost forced and required image of Modi Putin and Xi joining hands and making very clear that they are joining forces.
Now, there may be reasons why that may not happen.
China and India have a lot of problems, including their own border dispute that's pretty vitriolic.
And Russia and China and Russian India have had their own issues as well.
So it's not like you just wake up one day and they're now suddenly great allies.
But if the United States continues to go around the world, acting as though we're this imperialistic force dictating to everybody what they can and can't do, punishing those who don't obey.
We can get away with doing that with small countries, no problem at all.
We've been doing that to small countries forever.
There's small countries, nothing they can do.
But Trump thinks he's the emperor of the world and is acting openly like it and demanding that everybody accept it and acknowledge it.
And these countries won't and aren't.
And I do think it is very much fueling what had already been the emergence of this alternative force, which is BRICS.
I mean, one of the reasons why the US was able to impose sanctions on all these countries, Venezuela and Cuba, and suffocate their economy and Syria and Iran and Russia and now Brazil, is because of the preeminence of the dollar as the reserve currency as the foundation for the global financial system.
And obviously, if you go around abusing that power against too many countries, they're gonna get to the point where they become extremely incentivized to overthrow the dollar as the reserve currency.
Lua de Silva, the president of Brazil, says he wakes up every day and dreams of de-dollarization.
And that was before those sanctions and tariffs were imposed on Brazil.
And again, you say, oh, who cares if Brazil does that?
That's what's happening in China and India and Russia as well.
There are already transactions.
We're trying to prevent India from buying Russian oil.
And the Indians are saying we're gonna buy oil from whatever country suits us.
Like you have problems with Russia.
That doesn't mean we're gonna take your orders to not buy from Russia.
We're gonna buy from whatever is in our interest.
And if you try and sanction us with dollars, we'll buy it in rubles.
And there are already our oil transactions outside of the dollar.
Not many, but growing.
And I think it's one of the things that I thought Trump had promised to do, which was to focus inward, to stop trying to dictate to the world.
And for whatever reason, psychological or neoconservative influences or otherwise, he's been doing exactly the opposite.
And I think the United States is going to suffer a great deal from that.
We're already seeing the evidence of that.
All right, we had a whole issue about this debate that has emerged about whether or not Barry Weiss can be held responsible for the targeted assassination of a Palestinian poet, because early on after the October 7th attack, she falsely accused him of having celebrated the killing of Israeli babies when in fact he was mocking the lies that were told by Israel.
Almost everything about October 7th were lies told by Israel.
And one of the lies was about the fact that Hamas baked babies in the ovens, obviously intended to invoke the Holocaust, and he knew that was a lie and mocked it and said something like, oh, was it done with this sauce or that one?
And Barry Weiss uh manipulated or uh the the meaning of the tweet.
Here's where Barry Weiss did.
There you see uh his name is Rafat Al-Ar.
He's a writer, uh a poet.
He wrote an amazing book, uh, poetry, um, that I bought made the bestseller list after he died, um, that I really recommend.
Uh, but here was his tweet.
Uh some Israel supporter on October 29th said a baby was found in an oven baked to death by Hamas terrorists, leading Israeli first responder, Eli Bear recounted to an RJC gathering last night.
His group was among the first to respond to and witnessed the October 7th atrocities.
This was among the many lies which Israel told all the stuff about the beheaded babies, the rapes, all of that.
And Rafat, knowing that it was a lie, came and said, oh, was did they bake the baby in the oven with or without baking power powder?
And then Barry Weiss wrote above that here is Rafat Al-Arier joking about whether or not an Israeli baby burned alive in an oven was cooked, quote, with or without baking powder.
He wasn't joking about the baby in the oven because there was no baby in the oven.
He was mocking the absolute lies that were told on purpose by Israel to justify what they wanted to do in Gaza, which they're now doing two years later.
Here's Evan Hill, a Washington Post reporter, pointing to a Heretz journalist who said the story is false.
We know the story is false.
The story is totally totally false.
About four weeks later, after Barry Weiss put that target on his back, and he knew that tweet would put a target on his back.
He even said, if I get killed in airstrike, it's because of what Barry Weiss just did.
And four weeks later, his house was targeted.
He was blown up in an airstrike along with multiple members of his family.
There you see December 12th, prominent Gaza professor and writer killed in airstrike weeks after telling CNN he and his family could had nowhere else to go.
And so we have this question from Gray Watcher question, in your opinion, what levels of oh wait, I'm sorry.
So we had a question about whether or not it's justified because people are debating it, whether or not Barry Weiss is to blame.
I can't say for sure that Barry Weiss publicly accusing him of something he never did, which was mocking how Hamas burned Israeli babies in ovens, is what led to the targeted killing that ended his life and multiple members of his family.
But I do know for sure that it's most definitely plausible.
Jesse Signal and others are saying it's insane to suggest Barry Weiss.
Yeah, why would that be insane?
We've seen over and over that the more people in Gaza who are having influential platforms speak about against Israel, they end up dead in a matter of weeks.
Barry Weiss is a direct line to the Israeli government.
You don't think the Israeli government pays attention to what Barry Weiss is saying?
She speaks to Netanyahu, she's interviewed top-level Israeli officials, she has access to all of them.
And if she points to some prominent writer and poet in Gaza and says, oh, look, he's publicly mocking how Hamas burned babies in ovens.
You don't think there are people on the IDF or the Mossad who are going to say, oh, that's something we somebody we need to kill?
So I'm not going to sit here and definitively draw causation between what Barry Weiss did and lying about him and the target she put on his back and the fact that four weeks later his house was blown up in a targeted killing because I can't prove the causation.
But anybody running around saying it's insane to blame Barry Weiss for that, as though, oh, the IDF would never ever do something, especially in December of 2023.
Like purposely kill somebody who they were falsely led to believe was mocking the death of Israeli babies in ovens.
Anyone calling that crazy or insane the way Jesse Signal did and others did, is being just as irrational as someone who's asserting it definitively.
Yes, there's no proof of it.
How would we ever get proof?
We probably never will.
But it's the linkage is very plausible, both in terms of how Barry Weiss behaves, in terms of how Israel behaves, in terms of what the IDF has done, in terms of how many influential critics of Israel in Gaza have been targeted with death, journalists and activists and spokespeople, especially English-speaking ones.
And I say all that because the question was from Art Laffler, who asked this quote, Janine Yunus, who host a podcast with Mel, uh Melissa Wittis, who we had on our show, we're big fans of, is getting slammed online for comparing Barry Weiss to Goebbels.
curious what you think.
You know, I've talked many times about Barry Weiss'role and the role of the free press in genocide denialism, in generating hatred for our Palestinians.
We just showed you an example of what she did.
And it's particularly relevant because this deal that we've covered before, where Paramount and CBS, which was just purchased by Larry Ellison's son, the Ellison family being fervently Zionist and pro-Israel, fervently, fanatically, buys Paramount and CBS and now wants to give Barry Weiss about 100 million dollars, 150 million dollars to buy the free press and elevate her to some very senior role in overseeing the editorial and ideological direction of CBS News.
Why a lot of people are talking about it here, you see the New York Post saying paramount to buy Barry Weiss's free press for up to $200 million.
Give her a senior editorial role at CBS.
This is actually a story broken by Puck News, and they made clear $200 million wasn't the amount.
It was closer to $100, maybe $150 million.
And that's when Jenna said, uh, Janine said CBS literally hires modern day globals to manage its editorial output.
Was it a bit of an exaggeration?
A little bit of hyperbole?
Maybe, but what the free press has been doing has been utterly sinister and not in a different universe than what Nazi propagandists did in terms of denying the Holocaust, denying war crimes, denying mass starvation, and ginning up hatred for the people they were trying to exterminate.
So I've gone over this many times before.
I just wanted to kind of answer this question because of this latest event and remind you as well of what happened with this Palestinian poet who Barry Weiss purposely lied about by pretending that he was celebrating or mocking the deaths of the Israeli babies that were burned in ovens on October 7th rather than mocking the people like Barry Weiss who run around lying for weeks about what happened on October 7th because they knew that that was necessary to get the world prepared for what Israel has long wanted to do long before
October 7th.
That will conclude the show.
As always, I really do enjoy these QA's.
It's kind of, I purposely don't look at the questions beforehand.
Sometimes someone will mention to me, oh, there's one about this, one about this, and I'll just, you know, usually say fine.
I don't look at the questions.
I like to be able to respond in real time so it's not scripted or prepared.
Um obviously we did want to talk about the Barry Weiss uh one, which is why we had a couple of graphics prepared when we saw that question.
But in general, uh I just like to answer extemporaneously.
I think it's the best way to do it.
Uh we have a lot more questions that we would love to get to.
Um, but we did a two-hour show last night on air.
We also did about a 30, 35 minute segment on RFK's uh testimony before the Senate uh that we uh streamed live exclusively on our locals platform, and then we did the QA tonight.
So we're gonna go ahead and call that an end of the show.
Uh we really appreciate those people who submit questions.
It makes this QA session so valuable.
Those come from exclusively from our locals members, and the locals community is the one on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night if you want to join, which helps uh sustain the show.
You can do so by uh clicking the red join button right below the video player on the rubble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
There's a whole bunch of other exclusive features that you get, but most of all it's the community that enables the show and the independent journalism we do to happen.
For those of you watching this show, we are needless to say very appreciative, and we hope to see you back on Monday night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern live exclusively here on Rumble.
▲
Export Selection