Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 3, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:46:40

20200603_Wed_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British are coming, the British are coming!
	You are about to be part of the drink today.
	And more for all the rest of the world.
	America first!
	And fuck!
	What's your country?
	Oh!
	Welcome to another edition of American Countdown this Wednesday, June 3rd, 2020. - Right.
	Resolved tonight, the most dangerous virus out there is not the riots and is not the COVID-19, but is the media.
	Because without the media, neither COVID-19 could threaten us in the way that it does, nor the riots probably even occur to the scale and scope that they have.
	The media is the one that has propagated false narratives, both about the pandemic and about various issues of policy and politics in the United States, to exacerbate and exaggerate risks and threats to a wide-ranging group of people in order to get them to respond in the way that they have, either with fear, whether it's fear by staying locked in their home or fear by going out and rioting and looting.
	Either way, the media is the most often and the most common inspiration that unites the two threads together in this sort of fear-minded political environment.
	Indeed, in that context, let's look at some of the news from today.
	Black Americans killed in the riots across American cities.
	This includes police officers, this includes a United States Marshal, this includes a coach, this includes somebody's father, somebody's brother, somebody's sister in another case, all because of the looting and the rioting that took place inspired by the media's false narratives and propaganda about the risk to black lives from institutional police.
	For example, to compare, an African American male is more likely to die from a bite from a wasp, hornet, or bee than he is as an unarmed man from a policeman in the United States last year.
	Yet you don't see riots against wasps coming anytime soon.
	This is the nature of the political propaganda.
	People believe otherwise because that's what the fake news narratives shaped by the media, propagated by organizations like BLM that are not there for civil rights but there for artistic theater, sort of theatrical expression of live performance art in the form of rioting and looting.
	You see that demonstrated in a wide range of spaces from the graffiti to the sort of performative nature of some of the violent protests that have taken place across the nation.
	Even though the cost and consequence is not only to the black community and to increasing stereotypes and caricatures of the African-American community, it has been to real lives lost, such as the St.
	Louis officer who was shot trying to defend a pawn shop.
	Let's take a look at video clip number nine.
	OG!
	Politicians, celebrities, corporate leaders, clergy, news anchors, professional athletes, almost every person in this country that we were raised from childhood to look up to, to respect, to listen to, all of them sided with the people burning police stations.
	The mobs saw this and grew stronger.
	Last night they began shooting cops.
	For 38 years, David Dorn was a police officer in the city of St.
	Louis.
	No one ever accused Dorn of racism.
	He was black.
	He's dead now.
	He was murdered last night by the mob.
	His killing was streamed live on Facebook.
	Then the violence accelerated from there.
	In St.
	Louis alone, four other active duty police officers were shot last night.
	In Las Vegas, an officer took a bullet in the head.
	He's still in critical condition.
	Once the sun went down, cops all around this country found themselves under attack.
	Oh!
	- Oh! - Get off me! - No! - No! - No! - No! - Get off me! - No! - No! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - Oh!
	- Oh! - Oh! - Oh! - That's a f***ing cow! - Did you watch that?
	How many more nights like this can we take?
	How many more nights like this before no one in America will serve as a police officer?
	It's not worth it.
	The people in charge hate you.
	The job doesn't pay enough.
	At that point, who will enforce the laws?
	Who will be in charge?
	Well, violent young men with guns will be in charge.
	They will make the rules, including the rules in your neighborhood.
	They will do what they want.
	You will do what they say.
	No one will stop them.
	You will not want to live here when that happens.
	Chaos is the worst thing always, and wise leaders understand that.
	It's obvious.
	Indeed, that is precisely what is taking place, but if you followed institutional media narratives, you would find a different script being played out.
	I watched recently the Vice News coverage of the various protests taking place across the country, and their narrative is almost exclusively focused on the peaceful protests and peaceable protesters being violently assaulted and attacked by various members of the police.
	Now, they do have examples and illustrations of overreaction by members of the police, and your rogue police members will take advantage of this opportunity to abuse their power and use excessive force.
	It's almost guaranteed.
	Indeed, it's what Antifa-type groups are banking on.
	But in that same context and in that same capacity, we have seen the media inflame not only the passions and prejudices on one side of the aisle, but also downplay the risk of violence and the threat of violence and the actual violence taking place.
	Indeed, Professor Jonathan Turley, from George Washington University, who leans to the left, by the way, wrote a op-ed piece in The Hill entitled, Antifa and Anarchists Have Hijacked Floyd Protest, But the Left Won't Admit It.
	What he should put in there is actually it's the media predominantly that won't admit it.
	The media itself that won't concede it.
	If you follow any of the Net Nationwide network news or the Blue Checkmark crowd on Twitter, what you will find is them downplaying any risk of violence or threats.
	Instead, you'll see a piece like Legal Eagle, a YouTube-promoted supposed lawyer.
	I've never seen of him or heard of him in an actual court of law, and he often gives legal analysis that a first-year law student would know not to give.
	He would fail basically your first semester of first-year law school, but he's promoted as the primary legal expert on YouTube.
	While YouTube has taken off videos that question or second-guess various forms of political institutional narratives that exist, he made it sound like the Lafayette Park incident yesterday and today was somehow driven by the just tear-gassing of these peaceable protesters simply wanting to assert their will.
	Not because they were violating curfew, not because they were stashing arms right next to the places so that they could engage in armed violence, not because the night before they tried to light St.
	John's Church on fire and light another safe house on fire, not because they put 50 Secret Service officers into the hospital or into medical care from being injured, not because of the potential deaths that could have occurred that night.
	No, that doesn't appear in Legal Eagle's coverage of the story.
	Instead, he sheds tears as he claims that, oh, this is the sign of a banana republic and a tin cup dictator violating everyone's civil rights and civil liberties by misstating, once again, giving fake news about the law and fake news about the facts.
	Professor Turley details the same dynamic.
	He talks about how Ian Fleming famously lamented that history often moves so quickly that heroes and villains keep on changing parts.
	His point was that the protests of George Floyd quickly turned into riotous outbursts of criminality.
	And instead of acknowledging this, they tried to pretend white supremacists were behind it.
	You'll actually see CBS News headlines that still declare that fake news if you simply search for it.
	That is where and how we got to the place we're at now.
	Indeed, if you want to see some of the examples of this biased media coverage, let's take a look at video clip number 12.
	I want to be clear in how I characterize this.
	This is mostly a protest.
	It is not, generally speaking, unruly.
	But fires have been started.
	First thing I want to make perfectly clear, this has been almost entirely peaceful.
	In fact, completely peaceful.
	It's been a mostly peaceful protest, but then they chose to move in.
	Many of these protests have been largely peaceful.
	Mostly peaceful.
	Oh, boy.
	I'm looking at those live pictures next to you and they seem very peaceful.
	There are always folks on the fringes of protests that do the things that we don't like.
	A few people who break a few windows and burn a few cars.
	They just threw something on fire, Chris, a firecracker.
	Something's on fire!
	No one should be destructing property and that sort of thing, but I understand the anger.
	Discount people who are doing things to public property that they shouldn't be doing.
	It does have to be understood that this city has got, for the last several years, an issue with police.
	So many good people out there who want change and who are demanding change.
	Our country was started because this is how the Boston Tea Party rioting. - So don't, do not get it twisted and think that, oh this is some, something that has not, never happened before and then this is so terrible and where are we and these savages and all of that.
	This is how this country was started.
	Imagine, this is the very same people who just a couple of weeks ago were saying peaceable protest out in front of state capitals was effectively trying to murder people.
	Remember that?
	That's the other thing that disappeared and vanished.
	You notice that somehow this virus is a unique virus.
	Just as the virus knew the difference between Walmart and your small mom-and-pop store, it knew that if it was Walmart, not to go in there.
	You could spend as much time as you wanted.
	But if it saw a small mom-and-pop store, oh geez, you had to go right in there and infect everybody right away.
	In the same way, it could draw that distinction.
	Just like it could draw the distinction between certain forms of social get-togethers, but not at a church.
	Somehow, it would infect a church right away, but other forms of organizational activities it would not affect at all.
	In the same capacity, somehow, it knew to attack.
	Protesters if they were protesting for liberty and freedom and being able to exercise core fundamental liberties and rights.
	But somehow if it's a woke protest, if it's rioting and it's looting, it's arson, if it's in the name of fake news narratives like Black Lives Matter, pretending that there's institutional systemic racism that can explain police abuse when in fact police abuse does not have a distinctive racially discriminatory hue as prominent African American scholars from Harvard have already detailed and documented and we went over last evening.
	Somehow, it knows not to infect any of these folks.
	Somehow, all of a sudden, all those concerns.
	Remember all those nurses who are standing in front of protesters to try to shame them?
	I was at a protest here in Austin where two of them, who frankly I doubted whether they actually were nurses.
	I think they were just protesters dressed up in nurse outfits.
	Smart move on their side of the aisle.
	But we're trying to shame everybody for even publicly participating in a protest.
	Now, today, of course, they're out there joining the protesters and praising them and clapping for them.
	This is the kind of mindset and mentality.
	To give another example of the media bias, let's look at the governor of New York's brother on CNN.
	Let's take a look at clip number 14.
	Now, too many see the protests as the problem.
	No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets.
	Persistent and poisonous inequities and injustice.
	And please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
	Actually, that peaceable assembly line comes from the law.
	That's what separates a criminal assembly from a civilly constitutionally protected assembly.
	One of them is a peaceable assembly, the other one is not.
	But yet here you have Chris Cuomo pretending not to know the difference.
	And notice the attempts to blame somehow President Trump for the death of George Floyd.
	Let's remember who's responsible for that.
	It's not just the police officer at the scene.
	The police officer still had his badge, still had his gun, still had his job, thanks to the Democratic Senator from the state of Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar.
	She's the one who covered up his misconduct before.
	She's the one who covered up his record of abuse before.
	She's the one who chose not to prosecute or discipline him before, when she was in prosecutorial power, like, by the way, she did on many cases in Minnesota.
	The NAACP there had long complained about her rogue behavior protecting police abusive conduct, because Democrats as a whole have no problem whatsoever with abusive police conduct.
	Indeed, if you want to track police abuse in the United States, there's about a 90% chance there's going to be a correlation with a Democratic DA and a Democratic mayor, and often a Democratic governor or Democratic attorney general, as is often the case.
	You're not seeing a lot of abuse cases happen in, say, small-town Mississippi or small-town Alabama.
	This ain't the 1960s anymore.
	You're seeing these cases happening in long-run Democratic cities, controlled by Democratic politicians, who need these police abuse incidents to take place to justify a fake narrative that keeps them in political power.
	At some point, you'd think people might wake up and recognize that this is a fake news narrative being propagated.
	But instead, you have these religious-like celebrations where people are getting together In shame and humiliation.
	And that's what Chinese propaganda and communist propaganda was always based on.
	It wasn't based on news or information.
	It didn't even pretend to be the Ministry of Truth like Orwell forecast and foreshadowed in his book 1984.
	Instead, it actually wants you to humiliate.
	It wants to be so ridiculously false and for you to repeat it so religiously that you feel completely shamed and humiliated and submissive to the state or the system as part of it.
	Let's take a look at video clip number 17, seeing people all across the country bow to this shame as if they're in a Game of Thrones show.
	Let's take a look at video clip 17.
	Anti-blackness or violence?
	I will use my voice in the most uplifting way possible.
	And do everything in my power to educate my community.
	I will love my black neighbors the same as my white ones.
	Look at that insanity.
	That looks like something out of a cult.
	That doesn't look like something, that looks like what they imagined was happening in Waco and was happening with Jim Jones back in the 1970s.
	By the way, Jim Jones was founded in a leftist community too, so no surprise there.
	So here's the real headlines going on out there.
	Officer shot in the head from behind during a Las Vegas riot.
	Meanwhile, the media falsely claimed that the violent riots were peaceful, and falsely claimed that tear gas was used to clear Lafayette Square.
	The reality was it was cleared because they were there planning violence, had committed violence the night before, and had the tools of violence available to them again, and were using those means of violence again.
	To give you some example of this, it was actually exposed accidentally by Vice News' recent survey of the riots and recent news story about it.
	And what they showed was that while where the protest was taking place, you have a lot of people that are peaceably protesting, though they're preparing for conflict.
	They have medics there, they have various forms of equipment there that would anticipate that what they're doing is criminal and illegal.
	When you seize a highway, when you seize a public street, when you seize a location you don't have a permit for, when it's after a curfew times, you're breaking the law.
	Now maybe you're doing so because you believe that civil disobedience is necessary.
	So be it.
	But don't pretend you're not violating the law.
	But more importantly, what was interesting is, as we talked about on this show, believing was likely the case, turned out to be on the case on live video footage by Vice.
	And what you have is the protester going here, And along the way, various groups are breaking off and committing specific criminal acts.
	For example, there was eight of them there to break into the Wells Fargo and the ATM machines there.
	And they're happening, and they've timed it so that as the protest gets, say, midway down the street, they break off to go commit the crime.
	And then they kept doing this all the way along, breaking off here, breaking off there, to commit specific forms of looting, various forms of manifest crime.
	This was happening under the guise of protest.
	Now note, the idea that the protest organizers have no clue about this is not legitimate when they've been seeing it happen all across the country now for days.
	Indeed, when Vice interviewed many of the protest organizers, they said they had no problem with the expression of violence because that was necessary for the frustration and fear that they needed to get the world's attention.
	And the best way to do so was if some of these people were violent.
	But it's not just that.
	We have a historical precedent that can show that in fact you can do peaceable protest even in the most difficult context and the most difficult circumstances because that's what both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X managed to do for the better part of a decade.
	Between them they held hundreds of protests.
	Often under the most difficult circumstances, with truly abusive police forces.
	Not a few rogue police officers, but systemic abuse, with them wanting to unleash dogs and water hoses on people.
	And yet, despite all of that, both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X managed to keep their protests peaceable, time and again, time and again.
	Now that's because those protests were rooted in the religious communities of their respective neighborhoods and areas.
	Rooted in the black businesses of their local areas.
	What that meant is anybody knew if they did anything wrong or wayward, they didn't have to worry about the police.
	They were going to have to worry about grandma at church.
	That's who they were going to have to worry about.
	They were going to have to worry about their own local community condemning them for what they did.
	And so consequently, they were able to keep strict control.
	That is why the fact that BLM is not rooted in the black church, and in fact goes out of its way to be distant from it, is not rooted in the black business community, is in fact constantly critical of it, it does not have a lot of civil rights lawyers and policy analysts on its team, because they don't want solutions, they want rhetoric, they want power, power that's achieved through divisiveness, that's achieved through fake news narratives, where you have a problem that can't be solved.
	Why?
	Because the problem isn't a problem in the first place.
	That's why they exist.
	And it's BLM's complicity with Antifa that has let this occur.
	And they've brought in, invited effectively, they're either aiders and abettors or knowing accomplices at some level with these criminal gangs, these groups of criminals that are organizing under the guise of a peaceable protest to use that protest as cover to both infiltrate a community, to infiltrate certain locations, and then while the protest is taking place, hopefully distracting the police, they engage in criminality.
	It wouldn't be surprising if some of the looting and the arson was simply a distraction mechanism so that the criminal gangs could engage in the highest range of theft that has ever gone on in the history of this country in these forms of riots.
	We have not seen anything like this on this size and this scale ever in our history.
	We've had riots, but they've usually been limited to a particular community, to a particular incident, and did not involve mass-scale burglary of targeting of banks, targeting of other institutions, targeting high-end places.
	For example, look at what took place in Southern California.
	In Southern California, the rioting did not occur this time in Watts.
	It didn't occur in that neighborhood at all.
	This is a sign of gang organization being complicit in some of these activities.
	Because there's parts of LA you can't go into if you're not a blood or a crip, if you're not part of the Roland 60s or whatever other local gang is dominant there.
	Depending on which neighborhood you happen to be in.
	They've been influential since the 1950s in Los Angeles.
	They predate the drug war.
	The drug war was just a means of conflict involving them and a means of monetizing their wherewithal and resources at the time.
	Notably, the violence hasn't taken place there.
	Almost no riots are occurring in Watts, which is historically where they've always occurred, in L.A.
	And so instead, they happen in Santa Monica, they happen in West Hollywood, they happen in parts of downtown L.A.
	Why is that?
	Because they were using the protest as the cover to go branch off and commit criminality.
	One group goes off and commits various forms of small-scale looting, arson, breaking windows that draws the attention of the police, particularly the arson wheel.
	And then while that is occurring over there, and while they're having to manage this big The police can't figure out who's who because the rioters are infiltrating the police.
	The protest groups look like them, dress like them, behave like them, until they break off and do their criminality.
	They're able to go off and commit all kinds of crimes under guise of a political pretext of a protest.
	That is what's taking place institutionally.
	You can see it live if you watch the recent Vice News coverage, even though they don't highlight it.
	They just mention, oh look, there's somebody over there robbing Wells Fargo.
	They don't go into details about how coordinated this is.
	Instead, they highlight the police over-response, the police not being able to distinguish who's peaceable, who's not, who's part of a criminal group, who's not.
	This is deliberate on the behalf of the criminal groups who, and at some level, the protest folks.
	Now, you're probably your ordinary protester doesn't know they just got a social media message to come out and went out.
	But the people who are organizing at some level have to have a clue.
	They realize that this has been happening repeatedly, routinely all over the place, and they're doing nothing to prevent it.
	In fact, they're facilitating it by constantly doing protests late at night, past curfew time periods, taking over public streets that just happen to be easily mapped out so that you can not only commit Antifa-style politicized violence, but also mapped out so that you can commit selective forms of criminal robbery and theft.
	Knowing that it leads to extraordinary frustration by the police, who are already underpaid and under attack across the country anyway, for being institutionalized systemic racists.
	By the way, the data shows that white cops are less likely to shoot a black defendant than a white defendant, because they're scared of this kind of political reaction.
	So the idea that systemic racism explains police misconduct when it doesn't, or that police misconduct is the kind of threat to an unarmed, innocent individual that other things are, is simply fake news.
	Indeed, it's useful to go back in that respect to the study, and I'm going to repeat this so people can look at it for themselves.
	The study by Roland Fryer, that's Professor Fryer at Harvard, who, by the way, not long after he did this study, all of a sudden he was subjected to internal attacks.
	You know, like David Mamet's play, Oleana-style attacks.
	All of a sudden there are people complaining about whether he had abusive work conditions or sexual harassment or things like that.
	Probably just a coincidence he suddenly got attacked for that after he just put together an analysis he didn't think he was going to find.
	He believed in the myth.
	He thought, in fact, African-Americans were being deliberately targeted by police like it was the 1950s all over again.
	When does that happen?
	There are instances where it definitely happens.
	It happens because there's some people who are racist.
	It happens because there's some police officers who see black defendants as less able to defend themselves in the court of law or the court of public opinion.
	That's in part.
	So there are examples and instances of racial discrimination.
	But by no means are they the systemic reason for any problem in the country.
	Indeed, that was his whole study.
	He went in thinking that police deliberately targeted African-Americans, were killing them disproportionately in various confrontation contexts with unarmed individuals, and what he found was just the opposite.
	He found no evidence at all from a detailed empirical study of multiple police departments looking at multiple incidents across multiple cities, counties, and states in time periods.
	He found no evidence at all That there was any racially discriminatory motivation behind police killings.
	There was no systemic violation of African American civil rights by police in the form of police confrontations leading to shootings.
	He did find examples of it in lesser forms of confrontation, lesser forms of violence, but not systemically about this whole myth that black lives don't matter because police just love to shoot them in the street.
	It's just a falsehood.
	And that's what the study is.
	It's an expansive study.
	It goes, let's see, the main core of the paper is over 40 papers.
	And by the way, he finishes it by saying, black dignity matters.
	And his point is to make it broader scale to understand what's taking place with honest, objective data, not with misleading information.
	Indeed, the Wall Street Journal again reported what Heather McDonald has reported on, a professor and a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.
	Uh, called the myth of systemic police racism.
	Going into detail how it just doesn't exist.
	Those who have looked at the, at example after example, study after study, remember Obama sent in his Department of Justice to politicize a bunch of police departments, put them under massive scale investigation, and guess what, did you see any major civil rights suits coming out of those?
	No, you didn't.
	You didn't because that isn't in fact what is occurring, that is in fact, is not in fact what's taking place.
	In another article well-written by Heather McDonald called Darkness Falls that you can find in the City Journal, which is a publication of the Manhattan Institute, she talks about the saccharine exhortations to stay safe by the various Democratic mayors and politicians who are now inviting the quote-unquote viral chaos that is infecting major cities across the country with riots after they had originally based on basic myths and false narratives being printed.
	Indeed, she noted the reason why Minneapolis has been a bit of a hotspot is because there's been a dangerous rise in crime in Minneapolis, including the shootings of two-year-olds and the lethal beatings of 75-year-olds.
	That's a context you will not be seeing from the institutional press or the institutional narrative.
	So when we come back, we'll be having a discussion with Ashley St.
	Clair about some of the issues affecting the country and particularly the virus of the media and its fake narratives.
	It's fake news narratives about the pandemic.
	It's fake news narratives about what's happening in police abuse context.
	It's fake news narratives in propagating the BLM's own form of fake civil rights organizing on behalf of people.
	Ask yourself why all these protesters can't seem to name a single policy they want.
	Instead, they say things like, well, we'll give you peace when we get justice.
	Well, explain that.
	Is that it?
	Is this just a rhetorical language?
	Is there anything else behind it?
	Is there anything else beyond it?
	The civil rights movement had specific objectives they wanted in legislative and executive change in the government.
	It wasn't just a mindset change in the court of public opinion.
	It was to affect legislation.
	It was to affect executive branch change.
	It was to affect meaningful economic and political power change.
	That's what Martin Luther King was talking about the night before he died in his famous, I've been to the mountaintop speech.
	Malcolm X had similar objectives, both internal objectives in terms of the African-American community, self-improving, self-empowering.
	We'll play some of those provisions later from various speeches that he gave.
	And also for political organization, for meaningful change in the way that the police operated, in the way that the prosecutors operated, in the way the politicians operated, to effect meaningful protection for both for the African-American community across the country.
	As we laid out last night, there are, in fact, a wide range of policy analysts who have identified ways in which we can limit the risk of police abuse for any American, white, black or otherwise.
	And that includes demilitarization.
	That includes using more mental health, physical health facilities instead of always resorting to the police as a mechanism of resolving any kind of dispute.
	Indeed, if you look at George Floyd's situation, it may be a situation that required mental health facilities because of someone who was experiencing a fentanyl overdose rather than four cops, including one rogue cop who had a history of problematic conduct, who was only on that force thanks to a Democratic senator who wants to be your next president, and the New York Times says should be.
	So when we come back, we'll be talking more with Ashley St. Clair.
	St. Clair about ways in which to defend ourselves, immunize ourselves against this virus that's called the media.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We encourage you to support our sponsor that makes this show possible and many other shows possible, and that's InfoWarsStore.com.
	That's where you can get healthier, wealthier, and wiser all in one clean step.
	By getting products that you like, that are good for your health, that you get them at a discount, cheaper than you could get otherwise, and in the process you're supporting independent information that is only accessible and available to you through platforms like this one, that are not available in the institutional media that have led us to a place where we had a fear panic over a pandemic.
	And now riots, both rooted in fake news narrative spread by the institutional press.
	In particular, there's a product that I use that's called Chill Force, particularly in these times of stress.
	And I don't imagine there has been any time more stressful than the last several months, both under the media barrage that a pandemic was coming to kill us all.
	And now a literal set of riots and looting and arson and criminal assaults where anybody, even an elderly retired African-American officer can be shot down in a pawn store simply so somebody can steal a few goods that, That is where something like Chill Force can be particularly helpful.
	Chill Force is designed to deal with, and to help deal with, stress levels.
	And you can go to the InfoWars store site, you can look at any of the individual products.
	And when you're there, you can also look at what is in those products to inform and educate yourself.
	And in the process, first you can go there, and there you'll find a list of four of the powerful ingredients that are included in it, the most impactful from a health perspective.
	And one of them is ashwagandha, and another one is rhodulia rosea.
	And so there you can look at what it describes, provides all the information, reminds you that this is not an FDA product or anything like that.
	This is not a big pharma product.
	This is a product that you can make your own independent judgment of its value for.
	You can look at those goods and then you can look up those particular ingredients and look them up separately and independently either on Google or DuckDuckGo and see what various forms of medical and scientific literature happen to say.
	In that capacity, if you go to Ashwagandha, you can go to WebMD, you can go to Science Publications.
	I went to WebMD, and you can find all the different components of Ashwagandha.
	Ashwagandha is a plant.
	The root and berry has been used to make medicine for quite some time.
	It is commonly used for stress.
	Indeed, so here's WebMD admitting, acknowledging, and recognizing the value of this essential ingredient that's in chill force.
	The same regard, you can go to Healthline.com and you can get the seven science-backed health benefits of the Rhodelia rosea.
	It goes in, it's an herb that grows in the cold mountainous regions of Europe and Asia.
	Its roots have had benefits to help the body adapt to stress and has been used like that since ancient times.
	It has a wide range.
	It has 140 active ingredients.
	People in Russia and Scandinavia have been using it for a long time to treat things like anxiety and other stress-related matters and that the science agrees that it can decrease stress.
	So that's just one illustration and example of the various products you can find at InfoWarsStore.com.
	You can research them for yourself, study them for yourself, make your own decisions as to their utility and their value to you.
	But in the process, get healthier, wealthier, and wiser, and help support one of the most independent press platforms in the world for independent information that challenges, contests, and questions the gatekeeper's institutional narrative in these days of media-induced panic.
	Up next, we have with us over, I believe, audio is Ashley St.
	Clair.
	Ashley, are you there?
	I am.
	How are you?
	Good, how are you?
	Good!
	You can follow Ashley on Twitter at St.
	Clair Ashley, S-T-C-L-A-I-R, Ashley on Twitter, and follow her elsewhere as well, but that's where a lot of people do for her informative and insightful and occasionally incisive Twitter feed.
	So, in these days of sort of media panic over either the pandemic or the riots, what's your perspective on how the media has handled these two stories?
	Absolutely atrociously.
	I mean, I don't think there's any consistency in anything they're saying because just last week, and that's not an exaggeration, one week ago the media was condemning right-wing protesters for wanting the economy to reopen.
	They're saying we're literally killing their grandmas by being out during a pandemic and now all of a sudden you have the same people out there in solidarity with these protesters and these rioters and these looters.
	And it's so disheartening to see all the media hoaxes coming to light.
	It's like when two hoaxes collide.
	It's just, it's disheartening.
	Have you been surprised?
	Well, I guess first, as of the pandemic, were you surprised at the way the media covered the pandemic in the terms of highlighting fear-based items rather than things that could have been solutions or treatments or information that showed that maybe it wasn't as bad as they were initially saying?
	Oh, absolutely not.
	I mean, they're known to be deceptive.
	One of the videos from, I believe it was, it's a new liberal pack, but they put out a video of Donald Trump saying, I can't breathe.
	And this was from a rally years ago, and they put it next to footage of George Floyd, making it as if Trump was mocking him.
	But this isn't new.
	We see deception from the media in the George Floyd case.
	We see deception from the media in the coronavirus case.
	It's been an issue for a long time, because at this point, they're just an arm of the left-wing government.
	When did you become informed and apprised that the media was an institution you could not trust?
	I think it was, it was years ago.
	I was just starting college and I, that's actually when I became a Republican because there was, there was a lot of other Black Lives Matter issues going on and I was a little bit of a social justice warrior.
	You know, I was engaged in the social, social media outrage and I started doing my own research and realizing That the media was lying.
	I was watching Steven Crowder videos where he laid out all these lies about the police killings and things like that.
	And I think that was when I was like, something really bad is going on here.
	We're being lied to and we're being used as pawns in the media's game.
	And can you explain how easy it is for people to get trapped?
	Like, my own son went to one of the Vegas rallies, despite me advising that it was ill-advised because of the infiltration that was taking place by violent groups.
	He later apologized, but he said he felt obligated to do it.
	Could you describe what the sort of mindset is when you were growing up, when you were part of that movement, why it seems so natural to so many people that are sort of caught up in the fake narratives that are being spread?
	I like to call it social media politics.
	You know, they like to post these snippets and they're always out of contact.
	And people are outraged, rightfully so, because what they're presenting is awful, right?
	These snippets that they present look horrendous.
	But then you do your own research and you realize that's not the truth.
	But I can see why, you know, it was, who was it, Winston Churchill who said, if you're not a Democrat or a liberal in your 20s, you have no heart.
	You're not a conservative when you're older, you have no brain.
	It's just they pull at the emotional heartstrings, especially of the younger generation, to get them on board with these deceptive clips and stories.
	And how much do teachers at both the high school level and the collegiate level reinforce some of these fake narrative structures and even put an intellectual architecture around it that sort of explains it from a questionable manner in terms of an ideological impetus of the left's perspective that America's bad, conservatism bad, cops bad, soldiers bad, etc.
	They have a huge role in that and it's not only just high school, of course it's colleges as well.
	When I was in college, I dealt with that.
	I had liberal professors who I faced bias for being conservative.
	They have a big role.
	There was a substitute teacher in Clark County, Nevada, who was posting things about violent riots, saying that he wants everybody by the end of the summer to be a communist.
	These teachers have incredible influence.
	And for many students, that's one of the only No, I have not.
	they will have in their life, especially in high school and middle school and things like that.
	So they really are doing a great job at indoctrinating people very young and in the education system where these are their only role models for a lot of kids.
	How have things been in?
	Have you been in Las Vegas during this, both the pandemic and during the riots?
	No, I have not.
	There's no casinos open, so there's no reason for me to go to Vegas right now.
	So from where you're at, what have you sort of personally witnessed or seen in terms of both in terms of the pandemic and then in terms of the rioting or looting or protesting that's taken place?
	.
	So I did go to one of the protests here.
	I'm in Colorado and it was peaceful and this was during the day and there were people on stage saying, no violence, no violence, which I thought was awesome.
	But then once, once the night hits, it turns into a totally different thing where there's people.
	I heard one guy behind me saying he just wants to light stuff on fire verbatim.
	That's what he said.
	He just wants to light stuff on fire and the nighttime rolls around and there's people looting.
	There's people destroying things.
	It's just a different atmosphere.
	And it's disheartening because there are a lot of people who really are denouncing this violence.
	And then there's a whole nother crowd.
	The one thing I find fascinating is how many people are really unaware of Antifa and some of the ideology that animates them.
	When did you first become familiar with Antifa?
	I don't know exactly when I became familiar with Antifa.
	It was a few years ago.
	But the mainstream media tells you that they don't exist.
	They're no organized thing.
	But you can look up your city, any city in the United States, and then type Antifa and you will find an organization.
	You will find a group.
	They're very organized.
	It does exist.
	But the media has been gaslighting us and saying that they're not an organized group and that this is just Trump's way of shutting down protesters.
	Do you think the president made the right decision in saying that he's willing to use the National Guard and whatever is necessary to quell the riots?
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	This is a president who believes in law and order.
	And we need to respect law and order.
	Absolutely we should have them come in when they're throwing Molotov cocktails and shooting police officers.
	What happened to David Dorn was awful.
	Awful.
	But nobody's talking about that.
	Can you explain some of the efforts that you and others have made on social media to help raise funds for David Dorn's family?
	Yes, there's actually a, I put it up on my Instagram, there's a link, it was created by Jack Posadek, and it's a fund, a memorial fund for David Dorn and his family.
	You guys can go donate to that, I would suggest checking out Jack's profile or my Instagram story, it's still up there.
	But right now, I think it's over $200,000 just on that fundraiser alone, and I know there's other people doing things, and Rob Smith was in Minneapolis raising money to build up the black businesses that they burned down, and things like that.
	It's sad that all this happened, but it's also really incredible that so many people have pulled together so much money to help out the people who are affected by this awful situation.
	And for your friends that are on the left, how are they interpreting information?
	How many of them perceive this as being an out-of-control looting versus how many of them think the media's narrative that this is just sporadic and that instead Trump's beating up protesters?
	Which narrative are they accepting and how many of them have a balanced perspective?
	A lot of the people on the left that I am friends with are vehemently opposed to the riots.
	I haven't seen many, at least with people I'm friends with, who Wow.
	Let's play one of the video clips that you put up on your Twitter feed and get some of your commentary on it.
	trying to stop people from doing things when they do see it at the protest.
	So overall, in my circle, it's been fairly good.
	But I'm also looking at the Antifa page in my town where they're talking about they want to kill all cops.
	Wow.
	Let's play one of the video clips that you put up on your Twitter feed and get some of your commentary on it.
	Let's play video clip number one.
	What's your response to some of the people that thought you were being disrespectful by being on your phone and not being attentive to them?
	Well, I was on my phone, and yes, that's true.
	I was following developments with a five-year-old little girl sitting on her dad's lap who just got shot in the head by a drive-by shooting.
	And if some of the people here gave a good goddamn about the victimization of people in this community by crime, I take some of their invective more seriously.
	The greatest racial disparity in the city of Milwaukee is getting shot and killed.
	Hello!
	80% of my homicide victims every year are African-American.
	80% of our aggravated assault victims are African-American.
	80% of our shooting victims who survived their shooting are African-American.
	Now they know all about the last three people that have been killed by the Milwaukee Police Department over the course of the last several years.
	There's not one of them can name one of the last three homicide victims we've had in this city.
	Now, there's room for everybody to participate in fixing this police department, and I'm not pretending we're without sin.
	But this community's at risk, alright.
	And it's not because men and women in blue risk their lives protecting it.
	It's at risk because we have large numbers of high-capacity, quality firearms in the hands of remorseless criminals who don't care who they shoot.
	Now, I'm leaving here to go to that scene.
	And I take it personally, okay?
	We're going up there and there's a bunch of cops processing a scene of a dead kid.
	And they're the ones that are going to be out there patrolling and stopping suspects, and they have guns under the front seat.
	They're the ones that are going to take the risks of their lives to try to clean this thing up.
	Alright?
	We're responsible for the things we get wrong and we take action.
	We've arrested cops, we've fired cops, and so on.
	But, the fact is that the people out here, some of them, who had the most to say, are absolutely M.I.A.
	when it comes to the true threats facing this community, and it gets a little tiresome, and when you start getting yelled at for reading the updates of the kid that got shot, yeah, you take it personal.
	Okay?
	Now, no offense, but I'm going up there now.
	You shared that on Twitter.
	Can you explain what was impactful to you about his statement?
	I think it was mostly that you could see the frustration from him because he's honestly trying to do a good job.
	They're trying to protect their communities and he's getting these stupid questions about why he's on his phone when all they're trying to do is protect their communities and do their job.
	They're putting their lives on the line every day to protect our communities and they're all being categorized as racist pig.
	And so I think it Not only that, it also brought to light something that isn't talked about.
	Why don't black lives matter every other day of the year when they're getting gunned down in the streets in Chicago?
	Why do black lives not matter then?
	Why is it only when a white cop shoots a black person, or in the case of George Floyd, something like that, why does it only matter then?
	Oh, exactly.
	I mean, I think it exposes both the media hypocrisy and some of the fake aspects of groups like BLM not promoting universally civil rights for everybody, including for protection of African Americans from criminal gangs within their own community.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So now, how much do you think people in your generation have an appreciation for police?
	In other words, for a lot of people I know in the younger generation, their perception of the police is shaped by rap music.
	Their perception of police is they don't know people that are in the police, they don't have family or friends that are in the police, and their perception is as these sort of automatons that are abusive and just waiting to beat up on some innocent kid.
	Well, how much do they have an appreciation for what cops do on a day-to-day basis, and what your ordinary policeman is trying to do?
	I don't think they have much appreciation at all.
	I think, you know, the media has done a great job at painting cops as just these people who gun down unarmed black men in the street.
	That's what they've done, and it's so dishonest.
	They've made it like if you are black and you ever run in with a cop, it is a death sentence in America, which is just not true.
	Just not sure.
	There was only 235 black people killed by cops last year.
	Only 9 of them were unarmed.
	Precisely.
	And do you find when your friends on the left are having a discussion or debate, how much does that information ever even get discussed?
	Like, I'm struck by the complete lack of both even a policy conversation or any data behind anything.
	When they're even interviewing people on the street, they have almost no detailed information to give beyond just a generic rhetorical mantra and an assumption of a simplified narrative.
	How much do they get into these discussions, or how much of it is just kept at an emotional, rhetorical level?
	It is all kept at an emotional level when I have these discussions, especially with friends on the left.
	And I'm not sure if you saw the Instagram blackout Tuesday, where everyone posted those stupid little black boxes.
	But I got into an argument with two of my friends over this because, you know, they were like, well, why won't you post it?
	Why do you have a problem with people posting it?
	And I said, because you guys don't do anything any other day of the year.
	You guys actually have no idea what you're talking about.
	You guys have no idea about the actual issues facing the black community.
	And you're posting this little black box and thinking your activism is done.
	These people, it's all virtue signaling.
	That's all it is.
	The, and how much do you think virtue signaling, it seems that, I mean, to a certain degree, we've always had it.
	We go back to the Victorian age.
	There's always been various forms and kinds of virtue signaling to get social prestige within a local community, to align yourself with a particular cause in the name of improving some distant group that you're not particularly connected to.
	That's often, it has like missionary type zeal to it.
	Save the people in Africa, but don't save the people next door.
	That kind of mindset or mentality.
	How much of that virtue signaling culture has consumed the sort of younger generation?
	I think it's consumed astronomically.
	And I think part of it too is the cancel culture aspect that is in virtue signaling now.
	So if you don't post that black box, you're canceled.
	If you post something saying that you don't agree with the black box, you're canceled.
	And so it's this thing.
	So people are so scared of losing their social media status or what other people think of them.
	And we live in this world now where social media is everything.
	So it's these kids who want acceptance.
	Everyone wants acceptance, but it's caving to the outrage mob, I believe, from what I've seen.
	So social media, how much has growing up inundated with this technology, where we live in literally almost a digital world, where social media equals social acceptance, and that's what people strive for, how much has that also shaped a lot of the mindset and mentality in accepting viral clicks as truth without further investigation and so forth, particularly for the younger generation?
	Social media has been such a big contributor to the post-truth world that we're living in because nothing's true anymore, right?
	You see something on social media, you need to do your research before you click that retweet button because you have no idea what's actually going on.
	But the problem is so many people accept this as facts.
	Going back to that video, the doctored video of the clip of Trump, that had 5 million views.
	5 million people saw that and think that Trump was mocking the death of George Floyd.
	It's awful.
	We don't even know what's true anymore.
	Nobody wants to find it, is the real problem.
	And it sounds like if somebody does try to go outside of that box, they face social shaming and censorship campaigns in the ultimate form of cancel culture.
	Can you explain cancel culture for the audience?
	Cancel culture is a rot.
	It is destroying everything that we know.
	You cannot post true.
	If you post something true, but it's not politically correct, You're cancelled.
	And I wish I knew how we got to the point where we lived in a world where saying something that was true got you ostracized from society.
	Because it used to be that was the main goal, right?
	We want to find truth.
	We love science and this and that.
	But if you post that now, you're cancelled.
	I was banned for saying there was two genders.
	Banned.
	For 72 hours for saying there was two genders.
	Right, right.
	So that's been your personal experience with it.
	Can you talk about what it sounds like, to a certain degree, for a lot of people, they increasingly prefer acceptance over truth.
	And that often acceptance means rejection of truth.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And did you see that sort of evolve?
	Like to me, all of this seemed to happen kind of suddenly, but to be truthful, I wasn't immersed within it for the past 10 years for the most part.
	When did you, did this sort of evolve slowly or did it just emerge suddenly?
	I think there was a shift around like the 2015, 2014, 2015 era.
	You know, at the end of Obama's last term and nearing towards Trump, it was, They, I think they took the gloves off, right?
	They're like, we're going to do whatever we need to do to advance this political agenda.
	And they started this social media rhetoric truth war.
	And there were just, we had never seen anything like it.
	We had never seen censorship like that.
	We had never seen so much deceptive media like that before.
	Just saturated with it.
	So I think it was around there that we had the shift because the Democrats realized their hold was getting looser.
	And the problem is Democrats are much more willing to play dirty than we are.
	And how much of a threat do you think the social media shaming, the social media censorship will have on the 2020 election?
	You know, I would have said a very big effect until Trump just took action.
	I believe it was last week.
	And I'm not sure exactly what he plans on doing, but it is steps towards making sure that these social media platforms don't censor people based on political ideologies.
	And I'm hoping moving forward that he continues to do that.
	Otherwise, it's going to be a very uphill battle.
	Do you think Trump will win in 2020?
	Is the last question.
	I sure hope so, you know.
	And the thing is, everyone wants to make fun of Biden and say he's just senile and this and that.
	But the fact of the matter is, it's still going to be a very close race, and everybody listening, or anybody who reads my stuff, needs to get out and register people to vote.
	We have to be doing things.
	You know, memes are only so helpful.
	But we have to get out on the streets.
	We have to mobilize.
	Or we might not win 2020.
	And for people who want to follow you, can you give out the links where people can follow you, either on Twitter or other places on social media?
	Twitter is at St.
	Clair Ashley, and then my Instagram is at RealAshleyStClair.
	Perfect.
	Thank you, Ashley.
	Glad you could be with us.
	Thank you, Robert.
	No doubt we live in a sort of interesting times in an interesting era where some generations have been brought up, tutored under the tutelage of fake news narratives by the institutional media, enabled and assisted by the gatekeepers on the big tech world operating as an Orwellian big brother.
	When we come back, we'll discuss some of those issues and more, as well as increasing research about the source of this virus.
	Not only the Chai-Com virus affecting the media, but the Chai-Com virus affecting us day to day.
	British are coming.
	The British are coming.
	You are about to be marching on the race today.
	A warm, warm, warm, warm, warm.
	America first.
	And hot.
	What's your country?
	talking about big tech google today faces a buy five billion dollar lawsuit in the united states because they were actually tracking that private anonymous use that They told you to put Google in a particular browser and it wouldn't be tracking you anymore.
	Well, it turned out they were tracking you anyway.
	In fact, they are particularly going to attract you.
	I've told people in the past that if you see something mass marketed as anonymous technology or protected technology, and it's from a company in any form, it's not from, it's not open source.
	Signal, for example, is open source.
	If you want to know an inside secret, Signal is the best protected mechanism of communicating by text in the world today.
	Why?
	Because Signal does not keep any centralized database of your text.
	Everybody else does.
	People think that, oh, if I just erase it on my phone and the person who sends it to me erased it, then it doesn't exist.
	No, it still exists at some tech company or in the NSA's folders up in D.C.
	On the other hand, Signal does not keep a centralized mechanism of communication.
	It's an open source app.
	It doesn't make money.
	It's not a private company.
	And so consequently, if you and the person who sent it to you delete the text and message, that text no longer exists.
	It vanishes.
	You can also actually set your text to disappear automatically with Signal.
	So Signal is one of the most secure methods of communication.
	I won't tell you who Precisely introduced me to me, but let's just say it was someone at a high-ranking government position whose job was to protect national security and confidential secrets And he told me he would only communicate to me about a legal matter over signal So that was how I got introduced to signal and recognized hmm probably works pretty well Definitely much better than what anything else anybody else thinks is anonymous and protected Well, Google was telling people they had a private mechanism of communication.
	They were lying to them, monetizing their personal information.
	And by the way, that goes to another matter.
	Often you'll hear the pitch made that these big tech companies are providing a service free of charge to you, so you should just be thrilled.
	That's not true.
	What you're giving them is your private information in exchange for the access to their technology.
	Secondly, you're the one providing the content.
	You're the content creator.
	Nobody goes to watch a television if there's nothing on it.
	Nobody says, oh, what interesting static that is.
	No, people go to the television to see what interesting content is on there.
	The content creator gives it its value.
	The television has a value as a means of that content reaching creator to audience, but it is the least economically impactful component of it.
	For these big tech engines, they need you to create the content for which they give you no money at all, and they need you to give them your private information for which they pay you nothing at all.
	Indeed, part of the arguments for blockchain technology is that blockchain would allow you to get the benefit and value of your information by it always being put within a blockchain that could monetize at different stages.
	That's why blockchain is associated with music royalties in particular, is because it's a way to have an almost perfect ledger that better accounts for the value of your contribution.
	Your personal information is worth huge amounts of money, as well as the content that you create.
	It's going to vary by individual, but it can be very valuable.
	Someone like Alex Jones created literally billions of dollars of value for social media giants.
	How did he do that?
	One, by creating content that was provided over the platform that an audience wanted to see.
	Secondly, by providing information about himself and his programs and networking that they could utilize for algorithmic purposes.
	Third, by bringing in the audience that would in turn create its own content and share it.
	It has an exponential kind of effect.
	And once it has that, then you realize what value Big Tech contributes.
	So Big Tech's role has been to get for free your personal private information and monetize it.
	Indeed, the joke is that if you like 10 things on Facebook, Facebook knows you as well as a casual friend.
	If you like 20 things on Facebook, Facebook knows you as well as a family member.
	If you like 50 things on Facebook, Facebook knows you as well as your spouse.
	And if you've liked a hundred things on Facebook, Facebook knows you better than your spouse.
	That's the nature of what they're doing.
	That's why they invite you to like things, invite you to share things.
	They invite not only content creation, but the monetization of your private information.
	And for that, you have given a lot of economic value.
	You are, in fact, their entire economic value.
	So the idea somehow that they're giving you something for free is utter gibberish and nonsense, and that's why they're facing a $5 billion lawsuit today for what they did and lying to people in general.
	Indeed, they lied to people across the board.
	That was part of both Attorney General Barr and President Trump's point in the executive order that was issued.
	They induced the entire world to give them their private information and content creation for free on the pretext that they would always protect freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and protect you, the audience's right, to determine what you wanted to see, what you wanted to hear, what you wanted to read.
	They broke that promise.
	They've decided to often unilaterally, arbitrarily, and with political bias, and with viewpoint bias discrimination, not in a viewpoint neutral manner, decide to deny people access to their services.
	Often doing so overnight.
	For example, you even have Amazon taking movies that you had downloaded that you had paid for, like the movie Hoaxed, Out of your library so you can't even watch a movie that you paid for.
	In the same manner, of course, Facebook and Instagram have said that if you even say the name Alex Jones, and apparently they're too bad for all the other Alex Joneses out there, if you even say his name, then you could face a kind of ban like you're out of the Harry Potter books and you're Valdemort, saying Alex Jones's name could get you banned by itself.
	If you simply distribute or share his content, From ban that video, you could somehow be yourself banned or censored.
	This was after they promised, hey, please come and monetize our big tech engine with your content and your private information.
	Because don't worry, we'll never censor it.
	Don't worry, we'll never suppress it.
	Don't worry, we'll manipulate our algorithms so that people can't find it.
	Like shadow banning on Twitter or in other places in Facebook.
	For example, ever since I've started this show, Facebook has suddenly found ways to minimize people who used to always get my information, now suddenly don't.
	About 90% of them.
	Twitter extended me the same favor after I sued them.
	I sued them on the same basis that the President and Attorney General Barr announced.
	We ultimately reached a settlement resolution in that case, but Twitter thanked me the same way the IRS has thanked me after I've won cases against them.
	So it's the nature of the beast and the nature of the animal, but what's critical as a part of that is they lied to get their power.
	They lied to get money.
	They lied to get your participation.
	They monetized it and they continue to monetize it.
	It's unjust enrichment under the laws of equity.
	And it was a violation of fair trade practices under various consumer protection laws.
	That's why the most impactful part of what the President's order was is the part that says the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorney Generals can work with the U.S.
	Attorney General to start to bring massive actions like big tobacco style against all the big tech big brother giants and punish them for their lies to the public.
	Because they lied to everybody.
	They got the benefit of it.
	They haven't returned the benefit of it.
	Instead, they've kept the monopolistic profits it entitled them to.
	And consequently, they need to return those or revert back to being the free speech wing of the free speech party, as Jack Dorsey promised when he launched Twitter.
	In that same capacity, we have more big tech manipulation.
	As Snapchat announced, they will no longer promote the president's account.
	The President's account on Snapchat or on Discover.
	Amazing!
	I mean, imagine that.
	Here you have a major big tech apparatus saying they will suppress the President of the United States from sharing information.
	That's how nuts these organizations, institutions, and entities have got.
	They not only as big tech believes their big brother, they believe they're beyond the power of even the government itself to discipline their rogue behaviors, political manipulations, and machinations that are going on across the country.
	Meanwhile, one of the stories that the press tried to suppress was the information from New York State about the cumulative incidence and diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, which is called SARS-CoV-2.
	As they dug into the details, it turns out that the lethality rate may be actually around the rate of a severe flu.
	We won't see that headline in the New York Times, though the New York Times did also have to admit that in fact that the studies and surveys that said hydroxychloroquine were somehow magically bad for you overnight, something that's been around for 70 plus years and has been recommended for a wide range of treatment including malarial drug treatment, suddenly was bad for you and suddenly not only couldn't help COVID but was maybe going to kill you too.
	It turned out that the basis of that study was entirely problematic.
	As scientists started asking questions, they started to reveal that it was an unscientific study and survey.
	That, in fact, it was not predicated in good science once again.
	In the same capacity, we have a complete reversal on masks.
	Remember how just a couple of weeks ago, masks were now going to be mandatory?
	Well, given Antifa's use of masks to commit Klan-like violence, the old Klan-like anti-mask rules are now coming back into force and into question, as Portland has to consider an anti-mask law because they can't handle all their Antifa violence.
	And this goes back, there was a person I represented who was a journalist, laughing at liberals and other social media sites that he had, and he simply defended himself.
	Once he was physically attacked, he wasn't armed, got beat up, and he decided he wasn't going to let that happen again.
	And so he got training, he got self-defense training, got proper weapons training, armed himself, and the next time they were all gathering, they were gathering around to physically assault him again.
	He's a little guy, he won't be mad about me telling you that.
	Not a big guy.
	He's not some, you know, he's not Alex Jones.
	He's nobody that's spent a lot of time in a weight room.
	And so he realizes all these big guys are going to come attack him.
	So what he did is what he was trained to do, which was to pull out his gun, show them to the people, say, I'm armed, I'm armed, and then put it away.
	Guess who got charged?
	Here was a little guy, a journalist, member of the free press, being subject to a physical onslaught and attack by a group of people that have a history, a criminal history, groups of people that have a history of attacking him for ideological purposes.
	And what do the police do?
	Instead of protecting him and defending him, they arrest him.
	And in fact, he ended up going through really what was a show trial by the judge.
	The courts of appeals have not listened to the case.
	We're taking it up to the Oregon Supreme Court.
	But that was the mindset and mentality of the political class, was to green light Antifa, was to let them do what they did, was to protect them and punish anyone who defended themselves against them.
	Ask yourself, how is it that only the Proud Boys in New York City got targeted and prosecuted for what took place there?
	Here you see the video of what took place with the journals.
	Here he's backing away.
	Pointing the gun at him.
	That's it.
	He wasn't someone trying to confront them.
	He didn't initiate it.
	He didn't instigate it.
	He was surrounded by people who were trying to hurt him.
	He's backing away, shows it to them, then puts it away.
	He doesn't want them to beat him up again.
	And what did the local police do?
	What did the local prosecutor do?
	What did the local judges do?
	They covered up for the Antifa.
	They covered up for the criminals.
	They covered up for the crooks.
	They covered up for the thugs.
	Instead, they put him at risk.
	And instead, they charged him with a crime.
	They gave him a criminal record.
	They couldn't even pick a fair jury because of how bad the press had been in the case.
	The judge had no interest in giving him a fair trial and didn't.
	And the Court of Appeals allowed bad legal rulings to stay upheld because of the politics of it.
	So when we see the violence that's happening in Antifa, the judges of the Court of Appeals can thank themselves for it.
	The judges in the courts in Oregon can thank themselves for it.
	The prosecutor can thank himself for it.
	The local mayor can thank himself for it.
	The local police can thank themselves for it.
	Now the reason why they're finally, finally turning around to, golly gee, maybe we shouldn't let the tiger of Antifa loose.
	As Sam Adams said, if you're going to ride the tiger of revolution, you better be real careful that the tiger doesn't eat you.
	Well that's exactly what Antifa is and has been doing.
	And because they've glorified them, because they've glamorized them, because they've romanticized them, that's why we're here.
	Because the political and police institutions Green lit this behavior because the media covered these riots the way they did, pretending they weren't really riots, or saying that maybe they were just exercising their frustration and anger and it was necessary for the public to be heard.
	As you heard Cuomo justify, violent rallies good.
	Don Lemon justify, hey this is just the Boston Tea Party.
	No it ain't.
	These aren't people protesting illegal taxes.
	These aren't people doing so by throwing tea over the board.
	These are people who want to have a violent revolution.
	And if you want to compare it to that aspect of the Boston Tea Revolution, then what we need is the Insurrection Act and vote.
	Despite the Secretary of Defense's comments today that he didn't want it invoked, it's a good hesitation to have.
	But the President may need to invoke it to suppress what even Don Lemon is calling an insurrection and justifying it and glamorizing it as.
	To give you an example, this goes back.
	Remember the last time we had politicized riots in this country?
	After the Freddie Gray related incidents where again the media pushed a false fake news narrative about what really took place there.
	There's reasons to question the police the police's behavior without a doubt in that case but it wasn't anywhere near as egregious as the press led us to believe.
	Let's take a look at clip number 19 and hear what the mayor says towards the end.
	Doesn't she say we wanted to give them a safe space to destroy?
	I'll just start off by saying As far as the police response, the police has done, I think, one question and answer this evening and will continue to make themselves available for updates on our public safety response.
	This is about our call for peace in the city.
	So we'll be taking questions about that.
	Any questions?
	Very great thing.
	It could have been done with different reporting.
	Had to head off some of the stuff that was happening down close to the inner harbor and 20 yards this evening.
	Did you have a sense that they might try to go that way?
	Well, we've had these types of conversations before.
	And I've made it very clear that I worked with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech.
	It's a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.
	Did you hear that?
	We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.
	Safe space for criminal violence, according to the mayor of Baltimore.
	That is what, in fact, has been the de facto policy of the city of Portland now for years.
	You could just look at Andy Ngo, who was a reporter who was beaten up simply for reporting on them.
	That is the nature of who they are, that is the nature of what they are.
	They are people with a specific ideology who believe insurrection is necessary, the revolutionary opportunity and moment to produce the political outcome and objective that they seek.
	And yet the left has saw them as a useful army of the left that they could employ to their benefit to create fake political news narratives and to create chaos that they could in turn have people like President Obama come out today and say that this is about the long history of slavery and racism.
	You know, I'd almost forgot who was president eight years ago.
	For eight years.
	Maybe I didn't realize it was Barack Obama.
	Maybe he doesn't realize that he was in the presidency.
	Maybe he's suffering from some of Joe Biden's senility.
	But here he was, blaming old institutions for things that have nothing to do with it.
	Did bank redlining really cause the anarchists to try to break in and burglarize a bunch of places, loot a bunch of places, and set a bunch of places on fire?
	Is that why Antifa's doing it?
	Because they're still mad about that redlining that happened in 1935?
	Something tells me they don't even know what redlining is.
	But yet, that is what Barack Obama was trying to tell the world as he was pushed and his message propagated throughout the institutional establishment.
	Their goal being, see, when Obama's here, everything's calm and cool and under control.
	And with Trump, everything's crazy and chaotic.
	Not like the riots didn't happen in 2012, 13, 14, 15, right under President Obama.
	That was in part what led to a lot of his discrediting within large parts of the American community was the recognition that his election did not achieve any difference in terms of what was happening in violence in the African-American community and in cities across the country.
	The BLM narrative got spread under and with the facilitation of Barack Obama, who even compared Trayvion Martin to being as if it was his own son.
	Only if his own son was a local bully who wanted to grab a guy by the head and bash him on the concrete and was then shocked that he was shot in self-defense.
	If that's Barack Obama's son, it's a rather unusual kind of son to be saying you would have.
	It would say a little bit about your own parenting in that context.
	But that was the nature of the fake news narrative that Obama tried to share and spread and he's out propagating again today.
	In that same capacity, and in that same context, let's take a look at what really happened over the last couple of days, including last night.
	Let's take a look at clip number four.
	That's right, actually using, somehow they stole construction equipment so that they could break into a store.
	And of course they have time to film it all, because this group of geniuses loves to film themselves committing crime.
	We'll get to one of those geniuses in a second.
	But I'm sure what they were really thinking about here was, man, the institution of slavery made me do this.
	Man, redlining.
	Redlining in the 1930s was really bad.
	That's why I gotta use the construction equipment to break into the store.
	Let's take a look at video clip number five and the joys that New York City got to experience last night.
	These are down main streets of the main part of Manhattan.
	They feel like attacking a cop?
	They attack a cop.
	They attack two cops.
	They attack three cops.
	No fear and worry at all.
	Now why are they having no fear here?
	Because they know these cops are terrified to pull their gun.
	That's why.
	They know if any one of these cops pulls the gun, then it's going to be political news all across the country.
	CBS will say, shocking, police officers shoot poor unarmed individual in the street for no reason who is trying to peaceably protest in the middle of the street late at night after the curfew while randomly breaking into random things.
	So we actually had cops down, cops hurt, cops injured.
	That happened all across the country.
	You saw the former police officer was shot and killed.
	The marshal that was shot was also African American a couple of nights ago in Oakland.
	Let's take a look at another clip to show you how sophisticated some of these criminal operations are.
	You have people pulling up in high-end vehicles outside high-end stores doing sophisticated robberies.
	There's some criminal gangs that are clearly involved in these activities, piggybacking off of the protests.
	Maybe the protests actually in bed with them or in cahoots with them at some level.
	That would be the logic when they keep doing it after they know what's going to occur anyway.
	Let's take a look at video clip number six from some thefts in Soho last night.
	Here they go.
	They pull up.
	One's in a Range Rover.
	Other's a nice Jeep.
	And they got a sophisticated operation to loot what they like out of a high-end Soho store.
	Well, someone across the street is filming it for you.
	By the way, those COVID masks sure come in handy, don't they?
	It's okay to be a criminal now because you got a COVID mask on.
	Nobody even second guesses if you're walking down the street masked.
	Perfect opportunity to commit crime.
	You almost wonder if the mandatory mask laws, when you combine them with politicians deliberately releasing criminals in the name of COVID, while creating the environment of locking people up in for two months or three months, whether they created the perfect atmosphere for this exactly to occur.
	But maybe that's just coincidental.
	In the same context, let's take a look at a looter who decided to brag to the world of all the merchandise he'd got to stole.
	Let's take a look at clip number eight.
	You fuck around and you hit L.A.
	with all the other retards.
	And you come up on... Jesus Christ!
	Fuck!
	Don't be dirtyin' my clothes, fool!
	I'm gonna hold a table full of this shit, cuz.
	Yes indeed.
	So that genius along with some other ones who have been bragging on social media have in fact been caught because of their bragging on social media.
	As Earl Long once said, never in writing and always in cash.
	Those are a couple of good principles criminals should remember in the future.
	But in that there has been some pushback.
	But you notice the sort of mindset and mentality and attitude of some of the media support.
	The media support is sort of like these guys that were promoting them in the left's support.
	So like these guys promoting while they're doing a game, a game of beer pong, promoting the writers walking by.
	And let's see how the writers think them.
	They're saying, hey, we're on your side.
	We're filming it.
	Let's take a look at a sort of a meme version of it done by our friend Carpe Donctum.
	Video clip number 10.
	We're on your side.
	We're on your side.
	Holy shit.
	We're on your side.
	Indeed, there's a couple of geniuses.
	That's basically the left.
	The left is like, hey, we can unleash these rioters, these assaulters, these looters, these arsonists, these anarcho-communists.
	That's their self-described ideological mantra.
	And it won't ever backfire on us.
	It won't ever cause any difficulties for us.
	It won't ever lead to them throwing rocks in our windows.
	It won't ever lead to them trying to steal from our stores.
	It won't ever lead to them trying to rob our vehicles.
	And yet, of course, that's what happened.
	In fact, while you've had some people trying to continue to do peaceable protesting amongst this group, when they have faced these folks, they have tried to face them down, but have often suffered violent consequences from the behavior of the dangerous crowd.
	Let's take a look at clip number 13.
	It's freeway and there's nobody at the checkout.
	But this nigga just pulled a gun out on not just me, but five other black females.
	And y'all sitting up here really pretending like y'all did this shit all with black lives.
	A black man who looks like me, who should be out there protecting me, just pulled a gun out on me and five other sisters.
	So y'all tell me, keep lying to yourself, talking about this was about black lives.
	Just pull the gun out on me because I'm out here trying to clean up.
	To clean up what's mine.
	Y'all so pro-black that y'all anti-black.
	Ain't nobody gonna say nothing about that, right?
	That's what I worry about.
	When the police came here, they ain't pull out no gun on me, but my brother did.
	Indeed, but something tells me CNN and MSNBC aren't going to have her on anytime soon.
	Chris Hayes isn't going to be doing a front page, front story feature of her.
	The New York Times isn't going to do a front page piece on her.
	The Washington Post isn't going to do a front page piece on her.
	She's only going to be heard in certain parts of social media.
	She will be shut out and suppressed from the institutional narrative that doesn't want to talk about that.
	That is something that the institutional press cannot afford to have spread.
	They must allow its viral disease to continue its infection across the American political bloodstream.
	Meanwhile, more and more protesters have pushed back.
	Let's take a look at clip number 11, where a protester fought back against someone trying to loot.
	Stand up, please not.
	All right.
	So there what you had was a protester taking out a looter because he didn't like the way the looter was shining a bad light on the issues that mattered most to him.
	That was someone who was cognizant of the reality of what was taking place.
	Yet the leaders of these protests knew this would happen and did it anyway.
	They undermine their own cause and objective, which brings into question what their real motives are.
	But in the same context, more and more African Americans have spoke out against this behavior, against this dangerous, precarious behavior, against this disenfranchising behavior, against this disqualifying behavior of looting and rioting and arson and criminal behavior, often targeting the African community itself.
	Let's take a look at video clip number two, where a storekeeper also scolds the various looters and riotous activists.
	The problem that bothers me, you says Black Lives Matter.
	I worked here, hard time.
	Plus, I'm a part owner of this store.
	You said Black Lives Matter!
	Why don't you choke me?
	I'm black!
	Look what you did to my store!
	Look!
	Look what you did to my store!
	Look!
	Look at the things you've done!
	Look!
	- Look at the things you've done.
	- Look at the things you've done. - Good things for Black Lives Matter.
	- We've been here all night cleaning up.
	All night cleaning.
	- And you got black people standing right here with them.
	- Tell me.
	- That's right. - Black Lives Matter.
	- Exactly.
	You lied.
	You wanted to looter the store.
	You needed money.
	Get a job like I do.
	Stop stealing.
	This is the neighborhood.
	We're trying to build it up and you're tearing it down.
	I'm sure Seth Rogen and the other Hollywood types will have her up for a GoFundMe real soon.
	Just as they have for all the looters and the criminals and the gangs and the rioters and the arsonists and the assaulters.
	For the Antifa types and the fake BLM activists.
	Those they'll easily and quickly both fund the lawyers for.
	Many lawyers are offering pro bono services to that criminal class.
	In the same capacity, many of them will have offered GoFundMe accounts and massive donations in the millions of dollars, like Christy Teigen and others, to protect them.
	But what about her?
	What about the real black lives that need to matter?
	Those are the ones being ignored by the fake BLM civil rights group that is not about civil rights or black lives at all.
	When we come back, we'll talk about that issue and the pandemic politics and more about whether the virus may have come from we'll talk about that issue and the pandemic politics and more about Welcome back.
	If you are planning on doing the protest in West Hollywood today, Lindsey Horvath and others had some advice that I originally thought maybe was a Babylon Bee or The Onion parody.
	But in fact, apparently it's the actual guidelines for this protest in West Hollywood.
	Which, by the way, is not a predominantly African-American neighborhood.
	But apparently there were guidelines for white people showing up at a black-led and people-of-color-led protest.
	Whenever I see the people of color reference, I think of the Doonesbury comic, where he goes back and forth about, you use people of color one way and you use it another way, it's completely politically incorrect, another way somehow is politically correct, which still makes no sense to me.
	But here's the advice.
	This is a black issue.
	The call needs to be, black lives matter.
	Notice here you have to have these mantras built in your head in advance.
	Not all lives matter.
	Imagine a world, if you would have said ten years ago, you're going to have to go to a rally and whatever you say, don't say that everyone's life matters.
	You can't say that.
	At a civil rights rally, you can't say that everyone's life matters.
	Extraordinary.
	The next one is, sometimes the best way to ensure that all lives matter is to give black people room to own a space.
	Whatever that means.
	Then up next, the protest from our position.
	For example, don't join in the chant, whose streets?
	Our streets!
	Because those streets are not our streets.
	Apparently there's somebody else's streets now.
	Apparently only black people's streets, according to the advice to how to do a West Hollywood protest.
	Other advice about how to do a West Hollywood civil rights protest?
	Carry signs and participate in chants that challenge white supremacy.
	No, it's all about public humiliation campaigns.
	This is the way the Communists operated.
	Much of their propaganda was like that Game of Thrones scene, where the Queen has to walk through and they all chant, shame, shame, shame.
	That basically these are shame charts, shame protests, shame marches.
	They're not really protest marches.
	They're shame marches.
	Go out and say white person bad, white person bad.
	Define yourself by color.
	Define yourself by race.
	Don't define yourself by your humanity or your individuality.
	Don't define yourself the way Martin Luther King said to do so.
	Instead, call in and collect white folks.
	I don't even know call-in-collect.
	I don't even know this is some sort of phrase, but call-in-collect white folks who are causing harm.
	And then let's see what else we got.
	We have meet level of escalation with police.
	So in other words, if police escalate, you escalate?
	That seems to be what the suggestion is, what the official position is of this protest.
	No wonder criminal violence is occurring.
	It says do not start chants yourself and do not grab the mic.
	That reminds me of the Bernie Sanders protest where he let other people come up and grab his mic.
	You've never seen anybody grab Donald Trump's mic, have you?
	Yet that's supposed to be what's supposed to happen.
	Ronald Reagan got famous for saying, this is my microphone in the 1980 debate in New Hampshire.
	Now we're in a place where you say, I'm sorry, I'm not supposed to have the mic, you're supposed to have the mic.
	These people are serious.
	Why don't they move to South Central and let the folks in South Central move into their homes?
	Have their cars, have their lives.
	I'd actually respect that.
	That's an actual transfer of power.
	This is just a shame chant, a shame march to make it look like you're doing something when you're doing nothing but engaging in public self-humiliation for a religious mantra of a politically correct cause.
	It goes on, be mindful that the action is being organized and led by black-led organizations.
	Follow the leadership of the organizers.
	Isn't that great?
	An independent civil rights movement that's follow the leader.
	Follow the leader.
	Interesting.
	In other words, you must talk to the leader first.
	You must talk to the prefect first.
	This is like a cult logic.
	This isn't the logic of a civil rights group.
	That's why BLM is more like a cult than it is a civil rights organization.
	It's a fake civil rights organization that's undermining civil rights in this country, as I personally and professionally experienced in my own cases.
	But in that same context, the news the media is not talking about in this whole time frame is the virus.
	How Iceland beat the virus.
	New Yorkers now willing to talk about it while nobody's paying any attention because of the other news.
	And the mainstream press is not covering it.
	But as they note, Iceland never imposed a lockdown.
	Hardly anyone ever wore a mask.
	And yet in all of Iceland, they virtually eliminated COVID-19.
	That's what the article details and demonstrates, that in fact this shutdown was just more political theater, more political stage playing for the powers that be.
	A live Milgram experiment to see how much control they could have over you.
	Much like these protests are experiments in social control and public shame, not meaningful change.
	In the same context, a new science article referenced by Brett Weinstein.
	He's from the left.
	He was the famous professor at Evergreen College, who wouldn't engage in the identity politics, and so he ended up being subject to all kinds of attacks.
	His brother is Eric Weinstein, who works for Peter Thiel, who helped brainstorm the idea of the gated institutional narrative.
	He, too, is on the political left, but recognizes the risk to free thought, free ideas.
	It's happening in the suppression of information.
	By the institutionalized media, which he also sees as one of the greatest threats to the freedom of ideas, the freedom of expression, and the progression of the human society and the American society as well.
	Also, if you go back, Bret Weinstein did great scientific work documenting potential problems of cancer research involving mice and find out how he got blacklisted and blackballed related to that independent investigation.
	Well, this article in Independent Science News that Brett Weinstein flashed says the case is building that COVID-19 had a lab origin.
	Indeed, they note that while most of the ancestor-like bat coronaviruses, there's one first and foremost problem, which is most of them cannot infect humans.
	They note they require an intermediate species.
	They go on further to note, The problem with the Wuhan being the center of where the virus occurred, because that happens to be the global epicenter of that coronavirus research by various biolab agencies.
	Remember they're called, it's biosafety, so they call it BS level 1, BS level 2, BS level 3, BS level 4.
	The top BS level is the most dangerous.
	These people do have an iconic, ironic sense of humor of course.
	But they noted that in fact the risk of a release from such a lab is as high as 70% as Frances Boyle documented and detailed on our show.
	They go into the history of how it is much more likely that the source of the virus was in fact the lab.
	There was a documentary that actually voiced these concerns from the inception.
	Let's turn to that now.
	A report from the journal Science published online challenged that story.
	The report cited a paper in the Lancet, one of the world's top medical journals, and questioned whether Wuhan's novel coronavirus pneumonia could not have originated at the market.
	The paper titled, Clinical Features of Patients Infected with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus in Wuhan, China, was published in The Lancet on January 24.
	The first author of the paper is Huang Xiaolin, Deputy Director of Jinyintan Hospital, the first designated hospital for treatment of unknown pneumonia in Wuhan.
	Why would this come as a challenge to the official narrative?
	I think this journal article is very important.
	It reveals a lot of important information.
	For example, this paper talks about the first patient onset was actually on December 1st.
	These patients were not related to the Huanan seafood market.
	And also no epidemiological association was found between the first patient and subsequent patient.
	And then also on this paper I talk about on December 10th, there were three more onset cases, two of which were not related to Huanan Sifu.
	A total of 41 patients were counted in this paper, and 14 of them proved to be unrelated to the seafood market, accounting for more than one-third.
	No one sells a bet at the seafood market, too.
	And the official from CDC didn't mention they find any bets in the seafood market, too.
	On January 29th, The Lancet republished an analysis of 99 confirmed cases at Jinyintan Hospital, of which 50 had no history of exposure to the seafood market.
	According to the New England Journal, of the 425 cases confirmed, 45 cases onset before January 1st had no history of exposure to the seafood market.
	Notably, the authors of the two Lancet papers in the New England Journal of Medicine are doctors and medical experts in mainland China.
	Daniel Lucey, an epidemiologist at the University of Georgetown, said in response to the Lancet paper that if the data were accurate, the first case would have been infected by the virus already in November 2019.
	Because of the incubation period between infection and symptoms.
	This would mean that the virus was quietly spreading between people in some parts of Wuhan before the cluster of cases with a history of exposure.
	The Huanan seafood market began on December 15.
	On January 10th, China disclosed the full genome sequence of the Wuhan novel coronavirus.
	And many of the world's top virologists began analyzing it.
	As early as January 7th, an academic, Zhang Yongzhen, from the National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, along with the School of Public Health of Fudan University, submitted a joint paper to Nature.
	The paper was published on February 3rd, and pointed out that the Wuhan coronavirus is closely related to COV-ZC45, And COVZXC21, two viruses sampled from bats in Zhushan by the People's Liberation Army.
	The Wuhan coronavirus has an 89.1% nucleotide similarity to the COV ZC45 virus and even exhibits 100% amino acid similarity in the NSP7 and E proteins.
	Shortly after the paper was published, other scientists used BLAST, a program developed by the National Institute of Health and the National Center for Biotechnology Information to compare the viral sequence based on the data submitted by Chinese authorities on January 12th.
	The results matched with Zhang's findings.
	Another scientist, Lu Raojian from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and their team also published a paper in the Lancet on January 30.
	The paper stated that the Wuhan virus has an 88% similarity to two bat-derived SARS-like coronaviruses collected in Zhoushan, Zhejiang province of China.
	The earliest discovery of this bat-derived virus is by an expert from the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command.
	A paper published in 2018 states that scientists from this institute detected many SARS-like coronaviruses in bats from Zhoushan City, also known as bat-like coronavirus, Zhaoshan virus.
	In short, scientists found the Wuhan coronavirus, the current pandemic, is highly similar to a fat, SARS-like coronavirus previously discovered by the Nanjing Military Research Institute, showing 100% amino acid similarity in NSP7 and envelope protein, the E protein.
	What does this high similarity reveal?
	It's hard to see proteins 100% identical when the virus jumps species.
	And so that was suggesting maybe the virus could be generated with reverse engineer process.
	I certainly believe that the 100% amino acid similarity says it can't possibly be a natural mutation.
	On January 21st, researchers from the Institute Pasteur, Shanghai, Chinese Academy of Sciences, published a paper in Science China Life Sciences that mentioned an important phenomenon. published a paper in Science China Life Sciences that mentioned The sequence of a key part of S-protein of Wuhan virus has high homology with the SARS virus.
	What are S-proteins?
	In the well-known coronavirus picture, they are little mushrooms attached to the surface of the virus.
	These S-proteins, also known as spine proteins or spike proteins, are the most important tool for the coronavirus to invade human cells.
	If we compare the receptor ACE2 on the cell surface of human bodies to a lock, this S-protein is the key, which can unlock this lock on the cell surface and then invade into the cell to propagate and destroy it.
	That means virus now can infect human cells much easier.
	That's probably also one of the important reasons contributing to myofascial organ failure when people have a very severe disease.
	They can spread out in the human body much faster.
	Research into the virus genome sequence revealed many essential data points.
	According to a February 28th report in the South China Morning Post, the Shanghai P3 Laboratory, which first shared the Wuhan coronavirus genome with the world, was ordered to close by authorities, impeding further research on the virus.
	Professor Zhang Yangzhen and his team, who published the genome sequence on January 11th, worked at this laboratory.
	According to a February 26th report on Chaixin, Zhang Yongzhen's team isolated and completed the genome sequence of the previously unknown virus on January 5th.
	On the same day, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center reported the discovery to the National Health Commission and recommended prevention measures.
	No response was received as of January 11th.
	And it was then that the team decided to publicize the virus genome sequence on Virological.org, becoming the first team to do so in the world.
	Chai Shin also reported that the Hubei Health Committee already notified genome sequencing organizations on January 1st.
	Regarding the cessation of analysis of Wuhan virus samples, Existing virus samples must be destroyed.
	Information on the samples, related to papers and related data, are all prohibited from release.
	On January 3rd, China's National Health Commission distributed Notification Letter 2020 No.
	3, in which a similar directive was presented.
	Afterwards, the once active Chinese scientific community suddenly fell into an eerie silence.
	What was the Chinese Communist Party trying to hide?
	It's telling us the Chinese government is censoring this information.
	They do not allow the samples to be sequenced or do not allow the sequence to be published or submitted to the Chin Bank.
	Through investigating the genome sequence, I found it significant that the S-protein of the Wuhan coronavirus was critical in its cross-species ability to infect humans.
	While I was searching for related studies online, one Chinese virologist in particular caught my attention.
	She spent many years researching bats and coronaviruses.
	She was the first to locate the key to how coronaviruses can overcome cross-species barriers in order to directly infect human bodies.
	And she was the first to discover that the SARS virus was the result of a restructuring of multiple SARS-like coronaviruses found in bats.
	Her name is Shi Zhengli, and she may be an important link to the origin of the virus.
	Wikipedia describes Shi Zhengli as a, quote, Chinese virologist and researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
	Further investigations show that Shi Zhengli has been a figure of controversy since the Wuhan virus outbreak.
	This is due to a paper she published in 2015 discussing her own research into synthetic viruses.
	Caixin, a media company with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, interviewed Shi Zhengli in an attempt to refute these rumors.
	Dr. Zhengli, she's one of the top experts in China studying about coronavirus in Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	She has so many publications from collecting, identifying bad coronavirus from bad cases.
	Her lab has these capacities.
	and very sophisticated capacity to generate mutations to make it best fit in human expression as well. - Delving further into related information, I discovered that Shi Zhengli published not one, but four papers in total, each of which contains important information.
	Since the SARS outbreak in 2003, Shi Zhengli has been conducting research on coronaviruses.
	From 2010 onward, the focus of Shi and her team was redirected to identifying the capacity for coronavirus transmission across species.
	Specifically putting the spotlight on the S-protein of the coronaviruses.
	In other words, her team's research in the Wuhan lab has been looking into the part that can make coronaviruses transmittable to humans.
	In June 2010, a team including Shi Zhengli published a paper.
	It describes research to understand the susceptibility of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, ACE2 proteins of different bat species to the S-protein of the SARS virus.
	In the experiments, they also modified key amino acid condoms to mutate the bat's ACE2 to examine compatibility with the SARS-S protein.
	This paper demonstrated their awareness of the special relationship between the S protein and the ACE2 receptor.
	It also signified that she had unearthed the passageway for coronaviruses into human bodies.
	In October 2013, she and her team published a paper in the authoritative science journal Nature.
	They claimed a breakthrough in coronavirus research.
	What was their breakthrough?
	They successfully isolated three viruses from bats, one of which had an S-protein that integrated with human ACE2 receptors.
	This effectively demonstrated the human infection of SARS-like viruses to humans without the need of an intermediary host.
	Then, in November 2015, she and her team at the Wuhan Lab once again published a paper, this time in the British journal Nature Medicine.
	They discussed the creation of a synthetic virus, a self-replicating chimeric virus.
	This virus had the SARS virus as the framework, with the key S protein replaced by the one they had found in a bat coronavirus she mentioned in her 2013 paper.
	This new virus demonstrated a powerful ability for cross-species infection.
	The mice infected with this synthetic virus revealed severe lung damage with no cure.
	This symbolized that Xi's successful splicing of the SARS virus was a key to open the door to cross-species transmission.
	What is startling is that these successful experiments on mice were only the tip of the iceberg.
	They planned to further experiment on primates.
	Although she generally did not indicate any conclusion from this research, her move to research on primates suggests this was to more closely simulate the infection of humans with this new synthetic virus.
	This wasn't done without controversy, however.
	Xi's experiments quickly triggered widespread debates from the academic community.
	Simon Wayne Hobson of the Pasteur Institute in France expressed deep concerns.
	He told Nature, if the new virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory.
	The funding pause included Xi Jinli's research project, genetic engineering of SARS-like coronavirus in bats.
	A collaborative effort with Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist at the University of North Carolina.
	Second, after the Wuhan outbreak, Indian researchers compared the S-protein sequence between 2019 NCOV and SARS.
	They discovered that 2019 NCOV had four new sequences inserted, all of which can be found in HIV sequences through a search on GenBank.
	Shi Zhengli discredited those observations, although she never denied the existence of the four inserted sequences.
	However, scientists probing GenBank found that there were only three viruses containing all sequences.
	The first is the HIV virus itself.
	The second is a bat coronavirus discovered by Xi.
	And the third is this new Wuhan coronavirus.
	What is the HIV's GP-41?
	The answer I found online describes GP-41 as a protein of HIV that acts as the key to infecting human bodies.
	Resulting in the functional failure of the immune system.
	If the discovery by Judy and her colleagues are established, it would mean the infectious part of the Wuhan virus, the S protein, incorporated the sequence of the HIV key protein.
	This made me think of the immunodeficiency symptoms in people infected They were doing research on a human transmittable coronavirus that was actually published in a paper.
	So this is research that they actually published.
	They were working on developing a coronavirus for the human host.
	Which, you know, leads you to question, why would you be creating a coronavirus that can infect humans?
	What would be the purpose of that research?
	Is it for a weapon?
	Is it so that you can then create a vaccine that you are the sole recipient of the profits from?
	The Chinese have full access to our databases.
	They have full access to all that research that comes out.
	They have full access to all our universities that train their scientists.
	And they have full access to our scientists.
	Indeed.
	No doubt the Tchaikoms infected us with more than their potentially created manufactured virus.
	They infected our media with a propaganda style and modus operandi that now wishes to infect us with diseased ideas about ourselves and our world.
	But when two kids finally got out from the lockdown to finally get to meet up with one another, they reminded us who America really is.
	Let's finish with this clip, clip number 7.

▲