Ezra Levant critiques the "rules-based international order" as a hollow U.S.-backed facade, citing Ukraine’s reliance on $100B+ American aid while Europe offers only rhetoric—Germany’s demilitarized army (939 soldiers) and Norway’s six aging subs. Trump’s push for peace contrasts with Biden’s support of weak globalist allies like Canada’s Melanie Jolie and EU’s Kaya Kallas, whose policies Levant frames as performative. Ruby Dahla, excluded from Liberal debates after a $350K fee, alleges censorship, hosting The Real Debate (50K viewers vs. CBC’s 8K) while suing the RCMP over a convoy protest incident where her reporter was shot by an officer using crowd-control gas. Her legal fight and media shift highlight systemic suppression of dissent under Trudeau’s narrative, exposing globalist elites’ reliance on U.S. power while silencing critics. [Automatically generated summary]
Christian Freeland and the globalist left always use a phrase, rules-based international order.
Have you ever heard them say that?
It sounds like word salad, and I've always ignored it, but today I want to look at what it really means, because I think it means find a way to box in the United States.
I'm going to look at that through the prism of the Zelensky-Trump meeting last week.
Anyways, I don't think I introduced it.
It's very exciting, but I'm going to go through a whole bunch of things.
What does it mean to be a rules-based international order in 2025, as opposed to being a military superpower like the United States?
I really hope you enjoy today's monologue.
I worked on it all weekend.
I also talked with Ruby Dahla about the latest from the Liberal Party, so make sure you don't miss that also.
One more thing.
Let me invite you to get the video version of this podcast.
I want you to see a speech by there's a German politician I play a clip from, play a couple of clips from Christia Freeland, and I want to show you some submarines in Norway.
And you're thinking, what's that got to do with things?
You'll see when I show them to you.
Go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month, which may not sound like a lot of money to you, but it sure adds up for us as how we pay our bills.
It's rebelnewsplus.com.
Hey there, Rebel News listeners.
Do you have a business or cause that you want to promote to the tens of thousands of regular Rebel News viewers?
Now's your chance.
Whether it's ads on podcasts like this one, videos, our website, or even our digital billboard truck, Rebel News has your advertising needs covered.
It's easy to get started.
Just head over to rebelnews.com slash advertise.
That's rebelnews.com slash advertise.
Fill out our form and find out how Rebel News can help spread your message today.
Don't wait.
Advertise with Rebel News.
Reach freedom-loving patriots and support our independent journalism.
Tonight, Trump the Disruptor disrupted something pretty big last week, but what exactly?
It's March 3rd, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Misleading Peace Treaty00:11:40
Well, it's official.
The official people officially think Donald Trump was officially outrageous in how he treated Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky last week.
Here's a short clip of the toughest part of that interaction.
Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.
Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems.
You should be thanking the president for trying to bring it into this country.
Have you ever been to Ukraine?
Did you say what problems we have?
I have been to what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President.
Do you disagree that you've had problems bringing people into your military?
And do you think that it's respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?
A lot of questions.
Let's start from the beginning.
Sure.
First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you.
But you have nice ocean and don't feel now.
But you will feel it in the future.
God bless.
You don't know that.
God bless you.
God bless.
You will not have war.
Don't tell us what we're going to feel.
We're trying to solve a problem.
Don't tell us what we're going to feel.
I'm not telling you.
Because you're in no position to dictate that.
Remember this.
You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel.
We're going to feel very good.
We're going to feel very good and very strong.
You will feel influence.
You're right now not in a very good position.
You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad beginning from the very beginning of the war.
You're not in a good position.
You don't have the cards right now.
With us, you start having cards.
Right now, you don't know your playing cards.
I'm wearing seeders.
You're gambling with the lives of millions of people.
You're gambling with World War III.
You're gambling with World War III.
And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country.
I'm respecting that.
Far more than a lot of people say they should have.
Have you said thank you once?
A lot of times.
No, at least.
Even today.
You said thank you.
Even today.
You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October.
Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who's trying to save your country.
I won't show you the preceding half hour of the meeting, but if you watch it, you can see how Zelensky repeatedly prickles at Trump and JD Vance until they finally take the bait.
I didn't know this until afterwards, but this was actually the third meeting where Zelensky was supposed to sign a treaty with America, that he refused to do so.
Here's the U.S. Treasury Secretary explaining it.
President Trump sent me there to, again, we were supposed to bring the Ukrainian people closer to the U.S. people, send a strong signal to Russian leadership that we had not only shared values, but now shared economic interest, and also have a strong signal for the American people that their tax dollars were actually going to work.
Instead, President Zelensky and I had a very tough 45-minute meeting at a very loud decibel level, and I kept telling him, Mr. President, the purpose of this is to show the Russians there is no daylight between us.
And at the end of the meeting, he said, well, I'm not signing this.
I said, at the end of the meeting, I said to him, what do you want to go out and tell the press?
He said, I said, because I don't want to go out and show the Russians that they're daylight in between us.
And he said, well, I'm going to go out and say I'll sign it in Munich.
Then he got to Munich and he ran into Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio, very different than Vice President Harris and Secretary Blinken, but he didn't sign the agreement.
So finally, we were supposed to have the signing today.
It was supposed to be a great day.
And this is one of the biggest own goals in diplomatic history.
After his disastrous meeting with Trump, Zelensky flew to London, where he received a hero's welcome.
All of the rest of the NATO leaders and other Europeans were there cheering for him.
It was the same online.
World leaders were very quick to tweet their support for Zelensky.
But what does that mean to say you support Zelensky?
What does support mean?
I mean, is that too philosophical a question to ask?
Trudeau likes to use the word victory when he talks about Ukraine, that Trudeau will be with Ukraine until victory.
But what does that mean?
I was surprised that the CBC published this video, actually talking to Ukrainian troops who say they're just overwhelmed by Russian equipment, but mainly Russian manpower.
This is from just a few weeks ago.
How were things going?
I mean, last time I talked to you was three months ago.
How was the situation on the front line?
The realism situation is not really good for me.
We're all tyrants.
We're all tyrants.
We want a peace.
We lack.
We need manpower.
We need equipment.
The main thing is the abundance of Russian equipment is just too much.
There's too many soldiers and stuff.
But yet we're holding the line.
Somehow we're holding it.
To me, this tweet was perfect.
It's from the Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
No, I haven't heard of him either.
Luxembourg is really just a city of about a million people, but he is a prime minister.
And he said this on Twitter.
He said, Luxembourg stands with Ukraine.
You are fighting for your freedom and a rules-based international order.
Here's what I wrote back.
I said, I mean, you know, me and the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, we're pen pals now or something.
But here's what I said on Twitter.
And this seemed to resonate because five million people watched it.
I said, Luxembourg has a grand total of 939 people in its army.
You have two unarmed helicopters and a cargo plane.
That's not a joke.
I actually looked it up.
I must have hit a nerve with that because millions of people viewed it in a single day.
Some people said that wasn't a fair point because Luxembourg is just a city, landlocked in Europe.
What's the point of having a big army?
To which I respond, exactly.
It would be like the mayor of Winnipeg tweeting that he stands with Zelensky.
You say you stand with Ukraine, but you are actually standing somewhere else.
You're not in Ukraine standing with them.
You are where they are, standing with them, either in Kiev or actually in the battlefield.
Obviously not.
And if not, are you really standing with them?
You say you support them morally.
You're giving them some moral support.
Okay.
But how about actual support?
France and the UK have both talked about sending actual troops there, but when pressed, they mean as peacekeepers, as in after the war is already over.
Of course, they're sending money.
That's a form of support.
And they're sending equipment.
And there's training the Ukrainians.
And all of that has been happening.
But Russia has three times the population of Ukraine.
It's just overwhelming the troops.
Take a look at this chart here.
It shows foreign aid for Ukraine ranked by country.
America has given as much as the rest of the world combined.
I've seen other charts with slightly different numbers on them, but the gist is the same.
This may be a European war, but it's American taxpayers putting the money and equipment on the table.
Trump campaigned on ending that, and he is ending it or trying to.
That's distasteful to many people because for one thing, when you make a peace treaty, you're generally doing so with someone who has been at war with you.
So it's tough to go from calling someone evil incarnate for three years to shaking hands with them and signing agreements with them and ending sanctions on them.
But that's how it works in wars.
The alternative is an, I guess, an unconditional surrender, as Germany and Japan did after the Second World War.
That's a war, though, that costs the lives of 15 million soldiers, another 25 million wounded, and probably 45 or 50 million civilian deaths.
That's the problem with tweeting your support from Luxembourg.
You're pretty far away from the front lines where young men are being put through the meat grinder every day.
I say young men, but actually the young men are gone now.
They're either dead or they fled the country as refugees.
The average age, average age of Ukrainian soldiers is now 43 years old.
A generation of young Ukrainians have been killed in this war.
You know, there's a long-standing meme on social media that claims 80% of boys born in the Soviet Union in 1923 did not survive it through the Second World War.
The BBC had a historian fact-check that and found it generally accurate, although many of them died from other terrible things besides the war.
Did almost 80% of the males born in the Soviet Union in 1923 not survive World War II?
Well, here's Mark Harrison, who got the answer by looking at figures compiled in a book released in 1993 by three Russian demographers.
It's not correct.
It's somewhat overstated.
I think the true figure would be nearer two-thirds.
Two-thirds of this cohort were dead by the time the war was over.
I think the only misleading thing about the line on the internet, the deeply misleading thing is it implies that all these people were killed in the war.
And that's not the case.
This is just a poor country in which lots and lots of babies and young men died anyway.
And then of the ones that were left, there was then this extra burden of war casualties.
But in fact, the war was not the most important source of mortality between 1923 and 1946.
So 8% of the males born in 1923 hadn't died by the end of the war.
Two-thirds had.
That's still a lot of young males dead.
Mike Haynes says census data gives the same result.
What we mustn't do under any circumstances is diminish the catastrophic nature of the Second World War and the population losses in the Soviet Union.
Around about 27 million is the estimate of what's called excess mortality.
And there's a margin of error there.
And to put that figure into perspective, the margin of error in the Soviet data is probably greater than all the wartime losses in Britain.
So that's a measure of how many people died.
The point is, it cost an entire generation of Russian men.
Just like the Civil War in the United States culled an entire generation of young men, particularly in the South.
So yeah, you support Ukraine with everything and anything except for actual help.
The thing is, many of the complaints about what happened in that White House meeting are compelling.
Why Russia is wrong, why Ukraine deserves help, but they're all just stop at the someone ought to do something point.
It's like that fake song in that movie.
I don't know if you ever saw it called Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Russell Brand was hilarious in that movie, and he made a fake song in a fake band called We've Gott Do Something.
We Gotta Do Something00:04:57
Here, just take a look for a second.
We gotta do something.
We gotta do something.
We've got to do something.
It's a really funny song, but here's the outgoing German foreign minister, Annalina Baerbach.
The speech is in German, but there's subtitles.
Just FYI, she's part of the Green Party.
Those are the eco-peace next here.
watch a little bit of this speech by the Green Party cabinet minister in Germany.
For Ukraine, for our own security and for the peace in Europe.
The guest hat and the news.
A roofless international and the right der steering mission.
Then we have to do that a steering nach.
That Alice Hatzechital and that we have all in the world.
The water for a regional international and the right dash of the world.
We miss the European and European countries for the people who are in the right place and the sovereign and Ukraine.
Ukraine is democratic Europa.
Werner Kriegen Ukraine, brutal aggressor, and multi-fertility issue and the people who are in Europe, But no one on the world waits until we have closed conversations in Germany.
We live in uncertain times, but if we live in these moments, in these days, it's time for the next day.
we should be in Deutschland and in Europe that we have to do with the people who are Europa was in the world.
A state of Friedensproject, Frieden and Freiheit, was seen and projected that in the world Australia.
Slava Ukraini is labeled Europa.
So she's very passionate about Ukraine.
And she says Germany has to do something, as Russell Brown would sing it.
She should at least sing it.
But how can they do something?
Germany hasn't just demilitarized, it's deindustrialized, in no small part because of the Greens.
You know, there are literally 40 U.S. military bases in Germany with about 50,000 US troops over there.
Sister, you can't even defend yourselves, but you're ready to go on an adventurous war in Ukraine.
Actually, she's not.
That's the whole point.
She's not.
She just wants to do something.
I get it.
Look, me too.
Actually, I don't think another multi-country land war in Central Europe is the answer to pretty much anything in life.
But all these really cool Europeans think so.
But you can't do that if you've denationalized your countries, if you've demilitarized your entire continent, if you've demated your people, if you've removed the motivation for young men to fight for their homeland.
There's no industry left in Germany.
Well, there is, but it's shrinking as they decarbonize.
There's no military, just a post-national, post-industrial place where they listen to weird music.
Denationalizing Europe00:13:51
Here's Nick Kroll having some fun with that.
Want to know everything you want to know about coming to Europe?
Well, watch this video from the Spartadox hostel, the coolest hostel in all the countries of Europe.
For breakfast, we'll do something cool, like have a cigarette and like a bar of chocolate.
Then we go for work for like one half hour, two half hour, and then we'll go for lunch.
And lunch is usually, you know, something cool, like a cigarette and like two, three bottles of red wine and then like a bowl of heavy cream.
And then dinner, you know, we'll do something healthy, like, you know, four or five sausages and then like a chocolate cigarette.
And then we'll invite our cigarette outside to take an espresso and watch the street life.
And we so much can eat as much as we want and we never get heavy because of olive oil.
So that's what we say.
So yeah, if you're a Green Party politician or the prime minister of a city called Luxembourg, you do a lot of deep thinking and you may actually be right about Ukraine, but the answer to every single time you say we've got to do something is, well, you and what army?
And that's basically what Trump asked Zelensky, you and what army.
You heard that green politician talk about a rules-based international order.
Did he catch that?
And look again at that Luxembourger's tweet.
He uses that same language.
You are fighting for your freedom and a rules-based international order.
That's a phrase Christopher Freeland uses endlessly.
It's one of those phrases that sounds very bland, and so you don't really even think about it.
I've been hypnotized by that phrase.
You know, I remember my friend Terry Corcoran at the Financial Post was always writing, and I'm talking about 20 years ago, about the World Economic Forum in Europe.
And I confess I was so bored by the words World Economic Forum that I never really cared about it until I actually realized that that name was a kind of camouflage to hide what they were doing.
Same thing with the phrase rules-based international order.
By the way, here's Christopher Freeland talking about the rules-based international order at the World Economic Forum in 2019.
The rules-based international order today is facing greater challenges than it has at any time since the Second World War, at any time since it was created.
And that's very serious.
You know, I sometimes scare myself when I say that.
But I also think that we are starting to figure out how to navigate this new world and to, you know, we're starting to figure out ways for the rules-based international order to fight back.
She doesn't quite explain what she means there, though, does she?
Here she is in a 2017 interview.
So this was during Trump's first year in his first term.
And I'll tell you what rules-based international order means.
It means a bunch of socialists like Christian Freeland and a bunch of Euro-socialists I've discussed already teaming up to tie down the United States like Gulliver in Lilliput.
Rules-based means using the United Nations and other multilateral clubs to tell America what to do and what not to do.
Not using the hard power of money and military might, but the soft power of lawyers and journalists and bureaucrats and USAID and the World Economic Forum and all sorts of other NGOs.
Rules-based international order means making rules to stop America, never to stop China.
We are at a time and a place when international institutions need to be reinvented and renewed.
And I argued today, and I believe so strongly, we need to double down on that international rules-based order.
And doing that is the best way.
I believe it is the only way to ensure safety and security for Canadians.
There are only 36 million Canadians.
A Fortress Canada approach is not going to be an approach that will maintain our prosperity or our safety.
So you talked a lot about America today.
Are you saying we need to go it alone and put some separation between our foreign policy and America's foreign policy?
You referenced it a lot in your speech today.
What exactly are you saying about Canada's role now?
My central conviction is about Canada committing to recommitting to building our leadership in our multilateral alliances.
Having said that, we also need to be honest with ourselves and with Canadians.
And we need to be honest about the fact that the election in the United States last fall, for many Americans, was an expression of a weariness with the burdens of global leadership.
You said they're questioning global leadership.
Exactly.
So if they're questioning global leadership, you're saying we have to take a sovereign, almost a sovereign approach.
We have to appreciate that we, as Canadians, our country, a middle power, is a huge beneficiary of this international rules-based order.
And we have to step up.
So let me explain.
The rules-based international order, in case you're wondering, is a system or a scheme or an ideology or a plan whose purpose is to let poor, weak, socialist countries box in the United States.
The rules-based international order is what Europe has just used for the past three years to convince the mentally frail U.S. president or whoever his deep state handlers were to give more than $100 billion to a war that Europe claims to care about, but doesn't really care about when measured by anything real like blood or treasure.
A rules-based international order is how countries convince or try to convince the United States to deindustrialize by adopting the global warming cult and carbon taxes.
A rules-based international order is how the United Nations is weaponized mainly against America, but also against America's allies like Israel.
A rules-based international order is how you get insane things like a plastics registry championed by Canada.
You know what this reminds me of?
The most European American there is, John Kerry.
You know who I'm talking about, former senator, most recently Joe Biden's global warming ambassador.
We keep bumping into him naturally at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and we always ask him about his private jets, and he just can't give them up.
Secretary Kerry, do you think that the high price of natural gas is actually a helpful thing to get people to transition to a green economy?
I'd love to talk about it, but I just can't do it on the run.
Justify being here.
Yourself take private jets.
Can you answer that?
But you've taken a private jet before.
No, but you're taking a private jet before to collect the climate change award.
You have done that.
I fly commercial.
Exclusively.
Can I ask you, did you fly commercial to get here?
Part way, yes.
Part way, and then what?
What do you mean, and then what?
Well, you're an advocate against climate change.
Excuse me.
Here.
Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Kerry, we got interrupted last time.
Quick question.
Why are you actually here now when you're not in any professional?
I'm sorry, sir, no question.
That's a guy.
He can talk for himself.
You're in the private sector now?
Sure.
And you told us that you part flew here privately.
We're not.
That's how you get here.
No, no, but you told me, last year you got very upset that we implied that you took private jets.
Yesterday you told us that you...
I'm not going to waste my time with you.
You said you part-traveled.
What part did you travel here privately?
Is it now worth it?
Is it now worth it in the private sector?
Is your carbon footprint worth it now?
Flying, obviously, private jets.
We ask him about his private jets every year, and he sort of answers us every year.
And his answer is pretty much the same.
And it's actually an honest answer.
He says, Look, I'm important and I'm busy.
And so that justifies using a private jet with all its carbon emissions.
As in, he says he really, really does care about the world's environment.
But in the case of himself, it's more important that he fly to another meeting than save 100 tons of carbon or whatever.
He admits it's a contradiction, but he makes the choice.
And surprise, surprise, he chooses the private jet.
So he believes in what he's saying, just not to the point of actually having to inconvenience himself.
Just like the foreign minister of Germany, she's a deeply believing and deeply feeling woman.
She's a member of the Green Party with everything that entails.
She wants an army for righteous moments like this, but she'd prefer it if it were the American army or at least the Ukrainian army using American weapons.
Does she really want an army in Germany?
Now, that's a dangerous question, I suppose.
But like Kaya Kallas, the foreign minister of the European Union, I think she really just wants to do some role-playing, some live-action role-playing to play pretend, sort of like dress up.
It's sort of like those Civil War reenactors, those hobbyists in the U.S. who pretend they're soldiers in the Civil War.
I think that's what all these European politicians are like.
So you've got every soft power, rules-based international order who wants the hard power of the United States, but only in ways that they approve of.
So when Donald Trump wants a minerals deal out of Ukraine, they're appalled.
Except you can't build a modern industrial economy without minerals.
And don't they realize this puts American and American interests in Ukraine?
Something that Putin would be very reluctant to shoot at as compared to the first Luxembourg Brigade.
Give me 30 seconds.
Let me show you a video released by the Norwegian army.
Now, they're good people in Norway.
I don't have a hard word to say about them, but seriously, feast your eyes on this.
I show you that because I have some news out of Norway.
Maybe you saw it over the weekend.
A refueling company based in Norway says it will no longer refuel U.S. Navy ships patrolling near Norway.
They said this is because of how Trump handled Zelensky.
Got it.
But help me understand: why is the U.S. Navy patrolling the seas near Norway in the first place?
Apparently, it was this ship, the USS Delaware, a nuclear-powered attack submarine that was looking for diesel fuel to back up for its backup generator.
It's a nuclear-powered sub, but it also has a diesel generator.
Now, I'm skeptical of this story, by the way.
It feels like some social media activist used the Facebook account of this company to make a personal statement, but it's plausible that he spoke for the company.
But here's what the USS Delaware looks like.
I mean, it's just an awesome ship.
I did some poking around.
There's a couple of photos of it.
It's pretty huge.
Look at the size of the people on the top of it for scale.
These are fast attack submarines.
They cost more than $4 billion each just to build them.
And then there's the massive cost to arm them and operate them and crew them and maintain them.
They have a crew of 134 people.
They're huge.
They really move fast.
Imagine that thing going 50 kilometers an hour.
It's only about five years old, this ship.
It's probably the most advanced attack submarine in the world.
But like I say, what were they doing in Norway?
I mean, why was it there?
Why wasn't it protecting the United States, which is paying for it?
Oh, this is why.
The entire Norwegian budget is about $15 billion U.S. a year.
They can't afford to buy and then operate even a single nuclear attack sub like this.
Now, they do have six baby subs.
Well, they're babies in size.
Here's a picture of two of them next to each other, but they're not babies in age.
They were delivered in the 1980s.
So they're in their 40s.
They're older than most of the crew who sail in them.
They're small.
They just take 21 crew.
Now, they're not nothing.
And that's more than Canada can do, by the way.
We allegedly have four submarines, but generally they don't work.
In the whole year of 2019, for example, all four Canadian submarines, they were in port being repaired or they just didn't sail.
But can you guess why the Americans were sailing around Norway?
And it's not just submarines.
Here's a U.S. aircraft carrier recently sailing by Norway too.
What's it doing in Norway?
Well, if you guessed, the answer is because Norway, like the rest of the free world, really can't defend itself.
Why Were They Not Debates?00:15:00
That's the answer.
They've made a choice not to defend themselves.
That's why the United States has 40 bases in Germany.
That's why the United States has a nuclear-powered sub in Norway, has a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Norway.
Norway is very rich, by the way.
That's why Christian Freeland and the rest of the world's nagging Marxists lament the end of the rules-based international order, because to them, that means they get to be on par with the Donald Trumps and Pete Hegseths of the world.
They get to have as much say as the JD Vance's and the Marco Rubios.
Why?
Because of rules.
But the rules didn't protect Ukraine, did they?
American money and weapons did, and Trump wants to end that war.
Maybe you'll disagree with the exact way that happens.
Maybe you disagree with peace at all.
Trump said it on Friday.
Zelensky has no cards to play, and everyone can see that.
So if you want a rules-based international order, you've got to do what Teddy Roosevelt said about 120 years ago.
You should walk softly and carry a big stick.
Sometimes people listen to America and Donald Trump because they make intellectually persuasive arguments.
Sometimes people listen to America because they make appealing commercial arguments.
But at the end of the day, America calls the shots because American taxpayers and American soldiers have a good answer to that question.
We've got to do something.
They have an answer for the something.
And they have an answer to the question, you and what army?
Joe Biden and his nurses or whoever was running the show agreed with the weak world powers around the world who wanted to milk America for all it had.
Trump's going in a different direction, and he campaigned on that.
Now, that doesn't mean there's no role for Christia Freeland and a hundred other pundits like Kaya Kallas and that Luxembourg guy.
Their role is to tweet, I guess.
I mean, they could re-industrialize and remilitarize, but that's too yucky and nationalistic and fascistic for them.
So for now, I guess they'll just sort of watch from the stands and heckle.
By the way, I haven't said a lot about Canada today because no one is really paying any attention to Justin Trudeau or our foreign minister, Melanie Jolie.
But you can expect Prime Minister Mark Carney to be the absolute worst in the world at this soft power stuff.
He was the original ESG, Environmental Social Governance Corporate Soft Power Oligarch.
Boy, we are cruising for a bruising here in Canada, too.
Stay with us for more.
Well, anyone who watched the two liberal leadership contest debates, I wouldn't even call them debates.
They were more like Me Too-a-thons.
Well, you can figure out why they blocked Dr. Ruby Dahla from being a candidate.
By the way, they didn't block her until after she lodged her $350,000 entry fee into the race.
The answer, in case you weren't watching those two debates, is that there weren't actually debates.
It felt like there was a kind of collusion going on, that all four of the remaining candidates had pretty much decided that Mark Carney was going to run away with it.
So instead of taking pot shots at him or to phrase it another way, asking critical questions or challenging Carney as the frontrunner, they all seemed to submit their resumes and apply for a cabinet position.
There were no sparks because that wouldn't suit.
It was all about getting Mark Carney through this entire process with as little scrutiny as possible.
Well, the woman who they blocked has not been stopped from talking about it.
Joining us now to catch up on things is Ruby Dalla.
Great to see you again.
Thanks for taking the time with us.
Thank you so much.
It's a pleasure to be back again.
Now, tell me what you thought of the debates.
I'm sure you watched them.
My number one reaction is they weren't actually debates.
It was like a controlled, managed conversation amongst friends and allies.
That was no debate.
Well, I would certainly agree with you on that.
It was actually more of a family group chat, you know, that one would have within their family and having a discussion.
It was very clear after seeing some clips of that debate of why the Liberal Party of Canada did not want to have me on that debate stage.
You know, from the get-go, I had spoken about wanting to bring the party back to the center, about returning the party membership back into the hands of the grassroots of this country, and most importantly, about talking about progressive policy ideas that I felt were the need of the hour.
And after watching that family group chat, I can tell you that I was very happy that Canadians actually had a chance to hear about policy and about the vision and about the future of our country with the simultaneous debate that I had with a very well-known TikTok influencer with millions and millions of likes on his post.
But both him and myself, we hosted something in collaboration for the debate called The Real Debate.
And what was really, really interesting is that the highest, I think, online viewership that the party and the CBC received was 8,000.
And we actually had 50,000 people that were watching us throughout our debate.
So it was very clear that Canadians wanted to hear about policies.
They wanted a real debate, you know, and where you actually have opposing views, and certainly not having a friendly group chat.
Yeah, and I think that Canadians felt, especially Canadians who were liberals, and of course, I myself am not a liberal, but if I were a liberal, I would want to make up the choice for myself.
I wouldn't want a secretive committee of party insiders determining who I could or couldn't vote for.
I would want to inspect the merchandise of all the different candidates, kick the tires, to use another metaphor, and I would want to be the decider.
It feels a little bit too controlled.
Now, let me ask you: I know you appealed your decertification to an internal party appeal process.
And again, from what I heard, this was a secretive process, not done in public, not done with scrutiny.
I suppose that marks the end of the road internally.
Thinking as a former lawyer, I know you could try and have the courts judicially review it.
That's probably a long shot.
Courts would probably grant a lot of deference to the Liberal Party.
Is there any more legal moves you can?
Are there any more legal moves you could make?
Or are you just going to be a journalistic critic now?
Are you going to try and get back in, or has that ship sailed?
You know, it was very unfortunate what happened.
And, you know, as you shared that, this disqualification of Ruby Dalla, it certainly, you know, engaged Canadians from all political stripes, from all over the country.
And I and my team, you know, and supporters were really, really shocked that 5.8 million people engaged on Twitter alone on 96 hours after the disqualification on Instagram.
We had 4.8 million people engaged because people clearly saw this disqualification for what it was.
It was an attack on democracy.
It was an attack on fairness, an attack on justice in our country.
We live in a first world country where democracy is a foundation of our country and the very people that we are.
So to take away that opportunity for people to vote, to take away the opportunity for people to have that choice, in itself is something that just makes you scratch their head for a party that was preaching about democracy and preaching about being the liberal party of Canada.
It certainly was not very liberal when they have a track record now of kicking out smart, successful, intelligent women that have a voice.
You take a look at Dr. Jane Philpott, you take a look at Jodi Wilson-Raybeau, you take a look at Selena.
All of these people have women, you know, smart and successful and intelligent, have all been kicked out by the party.
I was also the second candidate, you know, to be disqualified from the immigrant community, from the South Asian community in particular, even though I was born and raised in Canada.
And for what?
Because I was there to challenge the status quo and to challenge the establishment.
You know, we talk about the debate in particular.
I mean, whoever wins and the establishment wants Mark Carney to win, how is he going to go up on that debate stage and debate Pierre Polyev?
How is he going to go up and actually have a debate with other Canadians who want to talk about the future of our country?
Yet the establishment was scared to have Ruby Dalla up on stage debating Mark Carney.
It just, it's all very, very puzzling and very bizarre to say the least.
And then to come up with, you know, fabricated allegations hours after they received $350,000.
So in terms of what you've mentioned, where do we go from here?
You're a lawyer.
So we're actually, you know, you'll appreciate that the lawyers are actually taking a look to see what windows exist in terms of pursuing this further, especially for the $350,000, which was given actually by hardworking Canadians.
And they want the Liberal Party of Canada to do the honorable thing, to do the ethical thing, and to have that money returned to those hardworking Canadians that donated for the vision that I had for the party and for the country.
Now, you mentioned that it was the party, some party agency, I don't know, some committee that booted you out.
Have you had any communication from any of the four candidates or any MPs or anyone?
Just, and I'm not asking you to name them, but has anyone from within the party reached out to you and say, you know, this isn't right, or I wish you hadn't been kicked out?
Like, have you had, are there other friendlies within the party who are saying what you've just said, this isn't the right way to do it.
It looks like censorship and cancel culture.
Or are they sort of, have they all made their peace with the fact that Carney's their new king?
Well, I think one thing's very clear: that I was certainly not in this leadership race to get a job or to apply for a job.
I was there, you know, for my lifelong commitment that I've had to public service to our party and to our country.
And like you said, this friendly group chat was sort of everyone wanting to see which job they can get out of this.
And, you know, and they were all, I would say, appeasing Mark Carney, who they perceive as, you know, the front runner that the establishment wants to become the leader.
So I think that it really changes the dynamics.
None of the four candidates reached out, but many, many MPs, you know, did reach out and felt what was done by the Liberal Party establishment was unfair.
It was unjust.
And as one MP put it, this is certainly not very liberal at all for the Liberal Party to be carrying out these types of issues.
And even more than the many liberals that reached out, there were also so many Canadians, some who are politically aligned with other political parties, other people that are not politically involved, other people that are politically homeless, but just people who really believe in democracy and fairness.
And they saw what happened.
I mean, I learned of my disqualification while I was live on television.
Guess what?
Who was CBC?
You know, so for someone that was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, for someone that is running to be prime minister of the country, for a party establishment to inform me in that manner, I think that a lot of Canadians just felt that that was just plain wrong and something that was unacceptable by the Liberal Party.
When we spoke nine days ago, you mentioned the fact that both Christia Freeland and Mark Carney had been directors of the World Economic Forum.
Now, that's not something that most people in mainstream media or mainstream politics know about or talk about.
And it's sort of a can of worms.
We cover the World Economic Forum every year.
We fly over there and try and ask questions of the VVIPs.
So I know exactly what you mean.
That's the kind of question that makes the mainstream media really uncomfortable.
And I think that's exactly the kind of thing they were trying to stop you from injecting into the debate.
So here's my question about that.
I know that when you talk to us, you talk to other citizen journalists too, other YouTubers.
You mentioned the big TikTok influencer you were with on debate night.
And that doesn't surprise me that people who are sort of skeptical citizen journalists would want to hear what you have to say.
But let me ask you this.
How have you been treated in the last 10 days by what we call the mainstream media, by the CBC, CTV, Global, by the Globe and Mail, by the Toronto Star?
They're really the big guys.
Have they been open-minded towards you?
Have they given you a fair hearing?
Or have they frozen you out because they don't want to talk about prickly things like the World Economic Forum or whatever, also?
Well, we're actually going to need your help on this one because I can tell you a rebel news because we were looking through some of the various interviews that were being done of the liberal talking heads.
And one of the best analogies that this liberal talking head came up with on CBC News about the reason for my disqualification was while Ruby was discussing the World Economic Forum.
And this is a bizarre conspiracy theory.
Like the whole thing just, you know, makes you scratch your head that if the liberal talking head could have this as the best reason possible for having Ruby Dalla disqualified, because she's talking about the World Economic Forum, which they deem to be a conspiracy theory, I was just sitting back and thinking this is all fact.
You know, I haven't been a part of the World Economic Forum.
And if you have these group of individuals that have been and are, it should be of no basis to have me disqualified because I was here talking and focusing on the issues.
I never personally attacked any, you know, candidate that was running.
I never personally attacked any individual.
I was focused on talking about issues and policies which are the need of the hour.
Market Reaction to GilboMinus00:06:08
So that was the sentiment that was being expressed by them.
Then when it comes to mainstream media, I mean, CBC, just everything from the language that was used by CBC right now, right to them finding out about my disqualification, you know, before I found out who was the candidate, that was very strange.
But afterwards, you know, you take a look at the Toronto Sun, you take a look at the National Post in particular, and even CP24, they have all come out, you know, showing my side of the story.
And I think it was a Toronto Sun, Brian Lilly, called some of the allegations laughable.
The National Post came out with an article basically stating why the Liberal Party of Canada saw Ruby Dalla as a threat to Mark Carney's coronation and hence the reason.
So some of the mainstream channels, I think, have really taken a step back and taken a look at this and say that it was very evident that they wanted to have me off of the debate stage, off of the ballot, and complete the coronation of Mark Carney.
And I think that those media outlets all agree that this was unjust.
But I think that's stemming from seeing the overwhelming response of citizens, people who are, you know, may or may not be affiliated with a political party or maybe politically homeless or maybe very, you know, pro-liberal or anti-liberal or pro-conservative or not with another political party.
I think it stems from the fact that this was just something that was an attack on democracy in our country, something that was completely an attack on fairness and justice.
And people actually lost the right to cast their vote, to make a choice of who they want as a liberal leader and as Canada's future prime minister.
I had signed up thousands and thousands of membership across the country.
All of those people were left without the opportunity to be able to vote for me.
And those donors that gave $350,000 for the vision, believing in the vision that I had for the country, that I had for the party, they're all out of pocket with this money.
And that's why the Liberal Party needs to do the right thing and return that money to those donors.
Yeah.
Just really quickly on the World Economic Forum, I don't want to spend too much time on it, but I mean, it is a real thing.
It meets every January in Davos, Switzerland.
Now, I'm sure there are false rumors about it, but it is not a rumor that both Christia Freeland and Mark Carney were on the board.
In fact, we've interviewed Mark Carney every year at the World Economic Forum when we're walking on the streets.
Here's a quick clip of me scrumming him last year on the streets of Davos.
Actually, it was sort of friendly.
Here, take a look.
Talk to a Canuck.
Talk to him.
Great.
Nice to see you.
But seriously, he needs help.
He's down 20 points.
He has a gender gap.
Women are choosing conservatives more than liberals.
I don't remember the last time that happened.
What advice would you have for the youngster?
Going to a central banker for political advice is never a good idea.
Come on, we know that you're in the line.
I heard you had a meeting the other day with the Prime Minister in Ottawa.
Is that correct?
I see the Prime Minister from time to time.
In what capacity, may I ask?
Well, I do a lot of work on climate, as you know.
I'm sure a big fan of that.
Do you ever register as a lobbyist or is it just friendship?
Sorry, I don't.
When you meet with the PM on climate, are you there on your own behalf or are you there on behalf of a company lobby?
I am the UN special envoy on climate action and finance.
And what do you make?
It's a bitter cold in Canada, down to minus 40s.
Minus 40.
And Gilbo was saying go to electric cars.
That doesn't work.
Well, you've got to have, watch out.
You've got to have the full, you've got to have full capacity, right?
And you've got to have, you've got to, you know, one of the things we're going to need to do in Canada, across Canada, and this is, you know, for the benefit of jobs in the country, is build out the grid.
You can't switch before you build it out, number one.
Number two, one of the things you need, regardless of the form of energy you have, we have, is also to have what's called a capacity market alongside the electricity market.
So you think that Gilbo's plan is a little bit hasty since we haven't done those foundational things.
Well, I think what's important is that, you know, whether it's in Alberta, Ontario, Canada, Australia for that matter, is that you have to, yeah, you have to build.
You have to build.
And it's a time to build.
And look, we're in a position where we in Canada are in a position where we have been an energy superpower.
We can continue to be an energy superpower.
We've always had the ability to develop new sources of energy.
But the PM said there was no market for natural gas.
How do you feel about natural gas, especially to relieve Ukraine and other Europeans from Russian gas?
How come they are buying Russian gas and Qatari gas, but Justin Trudeau won't let them buy Canadian gas?
Well, we would have to get to build the trains in order to do what called LNG trains in order to get the gas to them.
This was a long interview, isn't it?
I'm enjoying it, and I'm doing my best to be fair and friendly.
If this was Canada, you could have him arrested.
Did you see that?
Your rival, Christy Frieland, had one of our reporters arrested.
She did, I think.
She didn't say a word against it.
On the incident, as you guys know very well, Canada is a rule of law country.
Canada is a democracy.
Operational decisions about law enforcement are taken by the police of jurisdiction quite appropriately.
Political, elected officials have no role in the taking of those decisions.
And that's why I don't have any further comment.
It was the wrong thing.
It was absolutely the wrong thing.
Rcmp And The Rule Of Law00:09:39
Well, thank you for saying that.
Look, freedom of the press.
Look, I've been.
I've been a public figure in Canada, been a public figure in the UK.
I know you've got to answer tough questions.
And you guys, you know, you ask tough questions, and that's fair.
Well, I want to thank you for saying that because I have to say, Christy Frieland has not yet said anything in the vein that you have.
She's been happy to let the cops do her work for her.
And if she disagrees with the cops, she hasn't said so.
Well, I said what I said.
But look, the questions you were asking earlier about energy, and I'm going to have to.
Well, thanks for your time.
I really appreciate Gordon and I appreciate keeping it.
Until next year.
So that clip shows, I mean, it's he's there every year.
Like it's Mark Carney's real stomping grounds.
And Chris, you're feeling, it's really weird to me.
The real question is if you're going to get a clip done this year.
Yeah.
Well, he wasn't.
Neither of them went this year.
Both of them stayed home because of the liberal leadership contest.
Let me ask you one last question.
I sure appreciate you spending so much time with us.
Let's say that there's no more legal avenues to go down.
I'm guessing that a court would be reluctant to overturn the deal here.
I mean, it has happened before.
I've seen it in other parties.
There have been some courts intervening, but I don't know if they'll do that here.
And certainly I don't know if they'll do it quick enough.
So let's say that the state of affairs continues as it is.
You were kicked out.
You can't get back in.
And as I think will happen, Mark Carney has a coronation.
What are your plans?
Are you going to continue to speak as a journalist, like as an like a pundit?
Are you going to run in some form?
Are you still figuring that out?
I mean, I enjoy talking with you.
It's very interesting.
But what are you going to do, let's say, a month from now or in the heart of a campaign?
Have you thought it through?
To be very honest and transparent with you, there's been a lot of suggestions and advice, and everything happened very quickly.
I had gone into the race to win it.
I did not imagine that me questioning the status quo or questioning the establishment or even talking about progressive policy ideas would result in the Liberal Party having their egos and the establishment so bruised that they would have me disqualified.
So I'm going to take some time just to think about next steps.
I have dedicated my life to the Liberal Party of Canada, but it certainly did not turn out to be very liberal after all.
So I'm going to be in the coming days taking a little bit more time to reflect as to the next steps.
And hopefully we'll share those with you once they have been finalized.
Well, I should tell you that our petition at draftruby.com has almost 5,000 signatures on it.
I'll send it over to you.
So there's a lot of people who want to see you do something, whether that's run as an independent, maybe even look at other parties that might be more welcoming.
I mean, I think that some of our viewers are quite conservative, but I think they can spot someone who is an independent thinker, is a critical thinker, who is open-minded, who believes in democracy.
And I think those are important values, whether you're left-wing or right-wing.
So I think you embody some of that public spirit.
And I think you've impressed a lot of people.
I've enjoyed talking with you, and I hope we'll keep in touch over the next few months because it's going to be very intense news times.
And I know you'll have something to say.
I hope we can keep talking to you from time to time.
Yes, thank you so much once again.
And I just want to say thank you to all of your listeners and your audience for reaching out, for sending so many messages of support.
And I want everyone to know that this was really about a movement.
And it became a moment of sort of truth of, you know, showing that when you do question the establishment or if you ever speak out and bruise anyone's egos or you challenge the status quo, that there are people that are going to attack the democracy.
And I think that because so many Canadians and so many people just spoke out and engaged that Canadians will not allow any political institution in our country to attack democracy, to attack our values of fairness and justice.
And regardless of which direction and which path I move forward in, I will always stand with all Canadians in this fight for democracy, fairness, and justice, and speaking the truth.
All right.
There you have it.
Dr. Ruby Dala.
You can sign our petition at draftruby.com.
Stay with us.
more ahead hey you know what I was in the Wall Street Journal the other day.
Did I tell you that?
It's quite a prestigious newspaper, if I do say so myself.
It's a very old newspaper.
It's one of the largest newspapers in America.
I think it's the second largest.
And it's prestigious, especially as a business paper.
Anyways, they published an op-ed by me about tariffs and how my view is that Donald Trump should not punish all of Canada just to get at Justin Trudeau.
In fact, it's not a very America first thing to do to push away Canadian oil.
He should pull more Canadian oil to displace conflict oil.
So I was very proud, frankly, to be published in the Wall Street Journal.
And it felt like I overcame some cancel culture.
Not that they were ever bad at it, but it felt, you know, prestigious for me.
And then Jordan Peterson had me on his show for an hour and a half.
Did you see that?
I was sort of excited.
And not that Jordan Peterson is a cancel culture guy at all, quite the opposite.
He's someone the left tried to cancel.
But I felt like both Jordan Peterson and the Wall Street Journal within a week felt like the world wanted to hear what rebel news had to say.
And maybe cancel culture is on the wane.
And maybe, you know, people are sort of sick of, oh, you can't listen to the hymn or stay away from rebel.
I don't know.
I found it quite vindicating in a way.
Anyways, without further ado, let me end the show with some clips from my appearance.
You can find it on Jordan Peterson's YouTube channel.
But here are some clips from my appearance with Jordan Peterson.
Take a look.
The Trucker Convoy, Rebel News, that was really our time to shine.
The regime media were all on Justin Trudeau's script.
This is the Maple Leaf Insurrection.
This is the January 6th moment for Canada.
Yeah, it wasn't just for Canada either.
Like that, that demonstration triggered all those farmers' protests in the UK, and it was a big deal.
It was huge.
It was the time when people paid attention to Canada in an interested, focused way.
But Trudeau tried to have the script being these are violent, racist people, fringe minority with unacceptable views.
That was his exact thing.
Confederate Nazis.
You know, Canada is full of Confederate Nazis.
So we were down there just with our citizen journalists, just filming everything on our phones.
And in that month, we had 400 million views and impressions, which is more than the average bunch of the CBC state broadcaster.
I believe we helped stop the Trudeau narrative from taking root.
Anyways, that trucker convoy was completely peaceful, except one thing.
There was one shooting.
There were probably 10,000 or tens of thousands of people in Ottawa, and there were echo events all across the country.
Who was the shooting?
Our reporter Alexa LeBois, clearly marked as a reporter, holding her cell phone, filming riot police and truckers.
One riot cop with the RCMP takes out his riot gun at close range and shoots her in the leg.
Her, the only person in the, and with the wadding and a huge bruise, and you can hear her screams of pain.
And by the way, the police don't offer her help afterwards.
They shoot her and go.
We're suing the RCMP for that as well.
We've discovered that that weapon is not meant to be shot at a person.
Won't surprise you to learn.
You shoot it into an area on the ground and it releases cure gas.
And you only do that with that weapon if things are very escalated.
If there's like a riot underway, if people are storming something, you do not use that weapon preemptively because there's a bunch of people chanting.
So it was used inappropriately, both in terms of manner and time.
And is it a coincidence?
And this is my conspiracy theory, so it's a coincidence.
The only person in the country who was shot during the convoy was our reporter.
And we complained to the RCMP.
We're suing them, but we also complained to them.
You know, who the police have an internal complaint system?
You know who they assigned it to?
You know where the RCMP officer was based who looked into this matter?
You're not going to guess, but one of you guess for fun.
I couldn't.
Port-au-Prince Haiti.
No, I wouldn't have guessed that.
I got to tell you.
The RCMP is part of Trudeau's outreach to the Haitian community in Montreal.
It has RCMP officers stationed in Haiti to teach them how to be cops.
You can accept that or not, but that was where the cop who's going to do this investigation of the shooting of Alexa LaVois, our reporter, was based.
It's so absurd.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.