Hillary Blames TikTok for Anti-Israel Sentiment; MAGA Sycophants Gain Pentagon Press Access; Who Should Win Anti-Semite of the Year? See the Top 10 Finalists
Hillary Clinton predictably blames TikTok for young people's skepticism of Israel. Then: MAGA influencers take over the Pentagon press briefing room. Finally: Who should win the highly anticipated "Antisemite of the Year" contest? ------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
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.
I was about to say, again, you can see that I'm not in our ordinary studio.
And while in a sense, that's true, the reality is, as I said last night, we're going to be in this location for some time to come.
So you just need to get used to it.
You just need to accept that.
And enough with like, oh, why isn't God in the studio?
Just put in your head, this is the studio for the next couple of weeks until further notified.
I'm also surrounded by many dogs, as I said last night.
They were incredibly well behaved last night.
I wouldn't count on that, that being the case tonight, because the topics are not quite as entrancing to them, though I'm sure it will be to you.
All right, tonight, first of all, Hillary Clinton appeared at a pro-Israel lobby conference sponsored by the Adelsons in New York, among other pro-Israel luminaries.
And she made remarks about the reason she believes that so many Americans and young Americans in particular have turned against Israel.
Obviously, it has nothing at all to do with Israel's behavior or anything that Israel did wrong.
It's like, you know, it's like, it would be like saying, oh, Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016 because she was a bad candidate or people didn't like her ideology or her character.
Obviously, we know that's not true.
That's not what Hillary lost because people didn't like her.
She lost because Russia manipulated people into voting against her.
So she has a lot of theories about why Americans have turned against Israel, having to do with everything other than Israel's behavior.
So we're going to subject you because we have to be subjected to her views.
And it's not just that I want to torture you because I had to be tortured by listening to Hillary Clinton talk about Israel, though that is true.
It's also because it's incredibly revealing what she said, where she said it, who was near her at this conference, when she said it.
And we're going to tell you all about that.
Then most of the Washington Press Corps has been expelled from the Pentagon, from covering what Pete Hegseth calls the Department of War, but which the law still calls the Defense Department because of their refusal, their quite valid refusal to sign a form required by the Defense Department, essentially requiring media outlets to submit whatever they're going to publish about classified information to the Pentagon for prior approval.
No one who actually is a journalist or even calls themselves a journalist, no matter how old your standards are.
And obviously the standard for corporate media is very low, but no matter how old your standards are, you would never in your right mind sign a document requiring you to submit for pre-publication approval your articles about the Pentagon to the Pentagon.
And so they've all lost their press credentials, including Fox News, including Newsmax, just so you don't think it's some sort of left-wing protest movement.
It's just anyone who has any journalistic bone in their body.
I think the only network that has agreed to it is One America News or Network, but even Newsmax, even Fox has refused to sign it to their credit.
And in their place, they've imported not people in independent media, not even conservatives who are people who are conservative by ideology, which would all be fine.
They've imported instead the most sycophantic, mindlessly supportive and loyal Trump sicko fans who now constitute the Pentagon Press Corps.
And I realize it's easy to laugh at the misfortune of journalists and corporate media.
I love to do that too.
And there's an extent to which I'm doing that here.
But you don't want the government empowering journalists who are essentially people who are vowing in advance never to question, let alone criticize the president or any of his statements or any of his policies.
And that's exactly what the Trump administration is on the road to doing.
And no matter what you think about the Trump administration, that should not be something you should be applauding.
And then finally, we were going to cover last night this exciting voting process underway to determine anti-summit of the year.
And since we didn't get to do that last night because of time constraints, we devoted the whole show instead to this imminent regime change war in Venezuela.
We are going to cover that tonight because I think that's an important, in one sense, topic to cover, very frivolous in another, but there is some, there are some worthwhile points to derive from that.
And so we're going to cover that at the end of the show as well.
Before we get to all that, a couple of quick programming notes.
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 of the major podcasting platforms.
Where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, we are independent journalists doing independent media.
As such, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can help participate in and provide by joining our locals community where you get access to a wide array of exclusive benefits and exclusive content.
But most of all, it is the community on which we do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click, click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For those who've been watching this show, we are very appreciative and we want to welcome you to a new episode of System Update starting right now.
I don't know why, but the program that I'm using to do this show a little bit remotely allows me to see the live chat on my screen, which I don't usually see.
So I am seeing all the misbehavior, all the mischief going on there.
I see the mockery of the fact that my dogs are marking, that my dogs are running around.
Light mockery, affectionate mockery.
But I do want you to know that I see it.
I am watching.
You are under surveillance this evening.
And everybody is welcome, other than those who are just there to fill the chat with all kinds of malicious idiocy designed to prevent others from speaking.
You will be banned.
But other than that, you're free to express all your views.
I just want you to know that you're being watched tonight.
All right.
Before I actually get to those topics that I just outlined, I wanted to get to, I just want to comment briefly on this regime change war in Venezuela and the utter insanity erupting as a result, because we devoted the whole show last night to it, to examining the justifications, justifications, the claims being made about why it's necessary to have this new regime change war, the likely outcomes of it, the lies being told, the people supporting it.
I don't want to repeat all that.
I don't want to repeat any of it.
In fact, I just need to vent, I guess, and in the process, observe that maybe I was being naive, but it really is alarming to me how easily the U.S. government is able to sell a new war to huge numbers of people, even though we've all sat through so many wars in our lifetimes that we know the government lied us into and lied about pretty much every war.
They lied about the reasons for the war, about the justifications for the war, about the likely outcomes of the war, what their motives were, what their objectives were.
And when you watch that enough, you just, you feel like, you know what?
They're going to have to change their tactics.
This can't keep working over and over.
People are going to get wise to this and say, I'm not willing to be fooled any longer.
And it's not just that they've been lied into wars.
That they know all their money and resources have been sucked out of their communities, out of their savings accounts, out of the resources of the United States, and have gone to these massive defense contractors, Ukrainian oligarchs, and Israeli wars.
And it's affecting their own lives directly in so many ways.
And that's why Americans over and over keep saying we don't want any regime change wars.
People who run based on stopping American war and endless war are people who are politically appealing.
And despite all that, despite the fact that every war begins with Americans supporting it and it ends with Americans saying they oppose it, every time there's a new regime change war, it's unbelievable how easy it is to get Americans to support it.
Not just regime change wars, but I remember how easily the Biden administration got 70% of Americans on board to finance the war in Ukraine.
Even though so many people like me were saying five years from now, Russia will be winning.
The only thing that will have happened is hundreds of billions of dollars will disappear.
Huge numbers of people will be killed.
And people just have their emotions so easily manipulated.
And the same thing is happening here.
It's just, I just saw people within the last hour saying that the reason we have to go and take out Maduro is because fentanyl is killing so many Americans and we have to put a stop to it.
I cannot believe.
And again, maybe I'm being naive, but I cannot believe how many Americans are now willing to say something that nobody was saying as recently as a month ago, that fentanyl comes from Venezuela.
Fentanyl does not come from Venezuela.
Fentanyl comes from China and Mexico.
It doesn't come from Venezuela.
Venezuela has nothing to do with fentanyl.
And yet you have Trump administration officials and Republican senators and military industrial complex scumbags like Alex Karp and endless numbers of war supporters saying, look, the reason we have to go do this war is because Americans are sick and tired of watching people die of fentanyl.
And you just say, Venezuela, fentanyl doesn't come from Venezuela.
It just doesn't.
Every government report, every think tank report, every EU report, nobody thinks fentanyl comes from Venezuela.
Fentanyl is manufactured in China.
It's passed into the United States through Mexico.
That was why nobody in the 2024 campaign talked about bombing drug cartels in Venezuela or regime changing Maduro.
They talked about bombing Mexican drug cartels, which we didn't do because that's where the fentanyl.
And yet overnight, they've convinced huge numbers of people that fentanyl comes from Venezuela.
It's like they didn't even really try to convince people of that.
They just kind of, Trump never even really said it outright.
He just keeps applying it.
So does JD Vance, so does the Senate Republican caucus.
And yet, I can't believe how many people are running around saying that, oh, this war is needed to stop fentanyl because it's going to have no impact on fentanyl whatsoever.
And then just one other quick point that's very similar.
Trump formalized his pardon today of the former Honduran president whose case we covered last night, who absolutely flooded the United States with cocaine, what Maduro is accused of doing.
He actually did.
He was prosecuted.
The case started under the Trump administration, the first Trump administration.
It wasn't that Biden DOJ that put him in jail.
He was found guilty in an American federal court with lawyers due process and a mountain of evidence.
And then the court sentenced him to 45 years in prison.
Not because some people in Honduras happened to drug traffic while he was the president, but because he oversaw the drug trafficking ring.
He participated in it.
He made money from it.
He was in partnership with some of the worst, most notorious drug cartels and drug traffickers on the planet.
And at the same time, Trump is trying to convince the country that we have to go to war to stop the international drug traffic, including cocaine or other drugs coming to the United States.
He pardons someone that American courts have found guilty of actually flooding the American population with cocaine, and Trump pardons him and lets him out.
And when asked why, Trump says, ah, I heard from people I like that it was kind of an unfair prosecution.
And now you have huge numbers of people who never heard of this case until yesterday, who never heard of the person that defended the former president of Honduras, who was convicted until like 24 hours ago, all walking around beating their chest.
Yeah, Trump did the right thing.
This guy was railroaded.
It's like, how could you possibly know that?
It's an extremely complex prosecution.
There's mountains of evidence the prosecution submitted.
It went through all kinds of judicial review and ended with a court ruling of guilt.
And a 45, nobody has gone through that who's defending this.
Nobody has any idea what this case was about.
But because Trump needs to justify what he did by saying, yeah, it was an unjust prosecution, huge numbers of people just walk around like mindless cult members, repeating what they're told to say, even though they have no basis.
And I spent too much time today asking these people, how did you get convinced that fentanyl comes from Venezuela when it doesn't?
How do you, why are you willing to say that this drug trafficker, this Honduran drug trafficker, is innocent or was unfairly prosecuted when you don't know anything about the case simply because Trump said it.
And it's especially offensive because this guy is Honduran.
There are huge numbers of American citizens in American prison with lengthy, lengthy drug sentences for drug offenses far less severe than what this guy that Trump pardoned is just accused of.
So between the tribalistic willingness to just cheer for every war and the partisan mindlessness of people just supporting whatever their party's leader says he wants to do, concocting whatever reasons they need to justify it.
I think whatever optimism I had that Americans were finally turning against these wars, that Trump ran on a campaign to end these wars, these wars are never going to end because too many elites make too much money.
And the ease by which people are convinced to support wars is just so extreme.
And media outlets cooperate.
Wall Street Journal had an article linking Maduro to jihadists, saying that Maduro sends drugs to Europe and that's those drugs that are then sent to East Africa and that's what then funds jihadists who will attack the United States.
It's all the same thing over and over.
Saw some other conservative journalists in a viral tweet claiming that it was Hugo Chavez who hacked the 2008 Democratic primary, the Iowa caucus.
Hugo Chavez hacked the Iowa caucus, even though there are paper ballots, which we've all seen.
They read in each precinct in these caucuses, the Iowa caucus.
Somehow she said Chavez hacked it and just have thousands of retweets.
And now people are like, yeah, we've got to go get the Venezuelan government, they're hacking our election.
People will believe anything.
You ask 20 different supporters of this war why they support this war, why it's necessary, you'll get 25 different answers.
They don't care what the reason is.
They just care that they're cheering the war.
It's depressing.
It's alarming.
And it just kind of creates this desire to just desist.
Like, okay, if you just want endless wars and you're going to, every time there's a new war present, you're going to buy it.
And you don't even need a majority.
The government doesn't care if a majority supports these wars.
You don't, the whole thing about going to Congress, like the Constitution requires to get a declaration of war, all of that has been dispensed with long ago.
It's as long as the military industrial class, long as the deep state, as long as American bipartisan elites in the swamp want a war, the war is going to happen.
You just got enough people to support it based on tribalism or partisan, mindless loyalty, and that's all you need.
And so that's all I have to say on that.
Anyone else wanting to delve more deeply into our reporting analysis of the war in Venezuela can watch last night's show.
All right, let's move to the actual agenda topic for this evening.
We're going to start with one Hillary Clinton, former first lady, former U.S. Senator from New York.
She parachuted into New York after her husband's presidential term ended and ran for the Senate and won, and then was re-elected in 2006.
Twice the presidential candidate, including the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, the Secretary of State under Barack Obama.
She's been around forever, forever, feeding on the DC Tro.
And she has become such a caricature of what the DC swamp is and the utter lack of difference between the two political parties.
She was once caricatured as some far-left Democrat.
Hillary Clinton fits right in with Fox News and Liz Cheney.
I mean, that's her comfort zone.
And she went to an event.
Let's put that up on the screen where we have some information about the event.
It was a pro-Israel event sponsored by Sheldon Adelson.
And you can see a tiny bunch of tiny little faces that nobody could recognize with print.
But the first one, the most important one, is Mary Middleson and her $125 billion.
And John Fetterman was there.
And Hillary Clinton, there you see Hillary Clinton is the fourth person on the left.
Basically, just a bunch of people.
I think Elise Stefanik went.
You know, basically a bunch of people who just go to whatever pro-Israel conference they're told to go to.
And as long as Mary Middlesex is there, spreading around the money, they're all happy to go there.
So Hillary decided that she was going to explain to her pro-Israel paymasters, including Mary Middlesex, why it is that Americans have turned against the U.S.-Israeli relationship, why particularly young Americans are horrified by Israel, don't want the U.S. financing Israel anymore.
And as I said at the stop, you know, when it's Hillary Clinton, it's never because people in good faith disagree with her.
There always has to be some reason why these people are stupid and deplorable.
Why, unlike her, they're too weak and too dumb and therefore easily manipulated to believe what they believe, which is different than what she believes.
She's so fanatically pro-Israel.
And so she's trying to explain why Americans, why do Americans, especially young Americans, see the world differently than she sees it?
Why aren't they as pro-Israel as she is?
And here was her explanation.
That our students, smart, well-educated young people from our own country, from around the world, where were they getting their information?
They were getting their information from social media, particularly TikTok.
That is where they were learning about what happened on October 7th, what happened in the days, weeks, and months to follow.
That's a serious problem.
It's a serious problem for democracy, whether it's Israel or the United States, and it's a serious problem for our young people.
And it was frankly shocking to me how little the students we were encountering, not only in this class we teach, which is a very large class, international relations about crisis decision making, but students more generally.
And that's why I mentioned the social media piece of it, because when you would try to talk to them to engage in some kind of reasonable discussion, it was very difficult because they did not know history.
They had very little context.
And what they were being told on social media was not just one-sided, it was pure propaganda.
And so when you think about how to tell Israel's story, and it's important, it's not just looking internally, it's looking externally, and particularly looking at young people, because, you know, it's not just the usual suspects, it is a lot of young Jewish Americans who don't know the history and don't understand.
Eric, I was talking to Condi Rice, and you know, she said in an interview that I did after the 20-point plan came out, she and I were on CBS, and she said, you know, when people were chanting from the river to the sea, she would ask the students what river, what sea they didn't know.
I had the same experience.
A lot of the challenge is with younger people.
More than 50% of young people in America get their news from social media.
So just pause on that for a second.
They are seeing short form videos, some of them totally made up, some of them not at all representing what they claim to be showing.
And that's where they get their information.
I'm really sorry to have subjected you to three minutes of her doing all that.
Before we delve into all the reasons why she's so grotesque and repulsive, there was a comment, I think, by Sunrise Star in the chat, which, as I said, I'm monitoring carefully and you're all being evaluated.
And notes will be put on your permanent record about your conduct tonight that Hillary's hair looks really pretty.
And I think it's important to recognize, yes, Hillary's hair looks very pretty.
All right.
Now, let's just break down a little bit of what she said there.
She's so unbelievably condescending and like eroted inside.
She said that the reason young Americans have turned against Israel is not because they watched every day as Israel blew up Palestinian babies and incinerated them in tents and starved them to death and denied them anesthesia and antibiotics so that they had to subject themselves to surgeries without basic painkillers.
No, it had nothing to do with that.
Nor was it about the fact that they realized that the United States pays for Israel to go blow up babies every day.
No, it had nothing to do with that either.
It's that these young Americans are very stupid, very stupid.
They don't know anything.
They're morons, like the deplorables who didn't vote for her because they're really stupid too in 2016.
These are idiots, she said.
And the reason they were so easily deceived, why their ignorance was so easily exploited, was because TikTok manipulated them into thinking Israel was bad.
And we've shown you so many times before.
Remember, this was a bipartisan drive to ban TikTok.
When it was just about China, it got nowhere near the votes needed.
Only once after October 7th, when Democrats like Hillary Clinton started believing that TikTok was allowing Palestinians to speak too freely, Palestinian advocates speak too freely, Israel critics speak too freely.
When there were too many videos going around of what Israel was actually doing in Gaza, which 10 years ago you could have stopped, you just banned media like Israel did and there was no TikTok to show anybody, or you just eliminate free speech on the internet and prevent it from going around.
She was like, they saw too much and they're idiots.
They don't even know which river and sea they mean.
These are morons.
These are imbeciles who disagree with me.
This was the reason TikTok was banned and or forced to be sold to someone like Larry Ellison, the single largest donor to friends of the IDF in history.
It's because they became convinced that TikTok was allowing too much criticism of Israel, was showing too many of the realities of what Israel was doing.
And that's why they banned it or forced a sale.
And it's completely bipartisan.
Note as well that this monster and ghoul has the audacity to say even Jewish Americans have no clue what they're talking about.
These are idiots, these Jews.
You have these Jews, these Jews.
She hates anti-Semitism.
I was absolutely enraged by it.
She's like, these Jews, these Jewish Americans, they're criticizing Israel.
They're morons.
They don't even know their history.
They don't even know their own history.
I'm here to teach them.
They don't want to hear it from me because TikTok poisoned their mind and they don't know enough.
They're too stupid to resist it.
And then she said, hey, I was talking to my friend Condi Rice.
You know, Conda Rice, the national security advisor during the Bush-Shaney administration, who was the architect of the torture regime, who told Americans that if they didn't support the war in Iraq, that the proof of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction would come in the form of a mushroom cloud that Democrats claimed at the time was a war criminal.
Anyway, that Condi Rice.
You know why Hillary and Condi good friend Condi Rice were speaking?
It was because they did a CBS show, meaning Barry Weiss called Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice, because they're both fanatical Israel supporters and got them to talk about Israel and the importance of U.S. foreign policy remaining on a war, endless war footage.
They're also both Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, both fanatical supporters of the war in Ukraine.
This is what I mean.
This is a Republican Bush-Shaney national security advisor, Condi Rice, and the Democratic icon feminist Hillary Clinton, who have zero difference between them on anything.
That was why TikTok was banned and then forced into the hands of Larry Ellison.
So many politicians have told you the real reason.
Hillary Clinton just did again.
And it's because they believe that TikTok allowed too much free speech and young Americans got more information than they should have gotten.
They're like, wait, what happened?
We used to be able to control the information young people got.
We would just ban the media from entering Gaza and then lie to them and tell them what was going on in Israel based on the IDF reports.
And that would work.
What's going on now?
We can't control any of this anymore.
Hillary said stuff like that about the internet so many times.
She hates the internet so much because it's free or at least freer than she wants it to be.
The reason why Hillary Clinton is such a good vessel for understanding how these people think is because she's very, very bitter about having lost that 2016 election.
She really thinks she was entitled, even though the only reason why she was even in the running was because her husband became president.
Not like she caught her way up on her own merit, but she really believes she was destined to be president.
And she believes, and so many of them believe this, that if Americans don't do what they're told, if Americans don't think what they're directed to think, it's never because Americans see things differently.
It's because they're being tricked and deceived because they're too stupid to see the truth that is being given to them by Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice.
And that's why Hillary blamed not herself or the Democratic Party or its ideology or the results of eight years of Clinton and eight years of Obama for why she lost.
No, it had nothing to do with her.
She wasn't fought at all.
It was Russia's fault.
Russia manipulated a bunch of idiot Americans, deplorables, morons, imbeciles, into voting for Trump over her.
And that's the same reason why young Americans protested Hillary and don't love Israel as Hillary loves Israel.
Not because they reached their own conclusions based on freedom of information that they can now access because of the internet that's free that Hillary Clinton hates.
No, it's because they're really stupid.
They don't even know the basic facts.
These are morons, imbeciles, including these Jews.
She's like, there's Jews who are opposing Israel.
Jews, because they're so stupid, they don't even know their own history, these Jews.
On the one hand, listening to Hillary is like listening to the longest metallic nails being scratched on the most solid chalkboard.
It is horrifying and like torture to endure.
But I get myself to do it because, on the other hand, it's so revealing.
I mean, she is the queen of the bipartisan DC swamp.
Nobody is more of a guardian of status quo dogma than Hillary Clinton.
And the fact that she's at a pro-Israel conference speaking for Mary Middleseen in complete harmony with Condi Rice and every other Liz Cheney type Republican, these are the choices we've always had for my whole life.
You go to the polls, you can vote for Hillary Clinton or Condi Rice, or Hillary Clinton and Liz Cheney, or Hillary Clinton and Tom Cotton, or Ted Cruz.
These people all have the same views on all of the things that matter in terms of how power is distributed.
Just to give you a little bit more, just to give a little bit more emphasis to really underscore the point.
I remember last night this clip from Nikki Haley when she was running for president and she was in the presidential debate and she was arguing why Joe Biden was right to demand TikTok be banned.
Because by this point, it was, although Trump introduced the TikTok ban in 2020 based on Chinese control, by 2024, Trump had a huge donor who was a major shareholder in TikTok, Jeffrey Ass, who tried to convince Trump that TikTok shouldn't be banned and there shouldn't be a forced sales.
So Trump in the 2024 campaign actually opposed the banning of TikTok.
But Joe Biden and the Democrats were on board and Nikki Haley was too.
And Nikki Haley argued in the GOP primary why Joe Biden and the Democrats were right to want to ban TikTok, as well as a bunch of Republicans.
And she invented the funniest statistic I think I've ever heard in decades of watching these presidential debates.
She just invented the statistic that to this very day I laugh at.
But just remember how aligned this is with Hillary Clinton.
Here's what Nikki Haley said.
We really do need to ban TikTok once and for all.
And let me tell you why.
For every 30 minutes that someone watches TikTok, every day they become 17% more anti-Semitic, more pro-Hamas based on doing that.
We now know that 50% of adults 18 to 25 think that Hamas was warranted in what they did with Israel.
That's a problem.
When campuses also don't go and protect when they have these rallies and you've got students that are scared, we need to go to these universities and say, if you're not going to protect these students, if you're not going to acknowledge anti-Semitism, we'll take your tax-exempt status away.
That'll fix it and that'll take care of it.
I mean, Hillary Clinton could have easily said that, although I think even Hillary is a tiny bit, she's a little bit too dignified to tell lies that crude.
She's like, hey, by the way, for every 30 minutes that you spend on TikTok, it's not like you're likely to see things that might make you, no, it's very, very scientific.
For every 30 minutes that you spend on TikTok, you are 17% more anti-Semitic, not 15% or 16%, not 19 or 20%, you are 17% more anti-Semitic.
So if you spend an hour on TikTok, you're now 34% more anti-Semitic.
You spend two hours on TikTok, you're 68% more anti-Semitic.
You spend three hours on TikTok.
And now you're really in trouble because now you're above 100% more anti-Semitic just from three hours on TikTok.
And her conclusion and Hillary Clinton's conclusion was that because Americans were getting information that was making them think differently about the U.S.-Israel relationship than Nikki Haley and Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton want them to think, we have to ban TikTok.
That's how these people think.
Remember, Nikki Haley said during the campaign as well that people should no longer be allowed to be anonymous while on the internet.
A condition for using social media, she said, should be giving your government identification so your name can be attached to everything you said.
These people are complete authoritarians.
And think about what jokes it is to have to go and vote and choose between a Republican who will put Liz Cheney, or actually a Democrat now would put Liz Cheney, but before a Republican or Nikki Haley or Condi Rice, or a Democrat who would put Hillary Clinton in power.
These people are just hive minds.
They have a little bit of difference on cultural issues, you know, pro-choice, pro-life, kind of, a little more pro-gay, less pro-gay, whatever.
But in terms of economic power and how it's dispersed, in terms of especially foreign policy and wars, these people are identical.
They don't believe in free speech.
They're very bitter that the media outlets they love, like Barry Weiss's CBS, are no longer controlling thought.
They've lost the ability to control thought.
They're angry about it.
They want to censor it.
They want to shut it down.
And TikTok was closed.
TikTok, a sale of TikTok was forced into the hands, not just of Trump supporters, but of people who in particular are extremely devoted to Israel.
And it's so clear because they all say it now, as Hillary Clinton just did, that the reason is, remember the ADL demanded TikTok to be closed too, was that there was too much information on TikTok that was allowing Americans to become critical of Israel.
In case you're wondering how the United States functions, whether free speech is real, what the mentality is of the people in power, it's just all laid out there with such clarity by, I won't play Hillary Clinton clips very often.
I know you need to recover.
I need to recover spiritually, emotionally, psychologically from seeing her, despite her pretty hair, from hearing her voice, and especially from being exposed to just like the utterly nauseating sociopathic way that she thinks about the world.
But it is worth forcing yourself to do it every now and then.
And that's why we decided to share that with you tonight.
All right.
So maybe there's no segment break or like some kind of graphic for a segment break like there usually is.
I was waiting for it.
It didn't appear.
I don't think we really need it.
I think the silence serves a function as well.
You have to imagine the system update.
And then I go on to the next topic, which I'm about to do.
All right.
So I want to make a point about media and journalism, which is I don't think there's been a more vocal critic of corporate media for as long, for so long as me.
I hated corporate media with all my might, all my intensity before it became known that they deserved it.
And I'm not calling myself a pioneer.
I'm hardly the first person to do it.
I'm just saying it was a very intense focus of mine, basically for the last 20 years since I started journalism.
And my hatred to corporate media has only intensified the more I, the closer I got to it, the more intimately involved with it I became, the more of my own journalism I did, the more I interacted with them, the more I saw them, and especially when the Trump era, COVID, the 2008 financial crisis, 2003 Iraq war, the war on terror, completely exposed exactly what they are: Russia gate, all of it.
And I'm always happy when they are discredited.
I'm always happy when their credentials are disrespected, when they lose faith and trust on the part of the public, because all of it is what they deserve.
But I always try and make the point that while I hate corporate media and the journalism they do, I'm not against journalism.
I'm a huge supporter of journalism.
I became a journalist because I believe in it.
I have pursued journalism sometimes with risks, angering power centers because I believe it's such a vital part of how we have a healthy democracy.
People who are maintenance people or who work in a factory or are dentists or who are pilots or whoever have to focus on their work for most of the day.
They can't spend all day investigating and digging into the actions and statements of a politician.
That's the job of a journalist.
And you need journalists to be able to say, hey, what this politician is saying is lying, is a lie.
What this politician is doing in secret is corrupt.
And we're here to expose it.
You need journalism, it is important.
It's vital.
I never thought journalism, and I still don't think journalism is something that only a privileged priesthood called quote journalists are able to do.
I think journalism is an act, not a priesthood or a profession that any individual can do.
That's how the founders thought of it.
Freedom of the press was put in the First Amendment.
It was like freedom of speech or free exercise of religion.
It wasn't for just a small group of people, freedom of the press.
It was for everybody.
They meant the press, the actual printing press, which, you know, all kinds of people used, including people who aren't professional journalists to agitate against the crown, to advocate for things they wanted.
It's a right that we all have to do journalism.
And I'm glad when it's understood that it's not confined to New York Times and Reuters and NBC reporters.
But journalism requires an adversarial relationship with the government.
Doesn't mean you hate the government.
Doesn't mean you hate the people in charge of the government.
Doesn't mean you always call them liars or corrupt.
But it's adversarial in the sense that when they say something, your instinct as a journalist is not to immediately agree with it and say, well, if that person is saying it, it must be true because he's so trustworthy.
It's to be skeptical about it and to say, you know what?
I want to see proof for it first before I believe it or before anybody should believe it.
And you go and investigate it.
And if you find that it's false, you say so.
If you find that a policy is likely to produce outcomes different than the ones they're promising, you say so.
That's just the journalistic instinct.
You don't want anyone sycophantic to government, but you also don't want anybody like the corporate media was with Trump, single-mindedly and monomaniacally driven by hatred for the person for a mission to destroy a particular presidency or a party.
Both are activism and not journalism.
And I say all that as a prelude to this trend that really has become centralized at the Pentagon, but is now spreading to the White House newsroom and other the briefing room and other parts of the government to expunge People who are in corporate media or even independent journalists and replace them with complete party sycophants, complete party loyalists, or Trump loyalists.
And as much as I hate corporate media, as much as I believe that they've been completely mission-driven and destroyed their own mission in trying to destroy the Trump presidency, both in the first term and the second term, the solution of replacing them with people who are excessively worshipful and reverent of the president and the administration is no better.
And I would argue it's actually worse.
You'd rather have a press court excessively adversarial, even reactionary adversaries, than ones who are sycophantic and who will defend the president no matter what he does.
And yet, increasingly, that's what we're getting.
This all started when Pete Hegseth decided to impose a new media policy that basically said that if you work at the Pentagon, you are barred from asking people to tell you things that are classified, which is what a journalist does in all parts of the government.
You don't just want to get the information that the government has authorized you to get, just that they want you to have.
You want to get the information that they're hiding so you can report on what the government is doing.
And you go to sources and you ask them to share with you what the government is really doing so you can report on it.
But they had to sign a policy saying they would never do that.
And they also have to sign a policy saying if they're going to report anything other than what the government has explicitly authorized them to distribute, they have to submit it first for pre-publication review.
Here from AP, and this is October 22nd.
After others departed, Pentagon announces, quote, a new press corps filled with conservative news outlets.
Because what happened was the media outlets, not just ABC and NBC and New York Times and Washington Post, but the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Newsmax, pretty much everyone said, we're never going to sign this.
This is basically turning ourselves into government spoke people like we work in North Korea.
We're not going to get permission from the government before we can publish something that is about classified information.
We're not going to go to the government and ask for permission.
That gives the government censorship power over what we're going to report.
So they all lost their credentials.
There's no more actual journalistic outlets inside the Pentagon.
Instead, they've all been replaced not with independent media, which I would have no problem with, but the opposite of independent media.
People who are not journalists at all, they're just Trump worshipers, Trump cheerleaders, Trump supporters, which is fine.
Be a Trump believer, be a Trump supporter.
Every American has the right to do that.
There's nothing wrong with that.
People are supporters of political leaders.
That's totally fine.
But don't pretend then that you're part of the press, which is reporting when you've already made clear that your interest is not reporting on Trump or Pete Hegseth, but only venerating them and defending them.
Here's the AP News article that goes on to explain.
We can put that on the screen.
Let me see.
It says, here's the Pentagon Press Association statement on October 15th: quote: Today, the Defense Department confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every media organization in America.
It did this because reporters would not sign on to a new media policy over its implicit threat of criminalizing national security reporting and exposing those who signed it to potential prosecution.
The Pentagon Press Association's members are committed to reporting on the U.S. military, but make no mistake today, October 15th, 2025 is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency and governance, the public accountability at the Pentagon, and to free speech for all.
And let me just, I think there is, yeah, so that's the end of that.
So the Department of War, as Pete Hegseth and Trump are now calling it, even though that's not actually its name under the law, issued their own defense of this new policy.
And this is what they said.
We can put that on the screen.
Memorandum for senior Pentagon leadership.
Here, this is their report.
Members of the news media are not required to submit their writings to DOD for approval.
The receipt of unsolicited CNSI or CUI and its subsequent publication is generally protected by the First Amendment and would not on its own normally trigger denial revocation or non-renewable PFAC.
However, if you solicit the disclosure of such information or otherwise encourage DOD personnel to violate laws and policies concerning the disclosure of such information, such conduct may weigh in the consideration of whether you are a security or safety risk.
It then goes on to say, the First Amendment does not permit journalists to solicit government employees to violate the law by providing confidential government information to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel, news media who find themselves in possession of information that appears to be CNSI or CUI should discuss those materials with the PPO prior to publication.
So that's exactly what it does.
If I had signed on to this and then Edward Snowden had come to me or another source had come to me and said, hey, I want you to know something.
The NSA is doing something.
The deep state is doing something extremely deceitful, illegal, and corrupt.
And they are hiding their abusive, deceitful conduct behind classified or top secret markings.
If I said to that person, oh, yes, I'm interested in that.
Give me that.
Or, hey, this is interesting what you gave me.
Can you give me more?
I would be in violation of that policy because I promised not to do that, even though it's basic to investigative journalism and subject to prosecution because I signed that.
And even worse, if I did get such information that is classified or top secret, meaning the government hasn't authorized it to be seen by the public, and I published it, if I didn't first go to them and give them a heads up about what I was publishing and get approval from them, I would also be subject to prosecution and violation of those rules.
I would never sign those rules.
No journalist of integrity would.
But the Pentagon is a no problem replacing all of those journalists who refused to sign these forms and therefore lost their press credentials and their access to the press.
The problem is it's being filled by a bunch of partisan loyalists.
Here's someone named Cam Higby who said this, quote, you can criticize me for not having a journalism degree, but what does it say about the folks with degrees that I replace them at the Pentagon?
No one cares if anyone has a journalism degree.
I don't have a journalism degree.
I went to law school.
I didn't go to journalism school.
Some of the most accomplished journalists on the planet didn't go to journalism school.
No one thinks you have to go to journalism school to be a real journalist.
Don't have journalism.
No one cares about that.
It shows how little this person knows about the profession of journalism that he thinks the criticism is that he doesn't have a journalism degree.
But he says, okay, well, what does it say about me or the folks with degrees that I replace them at the Pentagon?
What it says is that you're a mindless follower, a cult leader, a cult member worshiping your leader.
And they know you're never going to criticize anything they do.
You're never going to question them in any way.
You're going to just serve as a propaganda vehicle, a vessel for them.
That's what it says about you.
That's why you're there.
And he was responding to an X user who said, quote, what it says about you is you have no integrity and will say whatever the government asks you to, like the good little boy you are.
Quote, information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it's released, even if it's unclassified, the directive states.
The signature form includes an array of security requirements for credentialed media at the Pentagon.
He denies that.
He says, we do not need permission to post public information.
Obviously, you don't need permission to post public information.
That's the whole point.
Public information is information the government has given to you, has said, this is what we want you to distribute.
This is what we want the public to hear.
So I'm sure Cam Higby, like a good boy, will go and tell whoever his readers are or his viewers are what Pete Hegsteth tells him to go and say.
Guy's an idiot.
He can't even follow basic critiques.
The critique isn't that he has a journalism degree, that he doesn't have a journalism degree.
And the critique isn't that there's a policy forcing him to get approval to publish public information.
He has to get approval before he publishes non-public information, information the government's trying to hide.
That's the only information worth reporting as a journalist.
And no journalist, not even the worst, most decrepit ones in corporate media, would go and submit to the government what they want to say.
There's a journalist named Kendelanian, really not a journalist TV personality, he works at NBC.
He had worked at AP for a while.
And previous to that, he worked at the LA Times and he covered the intelligence community.
And at the intercept, we did a Freedom of Information Act request for all communications between the CIA and journalists.
And they had no privilege to claim, so they had to give it to us.
And in these emails, we saw Kendelanian while at the LA Times sending the CIA drafts of articles he was preparing to publish, saying, hey, guys, I'm about to publish this.
Let me know what you think.
And they would come back and say, change this, change that.
And you would do it.
He was serving as a CIA stenographer, which is what all these people are there to do as well.
Another giant of American journalism who got a press credential is Laura Loomer.
And she was responding to claims that she's restricted in what she could say.
And this is what she said on X, quote, it's not true.
I've been asking all types of critical questions of the Pentagon this week, and they still let me inside the briefing.
We are allowed to ask whatever we want.
There are two rules.
Do not publish classified information and don't walk inside DOW officials' private spaces to invade their space.
It's crime to publish classified information.
So why is that such a hard rule to follow?
Okay.
That is utterly false.
It is not a crime to publish classified information.
How can you possibly purport to be a member of the media or whatever she thinks she is and not know this?
Imagine if it were a crime to publish classified information.
There'd be no journalism in the United States.
There would only be government spokespeople.
She's an imbecile.
Journalists publish classified information every day.
The crime is if you work inside the government, you're under a legal obligation not to disseminate classified information to people unauthorized to receive it.
That's a crime.
The source can commit a crime.
But it's not a crime to publish classified information.
That was why we were able to do the Snowden reporting without being prosecuted, even though they wanted to.
It's why the New York Times and the Washington Post could publish the Pentagon papers.
It's why WikiLeaks was able to publish all of the information it published and why it was such a scandal when the government tried to criminalize Julian Assange for publishing classified information, given that that is the essence of investigative journalism.
You may remember before we did the Snowden reporting, just a couple months before, there was a major scandal because Eric Holder, when he was the attorney general for Obama, was trying to find out who the sources were for Fox News's reporting of classified information, including James Rosen.
And they got a hold of his phone records, his parents' phone records, trying to find his sources.
But the reason it was a scandal is because journalists aren't committing crimes by publishing classified information.
It's critical.
Otherwise, all the government has to do is put classified labels on everything they want to hide.
And then journalists are only allowed to report what you're told to report.
And Laura Loomer is saying that's what she's there to do.
And that's why she has that press credential.
Here's Laura Loomer claiming the Washington Post and Dan Lamothe used to occupy this desk inside the panic inside the Pentagon press room.
Now it's mine.
She's all proud of herself showing her dumb little press credential, which she got because she's a loyalist of Donald Trump.
And then here's another person, Lance Videos, who's also a Trump loyalist, who also said, Washington Post, it feels good to be sitting at your old desk in the Pentagon.
Have fun outside.
Which is weird because I thought Laura Loomer just said she was the one who took over the Washington Post desk.
And then here's some other Trump worshiper, R.C. Maxwell, who said the Pentagon cubicle that used to belong to Dan Lamotte of the Washington Post is now mine.
Out with the propaganda and hacks, in with the truth tellers who love America.
They're all claiming that they're sitting at Dan Lamothe's desk for some reason, The Washington Post, even though he only had one desk, not seven.
And imagine being a total partisan Republican hack like R.C. Maxwell is and saying out with the propaganda and the hacks, in with the truth tellers.
He's not there to tell the truth.
If you asked him, are you there to expose lies or deceit of Pete Hegseth or the Defense Department?
He would say, of course not.
I'm a Patriot American.
I'm there to defend Pete Hegseth.
That's the definition of a hack.
Here's Cam Higby.
I can confirm the former Washington Post Pentagon desk is now the fearless media desk featuring Lance videos.
And then he came back and said, okay, it was probably a Bloomberg desk.
We were told it was the Washington Post.
The point is, where and you're out.
In case you want to see who Cam Higby is, he went on Laura Ingram's show in 2023.
Not even going to comment on it.
I'm just going to let you hear him speak in his own words and let me know if this inspires confidence in who the Pentagon Press Corps is.
All intentional.
It's Hamas's plan.
The problem is that their plan is essentially to spread this propaganda throughout the internet by using sorry, guys.
All right, let's go to RA's.
Cam, get yourself together there, my friend.
The launching of missiles from densely populated urban areas like the Gaza Strip, it essentially want people to see what is happening.
I'm sorry.
That's all right.
Ari, I want to get to this politically.
You know what?
I can't make fun of that.
That induces pity.
He probably wasn't on TV very much, especially national TV.
Probably got very nervous, whatever.
I'm not going to make fun of him for that.
But he was on there to basically say what Hillary Clinton said and what Nikki Haley said and what Condi Rice said, which is that TikTok is propagandizing Americans to turn against Israel.
He's an Israel hack.
I do want to make fun of him, but I just can't.
But given how pompous he's being, like, oh, look at me, I'm in the Pentagon Press Corps.
What does that have to say about all of you?
I think it's pretty clear what it says.
You think that person's going to be doing hardcore, hard-hitting investigator reporting of Pete Hegseth?
All right, here's someone named Vince Dow.
They're all saying the same thing.
They're all just like Trump influencers, MAGA influencers.
Your office belongs to me now.
Wow, that's so impressive.
And there he is, like giggling.
There's a little beer behind him.
I mean, this is pathetic and cringe.
This is not anything defiant.
You know, if you're like a young person and your identity is wrapped up, not in anti-establishment politics, but in just worshiping some political party or political leader, that's just sad.
That's like boomer behavior.
When you're young, you're supposed to be critical of the power structure.
And I don't mean reactionary, like disagree with it always, just disagree with it, but I mean like be an adversary to it.
Want it to change.
Be a force against it.
But these people are all there.
And you can see the hive mind.
They're all saying the same thing.
Ha ha, you're not here anymore.
We are.
Even though the reason they're there is completely embarrassing, even humiliating.
Here is Vince Dowell, just in case you don't know who he is.
And I wouldn't blame you if you don't.
This is the kind of thing he does.
January 5th, 2025, CBS News, John Thune, has privately told Trump that Pete Hegset has the votes to be confirmed.
Let's go.
I'm sure that's going to be somebody really doggedly investigating Pete Hegseth in the Pentagon with his new Pentagon press credential.
Here is the aforementioned Dan Lamothe of the Washington Post, who said he gathered all these tweets of everyone claiming to have his desk.
And he said, y'all going to have to work this one out for yourself.
Again, very few things can make me sympathize with or defend the corporate media, but I'd rather have them there than these people for the reasons I said, recognizing all their flaws and all their toxic presence.
The last thing you want in a press corps are North Korea-style propagandists for the government.
Here's Lance Videos, one of the people who got one of these press credentials now, because no real journalist would sign these policies.
And here was him talking about Pete Hegseth.
It is standard procedure to make for sure that the enemy is neutralized.
It is not murder when Pete Hegseth and the Department of War double tap a narcotic ship that is shipping drugs that kill Americans to America.
It is not that at all.
I'm here at the Pentagon reporting.
He's there at the Pentagon reporting.
What was he reporting?
That everything Pete Hegseth is doing is great?
That double taps are legitimate.
No one thinks double taps are legitimate.
Obama used to order double taps.
Israel did double tap.
Double tap strikes are when you blow up something, you kill a bunch of people.
And then if there are survivors, you kill them again.
You remember the very first WikiLeaks video called collateral murder?
The reason why it was so controversial is because the U.S. military had shot a bunch of people in Iraq, including journalists from helicopters.
And then when others came, first responders and others, just random civilians to help the wounded to try and carry them to hospitals, they killed those people too.
They shot at them.
That's what a double-tap trike is.
Obama used to always do that.
He would actually blow up a funeral.
And then when doctors came and rescue workers came to take the people who were gathered, he would then kill them as well.
This is what al-Qaeda used to do, and we would call it terrorism.
And whatever, if I wouldn't go and say this and be like, Glenn Greenwald reporting, I'm obviously analyzing and opining.
But if I had a press credential for the Pentagon, I would hope people would expect me to go and get information, not defend Pete Hegseth.
Here's Wade Searle.
He's one of the people who has a Pentagon press credential.
And here is what he said, just to give you an idea for his posture.
Does the Department of War plan on pursuing any sort of legal action against the Washington Post?
And what consequences will there be for lying to the American people?
Because, of course, the implication there was that Pete Hegseth and Admiral Bradley are war criminals.
And that was the implication.
And that's what a lot of people on social media were saying after the fact.
So could you speak to that?
Yeah, it is frankly disgusting that the Washington Post would publish something that is so insanely false.
And we've seen this from the mainstream media before, right?
Anonymous sources that are being quoted that probably have no idea what's going on.
And the Washington Post actually went so far as to falsely attribute a quote to the Secretary of Defense of War, excuse me, that he never said.
That is preposterous that they would write that and pass that off as true journalism.
Thankfully, the New York Times stepped in and corrected the record and let the American people know that what they were publishing was absolutely fake news.
So the Washington Post, I think readership should think twice before reading that outlet again.
It is disgraceful that they call themselves journalists.
And we told them as such, right?
We get press queries like we do from all of you.
We told them this story was completely fake news on Thanksgiving evening with a three-hour deadline.
All right, and they still publish it.
It's disgraceful.
But thankfully, the American people see through.
Okay.
First of all, I hope tomorrow he'll do an intrepid follow-up where he'll ask, should Pete Hegseth sue you?
Because you referred to this agency as the Department of Defense before you corrected yourself and called the Department of War.
But this is now who's in the press corps.
People who say, isn't it disgusting what was reported about Pete Hegseth?
He should sue.
Because there are a lot of people on social media who said that it shows Pete Hexet as the war criminal.
This is not allowed.
This is the reporting core, the press corps that has now been put in the Pentagon.
I actually think North Korea has more of a pretense of asking questions to Kim Jong-un than what these people are doing.
And the fact that they're all depicting this is, oh, we got rid of the fake news.
Now we have the real journalists in there when the only credential is, how much do you worship President Trump?
How devoted are you to defending Pete Hegseth and everything that he does?
Again, you can love the Trump administration.
You can hate the corporate media.
I promise you, I stand second to nobody, nobody in my contempt for the corporate media.
I promise you that this is no better.
And I would argue that's actually quite worse.
All right.
Again, we're going to have that little imaginary swoosh that comes after a segment break because apparently for the moment, we're not able to provide those, but I'm going to make my own sound effects.
And see the system update on there.
It kind of swooshes diagonally across the screen.
And I'm ready to go to the next topic, which is a very exciting and important voting process, which is underway to determine who will be the anti-Semite of the year for 2025.
That's what we're voting on.
And I think we have an obligation to take this very seriously and to make sure we cast our vote in the most constructive manner possible.
I don't usually tell people how to vote.
I'm not going to tell you which person should be voted for for anti-Summit of 2025, but I am going to give you my, I'm going to make my case for one of the candidates, maybe even for a second candidate.
You may remember the New York Times editorial page in 2020 decided they were going to issue endorsements in the Democratic Party primary for president, but they couldn't decide.
There's so many great candidates.
They couldn't decide on one.
So they co-endorsed Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, the two female candidates.
They co-endors them.
It had a huge impact.
I mean, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren surged in the polls because of the New York Times editorial endorsement.
So I'm going to replicate that strategy.
I'm going to give you a dual endorsement.
But again, it's not telling you how to vote, but I just think it's so important that the right anti-Semite win anti-Semitic of the year.
So this award is being given by some crazy woman who calls herself stop anti-Semitism.
And basically, this has been a site, it's a Twitter account.
I think it's a website that has spent the last two years getting like Barishas fired if they have like a Palestine pin on there or wear a Kiefah or if they post something critical of Israel.
It's a cancel culture site that the right loves, that the pro-Israel right loves.
Getting people fired for expressing criticism of Israel.
I mean, of course, America is not a free country.
You can't criticize Israel.
And it's just gotten many, many people fired.
That's basically what the site is.
But one of the important things they do, one of the many important things they do, and I don't mean they, I mean she.
It's just like this crazy woman who calls herself stop anti-Semitism.
And because of that, a lot of idiots in the media, like Jake Tapper, think it's like some serious organization, like the kind of new ADL, just because she called herself that.
Hey, I'm going to call myself like stoppedophilia.com.
And now I'm going to like at the end of the day I'm going to have like pedophile of the year.
I'm going to like just constantly get people fired.
And Jake Tapper's going to have me on.
You're the spokesman.
You're the founder and CEO of Stop Pedophilia.
I mean, I absolutely am, Jake.
Thank you on.
That's how they treat this person.
All she is is just a standard Israel fanatic.
She just calls herself Stop Anti-Semitism because she had a lot of cancelable tweets under her real name.
And so didn't want to do that.
So here are the candidates for anti-Semite of the year.
And I see people saying, I bet Glenn is on the list.
You know what?
I'm not in this list.
And I am upset by it.
I feel like I've worked for this honor.
But this is the irony here.
I believe, or it seems like, I'm not sure, but from what I can gather, is that they don't allow Jews to be nominated.
They don't allow Jews to be to earn our spot as anti-Semitic of the year.
And I have to say that a contest that excludes Jews, and maybe not formally excludes Jews, like maybe it's not in the rules, but like effectively excludes Jews, that seems a little anti-Semitic to me.
I mean, I feel like I've been more anti-Semitic than like Cynthia Nixon.
What has she done to get on that list that makes me not on this list?
It's outrageous.
So I confess a little bit of bitterness, but I also believe that, and I'm going to register, I think stop anti-Semitism might be the anti-Semitic of the year for 2026 because they don't allow Kiefa, I said, because they don't allow Jews to be on this list.
All right, weighing in at number one, and the original list did have numbers here.
I don't know if they meant to suggest who they think they should win, but number one is Tucker Carlson.
Number two is Miss Rachel.
Number three is Guy Christensen, the young Palestinian activist that we had on our program just about a month ago.
Number four is Marsha Cross.
And the way they reminded people who Marcia Cross was, they said she was heralded for her superior acting on Melrose Place and Desperate Housewives.
So that's number four.
It's Marsha Cross, who previously portrayed Bree Kander Vanderkamp on the ABC hit series Desperate Housewives that was on it, I think, in the late Bush years, early Obama years.
So congratulations to Marcia Cross, better known as Desperate Housewife V. Branderkamp.
And then you have Bryce Mitchell.
I think he's an MMA fighter.
Cynthia Nixon, who is an actress who became famous for her role on sex in the city.
Then she ran for president.
Who was married to David Mammet?
David Mammet is a Jewish playwright.
Marcia Cross is married to David Mammet.
Miss Rachel is Jewish.
Is this true?
Ms. Rachel is Jewish.
Can someone check that?
Is Ms. Rachel Jewish?
Any event?
Then you have Jank Iger and Anna Kasparian, the co-host of The Young Turks, whose work I do have to say on Israel has become quite good.
Stew Peters, who I've seen people saying might be the legitimate, the only legitimate anti-Semite on this list.
I don't know enough about Stew Peters one way or the other to say I'm not denying that I'm not affirming it.
And then Carla Walsh, who I wasn't familiar with.
Apparently, she's a DSA activist.
Thank you for, you know what?
Maybe we can do a writing campaign for me.
I don't know if that's allowed just to combat the anti-Semitism of this group.
You have Carl Walsh.
She's a DSA activist, a young DSA activist.
I think she like did some pro-Palestinian protesting.
For those of you asking why, no, Jank Iger is not handsome sunrise star.
You were good on the Hillary Clinton hair critique, but I'm sorry, I'm going to have to object to that.
I'm fine with saying I just won't allow that.
Anyway, where was I?
Oh, right.
So the reason why Candace Owens is not on the list is because she won last year.
She was the anti-Semite of the year for 2024.
And I guess they don't want to have any repeat winners.
A lot of people did wonder: hey, Nick Funtes, why he seems like an obvious person to put on the list.
Why has he not been put on the list?
Like, why was it more important to put Cynthia Nixon or Carla Walsh on the list?
And I don't think there's any reason.
I think they said Nick Frontis had been previously nominated.
And that's the same reason Hassan Piker wasn't on the list.
But I don't know.
I feel like someone should be able to be on the list just because they were nominated previously.
If they win again, okay, maybe not.
In any event, I think this whole list is hilarious.
I think people have obviously come to realize that the operational definition of anti-Semitism, the actual meaning it has in our discourse, the effective meaning, is one who vocally criticizes Israel.
And so putting people like Tucker Carlson or Guy Christensen or Jane Kanana on the list when all they've done is express criticism of Israel, discuss for their acts in Gaza, questioning U.S. financing of Israel, never a single word of antagonism or animosity for Jews, just makes this all the clearer what they mean by anti-Semitism.
It's what a lot of liberals meant by racism, by racist, when they were screaming racist at all their political opponents.
They trivialized that term, they weaponized that term, they overused it.
So racist lost its sting.
People used to be horrified to be called a racist, and yet Democrats and liberals so overused it that it just became kind of a very banal term of political disagreement, lost all of its meaning, and no one really cares anymore.
Anti-Semitism, in a lot of ways, was even worse.
That was really the career destroyer.
That was a thing nobody wanted to be called.
And yet, with October 7th and with this war in Gaza, they so brazenly and cynically weaponized that term to try and shut down debate over Israel, destroy the reputations and character of people who questioned Israel like Tucker Carlson.
That it is amazing, pretty much everybody on this list, or at least half of them, have come forward and said, thank you for the honor.
Please vote for me.
I'm so excited to be on this list.
That was unthinkable.
Even five years ago, it would be absolute career destruction to be called anti-Semite in this public way.
Now, I think pretty much any of these people who win, and again, I said maybe there's like one or two people who are legitimate on the list.
I don't know enough about them to say.
So leaving them aside, pretty much anybody who wins will be an excellent recipient of the award because it will do something very important, which is illustrate for those who don't already see it, that anti-Semitism means nothing other than those who criticize Israel or question U.S. financing of Israel.
People have known Tuck Carlson for 30 years.
They've seen him on every network on Fox News.
He's one of the most famous, influential, popular journalists in the country.
You know, I always say like one of the reasons why Democrats couldn't convince people that Trump was Hitler was because people have seen Trump for their whole lives and they never thought he was Hitler.
So he doesn't look like Hitler.
It's why people weren't convinced that Zoran Mandani is some ISIS operative ready to murder them all in their synagogues because it doesn't seem like that.
If you step offline, the idea that Tuck Carlson is some anti-Semite, some bigot, some hater of Jews is laughable, but it makes sense to these people.
So any of these people who win would be very effective winners at illustrating the point that anti-Semitism really means nothing more than criticizing Israel.
But the person I really hope wins, and I hope she, if she does win, she's not too hurt by it, but I think it's for the greater good.
I want Ms. Rachel to win so badly.
Ms. Rachel would make the best anti-Semitic of the year for 2025.
I voted for Ms. Rachel.
You can vote for three people.
I voted for Ms. Rachel because Ms. Rachel is somebody who hasn't even criticized Israel.
She doesn't criticize Israel.
She doesn't question U.S. funding of Israel.
Ms. Rachel's crime, she's like a preschool teacher.
She became extremely popular because of her obvious love for and connection to kindergarten and pre-K kids, kids in nursery schools.
And as somebody who loves children, she was watching Palestinian children be blown up and orphaned and have their limbs removed without anesthesia and have their entire families killed.
And she committed the crime of feeling empathy for Palestinian children.
That's her crime.
So if she wins anti-Semite of the year, it will show that anti-Semitism, you can now be an anti-Semite.
You don't even have to criticize Israel.
If you just recognize the humanity of Palestinians, that will make it.
I think it would confuse so many people.
Miss Rachel has become very quite famous.
A lot of people with young kids really love her, think she's wonderful.
They're going to hear, like, hey, Miss Rachel just was named anti-Semitic of the year of 2025.
Who could possibly take anti-Semitism seriously after that?
Now, I also voted for Marsha Cross, the actress who portrayed pre-bandit camp on Desperate Housewives and previously was heralded, as this site said, for her work on Melrose Place, because I also think that would be so funny.
This woman who like America knows and was like in their homes, like this part of this show that Suburban America loved, and like which they watched, who they watched as like young people in the 80s and 90s on Melrose plays.
Like suddenly she's like anti-Semitic the year.
And you look at her social media and it's like, what has been done in Gaza is horrible.
I really feel sad for the people who are being killed.
So she would be a very good winner too, just because the image of who she is combined with the title would be such cognitive dissonance that it would really make people start questioning like, what is this now going on with this anti-Semitism stuff?
And it would just weaken and drain it of all its meaning.
And I say that, you know, I always thought it was bad that the term racist was drained of all its meaning by overuse and cynical manipulation by liberals because that's an important term.
There is racism.
It's important to describe it.
It should have a little bit of a stink to it or a stigma.
Same with anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is an actual thing.
There are people who are anti-Semites.
And that word has been destroyed by the people who ironically vowed to combat the trivialization of those terms.
So having Miss Crowning Ms. Rachel, anti-Semite of 2025, crowning Marsha Cross of Desperate Housewives and Melrose Praise, also very good.
And then I also voted for Guy Christensen just because I really admire the work he's doing as a young person.
He was expelled from Ohio State because of his advocacy for Palestinians, his criticism of Israel.
I think his heart is in the right place and he's influential among a lot of young people who really admire him.
And I know he wants to win.
So I voted for him just kind of because I think it's an important credential for him.
And again, it is ironic that 10 years ago, if you were called anti-Semite of the Year, you'd be destroyed in every sector forever.
And now I really believe he wants to win.
And I think it would help his work to win as well.
So those are my three votes.
I have my fingers crossed for Miss Rachel.
I hope she doesn't take it personally or make her sad.
I feel like she's the kind of person who might, who might, but I think she realizes by now what that term actually means.
She's been called it enough.
But I think having this done.
By the way, this site, just to give you a sense of who this is, it's actually run by a woman named Leora Rez.
There's her LinkedIn entry.
Once she was exposed, she identified herself, executive director at Stop Anti-Semitism.
15 years of experience in strategic activism, social media branding, content creation, and marketing.
Executive director of Stop Anti-Semitic Science and a math nerd child refugee from the former Soviet Union.
Oh, that's a real surprise.
Proud and grateful American centrist.
Here is one of the tweets that she had posted.
It was to Ilyan Omar in 2020 when Ilyan Omar was under a lot of scrutiny for opposing Israel.
And Ilyan Omar posted, quote, if your freedom relies on my oppression, then neither of us are free.
And the civil rights activist Leora Red.
Oh, she was using her real name, which is not Leora Rez.
Leora Rez Nichenko.
She's a Soviet Jew.
Those are often the most fanatical ones.
She replied, Negress, please.
So that's why she hid behind this organizational title.
Here was CNN's Jake Tapper, a lifelong supporter of Israel, welcoming in welcoming her onto his show as though she's some serious civil rights app because here's just a little bit of this hilarity that ensued.
Can we play this video?
Anyone listening?
Hello.
Hello.
Can we get that video?
I'm afraid we don't have this video, Glenn.
All right, we don't have it.
So that gives me a good opportunity to address this comment that I just saw, which is by this piece of shit called Political Mutt, who said, quote, when a homosexual man who's adopted boys gives you advice, you listen.
All right, well, good.
Listen up, political mutt.
Let me tell you something.
You can pretend all you want that you care about kids.
So let me just tell you that there are hundreds of thousands of kids in Brazil alone who don't have parents, whose parents died or who were abandoned them or who neglected them or couldn't take care of them because of substance abuse or other problems, who were destined to a life of misery and poverty and deprivation growing up without parents.
And so a lot of people, including gay people, decide, you know what?
Society has given a lot to me.
I feel like I owe society back.
And so one of the things I'm going to do is I'm going to adopt children who have no parents and have no future as a result because you cannot grow up as kids without a family and without parents and no support, no resources get kicked out at 18.
All the boys go into drug trafficking, all the girls go into prostitution and say, we're going to treat you as our family, as our children, and form a parental bond with them.
That is incredibly noble.
Anyone who doesn't understand that is rotted and broken inside.
So don't put that on adoptive parents who do something incredibly noble and beautiful.
Accept that for yourself.
All right.
Last thing I wanted to say is: here's Miss Rachel, and she uses threads, not X, which is kind of reflective of her personality.
I think X is a little bit too combative for her.
She's not a combative person.
And she felt compelled because she was being accused of anti-Semitism to say this: quote, wanting kids to live is an anti-Semitic.
Isn't it amazing that she's required to actually say that?
And that's the reason why I'm hoping she wins because she is some.
Okay, you know what?
I'm going to try and ignore these tweets.
Doug Ball says adoption is fine.
Surrogacy is creepy.
I actually have my own problems with surrogacy.
I've actually talked about that before.
But I'm not going to say it's creepy.
The people doing it are creepy.
There's a lot of reasons people do surrogacy.
I do think there are ethical qualms about that.
I've never engaged in surrogacy.
And all I'll say is the thing of which I'm proudest in my life, obviously have a lot of achievements, my professional life, my work.
I'm obviously proud of those.
But by far and away, the thing of which I'm the proudest is the family we formed, of the kids we raised, and of their character and who our kids are.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that because I saw some of those stray comments that I have a difficulty resisting.
So that is the show.
Please go vote for anti-Semite of the Year.
It's very important that your voice be heard.
Hopefully we can make Ms. Rachel anti-Semite of the Year.
Marsha Cross is an excellent alternative, a second choice.
And I think she'll probably be like the second alternate in the event that Ms. Rachel can't carry out her duties.
You need that alternate.
And then give a vote to Guy Christensen because I think it'll kind of encourage him and help him in his career, which I think has a great deal of potential and promise.
And I really want to see succeed.
All right.
That concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode.
12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms, where if you rate, review, and follow our show.
It really helps spread the visibility of the program.
Finally, as independent media, independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers and members, which you can help participate in by joining our locals community where you get access to a wide range of exclusive benefits, exclusive content.
Every Friday night, we do a Q ⁇ A session where we take questions exclusively from local members that they submit throughout the week.
But most of all, it's the community that really enables us to do the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that site.
For those who've been watching this show, we are, needless to say, very appreciative.
We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 o'clock p.m. Eastern live, exclusively here on Rumble.
