Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 5, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:37:47

NYT Are Liars! Living in a Post-Truth World - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's true that individuals are no longer mandated to wear a mask in many settings.
	But you can choose to wear one.
	You can choose to continue to wear one.
	And I encourage you to do so.
	Wear the best quality mask that you have access to.
	And ensure that it fits well.
	Wearing a mask is a simple thing that we can all do.
	Especially if you're older.
	Have older people in your life?
	Have a serious health condition?
	Or are simply indoors with people you don't know?
	Can we all just take a moment to bask?
	To bask in what we just heard.
	First things first, we've been rolling for 57 seconds.
	I just want to see...
	How quickly it happens.
	We're still agreeing.
	I'm going to periodically refresh to see at what point, at what point, this stream, for no reason whatsoever, gets demonetized.
	By the way, they've all been getting remonetized after manual review.
	I just, I think I suspect what the problem is, but to be determined.
	Let me just bring that back so we can actually see who this individual is.
	I have talked about, this is from Rebel News.
	I read Rebel News.
	I follow Rebel News.
	They're doing better work than any other legacy media in Canada, and I dare say better than any media in Canada right now.
	Toronto's medical officer, medical officer of health, Dr. Eileen Davila, had a message for those yet to receive a COVID booster.
	Go get your next dose now.
	If you know someone not up to date with the vaccination...
	Help.
	But listen to what she says.
	No longer mandated.
	Because they thought it was a reasonable mandate in the first place.
	But you can choose to wear one.
	You can choose.
	You can choose to continue to wear one.
	You can choose to live in fear.
	And I encourage you to do so.
	She would encourage you.
	Wear the best quality mask that you have access to.
	This is what I love.
	And ensure that it fits well.
	Ensure that it fits well.
	Remind me about that one afterwards.
	Wearing a mask is a simple thing.
	That we can all do, especially if you're older.
	Have older people in your life.
	Be fearful.
	Have a serious health condition.
	Take care of yourself, no question.
	Or simply indoors with people you don't know.
	Indoors with people you don't know.
	If you're indoors with people you don't know, how do I go to search?
	Live in such fear that you feel that everyone around you is an immediate existential threat to your very existence.
	With respect to this.
	But speaking of, you know, make sure it fits properly.
	Wear a mask and make sure it fits properly because if it doesn't, arguably useless to wear a mask that doesn't fit properly.
	If, for example, your nose is sticking out of it.
	If the science behind it is it has to be an airtight sort of fit so that it prevents transmission and contraction.
	But hold on.
	There we go.
	There we go.
	Look at this.
	There's nothing scary or bizarre about this photo.
	And if you think there's something scary and bizarre about this photo, you hold unacceptable views.
	Speaking of not fitting properly, what is the point of wearing a mask if it's intended to prevent transmission so that you can then get very close to someone else's baby?
	It's not covering his nostrils, so it's not fitting properly.
	And the purpose of the mask is so that you can then go press your face to a stranger's face?
	I mean, everything about this picture is, if this is the science you trust, unscientific.
	If this is the policy you believe, totally hypocritical.
	And just outright a little off.
	This picture's a little off.
	And his eyes are open and he's staring at the baby.
	And that baby looks like it wants to be somewhere else.
	Okay, I've talked for now for two and a half minutes.
	Let's just see.
	Let's just see.
	And we're yellow.
	Let's go ahead and...
	I know exactly what's happening.
	Okay.
	Oh, by the way, and that's not to say everyone is free to make their own choices and everybody should read on their own, listen to their own doctors, their own experts, and make their own decisions.
	You have Eileen P. Davila.
	By the way, not worth nothing.
	Whose annual salary is $320,000 a year and hasn't missed a paycheck as far as I understand while Canada has been crippled, locked down, people put out of work, people locked in their homes.
	$320,000 a year is her salary while she destroys the lives of others.
	And then we wonder, like we discussed yesterday, why among young people there might be some mental distress.
	Live in fear.
	You are a vector of disease to everyone around you.
	And everyone around you, if you don't know them, they are a vector of disease to you.
	Set aside the stats.
	Set aside what we now know two and a half years into this.
	Continue to live in fear.
	We're eliminating the mandate.
	So we've said somewhere along the lines it's no longer necessary.
	But do it anyhow and live in fear.
	And if you don't know people, cover your face.
	Don't breathe in the same...
	Look, I have these reflexes when I get into an elevator with someone and if they sneeze, I try to hold my breath until we get out of the elevator as if that makes any sense, which it doesn't, and I recognize that.
	This is the medical officer of Ontario.
	Live in fear.
	And by the way, even though we've said you can now take it off, be very scared.
	Always be scared.
	Always look to us, the government, your elected parents.
	All right.
	What's our vector, Victor?
	Viva, you need to do an office space flare meme from that video.
	Love you and Barnes.
	Keep up the great work.
	I have to go see what an office...
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	A flare.
	That's a funny idea.
	Hello, Viva.
	Hi, Viva.
	Hi, Kimberly.
	Well, we've got some fun stuff to talk about today.
	I mean, say fun in an unfun way.
	I'm reading through the news, as is everybody else, trying to make sense of the world in which we live, and it's becoming increasingly difficult, and I dare say almost impossible.
	It's becoming impossible to determine fact from fiction, information from misinformation, accurate reporting from hyperbole, real news from propaganda.
	It's becoming increasingly difficult.
	And the amazing thing is that things are getting so polarized, things are getting so tribalistic that even in the fog of all of this, if you don't pick a side reflexively, loyally, blindly loyally, if you do not pick a side, stick to that side, interpret everything you digest in light of the position that you've already taken, you are an enemy to the other side, and that other side is an enemy to you.
	And I'm obviously specifically now thinking in the context of the Russian war in Ukraine.
	We're living through, I mean, no one's going to deny, no one's going to doubt that what we're living through now is the fog of war.
	I mean, we're in the midst of a war where you have, look, you have information.
	You have disinformation, you have misinformation.
	I'm going to have to figure out how to distinguish between disinformation and misinformation.
	I'll say disinformation is deliberate and misinformation is inaccurate.
	And then you have outright lies and you have outright propaganda.
	And not picking a side here, the action has occurred in Ukraine.
	The stories that we've heard that have been confirmed false after a great many people on the left and the right retweeted old images.
	Recycled images.
	Fake stories.
	Stories that were just false.
	The ghost of Kiev is the example I can come up with right now.
	That would be, I don't know, disinformation, misinformation.
	It didn't occur.
	There was no lone Ukrainian fighter jet downing Russians at night, but people retweeted that story.
	And apparently the video footage that some people were tweeting came from what I presume is a very realistic looking game.
	Outright false.
	And then when it becomes known that it's false...
	The defense to some is that you need inspiration when fighting an existential threat, so don't, you know, rain on the parade and tell people that what brought them courage, what brought them inspiration to fight a mortal enemy was a fake story.
	Then you have the Snake Island story, which is not outright fake because soldiers were taken captive by Russian forces on this island called Snake Island.
	But the original story was that they were killed.
	And that their last words were "F you, Russian military." And then when the truth becomes known that some credible outlets, credible sources were making these claims that turned out to be false, people, in order to protect their own ego for having believed it, in some cases repeated it, have to make an excuse for why it's okay that the information was inaccurate.
	Oh, it's a distinction without a difference.
	Maybe they still said FU Russia, but bottom line, Russia is still the aggressor, still the enemy.
	And the story was accurate enough.
	And the problem is, this has been a problem in the making for a long time.
	I don't know when media was ever honest.
	I'm not sure that it ever was.
	I now am convinced by Mark Twain, a number of his classic expressions.
	It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled.
	And history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	So I have no doubt in my mind at this point that the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, any outlet, I have no doubt at this point in time that any and every media outlet has never been more or less dishonest than they are now.
	But we're living in a world now where having been lied to in real time, By our leaders.
	I mean, lied to in real time.
	Fauci, however you feel about the pandemic, overtly lied.
	He thought he had good reasons to lie.
	He was doing it to protect a run on masks when he said, masks are useless, don't wear them, you don't need them.
	Only to retract that and say, yeah, I said that because I didn't want to run on the masks for frontliners.
	All right, so you admit you lied to me, but you thought you had a good reason to do it.
	Justin Trudeau?
	Joe Biden?
	The people who have been lying to you, the people who have been crushing your freedoms and infringing on your rights, now expect you to believe them when they complain about someone else who is crushing on other people's freedoms and infringing on their rights.
	And they may be right this time, but it's the liar's curse.
	Once someone has lost their trust, or once you've lost your trust in someone...
	They could be right.
	You still won't trust them.
	It's the boy who cried wolf in a sense, except it's more the liar's paradox or the liar's curse.
	Once I've caught someone lying, I will never believe them again.
	And it goes from Fauci to Trudeau to Biden to every political leader out there.
	And so even when they tell you the truth, you still think they might be lying.
	And it goes to the media.
	Let me just...
	I'll share with the first...
	I'll share with the first story.
	We're going to talk about...
	And this is not an issue of taking sides of Russia over Ukraine, even though everybody thinks you have to do that one way or the other now.
	I don't believe any of the official messages coming from the Russian military on Telegram.
	I'm going to get to that in a second, because it was so caricature of a response from a government entity, I thought it was a fake...
	I had to go make sure that it was actually a legit, what's it called, blue checkmark certified account on Telegram.
	I said yesterday, just as an example, we're now, the major issue right now is what one side is calling a massacre in Bucca and what the other side is calling And I'm not joking, the Russian military is saying they didn't do anything aggressive there, they were handing out military aid.
	But the headline coming out of the New York Times was, satellite images shows bodies laying in Bukha for weeks despite Russian claims.
	Now, I was able to read that article before it prompted me for registering, and I'm not registering for the New York Times, sorry.
	And that article was, New York Times reporters analyzing satellite imagery.
	Okay.
	If the New York Times were a credible source, if they were not proven liars, if they did not have a track record of having lied, manipulated, deceived, and lied through omission and through active lie, then it might be something to believe.
	Then it might be something to take seriously.
	But they've done so much damage over the last little while discrediting themselves as an entity.
	They could be telling the truth right now.
	Their assessment could be accurate, but I'm going to write it off as wildly partisan as their Trump tax returns assessment.
	And just to remember, egregious, overt lies that came out of the New York Times as recently as January 6th.
	This one is still online.
	This article from the New York Times is still online.
	He dreamed of being a police officer, then was killed by a pro-Trump mob.
	The death of Brian Sicknick.
	You all remember that officer who died in the wake of the January 6th insurrection to the New York Times, riots to others, and to some false flag to others.
	The death of Brian Sicknick, a military veteran and experienced Capitol Police officer, amplified the tragedy of Wednesday's riots and undermined President Trump's pro-law enforcement claims.
	They had to run with it because it was just too perfect for their narrative.
	Not to run with.
	Not to double check.
	Although at the time, in real time, people knew this story was not accurate.
	A little while later, this is from the New York Times and I can't get the date on it, but these are my screen grabs.
	Officer attacked in capital, died of stroke, medical examiner says.
	We're not admitting that we made a mistake.
	We're not correcting it because that article is still out there.
	According to the medical examiner, he died of natural causes.
	Died of a stroke.
	And it was a natural cause.
	And this was known in the wake of the event.
	The National Review was reporting on it.
	Other journalists were saying, no fire extinguisher.
	It wasn't assault.
	This story's bunk.
	The New York Times, you still find this story online.
	And another embarrassing one.
	I mean, I guess you have to have pride in order to feel shame.
	New York Times embarrassing correction after reporting 900,000 children have been hospitalized.
	Maybe that's what Sotomayor was relying on when she amplified or regurgitated this misinformation.
	New York Times.
	Issues embarrassing correction after reporting 900,000 children have been hospitalized in the U.S. with COVID, when the true figure is 63,000.
	And this was also at a time when we now know the government was not distinguishing between hospitalized with versus hospitalized from.
	Anybody who doesn't believe that, you can go back and listen to the governor of New York, what's her name, Hochul, and some medical experts in Canada saying...
	It's time we start distinguishing between hospitalized with and hospitalized from.
	And then they issue a correction.
	Correction that appeared in print on Friday, October 8th.
	So you have what were, I don't know, historically entities that were deemed to be the most venerable, the old gray lady, the most venerable sources for truth and information.
	You catch them lying to you.
	When they do issue a correction or retraction, no one notices because it's buried and it's later and it doesn't undo the harm of the original false reporting.
	And I dare say tongue-in-cheek.
	Sotomayor can probably say, well, I thought that because I read it in the New York Times.
	I didn't see the retraction.
	I didn't see the correction.
	I thought that hundreds of thousands of children were in hospital because of COVID.
	And so they tell you something, and then if you, someone who has been traumatized by their lies, or at the very least conditioned, or let's just say informed not to trust them, if you dare say, I can't believe you now, Mr. New York Times proven liar, you're then, I won't say attacked, but then criticized for, well, if you don't believe them, who are you going to believe?
	That's the problem.
	We live in a post-truth world now, I think, that's been exacerbated by the media and by social media that it's impossible to trust anyone.
	Etienne de Gaulle.
	I got a lighter note at the end of this.
	I was going to start off with the lighter note, but...
	And then someone says to me, well, even Fox News was reporting it.
	You know, the Buka incident, which now...
	Actually...
	You know, we'll get to the article in a second.
	Someone says, even Fox News was reporting on it, so open your eyes.
	I was like, oh yeah, the same Fox News that was in Canada and tweeted out that the woman who was trampled by the horse passed away when, I don't know on what information that reporter tweeted that out.
	And when I retweeted it, I said, look, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, this is very, very bad for Justin Trudeau.
	And then I made sure that everyone knew that that turned out to be false.
	There was an individual who died of a heart attack.
	At the protest, but not as the result of the horse trample.
	But am I going to trust Fox News?
	I mean, outright assertion of fact based on reports when...
	Do I have that article?
	There was an article that pointed out that it was basically an assertion that had no basis above and beyond reports.
	So no, I don't trust Fox News any more than I trust New York Times, although the New York Times in my limited recent experience has been exponentially worse than Fox News, but Fox News has been pretty bad.
	I call them out too.
	So no, it's not because someone who someone thinks is my ally in the media world, ideological ally, which they're not, it's not because they now say something to them.
	Oh, well, hey, it fits my narrative.
	I'm going to believe it.
	That's not how it works.
	And so let's just actually go to, you got to go read both sides.
	And who do you trust?
	I trust no one.
	I trust no one.
	I'm just going to go assess my, I'm going to assess based on my own insight, based on my own reaction reflexes.
	If we go to, it was, here we go, Russia, Telegram.
	I've heard what Fox News said.
	I read their analysis based on satellite imagery.
	I've seen other videos.
	I've read people's tweets.
	I then go to Russian MFA, which I believe is the official ministry.
	It's a blue checkmark.
	It's right here.
	Let me just make sure that we're looking at the same thing.
	So I go to see what Russia has to say about this.
	I'm not going to...
	I'm not going to...
	Believe one side and not believe another side based on what anyone perceives to be ideological alignment.
	That's not how truth or honesty works.
	This is what Russia says.
	All the photos published by the Kiev regime allegedly testifying to some crimes committed by Russian servicemen in Bukha are just another provocation.
	Now this might be a translation issue.
	But when I hear, this is like, this is in lawsuits when you hear everyone accusing everyone of bad faith and malicious conduct.
	Just another provocation.
	Okay, let's see where this goes.
	During the time the town had been under the control of the Russian armed forces, not a single local resident has suffered from any violent actions.
	Would I, as a reasonable individual, reasonably cynical, logical, would I believe that in a time of war, because this is a war, In the time of an invasion, because you may think that this is a justified or provoked invasion, it is an invasion nonetheless.
	Would I believe that in the time of an invasion, in the time of war that not a single local resident has suffered from any violent action, would I assume that the Russian military is somehow better, more ethical in its conduct than the Canadian military, than the Canadian police?
	The answer is no.
	So I read Russia's response and I say this smells fishy as well.
	Russian servicemen have delivered and distributed 452 tons of humanitarian aid to civilians in Kiev region.
	If you're distributing hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid to civilians, it's because bad stuff is happening.
	But would I be inclined to believe that In all of an occupation, an invasion, at any point in an actual war, that there would not be...
	Not a single resident has suffered from any violent action.
	Skeptical.
	And so now I'm sitting here, you're saying, you don't believe anything, Viva.
	I don't believe anything anybody says on its face.
	And if that's a problem, I don't think it is.
	I think what the biggest problem is, that we can't trust anyone anymore.
	You can have more faith in some because they've historically been less deceitful or have a better track record.
	But we now live in a world where the most venerable institutions that we once relied on for truth, objectivity, and insight, we now know that we can't trust them.
	From governments across the world to media across the world.
	And yes, by the way, people.
	I'm going to keep that one up just in case I want to come back to that.
	I do include myself in that.
	Nobody should trust the information that I put out there on its face.
	I think I've built up...
	A history of responsible analysis, responsible breakdowns, responsible content.
	I think I've made some mistakes, not very serious mistakes.
	There was one about the Kinder Egg that I made a mistake about.
	Never forgot about that one.
	I made the mistake about calling that conservative politician liberal, which might have impacted the way people perceive my interpretation of that event.
	Her name was Raquel...
	Doncho.
	What are the mistakes that I have to correct?
	Something about PewDiePie.
	I forget what it was.
	But I think, you know, I don't expect anybody to trust me.
	And I think you'd actually be somewhat reckless just to rely on things that I said without, you know, verifying them yourself.
	But I do think that I've built a more credible history of both integrity and honesty than the New York Times.
	So if you're going to trust someone or place more trust in someone, I think I've earned it.
	Over the New York Times.
	But now, you look at the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News.
	Who else is there?
	You can't trust any of them.
	You can't trust your politicians, and you can't trust the internet.
	So you're being bombarded with information, and you have to go out and interpret it in light of your own capabilities, in light of your own underlying knowledge.
	You have to go inform yourself, and then you've got to come to the best possible conclusion that you come to, which is necessarily going to be an imperfect conclusion regardless.
	Sorry, hold on one second.
	Why would Russia go in light, protect civilian infrastructure, open humanitarian corridors, and the cost of Russian lives to do Bukha?
	Well, you're asking the why.
	The arguments are going to be on one side and the other.
	The arguments are going to be, in war, people do terrible things.
	I don't want to draw any analogies because it just confuses things.
	But in war, people do bad things.
	Period.
	War is hell.
	And in war, people do bad things.
	Why would they go?
	It can go from anywhere from calculated, deliberate, to a rogue unit, to an act of aggression, to false flag.
	It can be any one of the four interpretations.
	Why would they?
	One thing is, why would they be invading in the first place?
	And do you expect that when you're invading a country, even if you do argue or do believe that it's for preemptive, protective reasons because they shouldn't be doing what they're doing to the civilians in those populations, or they shouldn't have...
	Certain research facilities on their property, which you deem to be an existential threat.
	You're going to do that.
	You're going to invade.
	You're going to bomb.
	You're going to shoot.
	It's going to happen.
	So if I'm weighing the explanations, I would have a lot of questions about the affirmations made by the Russian military.
	Do I ever believe that in the time of war, any military is going to admit to having done something wrong or to having had even incidental casualties?
	No.
	The first casualty of war is truth.
	And we're seeing it on both sides.
	You have on both sides both extremes.
	One is saying we're angels.
	We didn't do anything.
	We're bringing aid.
	The other is saying worse than Mittler.
	Literally, Zelensky is saying that the Russians are worse than the Yahtzees in what they're doing.
	And then somewhere in the middle, you have all the spectrum of possibilities.
	The latest news was apparently a nitric acid tank being bombed in Ukraine.
	One side says it's a deliberate attack in order to, equivalent to biological weapons.
	I haven't heard what the Russian explanation for this particular incident, this alleged incident was.
	Knowing what we know and knowing how the world works, this could be any one of five possibilities on a spectrum.
	It either just didn't happen, like the ghost of Kiev, or because you see footage, it did happen, but not necessarily in this context or even in this year.
	Or it did happen, I guess there's going to be six.
	Or it did happen, the Russians did it, they did it on purpose for the reasons stated.
	Or it did happen, the Russians did it, it was an accident, they didn't know what they were targeting, or they targeted for other reasons.
	Or...
	It was a false flag.
	It was a setup.
	It was a sabotage.
	It was an accident that they're trying to blame on somebody else.
	Or any combination of all of this.
	And Lord, leave it up to the individual to try to determine the truth.
	I got to that one.
	That was number five.
	I was leaving.
	And...
	Hold on.
	Let me just see this here.
	Was hoping to trust you, Viva, for honest takes and information, but Kevin Newman said your videos got pulled for misinformation.
	Oh, and their stealth edit to that, like...
	Way to admit you made a mistake and then just show that you don't have the integrity just to apologize.
	Just to apologize so that other equally disingenuous or even more dishonest outlets don't say, I saw it on W5, but I didn't see the correction.
	Or it's a false flag.
	And then you hypothesize.
	You even suggest something could be a false flag.
	Convenient timing, opportunity, you know, all of the stuff.
	And you're looked at like...
	People are going to discredit you, and they're going to call you names, as though false flags are not 800, what was it, 600 years old?
	The name of who, well, I don't want to pretend that this was, well, I did know the false flag originated by, I believe it was pirates, flying a friendly flag in order to approach ships closer before carrying out an act of hostility.
	Had they flown their original flag, they would have known they were enemies, so you carry a false flag.
	Looks like you're allies.
	Get close enough and they're like, oh, we tricked you.
	But you hypothesize that something might have been a false flag and it's like people think they treat you like the AJs because New York Times didn't say it was a false flag.
	As if they haven't happened over and over and over again.
	Let me just go to...
	And don't trust me, by the way.
	Again, don't trust me.
	False flags.
	What are they?
	And where have they been used?
	This is from BBC people.
	Oh, by the 18th of February, 2022.
	It's an interesting timing of the article.
	Interesting in how the false flags were being framed at the time.
	This is from the BBC.
	Let me just make sure we're looking at the same article.
	We are.
	Was hoping to trust you, but yeah, I had videos pulled.
	Videos pulled multiple and challenged by Facebook.
	Both false.
	Okay, false flags, what are they?
	And when have they been used?
	When have they been used?
	February 18, 2022, BBC.
	The conflict in eastern Ukraine has intensified, but there have been several suspicious incidents.
	This is from BBC.
	Remember, and you're going to see, because when I started reading this article, I was like, oh, then I didn't realize it was before the invasion, which I believe started a week later.
	So when they're saying there's been several suspicious incidents, i.e.
	false flags, they were saying it from the other side, and you'll see why.
	As the conflict in eastern Ukraine intensifies, Britain and the U.S. suspect Russia of planning, quote, false flag, end quote, attacks to create an excuse for an invasion.
	So false flags are a thing, and false flags are reported by the BBC, and they give extensive examples of false flags in this article when they think Russia's going to do it.
	All of a sudden, when anybody...
	And I'm not saying yay or nay or supporting or contradicting, but when anyone else says this could be a false flag on the NATO side, on the Ukraine side, then it becomes the stuff of conspiracies.
	Russian-backed separatists have already accused Ukraine's military of a series of highly dubious attacks and are now calling for civilians in the occupied areas to lead.
	What is a false flag?
	A false flag is a political or military action carried out with the intention of blaming an opponent for it.
	Nations have often done this by staging a real or simulated attack on their own side and saying the enemy did it as a pretext of going to war.
	And let's get to some good examples.
	Good.
	Let's get to some examples.
	Relatively recent and very recent.
	The term was first used in the 16th century, 600 years ago.
	What year?
	500 years ago.
	Sorry.
	Wait, no.
	Oh, shoot.
	20th century is 19. So 600 years ago.
	To describe how pirates flew a flag of a friendly nation to deceive merchant ships into allowing them to draw near.
	False flags, attacks, have a long and ignoble history.
	Ignoble is not good.
	German invasion of Poland.
	The night before Germany invaded Poland, seven German SS soldiers, pretending to be Polish, stormed the Goliwitz radio tower on the German side of the border with Poland.
	They broadcast a short message to say the station was now in Polish hands.
	The soldiers also left behind the body of a civilian dressed up as a Polish soldier to make it look as though he had been killed in the raid.
	Hitler made a speech the next day calling the Glywitz attack and other similarly orchestrated incidents to justify the invasion of Poland.
	You got the outbreak of the Russo-Finnish war.
	Let's see this one.
	In the same year, the Russian village of Manila came under shellfire.
	It was close to the Finnish border, and the Soviet Union used the attack.
	to break its non-aggression pact with Finland, starting the so-called Winter War.
	Historians have now concluded that the shelling of the village was not carried out by the Finnish army, but was a fabrication carried out by the Soviet NKVD State Security Agency.
	Boris Yelten, the first president of the Russian Federation, admitted in 1984 that the Winter War was a Soviet war of aggression.
	Again, you have to even take history with a grain of salt.
	You've got the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which Robert Barnes had mentioned on the channel.
	Little green men in Crimea.
	In the early days of Russia's annexation of Crimea, this would be a disputed element because some people say they voted to join, people started to appear on the streets who were dressed and armed exactly like Russian soldiers but without Russian insignia on their uniforms.
	The Kremlin insisted they were members of local self-defense groups who wanted the territory to be returned from Ukrainian control to Russia.
	Kremlin said they brought the clothing and equipped the shops.
	Russian journalists took to calling these people polite men, while local residents in Crimea called them little green men, referring to both their color of the uniforms and the unconfirmed origin.
	Got one on the Kashmir border, etc., etc.
	They have existed, false flags.
	For 600 years, and obviously more, in so many words.
	I think the Trojan horse...
	Is that a version of a false flag?
	No.
	And then the problem is, I see this dark offensive again, and then you get the false false flags, where then you get a legitimate incident, and then people falsely spin it as a false flag.
	And how on earth is anybody supposed to determine the truth?
	Going back to the New York Times being confirmed...
	Dishonest purveyors of propaganda.
	Dishonest purveyors of propaganda.
	How is anybody supposed to determine the truth?
	So it is a hard and arduous thing.
	You have to keep an open mind and you have to ask questions that people might not like.
	And you have to hear both sides despite one side potentially angering you.
	And then you have to sit there, use your own God-given brain.
	And come to the conclusions that you think are justifiable given the facts of which you are aware while being ready to reassess if facts of which you are not aware come to light.
	You're not supposed to determine the truth for yourself, Viva.
	That's only for the government and the mainstream media to do.
	And people, Candice, thank you, and people now also forgetting about the two years of fear porn social media media programming.
	In the context of COVID, not, you know, people now look back and say, oh my goodness, I can't believe how the media whipped us into an absolute fear frenzy in 2020.
	Can't believe it.
	I can't believe how they actually got us to pit family against family.
	They got us to rat on our neighbors for breaking COVID protocol.
	Can't believe how they did that two years ago without stepping back and saying, my goodness, are they not in the process of doing the exact same thing today?
	Are they not in the process of employing the exact same tactics, the exact same strategies, the exact same 24-7 bombardment now with the Russia war in Ukraine that they did with COVID for two years, that they did with President Trump for four years, that they did with the Russiagate for three years?
	And people just...
	You know what it is?
	It's like...
	I'm trying to think of an example that is...
	That I can describe on the internet.
	When you don't know...
	The old expression.
	I'm weighing my words.
	Unintelligent people don't necessarily know that they're unintelligent.
	And this applies for me.
	It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.
	You don't even know what you don't know.
	You don't know that you don't know, so therefore you think you know.
	You don't know that you're under the influence of something, so you don't know that you're actually out of your mind.
	It's like...
	Those guys who used to do very bad things on the interwebs before YouTube took down those channels, they would consume things.
	And then they would be so out of their mind, they would not even know that they had consumed things.
	And so when you get so whipped up and you're in it and you're involved in it, you don't even know that it's happening to you until you back away and say, my goodness, they did this to me two years ago.
	They did this to me five years ago.
	They've probably been doing this to me in one version or another my entire life.
	But now I'm incapable of assessing it because I'm in it again.
	The Yazzie?
	If you ask the question, chances are you're one step closer to being intelligent than someone who doesn't even ask if they're intelligent.
	Do I crack my back?
	So let me see what else.
	I mean, that's what's going on in terms of trying to keep up, trying to digest the news.
	You have to read all sides, and you have to question all sides.
	And you have to weather the storm of people who will say, you just believe Fox News.
	First of all, no, I don't just believe Fox News.
	And I'm not going to believe Fox News now that you tell me to believe Fox News because now they're saying what you want them to say.
	That's not how it works.
	Loyalty is not a fickle weather vane.
	Ooh, that's a good one.
	Share screen.
	Let me just see if I didn't miss anything on...
	Oh, well, I say the good news in all of this, by the way.
	I guess it's good news.
	Robert and I talked about it.
	The UN seems to have approved of an investigation.
	Can we see this?
	So, you know, in as much as I don't trust the UN for anything, when you have certain countries on certain human rights councils, I don't trust the UN for anything, but, you know, I guess at some point you have to accept that it might just be the best possible solution that we have under the current infrastructure,
	Russia, but I don't trust the UN here any more than I trust them for other issues, any more than I trust them given their historical conduct.
	UN body, UN rights body approves investigation into alleged Russian violence.
	in Ukraine by Emma Farge.
	We have a little video there.
	Geneva, the UN's Human Rights Council on Friday condemned alleged rights violations by Russia in its invasion of Ukraine and agreed to set up a commission to investigate them, including possible war crimes.
	32 members of the council voted in favor of the resolution brought by Ukraine Russia and Eritrea voted against it, while 13...
	I mean, this is, for anybody who's lived through any of these flare-ups and violence in the Middle East, it's always the same pattern.
	In that case, it would just be history repeating because it's sufficiently identical.
	Every time there's a flare-up, there's going to be a UN resolution to condemn Israel.
	US is going to veto it.
	People are going to criticize US for being, you know, supporting Israel blindly.
	They're going to say that this makes no sense.
	We can never get a resolution to condemn Israel because the U.S. always vetoes it.
	We're going to see the same variation of that here.
	Those from Russia directing and committing violations against my people should be paying attention.
	The evidence is going to be collected, you are going to be identified, and you are going to be held to account.
	Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Yevgenia Filipenko.
	Flanked by Western ambassadors, told reporters after the vote.
	Geneva-based counsel cannot make legally binding decisions.
	That's like the Ethics Act, or whatever it's called in Canada, where Justin Trudeau, twice found to be in violation of the Ethics Act, literally found to be in violation of a law that provides effectively no sanction for the violation.
	It's a political tool.
	Not a criminal one.
	So same basically, okay fine, the UN, even if they condemn them, even if they come to conclusions, no legally binding decision, but its decisions send important political message and can authorize investigations such as the one to be carried out by the three-person commission created by Friday's vote.
	Filippenko told the council there was, quote, irrefutable evidence of gross and systemic human rights violations as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity by Russia.
	And I might be an old-school individual.
	I believe all war is a crime.
	Some people make the tongue-in-cheek joke, you're killing people in war.
	You want to subdivide for what's a war crime within war when the purpose of war is to destroy physically and cause destruction?
	Its delegate, Evgeny Ustinov, told the Council that the resolution's backers, quote, will use any means to blame Russia for the events in Ukraine.
	You have both sides of the story here.
	And then you hear Russia's explanation from their blue checkmark account.
	Anyway, that's it.
	So that's it.
	Apparently they're going to open an investigation.
	Take it for what it's worth.
	People think UN is a useless institution.
	Feckless, useless, corrupt.
	You got, oh geez, Inner City Press has been reporting on the UN for a long time.
	The UN's history, to say it's marred by controversy would be an understatement.
	To say it's been marred by corruption would be an understatement.
	And now we're, again, leaving these important political human rights questions in the hands of an institution which itself has a history of corruption and human rights violations.
	The commission set up for an initial period of one year tasked with producing a report by early 2023.
	We'll see.
	Take a year to produce the report and then see what happens.
	We'll work alongside a large existing United Nations rights team for Ukraine.
	Which has 60 members.
	Exact scope yet to be determined.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	So anyways, that's it.
	I guess there's some good news in that there will be some oversight, hopefully.
	And hopefully, the people who committed any atrocities that were committed will in fact be held to account.
	Whichever side that may be on, you can have your suspicions now based on the information as it currently stands now.
	Barnes never says anything bad about Russia.
	Wrong.
	He always jumps to its defense.
	Wrong.
	Why?
	Is he getting money from RT?
	Going to intention.
	He goes on RT all the time, pro-Putin.
	Well, atheist.
	He doesn't defend Russia all the time.
	I don't believe he gets money from RT.
	I've been on RT.
	I didn't even ask for money.
	If going on RT makes you a pro-Putin propagandist, does going on CNN make you a pro-Biden propagandist?
	I went on RT, and I actually was quite happy that I was able to make a joke about Russian propaganda.
	What we see going on here is what we perceive to be Russian propaganda in Russia.
	It's factually incorrect from our last show, most recently.
	And I don't think he's jumping to anybody's defense.
	I think I'm fairly certain he said he's morally against the war to begin with.
	The question is from an international law perspective.
	Can the invasion by Russia be justified under international law?
	And you have had preemptive invasions in a number of other places, which were less politically palatable than this, for example.
	I mean, you have the Six-Day War, Israel's preemptive strike on five neighboring countries.
	People were not exactly supportive of that either.
	So the only question is, well, they're not.
	Do you believe that there was any basis for the preemptive strike?
	Was there any...
	And I know a great many people don't, but to not support one side, but to make the arguments for so that you can understand both sides and then come to your own conclusion, if that's defending Russia or being pro-Putin, then we're just not using language the same way.
	I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side.
	Treebeard, kind of.
	Start standing up so they get the message to leave your children alone.
	I presume that is on another unrelated subject, which we're not getting to today.
	Makes me think of the riddle of the Sphinx with the two guards and two doors.
	Who tells the truth?
	Ask both what the other would say.
	Do the opposite.
	You just ruined the puzzle, the riddle for us.
	I'm joking.
	But the funny thing is, and going back to that other super chat, people have gotten so emotional over this that the second somebody says something they don't like...
	It becomes an existential attack on them.
	And you have to go after the person's intentions, the person's motivations, the person's integrity.
	It's possible.
	It's possible someone does defend Russia or does defend Putin and says that everybody's hands are dirty in this.
	And so in a game of scoundrels, don't blame the scoundrel for doing what they think is necessary to protect themselves.
	But when someone says something you don't like and you have to immediately go after integrity, honor, honesty.
	I mean, that's where I would say one has been conditioned to be put in this realm where the world was in 2021, where they thought, my goodness, someone's outside without a mask.
	We should snitch on them.
	Where that type of inter-human conflict is justifiable in one's head because one has been conditioned by this dishonest media to believe that anybody who thinks differently has to be an evil, existential, money-motivated, dishonest threat.
	All right.
	And by the way, no matter how much one apologizes, no matter how much one shows their lack of bias or partiality, no matter how much they show, it doesn't matter.
	It's like you can never apologize enough.
	So at some point in time, it does no good to try to prove your lack of bias or partiality because it will never be enough for those who think you have it.
	All right.
	So let's see.
	So here.
	Let's just do this.
	Let's just go through, because I asked the interwebs to do some homework to make my work lighter.
	Just some of the examples of the New York Times' recent lies.
	The New York Times in particular.
	Forget MSNBC.
	You know, everybody says, Maddow can't be trusted because he's opinion.
	Tucker Carlson can't be trusted because he's opinion.
	And yet somehow when Fox News and MSNBC agree on an issue, then it has to be truth.
	Just the New York Times, because we know MSNBC, pathological liars.
	We know Brian Stetler, who blocked me on Twitter.
	Kathy Griffin and Brian Stetler, I think, so far are the biggest notches in my belt.
	But blocking me?
	I'm a good boy.
	We know CNN is trash.
	We know that.
	We don't need to put together a montage.
	I just said, putting some work together for tomorrow.
	Who can find the biggest lies or mistakes?
	Because I don't want to presuppose intent.
	Although I believe I have the grounds to do it.
	They've told in the last five years, screen grabs with verification.
	I got my correction of the, oh, it wasn't 900,000 children in the hospital.
	I'm sorry, that's a mistake.
	Especially when we post it in the context of an article that is trying to make people fearful to the point of going to, you know, get a certain procedure.
	How do we make such a mistake?
	Do we not have editors?
	Do we not have fact checkers?
	Do we not have brains in our head to say that number doesn't make sense?
	And it's not like it added a zero.
	It's just an entirely different number.
	Setting that aside.
	Setting aside whether or not Sotomayor's understanding Supreme Court justice was affected by this New York Times misinformation.
	I scrolled down.
	These Elon Musk bought accounts.
	I don't understand.
	There were a bunch.
	I don't recall if there was anything wrong about what they said about the BLM.
	I don't believe they covered...
	I know they called the Hunter Biden story Russian disinformation.
	I know that.
	But the art of the lie, the bigger the better.
	This is an article published by the New York Times.
	Hashtag confession through projection.
	You can go ahead and read that.
	Capitol Police got to that one.
	Oh yes, the origins of Verona.
	Conspiracy theory.
	Well, maybe that wasn't a lie because maybe they didn't know, but they didn't know because they didn't do information.
	Taylor Lorenz, we were supposed to have her on the channel.
	Nick Sandman.
	New York Times loses award for Islamic State podcast over false reporting.
	Elon Musk making Twitter better place.
	Yada, yada.
	We've seen that.
	Oh, yeah.
	Here we go.
	So I guess they did also make a mistake or fail to report on Black Lives Matter.
	All right.
	There was a lot.
	You can go find that on Twitter.
	No, we're in a different Twitter feed.
	All right.
	I'm going to close that one up.
	So that's it.
	They knew is what you say when you believe they're a liar and when you want to attribute intention.
	I believe they deserve to have malicious intention attributed to them at this point.
	If you're wrong so many times, egregiously wrong, and you're supposed to be in the business of not being wrong, we can attribute at the very least negligence, if not outright malicious dishonesty.
	Who has a treaty they are promoting?
	Giving them power to give medical advice funder.
	Funded by Bill Gates.
	States mostly...
	By the way, interwebs, if I bring up a chat, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
	Even what people refer to as the trolls.
	I noticed early on someone said the trolls were in full force in the chat.
	I didn't notice any trolls.
	I did notice people who have their opinions and who express them with sass, which they're entitled to do.
	So that is...
	Well, we do know...
	Here's the problem.
	This is the thing.
	We know that one of the founders had a proclivity for real estate investments and used that money to buy multiple million-dollar mansions.
	Success and spending one's hard-earned money is not a problem.
	The problem is when it is obtained on pretext of benevolence and...
	Did I just spit on my keyboard?
	Benevolence, charity...
	What's another word I'm looking for?
	If the BLM were open about it and people donate to them knowing how the senior members are spending it, fine.
	I don't think most people presume that an organization with the stated objectives of BLM of ending racial inequality, that they suspect that that's how the senior executives, that that's how wealthy they get by doing this, and that's how they spend their money.
	But somebody who works hard for their money is entitled to ask for payment for their work.
	They're entitled to spend their money the way they want, and it's up to their supporters to determine whether or not they want to continue supporting those individuals given the way they spend their money based on the objectives or purpose of their mission.
	Hold on one second.
	No jokes, I just have a tickle in my throat.
	But I think I did have something.
	Hold on.
	What would it take for you to believe that Bucha Massacre is real?
	I will pay for your ticket to Ukraine so you can see the bodies and talk to locals yourself.
	The truth is worse than media reports.
	Well, I believe the massacre is real.
	Paying for a ticket?
	I'm not going to a war zone.
	I mean, hell is war zone.
	Alex, people say this like it proves the point.
	Buy yourself a ticket and go film it yourself if you want to prove it to the world.
	I'm not denying that it exists.
	I'm not even saying that Russia didn't do it.
	All I'm saying right now is that historically, you have to...
	Historically, there have been incidents that, especially given what's going on now, that you have to take a pause for a second and try to assess the information above and beyond a New York Times, dishonest New York Times, coming to conclusive evidence based on their own investigations of viewing satellite imagery.
	War is hell, and innocent Ukrainians are being killed, and there's no but to that.
	So, I'll pay for a ticket.
	If you have the money to pay for a ticket, Alex, fly yourself out there and report so people can see.
	But even still, the fog of war and you just...
	How do you know?
	I don't know how you know the truth in these situations.
	Do I have any doubt that innocent Ukrainians have been killed by Russians?
	No doubt whatsoever.
	And then the question becomes, you want to attribute blame?
	Okay.
	The question then becomes, what's the solution to this?
	Now, what I was saying was...
	Oh, hold on a second.
	Alex Ogle.
	Examples of the New York Times lied are laid out in the book The Grey Lady Winked.
	For those so inclined, there is a book review of it at Carl Benjamin.
	Okay, Lotus.
	I keep getting mistaken between Carl Benjamin and Owen Benjamin.
	Carl Benjamin is Sargon of Akkad.
	LotusEaters.com.
	Subscription necessary.
	So, Alex, and by the way, I'm not trying to pick on you.
	I know you're a loyal...
	You've been here for a long time, and I appreciate the support, and I appreciate the question.
	What would it take for me to believe the massacre?
	I believe the people have been killed.
	And I would, you know, in as much as anyone can welcome an investigation, the UN should get in there and do it as much as they can.
	And Alex, by the way, I am more inclined to not believe the Russian explanation based on their Telegram feed as opposed to what the New York Times is saying.
	The whole point is, though, I'm not believing the New York Times just because they say it, and I'm not believing Russia just because they say it.
	But I have no doubts.
	I don't believe Russia's explanation when they say their explanation went into even more elaborate detail, which I'm not inclined to believe.
	It doesn't sound right to me.
	But everybody thinks they're proving a point.
	I'll buy your ticket and fly you out there.
	Then you go.
	If you have the money and you want to prove a point, you go.
	The Duran had their video taken down because they questioned that Russia did it.
	How many censored opinions have turned out to actually be true?
	But the other thing is, I'd have to see the video, how they phrased it, you know.
	But it's a bizarre world where what has been historically censored, especially on YouTube, how it has turned out.
	Help me in the chat, but I know that they historically censored anything relating to the origins of the Rona.
	They began to censor anything related to the elections.
	At least they announced the rules before they did it.
	And how have those two things turned out?
	Well, anybody who's following them certainly knows how the origin story has turned out.
	Even the Lancet issued a retraction or something of a correction, stating that it's a perfectly plausible theory that it was tinkered with, originated from a lab in Wuhan.
	And now you see some lawsuits coming on certain decisions on other issues.
	So that's that.
	Now, there was one other thing.
	I think I had it up.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	We've got Gretchen Whitmer is on the menu.
	We've got that I covered.
	I got the white pill for the end.
	Alec Baldwin.
	We're getting to that.
	Emily Miller, Alec Baldwin.
	Okay, and we don't need that one.
	So on the subject of the BLM unit, spending your money, earning your money, people giving you money.
	Expecting to be compensated for the work that you do is fine.
	But when you find out that people leading charitable organizations are making $600,000 a year, that people leading BLM, which is there to fight racial inequity, you know, my dad says, well, he's always said, but he's still alive, so I don't want anyone thinking he's not alive.
	He always said, if you want to drive a Porsche, don't become a teacher.
	And not as a judgmental thing.
	If you want to have a career that you love.
	That doesn't necessarily translate into financial gain.
	Don't have the life goal of wanting to drive a Porsche and then thinking you're going to get there by being a teacher, which might bring you personal pleasure.
	I tend to think the same way with charities.
	If you want to be a CEO of Red Cross or a charity, I don't think you should be getting paid $600,000 a year when your objective is to feed the poor, help third world developing countries.
	Other people are going to make the argument, well, that's how you get the talent.
	Eh.
	There's plenty of talented individuals who would work for a reasonable, healthy salary and not an exorbitant, opulent salary to run a fundraiser, not-for-profit or charity.
	Alex, back in the house.
	I'm fluent in Russia-Ukrainian and part of a volunteer effort to translate documents of Russia war crimes in Ukraine.
	I spent last month listening to hours of intercepted phone radio comms of Russia soldiers bragging about robbing and killing civilians.
	Alex, I will even...
	I do not doubt this.
	I do not doubt this.
	So, when you're dealing with people in the military in a time of war, I don't think there's ever been an army that has not committed these types of acts in the context of war.
	And I'm not excluding Canada or the US from this.
	Now, the flip side, Alex, I'm sure then you saw the video of what was being done to some Russian soldiers.
	I don't speak the language.
	I even had to take that video.
	With my degree of cynicism or skepticism, because I don't understand the context.
	I don't understand what's going on.
	I understand how it's been validated by the media afterwards.
	So while this is true, we're going to recognize that the inverse is true as well, but the explanation is going to be, well, that's what you get when you invade a foreign country.
	And then it's going to be the question as to why they're invading a foreign country, and then whether or not the initial pretext is itself defensible, either morally or in law, or not.
	And then if it's defensible...
	Then you're going to say, well, they're invading a country for defensible reasons.
	They are being treated in a way that violates the Geneva Convention by the side of the country in which they're invading.
	And all's fair in love and war is going to be the answer.
	Or atrocities on one side are justifiable if we deem the invading party to be unjustified in their invasion.
	And Alex, it's a legitimate, genuine question.
	Have you seen that video?
	Have you heard those stories of those videos being published from what I understand also on Telegram?
	You must remember the past of Russia committing war crimes like this, but the Ukraine has also committed war crimes.
	Of course we remember that.
	My history is irrelevant to this.
	But I've got family from Ukraine.
	I've got family from Russia.
	They all suffered on the coming and the going of various forces.
	In war, crimes are committed.
	And in war, war crimes are committed.
	And war is itself, in my view, a crime.
	Should be an absolute last resort.
	And there should be, you know, without pulling a Chamberlain piece in our time with Hitler, there should be active, proactive, and meaningful efforts to make required concessions to end it, to protect the innocent civilians who die in these wars.
	If I were in high school, it would be much more fun.
	I don't think I'm in a position to teach anything.
	I'm just, what I'm in a position to is teach my own ignorance.
	So that we can all be on the learning curve together.
	Devil's advocate take.
	As all social media stated, they were being sent into that area.
	They also stated they were looking for RU sympathizers, a lot of bodies.
	Now, and then it's a question of, okay, it's not impossible.
	It's just going to be a question of assessing all of the options on a spectrum of likelihood.
	What is most likely?
	What is least likely?
	Least likely is that it didn't happen.
	It's all totally fabricated.
	That's probably the least likely.
	I think we can all agree on that.
	By the way, I am going this summer.
	I throw my soul into the turmoil to hear what's going on on the ground and then hear people laugh about it and call it fake.
	Well, Alex, don't listen to people on the internet calling things fake.
	This is why there's certain discussions which, even though I think people should have the right to engage in them, are not fruitful to engage in.
	World War II, people with the arguments that...
	You know, the mathematical arguments as to why the numbers inflated, why it couldn't have been fine.
	I mean, I think they should be entitled to have those debates.
	They should be entitled to have that freedom of expression.
	But people are going to call everything, even if they see it with their own eyes, they might still think it's fake.
	They might think we live in a simulation and it doesn't happen.
	But there's no shortage of it.
	The flip side is, when it becomes known that it's actually a fake, or when it becomes known that it's actually an incorrect story, you have to call it as such.
	And when similar patterns occur in the future, you have to, you know, then take a step back and say, whoa, remember the first three times in recent memory where the initial story turned out to be somewhat inaccurate compared to the final version of the story.
	But be safe, Alex, and don't do anything silly.
	I mean, going to war zones, I mean, it needs to be done.
	And the world needs people who are brave or, you know, maybe reckless to do it.
	Because the world needs it.
	But for that, you don't know what's going on.
	And then the flip side is you end up relying only on military propaganda coming from both sides.
	And then you have to figure it out on your own.
	Ukraine is not innocent.
	Russia is not innocent.
	When two evil powers fight, just let them.
	Every army commits atrocities.
	Okay.
	So let me see here.
	Okay, I think we've not exhausted this, but that's the latest.
	How you have to filter through the news cycle.
	Thank you very much.
	Superdoge.
	That is not an endorsement of Dogecoin.
	I do not promote cryptocurrencies.
	I don't contradict them, but I don't know anything about them to be in any position.
	Am I the only one who didn't understand the turtle poll?
	Probably not, but I just throw turtles into any poll for humor because once upon a time...
	There's that kid, I like turtles, and it was a viral video way back in the day.
	So as a joke, now I always throw turtles in because I do like turtles as well.
	So yeah, no, it's just an old meme from the internet and it became a gag on the channel.
	So I throw turtles into every poll just for the fun of it.
	Especially since everybody always votes for turtles.
	So I have to put turtles into both options to not falsify the results because people will vote for the wrong answer just because it has turtles in it.
	Okay, on that note.
	Let's go.
	What else?
	Oh, hold on.
	I saw something here.
	Okay, fine.
	Just want to see if I didn't miss any chat.
	When you read a chat...
	Kudo!
	When you read a stuff, can you announce the name of the person first?
	Because sometimes you're reading something and I think it's your opinion, but you're actually just reading the question.
	I will.
	And...
	Oh, it's Kubo, not Kudo.
	Kubo.
	Also, it happens often.
	I pull up a chat before having read it.
	And it says something that I would not say and that I do not support.
	And I must, you know, I must preface all of that because every now and again I bring up something, gonna do this, crossing my fingers.
	Julian P., $5 Super Chat.
	Media created the issue by making themselves impossible to believe or have any confidence in their reporting.
	And that's the issue.
	There are a lot of people out there who I won't judge their belief.
	I guess it's a form of gaslighting when people simply cannot believe anything.
	They do not know what to believe, and therefore they believe nothing.
	Some people believe that it's planting the seeds for a savior of sorts to come and clarify all of the fog, to clarify all of the understanding, to tell us finally what is truth and what to believe, which is how certain dictators...
	Have historically been elected.
	Or at one point elected and then just, you know, maintained power as dictator.
	Some people say it's by design.
	I think...
	I do think the awakening and people's confusion is...
	It is like Neo when he first comes out of the Matrix and he doesn't know where the hell he is and he doesn't know...
	He can't understand it.
	It's the first step, is the confusion when you become awakened to the fact that...
	The media that we have historically relied on, the old gray lady, the New York Times, is nothing but propagandist crap.
	Once you realize that, it is disconcerting.
	And you're sort of on your own in the meadow to understand the world in which you live now that you know that the people you relied on for information and truth and advice were liars.
	And I'm not being hyperbolic or overblowing this.
	The New York Times are worse than liars.
	Because they think they're justified in misleading you because you are too stupid to come to your own conclusions that they need to mislead you.
	Louis M. Viva, a guest doctor at work, said that there wasn't enough evidence.
	I am not going to hypothesize or pontificate or even provide an answer to that.
	So as not to be accused of providing medical advice.
	I know nothing of the premise.
	I know nothing of the question.
	But I do thank you for the super chat.
	Are you planning to buy your mandated EV by 2035?
	Fezzador.
	Well, here's the thing.
	Here's the issue.
	Wait until electricity.
	Wait until they start charging you up the wazoo to charge those things.
	You know, gas is now two bucks a liter in Canada.
	Just wait until...
	Hydroelectricity becomes, I don't know how, $2 a kilowatt hour.
	I don't know how to measure that.
	But it's not always going to be cheap to power these things.
	And it's not always going to be cheap to buy these things because the rare earth minerals that go into the batteries are not always going to be cheap or as cheap as they are now.
	Or people might actually come to the realization that they're not quite as environmentally totally green as everybody thinks they are.
	I did a video, I did a clip on it a little while back.
	If anybody thinks that mining those rare earth minerals to get them into the batteries, to ship those cars, the shells, the batteries, the minerals, if anybody doesn't think that that has radical and terrible environmental consequences in the African countries, the South American countries where they're being mined, and then the electricity itself, you have to get that electricity from somewhere, so it's either from nuclear, I think, or burning coal, or it's from dams, where you flood land.
	And it's typically native land, reserve land, that you flood, you kill the trees, the logs go into the water, they leach out mercury into the water, the natives who live off those fish end up having abnormally high mercury levels in their blood.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Electric vehicles, they're environmentally friendly because I don't see the pollution.
	It's like Charles Manson on Family Guy.
	If I haven't seen it, it's new to me.
	Well, if I don't see the pollution, it doesn't exist.
	Okay, let's get...
	We've got a few more subjects, but...
	Oh, jeez, I haven't checked on the Rumbles.
	The Rumbles.
	Give me one second.
	Rumble.
	Okay, we are live on Rumble.
	1,879 people.
	That didn't ask.
	And...
	Okay, good.
	I missed the chat.
	I missed the Blue L Avatar.
	Did I get it?
	Yeah, okay, I got that one.
	All right, so...
	That's...
	How to make sense of the world in which you live.
	And...
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Let's go to...
	There's not much on the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot.
	In fact, they're in deliberation now.
	Just the updates.
	They're in day two of deliberation.
	And I wish I had the meaningful criminal law experience to know how to interpret duration, silence, questions the jury's asking.
	During deliberations, I don't.
	So I defer to both Nate Brody, Robert Barnes, and any other lawyer who actually has criminal experience.
	Robert Govea, watching The Watchers.
	First day ends with no verdict.
	I mean, I guess that's good.
	If there would have been an acquittal, would an acquittal come quicker than a conviction in this case?
	Or, you know, duration of time.
	I think it's too complicated to have an acquittal too quickly.
	Grand Rapids, Michigan.
	Jurors returned to court to ask a question Monday but offered no verdict during the first day of deliberations in the trial of four men accused of conspiring to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
	U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker told jurors to, quote, find a good distraction.
	Maybe the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship and return Tuesday ready to engage fresh.
	So I guess they're not sequestered because if they're able to watch TV, they're able to watch content dealing with the Gretchen Whitmer plot.
	That's interesting.
	Unless it was tongue-in-cheek.
	If they're watching the news and they can see news reporting on this, that'd be interesting.
	Adam Fox, Barry Croft Jr., Daniel Harris, and Brandon Caserta are charged with a kidnapping conspiracy.
	Three men also face additional charges, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, namely an explosive.
	This is where...
	I'm sorry, like, did America invade Iraq to find explosives?
	Is that what they called weapons of mass destruction?
	I mean, I think technically every weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.
	Okay, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
	The jury asked the judge for the definition of weapon.
	At a mid-afternoon Monday, but otherwise gave no indication of the progress of deliberations, something that can be used to injure, kill, destroy someone or something, Jonker said after consultation with the prosecutors and defense.
	So if that helps, I hope.
	Great.
	If it doesn't, just let us know.
	16 days, 13 days of testimony, and hours of closing argument.
	And for anybody who doesn't know what that testimony consisted of, you had Ty Garbin.
	The one defendant who pleaded guilty, and I suspect pleaded guilty, thinking he was going to get some preferential treatment, and instead I think he was sentenced to many, many years in jail.
	He's one of the star witnesses for the prosecution because he comes and says, yes, everything the FBI says is true of these individuals.
	They were plotting it.
	It was all them.
	It had nothing to do with the paid FBI informants, the corrupt FBI agents, some of whom were convicted.
	Or accused of assaulting their spouse, you know, demoted from the force.
	13 days of testimony.
	Ty Garbin was one of the defendants and you had informants, some of whom were paid $60,000 a year to be informants.
	Some of the informants played leadership roles in this plot, which, you know, leads into the closing arguments lasting hours in that prosecution says this was a plot.
	They all orchestrated it.
	They were willing to do it.
	We busted it.
	Defense is saying, these people are, I'm not going to use the word, these people are incapable of carrying out this plot.
	It was never serious.
	They were LARPing.
	One of the individuals lived in a basement, was constantly consuming the Mary Jane.
	They had no ability to do this, no desire to do it.
	They were exploited by informants.
	Basically, the FBI fabricated this plot so they could then prosecute this plot.
	And that effectively entrapment.
	So we'll see where it goes.
	Jonker said last week, jurors.
	Junkard last week told jurors that the men could be convicted of conspiracy even if a kidnapping did not occur.
	Fine.
	Conspiracy 2 is the plot to do something.
	A key factor, if the jury finds it, would be, quote, A, quote, mutual understanding, either spoken or unspoken, end quote.
	I guess those are the jury instructions.
	Spoken or unspoken.
	Now they have to get into a certain element of mind reading between two or more people of the group, the judge said.
	Oh, and then we get into the explanation, anti-government stuff, yada, yada, yada.
	Oh, Garbin, here we go.
	Garbin said the goal was to get Whitmer the fall election.
	This is where you're going to assess on your own if this makes sense.
	Garbin said the goal was to get Whitmer before the fall election and create enough chaos to create a civil war and stop Joe Biden from winning the presidency.
	Much of the government's case comes from secretly recorded conversations, group messages, and social media posts.
	The first half of this, the only reason I find that curious is that kidnapping a Democrat politician would do the exact opposite if this were the stated objective.
	I mean, it might create chaos, but it probably would just create a highly militarized police force that would come raining down and would probably foment sentiment to get the election of a Democrat candidate for president, not vice versa.
	And it's also funny.
	On the one hand, they were saying it was a retribution for Whitmer's COVID policies, and on the other hand, to start a civil war.
	But much of the government's case came from secretly recorded conversations, group messages, and social media posts.
	And an interesting part of this, which I believe was adduced as evidence in the trial, is that there were disclosed texts between the FBI agents and the informants of the FBI agent telling the informant, if he's suspected of being an informant, to blame it on another one.
	And then instructing him to delete the text messages between the informant and the FBI agent.
	I mean, it's just, it's from a legal perspective fascinating as to what the threshold is to arrive at entrapment versus, you know, were these people just criminals plotting a harebrained criminal scheme, but criminals nonetheless.
	All right, what else do we got here?
	Defense lawyers, especially those representing Fox, Croft, etc., attacked the government's investigation and the use of a crucial informant, Dan Chappelle.
	They claimed Chappelle was the real leader, taking direction from the FBI and keeping the group on edge while recording them for months.
	Chappelle made everything happen, attorney Christopher Gibbons said in his closing remarks.
	Anyway, so that's it.
	It's interesting.
	We'll see.
	I mean, obviously, obviously, as soon as there's a judgment.
	I don't know.
	They're not going to be live streaming it.
	But who is following that case?
	Julie Kelly?
	I think Julie Kelly is following it.
	Let me just see who called me here.
	My grandmother.
	My mother.
	I think it's Julie Kelly following it.
	I'm not sure.
	I wish someone...
	Have I ever interviewed Jordan Peterson?
	No.
	It would be fantastic to do.
	I now see how Jordan Peterson got demonized by Canadian MSM as being...
	An extremist.
	I never understood it.
	I always heard him be called a hateful, bigoted, intolerant extremist.
	And at the time, I'm so dumb.
	I've listened to things he said.
	I've never heard anything remotely intolerant come out of his mouth, ever.
	And now I see how it works.
	I see how it's done.
	Lee Richards says, Human brains disengage our higher reasoning function.
	Functions.
	When angry or afraid.
	Never trust people who are trying to make you angry or afraid.
	I do believe that's good advice.
	I also do believe the good advice is never trust yourself when you're angry or afraid.
	It takes a bit of insight to know I'm cranky, I'm angry, I'm tired, I'm terrified.
	I don't trust my own judgment at this point in time.
	Alright, let's see what we got going back.
	Jeez Louise, I don't want to scroll myself out of the stream.
	Okay, let's go down to the bottom here.
	So the FBI is doing FBI things.
	Encourage vulnerable people to consider heinous crimes, then bust them.
	Now that I know a lot about the case, I do tend to very much understand that argument, and I dare say maybe even see it in this particular case.
	Because the level of involvement in this case, as we've now known it, it's not to say, I mean, they are undoubtedly idiots who, you know...
	Who really did stupid things.
	The question is, would they ever have done it without the active, not just involvement, but the active encouragement, the active facilitation, encouragement, training, leadership of informants.
	People have bad thoughts all the time.
	If you have, if you're a, I say vulnerable, if you're a, you know, without getting into mental capacities, but if you are a person who can be easily, if you're a person that has certain issues.
	You can be easily manipulated, and you can have your bad thoughts encouraged, exacerbated, and exploited, as opposed to, you know, just thoughts that go around in your head, and then you go back to toking in the basement of a vacuum shop.
	I mean, so...
	Tortoise.
	Turtle.
	Turtle, not tortoise.
	I don't understand what's going on there.
	So that's the latest with Michigan.
	We'll see where it goes.
	I'm following it.
	Who is it?
	Okay, I do believe it's Julie Miller who's following it because...
	Oh, I'm getting...
	No, it's Julie...
	Damn it.
	Anyways, I'm seeing that.
	It's not Julie Miller because Emily Miller is the reporter following Alec Baldwin.
	Okay, so you got Gretchen Whitmer, jury in deliberation for the alleged kidnapping.
	We'll see where that goes and news will come when news comes.
	What's the other one?
	Okay, Fog of War, Alec.
	Oh, God, listen to this.
	Alec Baldwin.
	Emily Miller.
	It's funny.
	She's been following Alec Baldwin for a while.
	And I don't know what a journalist means anymore.
	I just know that Emily Miller is a journalist.
	Getting information, getting details, and following up on the story.
	And, yes.
	So, Emily Miller has been on Alec Baldwin's butt for a while.
	And Alec Baldwin has been making it very easy for people to do that.
	Many people only think Alec Baldwin is involved in litigation as relates to, you know, his pulling the trigger of a prop gun, prop which was a fully functional weapon, and killing Helena Hutchins and shooting the director Joel D'Souza in the shoulder with the same one shot on the set of Rust, being sued left, right, and center.
	Production companies, etc.
	Litigation up the wazoo.
	A lot of people, Are forgetting that Alec Baldwin, in his infinite good judgment and, you know, good temperament, is also being sued for defamation, deliberate infliction of emotional distress on a widow, a military widow.
	So, Emily Miller, following the story, I'm going to get into her post in a second, Alec Baldwin PR stunt.
	Podcast to honor Military Tuesday is same day of court deadline for his answers to the $25 million lawsuit by fallen Marine family.
	Can you imagine?
	I'm going to stop it here because narcissism seems to be a thing with Alec.
	But can you imagine thinking that you're in a position, thinking that you have the moral, ideological, or life history authority to do anything, you know, to purport to...
	Put out a podcast to honor the military.
	I mean, it's like I don't have military experience.
	I don't know that I would be in a spiritual or authoritative position to honor.
	I know that I will always show respect and always be grateful and, in that sense, honor.
	But to say, like, I'm going to put out a podcast to honor something that I've never had a role in, that takes a certain degree of confidence.
	You know, fundraisers are one thing.
	Working to help is another thing.
	But Alec Baldwin himself thinking, I'm going to put out a podcast to honor the military after the things that I've done and said, which makes it even worse.
	So let's go to this.
	If we click on it, yeah, we'll get...
	No, you see, now I realize you don't see that.
	Hold on.
	Stop sharing.
	I'm going to go to the article itself.
	When I click on the link, you're still stuck looking at the tweet.
	Alec Baldwin, PR stunt.
	Here we go.
	And now I believe you see it.
	Alec Baldwin, PR stunt.
	Podcast to honor military on court deadline for lawsuit by fallen Marine family.
	Actors answers to claims from Gold Star family due Tuesday.
	Alec Baldwin's excellent public relations and legal team apparently are getting more calculating and manipulative.
	Baldwin is scheduled to do a radio interview about military life on Tuesday.
	This just happens to be the same day that his answers to the lawsuit are due in federal court.
	So there's our man of the hour.
	Wait until you see the responses.
	I mean, the internet is a cruel and unforgiving place, and when it's cruel and unforgiving in its honesty, that's when you have to start deleting tweets or deleting responses.
	It's ironic for Alec to be aligning himself with military families considering the conduct we're alleging in our lawsuit.
	Attorney Dennis...
	Pastiglione told me in an interview.
	Pastiglione represents the widow and sisters of the fallen Marine Riley McCollum, who sued Baldwin for $25 million after he publicly attacked them on Instagram.
	Wait until you hear this.
	What did he attack them for, by the way?
	Their participation in the January 6th insurrection.
	Their being present at a protest, not having been accused of, participated in anything violent, Baldwin didn't like.
	Baldwin posted this on Instagram on Monday.
	Looking forward to speaking with Randy Miller from At The National Defense about how American servicemen and women are holding up while in service of their country.
	Tomorrow, 12 Eastern.
	Let me just open up a little parenthesis here.
	This is sort of akin to, because it's Alec Baldwin in particular, it's sort of akin to like the Harvey Weinsteins.
	You know, being very public with their donations to certain entities, certain organizations, given what they are either known to have or subsequently found out to have done in their personal lives.
	And it's sort of like cloaking evil in benevolence.
	It's sort of like me thinks he doff protests too much.
	I mean, this guy, Alec Baldwin, given what he's accused of in Helena Hutchins' situation, what he did there, given his position on...
	Certain issues of politics.
	And given what he said about this widow, he's coming out and saying, look at this, I'm in a position to purport to be a moral authority and do this.
	It would almost be insulting, I presume it might be insulting, to actual servicemen to have Alec Baldwin think he's in a moral position to be doing this.
	Okay, the National, they posted a link, yada yada.
	Baldwin seems to be deleting comments on his post as soon as they showed to be not positive.
	A few comments are still online on the National Defense Network post, like this one.
	I don't know who this person...
	$25 million lawsuit from a Gold Star family and you're promoting this killer.
	Will he be discussing his doxing the family of a fallen Marine to his millions of followers resulting in their receiving death threats?
	Alec to fallen soldier sister, I've shared your photo.
	Good luck.
	Listen to this, because this...
	I won't judge people who smoke cigars.
	Apparently people like them.
	I don't know.
	Let's see here.
	We'll get to...
	Okay, fine.
	We'll get to that part.
	Before or after...
	Let's just see this here.
	Let's get to the lawsuit.
	Okay, it's right here.
	The Gold Star family filed their lawsuit against Baldwin when he publicly attacked them to his 2.5 million Instagram followers just four months after Riley was killed by an ISIS terrorist in Kabul airport in Afghanistan.
	That's when the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.
	Riley was just 20 years old.
	Gigi gave birth to their daughter, Levi, just three weeks after he was killed in action.
	The lawsuit claims Baldwin's actions constitutes, at a minimum, an egregious violation.
	Plant is right to privacy by false light and intrusion upon seclusion, defamation per se, defamation by implication, negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	And the issue was, where did we have what he was alleged to have done?
	They got into a...
	Where was the article about what he said?
	It has to be...
	I have to pull it up if I didn't already do that.
	Chrome tab.
	Here we go.
	Sorry, I had the article.
	I thought it was in...
	Julie, I thought it was in Emily Miller's, Julie Kelly might have been the journalist.
	Yeah, you got to hear what he's alleged to have done.
	There's going to be an argument in law as to whether or not there was a violation of privacy by retweeting a photo that this individual, the plaintiff already tweeted.
	Can't pretend there's not going to be a question in law in this.
	But when you say, here's the photo of you, good luck to your two and a half million.
	And I'm sure if they're anything like Alec Baldwin, I'm sure it's a crowd that's going to, You want to talk about dog whistles?
	That's a dog whistle.
	Alec Baldwin sued for $25 million by a fallen Marines family over Capitol Riot Photo.
	This is January 21, 2022.
	And I took it from Global News.
	It's all syndicated anyhow, I think.
	I don't know where this came from.
	Oh yeah, here, the Associated Press.
	It's all syndicated news.
	The women are suing the actor after he claimed on Instagram that one of the sisters was an insurrectionist for attending the Capitol riot in Washington, D.C. on Jan 6 last year.
	According to the courtroom documents obtained by the people, by people, the family is asking for a jury trial and is seeking $25 million plus legal fees for invasion of privacy.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	We saw that.
	Last year Baldwin, this is Last year, Baldwin donated $5,000 to Royce McCollum.
	After her brother, Riley McCollum, was among 13 U.S. soldiers killed in a suicide bombing on August 26th at the Kabul airport.
	Royce was raising money for her brother's widow and unborn daughter.
	However, according to the lawsuit, this is according to the lawsuit, people, or according to anyone who followed Alec Baldwin's Instagram feed at the time, Baldwin sent an Instagram message to Royce on January 3, after she posted an almost year-old photo from the Washington riots.
	He asked Royce if she was the same woman who had accepted his money.
	Remember when I said that there's no such thing as a free gift?
	These are allegations.
	He asked if it was the same person who accepted his money because he thought that when he gave her that money, he owned a piece of her.
	Royce told the actor she did attend the rally but said that she was there legally and that her protesting was peaceful.
	When I gave the money for your brother, Out of respect for his services to this country, I didn't know you were a January 6th rioter, Baldwin said, according to the lawsuit.
	Royce responded to Baldwin, protesting peacefully is legal in the country and I've already had my sit down with the FBI.
	Thanks.
	Have a nice day.
	The lawsuit notes that she was never detained, arrested, charged, or convicted of any crime associated with her attendance at the event.
	Baldwin not satisfied with her explanation and replied, I don't think so.
	Your activities resulted in unlawful destruction of government property.
	The death of a law enforcement officer.
	An assault on the certification of the presidential election.
	I reposted your photo.
	Good luck.
	Can we now appreciate exactly what he said here?
	First of all, this is a man who himself has resulted in death of a human.
	Set that aside.
	Her behavior resulted in the unlawful destruction of government property.
	The death of a law enforcement officer.
	And I presume Alec...
	Is now relying on the same misinformation that the New York Times had put out because I'm sure Alec reads the New York Times and I'm sure he doesn't read erratums, corrections, retractions.
	I'm sure Alec Baldwin probably thinks 900,000 children were hospitalized by COVID as well.
	You have a man who literally pulled the trigger of a prop firearm ending an individual's life.
	Did he do it at this time?
	Was it at this time?
	No, it wasn't at this time that he had done it.
	Sorry, take that back.
	I guess it's just sick in retrospect.
	Spewing misinformation and accusing this woman of having, you know, indirectly...
	Did he say indirectly?
	Oh, no, I'm sorry.
	Resulted in.
	That would be directly.
	I reposted your photo.
	Good luck.
	How is anyone supposed to take that?
	Assuming that this allegation is proven to be true, which I believe it's a social media post.
	Then she got hateful messages, and I'm not reading.
	Hateful messages and threats.
	It appears Royce and Baldwin have deleted the post in question, although Royce has shared other photos taken at the Washington event.
	So that's it.
	Alec Baldwin is, to quote Seinfeld, he's a very, very bad man.
	And very, very, very bad men and women tend to try to cloak their bad behavior, to protect it in a shield of benevolence.
	I donated to you.
	I didn't know I was supporting an insurrectionist.
	I gave you that money.
	I own you.
	I own everything you do for the rest of your life.
	So that's it.
	So his stunt of the day, you know?
	Let's pay an honor.
	I'm such a good citizen while I berate and sick my two and a half million Instagram followers on a grieving widow and wife.
	I'm doing a podcast to honor military servicemen.
	I'm a good man.
	Blake, I'm not...
	Blake J says, why are you calling it an insurrection, Viva?
	Stop playing into their lies.
	So I take this...
	It's meant with tongue-in-cheek because I don't call it that.
	I call it a riot.
	Don't call it an insurrection because even the FBI came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to support that allegation, even though...
	Even though the media still runs with that.
	Even Canadian media.
	Curious if Alex gave to BLM or similar.
	So that's Alec Baldwin.
	Might be worth looking at his response to that lawsuit when it comes out.
	Probably just going to be a blanket denial.
	Cloaking the arrogance.
	It's the narcissism.
	It's cloaking the bad behavior.
	So that he can say, look, I did a tribute podcast to honor fallen soldiers, to honor the military.
	Okay.
	What else do we got?
	I think that's what we got.
	Let me just, before we end, just going to show a minute of this.
	And then I'll post the link here.
	This was, it's five years ago already, when life made sense.
	Five years ago, I don't have very many bucket list items, but catching a sturgeon was one of them.
	And I went, we were in British Columbia.
	We woke up just outside of Whistler.
	I drove several hours with my one kid in the morning, the only one who could sit on a boat for an entire day to go sturgeon fishing.
	We met this guy up in Fraser.
	Oh, jeez, where was it?
	It was on the Fraser River.
	I'll get the name of the place.
	It's probably in the description.
	Lilluit!
	It was in Lilluit.
	Sorry.
	Lilluit apparently is the hottest place in Canada.
	And we went sturgeon fishing.
	Just...
	Look at those hooks.
	This was the first fish we caught.
	So the rules are what?
	It has to be a single...
	Single barbless hook.
	And they don't ever swallow it deep down where you have to click one?
	Not normally, no.
	Uh-oh.
	Hold on.
	I don't want to.
	Let's just go to the first fish.
	We're playing the waiting game.
	Fish on!
	That's my groin.
	Oh, he's pulling the dragon.
	Keep going!
	It's not as easy as it looks, I'm telling you.
	It doesn't look easy.
	Every time I watch a fishing show, I'm telling you, what a bunch of sissies they're not pulling.
	Okay, let's just skip to hauling this fish up.
	Look at this.
	Look at this, people.
	Gosh!
	Wait, wait, wait.
	This is the best part.
	Sorry, sorry.
	This is the best part.
	Okay, we get it in close.
	Never judge a person on a fishing show.
	Wait until you see this fish.
	Because it's pretty hard to reel it in.
	This is probably the best moment of your life.
	Oh my gosh!
	Look at the size.
	Oh my gosh.
	Anyhow, that was it.
	He put it in the microchip.
	So, just so nobody also judges, although people will regardless, they have this catch, tag, and release in Fraser River, so they implant a microchip.
	Under the gill plate of the sturgeon so they can track their movement.
	And it's amazing.
	I mean, everything's amazing.
	Let me see here.
	I just saw...
	No thoughts, RRJ Private, but I'm going to go read it.
	I'm going to go read it.
	I saw Dr. Who's the doctor?
	A British guy does a very clean...
	Methodical reading of medical stuff.
	Fantastic stuff.
	Clearview Investigation says, Hey, as an Albertan and avid follower of your channel, I have to know, where is the best place for smoked meat in Montreal?
	This slow slide towards totalitarianism makes me hungry.
	It's a controversial answer.
	It's not Schwartz's.
	It's not Rubens, if that place is still open.
	It is Snowden Delicatessen.
	Snowden Delicatessen, hands down.
	They've been the most loyal.
	I don't know.
	I think they're family-owned.
	They're still family-owned.
	They've had the same staff working there for decades.
	They've known our family since we were kids, since we got married, since we started coming with our kids.
	But it's not good because I'm loyal to them.
	I'm loyal to them because it's the best.
	Snowden Delicatessen.
	They also have great herring and sour cream and bagel lox and cream cheese with a side of eggs fried and put on top.
	All right, people.
	So that is it.
	That is the day's worth of information.
	We are going to have a sidebar tomorrow night.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	I forget who it is exactly, but it's going to be fantastic.
	And Thursday, people, the Honorable Brian Peckford is coming on 10 p.m. Pacific Time, 1 a.m. Eastern Time.
	I'm going to create the link and send it out after tomorrow night's stream because I can't have two simultaneously streams set up.
	Oh, John Campbell.
	Thank you.
	It's Dr. John Campbell.
	He's amazing.
	But Thursday, the Honorable Brian Peckford, 90 minutes.
	It's going to be intense and it's going to be awesome.
	So please tune in.
	And everything else...
	Hold on one second.
	Do I see fighting in the chat?
	I think I see fighting in the chat.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Oh, I'm not bringing that up.
	I just saw a new piece of legislation.
	So that's what we're doing tomorrow, people.
	Sidebar tomorrow.
	Probably do a stream tomorrow during the day.
	Thursday, Brian Peckford, 1 a.m.
	After?
	No, what am I talking about?
	Son of a gun.
	1 p.m. Eastern Time, 10 a.m. Pacific Time.
	And that is it.
	It's going to be...
	Yeah, I'm psyched.
	Keith Wilson came on a couple of weeks ago.
	His lawyer, the lawyer for...
	Geez, I want to say Tamara Lich, but I think that might not be right.
	Oh gosh, I forget.
	Anyhow, his lawyer, we had a great marathon three-hour stream.
	It's 1 p.m.
	It's 1 p.m., people.
	And 10 p.m. Pacific time would have been too...
	Okay.
	It's going to be amazing.
	So we had a good one.
	With that said, people, you know what to do.
	Share.
	Thank you for all the support.
	I'm just going to run real quick like to rumble and make sure I haven't forgotten anything or missed anyone.
	Thank you very much.
	What else?
	Enjoy the day.
	Exercise.
	Get out there.
	Sunlight.
	Physical activity.
	And eat healthy.
	But go easy on yourself.
	See you guys tomorrow.

▲