Ezra Levant argues extending hate crime laws to scientists like Anthony Fauci—who face scrutiny over NIH’s $10M Wuhan gain-of-function research funding—is a political power play, not scientific rigor. He contrasts Dr. Peter Hotez’s calls for suppression with legitimate congressional inquiries (e.g., Senator Ron Johnson’s vaccine roundtable) and My Son Hunter, a crowdfunded film exposing Hunter Biden’s alleged ties to Chinese oligarchs, Ukrainian entities, and Moscow’s mayor’s wife, set to bypass platform censorship. Levant questions whether critics like Aaron O’Toole truly differ from establishment figures on carbon taxes, open borders, or lockdowns, warning that performative victimhood risks stifling debate under the guise of protecting experts. [Automatically generated summary]
An academic journal is calling for it to be a hate crime to criticize Anthony Fauci.
I'll take you through it.
I'll read lengthy excerpts of it and I'll show you what a real scientist sounds like.
I'll introduce you to Dr. Richard Feynman, who I think was a brilliant physicist, Nobel Prize winner, worked on the Manhattan Project, and I'll tell you what he defines science as.
Very simple definition.
And I think we've gotten away from that.
That's on today's show.
I wish you had a video subscription.
We call it Rebel News Plus because you could see all these things I'm going to show you, including Richard Feynman himself, who's a new hero of mine.
It's just eight bucks a month to become a video subscriber.
We call it Rebel News Plus.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get my show every day, plus shows from Sheila Gunner, David Menzies, and Andrew Chapados.
And the eight bucks a month, it doesn't sound like a lot when you compare it to, say, I don't know, Netflix, but it sure means a lot to us because that's how we pay our bills.
We don't take any of that Trudeau money.
So please consider getting a Rebel News Plus subscription.
Actually, even if you don't want to watch the video side of these podcasts, we sure could use the help.
Thanks.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, should it be a hate crime to criticize Teresa Tam or Anthony Fauci?
If It Disagrees With Experiment00:03:44
One academic thinks so.
It's August 4th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why I publish them?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
You know, one of the greatest scientists of the modern era, a Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman, born in 1918, he worked on the Manhattan Project when he was in his 20s.
Here's his ID badge for Los Alamos.
He was 23.
Can you believe it?
After the war, he became a great popularizer of science.
He once said, and listen to this carefully: science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
But hang on, wasn't he an expert?
What on earth did he mean?
I think he meant science is an approach, an activity, a process, a way of thinking, a way of testing.
It's not an end in itself.
It's a means to an end, the end being the truth.
The scientific method is to come up with a guess, call it a hypothesis, and then run an experiment to test it against the truth.
Here he is making that point himself.
Now, I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law.
In general, we look for a new law by the following process.
First, we guess it.
Then we come.
Well, don't laugh.
That's the really true.
Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, we see what it would imply.
And then we compare those computation results to nature.
Or we say compare to experiment or experience.
Compare it directly with observation to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.
And that simple statement is the key to science.
It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is.
It doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.
That's all there is to it.
Do you see Feynman's point?
If you believe that we already know everything, or if you believe that the experts are infallible, you wouldn't challenge existing knowledge.
wouldn't test it or dispute it.
So when you hold up a man, a flawed sinner like we all are, and say this man is science, that's not right.
That's not science.
Maybe that's a religion.
Maybe more likely it's a superstition or a cult even.
But take a listen to Anthony Fauci saying he is science.
It's very dangerous, Chuck, because a lot of what you're seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.
Because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science.
Yeah, he absolutely loves it.
He's a narcissist of the first order.
He's a media hound.
I really don't know how Fauci does any work at all.
All he does is go on TV.
He's a pundit.
But if you challenge him, if you believe he's ignorant, well, you will be told he is science.
No, big guy, you are not science.
You are a politician who seeks to remove himself from scrutiny or criticism by invoking science, as a pope might invoke infallibility.
Now, that works for believers in a religion, but science is sort of the opposite of religion in many ways.
Mask Misconceptions00:14:56
Certainly when we make it a practical thing like dealing with a virus, imagine this man saying that criticizing him is tantamount to criticizing science itself, to criticizing reason itself.
People should not be walking around with masks.
Let me just state for the record that masks are not theater.
Wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better.
Masks are protective, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.
There has not been any indication that putting a mask on and wearing a mask for a considerable period of time has any deleterious effects.
There are unintended consequences.
People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
And can you get some schmutz sort of staying inside there?
Of course.
You do not need to wear a mask indoors if, in fact, you've been vaccinated.
Good that you're vaccinated, but in a situation where you have people indoors, particularly crowded, you should wear a mask.
So even if you are vaccinated, you should wear a mask.
And if in fact you are vaccinated, fully vaccinated, you are protected and you do not need to wear a mask, outdoors or indoors.
When the children go out into the community, you want them to continue to wear masks.
You know, if you look at children outside, particularly when they're with the family walking down the street, playing a game or what have you, don't have to wear a mask.
The pediatric, the Academy of Pediatric, actually makes that recommendation that children should be wearing masks from two years old onward.
And you're asking now, if your child is a member of your household, can you walk outdoors with your child without a mask?
According to that chart, the answer is yes.
But the child can't, not to beat it to death.
Yes, yes.
Because now the CDC says, I mean, I think I've got this right.
One mask is better than zero masks.
Two masks is better than one mask.
But you don't have to have double masks.
Is that right?
I mean, you know, it became clear that cloth coverings that you didn't have to buy in a store, that you could make yourself, were adequate.
And then you want it to fit better.
So one of the ways you could do it if you would like to is put a cloth mask over, which actually here and here and here, where you could get leakage in is much better contained.
Are you a double masker, Dr. Fauci?
It looks like you are.
Yeah, no, you're not the Pope and you're not much of a scientist, but I would like to hear more about how he funded China's biological warfare research.
He doesn't dispute that he funded them.
He just disputes that it was illegal.
Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?
Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress, and I do not retract that statement.
This paper that you are referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function.
What was take an animal virus and you increase its transmibility to humans?
Right.
You're saying that's not gain of function?
Yeah, that is correct.
And Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly.
And I want to say that officially.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Okay, you get one person.
Let's read from the NIH.
This is your definition that you guys wrote.
It says that scientific research that increases the transmissibility among animals is gain of function.
They took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increased their transmissibility to humans.
How you can say that is not gain of function?
It is not.
It's a dance and you're dancing around this because you're trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic.
Hey, I would like to hear more about Fauci from Fauci on that.
But I'm with Feynman.
It's a form of Socrates, the philosopher, when he said that true wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing.
When Feynman says, challenge the experts, imagine the hubris and saying that you know everything.
That's not just the view of Fauci, though.
It's the view of the entire public health establishment throughout this entire pandemic.
And it's absolutely laughable given how absurd their statements are.
If you think Fauci is bad, get a load of all these little mini-me Fauci's around the world.
Here's three chief public health officers from different Australian states.
Just listen to them purely making it up.
No talking.
No being friends.
Don't touch a soccer ball.
Just inventing things.
But how dare you challenge them?
Think about whether you need to do online shopping this week, Star Trek.
Think about whether you need to do online shopping this week.
Do you need those people out in the community delivering packages and things?
Maybe just leave them for a week and click and collect.
Do you really need that furniture that I know you can go and click and collect, which is safer, absolutely, than going into the store?
We're looking at the seating at the moment and of course we're looking at the ball because sometimes the ball has, well not that I've been to many football games, I have noticed occasionally it does get kicked into the crowd and we are working through the details of what that will mean.
If you are at Adelaide Oval and the ball comes towards you, my advice to you is to duck and just do not touch that ball.
We leave our house that anyone with us, anyone we come into contact with, could convey the virus.
So whilst it is in human nature to engage in conversation with others, to be friendly, unfortunately, this is not the time to do that.
So even if you run into your next door neighbour in the shopping centre, in the Kohl's while you're at Colesboys or Aldi or any other grocery shop, don't start up a conversation.
Yeah, no, can I get a bit of that Feynman truth again?
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
You betcha.
Or I might say it's the belief that experts can be wrong and that a true expert would like to know he's wrong, actually, and would actually invite criticism.
It's hard to admit you're wrong.
As Shakespeare said in Much Ado About Nothing, happy are they that hear their detractions and can put them to mending.
He said it as a joke.
People hate being proved wrong.
But if you're strong enough and self-confident enough and noble enough, you can bear it and maybe even improve by it.
But not if you love being on TV too much, if you love power too much, and say if you, I don't know, work for a billion-dollar drug company that wants to keep things going just the way they are right now.
But look at this story.
Look at this.
Scientific journal papers suggest making it a federal hate crime to criticize Fauci.
That's a story in the national pulse.
I'll read.
A scientific journal article authored by Professor Peter Hotez, a frequent guest on corporate media networks, called to, quote, extend federal hate crime protections for scientists facing criticism from alleged far-right extremists, according to national institutions, including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci.
Now, it's true, I couldn't believe it, but I looked up the original scholarly paper.
I wonder what Dr. Feynman, if he were still around, would say about all these journals that are just politics dressed up as science.
Mounting anti-science aggression in the United States.
Oh, wow.
There is a troubling new expansion of anti-science aggression in the United States.
It's arising from far-right extremism, including some elected members of the U.S. Congress and conservative news outlets that target prominent biological scientists fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
Well, is that a scientific term, far-right extremism?
I wonder how many genders scientist Peter Hotez thinks there are.
I wonder if he believes in science or in politics.
I'm kidding, I already know.
And by the way, I can tell you as many people on the left oppose this new science-y corporate lockdown cult as people on the right do.
Just ask Naomi Wolf or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
A band of ultra-conservative members of the U.S. Congress and other public officials with far-right leanings are waging organized and seemingly well-coordinated attacks against prominent U.S. biological scientists.
In parallel, conservative news outlets repeatedly and purposefully promote disinformation designed to portray key American scientists as enemies.
Okay, so we know if he thinks there are ultra-conservative members of Congress.
We know if that's what he thinks we know where he's positioned himself.
He's on the far left himself.
He posits a conspiracy theory that there's some sort of coordination to this, like some master control switch or something, because it's impossible for this scientistian to believe that people would naturally and on their own possibly be critical of the biggest civil liberties attack in our history.
I love that one line, purposely promote disinformation.
Again, he just cannot believe that anyone would truly disagree with him.
So they must knowingly be lying, not actually expressing an alternative point of view.
I don't think he's very science-y.
I don't think he follows Feynman's rule.
And then he plays the victim, which is unusual for a scientistian.
As a consequence, many of us receive threats via email and on social media, while some are stalked at home to create an unprecedented culture of anti-science intimidation.
Now, I've had a few death threats in my life that were real enough and scary enough that I believed they were a risk.
And I know what I did.
I called the police.
And in one case, the police called me to tell me about it.
And I know what I didn't do.
I didn't write a long academic paper about it and publish it to the world in some sort of pity party.
That's just not how it really is if you're really scared.
As opposed to just being a crybully, a thin-skinned dish-it-out but can't take a critic.
This isn't science.
This is punditry.
But here's what this guy considered to be a hate crime.
In June, the Republicans organized a House Select Subcommittee on the Origins of COVID-19 with the presumption that it was ignited by gain-of-function genetic engineering research from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Despite evidence pointing to spillover from a viral infection in bats to additional mammals and ultimately humans accounting for previous coronavirus epidemics, the hearings took on a sinister tone, pointing fingers at virologists both in the U.S. and China.
Got it.
So there was a sinister tone.
Yeah, I think so, given that we're talking about funding biological warfare research in China.
I'd call that sinister.
A disease that has killed millions and destroyed our free way of life.
Yeah, these are sinister issues.
But you see, he's trying to shut down that scientific process of inquiry that Feynman talked about.
Have a hypothesis and test it.
He does not want his hypothesis tested.
Alongside the June Republican COVID-19 origins hearing, Senator Ron Johnson organized a roundtable in Milwaukee to highlight the rare adverse side effects from COVID-19 vaccines.
Okay, so help me out.
Is it science-y to talk about side effects, or does science say we can't talk about it?
Is this guy saying side effects don't happen or that you can only talk about them in a certain way or only the right people can talk about it?
And shouldn't this whole thing here be in a private diary as opposed to an academic paper?
During a June 2021 interview with the staunchly conservative Florida governor, a Fox News anchor referred to me as infamous and notorious.
Infamous and notorious.
Those are adjectives, they're criticisms.
But illegal hate crimes?
Hey, hey, buddy, you just called the people you hate a bunch of names, but they can't call you names back.
Is that science?
Is that what this is about in a scientific journal?
The America first element of the far right focuses on nativism, anti-immigration, and a foreign policy built around strong military buildup and deterrence and confrontation with China.
I thought we were talking about a virus.
You're talking about Trump now and foreign policy?
He goes on to talk about Hitler and Yair Bolsonaro of Brazil.
Frankly, it was a roller coaster of emotions.
I really felt like I was reading a personal diary and I shouldn't be learning so much about his feelings.
He was just over-sharing.
But then this scientist came up with his advice, which you can't criticize because then you're criticizing science itself, you see.
We should look at expanded protection mechanisms for scientists currently targeted by far-right extremism in the United States.
Representative Paul Tonko has introduced a bill known as the Scientific Integrity Act of 2021 to protect U.S. government scientists from political interference.
But this needs to be extended for scientists at private research universities and institutes.
Still another possibility is to extend federal hate crime protections.
Got it.
Are you sure that this is all science to protect you from criticism?
Isn't criticism an essential part of science?
Isn't it, in fact, the basis of all science, as Feynman said?
The process of doubting everything, everyone, especially the experts.
He makes one last mention of the Holocaust.
As Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor L.A. Wiesel once pointed out, neutrality or silence favors the oppressor.
We must take steps to protect our scientists and take swift and positive action to counter the growing wave of far-right anti-science aggression.
Not taking action is a tacit endorsement and a guarantee that the integrity and productivity of science in the United States will be eroded or lose ground.
Now, I'm not sure if any violence has been done to any scientist in America.
And obviously, I'm against violence.
But of all the people I've mentioned here, the only one who was brutally attacked was Republican Senator Rand Paul.
Stranger Than Fiction00:04:02
Fauci's critic was attacked.
He was attacked and had his ribs broken, serious injuries by a left-wing Trump hater.
Anti-science aggression.
You know, I think the anti-science aggression is coming from this snowflake who wants to shut up everyone who disagrees with him.
It's a laugh.
It's embarrassing.
It's a joke.
It's not science.
But you know what?
He's actually getting his way.
Stay with us for more.
I cannot
wait.
That is so exciting.
And the thing is, it is stranger than fiction.
If someone were to say that the son of the president has dirty deals with the former mayor of Moscow, with Ukrainian natural gas companies, with Chinese oligarchs in the Communist Party, someone would say, no, no one would believe it.
Come on, you have to be more nuanced.
And then if you said a newspaper, one of the oldest in America, the New York Post, tried to talk about this in the election and they were censored, people would say, no, that's too on the nose.
That's not going to happen.
And there was a hard drive with not only photos and emails, but videos of Hunter smoking crack with prostitutes.
No, that's impossible.
This is a story stranger than fiction, and yet it is barely told.
It is muffled when people try to tell it.
But luckily, Hollywood's dissident filmmaker, Phelan McIlier, is on the case, and you know that he will tell the story that others won't.
What a pleasure to have producer Phelm with us today.
Phelim, we've talked about My Son Hunter before when you were just starting it.
Looks like you've had some great success so far crowdfunding it, but you're not quite done.
Tell us how you've been doing.
Yeah, well, we've hit a million, we're at $1,50,000 now, I think.
We still have to get another $750,000.
But people have been amazing.
I think we've got 10,000 small donations.
Many of them, we always notice a boom after we come on your show, Ezra, because funny enough, Canadians care about the truth.
I think they've seen the truth being suppressed so much in their own country that they recognize this when they see it.
So, no, we've had great success.
This movie is going to happen.
We're going to be filming in Serbia, which will double as the Ukraine.
We're going to start filming in mid-October.
So it's going to be great.
It's going to happen.
And, you know, we've got lots of great news happening as well.
Well, I just heard that you've signed on a big name director.
And that's the thing.
Anyone can make sort of a homemade movie.
But to tap into the kind of actual Hollywood A-listers, I'm talking about celebrities that everyone knows by sight.
So Robert Davi, who's got to be in more than 100 movies, like and very famous movies.
I mean, Die Hard, obviously, a Christmas favorite.
Robert Davi signed on as a director.
That's a guy, that is a serious Hollywood player.
I'm impressed that he's got the courage to be an outsider in a town that's like 95% Democrat.
Yeah, well, there are courageous people out there.
Yeah, Robert, he's been in everything from the Goonies to the Expendables to Die Hard.
He's directed his own movies also.
I mean, to be honest, I told him this yesterday.
Robert's Exciting Role00:12:01
I said, I almost didn't send him, make him an offer because I thought he wouldn't be interested.
I thought that's how, you know, how Hollywood he was.
But this would be something that he wouldn't be interested in.
Boy, he grabbed it.
It's one of the quickest yeses in Hollywood.
He's really excited by the project.
He wants to tell the truth.
He thinks this story, he says this story is bigger than Watergate.
You have the president dealing with China.
You have the president getting money from deals with the Ukraine.
You have the president getting 10% from deals with the mayor of Moscow's wife.
And the media don't want to touch this.
So he wants to tell it.
But, you know, obviously, you know, he's from Hollywood and I'm from Ireland.
So we know all about addictions.
So we're not going to be making fun of Hunter's addictions.
Okay, a little bit.
But, you know, it's not about his addictions.
It's why this person got these deals at that time.
And it was because of the Biden name and it was because of the influence that Joe Biden could bring to the table.
And boy, did he bring influence to the table.
Yeah.
Well, that's the thing.
And I really appreciate that point.
I mean, we can make a lot of fun of him for being a drug addict and smoking crack, especially given that his dad, Joe Biden, took such a hard line against drug dealers.
But listen, it's a problem.
You could call it a health issue, whatever you want to call it.
But that's not the reason people are mad at Hunter Biden.
They're mad even to this day.
He does these childish artworks and he sells them for half a million bucks to secret buyers.
That's another way of saying money laundering.
If a Chinese buyer gave a half a million dollar to Hunter as a gift, people would say you're bribing him.
But to buy some art for half a million dollars, that's legalized.
That's money laundering.
Yeah, of course.
I mean, and Hunter was on a podcast at the weekend saying, and it was an arts podcast, and the art elitists were saying, oh, no, that's ridiculous.
Nobody ever, nobody ever uses art for money laundering.
That's not just the way it works.
And I'm going, have you seen the New York Times a few weeks ago wrote a long piece about how drug dealers, police are raiding houses, finding drugs, cash, and Picasso's on the wall because it's a really great way of spending money and getting a very valuable small thing that's easy to store.
And it doesn't have to be registered.
Unlike a luxury car, there's no registration book.
There's no papers.
Unlike a house, there's no real estate transactions.
So it's the favorite way of laundering money.
So that's why we're making My Son Hunter the movie is to expose this madness.
I mean, and by the way, the White House is saying, oh, Hunter's decided not to know who buys his paintings.
Well, okay, he won't know who buys his paintings.
That doesn't stop the new owner going on Facebook and saying, look, I just bought this Hunter for $500,000.
But, you know, so it's stupid.
Yeah.
The website is mysonhunter.com.
Last time we spoke, Philam, I asked you who you were considering for the lead role.
And you mentioned one guy who I admire, Lawrence Fawkes, comes from an acting family.
He's in the UK.
Now, I remember he was running for mayor.
He didn't win.
Are you at liberty to say if you filled the position of Hunter?
That would be a hell of a role.
We are very close to filling that role.
Have not signed a dotted line.
And until you sign the dotted line, you know, in Hollywood, they say, you know, until the money's in the bank, don't announce it because there's a lot of slips.
So that's where we are at the moment.
We're very close to one particular person that I can't say at the moment.
And they've asked us not to say until we've signed the dotted line.
But we have some very, very, very interesting casting announcements coming up.
And, you know, it's going to be a lot of fun making this movie because telling the truth is fun.
Telling the truth is liberating.
And people have been real, and there's a real appetite for it.
That's why people have been going to our website and giving money.
10,000 people giving small donations.
And many of them, your listeners and your viewers.
I think I gave $100 last time, Your Honor.
I'm going to do that again today because I want this told.
And you know, I want to tell you exactly why I'm doing it.
I mean, I'm a fan of yours, Phelan.
I have been for a long time.
But when I saw how Twitter, the social media giant, censored the New York Post for trying to even report the news, I was so angry.
So I'm going to donate $100 to your film.
And it's in the name of fighting against the censors.
And I looked forward to how you tell this story.
Now, let me ask you this.
You got a fair-sized budget.
You got some big names as a director.
And I can hardly wait to hear who plays that starring role.
How will people be able to see the final product?
Do you expect to get it picked up by, would they even consider it at a Netflix or something like that or Amazon Prime?
How can someone watch this thing when it's done?
Well, they should.
They should pick it up.
I mean, they spent $40 million on a mini-series called The Comey Rule, which was actually about a hoax, was about the Russia hoax.
Based on a document written by a drunken former MI5 agent or MI6 or whatever, or MI whatever you want to call it agent, you know, based on drunken tittle-tattle.
And they had a mini-series with all the Hollywoods great and good for $40 million.
So, you know, they should pick this up because this is an actual story.
This is about real deals done in real countries with real people involving, and Hunter says we're cutting the big guy in for 10%.
And his business partner said the big guy was Joe Biden.
So they should pick it up.
They probably won't.
We're going to distribute it free on the internet.
Free, put it on YouTube.
If YouTube ticket down, we're going to then set up our own server and put it out for free so that people can see it for free.
Yeah.
Well, listen, I've learned so much from you, not just about the content of your movies.
I mean, Frack Nation really taught me about fracking and it set me on, you know, my own course of study on that subject.
You know, you've just done some amazing work.
I'll always remember that film.
And even how you crowdfund, you gave us at Rebel News the confidence that we could actually build a company through as long as we kept our promises to our donors.
That's the key.
And I want to say this.
I mean, folks know you because we've had you on probably 10 times over the years, you or your colleagues.
And the only way it works in the crowdfunding business, and I can say this having built a company on it, is if you keep your promises.
And you, Phelan, have kept your promises, whether it's the Gosnell movie or Frack Nation or Mind Your Own Business, which was even before that.
And so that's why I feel comfortable chipping in $100 because I know you're going to do it.
And I know it's going to be Hollywood quality.
So I'm really excited.
I'm always glad when you call me because I know that you've got something that our viewers are really going to like.
So I'm going to go to mysonhunter.com.
It's $100, but if enough people chip in $100, we'll get there, Phelum.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
No, no, listen.
You know, if a thousand people give a hundred bucks, it's an amazing, you know, we're filming in Serbia.
Things are cheap, but they're not that cheap.
But $100,000, you know, $200,000 goes a long way there.
And, you know, we need your help.
It's a marathon, not a sprint to get to that crowdfunding total.
You know that too.
You just got to keep asking.
But you're right.
You've got to deliver.
Funny.
There's so many, you know, let's be honest, so many conservative groupings that get funding and then don't deliver.
And they really let down the rest of us.
And I hope we over deliver.
I think we over deliver.
We always want to do, we don't want to make a conservative movie.
We want to make a great movie.
Yeah.
Well, I think you have.
And we really like what you do.
And the fact that you have the courage to be a rebel, if I can use that word, in Hollywood, I know how the peer pressure is, the marginalization.
They try to push you out.
You refuse to leave.
And you run circles around them for 1% of the budget.
The 40 million bucks they ran on that propaganda movie, the Comey story.
I mean, if you had 1% of that, the work you could do.
Great to see you.
MysonHunter.com.
I look forward to, you say you're filming as soon as October.
Very exciting.
So probably a spring 2022 release.
Is that what you're looking at?
Yeah.
That's right.
Yeah.
Great.
Well, keep us posted.
I mean, have it wrapped in a bow and then we push it out, you know.
But, you know, yes, absolutely.
Spring.
Maybe we can even host a premiere in Canada when you're ready for that.
We'll talk later, but we could probably fill some theaters.
I think people will be very excited.
Maybe even have you as a filmmaker come up.
I won't press you now, but we can talk later.
Try and hold me back.
Right on.
There he is.
Phelm McLear, producer.
Robert Davi, the director, the film, mysonhunter.com.
I'm chipping in $100.
Phelum's the original crowdfunding creator.
He taught us everything we know about how to build a company to contradict the establishment.
I'm grateful to him for it.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night.
James writes, O'Toole is a joke.
And this is coming from a longtime conservative voter.
You know, I just don't know what the difference is between Aaron O'Toole and the Liberal Party on any of my key issues.
Carbon tax, just he's fully in favor of it.
Culture wars, he deplatforms anyone he doesn't like, and he even cooks up excuses for it.
This censorship bill, this proto bill released by Stephen Gilbo, not a word from O'Toole or his critic.
Really not opposing any elements of the lockdown.
I'm just trying to see if there's any meaningful difference between O'Toole and Trudeau.
And I'm not being obtuse here.
If there is some important difference, you've got to let me know because I don't see it.
Open borders immigration.
Is there any difference?
Like, help me out here.
Bill writes, Ezra, the PPC lover, can't resist attacking O'Toole and then will criticize him if the CBC lose the election.
All to the benefit of Trudeau.
Well done, LaFant.
You know, I don't think the PPC is going to win.
In fact, I don't think they're going to win a single seat, although I do like Maxine Bernier.
I like Derek Sloan too.
It sounds like he's starting his own party.
I think we're in a mess on the conservative side of the ledger.
But I think saying that Aaron O'Toole is conservative, I just don't see the conservative part.
And do I think that Aaron O'Toole would be less awful than Justin Trudeau?
I suppose just as a personality, or maybe just mucking out the stables every once in 10 years is a good idea just to change the party, but it's just swapping one set of cronies for another.
The policies won't change.
I just don't see the difference, and I'm not trying to play dumb.
You got your carbon tax, you got your open borders, immigration, you got your lockdowns, you got your censorship.
What's the difference?
Again, I'm supposed to like a blue team of lobbyists and hacks instead of a red team.
I think if we actually had a conservative actually running as a conservative, we'd stand a chance.
Really, why should anyone get off their couch to vote for this guy?
That's my view.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, do you at home?