Tim Pool and Joe Rogan expose media distortions in the Rittenhouse trial, where enhanced video evidence allegedly misrepresented events, while outlets like MSNBC and NPR pushed racial narratives despite targeting white attackers. Pool’s COVID recovery—hallucinations reversed by monoclonal antibodies and NAD+—contrasts with vaccine mandates Rogan calls unconstitutional, citing Merck’s protease inhibitor as proof of ivermectin’s potential. They critique woke capitalism, election misinformation, and partisan suppression of Hunter Biden’s corruption claims, including Burisma ties and a $5M Chinese loan, while noting deepening polarization in polling. Ultimately, the episode reveals how institutional bias and ideological tribalism undermine truth, even as decentralized tech offers solutions. [Automatically generated summary]
When it came together accidentally because one by one, everyone wanted to come on the show on the same day, I felt bad for Blair White because we had originally booked her.
And then at the last minute, I can't remember who it was, probably Luke, he was like, have you asked Joe?
And I was like, he's got a comedy show, he's too busy.
But, you know, if you don't ask, the answer is always no.
And then Joe's like, yeah, I'll come by, this would be great.
Like, there's many people that thought that this Kyle Rittenhouse kid had shot black protesters, when in fact it was white Antifa rioters, and then if you look at their record, they were all criminals.
I believe he anally raped one little boy, and he performed oral on several little boys.
Apparently, he would try and date single mothers to sexually abuse their children.
That was when he was a teenager and then he went to prison.
I believe it was for 15 years.
Now the details here get murky.
I don't know exactly.
They say he got out of a mental hospital that morning.
This guy was not Antifa.
He was not Black Lives Matter, at least in my opinion.
I think this is a guy who was suicidal.
He was screaming, shoot me N-word, shoot me N-word over and over again.
He attacked a kid with a gun who was screaming friendly, friendly, friendly and running away and then tried grabbing it.
And then within.739 of a second, Rittenhouse let off four shots As Rosenbaum was reaching for his gun, as testified by Richie McGinnis, and he crumpled to the ground.
And that's when these other guys, the whole mob, you know, Kyle runs for the police, and then the rest of the mob starts running after him, like, get him, cranium that boy, get him, get him, get him.
Anthony Huber is an interesting one because he's the dude who hit him with the skateboard twice.
People don't know this because you'll hear from the conservatives like, oh, he was hitting him with the skateboard and you see that photo of Rittenhouse on the ground.
Apparently he hit Rittenhouse from behind with the skateboard before Rittenhouse fell.
He grabbed the gun.
Rittenhouse fired one shot right into his heart.
Killed him instantly.
Gage Grosskreutz, the next guy, charged at Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand.
And you want to know where it gets really crazy?
Grosskreutz testified on the stand that he told police, and he believed, Kyle Rittenhouse said, I'm working with the police as he was running down the street.
Because Gage Grosskreutz was running alongside him.
Grosskreutz runs back, turns around and runs towards him, pulling his Glock 27 out from his waistband.
That means Gage Grosskreutz, if he's telling the truth, and he's probably not, believed Kyle Rittenhouse was a police informant or in some way working with cops, so he should draw his Glock 27 on this kid and run up to him gun drawn.
So, in Wisconsin, there's an exemption for rifles and shotguns if you're 16 or 17. It is believed the exemption is so that you can hunt, but it's not specifically about hunting.
All the legal experts who are being honest about this from the first day this happened immediately came out and said he was legally carrying that rifle.
But I guess for the same reason people claimed Kyle Rittenhouse shot black people, they claimed the gun was illegal.
You know, I never heard anybody say that he shot black people, but I think people just assumed that he shot black people.
You know what I'm saying?
I don't think most people are even aware of the details of this case, especially the people that are, which is really disturbing, the people that are commenting on it in the media.
Some have suggested that maybe Gage Grosskreutz said, my hands were up.
He did say this, my hands were up.
And then they write, Gage Gross-Croit says his hands were up as he was being shot.
They sort of just did a bad job.
But I don't give these people the benefit of the doubt when, you know, I'm watching this trial, same as everybody else, and within the span of five, ten minutes, he says, it was, you know, the defense asked him, you pointed your gun and then he shot you, and Gage Gross-Correct.
If it was a mistake, they could have issued a correction and said, oh, he actually testified, he advanced on him with a gun pointed towards him.
I don't even know if it's that or if they're just doing that because that's the way they get people to watch and pay attention, to reinforce this narrative that would be the most inflammatory and the most outrageous narrative, which is that this guy is just on a rampage and we're going to let him off because he's white.
I think over the past several years, these media organizations, they found they made a lot of money hating on, you know, quote unquote, the far right and Donald Trump.
And so they embraced that narrative.
What ends up happening is your core audience who actually wants news eventually grows wise to the fact that you're just spewing out a narrative and they leave.
If you have a viewership that's 80% moderate news interested people, and the only thing you say is, you know, Trump is bad and the far right is bad, eventually you'll lose most of those moderates and retain a very left ideological group.
Now, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, that's their core audience.
If they come out now and say something honest like...
You know, it looks like Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.
They're going to start losing even them, and they're not going to get back the people they lied to.
But is he saying that because the judge is biased and it's wrong?
Or is he saying it because we're looking at the actual evidence?
Because the actual evidence itself, look, I'm not exactly sure that this is a good thing that the news lies about all this shit.
I mean, I think it's terrible, right?
I think it's terrible that we can't trust them.
But I want to know, where is it coming from?
Are they being deceptive on purpose or...
Or are they misinformed?
Where is it coming?
Do the producers not understand what the fuck is going on?
Do they want to flavor the narrative that they think that their core audience, what you were talking about, the hardcore lefties, are going to want to hear?
When I worked for that, and I probably told you this the last time I was here, when I worked for Fusion, the ABC News Univision company, The president of the company said in multiple meetings, we're here to side with the audience.
And I had a private meeting with him where he told me that.
He said, you know, we're going to side with the audience and our audience are like young, progressive.
So we're here to like basically side with them.
That's how we framed it.
And I asked him, you know, does that mean if there is a factual news story that would be offensive or upsetting to our audience, we won't report it?
And he said, yes, I think that's fair.
I take it to a darker place where it's basically like lie and omit.
And I think it's because the guys who run the business, they don't know anything about news.
And I'm not trying to...
I think it's actually to their defense to say this.
A business guy says, we need to bring in enough money to pay everyone's salary so they can do this work.
People want to hear the news and the news that's important to them.
So we make sure we're siding with them and getting the audience what they need and want.
But that goes to a dark place when your motive is clicks and revenue instead of passion and principle.
I think most of these companies are realizing that with the internet, with new media, there's millions of different news outlets people can choose from.
They don't need to choose you.
So what CNN, MSNBC, and these other outlets do is they choose their niche market.
They decide, this is the audience we're going to side with because we can't side with everybody.
You know, if we come out, we say Trump's not that bad, we lose the left, but if we come out, you know, let's just pick one of them.
There is actually witnesses who have said Brian Stelter was drinking a corrosive battery chemical, a chemical used for cleaning corrosion off batteries.
He was actually seen later cleaning a drinking engine coolant.
But it's not even just they're not scared of getting sued.
They're not scared of being publicly...
Shamed for being full of shit like it doesn't have any effect on them with Don Lemon is the only dummy that actually commented on it You know when Sanjay Gupta actually we should be clear that it is not a lie That it's a horse dewormer and Sanjay Gupta said that's true.
No, that's not what he said He said after that, and it's also not cleared for use by the FDA. And he said, that's true.
So he tried to talk about it again and talk about the horse dewormer part of it, about ivermectin being used for humans, and then Don Lemon steamrolled him.
I think he can absolutely be led astray and in a bad way, especially when you're doing those short clips, like when you call in to CNN. Like, he's somewhere remotely looking into a camera, they're in his ear, and then Don Lemon or whoever the fuck else it is is on the other line.
I had the privilege of going through a mini-saga of what you went through because you helped out when me and my crew got sick.
And it was actually really interesting for me to experience this because I knew they would lie about me.
Even in my first video back after I got sick, I knew the media was going to say it was horse dewormer or whatever.
But I was actually fairly critical, and I have been always, of ivermectin, of the...
I forgot what it's called.
There's like a contrarian – it's a reference to being contrarian where you just believe something is right because the establishment thinks it's wrong or whatever.
And the media now still tries to claim that I've been gung-ho on ivermectin when I've actually been either neutral to slightly critical.
People there have a high propensity for, you know, parasite infestation.
And so if you've got worms and your immune system is being bogged down or strained, you get sick, you're more likely to die and have a serious reaction.
You take ivermectin, you cure those worms, your immune system is more robust.
It's not as simple as, like, you don't have worms anymore, so your immune system is stronger.
Because there's plenty of people that don't have worms that have an immune system that gets wrecked by COVID. What they're showing is that there's a direct correlation between taking ivermectin and having positive results.
The problem is, so many...
Like, my friend...
Who was it that went over the...
Maybe it was Peter Atiyah?
But he was saying that essentially the problem is that the studies were so different.
Like some of them were taking it in prophylaxis, so they're taking it as a preventative measure.
Some of them were taking it in the early days of the COVID infection.
Some of them were taking it in the late days of the COVID infection.
But here's the thing.
What you took that's undeniable, what I took that's undeniable, is monoclonal antibodies.
When I talked about the stuff that I took, I read off a laundry list of things, and all they concentrated on is ivermectin.
And they said I was promoting ivermectin.
This is clearly some sort of a campaign to discredit ivermectin.
And if you read the critical care, the frontline critical COVID care website, or you can follow their Twitter feed as well, they talk about, and Dr. Pierre Corey has an article about how the FDA, they targeted ivermectin.
They actually targeted it as a drug to single out as being ineffective.
Well, they don't say a goddamn thing about remdesivir.
Remdesivir is something that they prescribe for COVID early on that causes kidney failure.
So the next day, that night I wake up in the middle of the night drenched in sweat, feeling like I'm getting sick.
And I'm like, okay, I'm not gonna be able to work tomorrow.
But it was from zero to 11. From like that Wednesday night, I couldn't eat.
I couldn't sleep.
So, you know, Friday I decided I was gonna call a doctor and see if maybe there's something I need to be doing, maybe I need sunlight, vitamin D, whatever they might recommend for this.
And I'm like, look, I'm healthy, 35, there's no way this is gonna get me down.
And the doctor said, this is where it gets crazy, the doctor said to me, I'll give you the short version.
We were talking.
They said, look, we don't prescribe anything for this.
You can come in for some tests.
And I said, is that necessary if you're not going to prescribe me anything?
And they were like, it's a virus.
Go home and go to sleep.
I said, I know it's controversial, but has ivermectin been something you guys have looked into?
And they said, ivermectin...
This is what they said to me.
Ivermectin has been shown to help many people who have COVID. And then they stopped.
And then I said...
Okay, is that something you guys are prescribing?
And they go, well, the FDA has not approved it.
And then they stop.
And then I say...
Oh, so is that something that I have to ask for?
Or is that something you recommend?
And they said, we will not prescribe it to you.
And I went, okay, but I'll be honest.
I wasn't, like I said, you know, I was like, I don't know if Ivermectin is the thing or not, and maybe I should just go home, go to bed.
That was Friday.
By Friday night, it had escalated so dramatically, the pain, the shortness of breath, and I was like, it's getting worse?
If it gets worse tonight, and the nights are when it is the worst, I'm going to be in the hospital.
And so that's why I was like, I need to ask somebody who's experienced this.
I hit you up and I was like, I don't know how sick you were.
I don't know what ideas you had.
Long story short, because I don't want to get into too much of the private details for me and my girlfriend and the people who got sick, but the next day I went and got the monoclonal antibodies, NAD and the vitamin drip, painkillers and ibuprofen.
Like, I was on drugs, man.
My fever went down.
My temperature went to normal.
I felt fine.
But that night was the worst I have ever experienced any kind of illness.
It was a propaganda video on some goofy sketch show where they were saying, what does Joe Rogan think while this guy's dying and not willing to take an EpiPen?
And this is something that people, for whatever reason, they want a one-size-fits-all approach to COVID. Yeah, well, there's actually, I guess, big news on that.
They tried to make an exemption against my exemption.
Because I went there and I did Madison Square Garden.
And then afterwards, a senator introduced a bill specifically with my name attached to it, saying people like Joe Rogan should not be able to come into our state and into our city and be unvaccinated and perform in New York City.
There's a big difference between something being true and something not being on record.
So it says the CDC does not recognize natural immunity.
So a lawyer asked them under Freedom of Information Act to provide cases where someone recovered from COVID, got infected again, and then transmitted it.
The CDC's response was, we did not find any such case.
But that doesn't mean that that hasn't happened.
It just means it hasn't been recorded.
Because a lot of these cases are not being recorded.
How many people are getting COVID and giving it to people and they're not recording that?
Well, let's talk about some of these facts that come up with the vaccine mandates.
We hear a lot that we've always had mandates, which is actually not true.
It's a technicality.
We have mandates at schools for kids, but public school is optional.
You can take your kid to a private school or home school, and there's medical and religious exemptions.
And they like to cite this ruling from 1905 in the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court ruled that you could mandate someone get a vaccine, but if the penalty was a $5 fine.
A guy said, I won't pay it.
And they said, harumph.
And then they sued him saying he owes us the money for not getting this vaccine.
Under the pretext of this ruling, I forget the name of it, they actually said if the government has the right to mandate medical procedures, we can sterilize invalids.
We can sterilize dullards.
And they actually, I believe, tens of thousands of women got sterilized under that pretext.
So since then, we've been like, hey, maybe that's not a good idea.
The government can mandate a permanent, irreversible medical procedure.
I don't I'm not, you know, the problem is this vaccine is not really a vaccine.
It's only a vaccine by definition.
They're calling it a vaccine.
It is a gene treatment, and that's why it doesn't last.
I mean, it literally only lasts a few months.
That's why you have to get boosters.
I mean, this is the whole premise behind all the boosters and all this stuff.
Literally, the best thing that someone could do is get vaccinated and then get COVID because the vaccine protects you from serious injury, serious damage from COVID, and then you get the sickness and then you have the real robust immunity that comes naturally.
The fact that natural immunity is superior...
But yet, it's not recognized in California, where you have to vaccine to do everything except go to a grocery store now.
In Slovenia, they're forcing people to get a vaccine if you want to get gas.
You have to show a vaccine card to pump gas.
It's all a hustle, but it's all the vaccine companies and the manufacturers influencing these politicians, the politicians then making these decisions based on the influence that these pharmaceutical drug companies have over them, and that's the only reason why they would do this.
So that one PubMed article about renal failure, I guarantee you I read something that was talking about high instances of kidney failure due to remdesivir, and they were actually talking about the mechanism involved in kidney failure, and that was one of the reasons why they stopped prescribing it.
Well, Merck was the original inventor of Ivermectin.
Merck was the original distributor and the manufacturer of it, but it became a generic drug.
That's the problem with Ivermectin.
The problem with Ivermectin is literally anybody can make it, and you make it for like 30 cents a dose.
It's not profitable.
So the problem is, if you don't have a patent on it, and it's not profitable, then there's no incentive whatsoever for these companies to say, like, hey, forget about all those billions and billions of dollars that we're making off of this stuff.
We got this shit for you that's generic, and you can just take it.
That just shows you that this is a for-profit...
Endeavor.
And the amount of profit that's been generated by these pharmaceutical drug companies during this crisis from selling vaccines is fucking crazy.
Which is why it's terrifying that they're now trying to give it to children.
The children, they keep saying, 700 children have died from COVID. The children that have died from COVID, without exception, any that I've read, almost all of them, let's say that to be safe, almost all of them had severe comorbidities.
They had leukemia, they had cancer, there was something seriously wrong with them, and they died of COVID. They were amazingly obese, whatever it was.
It's not a disease that is very dangerous for most healthy young kids.
Yeah, well, maybe, but I mean, the thing about athletes is more interesting because these athletes obviously are in tip-top magoo shape and then they're running around this field.
They know that people are scared, especially in LA. There's so many people that are terrified.
That if you say something that is anti the narrative, when the narrative is vaccines are safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective, for the most part, yeah, for the most part, but a certain percentage of the people that take them get like a serious heart problem.
If you work for a company that mandates the vaccine, Get a simple legal letter drafted that says, you know, I undersigned, assume all liability for this permanent and irreversible medical procedure as a requirement of the job of, you know, employee.
See if they'll sign it.
Because I assure you, those employers are going to say, I'm not going to sign that.
Yeah, the CDC has an article that says a vaccination is, it used to say something like, it was very specific to the adenovirus vaccines, where a small weakened or, you know, dead virus is introduced.
Now it says it's a chemical that triggers an immune response or something to this effect.
Well, I know literally, but the monoclonal antibodies, according to a study, I think the CDC confirmed this, is eight months of protection at 82% efficacy.
And that's actually better than Pfizer and Moderna.
So if they effectively do the same thing, because that's how they describe a vaccine, then why can't I stand vaccinated?
Well, you know, they're doing that to people, what you're saying.
They're doing that to people who did not test positive for COVID. So imagine you're in a high-risk job, but they can give you the monoclonal antibodies with no COVID in your system at all, and then you have this immense protection.
One of my biggest pet peeves, I guess, is because, you know, on my show, for instance, we have this argument all the time about efficacy and vaccines and stuff.
And I got to a point where I was like, yo, are we going to actually debate the policy, the politics?
Because I can tell you this.
I'm not a doctor.
I'm not a scientist.
I can't tell you the nitty-gritty details of enzyme and protease.
And these are words I read in an article.
But I am, I think, fair to say an expert on being free.
You know, I mean that somewhat facetiously, but...
If we're going to talk about how we handle this, I think it's simple.
The government can't mandate medical procedures.
Have a nice day.
We get into these arguments often, and I think it's good to discuss efficacy.
It's good to discuss vaccine injury and all this stuff.
Absolutely.
But I also think it's important to bring back, hey, how about, I don't care if it's a flu shot, an appendectomy, or a COVID vaccine.
The government should not mandate, as a requirement for public accommodation, you undergo an irreversible medical procedure.
So I don't I, you know, when the FDA approves a drug to treat weaponized smallpox, you have to ask yourself why they fear smallpox if it's been eradicated and only exists in government facilities in the Russia and U.S. And why is Bill Gates warning about smallpox terrorism?
Bill Gates also invested, I believe it was $50 million in...
Look this up.
BioNTech, September 2019. So he invested a large sum of money in the company that manufactures these vaccines literally when the pandemic broke out in Wuhan.
Like when the first cases were seen in Wuhan, they believe they'd narrowed that down to September of 2019. That is specifically when Bill Gates Dumped a bunch of money in there.
BioNTech announces new collaborations to develop HIV and tuberculosis programs.
So $100 million in total funding.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invests $55 million in infectious disease collaboration that could reach up to $100 million in total funding.
And they did that in September right before the shit hit the fan.
Now, does that mean that he had information that there was a breakout?
No.
But look, they did discuss this.
And, you know, Fauci was seen discussing these things.
Like, I'll send you a video.
Jamie, because I'm talking out of my ass right now.
But they were talking about trying to find new ways to encourage people to take flu vaccines.
And they need some sort of a novel approach to do that.
So actually, you know, self-promotion, we just published an exclusive on timcast.com.
Fauci had been funding, or I should say the NIAID has been funding maximum pain research on primates in, I believe it's an island off South Carolina, where they basically induce as much pain as possible to see how these animals react.
And we're getting these stories.
You know, we published this.
You have the Beagle story.
But there is a very serious question about the limitations of science, the ethics of it.
The thing is...
We have greatly benefited from animal experimentation to a horrifying degree as what we do to these animals.
And a lot of people are happy to just live their lives and not knowing anything about it.
I wonder what impact it will have now that we're discovering pain research and bot fly research on beagles or whatever.
Is that going to result in people actually saying, you know, we would rather have less scientific progress on these things if it means we're not torturing animals to this degree?
Well, the thing is, there's not a lot of oversight, so people don't hear about it.
Here, I found it.
I'm going to send this to you, Jamie.
The problem is, it's like, who is informing people of all these experiments while they're happening?
Very few people are actually getting informed of them.
You find out later.
You know, someone has to be a whistleblower.
But meanwhile, the studies are ongoing.
So it's not like there's clear oversight and it's not like the public gets to vote on what they think is ethical or what they don't think is ethical.
When they think that studies need to be done in order to prevent some sort of an outbreak or save people from something, and then they do these studies, whether it's on primates or beagles or whatever, you really don't hear about it until after it's happened.
I mean, obviously, we can't just turn off the spigot on the system we have and then say, hey, everyone in the world should get this new vaccine we've been given to This is universal flu vaccine they're talking about.
In order to make the transition from getting out of the tried and true Egg growing, which we know gives us results that can be, you know, beneficial.
I mean, we've done well with that, to something that has to be much better.
You have to prove that this works, and then you've got to go through all of the clinical trials, phase ones, phase twos, phase three, and then show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years.
That alone, if it works perfectly, It's going to take a decade.
There might be a need or even an urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that's completely disruptive, that's not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes.
So we really do have a problem of how the world perceives influenza and it's going to be very difficult to change that unless you do it from within and say, I don't care what your perception is, we're going to address the problem in a disruptive way and in an iterative way, because you do need both.
But it is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere.
We could get the RNA sequence from that, beam it to a number of regional centers, if not local, if not even in your home at some point, and print those vaccines on a patch and self-admitted.
Trying to trick people into or convince people into taking these things and to be disruptive and to say, you know, we're gonna...
I mean, it's just the admission that to do it correctly takes 10 years.
That's why the emergency use authorization was required to get this vaccine promoted so quickly.
In any other circumstance, something that's this controversial and then also something that has caused this many deaths would have been pulled off the market.
If there's any other pharmaceutical drug that killed, I mean, what does the VAERS report say currently?
Like, what's the number of deaths that are attributed to the vaccine today, currently?
The one thing to consider is what I call the scaling problem.
If we give out 330 million vaccines and 17,000 people die, it sounds like a decently high percentage to be like, holy shit, maybe we shouldn't do that.
So the way I usually explain it is if you give out 100 smartphones to a bunch of celebrities and 1% fail, one celebrity says my phone broke, nobody bats an eye.
You give out 100 million smartphones and 1% fail, the same margin of error, you now have a million people online posting how their phones are broken and people will perceive that as a very serious threat or the product is not good.
I think the Republican Party is trash as much as Democrats, but populists got their foot in the door more so than the left populists got in the Democratic Party.
But I can give you a really good example of how like my sort of like more lefty view of things in terms of economics.
Dave Rubin, he had Locals and they sold to Rumble recently.
So Locals was started by Dave Rubin and I'll probably get some of the details wrong.
So but, you know, because I'm not trying to get it wrong to disparage Dave or anything, but Patreon bans a bunch of people and abruptly and it scares people because Patreon is where podcasters and personalities get subscription revenue to live their lives.
So Dave announces he's starting his own version, which will, you know, you'll control your data and you'll control your rules.
I fully respect enterprise, free market capitalism, and that Dave's perspective was, if people need a service, I will provide it and make myself some money and sell it.
I believe that the immediate approach should have been, when this problem occurred and people were getting censored, a decentralized technology that is uncensorable that we give to the people for free.
I understand it's not easy just to make free things, but my immediate reaction was to start a non-profit, which we have, called the Ahn Foundation.
Where we have been building out a decentralized, open source networking technology.
We will give you the program to install on your own server or a hosted server, whatever you want to do.
You press enter and boom, you have your own subscription website instantly.
We are streamlining it for free because I look at it like if the powers that be in the elites can control our thoughts and control what we have to say...
But the issue I see here is there is a weakness that can strip away the rights of the people...
Through private centralization of these platforms.
And so my view as someone who leans more towards decentralized authority and it's more of a lefty position is I'm not going to profit off of the fact that people are having their ideas and they're censored.
There's a – decentralization absolutely exists on the right.
If you're like an anarcho-capitalist or libertarian, you believe in free market solutions.
So it's not fair to say universally just like, oh, the left is more for decentralization.
But it's more so like a – I believe all of the people should hold in their hands the keys to the software to never be censored versus a private enterprise can make it and then sell it.
So that's more of like, yeah, we had a big conversation.
Look, all due respect to locals and to Rumble because I think it's absolutely phenomenal they exist.
The competition is very important.
But for me, I'm like, in 10 years and 15 years and 20 years, the same problems will exist.
And I'll be completely honest.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I firmly believe Dave Rubin on Locals would absolutely ban.
There's probably a hundred names I could say off.
I'm not going to say he would ban them in two seconds.
I don't believe Dave Rubin would allow white nationalists to profit off of locals.
He would get annihilated in the press, and then he'd have to intervene in some way.
Investors.
I'm assuming he has investors.
I believe he got a big round of funding.
You think these investors, wherever they're from, are going to be like, we appreciate that the white nationalists have found a new home base on his platform.
Is that the slip Because when the ACLU was established, one of the things that they did initially was to defend Nazis and the ability that Nazis have for free speech.
And that was a big controversial point because a lot of people were like, why would you ever defend Nazis?
And their position is that we are not defending Nazis' position.
We are defending their ability to speak.
Because if you do not defend their ability to have free speech, then it will not be available to everybody else as well.
You'll find a way.
You can find exceptions and exemptions.
You'll find a way to limit free speech across the board.
So they break into James O'Keefe's house early in the morning and, you know, like full-on FBI raid and they go through all of his information and take his phones and they don't find it.
They don't find the diary.
But since when has that been something that the FBI does?
James O'Keefe says that he gave the diary to law enforcement, that they couldn't vet it.
It was provided to them by someone who claimed they had it.
They sold it.
They were looking to sell it.
James got it, went through it, and said, hmm, we're going to give it to the police.
The FBI raids the homes of several Veritas journalists, including James O'Keefe himself.
And then almost immediately after the raids, the New York Times called the journalists for comment on getting raided, meaning someone who knew the raid happened slipped it to the New York Times.
Then privileged communications between Veritas and their lawyers were.
We're somehow leaked to the New York Times.
Most people believe, and it is alleged, that the FBI has been leaking legal communications.
Like, this is beyond serious.
To the New York Times, Veritas is in a lawsuit with the New York Times, and they've been winning and doing very well against the New York Times for defamation.
Now, all of a sudden, the New York Times has access to Veritas' lawyers' emails, emails between them and their lawyers.
It's very difficult to get beyond a motion to dismiss in a defamation case, especially when you're a high-profile public figure.
The judge sided with Veritas and they moved past.
They denied a motion to dismiss.
So it's actually moving forward, meaning they move to Discovery next, where they get to take New York Times journalists, sit them down under oath, and have them answer questions on camera and in front of lawyers.
The New York Times filed a stay to temporarily halt that process, and a judge agreed, said, okay, we're going to stay the Discovery and we're going to postpone this.
Then the FBI raids Veritas and gives Veritas' legal communications to the New York Times.
So it is alleged.
Most people think that's the case, but, you know, for fairness, so it is alleged.
This is...
This is one of the most terrifying things I've ever heard happen in this country for law enforcement to do, but I think it's worse than this.
In October, at the end of October, an FBI whistleblower sent evidence that Merrick Garland and the DOJ were targeting parents concerned about critical race theory using counter-terror tactics.
So this is a whistleblower at the FBI. We also know from the leaked communications that James O'Keefe was currently investigating.
At the end of October, a whistleblower within the FBI leaked communications to Republican members of Congress that Merrick Garland, the AG, the Department of Justice, was using counterterror tactics to target parents who are concerned about critical race theory.
Labeling people under specific terror terms in their databases to start.
There was a letter issued that basically referred...
First, there was a letter issued that said the parents who are going to these meetings and who are protesting the stuff are committing low-grade terrorism or something that affects America.
The New York Times made reference to the fact that James O'Keefe was conducting investigations into the FBI, and the legal communications in question they got access to was James O'Keefe's team asking the lawyers, to what extent are we allowed to secretly record federal law enforcement?
And they said, woof, dangerous territory.
So I'm just speculating.
But if you have an FBI whistleblower leaking to the Republicans, is it possible that when James O'Keefe and Veritas said, we we want federal law enforcement whistleblowers and are investigating that the FBI's true reason for raiding Veritas was because they knew a whistleblower was leaking key details that they didn't want the public to have, we we want federal law enforcement whistleblowers and are investigating that the FBI's true reason for raiding Veritas was So they use the Ashley Biden diary as a pretext.
Because it makes no sense.
The fact that the ACLU, these other Trevor Tim of Free Press, that they're going to come out and say, what is the FBI doing to rate a journalist over a journalistic activity?
Well, I mean, they're a strange organization in that so many people hate them and so many people are willing to throw out the idea of protections against journalists because they say these are not journalists.
You know, like Glenn Greenwald had a very interesting piece on that recently where he was talking about how the same arguments that they use with James O'Keefe, regardless of whether or not you like James O'Keefe or appreciate Project Veritas or whatever, The same arguments that we're using with Julian Assange, the same arguments they're using with Edward Snowden and with Glenn Greenwald as well, and many other journalists that they decide they don't like their conclusions, or they don't like their perspective.
And with James O'Keefe, James O'Keefe is clearly a right-wing guy, and he's coming at this from a right-wing perspective.
I feel like if someone had been doing the same thing from a left-wing perspective and exposing like real problems, like some of the problems that he's exposed are absolutely real problems, like a shadow banning on Twitter, censoring of conservative thought, like all the stuff that they do.
Veritas published a video of, I think her name is Amy Rohrbach of ABC News, Caught on a hot camera saying, we had the Epstein story three years ago and they shut us down.
Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald did a lot of work exposing and basically kicking off that whole Epstein thing, but Veritas exposing how ABC News shut down the story.
So this guy, there's private emails back and forth with him.
But I want you to Google the private emails because some of them were fucking creepy.
They had references to Snow White.
What does it say?
See if they talked about some of the details that were in the private emails.
Like, what a crazy situation.
This is what's really crazy about it.
And this goes back to my love of Alex Jones, where people get angry, like, why do you associate with that guy?
Alex Jones told me about this over a decade ago.
He goes, this is the way they compromise him.
They take them.
They take these guys who are basically nerds.
And they bring them to an island.
They go, hey, we got all these hot girls.
And, you know, they photograph them with them.
And they have sex with them.
And they find out later they're underage.
They have videotape.
What happened?
Oh, autoplay.
And they say that, you know, we have evidence and this and this.
And I was like, really?
There's a fucking island?
I'm like, God, it sounds so cliche.
It sounds so James Bond.
You know, they take them to fuck island and they get videotape of them banging girls.
But if you think about it...
If you're a wealthy guy like Bill Gates, okay, who's now divorced because of all this shit, right?
Divorced because of his ties to Epstein, and he's apparently got enough influence that they're kind of letting him slide off of this investigation.
You're not hearing a lot of talk about it, but when you're a guy like that, and you're married in particular, like how do you, you know, if you're a freak, And you wanna bang girls, like how do you do it?
You can't.
You literally can't.
So if you're a guy also that is a really wealthy guy and you enjoy all this power and you enjoy all this influence and you're so much different than regular people, you're on yachts and you're hanging around with the global elite, And they just have girls come up to you and start talking to you.
You're probably like, well, this is like part of the privilege of my job.
Part of the privilege of who I am as this guy worth a hundred billion dollars.
That, you know, people will come up to me and we're all drinking champagne together and this guy, Epstein, assures me everything's fine.
We've got this all worked out.
And he's not a paranoid guy.
He probably has a couple of cocktails in him.
And the next thing you know, they got a video tape on him.
I had a tweet when Epstein stuff was coming out with the documents out of the Miami Herald and Mike Cernovich's case, and I said, you know, Bill Clinton flew on this plane.
Someone screenshot it, put it on Facebook, and one of these fact checkers claimed it was fake news.
So it deranks, you can't see it.
And the funny thing is, there's a link when they do these Facebook fact checks.
When you click it, Basically, the fact check confirmed everything I said about Bill Clinton on the plane was true.
They just added at the end, but we think his framing is not contextually correct, so we're going to call it false.
You know, we were talking about this yesterday, I believe, that guys from gun manufacturers were talking to me about how, during the election, people started going through their pages and pulling things from eight, nine years ago and banning them.
Just banning them.
Because they were worried that a lot of these, whether it's gun manufacturers or very influential right-wing groups, could have an effect on voting.
So even if they have an effect, like say if there's a gun manufacturer or some sort of a big right-wing site that has a million followers or a half a million followers, and then they put out something that impacts someone who's on the fence.
Like maybe there's a guy who's kind of centrist, but he believes in some right-wing thing, so he follows a few right-wing people.
Maybe he's right-curious, right?
And so then you find out something about the Hillary Clinton death count or something like that.
He's like, that's it.
I'm fucking vote.
So if you can just cut those people out of the mix, you've got a few thousand votes here, a few thousand votes there.
They didn't care about- Oh, Trump was certainly an establishment player.
I mean, he was an establishment player in terms of the left and the right dynamic that we're accustomed to, but in terms of being a big name that the public was aware of.
I just mean the establishment political structure.
He was a billionaire.
He was a TV mogu.
He was a celebrity.
He is still one of the massive powerful elites, but he came from outside the political infrastructure where they kind of control things, where you play ball, where they have the super PACs, and he steamrolls through it.
Well, it's either him or it's going to be someone who is a more moderate Republican like Ron DeSantis.
I think the DeSantis, like when you look at what happened in Virginia, how they won Virginia with a Republican that's like a reasonable person, and then that woman, the crazy thing was like calling that woman, who's the lieutenant governor, the black woman, calling her the, they were calling her, they were saying that when white supremacy voices come out of black mouths, I was like, what the fuck?
And what they're doing, inadvertently, is they're diminishing the distinction of someone being a white supremacist.
By saying that, like, there's real white supremacists out there.
There's real racist people that think we should have an all-white country.
They're out of their fucking mind, and they're real.
Those are real people.
That's a real white supremacist.
There's real people to think that someone is better or worse Based on the amount of melanin in their skin and based on the geography where their ancestors came from, it's fucking crazy.
But it's not that lady that's the lieutenant governor!
It's very clear that what the official narrative on white supremacy is, the phrase is, they're trying to interchange liberty or classical liberalism with white supremacy.
And the sheriff has said very specifically that the reason why they're doing this is a large uptick in crime and the defunding of the police department.
And the fact that it's not just the defunding of it, but they've declawed the police department.
They've taken away their ability to enforce these laws and regulations.
So you have, I think the majority of states, and again may be wrong, but are shall issue or constitutional carry.
Shall issue states mean if you apply, they have to give it to you.
You look at a place like Hawaii, New Jersey, and parts of New York, and they claim their may issue, where they'll decide, but they're actually called, in practice, no issue.
I think the Supreme Court case has to do with people from New York State who have a concealed carry permit and the fact that it's denied in New York City.
And that it's instead of a state issue, it's a...
Yes.
Let's find out if that's the case.
I'm pretty sure that what's going on in New York State is...
There's some sort of a lawsuit about people that have a concealed carry permit in the state, so people from, like, say, Rochester or maybe even a more rural area, that they can't carry in the city.
I know there- I know there was a lawsuit where they basically said the idea of may issue is where you apply and they say give me a good reason why you need a gun.
And if you don't have a good reason as we decide we will not give it to you.
I know there was a lawsuit about that saying I have a right to keep and bear arms so if I apply you have to give it to me.
I think we're talking about what I had heard was that there was a case from upstate New York where people were trying to figure out why their concealed carry in upstate New York does not work in the city.
Which rarely issues concealed carry licenses to anyone except retired police officers or those who can describe by the nature of their employment, for example, a diamond merchant who regularly carries gemstones or a district attorney who regularly prosecutes dangerous criminals requires carry of concealed handgun.
My friend who got a concealed carry in New York is a celebrity.
When I was in New Jersey, I went to the police station.
We had a pedophile try to break into the house.
And in the middle of the night, I wake up, I hear rustling, and I got no guns.
And the police come, cop tells me, if it were me, I'd answer the door with a shotgun.
And I'm like, well, I don't got one.
Go to the police department.
They gave me bullshit information on how to get a gun.
So a few months go by of me confused like what the fuck is going on until finally I figured it out and it was not easy to get my firearm license which allows you to only get certain weapons that you keep in your home and never leave.
You never take out.
I was even told that you got to be careful driving from the gun store after you buy it because they can arrest you and they probably will.
That's how bad it is in Jersey.
And you have a duty to retreat from your own home in New Jersey, technically.
They say it's a partial castle doctrine state, but when I talked to a lawyer about it...
But to be specific, what I was told by the lawyers, I said, look, if this guy tries to break in again...
And I caught my shotgun and I, you know, like Dave Chappelle said, birdshot, buckshot, what's my liability?
And I was told, you have to exhaust all means to avoid that lethal conflict.
If you cannot, because it's partial castle doctrine, escape your home to a safe place, you're allowed to use whatever means to prevent great bodily harm or death to yourself.
However, you will be arrested.
You will be charged with murder.
And then you can apply that affirmative defense after you've paid for your lawyers and gone to court and made your arguments.
Yeah, when people get their homes broken into in a state like that or a city like that, that, like, clearly is not protecting people's ability to defend themselves, which is crazy.
If someone's breaking into your home and threatening to cause bodily injury to you, it should be really clear.
Like, you should be able to defend yourself, especially if you have a family.
It's tough because, you know, so I'm in West Virginia now.
West Virginia is known for being like, if you step on someone's property, they can perceive it as a threat.
But it's not like you just kill anybody.
But, you know, you still might get arrested even in West Virginia or Texas or Florida because, you know, there could be political pressure or there could be an argument that we don't actually believe it was self-defense.
And that's why I think castle doctrine, hard castle doctrine and stand your ground is so important.
So this guy who was a veteran who was an Uber driver or Lyft driver or what have you, and he's driving, going by the directions, and he goes into where these people are protesting, and he's being forced to turn around, right?
So as he drives towards it, not knowing that they've got the streets blocked off so that they can protest, this guy points a gun in his face.
And, you know, he's LARPing, essentially.
You know, he's playing like he's a badass.
And the guy who was in the Uber was apparently a veteran.
And pulled a gun out immediately and shot the guy.
Because the guy's pointing a gun at him.
They acquitted him.
They let him out.
They did no charges.
And then, I believe it was like 10 months later, the district attorney decided to charge him with murder.
But the guy pointed a gun at him, and then he shot him.
An AK! Yeah.
And also, we can remember, and we were talking about this last night with Blair, There was so much fucking chaos in the air back then.
If you go back to those riots, if you go back to the George Floyd protests and the riots, there was so much chaos in the air.
There was cars being lit on fire, houses being broken into.
I'll never forget there was this video of these people walking down the street protesting and they just threw a rock At the window of this house where people were looking out.
One thing that's really common among these left-wing activist groups, something that I covered when I was down on the ground at Occupy and all these other events, is there's a thing called the diversity of tactics.
And the activist organizers often say, respect the diversity of tactics.
What that really means is don't stop the violence.
So, nobody's gonna care if a bunch of, you know, bleeding heart hippies are waving signs and marching through the street.
For the most part, people might honk at them.
The reason why they have to issue the warning telling people to respect the diversity of tactics is that when black-block, Antifa-type individuals or riders burn and smash things, they immediately turn to the peaceful people and say, you have to respect their diversity of tactics.
Basically, allow them to do this.
That's what we end up seeing in a lot of places, but when you look at Rittenhouse, I think it's a case that's a really good example, What that really means is the criminal elements who are here for no other reason than to destroy because they're upset, they're unwell or violent are going to be allowed to do so.
So there's two important things, notably in Ferguson, when I was on the ground covering those riots.
It was local young black Ferguson residents linking arms to guard the liquor store where Michael Brown had stolen the cigarillos.
It was out of towners who were ransacking and looting everything.
Al Jazeera was there.
I'm standing right next to this reporter, Sebastian.
I think Walker is his name.
He was with Vice for a while.
Asking these young black men, why are you linking arms to guard this?
And this kid said, he was not a kid, he was a guy.
This guy, I don't believe, actually cared about any causes.
So when you have the facilitators, the organizers, say, respect the diversity of tactics, they're making space for criminal elements who just want destruction, damage, or to profit.
Gage Grosskreutz travels from far away to where he knows there's violence.
He brings an illegal gun and he says it's because he was an EMT who wants to help people.
Kyle Rittenhouse travels across state lines from far away to where he's been accused of bringing an illegal gun where he knew there was violence because he wanted to be an EMT.
They're not the same stories, but it's remarkable to me that the narrative on Rittenhouse was always like he's evil, he's a bad guy.
When Gage Grosskreutz's story was actually the correct – like actually the right narrative.
He's a guy who's not from Kenosha who brought a gun illegally into a riot and then pointed it at someone and he got shot.
Whereas Kyle Rittenhouse, his dad lives there, his grandma lives there, his cousins live there, he works there, his best friend lives there.
He lives just on the other side of the border in what is effectively a suburb of Kenosha.
He went there, not with a gun, but was given one by Dominic Black, which he was legally allowed to possess.
Dominic Black has been criminally charged for providing the weapon.
Which will be interesting.
I believe it's a straw purchase charge.
Which means Kyle Rittenhouse testified that he gave the money to Dominic Black to buy the rifle so that once Kyle turned 18, he could possess it because he can't buy a gun under 18, but he can possess a rifle specifically.
He testified the reason he didn't get a handgun is because he knows under 18 you can't have one, but you can have a standard rifle.
He lives in Antioch, Illinois, and I believe the reason was he's originally from Kenosha, but his mom and his dad split, and so he stays with his mom about 20 miles away from Kenosha.
He provided medical attention to the rioters themselves, I believe, on more than one occasion.
Not only that, but testimony from Drew Hernandez was that when there was a conflict arising from the militia guys on the roof and the rioters, Rittenhouse actually came down and walked up to them with his hands fanning down trying to de-escalate the tensions.
And then the rioters de-escalated and left, which shows this on video.
My understanding is provided to the state.
The Kyle Rittenhouse, not only did he have no intention to hurt anybody, he was actively trying to stop violence.
So this was actually included in the motion by the defense that was put out on, given to the judge on the 15th.
We are fucked on this story.
Check this out.
The state had what they call unicorn evidence.
It emerged, you know, two weeks ago, like in the middle of trial, they get this drone footage.
It's high definition, but it's so far away from where Kyle is, you can't actually see anything.
The defense makes the argument that the video shows Kyle Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the Zeminski's, this is the guy who had the gun and fired in the air, and then Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse in defense of others, such that Rittenhouse provoked him to attack him, and then Rittenhouse led him to the parking lot where he could shoot and kill him.
Because of this footage, the prosecution was able to get a jury instruction on provocation, which means the judge said to the jury, if you believe that Rittenhouse provoked him, He cannot be found to have been acting in self-defense.
The prosecution didn't withhold evidence.
This is what the big story was.
Prosecution withholds evidence.
No, no, no.
They manipulated the evidence, and it's darker than that.
The video received by the defense was a low-resolution video.
It would play on a screen like normal, but it was fuzzier.
The defense did not know.
They were not given the true and correct video, which means if the state withheld the evidence...
And then played it in court.
This is our key evidence proving Rittenhouse committed a crime.
The defense would say, Your Honor, we were never provided this evidence.
And the judge would say, Stop.
Give them the evidence.
Come back.
Give them a chance to form a rebuttal.
Because the defense thought they did receive the evidence, they weren't able to actively scrutinize it because it was low resolution.
When the video was played in court by the defense, the prosecution goes, Our version is much clearer.
That's when the defense said, what the fuck?
You provided us evidence that we could not discern.
Then what the prosecution did was they got an expert to use algorithmic software to enhance it, basically, which generates false images.
It's not real images, and I can break that down.
Present that to the judge and the defense did not know that they were using different evidence to try and get this introduced.
My understanding is that it, I don't know how, but Rakeda Law, they've been doing this big live stream, played both videos, and you can see it.
Now, when I first heard this, I said, how would you not realize that the video they're playing in court was a higher resolution than what you had?
So I actually, on my TV, played comparable resolutions, and when you're looking for it, you can see it, but when you don't realize it...
You don't realize it.
You know, the TV screens are big.
They're already kind of blurry.
And so what happens is this disadvantage to the defense in their ability to watch the video and actually say, look here, Kyle Rittenhouse's arm is pointed in this direction.
By getting the low res video, I don't know what I see.
The prosecution is going to argue something and we can't form.
So what they did was the defense argued you can't use CGI imagery in a court case.
But they were unable to accurately explain to the judge why it was CGI. So the judge said, I don't know what you're talking about.
We'll allow it.
I'll tell you this.
The image introduced by the prosecution is obviously not a picture of anything.
If you go to legal insurrection, look for the articles written by Andrew Branca.
He shows a side-by-side.
Andrew Branca is a foremost expert on self-defense law.
He's brilliant.
He shows a side-by-side from evidence of the enhanced version and the regular version, and you can clearly see it looks like one of those Google deepfakes of weird nothing.
There's a white sign.
When you look at the real image, it's low resolution and blurry.
When you look at the prosecution's evidence, there's two signs, a faded large and small sign over each other because the computer program can't actually enlarge or enhance.
It just adds more pixels.
So what did it do?
Like Google deepfake AI technology or whatever, it just duplicated the signs over each other, and people have referred to it as the signs being raptured, because its ghost is being pulled from its body.
They used that to argue, and get this, they argued.
Kyle Rittenhouse puts down a fire extinguisher, within a split second, takes his gun off, flips the strap, points with his left hand at the Zeminsky's, then runs, and while he's running, takes the strap off, flips it back to his right hand, turns and shoots Rosenbaum.
When the defense objected, saying he's facing the wrong direction, the prosecutor immediately goes, that's an argument.
And the judge says, that's an argument.
Meaning, in closing, it was a closing argument, so you can just rebut that if you want when it comes up.
It's remarkable that the state was allowed to introduce this.
And it's unfortunate because the defense, look, they're boomers.
They didn't understand the technology.
Richards in the defense said, they use a 3D AI logarithm to predict imagery.
And the judge goes, what?
I would have said it very simply.
Your Honor, the image they're presenting is not from August 25th, 2020. End of story.
When's the image from?
It's from two weeks ago at a crime lab in Kenosha, from, you know, the police crime lab, not from the night in question.
If that still got to the point where they brought in the expert, and they did, this guy James Armstrong, I would have asked the expert, this image you're presenting to the jury, when was that image created?
And he would say November, you know, October 30th, 2021. Probably if he said it that way.
I think they're actually watching the video in HD. They were going back and forth about, like, was there a compression error with the email being sent?
Did it change the file name?
And they're trying to prove that this can or can't...
You know what's fascinating is, right now, I like using civics for polling because they have a long track where they show you real-time polling throughout every time they implement the poll over years.
Black Lives Matter today is tied.
44% opposition, 44% support.
What's interesting here is that when the George Floyd incident happened, support for Black Lives Matter skyrocketed.
Then the riots happened and it plummeted.
And now opposition is rivaling.
So I tell people, man, the violence really makes you lose politically.
And if they kept it peaceful, they would own politics right now in this country.
Well, the thing is, like, it doesn't work when it comes to polling, but it does work in terms of, like, people placating, people giving in to it, people that are scared, especially liberals.
Like, liberals in the sense of, or in the face of that kind of violence, immediately show that they're in support of those people.
So they'll show they're in support of the violence, they'll show they're in support of Black Lives Matter, and they'll do it because they're cowards.
And they'll put it on their Instagram, and they'll put it on their Twitter, and they'll do it publicly to virtue signal and let everybody know that they're on the right side.
Well, then there's also the weirdness of that election.
The governor's election, the election for governor in New Jersey is fucking...
It's all these mail-in ballots.
Like, that's just...
The easiest way to rig an election, like, they've shown, like, when you talk to experts in election results and the ability to manipulate, they say that the most vulnerable aspect is mail-in ballots.
I do not believe there was sufficient voter fraud to give Donald Trump a To have stolen the election from Trump.
I believe Biden won because rules were changed because of universal mail-in voting, advantage to Democrats.
However, in North Jersey, there was a huge story where the courts basically ended an election after the fact, nullified it, and ordered a re-election because they discovered bundles of mail-in votes from different areas, like in one mailbox.
I have to pull the story, but there was like 30% of the ballots were like, signatures didn't match and stuff like that.
Now, in the governor race in New Jersey, and I'm not saying that he lost because of voter fraud, but there was a report from Northern Jersey, 100% reporting Republican victory, and then overnight, 100% reporting Democrat victory.
So a lot of people saw that and said, how did they report 100%?
You don't want people to go to an official polling place and run the risk of catching COVID. That's true, but before, it was in October of 2020, Pennsylvania, Republicans passed universal mail-in voting unconstitutionally Before there was an outbreak of anything.
And this is an interesting story.
They initially tried to create universal absentee, but found the Constitution of Pennsylvania bars universal mail-in voting.
Especially, so I used to do a lot of fundraising, vote registration, activism stuff.
And funny enough, it was for like democratic causes and registering to vote Democrats and things like that.
I didn't do, I didn't, we would do postcarding.
I did non-profit fundraising on the streets.
We'd get people to fill out cards.
It works.
I mean, when you get 10,000 postcards dumped on a congressperson's desk, it plays a role.
So when we would do fundraising, the crazy thing was I would get people to give over their credit card information, sign up on the street for Greenpeace.
I could convince.
For the short stint I was there, I was one of the top in the nation walking up to a stranger and within a minute getting their credit card and writing it all down and walking away.
When you see, when you knock on a door and someone says, you know, hey, you know, what's going on?
You say, we want to make sure everybody's voting.
It's so important.
And we know you got your mail-in vote.
Why don't you fill it out right here while we wait?
Put it in your mailbox.
The mailman will take it for you.
Maybe it's 1 in 10 say yes.
But if it's 1 in 10, it's 1 in 10 for Republican, Libertarian, you know, Democrat, whatever.
If the Democrats have the ability to use population density in that regard to their advantage, universal mail-in voting as a function is just advantaging Democrats over Republicans.
Well, that's why my personal belief is that the Trump narrative around fraud, about how he really won, is actually meant to just destabilize the populist movement.
Well, whether he fell for it or not, whether he really believed that he had the kind of influence—I mean, when you're the president of the United States for four years, and you're actually getting a lot of good things done— He's getting a lot of good things done in regards to trade, in regards to some of the impacts it's having on businesses.
And then the COVID hits, the shit hits the fan, everything's falling apart, and then he loses the election.
And he's still of the mind that he has all this influence.
And he probably thought he could get people to overturn the election or change the election.
So if an illegal immigrant moves into a state, they are counted in the census and a congressional seat is apportioned to that state, which then gets an electoral vote based on the amount of people.
That means if you have, I think, California in 2016 got one additional vote based on their total illegal immigrant population, one extra electoral college vote.
So while they don't actually vote by going out and voting...
That's not how the presidential election works.
Their presence in the state gives congressional federal power to that state to make those votes.
It takes the census, which I believe is every 10 years, right?
I don't know which states they're doing.
I'm not saying there's a conspiracy to do it, but it is true that if you look at the illegal immigrant population per state, you can calculate how many electoral votes they'll get.
If they pile into urban centers, then what will happen is, say, Austin will have to expand and produce a couple more districts, a couple more congressional seats.
Then Texas will get more electoral votes.
It won't give them the power to turn Texas necessarily into a blue state for Texas itself, but it will give them extra electoral votes, which could make Texas a blue presidential state.
It's almost they're overwhelmed by just the sheer amount of data, the sheer amount of information that you must have to have in order to make an informed decision.
I mean, when you're going into the voting booth, how many people really know who the fuck these congresspeople are?
How many people really know who's running for Senate?
In, I think, New Hampshire, a trans-Satanist anarchist won the Republican primary for sheriff to prove a point, that people voted based on D or R and not on the candidate.
They went in, and they saw a Republican, and they checked up the box and just voted for it.
I also think the anarchists may have been running unopposed, so people were just like, you get my vote, but when they found out who they voted for, they got really, really mad.
Not everybody, but some people were like, here we go.
Aria DiMezio, a transgender woman in her early 30s, has become a minor celebrity and the target of online attacks, vandalism, including homophobic slur, spray-painted on her car.
If this vaccine injury thing gets really out of hand, and if this smallpox thing leads to something, or if there's any inkling whatsoever that some people who have financial motives want more people to get vaccinated or want...
People get vaccinated that don't need it or if there's any kind of discussion about this.
It'd be interesting to see if they decide to throw someone high profile under the bus to cover up their tracks.
I mean, this is remarkable to me that Rand Paul holds up the study that says chimeric hybrid viruses manufactured and funded by the NIH, NIAID, and Fauci is like...
Well, the NIH has admitted they funded gain-of-function research, and then Fauci tries to change the definition of a gain-of-function means, and that's what he's doing while Rand Paul is questioning.
But Rand Paul, who...
Is actually a doctor.
And that's the problem.
He understands these things.
But Fauci, that was the first time where he didn't seem arrogant when he was being questioned.
When Rand Paul said, he said, are you finally willing to admit, you know, that you were not telling the truth and that you did fund gain-of-function research?
And he was trying to say the definitions as defined, like he just tries to skirt around what it is.
It's almost like the term gain-of-function is a real problem.
What he maybe should have said is, Did you fund the enhancement of virus research?
Did you fund research that made viruses more contagious, more virulent, and more susceptible to the human population?
You know, in those kind of situations, like, Lex is fantastic when he's interviewing people about their field of study and asking them questions about, you know, their research or whatever.
But when it comes to catching someone in a lie, you gotta be someone who can...
Go, stop.
Stop.
And, you know, that's what I had to do with Sanjay Gupta, right?
These kind of conversations, these uncomfortable conversations, that's not Lex's strong point.
Lex is a sweetheart of a guy.
And he's allowing people to just express themselves.
But then in the comments, people were furious.
And then the analysis by experts, people were much more furious.
Because they're like, there's so many things that this man said that are provably untrue.
He goes on TV, I think it was CNN, and he's talking about stuff like normal, and they ask him, now, Dr. Fauci, you say people should wear masks, but wouldn't it make sense if people wore two masks because that would be more effective?
And he goes, yeah, it's common sense that two masks would be more effective.
And then he goes on TV a few days later and they were like, so you advised people to wear two masks.
And he goes, I did not, there is nothing saying to wear two masks.
And then a few days later the CDC comes out and says people should wear two masks.
I feel like a lot of this advice came from just like winging it.
Right, but are they enforcing it in terms of like, you know, New York City has a vaccination mandate where you have to have a vaccine in order to go into restaurants and bars and what have you, and gyms, I believe.
It's just an attack on business.
And it's also an attack on Mayaris.
Because one of the things about vaccines is the highest percentage of people that are non-vaccinated are African Americans.
I mean, the African-American community has a long history of distrust in the medical institution, going back to the Tuskegee experiment and a bunch of other shit.
This is the thing, that this is happening at the same time that podcasts happen.
And not all podcasts, because Brett Weinstein and Heather Hying, their podcast has been demonetized for that very reason.
And those folks...
Are actual evolutionary biologists and biologists that are talking to science experts and they're very careful with their words.
They're very careful with- they're not like us, we're just talking shit off the top of our head and wrong about a lot of things.
These are actual experts, actual scholars.
And when they discuss these things, they get demonetized and some episodes actually get removed, you know, depending upon who you are and what you talk about.
If you have certain subjects get discussed that they decide are, you know, encouraging vaccine hesitancy or whatever, they just remove them.
I consider myself to be a rule lawyer for these social media platforms, trying to make sure we figure out how you navigate a minefield.
And so one of the things that's important, too, is The rules for, like, why Brett Weinstein gets a strike, you can't advocate for ivermectin.
And they also say, you must inform, if you're talking about ivermectin, it's not FDA approved, and certain things like that.
But it's hard to know because they enforce it arbitrarily.
So, you know, I often just tell people, and I think it's true, I don't know.
I don't know about this stuff.
I'm not a scientist.
I'm not a doctor.
I certainly understand that if there are a lot of studies and there are talking about the efficacy of ivermectin, we should be allowed to have a conversation about it and give our opinions.
I think it's also fair to say I'm not going to recommend anything to you.
I had Peter T on my podcast, who's a doctor, and one of the things he said, he said, I don't like when information is being withheld.
I don't like when they're trying to establish a narrative.
He goes, all the information should be on the table.
The information that shows what the vaccine does, it's good.
The information that shows where it wanes, the information that shows vaccine injuries, all those things should be on the table and we should analyze all those things.
But that's not what the case is.
It's very difficult when someone has a vaccine injury to even find a story on them in Google.
And he's basically made—I think Bill O'Reilly's on the cover—but he made the argument in another article that Rachel Maddow is Bill O'Reilly.
And she's another one.
She doubled down on that fake Rolling Stone article about people having horse dewormer overdoses, and they were— Overwhelming the hospital in Oklahoma to the point where gunshot victims were not allowed to get into the emergency room.
A fucking complete fabrication.
No research on it whatsoever.
Just total horseshit.
Not only did she tweet about it, but then she doubled down and defended her tweet based on, I think, calls to the Poison Control Center, which doesn't mean jack shit.
Yeah, but what Peter Atiyah said on my podcast the other day, the one that came out today, he said, the sheer number of people who have taken ivermectin is so overwhelming.
There's been more than 4 billion doses handed out.
And the amount of people that have actually had adverse injuries or things, it's like 20. Out of 4 billion people, I forget what the actual number is, it might be 28 or whatever the fuck it is, it might be 8. Whatever it is, it's a very, very small number in comparison to the 4 billion people.
Here's one thing about your show and one thing about my show.
There's no one fucking telling us what to say.
And I think that drives people crazy.
I really do.
But in that, whether you think I'm a moron or you're a moron or we're right or we're wrong, at least you know that if I'm saying something, it's because I've read some things, I've talked to some people, this is what I've seen, this is what I've read, here's my opinion.
That's it!
There's no fucking voice on high that's showing up with a clipboard and has a bunch of notes of things that I'm gonna discuss, talking points on the show.
If you're working in an environment where you could possibly spread a disease that really can fuck people up, Two things should be taken into consideration.
One, you should have a treatment plan available to the people who work for you.
That's what I do.
When something happens with someone that I know or someone who's working here, now we have options.
When it first started happening, like when Jamie got sick over a year ago, we didn't know shit.
What do you do?
Jamie just kind of laid low and got lucky that he had a mild case.
But now, we have pieces in motion, we have information to work with, and we have experience.
We've had a bunch of people had COVID, and we have some positive results, based on the medications that I recommended to you.
I also recommended to Aaron Rodgers.
I mean, we have a medical team that we talk to, that gives us, and it works!
It fucking works!
But now, hold on!
If you are a person that has an office and you employ a hundred people or whatever, it makes sense to just test people.
But if you're a conscientious business owner and you have a bunch of people working in the office and you don't want someone to spread it to other people, it is not hard to just provide tests for people.
Yo, we had a COVID outbreak and I'm not going to say the names of anybody or anything like that, but some people just didn't really care if they were sick and going to spread it to others.
You know what's interesting about the real estate agent, too?
I think she shows no...
Antibodies, which is really crazy.
Yeah, a year later, a year after having COVID, I don't think her antibodies show up, which is wild.
Because, like, she didn't have any symptoms.
I wonder if when you don't have any symptoms and you test positive and for whatever reason the virus is just a low viral load on you or whatever it is, your body goes through it.
It's enough to test positive, but not enough to generate sufficient antibodies.
But she was around a bunch of other people that also got sick, like in a meeting, a large meeting, someone showed up sick.
Again, same sort of deal.
I just think regular testing is not a problem.
It's not hard to do.
I don't think it's infringing upon your rights.
And I don't think it's like forcing you to, you know, take some sort of a medical or be involved in some sort of a medical procedure or take medication that can be dangerous for you.
This is why, you know, I go on rants periodically on my show where I'm like, why are we still having an argument about the science instead of the policy?
Because for me, if a business says, we're going to give all of our employees vaccination whenever they want, ibuprofen, Tylenol, vitamins, we're going to test you if you want it, a free service provided to your employees, fucking awesome.
My friend Cam Haynes, who runs ultramarathons, he was taking ibuprofen every day, and he was telling me how much he was taking.
I'm like, dude, that's a lot.
And then I brought it up to Dr. Rhonda Patrick, and she sent me some studies that shows how much inflammation that stuff actually causes because it fucks with your gut bacteria.
So he stops taking it.
He stops taking ibuprofen completely and all the pain that he was taking ibuprofen for went away when he stopped taking it.
Taking that shit was causing inflammation.
So taking these non-steroidal anti-inflammatories was actually fucking up his gut bacteria and fucking up his body so bad that it was causing pain.
But I did have a lot of mental clarity throughout the day.
So for normal tasks, my energy levels are very consistent.
But in terms of workout stuff, like if I was going to do rounds in the bag or heavy lifting or running, anything that requires a lot of explosive activity, man, I just got tired quicker, for sure.
I would just be groggy and fall asleep and then wake up like, I gotta get ready for the show because we do the nightly show and I'm like chugging water trying to get back and then I would do the show and then when I started cutting that stuff out, I'm just energized all the time.
And that's just a thing that happens when you eat a lot of carbs.
But if I eat a lot of carbs now, and I essentially eat the same way, I mostly eat just vegetables and meat.
That's most of my diet.
I mean, occasionally I'll have sushi or I'll have something that has rice in it.
And occasionally I'll have pasta.
If, like, we get together, like, a bunch of comics get together and we have, like, a comedian's meal, we go to Red Ash, this fantastic restaurant in town, and we'll all just pig out and, you know, bring plates of pasta and meatballs and lots of stuff with bread and gluten and garlic bread with bone marrow.
Yeah, most of what people are eating, especially in terms of bread and pasta and eating so much of it, it's just not good for you.
And it's not bad for you all the time.
See, the thing about bread and pasta and even some simple sugars, it's actually not bad to have them right after exercise because it restores the glucose in the muscles and it's not the worst thing right afterwards.
But you just got to be cognizant of the impact That the food has on your body.
And I think as you get older, you start thinking about that stuff more and more.
Six segments, uploaded independently, followed by a two and a half hour show.
So I do 22 minutes to publish at 10, 22 minutes to publish at 1pm, 32 minutes to publish at 4pm, and then we're live for two hours, and then we do a half an hour private members only segment for the website.
Is it a narrative that's already been projected then by the mainstream news?
And here's a question.
If the mainstream news has been painting this very distorted perception of this case, and this is what has affected and influences these people to riot, how much responsibility do they have?
And that's, I think, that guy who is suicidal and those other guys, these Antifa guys, you're seeing it in a lot of those folks.
They're very, they're without, for lack of a better term, they're fucking losers.
They're losers at life, and then they pile on to these causes, and they jump in, and they dye their hair pink, and they light schoolhouses on fire, whatever the fuck they do.
They're doing this impartial because it gives them an opportunity to rage, to rage against the machine, to rage against the system, to rage against what they feel like they could...
They could describe as injustices, whether or not it's actually an injustice or not.
When I was a kid, I go to the skate park and people are spray painting, like, the system, anarchy, whatever.
I go to the skate park and what I see, Black Lives Matter.
And, you know, I was looking at some kids and then I was like, isn't it weird that you've got basically like a pro-corporate, friendly, family-friendly, corporate slogan?
Well, I mean, that just shows you that really what you're dealing with is ideologies more than you're dealing with like a real firm commitment to morals and ethics and an established sort of framework of behavior.
Instead of that, it's like these ideologies come along and they're basically like cults.
And like if you're on the left, you support this.
And then when someone comes into power that you decide the fascist, then they can justify all sorts of really Nasty ways of communicating about that person, body shaming that person, attacking that person physically if you find them.
They support violence if it suits their needs.
And it just shows you what's really going on more than it being their thing.
It says, I am an anti-fascist that supports big pharma corporations teaming up with the federal government to finance and distribute a product that is made mandatory by law.
I wonder what the fuck's going to happen with phones in the future where they're going to be like these scrollable things where like, you know, you have like a tube and you just pull it apart and it makes it larger or smaller depending upon what your needs are.
Do you feel that this intrusion that technology has in your life, do you feel like there's obviously a great benefit that we all enjoy from the technological innovations, but do you feel like it intrudes in your life?
Do you feel like it's gotten to the point where you want to take active measures to try to disconnect yourself in some way?
I was thinking back to the 1200s, and there's some dude leaving his wood log cabin in the winter with a sword and a satchel, and he comes across a small but angry bear, and he scares it off, and the whole thing takes place in 20 seconds.
He goes back to the local eatery with the other people, and he goes...
A great beast attacked me, and he describes this giant monster, and they draw a picture of a dragon, and there's intrigue, and there's mystery, and there's fear, but like, you know, reading these stories about the unknown Mothman and Bigfoot, I want the mystery, I want the experience.
I live in a world of facts and news stories and verifying, but I love the UFOs, I love the unknown, I want to discover, but it feels like, and this is partially a misplaced feeling, It feels like we live in a world where discovery is so much harder because information is so rapid through social media.
We learn it instantly.
The truth is there's still a lot of things that are secret.
There's still a lot of mystery that goes on and a lot to discover.
But it's not the same as when I'm watching this movie in 1973. And you get this guy in the band, he stands on a garage, tripping on acid, and he goes, I am a golden god!
And they all scream, and then he jumps in the pool.
Those things would just be on TikTok.
It's just, we know it happens, and the worst part is it encourages kids to do stupider and crazier shit.
You're older than I am, but I remember being a teenager and getting my first cell phone, Candy Bar Nokia, and being able to text people changed everything.
This is why they'll call me far right, because I've said if the Republicans win in 2022, they should immediately impeach Joe Biden.
He should be impeached, convicted, removed, and I can tell you exactly why.
What crimes?
Well, abuse of power, violating the Constitution as it pertains to the eviction moratorium and the vaccine mandates.
But we'll put that aside because it's very, very charged.
How about we talk about the Burisma scandal, where there are a dozen active investigations by Viktor Shokin.
I'm maybe a little bit too in the weeds on this one.
The Ukrainian prosecutor is investigating an energy company in Ukraine called Burisma.
Joe Biden's son is placed on the board questionably.
Like, what does he have to do with energy companies?
There's also a former CIA guy who's on the board, by the way.
Joe Biden goes to Ukraine and personally meets with the president and says, if you want a billion dollars in aid, fire the prosecutor.
Now, he claims, and the mainstream story is that it's because the prosecutor wasn't investigating the corruption of a man named Mykola Zlachevsky, who founded Burisma.
However, Zolachevsky, when Trump gets into power, flees.
And when Biden comes back in, returns.
Or it was something to that effect.
It's been a long time since I've gone through the story.
We have a quid pro quo definitively, as they stated it.
So on that alone, I'd say impeach the guy.
But with the Hunter Biden laptop, we're now getting images of Joe Biden meeting with Hunter and his associates.
We're now getting direct confirmation, or should at the very least, communications claiming that Hunter and Joe share bank accounts.
If there's a certain criteria met, you don't own the money anymore.
Now, if that money goes into Hunter Biden's bank account, but Joe has access to it, you've got a tax problem right there, don't you?
Look, I've tried to help out my family, and I've talked to my accountant and said, you know, let me know to what extent I can provide for my family, my brother, sister, family, whatever.
And my accountant's like, you gotta pay taxes on all of it.
There's no just buying stuff for somebody.
I'm like, then how does Hunter Biden share a bank account with his dad, taking millions of dollars, I wonder.
Well, when you're that powerful, you don't got to worry about it.
The darkness of that is one thing, but the fact that the media covered it because they knew that it would be damaging to Biden's campaign, that's where things get scary.
And when I say the media, the media definitely didn't cover it.
CNN definitely didn't cover it.
But they censored people discussing it.
And they censored the New York Post, one of the oldest newspapers in the country.
They censored them because they had a legitimate news story from a legitimate newspaper about that laptop.
Certainly there's a shortage on a lot of things, like the manufacturing sector that has been shipped overseas is shown to be a huge problem when it comes to things like chips for cars, and there's a lot of things you can't buy right now that you used to be able to buy very easily and quickly.
So you can actually see, this is interesting, during Trump's presidency, the Democrats believe, Democratic voters are polled, and this is from Civics.
They believed that the economy was fairly good.
Into the pandemic, as the economy got worse, Democrats started to feel the economy wasn't doing too well.
So under Trump, it was, you know, kind of fair.
It was like, well, you know, we don't like Trump, but the economy's doing all right.
But then it tanks off through the pandemic.
But when Biden gets elected, it spikes back up again.
Independent voters say the economy is fairly bad or very bad.
Republicans say the economy is very bad or fairly bad.
So when you take a look at polling, when you take a look, whether it's economic, whether it's Black Lives Matter, whether it's support for the president or the vice president, moderates and Republicans are very, very similar.
That says to me, you know, you take a look at Virginia, you take the election, the young kid, you take a look at New Jersey.
I think independent voters—actually, I'm going to pause real quick.
Pew Research put out a political tribes study, and they found that there is the ambivalent right, which where they categorize you or I, then there's like the Democratic— How am I ambivalent right?
They have a group called the stressed sideline, which is considered not left or right.
However, the majority of those in what's considered the stressed sideline are center right.
So when they plot them on a map from zero, then left and zero and then right, the middle of the road people who are not politically active are center right.
What that means is...
Moderates, independents, Republicans, liberty-minded individuals are probably leaning towards right-leaning politicians and ideas and away from Democrats.
So I think it says a lot for what's to come, but I also think it says that Democrats are tribal in their positions.
What I'm hoping is that people realize the pitfall in being tribal, and then more and more people move to more of a kind of a centrist mentality, because that's where I think most people lie.
Most people's beliefs are a conglomeration of both sides.