Ezra Levant examines Bill Gates’ contradictory claims—from vaccines as "germ games" to funding depopulation-adjacent reproductive health projects—while linking his 2015 TED Talk on pandemic preparedness to biotech advancements like horsepox research and FDA-approved smallpox treatments tied to Pfizer connections. The episode exposes academic "grievance studies," where hoax papers (e.g., "fat bodybuilding") were published, mirroring corporate science manipulation, and accuses the left of abandoning anti-corporate principles by embracing vaccine mandates and identity Marxism. From Virginia’s Terry McAuliffe to Canada’s Trudeau, dissenters face ideological attacks while systemic failures—like rising crime post-police defunding—go unaddressed, revealing a power play where activism and profit collide under government cover. [Automatically generated summary]
There's a new interview featuring Bill Gates out there.
He said so many interesting things, including a really candid admission that vaccines simply don't work.
It's quite something to hear him say it because if you or I say it, we could be banned from social media.
You got to listen to that part of it.
He says some really weird things, but he talks about what he calls germ games and how he's really worried about a smallpox attack, which is weird because smallpox was eradicated, I don't know, 40 years ago.
But what could he possibly mean?
They're not making that in a lab, are they?
I mean, are they?
I'll show you what I know and what Bill Gates says.
That's next.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's just $8 a month.
So you'll see what I see.
For example, I'm going to take you through a research paper on smallpox and horsepox done at the University of Alberta, published three years ago with the funding of a pharmaceutical company.
I want you to see that with your eyes.
You can do that by becoming a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
Just go to RebeloosPlus.com, $8 a month, and you're in.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Bill Gates talks about playing germ games.
Do you trust him?
It's November 9th, and this is the Ezra Levance 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 that I have to say is government for why I publish them.
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
I'd like to play a three-minute interview for you.
Jeremy Hunt, a British MP, talks to Bill Gates.
You know, Bill Gates, the close friend of the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who is arguably the world's most obsessed promoter of vaccines, that Bill Gates.
There's a lot in these next three minutes.
Gates talks about germ games.
I think he means that like war games where armies train for war with simulations, but he's talking about viruses.
I think most people, other than the media party, have concluded that the virus from Wuhan likely came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
I mean, when even liberal party, liberal stenographer Jon Stewart can't fake it anymore on that one.
Oh my gosh, there's evidence I'd love to hear.
There's a novel respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China.
What do we do?
Oh, you know who we could ask?
The Wuhan novel respiratory coronavirus lab.
The disease is the same name as the lab.
So anyways, Bill Gates talks about germ games.
He talks about how vaccines, which he promotes, really don't work and maybe aren't even really vaccines.
That's quite something for him to say.
You or I would be canceled if we said something like that.
He talks about trillions of dollars and millions of lives lost.
And then he talks about smallpox possibly being released in 10 airports.
Okay, watch this whole thing for yourself.
I'll see you in three minutes.
And are we doing things now, or rather, are we not doing things now that we really need to be doing in preparation for the next pandemic?
Yeah, so it's 2015 that I gave the TED Talk.
wrote a number of papers titled We're Not Ready for the Next Pandemic.
And sadly, that was a better forecast of what would happen than anyone would have wished for.
You know, the economic damage, the deaths, it's been completely horrific.
And I would expect that will lead the R ⁇ D budgets to be focused on things we didn't have today.
You know, we didn't have vaccines that block transmission.
We got vaccines that help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce the transmissions.
We need a new way of doing the vaccines.
We didn't get much in the way of therapeutics.
You know, dexamethasone and now Malnopirivir could help, but way less than should have been the case.
We didn't get the diagnostics up and running in order to achieve what at least Australian New Zealand showed that competent management could keep the death rate down pretty dramatically.
And so I'm hoping in five years I can write a book called, you know, we are ready for the next pandemic, but it'll take tens of billions in RD that the US and the UK will be part of that.
It'll take probably about a billion a year for a pandemic task force at the WHO level, which is doing the surveillance and actually doing what I call germ games, where you practice, you say, okay, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports?
You know, how would the world respond to that?
You know, that there's not to really caused epidemics and bioterrorism caused epidemics that could even be way worse than what we experience today.
And yet the advances in medical science should give us tools that we could do dramatically better.
So you'd think this would be a priority.
The next year will be where those allocations have to get made, including this global pandemic task force.
The nice thing is a lot of the R ⁇ D we need to do to be ready for the next pandemic are things like making vaccines cheap, having big factories, eradicating the flu, getting rid of the common cold, making vaccines just a little patch you put on your arm, things that will be incredibly beneficial even in the years when we don't have pandemics.
So, you know, along with the climate message and the ongoing fight against disease of the poor, the pandemic preparedness is something I'll be talking about a lot.
And I think it'll find fertile ground because, you know, we lost trillions of dollars and millions of lives.
And, you know, citizens expect their governments not to let that happen again.
Okay, so let's put aside his admission that vaccines don't actually work as vaccines.
I mean, seriously, here's a study published in the British Medical Journal that shows that the Johnson ⁇ Johnson vaccine is only 3% effective after six months.
Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Controversy00:06:07
3%, not 93% or 33%, 3%.
Now, of course, that's great news for Johnson ⁇ Johnson.
It means they get to sell you another shot and then another shot and then another shot.
And if you criticize them, you're the enemy.
Here's the president of Pfizer who says if you purposefully criticize vaccines, you're not just wrong.
You're a criminal.
Of course, his interviewer absolutely agrees.
But there is a very small part of professionals which they circulate on purpose, misinformation, so that they will mislead those that they have concerned.
Those people are criminals.
They're not bad people.
They're criminals because they literally cost millions of lives.
And should be treated as criminals as well, those who have done that.
I wonder if Bill Gates thinks that trillions of dollars of damage was done by the virus or by government's economy-smashing, liberty-destroying response to the virus.
He never talks about freedom, Bill Gates.
He only talks about money, which he cares a lot about, and about his schemes, which he's obsessed with.
I think he actually cares about freedom in his own life, but because he's one of the world's richest and most powerful men, he's free to do whatever he wants no matter what.
So he never really thinks about freedom because he has it, and that's enough.
He's a global warming fearmonger, as you heard, but he only travels in private jet.
In fact, he not only flies in private jets, he just invested in a private jet company.
He has one of the world's biggest houses.
So he never thinks about freedom because he naturally assumes that he can do literally whatever he wants.
He'll be exempt.
He could even hang out with his old child rapist friend, Jeffrey Epstein.
I mean, if you're willing to keep visiting a child rapist, as Jeffrey Epstein was, I wonder what they were doing together, you're probably not really worried about following rules like reduce, reuse, recycle, lower your carbon footprint, whatever.
If you think I'm exaggerating his connection, well, we'll take it up with Bill Gates' ex-wife, who cites it as the reason they got divorced.
I wonder what he actually did with Jeffrey Epstein.
I mean, we could ask Epstein about it, except for, you know, that fact that he's dead.
You know, I've said I regretted having those dinners, and there's nothing, absolutely nothing new on that.
Is there a lesson for you, for anyone else looking at this?
Well, he's dead.
So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.
I think Bill Gates is a madman.
I think he's a sociopath.
I think he has these schemes.
He looks like a harmless nerd.
I think that's how he gets away with things.
I mean, compare that with Jeffrey Epstein, who looks like a predator.
He looks like an evil villain.
He lived in a kind of a back cave in Manhattan.
He had a private jet.
He had a private island where he would rape young girls with a bizarre temple on it.
So Jeffrey Epstein really was a bond villain, truly evil.
But, yeah, of course, it goes without saying Bill Clinton was one of the most frequent travelers to that island.
But Bill Gates' nerdiness covers a deep cruelty, a lack of human empathy, and the messiah complex.
It's extremely rare that he's held to account.
He's so rich and so powerful, no one dares to speak up to him.
I showed you Judy Woodroof.
Here's Anderson Cooper giving it a try.
A couple of things of reporting that have been out there I want to ask you about.
And I think it's no one's business what happens in a person's marriage.
The New York Times and Wall Street Journal both reported in recent months that Melinda was concerned about a relationship you had with Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time you met him in 2011 had been already convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor.
The Times reported she hired divorce attorneys around the time in October 2019 when that contact with Epstein became public.
Can you explain your relationship with Epstein?
Did you have any concerns?
Was there ever any concerns you had about it?
Oh, certainly.
You know, I had several dinners with him, you know, hoping that what he said about getting billions of philanthropy for global health through contacts that he had might emerge, you know, when it looked like that wasn't a real thing, that relationship ended.
But it was a huge mistake to spend time with him, to give him the credibility of, you know, being there.
There were lots of others in that same situation, but I made a mistake.
There's been reporting about workplace behavior in the past.
The New York Times reported six women from Microsoft, the company you created, your foundation, and the financial firm that manages your fortune said that your behavior at times created an uncomfortable workplace environment.
I know a spokeswoman for you acknowledged you had an affair 20 years ago with a Microsoft employee that she said ended amicably.
Do you have regrets?
Well, certainly I think everyone does.
But, you know, it's a time of reflection and, you know, I, you know, at this point, I need to go forward.
You know, my work is very important to me.
You know, within the family, we'll heal as best we can and learn from what's happened.
Well, just on a personal level, I'm sorry for what you and your family are going through.
Woodruff and Cooper are the only two interviews I've ever seen that even come close to asking him about the subject.
Bill Gates & The World Population00:08:08
How often is Bill Gates cited without critical comment at all?
Here's a tweet from the National Post just last month.
Bill Gates identifies being able to empower others as a defining leadership trait.
Wow, that's great accountability journalism there.
You're speaking truth to power, aren't you?
It's only when you click through that link on the National Post that you discover it's a paid advertorial.
Is there any media that isn't bought off?
I think Bill Gates is a kind of mad scientist.
If he didn't have money, he'd be a kook, a crank, perhaps a criminal.
Here he is drinking sewage water, which he claimed is rehabilitated.
Take a look.
Every corner of the earth it needs it because it makes money every day.
Here he is daydreaming of how to solve the climate problem in part through depopulation.
Now, the world today has 6.8 billion people.
That's headed up to about 9 billion.
Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%.
What did he mean by that?
First, we've got population.
If we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
I don't understand it.
I mean, he's one of the world's most prolific funders of abortion, particularly in the third world.
Okay, I understand how that reduces population, but what does he mean by including vaccines in a plan to stop the world's population from growing and then actually lower the world's population by 10 or 15 percent?
How are vaccines a plan to reduce the number of people?
Aren't vaccines supposed to increase the number of people by saving us from a death?
What does he mean by including vaccines in a plan to reduce the world population?
That doesn't make any sense, does it?
These are my thoughts on Bill Gates.
I've shared some of them with you before.
I think he's a madman.
I think he's a menace with $100 billion.
I think he's a real danger, and he just can't get enough of vaccines.
But what was that one part?
say, okay, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports?
You know, how would the world respond to that?
Smallpox?
Wasn't smallpox eradicated?
Wasn't that like a great moment?
Smallpox was one of the world's worst diseases.
It was horrible.
Look what it did to people.
It killed so many people.
There was a smallpox epidemic in Montreal in 1885, horrible disease.
But over time, it was eradicated, literally wiped out.
In fact, there were only two samples of smallpox that remained in the world.
And the World Health Organization of the UN gave one of those samples each to the United States and the Soviet Union at the time for safe keeping.
So it's gone.
It's eradicated.
So what is Bill Gates talking about about a terrorist attack using smallpox?
I suppose it's possible that the U.S. or the Russian sample of smallpox was stolen or someone was bribed.
It could be, but let's rule that out for now.
We have no evidence of that at all.
So why is Bill Gates talking about a smallpox attack?
Is that what he meant by germ games?
Is that part of his plan to reduce world population?
I don't know.
He says that's his goal.
He says we have to do it.
He's not going to do anything.
We've just got to reduce.
Now, we know Bill Gates' ethics are so absent.
He was friends with a child rapist who he now speaks about with such a coldness.
It's terrifying, actually.
He's dead.
He's dead now.
He's dead now.
But what does he mean by all this?
Oh, I don't know.
Smallpox, what is he talking about?
Well, as a Canadian, perhaps you will be filled with feelings of national pride to know that Canadian scientists at the University of Alberta are finding ways to sort of artificially recreate smallpox, or at least to find a stand-in for it, to make a vaccine for it.
Here, let me tell you what I mean.
Here's the study as published by Anthony Fauci's National Institutes of Health.
It's from an experiment at the University of Alberta.
The title of this paper is Construction of an Infectious Horsepox Virus vaccine from chemically synthesized DNA fragments.
So horsepox is related to smallpox, so they think they can make a smallpox vaccine out of horsepox.
Why are you guys doing this?
So you want to make a virus artificially to then make a vaccine to fight this virus that you just made?
I think that's what they're doing here.
I read this.
So that really does sound like something Bill Gates would get behind, doesn't it?
That sounds like exactly what Anthony Fauci was funding at Wuhan, gain of function, that kind of thing.
Look at this.
This is from that study.
Funding statements.
This work was performed under a research agreement with Tonics Pharmaceuticals.
The funder played a role in the formulation of the project, the decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.
Hmm, okay, got it.
So creating an artificial virus and then a vaccine for this artificial.
This was all paid for by a private vaccine company, and they'll do their work at the University of Alberta.
That sounds about right.
Tonics Pharmaceuticals, they're so excited, they put out a press release about it back in 2018.
I'll read it to you.
Tonics Pharmaceuticals announces publication reporting synthesis, construction, and characterization of a potential smallpox-preventing vaccine, candidate TNX801, live horsepox virus from cell culture.
And who do they quote in their press release?
They're very excited about it.
A new and improved smallpox vaccine would address a well-recognized risk of the intentional reintroduction of the smallpox virus, a risk for which governments should prepare, commented Jose Esparza, MD, PhD, former president of the Global Virus Network, former senior advisor on global health vaccines to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Okay, got it.
They've been thinking about this for a long time, haven't they?
Mr. Depopulation, he's interested in this stuff.
And here's a press release later that year from the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration.
FDA approves the first drug with an indication for treatment of smallpox.
Oh, let's quote a line from it.
To address the risk of bioterrorism, Congress has taken steps to enable the development and approval of countermeasures to thwart pathogens that could be employed as weapons.
Today's approval provides an important milestone in these efforts.
This new treatment affords us an additional option should smallpox ever be used as a bioweapon, said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.
Got it.
Scott Gottlieb.
What's he doing these days?
That was 2018.
What's he doing these days?
Oh, right.
I forgot.
He now works as a director of Pfizer.
This is like one of those Escher drawings.
You know, the two hands drawing each other.
The virus and the antivirus.
That's sort of how Microsoft was built, wasn't it?
Scholarship vs. Activism00:14:58
Bill Gates talking about germ games.
Bill Gates funding germ games.
Making vaccines just in case.
And whoopsies, it happened in Wuhan.
And the vaccines part didn't really work out that well, but that's okay because we've got to depopulate the world 10 or 15 percent somehow.
New vaccines, health care, reproductive health services.
We could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
Look, I'm not alleging anything.
I'm just looking at the crazy world.
I'm pointing out that Bill Gates says he believes in vaccines, which are supposed to save lives, but he also is the world's biggest financier of abortions in the third world.
And he says we need to have 10 to 15 percent fewer people on the planet.
And you heard him.
He said vaccines are a part of that.
I don't get it.
I'm saying he seems awfully excited about germ games and awfully comfortable talking about smallpox making a comeback.
And the man who has his fingers in all of this, well, he was a man who shares the moral code of Jeffrey Epstein.
I think these people love what's going on.
I think Bill Gates is living out his dream.
I don't even know his full plans.
Who does?
He's buying up land across America and around the world at a record pace while he tells us to drink sewer water and eat bugs.
He's buying up farmland around the world.
This is a madman.
He just dresses like Mr. Rogers.
So our guard is down.
Stay with us for more.
Well, there are real scholarly papers.
There are things you just can't fake.
The hard sciences being amongst them.
We see some junk science in the field of immunology and the pandemic these days, although, frankly, most of the science, I think, is telling the truth biologically.
But what happens if you move away from physics and math and chemistry and biology towards, I don't know, the fuzzier academic disciplines.
I mean, I graduated more than 20 years ago, but these days, a lot of kids, when they're in school, take some sort of grievance studies.
Anything with the word studies after it is sort of a tip-off.
And a PhD in math who put this to the test is our guest today.
His name is Dr. Jim Lindsay.
He's a mathematician.
And along with other academics, Peter Berghossi and Helen Pluckrose, who I believe is from the UK, they wrote and submitted 20 hoax papers, studies that were just not even studies.
They were full of Orwellian woke newspeak, and they submitted these to prestigious academic journals.
I just got to read you one of the examples.
Queer performativity at urban dog parks, another fat shaming in bodybuilding.
And several of them were actually published.
I think this proves that wokeism, well, is it even a joke?
Can you even mock it?
Joining us now via Skype from Knoxville is Dr. Jim Lindsay.
Dr. Lindsay, what a pleasure to have you on the show.
That was one of the classic.
I'm not even going to call it a practical joke.
I'm going to call it an experiment.
I mean, what you did was a scholarly experiment that proved a hypothesis that all this wokeism is just junk.
What do you think?
I think that's right.
So our idea was that if we could start with our conclusions and work backwards, then we're showing that it's possible to start with your conclusions and work backwards.
And that's not how you should be doing academia.
You shouldn't start with science or any study.
You shouldn't start with your conclusion, which is ideologically driven or absurd.
Like we shouldn't have, that we need a category of bodybuilding for fat bodybuilding where we showcase fat like a bodybuilder because fat and muscle are only different in social construction because we care about them differently.
There's nothing qualitatively different about these things.
That's totally absurd.
And so the idea that we could start with that and then use their ideologically driven literature to support virtually any conclusion, it shouldn't happen.
And so I think it was a very important expose, a very important experiment.
I agree with you with that.
And it didn't go well for these kind of grievance studies humanities disciplines.
You know, starting with a conclusion and then setting up things to, you know, working backwards, that really sounds to me like a lot of the most politicized disciplines.
I think of climate studies.
There is a climate study that can prove anything.
And there's so much money there.
There's whole industries.
You can prove anything.
There's a study saying that it's cooler because of global warming.
Obviously, studies saying it's warmer because of global warming, that there's more storms, less storms, like anything.
It's unfalsifiable.
There's so much junk science out there.
Now, I guess this contradicts what I said earlier about hard sciences being tough to fake.
But when you get into the mushy, foggy stuff like gender theory and race theory, I think it's literally anything goes.
I don't even know if there is even such a thing as true scholarship.
I don't know if there is anymore, to be honest with you.
The problem there is that you actually have a fusion of activism and scholarship.
And that's another aspect that we wanted to kind of reveal.
The activists have their view of the world.
They have their conclusions.
And when you get into social theory, there's a long legacy over the past hundred years at least.
We could go back hundreds of years where people have bad social theories.
And if you try to put those into action, they cause a disaster.
Marxism, for example, is a bad social theory.
This is an offshoot of Marxism, as it turns out, where the activism comes first, the goal comes first, an agenda comes first, and then the scholarship is produced, if we can call it scholarship, is produced in order to serve that agenda, which is even worse than just getting research backwards so that you can get credentials or a feather in your cap or tenure.
It's actually tearing apart the foundations of society with an agenda-driven program.
And the social, I don't want to say the social scientists, although they're guilty as well.
I want to say these social theories, theoretical social fields, are particularly prone to this and have been completely colonized so that you can't now distinguish between activism and actual scholarship to the point where I don't know what is actual scholarship.
Yeah.
You know, I think a lot of it is just argument by authority.
There's a logical flaw that because someone authoritative says something, well, we have to trust them because you're not defying their authority, right?
And I mean, this used to be how religions and theocracies worked.
And then there was a bit of skepticism and enlightenment.
And, you know, we should certainly listen to all people and we should be thoughtful about the place of faith in deciding things.
But I think that skepticism has gone away, especially in the last two years with this pandemic.
Let me read to you from one of the few scientists in Congress.
And I'm just going to read a tweet from my phone.
This is from Thomas Massey, who's actually an MIT grad.
He's a master's of science.
He holds a dozen patents.
I think he might actually be the smartest congressman in Washington just in terms of sheer book smarts.
Just let me read something he posted the other day that I hadn't really thought about, but it's spot on.
He said, COVID face coverings are the only government-mandated safety equipment or medical devices for which there are no specifications or certifications.
But rest assured, their design and application is prescribed by highly vetted practitioners of political science.
And his point is: okay, so you must wear a mask.
It's the law.
It's an order when you're on a plane, when you're in this or that.
But what is a mask?
We don't describe it.
You know, it could be made of, I don't know, you could knit it, I guess, theoretically.
And his point is that it's not a real thing.
There's no basis to it.
As Bill Maher says, it's like an amulet.
It's like a superstitious amulet.
It's like wearing a clove of garlic to scare off a vampire.
But ask any doctor.
So I think this junk science has infected public health, and now it's scaring a lot of private doctors too.
Yeah, absolutely.
I've actually been referring to these things as talisman memes or talisman, if they're words, talisman memes or ideas.
And if they're something like a mask, they are talismans.
They'll ward off magic amulets to ward off bad spirits like the COVID spirit.
But what we see in general, like links, all of these things that we've talked about, is when you have the activist agenda driving what looks like scholarship or what looks like public policy, you have a massive problem on your hands.
It's no different than when the sugar industry put out a bunch of junk science that said that fats make you fat and unhealthy and give you cholesterol problems and heart disease, and that sugar is the healthy alternative, where it turns out that that's exactly the opposite of true.
And the croniest interest for the sugar industry is blatant.
But when it becomes, you know, a political activism project to say, you know, reset the world or whatever to a new paradigm, people aren't as aware because they don't see the corporate interests.
But the corporate interests here are obvious.
There's the banks, there's Pfizer, there's Moderna, these huge, huge corporations making gigantic profits off of these agenda-driven decisions.
And they're laundering the academic literature to serve their bottom lines and to serve their political agendas, which are intertwined.
You know, you mentioned big sugar.
I mean, I used to hear that phrase, and I think it was typically for protectionism of sugar manufacturers, especially in the state of Florida, big sugar.
But it really was they who tried to twist the science to get people worried about fat instead of sugar.
I think you saw the same thing when I think it was Chesapeake, a natural gas company, paid money to environmental groups to demonize coal.
I think there's always agendas behind things.
And what I can't, I mean, I understand that Pfizer and Moderna, which I understand had never actually brought a single product to market ever in its history before this vaccine, and it's just making billions now.
And I got to think, where's the left?
Because just that phrase, big sugar, big tobacco, big banks, big, big, big, the left was always against big pharma.
They were always for the working man and the union man.
They were always my body, my choice.
They were always the ones saying personal privacy.
It's between me and God and my doctor.
And all of a sudden, they're shills for big pharma.
They believe in throwing out the working man.
I mean, for God's sakes, in New York City, they're firing garbage men who aren't vaxed because they're not clean enough to handle your garbage.
And forget about pro-choice and personal privacy.
What the hell happened to the left?
Did they never mean it?
Like, did they not actually ever mean those things?
Depends on which part of the left.
I would say that there are many parts of the left that never meant it.
I would say if we even go back to, say, Karl Marx himself, I don't think he meant any of it about class consciousness and class conflict.
He saw a way to tear down a society he was angry at.
And class seemed to be the most powerful and interesting variable.
So why not switch that to gender now?
Why not switch that to race?
It never mattered which one.
The goal was just to get to revolution.
And revolution was going to create the new society that people that would be in his orbit would get to control.
And so for some of them, it's very cynical.
For others, they just got in bed.
Where's the left?
They are in bed with these interests.
Why?
Because they want power.
They want power.
They want control.
They know that if they want their political agendas and dreams achieved, they need power and control.
And they realize that these big corporations and the way that they can influence government have it.
So if they make a deal with that devil and they say, we're not going to come after you the way Occupy Wall Street went after the banks, we're not going to come after you and do what classical leftism did to where the little man and everybody else is getting cut down.
If, on the other hand, you promote our social agenda, then you've got this ugly, dirty deal that's happened between the two.
A marriage of convenience is a good way to put it, where neither side particularly likes the other, but they're hugely benefiting off of each other.
And then they've got like their third wheel in the government that's playing along with it as well.
And that's if you, where is the left?
The left is in bed.
And you can add whatever intense metaphor you want to that as to what they're doing there.
Yeah, you know what?
I mean, you published a book last year called Cynical Theories.
And you can see the cover on the screen.
You crossed out critical theories and replaced it with cynical theories.
And I think this is in the news again because in the state of Virginia, which went, you know, I think it went 10% pro-Biden, if my math is, if my memory is right, like it went seriously pro-Biden one year ago.
I mean, they had written off Virginia as a blue state, as they say, a Democrat state.
And then a series of comments by the Democratic candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe, about how parents have no place in the school really were jarring.
And Ann Coulter says, and I think she's right, that a lot of moms and dads were at home working from home and they saw their kids doing Zoom classes.
And they overheard for the first time things that were being said in class.
And they were shocked that school kids were being taught racial theories and gender theories based on Marxism.
You talked about Marxism and class warfare, and these critical theories replace class with gender.
So it's men versus women, and one's the oppressor, one's the oppressed.
Race.
Everyone white is an oppressor.
Everyone black is a victim.
Then extend that to trans, to gay and to trans issues.
Extend that to, you were joking around about fat studies.
Critical Race Theory Divide00:06:28
You can keep dividing and atomizing society, us against them.
Barack Obama was a pro at it.
I think Terry McAuliffe just said the quiet part out loud.
This really is deeply hardwired into our schools as young as kindergarten, isn't it?
It is.
It absolutely is.
You mentioned Obama, too.
It's kind of interesting.
He just put out, I think, a statement today or a tweet or said it in a speech.
I don't remember.
I saw it on Twitter, so everything gets confused.
But he actually said that I saw on Twitter, so I guess he did it in a speech, that young people need to stay mad about the climate.
But this is all of what we've just referred to is actually a roadmap that was laid in the 1960s by the kind of father of the new left, as it got called, named Herbert Marcuse.
He was one of the critical theorists who other authors have named critical Marxists.
And he realized that the working class had been stabilized by the advances in capitalism through the early part of the 20th century.
So the working class was generally conservative.
This means there's no revolutionary force there.
You're not going to get to revolution.
And he said, well, where can we find it?
And more or less his answer was identity politics and radicalize students.
If we can radicalize students and get them to take up identity politics and then get the identity groups to participate in this, then we can get our revolutionary energy.
And this is what's actually played out.
So when Obama says, you know, the young people should stay mad about the climate, he's radicalizing students so that they can agitate around this.
It's the exact same Marcusian critical Marxist playbook.
So that's critical Marxism.
Critical Marxism went into identity politics and became what I now call identity Marxism.
And this has become part and parcel in what our schools teach.
They're obsessed, as any communist throughout history has been, with whichever the theory of their day is.
They're utterly obsessed with it.
And so everything, their goal, and I mean this, people ask me, what's the goal?
The goal is to make every single possible institution into an institution that generates what they call critical consciousness, whether it's a critical race consciousness, a critical gender consciousness, a queer consciousness, and that every institution has to be changed into that so that the maximum number of people can be turned into little potential revolutionaries who are going to follow along with this.
And it is thoroughly embedded.
It has been working into our schools since the late 1960s and early 1970s.
And it's thoroughly embedded in our schools now all the way across the board.
You know, it's incredible.
I mean, Ralph Northam, the outgoing governor in Virginia, literally dressing up in, I forget which if he was the one in blackface or he the one dressed as a Klansman, refused to step down.
Justin Trudeau in Canada dressed in blackface so often he lost count.
He couldn't even narrow it down how many times he did it.
He had a kit.
He had like a tickle trunk, like a costume trunk with his blackface gear.
He did it so often.
Those are the folks who get the pass from critical race theory.
And incredibly, I mean, I just can't help but point this out.
I did a show on her the other day.
The lieutenant governor in Virginia, a black immigrant woman named Winsom Sears, just amazing, first Hispanic, I think, attorney general in the state.
Not only does that prove, I think, critical race theory to be a lie, but the viciousness and the venom with which the left goes after, in this case, black women, Hispanics who don't toe the line.
I think that also shows how intolerant the left is.
You'll never see a more vicious leftist than one going after a woman or a black or a gay person who don't know their place.
I'm a Jew because I'm not a leftist.
I'm called a Nazi.
You'll never see more viciousness than a leftist towards an identity group member who refuses to read a script.
That's my observation.
Yeah, I would even go further and actually tell you that it is proof that these Marxist leftists, these identity Marxists, are using the identity groups they hold up as shields.
They're using them.
They do not actually care about, for example, black lives, though they may profess to, and theoretically, in abstract, they may.
But what we see is in the wake of these police defundings, murder rates skyrocketing, theft skyrocketing, property damage skyrocketing, kidnapping skyrocketing across America at the very least, most of which is concentrated in black and brown neighborhoods.
They don't care about the actual outcomes, and they only care about who they can hold up.
As Ayanna Presley put it, we can even quote them on this.
Ayanna Presley phrased it.
We don't want black faces that don't want to be black voices.
We don't want brown faces that don't want to be brown voices.
And so I can explain the way that critical race theory, for example, lays those tracks.
And there's a whole theory that explains why they think that way.
However, it doesn't matter why they think that way.
The fact of the matter is, is you are either part of their very narrow, very intolerant political program, or you are worse than trash or you're a traitor or something like this.
And they're going to treat you as such.
It's absolutely just a power grab.
It's not authentic.
And they're using the people that they hold up.
Critical race theory talks about black and brown people all the time.
They're using them.
Nothing short of using them for their political agenda, which will hurt everybody.
And of course, probably black and brown people the most because they're being used.
I'd tell you it's very interesting.
I haven't yet read your book, but I'm going to pick it up.
It's called Cynical Theories.
You can see it on the screen.
We'll have a link to it below that you can get it on Amazon.
We've been talking with Dr. Jim Lindsay.
Great to meet you.
I appreciate everything you've said.
And I hope we can talk to you again because these issues certainly aren't going away.
Yeah, absolutely.
I loved it.
Well, right on, thanks for your time.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your viewer feedback.
Big Vern says, no surrender, rebel and the good people of Canada.
Well, yeah, I wish, but I think that the surrender is pretty widespread.
Look, I think one of the reasons why political leaders across the country, including alleged conservatives like Aaron O'Toole, Doug Ford, and Jason Kenney, are proposing and enforcing brutal lockdowns and mask mandates and vax mandates is because they're popular in the opinion polls.
Forced Vaccinations Protest00:06:16
So yeah, I don't think many Canadians are standing up.
Lynn Baribo says, my last nursing shift is November 11th, ironically Remembrance Day, losing my job due to losing my bodily human rights in refusing the jam.
You know what?
It's wise to remember the Second World War and the First World War before, but it was the Second World War when we discovered the horrific medical experiments and torture conducted by doctors, not soldiers, doctors, Dr. Mengel and Dr. Bram.
We did a show on this the other day.
It was from there that we developed the Nuremberg Code of the 10 Principles of Medical Consent.
And isn't that really why people died to save us from that kind of totalitarian horror?
And we've forgotten those horrors.
And I'm not saying we're there yet, but forcing people to undergo an injection.
And hundreds of people have had very severe reactions to them.
Very severe.
Myocarditis, even death.
I think it's appropriate to remember those freedoms on Remembrance Day.
Let me close with our video of the day.
Hundreds of people gathering at Nathan Phillips Square outside the City Hall in Toronto.
Our friend Dr. Julie Panessi was speaking.
Our reporter David Menzies was on the scene.
I'll leave you with that video.
And before that, I'll say to you good night and keep fighting for freedom.
So now it's our turn.
Now it's our turn because our little ones are not wanting what our moment are now.
Are they going to go to North Carolina?
Now, because I won't attest, that means by November the 26th, I and many of my brothers and sisters, my colleagues, are going to be sent home, leave without pay, with no opportunity for benefits, no opportunity for unemployment.
Just go home, sit home, and rot.
It'll hurt financially for sure.
You know, I've built myself a pretty good life up until this point.
Every single person who is standing up, whoever you are, wherever you are, however small or the rage or the lonely reel is making a difference.
Yeah, I mean, I think there's an incredible amount of pressure, both in the public, as everybody knows, but also within professional and academic disciplines.
Nobody wants to go against the grain.
Nobody wants to go against the narrative.
David Menzies for Rebel News here in Toronto.
Well, folks, I'm at Nathan Phillips Square.
And, well, there's a demonstration here.
It's basically against the vaccine passports.
Emergency services personnel and the police have invited Pastor Hildebrandt of the Church of God in Elmer, Ontario.
And they're having a church service currently.
And then they're going to have various speakers talk to this crowd, including, well, Dr. Jalie Paness.
As you know, Dr. Paness was turfed from Western University for refusing to get the jab.
And she was at one of our recent rebel events, brought the house down with a standing ovation.
And one of the quotes she passed along, it was from a nurse.
And I think it really, you know, demonstrates the insanity of the days we're in.
And it's simply this.
Why, as a nurse recently asked, do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that did not protect the protected in the first place.
I couldn't have said it better when it comes to the inanity and the insanity of vaccine passports.
We're going to talk to some of the people, hopefully talk to some of the speakers and see what the next steps are going ahead as thousands and thousands of Canadians fight back against the vaccine passport.
As Terry was talking about, as Erin was talking about, police on guard, I am one of many lions that are standing, and there are many more that are racing out.
What are you hoping to accomplish here today, Stacey?
To bring awareness to what the police have been doing and that they are representing us.
They want to show the world that they aren't going to be turned into tap dogs.
This is actually headed up by the first responders in Toronto, EMS, Fire and Police, active duty.
These are individuals that are at the risk of losing their jobs in the next month or two as we see the vaccine passports becoming mandatory by these organizations.
And they've invited many people.
They call it the Truth Rally.
Well, folks, I'm with Corporal Bolford.
He is with the RCMP.
And unfortunately, he is about to be put on leave later this month.
What's the story?
Well, I've refused to comply with the federal government's vaccine policy that was announced on August, party, pardon me, October 6th, officially.
And I refused to fill out the attestation.
I was open and honest.
I said, I'm not going to do that.
We already have a process in place with our own internal mechanism for our own health services to have access to my private medical information.
And I was unwilling to register my private medical information with another government registry.
They have no business collecting that information, in my opinion.
What's going to happen to you?
And when's the deadline for you being told that you are persona non grata?
Well, there's the first deadline is November the 12th.
So Canada Post is forcing us to disclose.
Every employee has to disclose, they have to attest to their status.
I refuse to attest.
I will not attest.
It's my private business.
I won't attest.
Now, because I won't attest, that means by November the 26th, I and many of my brothers and sisters, my colleagues, are going to be sent home, leave without pay, with no opportunity for benefits, no opportunity for unemployment.
Refusing To Attest00:05:06
Just go home, sit home and rot.
At what point will you stand up and say, I am Canadian and this is wrong.
I'm with Dr. Julie Paness and we all know the Dr. Paness story.
She was terminated with cause from a college affiliated with Western University.
And, you know, Dr. Pines, one thing I want to focus on is the fallout.
And I noticed when I looked at the media coverage, and there's a particular story in the star that stands out, they went and found another ethics professor in the United States who said that, yes, he would fail you if you were in his ethics course.
Is this, what do you make sense of this in terms of the media and even other ethics professors being on the side of government when it comes to this particular ethical issue?
You know what's interesting is when you've gone through grad school and you've been in academia for a while, one thing that's always very clear is that you can never get academics to agree about anything.
So the fact that we're having so much agreement, supposedly, so much consistency, especially from ethics professors, that there is no other bioethics bioethicist in Canada right now that I know of who is resisting or challenging or even questioning the mandates of the pandemic response in any way.
And that is, to put it very simply, just weird.
It's anomalous in terms of how academia normally works.
And I think we need to, regardless of what your particular view is, you would expect more discourse, more debate, more openness among academics whose job depends on figuring out how to ask the right questions and have lively debates.
And we're just not seeing that.
And I think that should be a sign to us that something is very odd within the discipline of bioethics and then in academia more generally.
I'm coming to peace with the fact that if I lose my job, I don't need that to be part of my identity anymore.
I can move on and reinvent myself in another career path.
But it's concerning for the future of our country.
This is a giant government overreach into the private lives of citizens of this country.
I'm not going to be a part of it.
I'm not going to comply with it.
And if they choose to take my job away, then I'll move on.
What are you going to do to make ends meet?
Well, that's a great question.
I mean, we all have our choices to make.
I have a family, my wife, my stepson.
We all work for Canada Post.
So my home is being devastated by this because we're not going to a test.
And I'm not telling anybody whether I have the shot or not.
That's nobody's business but mine.
And so for that choice, for that choice, we're being sent home.
I don't, I think it's wrong.
And one of the reasons why I'm out here is because this is wrong.
And it's not even about the mandate.
Is this all about the coercion actually working?
That even when it comes to professors of ethics, that if you don't toe the party line, you're going to be out of a job.
You're going to be shunned.
And therefore, even professors in your bailiwick, they're going along with this narrative.
Yeah, I mean, I think there's an incredible amount of pressure, both in the public, as everybody knows, but also within professional and academic disciplines.
Nobody wants to go against the grain.
Nobody wants to go against the narrative.
You're called selfish.
You're accused of not caring about people's safety and security.
It'll hurt financially for sure.
You know, I've built myself a pretty good life up until this point.
But there are other opportunities.
I don't know if it'll be in anything to do with security and policing.
I don't know if I have that in me anymore.
And I think to do anything comparable income-wise, most will may demand a vaccine mandate of their own.
And I'm unwilling to do that.
So the reality for me is I might have to explore something completely new, but I'm willing to do that.
We love singing songs.
We've been told, at least when it comes to the feminist movement, when it comes to the abortion debate, my body, my choice.
Is that all out of vogue now?
Or does it just apply when you're terminating a baby's life?