Ezra Levant reveals Toronto’s public health agency still employs 423 bureaucrats on COVID-19 despite $9M+ cuts proposed, questioning their authority and comparing policies to Nazi eugenics via MAID push. Post-Musk Twitter’s $44B shift sparks debate: censorship risks vs. intelligence-driven content suppression, with Pelosi attack narratives manipulated, Viva Frey locked for skepticism, and Musk’s controversial retweets. The episode ties these issues to BLC 11 and trucker prosecutions, warning of government overreach and media bias fueling distrust in official narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
A couple of things I want to tell you about today, including the number of bureaucrats still working on the COVID-19 file in governments across this country.
Thousands.
What are they doing, by the way?
I'll tell you the news out of Toronto.
I'll also talk to my friend Alan Bokhari about Elon Musk on Twitter.
That's ahead, but first let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the paywall version of this program because it's the video version.
So this audio podcast is free, but we make a video version and we put it behind a paywall for $8 a month.
Now you get this weeknight show, so that's 20 episodes a month.
Plus we have four weekly shows.
So you add it all up.
That's 36 episodes of five different programs every month for eight bucks.
You get the video production.
And the reason I'd like you to consider doing that is because we need that $8 because we don't take any money from Trudeau.
So we rely 100% on viewers like that, but like you.
Please consider doing that.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
It'll be a real favor to me because we got to make payroll around here.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, did you know there are still 423 people in Toronto city government alone working on the COVID file?
It's November 3rd, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
I shouldn't be surprised by things anymore.
I mean, I'm half a century old, and is there really anything new under the sun?
I mean, come on.
But this story surprised me.
Toronto Public Health wants to cut $9 million, 423 jobs from COVID-19 response.
So that's just the city of Toronto.
One city in this whole country.
And it's just Toronto Public Health.
That's a public health agency.
That's not a hospital or a clinic.
It's just bureaucrats, the busybodies, the city-level Teresa Tams and Anthony Fauci's.
Every city in Canada has a public health agency and a public health officer, and every province does, and every regional health authority or whatever it's called in your province.
It's incredible, the number.
Oh, and they are handsomely paid.
I should remind you.
Teresa Tam alone makes a third of a million dollars a year.
She doesn't have any patients.
She does not do medicine.
It makes me laugh when people like her are called top doctors.
How are they the top doctor?
Maybe in salary, but maybe in political power, but they're not actual top doctors.
They have uniformly exceeded their legal authority.
And Toronto alone had 423 of them, but how are they in the top in anything?
They're not the best in their field.
Still, to this day, there's 423 of these COVID bureaucrats.
Actually, to be more precise, that's just the number that they're proposing to cut back.
They're not cutting back to zero.
Here, I'll read from the actual story.
Toronto Public Health wants to cut more than $9 million from its COVID-19 funding and over 400 jobs next year as it transitions away from its heightened response at the peak of the pandemic.
Yeah, that's been over for a couple of years, folks.
The city's health agency submitted its 2023 operating budget to the Board of Health Committee for consideration last week and is proposing an overall budget of over $369 million and 2,309.9 positions.
The budget is an overall decrease of $1.2 million and 423.9 positions lower than the 2022 approved operating budget.
So they still have 2,309.9 positions.
I'm not sure what the 0.9 position means, but still more than 2,300.
These are not doctors actually doing doctoring.
They're bureaucrats.
They're just cutting a small slice of them.
This line made me chuckle.
It is not clear what the reduction in COVID-19 funding will impact.
Exactly.
I mean, you know that even the professional scaremongers are no longer pretending that we're in a pandemic, right?
I mean, you know that, right?
The chief grifter, Teresa Tam, she switched to global warming fear-mongering months ago.
This is back in April, I think.
Climate change is affecting our health today, and will continue to do so in the future.
Its impacts are broad and can range from heat waves to disruptions to our food systems.
Together, let's take daily, actionable steps and invest in our planet.
Earth Day.
She knows that no one believes the pandemic hype anymore other than the 2,309.9 people in Toronto who are paid to gin up fear.
So there's obviously no shortage of money.
A third of a billion dollars for bureaucrats at the city level in Toronto alone.
Imagine what the total number is across Canada.
But let me show you another story about public health.
What's the difference between public health, by the way, and between actual medicine?
Well, public health is another way of saying health politics.
Medicine is about helping a particular patient.
It's private.
It's between a doctor and a patient, and no one else is involved.
It's individualized care tailored to that person, their whole situation, including mental and physical and their history.
You get to know your doctor.
He knows your story.
Public health is the opposite.
It treats us all as interchangeable, like ants in an ant colony.
There's no privacy.
You must disclose your information to the government.
No personalized care.
You must all take the jab, no matter what.
No freedom of choice.
You could lose your job or access to public life if you refuse to obey.
What a disgrace it is.
You know, look at this next story because it really is similar, and I'll explain the overlap.
Canadian doctors encouraged to bring up medically assisted death before their patients do.
Oh, really?
A guidance document produced by Canada's providers of medically assisted death states that doctors have a professional obligation to bring up made.
Made.
They use that word because it hides the meaning of what they're up to, made.
Even spelling it out is politics.
It's assisted suicide.
It's euthanasia.
It's culling the weak, the old, the sick.
It's not medicine.
It's anti-medicine.
It's anti-healthcare.
It's public health, not medicine.
It's eugenics.
It's the kind of thing that the Nazis did, getting rid of undesirables.
I refer to the Nazis specifically and on purpose and not in an overheated way because it was the Nazis who dressed up their radical racial and eugenics policies as public health.
There were plenty of doctors involved in their final solution.
And after the Second World War, after the Holocaust, there were the doctors' trials, the Nazi doctor trials, from which the West developed what was called the Nuremberg Code, which were rules that limited what doctors could do to patients.
It involved informed consent.
It was the moral and legal bulwark against the kind of atrocities the Nazis had committed.
It was expanding on the Hippocratic oath, do no harm, do no harm.
That's the motto of doctors.
Of course, we just detonated the Nuremberg Code and the concept of informed consent during the pandemic, didn't we, with forced vaccines?
Like I say, there's a big difference between public health and actual medical care.
I'll read some more from this latest story.
In most jurisdictions in the world with legalized euthanasia, doctors are explicitly prohibited or strongly discouraged from raising assisted dying with a patient.
The request must come from the person.
But a guidance document produced by Canada's providers of medically assisted death states that doctors have a professional obligation to bring up MAID as an option when it's, quote, medically relevant and the person is likely eligible as part of the informed consent process.
But of course, just like Orwell called the propaganda ministry in the book of 1984 the Ministry of Truth and the War Department was called the Ministry of Peace.
You now have death doctors promoting suicide in the name of public health.
Who's promoting this?
Who's behind this?
I don't know.
Maybe it's one of the usual suspects like this guy.
It's an average about five tons for everyone on the planet.
And somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero.
It's been constantly going up.
It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all.
So we have to go from rapidly rising to falling and falling all the way to zero.
This equation has four factors, a little bit of multiplication.
So you've got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero.
And that's going to be based on the number of people, the services each person's using on average, the energy on average for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy.
So let's look at each one of these and see how we can get this down to zero.
Probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.
That's back from high school algebra.
But let's take a look.
First, we've got population.
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 percent.
Could be.
He's always banging on about how there are too many people in the world.
We have to get rid of maybe a billion of them.
Here's the chief eugenicist promoting this suicide.
Dr. Conia Troutin is a physician based on Vancouver Island.
She has been involved in social justice aspects of health care since medical school.
Dr. Troughton is a founding member of the Canadian Association of Made Assessors and Providers and continues to be an active board member, promoting education to medical assistance in dying in Canada.
She would have fit right in in Germany in the 1930s.
So many people needed coaxing towards suicide, didn't they?
Look at this logical pretzel.
Not providing information about MAID in a timely manner to someone who might be eligible can create harm, Troughton's group said.
You see, it's positively immoral not to tell someone they could kill themselves.
Now, this is not theoretical.
It is happening right now.
Why Not Tell?00:02:46
And why?
Ideology, like anti-human extremists like Bill Gates.
But of course, money.
I mean, treating someone who is sick, giving them actual medical care, especially if they're old, well, that's just too costly.
We need that money to hire more public health bureaucrats to tell us about global warming or COVID-19, even though it's no longer 19, it's 2022.
Look at this story just recently.
Another case of a sick Canadian offered death instead of treatment.
This time a veteran, a veteran seeking help with PTSD and traumatic brain injury, was instead offered the prospect of assisted death.
Yeah, you bet.
I mean, he's just a military veteran, and you know how they are.
I was prepared to be killed in action.
What I wasn't prepared for, Mr. Prime Minister, is Canada turning its back on me.
So which veteran was it that you were talking about?
Thank you, sir.
Thank you for your passion and your strength and being here today to share this justifiable frustration and anger with me and with all of us here.
Thank you for having the courage to stand here and thank you for listening to my answer.
On a couple of elements you brought up.
First of all, why are we still fighting against certain veterans groups in court?
Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now.
They are asking for more than we, well, no.
Hang on.
You're asking.
I think these two stories are linked, the public health 423 COVID agents in Toronto and telling seniors and veterans just to kill themselves.
I think they're linked.
I think it's because the government and the state is in charge of your medical care, not you and your doctor anymore.
Doctors were silenced during the pandemic.
Anyone who dissented from big government or big pharma was suspended if they were a doctor.
Doctors are now agents of the state now, and by the way, so is your body.
They'll tell you what you can do with yourself and what you can't.
And they'll also helpfully tell you when they think it's more convenient and certainly more cost-effective for you just to kill yourself.
I mean, it would be positively immoral and unethical for them not to.
Stay with us for more.
Ukraine's Twitter Trending Mystery00:14:21
Well, I'm addicted to Twitter, partly because it is the lifeblood of our company.
Rebel News is a news organization.
Twitter is very useful for people in the news business.
It's got a great search engine.
It's live status updates from around the world.
It's also useful for politics and for sports and for entertainment and even just for keeping in touch with your friends.
But it has taken on a tremendous importance, which I think is why it is valued at more than $40 billion.
The value is it can shape and turn the national international conversations and it can move elections.
We saw that in 2020 when Twitter made the shocking decision to ban the New York Post, one of the oldest newspapers in the United States, from tweeting about Hunter Biden's found laptop and the scandals therein.
Twitter put its thumb on the scale and we later learned that through polling that a lot of Americans would have voted differently in 2020 had they known.
Well, Twitter is now out of the hands of its former board, which curiously included a lot of people from the State Department and other international politicians, which suggests they knew its true value was not financial, but rather political.
And it's now in the hands of Elon Musk, a man who is quirky, has some libertarian beliefs, but also is exposed to communist China through his other company, Tesla.
What will Elon Musk do?
He says he wants to make it more politically balanced, more politically diverse.
He has said that he wants to replace a woke ideology, which he calls a mind virus, with a set of censorship that is more in accord with the law as opposed to radical PhD activists.
What is going to happen with Twitter?
I'm curious, because I care about the public query.
And joining us now is someone who knows more than most about this subject, our dear friend Alan Bukhari, the senior tech editor at Breitbart.com.
Alan, great to see you.
I didn't think it would happen.
I thought for some way the deal would be scuppered, but Elon Musk is now the chief twit, as he calls himself, of Twitter.
I think it's incredible.
I'm very excited.
Yeah, it happened very, very quickly.
And there were so many ups and downs throughout the process.
You really couldn't know what was going to happen.
You know, first Elon Musk made the offer for Twitter, then he tried to withdraw, then there was the court case.
And then it all suddenly came to a head at the end of last month.
Sorry, go ahead.
So what he said is that he wants Twitter to go back to his vision for content moderation.
He's compared it to movie ratings.
You can choose whether you want a mature movie or a PG-13 movie.
And that's really the way content moderation used to be done in Silicon Valley with optional content filters like Google Safe Search with block buttons.
All the choices in the hands of users.
And that only really changed after in the mid-2010s, especially after the 2016 election.
So what's being suggested is not particularly radical.
It's just going back to what previously the norm.
Yeah, and that's a great point.
I mean, if you don't want to see a movie with sex and violence, don't go to an R-rated movie or even an X-rated movie.
It's almost moot these days because you could truly find anything on the internet.
I think there's some sense to Elon Musk when he says, why should we be more censorious than the law of the land?
I mean, why are these unnamed woke bureaucrats at Twitter on their trust and safety department?
Why are they wiser than the legislatures or the police about what can or can't be said?
I think there's something to that.
But I see that Elon Musk met with all these woke civil rights activists.
I hate to even use that term because I don't think they're about that anymore.
And I'm worried that he's going to bend the knee to them.
I'm worried that he thinks if he doesn't play the game, they might try and destroy Twitter.
They might try to have a boycott of Twitter, an advertising boycott.
They might try and get a ban from the Apple store or the Android store.
I think that Twitter is enormous and Elon Musk is clever, but it's not bigger than the Borg.
It's not bigger than the entire deep state, the entire big tech ecosystem.
And he does have to play by their rules to an extent, doesn't he?
Yeah, that is the real challenge.
There are lots of pain points that can be used against Twitter.
You mentioned advertisers.
You know, that's a big one.
Almost all of Twitter's revenue comes from advertising.
And I know, you know, there are plans to, you know, Twitter did have this Twitter blue subscription service, but that didn't bring in much revenue.
And there's also plans to make the verified check mark a paid service you can pay to get verified.
Musk has made between $20 and $8, but that will take a while.
And then, you know, it's questionable whether it would ever replace advertising revenue.
And if it doesn't, then that's going to be a way to pressure Twitter by having advertisers do their boycotts.
The more worrying thing you also mentioned is the app store censorship.
Google and Apple control 99% of all smartphone operating systems worldwide.
So it's very easy for them to effectively exclude an app from people's smartphones.
And finally, there's, of course, web hosting, which Amazon Web Services, Google, they control most of the web hosting market.
And that's what God Parla kicked offline.
So there are many ways you could take down Twitter.
I mean, Elon Musk was the world's richest man.
I'm not sure if that's the case at this moment, given the Tesla stock price.
He has a certain charisma, or you could say anti-charisma to him.
I mean, he engages with people directly on Twitter, which is sort of startling for such a public figure.
I mean, he certainly is one in a billion.
How much of this is sort of performance art from a guy who has a quirky sense of humor?
How much is a business plan, a guy trying to get rich?
And how much is someone trying to change the world?
Like, I think there's elements of all of them.
Like, he's a quirky guy, and I love it.
He obviously likes making money, even though he personally doesn't live a lavish lifestyle, I don't think.
And how much is his sort of utopian belief in a place where everyone in the world can come to connect with each other?
What do you think is motivating him?
Do you know him at all?
Have you ever met him?
No, I haven't.
I've met people in his orbit.
I know people who have met him.
You know, that's difficult to say.
I mean, I'd say he keeps motivation pretty close to his chest, even when he's talking to people he trusts.
But one thing to consider is that much of the Musk empire depends on retail investors.
And he's really been at the forefront of this sort of retail investing revolution, the meme stocks, the DoCoin and all of that.
And that's kind of like we saw during the whole GameStop AMC hullabaloo back in 2021 that this is pretty radically disruptive to the system to have lots of people coming together to do retail investing.
And that's something that's been really beneficial to Tesla.
So I wonder if being in charge of a social media platform, there's a rational calculation behind that.
That if much of your stock, your value depends on these retail investors, and you might want to have a big social media platform.
But there's also the case that he did join the Republican Party.
And it's so obvious that social media is rigged in favor of the Democrats.
So that might also be driving it too.
Yeah, well, to see the outrage directed at him by the legacy media is quite incredible.
I mean, especially from the Washington Post, which is owned by his tech rival, Jeff Bezos.
It's just quite something to see these legacy media that are all owned by their own oligarchs, whether it's Carlos Sleem in the New York Times or Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post, to complain about a billionaire owning Twitter.
It's a bit rich.
What do you make of what I said earlier about, to use that phrase, the military-industrial complex or the deep state?
When I looked at the old board of Twitter, I was shocked by the lack of tech experts, but the ubiquity of former State Department types, former CIA types.
And I'm not saying this in a conspiracy theory speculative way.
Like, that's who they were.
The people who were running Twitter, at least on the board of Twitter, had an expertise in geopolitics and military affairs.
And I can't help but think that that is really one of the real values of Twitter.
That's certainly the subtext of people who are complaining about Musk.
Elon Musk is a skeptic on the war in Ukraine, for example.
He said that there ought to be a diplomatic solution, not just endless war.
I think that should be a mainstream position, but he was pilloried by the entire foreign policy establishment, including by senior officials in Ukraine.
I really think that for a lot of important, powerful, and rich people, Twitter was about shaping attitudes around the world politically.
And frankly, I think it was an intelligence asset because just imagine tracking who said what to whom, who's going where.
It's got GPS in it.
So if you know the Twitter account of a political figure, you can physically follow them.
You can see what they look at.
You can see their direct messages.
Like it is a walking, talking, moving intelligence agency.
I think that's probably half the value of the thing, not just the game, the source of news, the ad revenues.
I think it's a spy app of sort, just like TikTok is for the Chinese.
What do you think of that theory?
100%.
Social media companies are intelligence assets for the countries that produce them.
And social media companies have been an arm of American influence.
That's why lots of nations that try and resist being in the American or NATO orbit often ban social media companies.
American social media companies.
I know Russia has, and many other countries in the Middle East have as well.
Obviously, China has too, because they see it as this arm of American influence.
I actually used to have a source at the State Department in the Trump administration.
He said the deep state loved social media free speech when it was helping them regime change, say, Libya or Egypt or helping whip up activism in Iran.
But as soon as Brexit and Donald Trump happened, they started to worry that free speech on social media could mean they get regime changed.
And that's where you see that turning point, social media shifting from a user-led system of content moderation with block buttons and optional maturity filters to this top-down model where content filters are imposed on everyone without any choice to opt out.
And again, like you said, this is not really a conspiracy.
There was a report recently in the intercept, mostly based on public information, including some documents from lawsuits, that shows the Department of Homeland Security did have regular meetings with Twitter and Facebook executives.
They even had a special portal that Facebook built for them that allowed them to flag content to be taken down or labeled.
So, you know, Homeland Security, the anti-terrorism agency, was working up with the social media companies.
And it gets even more sinister when you look at the kind of topics they were focused on.
They were, you know, it wasn't just the things you'd expect.
It was things like racial justice, topics like the Afghanistan withdrawal, like the Ukraine war.
These were the areas where they were looking to so-called misinformation.
You know, it's funny because, you know, I go to the search bar of Twitter when I like to search things, and they have a list of suggested items, trending items.
And every single time for me, one of them is the latest on the war in Ukraine.
I mean, I am somewhat interested in it, but I think those are either hand-curated or they're sold as ads.
And I keep thinking, who is selling me?
Who's advertising the war in Ukraine to me?
Because literally every, no matter what else is trending, that war, and I'm in Canada, you know, I really don't have a connection to Ukraine.
I don't think Canada does other than, you know, Trudeau has the same narrative that other NATO leaders have.
But it's not close to Canada.
It's not our neighbor.
There are some Ukrainian Canadians, of course.
And so there's some historical ethnic ties, but it's very far away.
And the fact that that is pitched to me as hot news every single day, I feel like that war is being sold to me in an ad.
And I keep thinking that is Twitter.
It is a mind-shaping machine that Elon Musk himself talks about mind viruses.
I think they're a thing.
And I think that's Twitter's true value.
It's not, you know, the eight bucks a month or whatever it can make selling premium services.
It's the people for sale.
I think that's what social media always has been.
If you're not paying for it, it's because you yourself are what's for sale.
Maybe that's the obvious.
To newspapers and TV stations where they could just go to them and make them put Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi on the front page every single day so people would actually care what's going on in these far-flung countries that have much to do with America.
And the modern day equivalent to that is the Facebook trending topics.
Dorsey's Vision for Twitter00:07:06
It is the Twitter trending topics.
And we can remember, it didn't used to be the case.
It used to be the case that what was in the trending bar on Twitter was hashtags, what's popular on Twitter.
And you just see slowly over time, they've replaced this with this top-down model where they're just feeding everyone the same kind of content, the stuff they want you to care about, the stuff that they want you to see.
And, you know, like the number one thing right now is Ukraine.
I want to ask you one more question.
I appreciate your time, Alan.
It's great to see you again.
One of the founders of Twitter, his name is Jack Dorsey, and he's an interesting character, a little quirky too.
I think you have to be quirky or you become quirky when you're at that level of life.
He has a libertarian streak to him.
And his successors certainly did not.
He justified, he tried to explain Twitter's decision to ban that Hunter Biden laptop story, which I think really moved the 2020 election.
He engaged with Elon Musk.
I think he encouraged Elon Musk to buy the company.
I think he doesn't like the way the company is going and he had some vision to fix it.
What's his role?
Is he going to be involved in the new Twitter?
Does he have another rival project?
What do you think about Jack Dorsey?
Do you think he's still relevant?
Well, I know he rolled over his stake into Twitter, so he still owns part of the company, even though it's private under Musk, as far as I know.
He also just came out with what he's been talking about for a very long time.
Even while he was at Twitter, he was working on this, which is Blue Sky.
Blue Sky is a decentralized protocol for social media.
What it essentially does is it allows, you know, it separates content from clients.
So, you know, it gives theoretically, it gives users control over their content so that they can take all of their tweets.
For example, if Twitter were to be using Blue Sky, you'd be able to take all of your tweets and all your account info and just port it to another platform if you liked.
And that's something Dorsey has been talking about for a long time.
I do think he generally believes in decentralization.
He generally believes in free speech.
He was just obviously a total failure as CEO of Twitter in championing those principles.
I know from stories inside the company, he tried to hold back the worst instincts of the trust and safety department, trust and safety department being the one that has always pushed censorship, especially under Vijaya Gad, who was head of trust and safety and is now gone.
She was one of the first people to be fired under mask.
But Dorsey does seem to believe in this stuff.
He just wasn't very good, I think, as CEO at actually implementing it.
Well, I'm very interested in it, not just because I'm an addict of Twitter, and because it is the lifeblood of Rebel News, but because I see it as a larger force affecting us.
I mean, it tells you what is happening in the world, but through their own lens.
And I think it shapes more minds than we care to think.
Last word to you.
Do you think that Twitter can become this place that Elon Musk talks about where you do more commerce, where everyone can find, like he has this utopian vision where it can be a home for everyone and a real commercial hub too?
He compared it to the Chinese app WeChat, which I think he clearly believes is superior, and I think it probably is.
Do you think he's going to succeed on the tech side, I guess?
Do you think this is going to work is what I'm saying?
Well, I know he's brought in dozens of people from Tesla to help out with Twitter.
That's a good sign.
It's just they're going to be radical product overhauls, which is what Twitter really needs.
I mean, Twitter's product needs to be overhauled.
It needs to be less dependent on advertising revenue and just needs to get better at generating revenue.
And, you know, WeChat is a good example of a successful app.
I know he's talked about building the everything app.
So, you know, maybe we'll see things like video as well.
Certainly, there's something we've option.
Facebook has a chat option.
It moves beyond simply having a timeline of posts.
So maybe we'll see Twitter move in that direction as well.
The real thing, I think, will be, you know, can you replace that ad revenue model that it's been dependent on for so long?
Because that's always been the main pressure point against social media platforms that are too attached to free speech.
Great to chat with you, my friend.
Thanks very much, and keep up the great work at Breitbart.
Good to be on.
All right, there you have it.
Alan Bukhari, Senior Tech Editor.
Stay with us more ahead.
Well, that's the show for today.
You know, I was thinking to myself, if you're not on Twitter, you probably don't understand what all the kerfuffle is about.
But Twitter really is the real-time national, international conversation about a lot of things, sports and comedy and entertainment for sure, but its value is on politics and geopolitics.
And, you know, Facebook is fun for sharing photos of your family with friends and getting updates.
But Twitter is where all the political leaders, the political staff, the journalists, the military goes to shape the world and to have your own mind be shaped.
And I think that's the real battle.
Elon Musk has taken that away from the deep state, and they either want him to bend the knee to them or they probably want to destroy it.
It'll be interesting to see how that goes.
That's our show for today.
I'm going to be in Calgary in Lethbridge tomorrow doing a special report on a terrible prosecution of peaceful truckers from the Coots blockade.
It's astonishing to me that they're still prosecuting these things, but I'll tell you the details tomorrow.
Until then, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters at you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
BLC 11, the law concerning internet censorship is coming to us faster than we think.
And the crackdown on people speaking their mind is already happening, like the story I'm about to tell you.
To help us, visit stopthecensorship.ca and sign the petition.
Elon Musk officially became Twitter new owner on October 27th, a 44 billion of dollar acquisition.
Many people were pleased to learn that Twitter will become a platform for free speech.
Twitter Tragedy Debunked00:09:18
Despite this, there was concern by other people that have benefited from all that censorship that Twitter will be flooded with misinformation and disinformation.
Well, Deirdre, there's growing concern about misinformation and hate speech on Twitter since Elon Musk took over after reports of a spike in racist posts on the platform.
On Sunday, Musk himself spread misinformation.
He tweeted out a link to an anti-LGBTQ conspiracy theory about the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband.
He deleted the post, which fact-checkers called fake and defamatory, but after it had drawn more than 86,000 likes and 24,000 retweets on the platform.
Early Friday morning, October 28th, 82-year-old Paul Pelosi, husband of Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic head of Congress in the United States, was attacked on his property in San Francisco with a hammer.
The presumed suspect in this instance is David DePappe.
This tragedy has been the subject of several Twitter interactions.
First, in a tweet, Elon Musk replied to Hilary Clinton that there is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meet the eyes.
E-Link, a Santa Monica observer, article which he withdrew.
Many people then shouted at misinformation and conspiracy theory.
Matthew Goertz, in a series of 16 Twitter posts, described the situation of a far-right controversy spreading misinformation about this story.
In response to Matthew Goertz, YouTuber Viva Frey made a number of points.
One of the main publications say a 16-tweet thread with himself explaining everything that happened before police released body cam footage or disclosed where they found the PAP clothing.
And Matthew Gertz accused others of conspiracy theory, disinformation, massive event will generate massive discussion period.
For this post, Viva Frey has received a warning of violating Twitter rule.
The platform request to remove the tweet and in addition, he was locked out of his Twitter account for an indefinite period of time.
Of course, Viva Frey refused to delete the post because it proved the platform right, which he mistakenly believed.
Viva Frey got back his account after 24 hours without deleting the tweet and no explanation.
But the question remained, shutting down people who question the main story, who make people think for themselves about the situation can only raise concern about the legitimacy of the story by people.
To learn more, let's join Viva Frey.
Can you just explain a little bit for the people who don't know what happened, what happened to you?
Yeah, absolutely.
So I presume everybody knows what happened to Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, third in line to the presidency of the United States of America.
Her husband was, I won't say allegedly attacked, by all accounts attacked by an intruder at 2 in the morning Friday night.
Apparently, the intruder broke in at 2 o'clock in the morning.
Unclear if he was in his underwear when he broke in or if he got into his underwear after having allegedly broken in all sorts of questions.
It's been making the news left, right and center.
I have been tweeting about it, I mean, i've been looking into it, talking about it, covering it, trying to get the info and uh, yesterday I responded to the tweet of an individual named Matt Gertz, who works with media matters, which I didn't really appreciate at the time.
It's a left-wing.
Forget what that's called a watchdog.
It's called a watchdog.
Um he.
He put out a tweet talking about Elon Musk's tweet because, Elon Musk, this is like high school gossip.
Hillary Clinton tweeted out this.
This attack on Paul Pelosi is the direct result of right-wing extremism, political rhetoric that motivates crazies to carry out their political retribution.
Elon Musk, in response to her tweet, says it's not clear if it was a joke, if it was serious.
He says there might be a tiny bit more to the story and links to an article in a publication called the Santa Monica Observer UH, which published an article written by I forget the guy's name that this was a, a gay hookup gone wrong at two in the morning.
That Nancy Pelosi's husband is a Known, is known to be of a certain you know nightlife, and that this was a hookup gone wrong.
Then Elon Musk deletes the tweet and the referenced article.
It's not clear if Elon Musk knew that the author of that article and that publication yeah, they published conspiracy theories or fantasy or you know fan fiction.
In 2016, the same author of that article wrote a piece that Hillary Clinton died on september 11th uh, I don't know what date and that it's a body double in her place.
So that type of news.
So it's not clear if he was joking, if he did it as a as a troll, or if he accidentally believed that Santa Monica observer was a legit source.
But he deletes the tweet and then this guy, Matt Gertz from Media Matters, comes out in a 16 tweet thread with himself and says, now there's going to be a ton of right-wing conservatives that are going to believe this baseless conspiracy because Elon Musk tweeted it out.
And then he goes through like it's, it's a rant with himself, and so I responded to one of his tweets and I said yeah, a total lefty in quotes, uh.
But yet you guys are blaming it on the right.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative, because the guy, by all accounts, is either left right, total whack, who knows?
Uh I, I retweet one of his tweets and then I retweet a third tweet, and this is the one that got me locked out, and it basically says, uh, an individual engages in a 16 tweet thread with himself um, what did I say?
You know, presumes to know all the answers and I, you know, before the evidence is in, before we've seen the body cam footage, before we know what happened to the attacker's clothing, and he calls other people conspiracy theorists.
Within 30 seconds to a minute of that tweet, i'm locked out of my twitter accounts uh, as I have been what time is it now?
Almost for 24 hours.
So I don't know what it was about the tweet, because it's it's an innocuous, factually correct uh, nothing of a tweet.
I don't know what happened.
You know, I get the email, Email from Twitter saying, delete it if you want to get back in, but deleting it is an acknowledgement that you broke the rules.
And I'm like, F you, you didn't even tell me what rule I broke yet.
So I've contested it.
We'll see what happens.
No news yet.
But I hear hashtag free VivaFry might be on Twitter somewhere.
Well, I'll tell them this.
If that got flagged, that tweet, because it promoted misinformation and conspiracy theories, it didn't, but whatever.
Well, what do you think silencing a voice?
And I will say I'm a reasonable voice.
What does anyone think silencing a voice is going to do?
It's going to make people question this even more.
You know, there's a thing called the Streisand effect.
If they didn't hear about it, I mean, I don't know who has not heard about the Streisand effect in modern day social media.
That tweet didn't get me in trouble.
It was only the one, you might be able to find it, but it was only the one where I referred to the 16-tweet thread with himself.
But, you know, it's nuts.
It's just weird.
You know, you said Elon Musk took over the company, so there should be less censorship.
He specified last week, nothing has changed.
So it's not like they've implemented or changed the algorithm.
It's still the same old system.
He hasn't made any material changes yet.
He hasn't brought back the banned accounts yet.
So it's, you know, it's the same old Twitter just under new management until he implements changes.
But, you know, I suspect that this tweet was locked or got flagged.
So there was a brigade and I don't know, 100, 200 people flag the tweet.
Twitter does what it does, like, oh, this tweet is generating a spike.
We don't know what it is.
We're going to lock the account and see.
I suspect that's what happened, but I don't know yet.
As of the time of this interview, I haven't gotten a word from Twitter.
But this is just going to make more people aware of the problem.
It's going to make more people aware of my Twitter feed.
They're going to undo this because there's nothing in the tweet that can possibly justify it.
And in having done what they've done, they're going to have amplified everything, everything that they wanted presumably to suppress through this action.
People create the conspiracy theories because this is one of three things within variations.
Flagged Tweet Lockdown00:00:49
A random attack on Paul Pelosi, a politically motivated attack on Paul Pelosi, in which case you still have to figure out from which side it came, if any, or a personal thing with Paul Pelosi.
But the immediate reflexive attempt to politicize it and equate it or draw analogies, link it to January 6th.
That's when you get people saying, whoa, we haven't even seen the body cam footage from the cops.
We don't know where David DePop's clothing is.
And yet people are definitively claiming this is right-wing radical rhetoric that motivated it and linking it to January 6th.
That's going to cause people to become very, very suspicious and think that somebody is maliciously, politically weaponizing what might otherwise have a apolitical or even a personal matter explanation as relates to Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, and their lifestyle, but whatever.