Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 11, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:38:51

Nick Rekieta Guest - His YouTube Ban (& Resurrection) Explained - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	If you don't get vaccinated, you're antisocial.
	This is what the Dutch prime minister and health minister told us.
	You don't get vaccinated just for yourself, but also for others.
	You do it for all of society.
	That's what I said.
	Today, this turned out to be complete nonsense.
	In a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, one of the Pfizer directors just admitted to me, at the time of introduction, The vaccine had never been tested on stopping the transmission of the virus.
	This removes the entire legal basis for the COVID passport.
	The COVID passport that led to massive institutional discrimination as people lost access to essential parts of society.
	I find this to be shocking, even criminal.
	Please watch the video until the end.
	We may not watch it to the end.
	We're going to wait for the answer.
	And I will speak in English so there are no misunderstandings.
	Oh, there's going to be misunderstandings.
	Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market.
	He could have stopped there.
	Please say it clearly.
	If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?
	And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it.
	Thank you very much.
	Looking forward to it.
	Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanisation before it's entered the market?
	No.
	We have to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.
	We move at the speed of science to understand what's taking place in the market.
	Hey, if you're someone who took that jab, that answer might piss you off just a tad, just a tad.
	We move at the speed of science, and apparently the speed of the market moves faster than the speed of science.
	It seems to me that the speed of science is the speed that is required to make sure things are scientifically defensible, justifiable, and effective.
	This was, we move at the speed of science.
	What did she say about the market?
	It doesn't matter.
	What is being quite clearly illustrated in real time is that people have been hoodwinked with the most important thing that God has given them, their own bodies.
	I feel hoodwinked.
	I feel violated.
	And I now see members of Pfizer.
	I tweeted out to Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer.
	You better have a damn good explanation for this, Al, Bert, whatever you want to go by.
	You better have a damn good explanation for this.
	Because when you said, back on April 1st, 2021, in a tweet, 100% effective against transmission, intestines, South Africa, or wherever it was, those words meant something, unless it was an April Fool's joke.
	And if it's an April Fool's joke, enjoy living with that joke for the rest of your life.
	Oh, we moved it to speed of science.
	But she's got a very intellectual British accent.
	So being lied to in Brit is better than being lied to in other dialects.
	Hoodwinked with our own bodies.
	Okay.
	Let me see that we're live everywhere.
	Nick's in the backdrop, and I'm not going to make Nick wait.
	He showed up on time, which is fantastic.
	I don't know how much time I have because I don't...
	The 8.30 time slot is an odd time slot for me.
	Kids aren't in bed.
	Mom's trying to put them to bed.
	And it might not work.
	But this is going to be phenomenal, people.
	Yeah, there's been a little bit of drama.
	There's been a little upheaval on the interwebs of the law tubes.
	The Pope.
	I'm not sure I get the reference of the Pope.
	But I get the reference of the schnoz.
	My competitor, I should say.
	Yeeted from the interwebs.
	If only for 36 hours.
	And an amazing thing is people mobilize, people express discontent, and then things seem to change.
	But we're going to get the full story of it because Twitter's one thing.
	Steven Crowder, am I going to get in trouble for saying it?
	Half-Asian lawyer from Crowder is another.
	There's layers to this tiramisu.
	And not all layers are equally thick, but we're going to get to it.
	Okay, I see someone is in full, I won't say costume.
	You don't understand the Pope?
	You don't understand the Pope?
	I sort of get it.
	Okay, so we're going to get into a lot of stuff tonight.
	How did you get to the Pope?
	I don't even remember.
	I know.
	I know the Pope's hat.
	I saw a movie called Euro Trip, a documentary.
	How did the Pope even become a thing with you?
	I mean, the lore is deep.
	I actually do not remember where I became the Pope.
	Now that you mention it, it's completely lost on me where that started.
	Somebody probably knows where that is, and if they do, they should remind me because I don't.
	On Rumble, I'm seeing Pope Rackets.
	The Pope is here.
	Unbredded.
	Unbredded I get.
	I never wanted the jab and will never get it.
	Well, thanks, Daisy, but I'm two shots behind you, no pun intended.
	All right, Nick.
	First of all...
	We've done this before.
	We know each other.
	We've known each other for a while.
	Yeah.
	How's life been for the last week?
	A little stressful.
	You know, when people talk about...
	I won't put dollar figures on things, although some of this stuff is public.
	When you talk about decisions that cost people money, that cost people undue stress, people don't need to imagine too much to understand.
	Overnight...
	It's not your only source of revenue.
	It's not your...
	I don't know if it's...
	It doesn't matter.
	It's a source of revenue.
	We can talk numbers if you want, by the way.
	I'm very open about them.
	It's up to you.
	You share what you're comfortable with.
	But the bottom line, some of this stuff is public.
	So people who know that you're the grifter.
	You're the grifter of grifters.
	I don't know if you won the grifties yet.
	But people use the term grift as a joke to replace the word hard work.
	You stream...
	I don't know, eight hours a day sometimes.
	I know you have five or six kids.
	I'm not sure how many.
	I think your streaming might be an addiction to get away from the kids.
	It's an easy way to avoid.
	It's just word fever.
	I got three, and I can sort of understand now.
	But it's meaningful.
	And when something hits the fan like it did last week, and overnight, poof, it's an expensive decision you made.
	Yeah, so a couple things.
	I won't get into specific numbers, but I mentioned this figure on, I think, Megan Fox's stream.
	Over the past 365 days from YouTube, and again, this is all public on Playboard or whatever.
	The numbers are a little more specific, but you also have to do a lot of math to get to them.
	But just for sake of convenience, I made over half a million dollars.
	Gross.
	It's not net, it's gross.
	Or it might be gross.
	It's pre-tax.
	Pre-tax.
	Okay.
	Pre-tax.
	Pre-expense, whatever your expenses are.
	I mean, I see some bottles of whiskey on a painting behind you, so that might be a business expense.
	Meaningful money.
	Very, very meaningful money.
	More money than I've ever made in my entire life by orders of magnitude.
	So when that happens and all of a sudden YouTube goes, you go, okay, now what?
	Right?
	Like, what is the answer to that?
	It's a terrifying moment.
	And the funny thing is, because I was multi-streaming to Rumble and Odyssey, you can actually see it in real time.
	You can watch.
	The ashen look on my face.
	I did not expect to be deleted from YouTube mid-stream.
	It's a lot.
	Now, before people get too crazy about the numbers, because I know the numbers can make some people very uncomfortable.
	And they should.
	They should make people uncomfortable.
	It's also why I've never asked anybody to send a super chat ever or anything like that.
	It's just people choose to participate and that's on them.
	If they want to do it, great.
	If they don't, cool.
	I do my show, and I love it very much.
	But remember that the Rittenhouse trial and the Amber Heard trial were both in that time period, and both of them had massive, massive streams going through that with tons of participation.
	Rittenhouse, you were at 150,000 people watching live.
	Give or take.
	I think it might have been 125.
	It was 132 for Rittenhouse, if I remember right.
	And then we actually, I had one stream go bigger during Depp, which is kind of unbelievable.
	But did have a stream go to 134, 138, something like that for Depp.
	It's nuts.
	And I mean, the numbers are astronomical.
	And the amazing thing is...
	You know, we're both lawyers, but we found something of a niche on this YouTube where you don't beg, you don't ask, you don't guilt.
	People want to, you know, when I was doing the Ottawa Convoy, we had 55,000 people watching live at one point.
	Biggest month ever, but it was just providing something that people wanted and they were happy to support it.
	But all that to say, Nick, I mean, it's funny in retrospect because you got your channel back and we're going to get into the details, but someone flipped a switch.
	And said that source of revenue is shut off for now.
	You've gone one step too far.
	I didn't see that.
	I think I saw the moment, but then I saw some other moments.
	But I mean, what does that feel like?
	Whether or not people think you deserve it, what does that feel like?
	Deserve it or not?
	It's horrifying.
	And it's not the first, second, and third things you think of are not the income, actually.
	Believe it or not, I think...
	There's probably a little bit of arrogance to anybody who will sit and livestream to a bunch of people all the time.
	That shouldn't be controversial.
	We try not to be, right?
	But it's like every time you turn on the camera, thousands of people tune in.
	It goes to your head a little bit, okay?
	And you get kind of confident in your ability to succeed at this type of thing.
	And you know there's other places.
	So the income isn't actually the first thing because you go, okay.
	You're building up backups or whatever.
	You're going to land.
	You kind of prepare mentally for the possibility of this happening.
	What the first thing that came to my mind was, this is my thing.
	This is mine.
	I built this.
	I built this.
	YouTube didn't build this for me.
	In fact, I think I spent the majority of my time on YouTube fighting tooth and nail against the algorithm, against the wrong think.
	Designation against strikes, against everything.
	I carved this out by just being here and doing the work and somehow finding a formula that people want to tune into.
	I built that audience and I can't tell them what happened.
	I can't talk to them.
	I can't do anything to get back to my thing.
	It's gone.
	And that's the real terror of the moment.
	Is okay.
	Yeah, my work is gone.
	Five years for me.
	And I mean, it's interesting you say it.
	Some people might not believe you.
	They say the money is the most important thing.
	Where I can sort of appreciate, it's not, you're confident in your abilities to make money as an entrepreneur wherever you're going to go.
	You've lost your audience.
	You've lost your, not your reach, but you've lost your connection to the world.
	And we might get into some other stuff later, but where I say, you're booted from Twitter.
	So within short order, you're booted from Twitter.
	Okay, fine.
	You still have YouTube.
	You're booted from YouTube.
	Within short order, you're also booted from Stitch.
	Or what is it called?
	Switch or Stitch?
	Twitch.
	Twitch.
	I'm an idiot.
	No, you're not.
	If you don't know what Twitch is, you're actually a well-adjusted human being.
	You got that way wrong.
	First of all, I'm not, but I still don't know what Twitch is.
	I mean, I know what Twitch is.
	I was watching Lilo and Stitch.
	Okay, but...
	Let's get into this.
	Within the switch, but you're at...
	People don't appreciate by the time you get your channel nuked, unless you've gone and done broadcast...
	I don't want to use any hyperbolic examples, but live streaming committing crimes.
	Unless you do something like that, by the time you get your channel struck, shut down, nuked, you've actually committed four, and I'll put them here, violations.
	You get your warning, and then you get your three strikes, and then you're out.
	And your warning never goes away, ever.
	Your warning never, people should appreciate this, the warning, the warning never goes away.
	So once you get your warning, you're down to three strikes forever.
	Strikes evaporate after whatever period of time.
	90 days.
	Can we talk real quick about what my warning is?
	Because I want people to know how ridiculous these things are.
	We're going to go into it.
	You had your four strikes.
	Your first, from what I understand, was repeating something Joe Biden said about COVID.
	It doesn't matter what it was, and I'm not scared of it.
	But repeating what the president said about COVID flagged as medical misinformation warning.
	That's correct?
	Yeah, pretty close.
	Watching live stream, it was when Biden decided to bring kids back to school the first time.
	And they said, you know, we've seen that this thing doesn't affect kids in the same way.
	Are we live on YouTube, by the way?
	I hope so.
	It looks like we are 3,000 on YouTube.
	Oh, dude, say it.
	I don't care.
	You can say it.
	We'll report the news.
	I just noticed that there's a lot of trolls who've made it past the five minutes of subscription and the 15-second slow thing.
	Okay, go ahead.
	So he said, we're bringing these kids back to school.
	This thing doesn't affect kids in the same way, and we think with some precautions we can safely get kids back in school because they need to be in school.
	And I said, hey, man.
	I finally agree with you on something.
	We've known for a long time that this has very different effects on kids than it did on adults and then particularly much older adults to the elderly who had significantly higher death rates where kids had almost a non-existent death rate.
	I think this is a great policy.
	This is a good change.
	That was the medical misinformation that I got tagged for.
	I'm agreeing with the President of the United States as he's on the podium saying it in that way, too.
	It wasn't like, this whole thing's fake, which would be fun to say, but I was on YouTube.
	I was very cognizant of the policy.
	I thought I was 100% within it.
	I have appealed that thing since getting it.
	I have kept...
	Pressure on my partner manager to appeal that.
	And there is no turning it back.
	They will not take it away.
	Nick, if I take a guess at when that was, I mean, that has to be a little over a year ago, correct?
	I can tell you.
	Tell me, because I'm wondering, because I know as a matter of practical effect that the rules have changed such that what was forbidden a year ago is now not forbidden.
	And when you say...
	The effect is virtually non-existent on children.
	Well, I'll say you're slightly more reckless than me.
	Whenever I do it, I quote the medical officers.
	Kieran Moore from Ontario.
	So bottom line, that's your first warning.
	And when you get it, it never goes away.
	It's not a strike.
	It's just forever on your channel.
	So you're down to three.
	Your second one...
	From what I understand was...
	Okay, first of all, that video traumatized me.
	It's the video that Andy Ngo shared on Twitter.
	The Australian stabbing.
	A guy gets stabbed in the neck.
	I had nightmares about it.
	And I should not have watched it.
	And I did.
	And then I couldn't stop re-watching it because it blows your mind.
	So I did not talk about that on YouTube.
	Not because I'm afraid of the strike.
	It upset me so much I didn't want to promote it.
	But what was the strike for that?
	Violating community guidelines.
	Yes, so YouTube has a community guideline about violence and gore, and it says that you cannot show a violent or gore video for the purposes of shocking or disturbing your audience.
	Now, you mentioned you didn't show it not because you're not scared of the strike.
	I wasn't either.
	In fact, it didn't even cross my mind that my showing of that video...
	Four hours and 20 minutes into a five-hour live stream, a 40-second clip, which I then spent the next 10 minutes talking about the senselessness of violence, how young men's pride gets young men killed.
	How this type of thing is what we need to actually start focusing on in society because these types of encounters never ever need to occur, specifically discouraging violence and talking about the sad and horrific nature of how this stuff happens.
	Never in my life did I think that that would get a strike as somehow be either promoting violence or for the sole purposes of shocking or disgusting my audience.
	I have covered police shootings.
	I've covered police stabbings.
	I've covered George Floyd being his death on camera.
	And YouTube, to be very clear, YouTube used to have a no-death-on-camera policy, but they changed that policy after George Floyd specifically for commentary around these types of incidents to allow you to show this stuff.
	But...
	To make sure you're not promoting violence in any sort of way.
	And there was...
	No one could argue that I promoted violence or had any intent to shock or disturb my viewers with that one.
	And not to give YouTube any ideas, but between that, which was horrific only in the...
	The simplicity of the incident.
	Don't watch it.
	It's not going to make you better.
	It'll make you traumatized.
	It's a horrifying video.
	You have to be broken like me to watch that stuff.
	Meanwhile, you got me to watch the trailer.
	What was it?
	The Dumpster Defenders.
	Which I found to be equally horrific.
	Those types of videos which people analyze, break down for legal purposes.
	Nothing.
	So you've done that.
	You've done videos like that.
	No issue.
	But this one, for whatever the reason, got the strike.
	Now...
	I was told a little detail on that if you'd like to know.
	Please, because I don't want to hypothesize, but I could think of political reasons for why that would be more of a naughty video than the Dumpster Brothers, for example.
	It's much less nefarious and much more stupid than that, in my opinion.
	The answer...
	We received on this strike, which I have been appealing since I got it also.
	It falls off in 11 days or 10 days.
	The answer on that one was that there is an arbitrary amount of blood.
	And once that level of blood is exceeded, the video will get a strike.
	Regardless of context, regardless of commentary, regardless of anything.
	Now, this is not written in the policy.
	There is nothing about blood in the policy.
	And apparently, this actually affects medical channels with frequency because they will have some video showing like an educational video about a particular operation or whatever.
	And if there is an excessive amount, an excessive amount of blood, whatever that is.
	It will get struck, regardless of the quality of it, regardless of the commentary, the educational value.
	Nothing matters, apparently, once you hit, I don't know, two pints or whatever someone deems is too much.
	It is completely pointless.
	And again, not written in the policy, which is extremely frustrating for us.
	That might actually explain the difference between the Dumpster Brothers and the stabbing, which was all of his blood, apparently, because the dude died on the floor.
	Yes.
	So you get both of those strikes.
	That's within the Andy No video.
	It's relatively recent.
	So you got two of those.
	You're at two.
	Contesting two, but no overturning the two.
	Then we get into the politics and the juice of the next two.
	I'm going to flag a few, not flag, I'm going to star some super chats so we can get back to them later.
	And then I have to actually run an ad, Nick.
	I don't know who's going to, I'm going to have to wait for this.
	So you get your first two, then you get your third.
	And your third is now reverberating through the interwebs, both because of what you said and because of what you didn't say.
	What was said that you said, despite not saying it, even in the direct quote of the retweet of the actual video itself.
	The second one, or the third one, I'm sorry, now gets into this Keffels Kiwi Farm business.
	Right.
	Do you want to elaborate or should I ask more questions?
	I can elaborate.
	I'm very clear on this.
	So, Keffels is a transgender activist who, when you review...
	The Kiwi Farms thread of Kefels.
	They were after Kiwi Farms over this thread very specifically.
	And let me backpedal for just a second.
	Kiwi Farms is a website of people who do two things.
	They collect information about a subject, typically an online celebrity.
	I have a Kiwi Farms thread.
	It is over 815 pages long.
	They've collected various tweets and videos that I've done and posted them up there.
	The other thing they do is they gossip.
	They gossip about people.
	Some of the things they say are true.
	Some of the things they say are not true.
	Some of it is very, very offensive and nasty.
	And some of it is very, very supportive.
	It entirely depends on what people want.
	It's a place for them to discuss the subject of their choice, which is a particular online celebrity, generally speaking.
	And that runs the gamut of people.
	A whole lot of people have threads and a whole lot don't because they don't find them all that interesting or dramatic.
	And that's...
	That's just how the internet goes.
	So, KiwiFarms was a target of Kefels because of this thread.
	Kefels organized an online community to go after their web hosting services, their DDoS protection, probably not directly instigated an illegal DDoS attack against...
	against Kiwi Farms, had it shut down, effectively took this website offline for quite a while.
	It is back up now, but it was a big problem and has gone, Josh, the owner, has gone through great lengths I am a very, very strong defender of free speech.
	I do not think much of anything at all should be taken down outside of inappropriate images of children.
	Stuff like that I think should not be on the internet.
	But other than that, people talk about things and that I am 100% fine with.
	On this website, there's a collection of tweets by Keffels explaining their history of providing hormone replacement therapy to minor children.
	Without their parents' knowledge or consent.
	Also, on the website is a history of, again, Keffels' tweets, not speculation on this one, of supporting a website that specifically details how to make, in your own home, hormone replacement therapy, specifically estrogen, out of various chemicals that you can acquire to then coach children to inject it into themselves to conduct their own...
	I guess, chemical transitions to prepare them for a medical transition in the future.
	Again, no doctor, no parents are involved.
	I take massive issue with that.
	And I said that...
	A little hammered.
	I know what you said.
	I'll let you say it.
	I said, if you are giving bathroom...
	Or if you are giving...
	Hormone replacement therapy to children without their parents' consent, you go on the fucking wall, along with all the other pedophiles and groomers and everybody else.
	Those are the exact words I said.
	It's an expression I have used on my channel about a million times to express extreme disgust and distaste with someone, and I frankly believe that these people should be removed from society.
	That does not mean, however, that...
	I am calling for any violence.
	I do not ever call for violence or for anybody to actually do it.
	I just think that these people who mainly impact children in this way need to be out.
	And I think a sane society would remove them through ostracism for their actions.
	Now, I've heard the expression, it's maps to the wall or maps on the wall.
	And the pun, for lack of a better word, is...
	Maps, which are the minor attracted persons, I believe.
	The meme, the pun comes from maps.
	People have maps of the world.
	They put them on their wall.
	They put pins in there.
	I want to go here, here, here.
	And so that's the joke.
	The double entendre, to pull out my Québécois, is that the wall has secondary meanings.
	And that's intended for part of the pun.
	The legal defense, and I understand the legal defense, at least in the States.
	I'm not sure that this would be equally as true in Canada.
	Where hate speech means something much different.
	The legal defense in the States is it's not a true threat.
	It's not even a veritable threat.
	It's a hyperbolic pun.
	Idiom.
	Play on words.
	Idiom.
	And it doesn't satisfy any requirements to meet the threshold of illegality.
	Correct.
	Like it or don't like it, Americans or other people watching from elsewhere.
	That's the defense.
	The flip side.
	Nick, is that YouTube is going to say, we're not an awful but lawful website.
	I'm sorry, is it lawful but awful website?
	We set our own rules and we don't even want that type of rhetoric.
	Strike three.
	Or now you're at strike two, but third hit.
	That happens on that particular soundbite?
	I believe so.
	YouTube is never...
	Very good at providing you the exact soundbite or timestamp or anything that gets it.
	However, that portion of what I said was clipped without the following portion, which is really actually critical, in which I said, if you are 18 years old, I do not care what you do to your body.
	I do not care how you identify.
	Whatever you want to do is just fine.
	Go pursue your life in the way you want to live it.
	Because I am, at the end of the day, a gay libertarian.
	I am a guy who believes in freedom to the maximum extent.
	And so if you want to transition, if you want to change your body, I don't care what parts you want to take off, add on, how you want to live your life, how you want to express yourself is literally no bother to me in any way.
	And I made that very, very clear.
	Now, what happened after that was a Twitter campaign in which the first part was clipped and the person who saw it then retweeted it, this is Keffels, saying that I said Keffels needed to be put on the wall and shot.
	Something I did not and do not advocate.
	Never have, despite the...
	Potential meaning of a double entendre.
	And I know a lot of commentary and discussion has been said around this.
	People say, we all know what Nick meant.
	I'm sorry that my opinion is not as based as you might want it to be, but I really don't advocate political violence in this way.
	But that being said, the whole...
	Idea of putting things on the wall, again, has to do with ostracism and even display.
	Something like the Sex Offender Registry is oftentimes referred to as the wall, like a wall of shame.
	But that's it.
	It said and shot.
	Now, I responded to several of these tweets and I said, I have never said that.
	I never did.
	Never would say that.
	And do not condone this type of violence.
	None of that matters because what happened next was a mass flagging campaign on this video With the misinformation that I suggested that this person should be shot.
	Actually, let me clarify.
	Not that I suggested, but that I stated directly that this person should be shot.
	I also received from that video 45 ethics complaints to my lawyer's professional responsibility office here in Minnesota for hate speech.
	All of them were dismissed without investigation, by the way.
	If anybody's curious about that, all of them were dismissed.
	But that is the reason for the third strike.
	Okay, and now the flagging campaigns is an issue of its own.
	You've got a channel manager.
	I've got a channel manager, but I haven't spoken to the channel manager in probably a year because that's how much I'm interested in that.
	But did they mention at what point the flagging campaign achieves its purpose?
	Because I think I was watching you with Allison.
	And some people don't really appreciate this, but when you get a flagging campaign, sometimes there'll be a video like the Christchurch Massacre, which will be online, and people are going to flag it immediately.
	And YouTube says, something's up with this.
	We'll talk about it later.
	We're going to take it down right now and look at it.
	That's the severity, the intensity that it was intended to respond to.
	Do you know what number, like what idea, roughly the threshold, after which they say, take it down and we'll look at it after.
	I wish I knew the answer to that.
	I do not.
	What I do know is that when it happened, I had to inform my channel manager of the flagging campaign because they do not have a direct line to community guidelines.
	In fact, the way YouTube is structured around videos and things like demonetization and guidelines, it's actually put into pillars, we'll say.
	pillars or columns that are next to each other but do not have bridges between them and this makes a lot of sense Because what they don't want is they don't want people flagging videos for community guidelines and that automatically triggering demonetization.
	Because then if you were angry at a creator, you could get a sufficient number of people to just trigger demonetization whether or not their content violated anything.
	And for a long time, kind of speculated on that.
	But I actually got to speak with some very high up people at YouTube a long time ago about this.
	And they explain the delineation of these departments.
	So your creator partner manager has a lot of contact with the monetization team.
	They do not have a line to the community guidelines team.
	So they don't know what's going on, and it takes a lot of effort to get that information from guidelines to then either pass on to their creator.
	So I do not know what number that was, but I can tell you that there were, again, 45 bar complaints were sent on this.
	If you talk about the difference in effort between flagging a video on YouTube and then doing a bar complaint, which requires you to put your name, your address, your phone number, your email address on the bar complaint and then write a description of what is going on.
	Comparably, we can imagine that a significantly higher number of people flagged the video.
	But I'll never know what that is.
	Let's just say it's like the Varus reports, which for every Varus report, you could assume 30 have not been filed.
	So let's just go 10 to 1. You got 500 people flagging a video in real time.
	YouTube takes it down, gives you the strike.
	And then we're going to get to whether or not that one...
	Sorry, go ahead.
	And I was just going to say, the amount of likes on the tweet...
	Suggesting that I be flagged was, I believe, in the tens of thousands.
	So, I mean, we're talking, this got massive exposure.
	It was shared by a lot of people, and particularly this weird lawyer who's associated with Harvard.
	And this is a real nasty thing, actually.
	I won't mention that lawyer's name, but both they and Keffels encouraged people to file the bar complaints.
	Both of them said they would, and neither of them did.
	So they wanted other people to do that work for them.
	Said they would do it, but they just never got around to it.
	There's someone in the chat who's promoting an equally unlawful mass flagging campaign.
	I'm not even going to bring it up to bring any more attention to it than it deserves.
	Let me read some chats, and then we're going to bring this party over to Rumble.
	Not because we're going to do anything on Rumble that we can't do on YouTube.
	For whoever is in that mass flagging campaign.
	And Nick, this is going to be the subject matter of the discussion as we get over there.
	I always took on-the-wall phrase as slang for police arrest because most times cops put criminals against the wall to handcuff them.
	I can tell you this.
	I've had the discussion with multiple people.
	Not everyone had the same immediate reflex as the proverbial execution rule.
	Not everyone did.
	And it just goes to show your culture and your upbringing and your exposure and so on.
	For a brief legal lesson, this is why idioms are not used as evidence in a true threat.
	If someone is making a true threat through an idiom, you need a whole lot of other circumstantial evidence to support it because if it's an idiom, it's got a necessarily ambiguous meaning for somebody.
	And if there are multiple meanings to something, you can't say, well, this is definitely a true threat because which one did you actually mean?
	So that's why, from a legal perspective, that's not a YouTube thing.
	That's why it's there.
	Bear Lamb says, I was on the verge of winning the world's biggest nose competition, and then Nick showed up.
	Love you, Nick.
	Well, I thought I was going to take that down.
	And we're going to get into this more on Rumble, but my issue, people call me a milk toast, whatever it is.
	I don't even use idioms that could be misinterpreted that way, just to avoid all these problems, Nick.
	I put out a tweet about Jackson Kataji Brown today.
	Saying like, you know, allowing trans men, requiring them to register for the draft.
	You know, her mind is going to get blown when this gets to the Supreme Court.
	And I was like, no, mind blown, could be misinterpreted.
	Someone can weaponize it.
	And so I went with something that couldn't be misinterpreted.
	That's very cautious.
	You're a different person.
	All right.
	Drove home with the speed of science to catch this live.
	I'm going to read three more, then we're going to bring it over to Marvel.
	Nick, what do you think about people calling Hogan to lead the backs?
	We're going to get to this, people.
	We're going to get to this.
	Very briefly, because I'm not interested in promoting drama or creating strife within the community, but we'll get to that.
	Nick, can you do some kayak fishing?
	I spent $23,456 on Viva Super Chats and can't get them to put on a fish.
	Okay, then we got a status reserved here.
	Thank you, Nick.
	And get ready, people.
	The link is in the chat to go to Rumble.
	Childcare facilities.
	Post the photos of local predators on a literal wall.
	For ease of identification.
	And happy National Coming Out Day.
	And by the way, this may not be the best time that Field of Greens might want me to promote their product.
	We're doing it anyhow, people.
	Field of Greens, who has the courage to sponsor a channel such as mine.
	I drink this stuff.
	It is, what's the word, Nick?
	It's desiccated vegetables.
	That means not...
	Sounds delicious.
	It's dried and pulverized.
	It's like beef jerky of the vegetable world, but in a powder form.
	You mix like beef jerky into water.
	One...
	What is it called?
	One serving of vegetables per spoon.
	Field of Greens.
	USDA organic.
	I've been drinking it.
	It tastes good.
	And if you go to fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA.
	I like to support sponsors that have the audacity to support...
	People like myself and Nick.
	But Nick, you might be one...
	I don't think you're one edge too far.
	I think it's...
	Advertising is about eyeballs and it's about quality products.
	And if you can do both, you're going to do good.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	Now, we're winding it up on YouTube, people.
	Bringing it over to Rumble.
	Where the first question I'm going to ask Nick is his fourth strike.
	His third strike.
	And...
	What the hell he was thinking?
	Let's remove it from YouTube, people.
	Bring it to Rumble.
	See you there in 30 seconds.
	3, 2, 1. Nick, while everyone comes, what the hell were you thinking?
	Look, okay.
	You push the envelope.
	You ride a very thin edge of edginess and what might be legally justifiable, but you know damn well you're pushing the envelope on the platform.
	This is my issue.
	Whether or not I think the last incident, if we're going in like hierarchy of justifiable sanctions to unjustifiable, yours definitely go from last to first in terms of hierarchy.
	The last one might be the most justifiable based on YouTube's own terms.
	For obvious reasons, I think you can acknowledge that.
	The first two, bullshit.
	But they get you to the point where you're at the point where they can say, okay, well, now we get to nuke you.
	The last one.
	If I'm not mistaken, the video that got you in trouble is you said, I've got the complaints.
	In law, my understanding, there's no protection of the addresses in America.
	They filed a public or quasi-public ethics complaint, which specifically said you don't mind sharing this information with the lawyer.
	You basically renounced to certain expectations of privacy.
	But you know damn well that you might be walking in line with YouTube.
	And instead of saying, okay, look, I'm going to go over to Locals.
	I could do this on YouTube, but here's the grift.
	You might have gone with a phraseology that gave YouTube every quiver they needed in their arsenal to say, you fucked up number three, now you're done.
	I think what I said was, I'm going to post it on Locals unredacted because fuck you, that's why.
	That's what you said.
	Yep.
	That's what I said.
	Now, importantly, I didn't.
	I didn't actually post it.
	I don't know if that matters, but for YouTube it did not.
	It did not matter.
	And that is what I believe is the cause of the strike.
	I actually don't know.
	I know it was that video.
	It makes the most sense.
	But when you get your third strike...
	You get even less information than when you get your first strikes.
	And now when you say your third, we mean the fourth.
	When you get your channel moved.
	When you get your final strike.
	You're done.
	Your channel's gone.
	You don't even have the chat function on your channel.
	So you have to go straight to your channel manager and hope that he or she gets back to you whenever you do.
	Yes.
	Your channel is gone in real time.
	Your chat goes away.
	There's no preservation of the chat window.
	That's gone.
	Your YouTube studio disappears entirely.
	And you get an email that just says, you have had repeated violations of community guidelines and your channel is deleted.
	That's all it says.
	It does not say what video.
	It does not say why.
	It does not say anything like that.
	There's no explanation.
	The only reason I have any explanation is because I got my channel back.
	Well, so now, and that's the next question.
	Now, Rudy107.
	This is what I want to make clear.
	Nick, I'm not shy about it.
	Your last strike was probably the most easily justifiable for YouTube.
	What I don't agree with is that you got yourself into a position where you were on your last strike because of clear, demonstrable, evidenced, mass-flagging campaigns to get you there in the first place.
	In a normal world?
	Whether you crossed the line on the last strike, it would have been your first strike or the first warning in a normal, just world where rules were applied fairly and evenly.
	But you had gotten to the point where you picked a fight.
	You got into a fight with an entity that gets involved in mass flagging, which they did.
	And Lord knows, they might have gone after other videos where they didn't get through, but they got through to your thoughts.
	Oh, I know they did.
	They absolutely did because several of my videos got age restricted right in a row.
	And age restriction is a community guidelines restriction that is not a channel ban or anything like that.
	But it's an indication that there is something going on.
	And usually, in my experience, age restrictions are not picked up by the algorithm.
	They happen so much later.
	And you never actually...
	This is important.
	You never actually know what caused your age restriction.
	You can appeal an age restriction, but you don't get told what it is that caused it.
	So when you're like me and you do three, five, six-hour streams...
	That could be anything.
	And on some of these streams that got age-restricted, I mean, I didn't share any content.
	I mean, we had jokes, the same types of jokes and sayings that I would have in any other stream, but maybe they were quote-unquote too sexual.
	I don't know.
	That's the only thing I can think of.
	I must have had a really spicy joke or something.
	But they don't actually tell you.
	So that all happened within a couple days.
	A bunch of age restrictions came in after this before the strike was applied.
	And then this is the next to last strike I'm talking about when the flagging was going on like crazy.
	So that did happen.
	Many videos were flagged.
	And you have the evidence of people saying, let's do it.
	I've got the evidence of one.
	I guess they don't get enough traction or they don't get enough meat because I don't push any sort of envelope for good or for bad, for right or for wrong.
	But you have the evidence that they are overtly taking to other platforms, saying, go get them, flag this stuff down.
	Whether or not they think they're right, everybody thinks they're right.
	They're doing it.
	And so you got the third strike, the fourth hit.
	You might have given...
	The thing I'm thinking, Nick, when I saw the video afterwards, like, dude, your mistake was only saying that it was probably against you, that I have to go to locals to do this.
	If you had just said, I could do it on YouTube, because it's legal, there's no expectation of privacy, it might have all been very different, but you might have given too much fodder to the powers that be at YouTube.
	But you get your third strike, the next day you're on Crowder, how do you get your...
	For you to have gotten your channel back even on a continued two-week suspension, one of the strikes had to come off, right?
	Yes.
	I guess.
	But I can't tell you which one.
	Damn it.
	That was my next.
	I wish I could tell you which one.
	And I'll tell you part of the problem with all of this.
	YouTube has a really, really bad policy that exists.
	Okay?
	And so on my next to last strike, the on-the-wall strike.
	Okay?
	I knew that the false flagging campaign was coming against that video.
	I said, you know what?
	I am going to delete this video from YouTube.
	I said, if I delete the video, I think maybe that will go ahead and prevent this.
	It will be insurance.
	That is the wrong move to make.
	Never delete.
	Any videos from YouTube.
	Like, honestly, there are zero reasons to delete any video from YouTube.
	A deleted video can still be the cause of a community guideline strike.
	It is specifically within the policy, and I should have known that, but I did not know that that was going to be the thing.
	So I deleted the video, thinking it would prevent the flagging and that it would be not a big deal.
	A deleted video preserves the hyperlink.
	And you can still go to it and flag it.
	Well, first of all, I could have told you that from my own experience, but it was very limited.
	Deleting a video does nothing other than delete exculpatory evidence.
	Not incriminating evidence, because YouTube still hangs on to it.
	Not that that happened to me, and it didn't, but you could delete a flag video, a copyright strike video, it still stays there.
	You could delete it before it was ever published, or even made unlisted, it still stays there.
	And all you've done is...
	Excessively deleted any potentially exculpatory evidence.
	The crazy thing is, you're right.
	YouTube preserves a copy.
	They will not use that copy.
	And the best part is, once you delete a video, you are not allowed to appeal the strike that was applied to the deleted video.
	So you cannot go and appeal it.
	So that strike for the on-the-wall comment, with all of the flagging and everything, I could not click the button.
	There's no way.
	It just says, you deleted this video, you cannot appeal it, which is a terrible policy.
	Absolutely ridiculous.
	And also, it's words of advice for anybody out there.
	When you panic, don't act.
	Just take a step back and breathe.
	Instead of thinking you're going to delete the evidence, you're just actually going to delete exculpatory evidence and prejudice your own abilities to appeal and whatnot.
	The next stabbing, COVID.
	And the deleted one you can't do anything about, the last one I don't think you're going to be able to do anything about, is your neck-stabbing video back on YouTube, or do you not know?
	So that's not up, and the Joe Biden...
	None of them are.
	All three of those strikes are still actually active on my channel right now.
	So how did you...
	Short of lawyering up with half-Asian lawyer from Steve Crowder...
	Didn't do that either.
	So did you send a lawyer's letter to YouTube?
	No.
	Okay.
	We're going to play 20 questions.
	I love this.
	That eliminates my entire branch of follow-up questions.
	You did not lawyer up, as some people suggested, with Stephen Crowder's...
	What's his name?
	Half Asian.
	I don't want to keep saying half Asian.
	What's his real name?
	It's Bill...
	Half Asian Bill.
	Yeah.
	It's Bill Richards.
	I always want to say Simmons, but it's not.
	It's Bill Richards.
	So Bill Richards.
	So you did not lawyer up or send a lawyer's letter.
	I was about to.
	But it didn't get there.
	That's very critical.
	That was the next step that I did not want to take.
	I don't like getting lawyers involved.
	As a lawyer, you know that once lawyers get involved, things can get very messy very quickly.
	I have never been in a file where the lawyers actually resolved anything.
	Sorry, I'm not talking about myself at all.
	I've been faulted for trying to resolve things.
	Bill Richmond, not Richards.
	Sorry, Bill Richmond.
	So you did not, it was not, and I'm not saying it's a favor.
	It was not.
	As a result of pressure from Crowder's powerful attorney who knows the ins and the outs, you get in touch with your manager and then do they notify you that your channel's back up?
	Nope.
	So let me kind of tell the tale.
	This is an absolute nightmare to deal with as a creator behind the scenes.
	All of this stuff is.
	So the big issue that we've had is I have been working on that neck stabbing video forever because I think that it was completely unjust.
	As a suspension.
	And I was trying to negotiate, okay, keep the video deleted, remove the strike, whatever it is.
	Like, I would have blurred the video.
	Anything, like, had I any indication that this would have been not okay, I would have just, I would have, one, I wouldn't have ever played it.
	I could have just played it on Rumble or Odyssey and gone through it or Locals or whatever.
	But two...
	I would have blurred the video using YouTube's editing tool.
	I've done this for other instances.
	The first Halloween stream I ever did, I was talking about the NXIVM scandal, and I googled Allison Mack.
	I made the mistake of googling Allison Mack while screen sharing my Google page.
	And really, the breast pictures come up very, very quickly.
	I did not know who Allison Mack was.
	Do I google this now, Nick, or is this as bad as futile?
	No, no.
	Allison Mack, she was an actress in the show Supernatural, which was the CW's Young Superman show.
	And she got involved in NXIVM with Keith Rainier.
	There's some controversy around it, but basically it's billed as a sex cult or whatever.
	So I just typed in Allison Mack to show people what she looked like, just her face, and...
	Naked pictures of her are in the Google results.
	So I had to learn very early how to use the editing tool and stuff like that.
	So I've used it before.
	I would have gladly used that on this video.
	Not a problem.
	So I've been working on that.
	Then the second strike comes in after I had deleted the video.
	And then I'm working on the second strike with my partner manager.
	And we have this thing going escalated beyond the normal appeal process, especially because I can't appeal it.
	So it can only go through my partner manager.
	That's the only way to address this.
	And we had started to build out a case about this mass flagging campaign.
	And that's when the third strike hits.
	The interesting thing about that is that might have been what was needed.
	Because that allowed us to escalate higher than where we were, stuck on kind of a plateau, up to the next echelon.
	And at that point, we put together a document that laid out very concisely the timeline of what had happened and exactly what was going on with a whole bunch of tweet screenshots as evidence of what was happening to me, a factual recitation of what was said and what was not said in the video very specifically, focusing on that next-to-last strike, the on-the-wall comment, because that's where the mass flagging has the most proof, even though the second one was...
	Basically similar, but same people, but I don't know if the volume was there.
	But so we focused on that.
	I had also just joined a multi-channel network.
	May I ask which one?
	Yes, MediaCube.
	Okay.
	And the specific purpose was to try and address strikes that I had not had luck removing.
	I have heard some multi-channel networks have a better ability to get rid of strikes.
	They told me that their tech support team was very confident in removing the strikes.
	Let me just tell you that that confidence eroded immediately after the contract was signed, which was very interesting.
	And that may be me canceling the contract.
	I haven't decided yet.
	I'm kind of frustrated with that.
	But long story short, they went to work on it as well on the strikes.
	And so I had them working on it.
	The other thing, the other side of this coin, and this is probably the most important side of the coin, was a massive push by people on Twitter saying, hey, this is unjust.
	This is a mass flagging campaign.
	This is garbage.
	Get Ricada back on YouTube.
	That ended up manifesting in what I can definitively say are tangible results.
	I was sent from an anonymous insider at Alphabet.
	A piece of a document that specifically listed the Twitter campaign as saying several high-engagement influencer accounts are tweeting that Rakeda Law was a subject of a mass-flagging campaign.
	This has been flagged internally.
	There was also a Reddit thread about it, apparently.
	I don't know anything about it.
	But they noted the Reddit thread flagged internally and they advised Team YouTube on Twitter to not engage those tweets while they reviewed it from the inside.
	So that lined up perfectly with the document that we were producing and we were able to get that up there.
	And it seems like that is what got the channel back.
	Interesting.
	And now, look, I'm not going to take any credit.
	Whatsoever.
	Full stop.
	Just pointing to a tweet that I...
	I just want to know what the rationale was.
	If the rationale is your fourth and final strike, which is your third and final strike, was purportedly asking people to go to another platform to do what is not allowed on YouTube, let them say that.
	I know your legal defenses and I'm actually very sensitive to them.
	Where you, in the heat of the moment of the grift, might have actually...
	Been selling something that was not as naughty as you were selling it to be as part of the grift.
	You could have done it on YouTube by what American lawyers tell me.
	But, you know, you say, I can't do it here.
	I'm redacting it here.
	So go over here.
	And if that's the reason, let them say it.
	And if that's the reason on your final strike, let them say it.
	So then we can go back and redisect all of the other strikes to see if you were even set up in the first place.
	For fair treatment.
	If that's it, fine.
	Let us know that.
	Then let us go back and see the three prior strikes to see whether or not those were legit to see if this nuclear option was there.
	But that tweet did pretty good.
	That's over 1,800 retweets and quote retweets.
	Who knows?
	That's phenomenally interesting that they actually specify that high engagement tweets are the way to get things done.
	We've been saying this for a while, but...
	Never publicly.
	That very specifically in the same note says, confidential, not to leave Google.
	But, you know, hats off to the person who sent it to me to let me know what was going on.
	I want to be very clear on one thing.
	I don't believe it's against YouTube terms of service to do something off-platform like that either.
	but it may be against YouTube terms of service to threaten to do it off the platform.
	So that very well could be a justifiable strike in, I mean, I don't think any strikes are justifiable, but hey, to give credit where credit's due, that one could be.
	And you know what?
	Mea culpa on the...
	Unfortunate language that I used.
	I should have just put their addresses up on YouTube or whatever.
	And then they could have done a privacy claim on it.
	And then the privacy team could have looked at it, which is different than a community guideline strike.
	And maybe that would have been the smart thing to do.
	Unfortunately, you can't go back and undo what was done.
	But I was not actually concerned about my actions at the time I did them.
	In fact, again, I fully believe that releasing their addresses, which I have not done, is fully justified, because I think if you're going to do what they did, which was to specifically, and I have the document, I can prove that they lied, to specifically lie to try and ruin someone else's career, then they can absolutely say who you are, and they can provide that information right back.
	Well, and this is not to play devil's advocate, this is just to play advocate, where if someone is going to say, You know, privately within a community or publicly, we're going to make dubious ethics claims to try to wrongfully end someone's professional career, arguably have made themselves some form of a public figure for the purposes of analysis.
	There are others who say an ethics complaint is a court document, especially when they sign off and say, I have no problem with my information being shared with the lawyer.
	There's that.
	You know, like I say, for right or wrong, you gave YouTube the best arguments they ever needed, which is in your mind, at the very least at the time, an acknowledgement that it's not allowed here, but it's allowed, I'm going to do it elsewhere, and diverting from YouTube to the platform.
	Yeah, fine.
	That might be a bona fide strike.
	It might be a bona fide violation.
	Fine.
	If the issue is that you're at your fourth because of three bullshit ones that came before, one was the result of a mass flagging campaign with evidence.
	The other was...
	Bullcrap science on YouTube.
	You can't even say what the president said.
	And the other one was dubious, nebulous rules about violence.
	So then the issue is, let YouTube say it, and then let the community say, this still doesn't make any sense.
	Okay, fine.
	The last one might have a decent argument, but this doesn't make sense that someone who's amassed a following, and not that a following means anything, but it does mean credibility of sorts.
	That you nuke a channel with 550,000 subs.
	Because the fourth strike might have been legit, but the first three were bogus.
	Well, that's when the public scrutiny comes into play.
	And it's good to know that it actually had an impact.
	Very much.
	So you got your channel back.
	You're still on a two-week strike, which means that one was removed.
	You don't know which one, in theory.
	Or they just broke all the rules.
	You've gotten your four strikes, and they still brought you back.
	So you can tell me, because you're a commercial lawyer.
	How weird is this?
	My warning isn't showing up.
	I don't know if it's coming back or not.
	My warning has vanished.
	I don't know if that's an artifact of the channel being deleted or the three strikes.
	I don't know.
	The warning's gone.
	All three of the strikes are still there.
	To me, that says the second strike.
	The middle strike is probably the one that was removed because...
	They probably don't have a mechanism to remove it since there is no appeal.
	Like, no easy mechanism.
	It's got to be a custom job.
	You're talking about the COVID-Biden one, correct?
	No, no, no.
	The COVID-Biden one was the warning.
	That one's gone.
	Like, I don't see a warning on my channel anymore.
	That's the one I think they probably took away, which bumps all of them down a notch.
	That is the most obvious one to take away because it's undeniable.
	It's statistically undeniable.
	Call it medical misinformation if you want.
	It's statistical fact.
	In Canada?
	The amount of kids that died, I think it's even with COVID and not from COVID, 19, and that's with, and that's like including the 14-year-old cancer patient who was a trip.
	I think that's the one that has to have gone easily.
	The next stabbing could have been the other easy one to remove as well.
	The next stabbing remained.
	However, it will fall off before my suspension ends.
	So that one will go away.
	The one to me that I think is interesting is that second one.
	I think, I do actually think, because I was told a strike was reversed, but I think because of how they built the platform and not being able to appeal, that it's possible that they simply cannot actually remove the strike.
	They can remove the punishment of it, but I don't think they can actually remove the strike.
	Then what happens with the subsequent strike?
	That's the question because if I don't have a warning, do I then get a warning even though I have existing strikes?
	So it's this weird place to be in.
	And the third strike is still there and unappealed.
	I have not appealed that strike yet.
	The third one being...
	Or the last one, the final strike.
	I'll word it that way.
	The final strike is unappealed at the moment, and I could, in theory, appeal it and possibly win.
	I don't know if I would or not, but that is theoretically possible.
	So what it looks like, though, they applied the two-week suspension three days after my strike.
	They applied the two-week suspension when my channel was brought back, and that two-week suspension...
	It ends the day that the first strike, or the still remaining first strike, the knife stabbing, falls off.
	To me, this sounds like a very negotiated sort of position.
	It's like a whole bunch of compromise happened at once, like, well...
	But it's a whole bunch of compromise that you didn't engage in.
	So no lawyer, do you have any back and forth with anybody who's explaining it as it goes along?
	No, no.
	In fact, I...
	I had to send to my manager that my channel was restored.
	I had to send to my manager that my channel was deleted.
	Oh, this is a part I left out.
	My channel was deleted while my manager was in a meeting with the Escalation team to try and reverse one of the strikes.
	It shows you that it's automated beyond the point of their ability to deal with the scaling of YouTube.
	Nick, I might have a little...
	I brought a tequila.
	I've been waiting to drink it, but my ice cube is melting.
	But Nick, okay, look, I don't want to harp too much on this because I hate rumors and I hate gossip and I hate fighting within a group of people.
	It's not tribalism.
	I like the fact that the LawTube community can agree to disagree.
	I fight with Nate and I still love Nate and vice versa.
	I disagree with Barnes every now and again.
	What's the rumor?
	I mean...
	I know what I'm hearing about Alita and Hoag, and that they backstabbed you, and I saw a video, which in my view, I have nothing for or against Alita and Hoag, except for the fact that I think they're decent human beings.
	I see nothing in that video that says what the people who watch that video think it says, that video says.
	What the hell is going on?
	Okay, let me be very cautious and very clear on all of this.
	First of all, I think Alita and Hoag are decent human beings as well.
	That I want to put out there.
	I also think that I don't...
	Our enemy is censorship.
	Our enemy is the YouTube censor board or whatever.
	And I love that people went to bat for me on that.
	And especially because I couldn't.
	I mean, when my Twitter was deleted, that removed my ability to contact Team YouTube.
	That's actually kind of a devastating aspect of losing your Twitter account, is that this is where...
	The effective advocacy for YouTube is.
	And again, have tangible proof that that's true now with my situation, but we kind of knew that from before.
	But with that, I don't want people fighting other YouTubers on my behalf.
	Don't ask people to do that.
	That's not a thing for me.
	People can say what they want.
	They can do what they want.
	They can talk about what they like and don't like.
	But I don't need anybody to go do anything to anybody.
	And if anybody wants my opinion on that, I would say, hey, you watch what you watch.
	You like who you like.
	You don't need to go do anything for me.
	I would never ask anyone to do that.
	That being said, I watched the clip as well.
	And I think what people are frustrated with was a lack of just, hey, this person helped me out, which is probably more true on Alita than Hoag.
	Hoag's channel's been around forever and he's been building and working on that.
	This person helped me out and they wanted people to go like, hey, whatever the circumstance.
	I'm in their corner.
	We need to get this resolved and we can disagree about whatever later because we're one or community or whatever.
	I think that's what people are really, really upset about is that that didn't happen.
	And I get it.
	And in some ways, I'll agree with that because I think if either of them, no matter, and to be very, very open about it, there is some level of drama behind the scenes with me and Alita.
	I don't want drama.
	I just don't care about anything like this.
	But it's been around for a while, kind of beneath the surface.
	And both of us, I think, have tried to keep that out of the public sphere and out of the community.
	And I think that was the right thing to do.
	But that kind of changes some people who knew about that drama.
	Kind of changes their perspective on things, I think.
	So with that, I think I agree that if any of them would have, if either of them would have been canceled, regardless of drama or whatever, I would have immediately and full-throatedly been in support of getting them back on.
	And to me, there is no question.
	Because I've already said, I don't think anything short of...
	Inappropriate pictures of children or whatever should be bannable.
	I really don't.
	I think that the policies are wrong.
	So 100%, I know I would be in full gear to get them back on.
	But that being said, not everybody's me.
	Like you said earlier, you're not me, I'm not, you know, that's fine.
	We all have our differences.
	But I think people who know me kind of impose that upon other people.
	But with that said, and the Hogue thing that really kind of bothered me, and maybe he was saying it in jest, I don't know, but he suggested that I called him like 30 to 50 names or something like that.
	I actually don't ever remember saying a crossword or negative thing about Richard Hogue ever.
	And I almost have to believe that that was said in jest, but it did kind of disturb me that that's what he said.
	That one did bother me because I'm like, I don't know why.
	That impression came up.
	I've always gotten along with him really well.
	So that was disappointing from my perspective.
	But, you know, the drama with Alita goes back to the very beginnings of the Johnny Depp trial.
	It's been belabored.
	I've made my statement about it.
	I don't want drama from anybody or between anybody.
	I don't want to do anything involving anyone, and no one has to fight for me.
	There's no purity test.
	And what I said up until the past couple days was everybody's support was great.
	And I tried to name people who I saw support me, but I'm not on Twitter, so I can't easily do that.
	But I did see the video, and I mean, I'm not going to lie, I was a little disappointed.
	Like, I was a little frustrated with it.
	But I didn't ask anybody to make a bunch of videos about it.
	I didn't ask anybody to talk about it.
	I have a very good friend who is very impassioned about it.
	That was all on his own.
	I think I know what you're talking about there.
	And just so everybody understands, I have no idea about this drama.
	Nick, you could attest.
	I know nothing about this.
	No.
	Almost no one does.
	Almost no one does.
	It was very, very few people know about this.
	And I'm not going to discuss it too much.
	But I, yeah, I'm going to just keep my mouth shut.
	Okay, well, that's good enough.
	That's good enough.
	And it's like for anybody who has a big family and you get together for Thanksgiving and fights break out over the stupidest things, it's always because there's a lot of...
	There's a lot of stuff under the sheets, so to speak, that leads up to that culmination.
	Okay, and we don't need to get into any more than that.
	It's been addressed, and that's it.
	But now the question is this, Nick.
	You're on a two-week suspension.
	I don't know.
	It's over next week, whatever.
	What are your plans for YouTube?
	Because you are...
	You may or may not be persona non grata at YouTube.
	I don't know how they don't go out of their way.
	To treat you fairly, not to give you benefits, to treat you fairly given what you make for them in a year, it leads me to believe that finances are not their biggest interest.
	Narrative and woke ideology is.
	Setting that aside, what's your plan?
	Because clearly you're not going to be as hands-free as you once were.
	And how are you going to navigate this going forward with your career?
	And where are people going to be able to watch, find, and what are your plans?
	So for the very foreseeable future, I'll be live streaming on Rumble and Odyssey.
	And I will not be live streaming on YouTube.
	Not even the Viva method at this point in time where live stream on YouTube for X amount of time, bring people over to Rumble.
	For me, that is far, far too risky at this point.
	It is too risky of a proposition to even...
	Do that.
	And I'm not going to self-censor.
	I'm not saying you do this, but for me, I would have to consciously self-censor the first part of the show to then bring people for the second part of the show.
	I'm not going to do that.
	It doesn't work for me.
	So for me, I will just not be streaming on YouTube for the foreseeable future.
	I will be...
	Making clips and short videos to post on YouTube with the intent of driving people to rumble.
	I'll be using my community page to drive people to rumble as much as possible to get the full uncensored show over there.
	And I've got to say, the response on rumble has been...
	First of all, I'm watching Daryl Brooks.
	I'm watching his trial.
	VAU on Rumble.
	I'm not even thinking of going to YouTube anymore, specifically because of that, which is...
	By the way, that wasn't our last question.
	That was just a lead into the next segue.
	But we're beating the brakes off of Long Crime.
	We're on Rumble beating Long Crime's YouTube numbers.
	Well, here's why.
	Long Crime sucks, okay?
	They suck because it's no commentary, and they disable chat on the Alex Jones.
	They suck.
	They're only...
	Benefit is the monopoly they have on YouTube, which you are quickly chiseling into.
	Some people were hypothesizing that YouTube unbanned your channel because you were kicking ass so hard on the Brooks trial on Rumble.
	Let me just, by the way, also just a parenthesis before we move on.
	I put the streams on, like I don't self-censor one way or the other.
	No, I know.
	And I put the streams from Rumble back onto YouTube the next day.
	The worst thing that's happened is one was age-restricted, one was demonetized, and that's it.
	Because I know my own limits is my own conscience and what I can feel comfortable with.
	But you're absolutely crushing it, rightfully so, because the cream rises to the top, talent finds a way, and YouTube will learn or Rumble will continue to benefit.
	Perfect segue.
	We've covered the YouTube stuff, the drama.
	I think we have nothing more to say, right, Nick?
	Yeah, I mean...
	Here's what I'll say.
	I do want to make a brief statement.
	I removed myself from LawTube at its inception as early as possible and made it very clear because, one, I will always be me, unapologetically, and I'm me to a fault.
	If you meet me in person, we grab a drink at a bar, you're getting this.
	Just in a bar, like not behind a camera.
	And you can attest that to, you meet me at a convention, it's the same thing.
	I will always be that.
	And no one should ever have to apologize or answer for what I say or do or anything else.
	But that also comes with a different portion of that.
	I will always do what I want to do.
	We are independent business creators in my mind.
	And so I have made this channel.
	I have built this thing.
	And I have created some things around that, including the idea of live streaming trials with irreverent commentary.
	And so when it came up to do that again, I was going to do that no matter who else was.
	And what I did very specifically in that situation was encourage others to do the same.
	Not to compete, but just to know we could all do this.
	The world is big enough for all of our audiences.
	And that is one of the big reasons why I removed myself from LawTube.
	Because I didn't want a syndication or a time slot or a network or anything.
	Like if I need to do a stream at X time, I'm going to do it.
	And if someone wants to stream while I'm streaming, I say, do it.
	Please, please do it.
	Do it and get a great audience and kick my ass in numbers.
	I'll praise you.
	I'll praise you.
	And I didn't want to interfere with anybody.
	My audience asked me to do the Johnny Depp streams, and so I did the Johnny Depp streams.
	That is kind of...
	I'm almost done.
	I'm almost done.
	That was the start of the drama, and then when I did very clearly make a video about removing myself from YouTube...
	That was more drama, and it was the opposite effect of what I wanted to happen.
	I never wanted anybody to take that as a sort of affront or an assault or anything like that, and I think there were some hurt feelings over that that never got resolved.
	People are asking what the drama is, trying to be as vague but clear as possible, and I hold no malice towards anybody, and I hope they hold no malice towards me, but...
	That's kind of the backstory on it, but this is why I am out of that.
	No one should be responsible for me, and no one should be held accountable, or no one should be held in deference to me either.
	I'm just a guy who talks to a camera, and I never want to be anything else.
	I think everybody should appreciate that.
	First of all, I have no idea about the drama, but I know exactly what you're talking about because it's always politics ruins everything, even when it's who livestreams what.
	First of all, I'm very similar in terms of I don't think I was ever part of LawTube.
	I'm just the loner dude.
	You're too Canadian to be.
	It's so eclectic.
	I don't even fit in, but it doesn't matter.
	It's like high school all over again.
	But the idea that we're splitting up 150,000 viewers, whoever thinks that way, it's the wrong way to think about it, that's 150,000 viewers of 10 million people who don't yet know that we exist.
	And the more doing it at the same time, the merrier.
	That's what Rittenhouse should have taught everyone within the LawTube niche community at YouTube.
	I just choked my own tongue there.
	Who said, someone wanted to know what you were drinking.
	I think it was Rob A. with the Super Chat, wanted to know what you were drinking.
	I've got this very rare, apparently, bottle of whiskey called Bauman Brothers Pioneer Spirit Virginia Bourbon, small batch.
	My liquor store guy says in 20 years of owning a liquor store, he's only seen three bottles of these ever.
	And it was the massive price of $39.
	Shut up.
	It's really good.
	I don't know what is special about it.
	It tastes good.
	It does.
	Okay, now that we've moved thoroughly off of the drama, you have all the info you need and are going to get.
	What the hell is going on with Daryl Brooks' trial?
	I've been watching it.
	Other than seeing a man, and this is where Barnes and I respectfully disagree, but now I'm sort of starting to understand what Barnes is saying a little more.
	He looks at this guy and says, I don't see someone who can be criminally responsible.
	I see someone who is gaming the system the way he, you know.
	The way he gamed to do whatever he did in the first place.
	Is he crazy in the criminal sense?
	Is he not responsible?
	And what is he talking about in terms of this sovereign citizen?
	He didn't raise it.
	What is he getting at?
	Because by all accounts, it seems that he's trying to raise something of a sovereign citizen defense, and I don't even understand what it is.
	So he's been adjudicated competent by the court, and he has...
	I've been streaming a lot with a guy named Steve Gosney, who's a public defender down in Florida.
	Very knowledgeable.
	But he has demonstrated by representing himself and by the nature of which he is representing himself that he is competent for the purposes of the law and that he is not crazy.
	He understands his situation.
	He understands the questions he is being asked.
	He is sculpting questions in response to those.
	He knows the environment he's in.
	So that's why I...
	I think I get what Barnes is kind of saying, but I'll politely disagree and say I think he is criminally culpable.
	I think he 100% knows right from wrong.
	I think he knows he did this very much.
	But what he's trying to do is use this idea of sovereign citizenship, which takes on a whole lot of different facets.
	But the long and short summary of that is that there are people who believe that there are magic words in the law.
	And if you say the right magic words, and then most importantly, get the judge to agree to those magic words, that you will be absolved of any liability because the state does not hold jurisdiction over you because you didn't consent to be governed.
	That is the idea.
	And I think one of the memes that's going around is grounds.
	I guess that's his way of objecting to objections or asking for the grounds of the objection.
	He learned that yesterday, I don't know how he learned this, but yesterday he learned that you can request the grounds of an objection, the basis of an objection.
	And so now every objection, the objection relevance, grounds.
	Well, the grounds are relevance.
	And he's laughing.
	I'm sorry.
	Oh, it's hilarious.
	And he's lightning with it.
	He is lightning with the response.
	Like, it comes out so fast.
	They're not even through saying the word objection.
	He's saying grounds.
	It's amazing.
	I also don't want to make fun of the sovereign citizen thing.
	I don't understand it enough to feel comfortable making fun of it.
	I know that there's people out there who say, don't pay taxes.
	I'm a sovereign citizen.
	Canada's a corporation and you're not.
	Nick?
	It hasn't worked in 25 years, Viva.
	In 25 years.
	So here's my theory on sovereign citizenship.
	It worked in traffic court or with some sort of misdemeanor charge that maybe was dubiously charged in the first place.
	And they got a W, wrote a book about it, and everybody read the book.
	But when you get to murder, when you get to murder, when your argument is the Wisconsin State Court does not have personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over a murder that you committed, In Wisconsin, you're in an extremely losing argument and no amount of federal case law that you cite,
	like USV Cotton, will change that jurisdiction argument because the argument is, the reality is, legally, if you're in Wisconsin and you commit a criminal act, you are under the jurisdiction of Wisconsin.
	If it is a felony and you leave Wisconsin, they can exercise personal jurisdiction over you through another state through extradition.
	They will bring you back to Wisconsin.
	In fact, Not only that, but if you leave the country to Mexico with a felony, guess what?
	You will get extradited back to Wisconsin.
	The whole, oh, make it to Mexico and you'll be fine.
	No, there's like two countries on earth that don't have extradition trees with the United States.
	And you don't want to be in them most of the time.
	You're gone.
	And you will be brought back.
	Ask Cody Wilson, the creator of the...
	What was it?
	Not the Patriot gun, the penetrate, whatever.
	The first 3D printed pistol, he fled to Sri Lanka or something, extradited right back.
	You will come back for a felony charge of sufficient magnitude.
	They have jurisdiction.
	To me, it goes without saying, everyone says, don't pay your taxes.
	And I was like, okay, we'll see what happens.
	It's not going to work.
	And you can protest your way all the way to the prison.
	How long is this trial scheduled for?
	It was originally scheduled for a month.
	It's going to go way...
	It's looking to be way quicker than that.
	The prosecution's case is...
	They suggested that they would be wrapping by either Thursday or Friday of this week.
	It's going to be the stupid question because I know the answer.
	Prosecution's case is that he was driving the car.
	Beyond the sovereign citizen argument, what is the defense?
	He wasn't driving the car.
	He was in the passenger seat?
	He is, his reasonable doubt so far seems to be twofold.
	One, he was fleeing a knife threat, which is unclear where that knife threat was, how it persisted all the way in his car to the parade when he was the only person in there.
	I think he has raised the specter of a second person in the car, maybe in the passenger seat, threatening him with a knife.
	That doesn't seem to be at all the case.
	The other part of it is that he was not the driver because no one can identify him.
	But there's a very clear picture of him in the driver's seat as he's literally plowing into people that got caught on a camera.
	So that one's not going to be a winner argument either.
	The reality is for him, there is no real defense.
	If he had a lawyer, what they would be focusing on is removing the intent to kill.
	Aspect from the murder charges because if he can beat that, he may have a chance at parole.
	But in Wisconsin, if you get intentional homicide with the intent to kill specifically, you go to prison for life without the possibility of parole.
	And so that would be the focus.
	If I were his defense attorney, like, hey, let's see if we can get you 20 years with the possibility of getting out.
	That would be the way to go.
	Not reckless driving, but I didn't mean to kill anybody, I just mean...
	Meant to hit a few people because I was pissed off.
	I didn't think my car would kill them.
	I was going slow.
	I honked.
	I was going to drive through the parade because the police were chasing me or whatever.
	So you can do this sort of...
	It's not a full justification, but it's a mitigation of the elements.
	And that can get you from basically a first degree to a second degree.
	And again, get you that possibility of parole in the future.
	That'd be the reasonable defense that he would put forward.
	And he'd still lose.
	Prosecution is going to close up after a week.
	Is the court going to get impatient with his defense?
	I mean, who's he going to call?
	Is he going to call everyone under the sun that he's allowed to under the law?
	He is trying to call very specifically 13 witnesses.
	We found out today one of those 13 has moved apparently to Texas.
	Wisconsin cannot.
	Subpoena that person and force them to come in.
	You could always ask nice, but there's no reason for them to do so.
	And since he's pro se and there's no budget, no one's flying that person up to Wisconsin to be there.
	So unless they're a very good bro, that's not going to happen.
	But he is looking at replacing it.
	So he does have a witness list that...
	Or he does have 13 subpoenas, 12 subpoenas that are being delivered and potentially one more subpoena that will be delivered.
	Even though he's past the deadline, the judge seemed to indicate that she would entertain one more subpoena if he has it filled out by tomorrow morning.
	But he does plan to call 13 people.
	So I don't know who or why or what he thinks they will accomplish.
	But I can't imagine that it'll be a very long case in chief for the defense.
	Now, FakeName3 says, Viva Barnes said on Locals that Daryl is not fit to be his own lawyer.
	Not that he cannot be criminally responsible.
	Different things.
	I agree.
	This is not to mischaracterize what Robert was saying.
	Sunday night, you know, the argument was that he just doesn't know the...
	He's not fit to understand what's going on in terms of the criminally responsible sense.
	But, look, that's what I understood Robert was saying Sunday night.
	Robert makes some good points.
	As does Nick.
	And if I've misunderstood Robert, so be it.
	I'd agree with Robert.
	And I think the appropriate thing for this judge to do from the onset, not as good for comedy value, but for...
	Practicality, I think she should have revoked his right to represent himself and appointed an attorney when he demonstrated over and over and over again that he is unwilling to cooperate with the rules of decorum, the rules of criminal procedure, that he consistently says, I don't understand how to do this.
	I need assistance from the court, which the court cannot provide.
	That, to me, says you have...
	And when he's...
	Interrupting the judge of these sovereign citizen arguments to the point where he has to be removed to another courtroom.
	Instead of removing him to another courtroom, remove his ability to represent himself, reappoint the public defender, have them run a competent defense.
	But he is running a legally competent defense.
	I want to be clear.
	This is not a path to an appeal that is going to be successful.
	He is legally competent.
	He's just not any good at it.
	I don't, I mean, it's funny in the sick comedy sense, but this is like, in my view, this is a psychopath's way of victimizing the public a second time.
	Yes.
	Did they introduce this evidence to social media posts, or is that on the...
	They have not come in yet.
	I don't know if they're going to or not.
	Okay.
	All right, interesting.
	Well, everyone, you're the only, as far as I know, you're the only one really streaming it with commentary.
	I can't bring my, I was watching it.
	I cannot bring myself to sit there all day and look at this because I find it offensive to the conscience that this guy's allowed to do it, but I understand that he ought to be allowed to do it.
	In contrast with Alex Jones, who I think ought to be allowed to do it, and I find it offensive that he's not allowed.
	What are your thoughts on that, to ask the obvious question?
	You watched that trial as well.
	Sort of.
	Bits and pieces of it, but watching Alex Jones was a railroad.
	On very important questions of defamation, in my opinion.
	I said this to Alex.
	I was on Alex Jones' show yesterday, and I said it to him.
	I said, the big problem that I have with how they defaulted you out of this is I don't even know what you said because it's not in evidence.
	I know what people have said that Alex Jones said.
	I know the specter around what he said and what he implied, and I know what some other people on his show said, but I don't know what...
	He said that it's tangibly linked to defamation damages.
	And so with that, I have a real problem with, did he defame anybody at all?
	I don't know.
	Maybe he did.
	And if he did, and they can link it to damages, then he's liable.
	But if I can't discern that, if there's no record of it, then I have a problem.
	And I know there's some conflict over whether or not he appropriately complied with Discovery.
	He says he does.
	I believe Barnes says he does.
	But also, you know, the other side says he doesn't.
	And I don't know the details of that.
	But what I my opinion, the appropriate sanction for Discovery abuse.
	Is not actually a default on such a fact-intensive question as is this statement defamatory in the first place?
	Especially when the punishment is...
	They're asking for $7.8 billion.
	$500 million per defendant in this case.
	Right.
	The $8 million in the first...
	What was it?
	It was $45 million.
	$45 million, but it'll be capped at between $4 and $5 million.
	But yeah, it's a crazy situation.
	But here's the thing.
	If Alex is guilty, I would like a trial to actually occur, but we won't have it.
	No, I've been saying the same thing from the beginning.
	Even if I presume the default, like I'll grant you that the default is that which you said it was, it could never in any reasonable world of justice lead to a default verdict.
	It could be...
	Foreclosed from pleading on certain grounds of defense, but you still proceed to trial and prove your case.
	Even if the defendant is precluded from contesting, you still have to make your evidence.
	Not the judge hereby says, guilty.
	Right, put the elements down.
	And it's dumb for the judge to do that because it really does open a much stronger appeal point than would otherwise exist if he was actually guilty of this.
	And Alex knows this.
	He said on his show, I'm going to peel this thing for years.
	I'm going to peel this for years.
	We're going to tie it up.
	We're going to make sure we get to justice.
	But the fight's not over.
	He's 100% right on that.
	And what has happened to him is tragic in that sense.
	Comparing them to Daryl Brooks, the amount of deference he is getting, it's a little different because this is a criminal trial versus civil.
	But the amount of deference he's getting is massive.
	Massive.
	But I do want to say, though, that once his case was removed from federal court to Connecticut, I said there's no way he gets a fair trial in Connecticut no matter what happens.
	And we've seen the judge's actions in that case, and they are absolutely abhorrent.
	And if you hate Alex Jones, which plenty of people do, you have to understand that the most abhorrent And if you don't do that...
	If you just allow your emotional response to this person or what they have alleged to have said, if you let that rule you, then you are just engaging in mob justice, which is what our court system is designed to prevent.
	And that is critical.
	The worst of society deserve the most deference.
	And that's the only good thing about the Daryl Brooks trial is, I said this today, a sane society when Daryl Brooks was picked up and identified.
	He would have been shot in the head by police in a sane society because it was so obvious that this man was guilty of killing people, of injuring so many, and doing so in a way that merits his removal from the system.
	I'm not a death penalty guy, by the way, but that's a sane society.
	But we have a just society.
	And a just society sometimes goes, bends over backwards.
	Uh, away from sanity to make sure that justice is served properly.
	And, and that's the inspiring thing about the Daryl Brooks trial is that they seem to be doing that.
	And the prosecution is not acting terrible.
	They're actually acting very, very well in this case.
	Nick, I'm not sure that we can actually find a better moment to end this so that we can actually preserve more stuff to discuss in the future.
	What, tell us your schedule going forward.
	Now you're going to be doing Daryl Brooks.
	The Dumpster Brothers, do they have a trial coming up?
	Did they not have a trial?
	They were supposed to have one in August.
	It got pushed to 2023, probably January or February, due to a conflict in the court schedule.
	They were double booked.
	A trial went too long, and so they had to clear the calendar of their trial.
	So then recalendering it, you know, you got six months out, basically.
	So we'll see them hopefully in January or February of next year.
	Are they in jail in the interim, or have they gotten bond or bail?
	I think they are...
	Doesn't matter.
	I think they're out.
	I think they're out, but it was a huge bond amount.
	Okay.
	Daryl Brooks, and what's your schedule going forward?
	I think everybody knows where to find you, but where can they find you?
	Daryl Brooks, trial.
	I'll be streaming tomorrow.
	You know, I'll be streaming it as much as possible.
	I do have to end Thursday because I'll be doing something much more fun, which is a painting stream with my friend Sargon of Akkad and Heel vs.
	Babyface.
	And I need to connect you with Sargon, by the way, Vivas, which I will do.
	I'm sorry, but let me just...
	I didn't miss here.
	You're doing a painting stream.
	Warhammer Miniatures.
	Got even more confusing.
	I thought it was gonna be like some dirty painting stream.
	No, no, no.
	Like little miniatures for games.
	This is me, but like a Warhammer figure.
	And you get little paintbrushes and paint them.
	And we just talk about culture and politics and jokes.
	It's very relaxed and fun.
	And it's very recharging.
	So I'm doing that on Thursday at like 3 p.m. Central Time.
	But I'll be streaming Daryl Brooks up until...
	That point, I'll switch over to Sargon's stream and we'll go there.
	But otherwise, I'm streaming Daryl Brooks as much as possible.
	I'm still preserving my night show, which will start at 11 p.m. Central Time tonight and every weeknight.
	And you can find me, most importantly.
	Please.
	I'm just going to get on your schedule afterwards.
	Where can people find you, most importantly?
	I know where.
	I'm going to put the links in the pinned comment, but where?
	Is the most important place because no matter where you get shut down from, no matter where you transition to, Locals is keeping me there.
	Locals is keeping everybody.
	And that's where I announce everything.
	And I've started putting up exclusive Locals chats for every live stream I'm on for my subscribers.
	Come hang out with the community.
	Move through it all day, every day.
	Chat when I'm on stream.
	Chat when I'm off stream.
	And have a good time posting your silly memes and your very, very offensive words.
	How many hours a day do you stream for people who may not appreciate this?
	It depends on the day.
	Friday was 17 hours.
	I don't know if you have hemorrhoids or other issues that cannot be good for certain parts of the body, Nick.
	Do you sit on a donut?
	No, I sit on a very, very nice chair.
	I have the Herman Miller Logitech crossover chair.
	It costs like $1,700 when I bought it.
	I think it might have gone up.
	I invested in this chair, and it's the most comfortable chair to sit on.
	I'd sit on it all day.
	Today, I'll be streaming.
	Well, including your stream, it'll be probably 14 hours.
	That's too much.
	That's far too much, Nick.
	It is, but only during trials.
	Normally, it's just three to five hours.
	Normally, it's just way too unhealthy, nonetheless.
	Rumble, if you don't know, Nick, you have to let a video play out for about 30 seconds so the Rumble stream doesn't get cut off when you end it.
	So what I'm going to do, just hang around.
	I'm going to put on present.
	I'm going to play this one more time for everybody.
	When this ends, I'm going to say farewell to Nick privately.
	But I want to play this video just one more time.
	We see this here.
	We're just going to watch this.
	I'm going to take Nick and me out of the stream.
	Nick, thank you very much.
	I think everyone's going to love this.
	They're going to agree or disagree with you, but they're going to understand you.
	And that's the most important thing.
	I'll put your links up in the pinned comment afterwards right now.
	Let me just see how I do this.
	What did I do?
	I'm going to do this, this, this.
	I'm going to take you.
	Nick, stick around.
	We'll say goodbye.
	I will speak in English so there are no misunderstandings.
	Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus?
	Before it entered the market?
	If not, please say it clearly.
	If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?
	And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it.
	Thank you very much.
	Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanisation before it's entered the market?
	No.
	We had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.
	Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanisation before it's entered the market?
	No.

▲