Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 15, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:18:25

Sidebar with The Duran - from Nord Stream to Russia to the Jab - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You, the question on so many minds, what caused his heart to stop beating?
	You're 24, peak physical condition, can run circles around me right now.
	How did doctor describe what happened to you?
	Nothing to see here.
	That's something I want to stay away from.
	I know from my experience, the NFL, they do more tests than anything.
	And in the course of you having your physical, did anybody ever come back with any, say you had a heart issue or anything that was abnormal?
	Honestly, no.
	I've always been a healthy, young, fit.
	Yep, we knew that.
	You know, human being, let alone athlete.
	So it was something that was just...
	That we're still processing and I'm still talking through with my doctors just to see what everything was.
	Draw your own conclusions, people, but apparently you can't ask the question because it makes you a conspiracy theorist, heartless bastard.
	You don't want to be accused of jumping to conclusions.
	You don't want to be accused of pushing a narrative.
	There was a solid seven seconds where there was no answer to...
	What is not just the most straightforward question, but the most obvious question for the reasons for which DeMar Hamlin sat down with...
	I forget the interviewer's name again.
	And you could see that I know the truth here.
	Do I actually answer the question?
	There's people out there who are accusing people of being cold, heartless, opportunistic, for asking the obvious question.
	There are people who say DeMar Hamlin doesn't have to answer the question.
	Yeah, you're right.
	He doesn't have to answer the question.
	Legally, the question is morally.
	The question is ethically.
	If he knows something, if he was told something by his doctor that could potentially prevent someone else from suffering a similar fate, does he not have a moral obligation to answer the question?
	He's a public figure.
	It's not like this is someone off the street who happened to be caught on a CCTV having an incident and now everyone expecting their public medical information.
	And you get called a conspiracy theorist.
	You get called a conspiracy theorist for asking the obvious question, but not for jumping to the conclusion that this was one in a million Commodio Cordes that has never been seen on a football field before, an NFL football field.
	That's not conspiracy theory.
	Jumping to the conclusion that's one in a million, so rare you expect to only see it in textbooks.
	But asking the obvious question and now coming to certain conclusions based on a very, very suspicious moment of silence, yeah, you're the conspiracy theory.
	So I wish nothing but the best for DeMar Hamlin.
	My fear is that he knows something that is making his reality far less optimistic than the media saying, oh, look at this.
	It's beautiful.
	He's running around and attending games.
	He knows what's going on.
	It doesn't look good for him.
	I wish nothing but the best for him, but the people browbeating others into silence, shaming them from asking the obvious questions when it could, in real life, prevent other people from enduring suffering, potentially the same fate.
	Okay.
	I see our guests in the back.
	Now, before I bring them in, I need to do our sponsors for today because we have two sponsors for today's video, people.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	I know I set up the windows to do this.
	I hate doing this when guests are live.
	So we have two sponsors.
	They're our traditional.
	We're going to start with...
	Yeah, we'll start with Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Fieldofdreams.com.
	People don't really fully appreciate...
	You're supposed to have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day, and most people don't have that.
	And if you don't have it, you're not getting some nutrients that you need in your body.
	Field of Greens, desiccated fruits and vegetables.
	Put it in a glass, you drink it.
	Antioxidants, all of the good stuff.
	USDA organic because it's a food and not a supplement and not an extract.
	And that's it.
	It's good stuff.
	If you go to the promo code VIVA, you get like 15% off your first order, 10% off a subscription.
	And that's it.
	You know what?
	We're going to do these afterwards.
	Let's bring in our guests for the day.
	Right now, Alex and Alex.
	I don't see Barnes yet in the house, but I'll bring him in soon.
	I'm going to bring in Alex first and Alex second.
	Gentlemen, let me flip this around here.
	Okay, gentlemen, how goes the battle?
	Well, it goes well, and it's great to be here.
	And thank you very much for having us.
	And apologies that I'm in darkness, but in Britain, where I am today, the lights are getting dim.
	So that's, I'm afraid, why I am here.
	Literally, there was a big power cut a couple of months, weeks ago.
	It caused massive problems in the electricals all around, and they've not been sorted to this day, but apparently in April they will be.
	But anyway, I hope you can all see me, and it's great to be on this show.
	It's romantic lighting, but the outage has nothing to do with the global situations that we're going to be talking about shortly.
	Oh, no, I think they do.
	I think we had a whole series of problems.
	I mean, you know, you live in the comfort of the US and perhaps of Cyprus, but here in Northern Europe, as I said, the lights are indeed going dim.
	They flicker on and off.
	After all, we did have a reasonably mild winter, but there was lots of attempts to save energy.
	And that created all sorts of strange power outages, which, of course, supposedly didn't happen.
	I mean, you know, this is all chance, whatever.
	But, you know, I think they are probably linked.
	Alex, Alex, number two on the top, with a beautiful painting behind you, where are you at and what's the situation like where you are?
	I'm in Greece.
	I just arrived today in Athens.
	The situation is, so far, pretty normal.
	A normal Greek winter, winter day.
	Fantastic.
	I suspect a normal Greek winter day is sort of similar to a normal Florida day where you don't know that it's winter until you talk to people from Canada.
	What's the temperature there?
	82 degrees?
	82 degrees.
	Okay.
	Today was, I think, six or seven Celsius.
	How much is that in Fahrenheit?
	That's cold.
	That's not a winter in Florida.
	General, Barnes is going to be here in a bit.
	I'm not sure where he is, but I'll text him.
	I guess, well, people know who you are.
	I think everybody knows who you are.
	We haven't done a show together.
	It's been almost two years now.
	I think we did one in 2021.
	Yeah.
	Might have been late.
	I think a year, year and a half, maybe two, but if it's two years, time's really flying.
	Well, indeed, yeah.
	For those who may not know who you guys are, just give them a brief reminder and then we're going to delve into the subject matter for the day.
	Alex, do you want to say we are the Duran?
	We are a geopolitics program.
	We are two Greek guys.
	Of course, I'm in London.
	Alex is in Cyprus and now, of course, in Greece.
	And every day, literally every day, each of us...
	To pour out our output, looking at the big news stories, the big international news stories, the big geopolitical news stories.
	But we also cover internal politics also in countries like the United States, our own countries, Greece, Britain, but also other countries in Europe.
	And we are mainly focused, it must be said, on Europe and the United States.
	But we do keep an eye out on what goes elsewhere.
	So that's what we do.
	And, you know, we produce lots of output and lots of programs, and together we're the Duran, and we've been doing it for some years now, and we love doing it, by the way.
	Fantastic.
	Well, I mean, I guess we'll start with the most obvious subject matter of the day, the seemingly imminent, I don't know, what is it, clenching or triggering of World War III?
	What is the latest?
	I'll have some more specific questions.
	Following my podcast that I did with Constantine Kissin, because he raised some issues, which I now want to get clarified on the other side of this.
	But what's the latest in terms of Russia now apparently saying the West won't wake up until it's hit on the head with a nuclear weapon?
	Well, I think this is, again, I think a lot of people get over...
	Taken over by rhetoric.
	I don't think this is what the Russians mean.
	I don't think we're close to a nuclear war yet.
	And I think that what's probably going to happen is not a nuclear war or anything like that, but a major military crisis in Ukraine.
	Because over the last couple of days, and it's been interesting to see it happen over the last couple of days, you see various NATO leaders.
	especially, it must be said, European NATO leaders are now suddenly dawning on them.
	My God, we're running out of weapons.
	We are not able to supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs.
	It's burning up ammunition stocks much faster than we can produce it.
	It's eating into our stockpiles.
	We can't replace our stockpiles.
	We haven't got the fighter jets.
	We haven't got the tanks.
	We haven't got those things.
	Now, I think the US is in a better position.
	And I don't think it's quite as, you know, exposed in this as...
	We are in Europe.
	But in Europe, we are looking in a very difficult situation.
	So I think that there's a lot of, there's almost a whiff of, I think panic is too strong a word, but there's a whiff of concern and doubt.
	Beginning to take hold.
	And we see that there was a big meeting in Brussels.
	And they made it at the same time as they're accepting that they got all of these problems.
	They make all the usual rhetoric about the Russians.
	And of course, the Russians are annoyed and some Russians get emotional.
	And one Russian in particular, Mr Medvedev, gets very emotional and the specter of nuclear weapons.
	Raises its head.
	But I don't think we're close at any point at the moment to a nuclear weapons strike or anything like that.
	Well, I mean, I won't pull up the article, but there was an article from CNN from November, from CNN, no less, saying that the U.S. is apparently running low on weapons domestically because, in part, if not specifically because of what's being shipped over to Ukraine.
	The latest batch.
	From what we understand here, it's several tanks, a half dozen tanks to Ukraine.
	I don't know which Alex wants to field.
	I'll just say it's not enough.
	I mean, whatever they're sending to Ukraine is not enough.
	Even if they reach the goal that they've set of something like 349 tanks or something like that, a lot of the tanks are older tanks.
	349 tanks is not nearly enough to...
	To achieve any type of successful counteroffensive, the Russians have fortified all their lines.
	The fighting right now that is happening in Ukraine is happening from the Wagner military contractors and Russian troops who were there from the very first day.
	Russia hasn't brought in any of these three, four, 500,000 reservists that are just hanging out in the background.
	So everything that you're seeing now, all the progress that is being made in the east of Ukraine and everything that's happening is happening with the same Russian forces that have been fighting this conflict from day one.
	And so whatever the U.S. is sending, whatever Germany is saying they're going to send, they went from 187 tanks to...
	Denmark said they're not sending any.
	Netherlands said they're not sending tanks.
	Poland said they don't have any F-16s.
	The U.S. said they don't have any long-range missiles or they're not going to send long-range missiles to Ukraine.
	Just to clarify on that, not going to send because they don't have or not going to send because they're not interested in escalating this to what would be overt war?
	They may say they don't want to escalate.
	I think they have, but they don't have.
	The missiles to send.
	The military is putting a brake on this and they're saying don't send these weapons because we don't have the missiles to spare.
	They have the missiles but we can't empty out our stockpiles to Ukraine like the Europeans have done.
	Can I just explain?
	I think this business about not wanting to escalate has been the excuse.
	Concealing the reality.
	We've now got to the point where we just have to face the reality.
	I don't know how many of these missiles, these long-range missiles, the United States have.
	I'm sure that's classified.
	But however many they are, the US has seen the level of usage of missiles in Ukraine.
	Today, when the Russians launch a big missile strike, they will launch 100 missiles, 100 long-range missiles.
	I don't think the United States can keep doing that.
	Day after day, week after week, month after month, and maintain its stockpiles.
	And I think it would be very, very difficult to keep up production.
	So when they were saying, you know, we don't want to escalate the situation, what they really meant was, we don't want to burn through our stockpiles.
	The US is, in one essential respect, in a different ballgame from Europe.
	Because in Europe, we are essentially ground...
	Land powers.
	I mean, you know, we're armies and air forces, relatively small air forces, relatively small armies.
	The weight of U.S. power is different.
	You have a very big navy.
	You have a very big air force.
	You have...
	Much more strategic depth than we do in Europe.
	So even though certain key stockpiles in the US, like those of long-range missiles, like those of surface-to-air missiles, like those of 155mm artillery, are running down, it's not as critical as it is for Europe.
	In Europe, we have a land...
	We're part of the same landmass as Russia is.
	We're now reaching a situation where if we ship all our tanks to Ukraine and Ukraine burns through all our tanks.
	And, you know, that sounds fanciful, but Europe has around 3,000 tanks in total.
	The Russians are probably deploying close to that number of tanks in the Ukrainian war.
	Another 10,000 apparently in the rear, and they're producing tanks.
	Well, we don't know how many, but hundreds of tanks, you know, all the time.
	So if we do that, and we find ourselves in a situation where we have no tanks, we have no infantry fighting vehicles, we're right out of artillery.
	The British Army has said we could only sustain artillery for one day.
	If our usage was at Ukrainian levels, then we become, in Europe, extremely exposed.
	And that's why you're starting to see NATO countries, European countries, saying, we're not giving up our tanks, we're not giving up our artillery, we're not going to give up our fighter jets, because we need them.
	We can't replace them.
	We need them.
	The United States has got an ocean between all of this, and it's got the world's most powerful navy.
	We are not in that position.
	You know, here a little bit late, I was doing a deep dive into what Zelensky really wants.
	Is it munitions?
	Is it more missiles?
	Turns out it's something that, according to the audience, is even better energy than a nice long line of cocaine that Zelensky likes.
	It's Farm Fresh Milk from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	That's what it is.
	Shout out to Amos.
	But speaking of which, the big breaking story this past week that the mainstream media is trying to pretend doesn't exist.
	Seymour Hersh.
	One of the great investigative journalists with intelligence sources going back more than half a century.
	I don't know of a single major story he's broke that's been effectively ever been disproven.
	Has one of the most accurate records ever.
	Confirmed what we talked about on the Duran at the time of the incident occurring, which was that the United States government was the one behind the Nord Stream pipeline bombing.
	And that it was a specific order of both the CIA and the Biden administration.
	Hirsch goes into great detail as to how it occurred.
	I've read some of the criticisms from both left and right of Hirsch's reporting, and none of it's really credible.
	I mean, some of it comes from a perspective of, well, you know, whoever Hirsch's source is is somebody who likes the conflict.
	Well, no, duh.
	Or some other version thereof.
	That's not...
	Doubt about the story itself.
	So it was fascinating that he confirmed it.
	It also puts in interesting context another story that I kind of missed until yesterday, actually, which was Jack Murphy.
	Not the Jack Murphy some of our audience know.
	But a different Jack Murphy.
	He was a former ranger who became a national security reporter.
	Now he writes on his own blog.
	But he had a story that two major publications We're going to run until they both, one, wanted him to go full Julian Assange.
	They wanted him to get proof of what he was alleging.
	And he was like, okay, you're asking me to be subject and my source to be subject to criminal prosecution.
	No thanks.
	And then the next source, the CIA told him, blame the Ukrainians.
	The editor refused to run the story as it was done, so he ran on his own blog.
	But what it was is that the CIA left sleeper cells or had been planting sleeper cells along with an unidentified NATO ally in Russia and that all the sabotage you've been seeing that Russia has mostly tried to tamper down by writing it off as accidents with the Ukrainians kind of trolling them about that.
	But, you know, the train issues, kind of interesting, giving some recent U.S. issues on trains.
	But, you know, depots, fuel depots, munition depots, various defense facilities, and maybe even the attack on Dugan, which has been connected to a Ukrainian operative, may be part of this broader...
	Sleeper cell operation.
	Basically said it's all being run by the CIA with the help of an ally.
	They planted sleeper cells in Russia and have been engaging in a domestic terror campaign against the Russia.
	It's kind of a deep battle policy, ironically, where Russian generals originated.
	The idea of you sabotage the means of getting your men or munitions or other things to the front lines.
	That apparently was the target point.
	Hence, fuel depots.
	Hence, depots, weapons depots.
	Hence, a lot of train tracks.
	Makes you wonder a little bit more about maybe this was also complicity in what took place in Crimea.
	That basically, when you put that context behind it, then all of a sudden the Nord Stream sabotage...
	is part of a broader picture of an extensive civilian terrorism campaign against the Russian government and the Russian, to some degree, the Russian population, with the collateral effect that Nord Stream's biggest impact was on the Germans and Europe to some extent.
	But what are your thoughts about the two different components?
	Who do you think the unidentified NATO ally is in the Jack Murphy report?
	Because I was thinking, at first I thought Britain, but then I was like, hold on a second.
	They seem to be suggesting that it's their citizens, if you will, that are embedded in.
	And it's a NATO ally, so not Ukraine.
	And in fact, he's gone on other reports later and said it's not Ukraine he's talking about.
	And though he said things, Ukrainians are part of the operation in general.
	But which NATO ally would be able to plant Sleeper cells inside Russia.
	My first thought, of course, was Poland, but I wasn't sure how easily they could plant people there.
	So what are your thoughts about who is the unidentified NATO ally enabling CIA sleeper agents basically to sabotage Russia during this conflict?
	I think it can only be Britain or Poland, and I would say my guess is it would be Britain.
	And I think the way they would be doing it is the way the British did it during the Second World War and in subsequent wars.
	There are lots of Ukrainians, lots of people, you know, Russians, Belarusians in Britain, some of them bitterly hostile to the Putin government.
	Yeah, Viva interviewed one of them constantly.
	Exactly.
	Well, anyway, they can.
	Yeah, they could train them, they could send them back.
	If you read John Le Carre's novels, the ones, the good ones that he wrote back in the 60s, I mean, that's...
	The British were doing that to the Soviets at that time.
	They were training people and trying to send them back.
	And, of course, they did that a lot during the war.
	And I think this is probably most probably the British.
	The British have a history of this sort of thing.
	Could be the Poles, could be the Baltic states, but it's much more plausibly the British.
	Yeah, it has to be the British.
	My mind went to something like Latvia because of just the language.
	It's just more common that they speak Russian there or Estonia.
	I don't know.
	But Britain is ground zero for everyone that hates Putin and wants a change in Russia.
	They're all in the UK.
	So to me, that makes the most sense.
	Francis Boyle is good to report out today.
	He circulated a proposed impeachment resolution.
	Those who don't know, Francis Boyle, a law professor at Illinois, was one of the leaders in bioweapons treaties to try to stop the spread of bioweapons around the globe.
	And his grounds are specifically legal, which is...
	First, there was a violation of the Rome Statute and the Hague Conventions.
	Some of those were signatories, too.
	Some were effectively brought into because Norway is, for example, a signatory, too.
	So if Norway was involved, we're complicit in violating it by inducing them to violate it.
	But also, it's a specific violation of both the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution Act, and Pacific federal law.
	Which federal law prohibits any military operation against a nation that we do not have a declaration of war against without certain kinds of approval.
	This is part of the point Seymour Hersh makes that they never saw it.
	Even the gang of eight, you know, the two minority and majority speakers and leaders of the House and the Senate, plus the majority and minority ranking member of the intelligence committees of the House and the Senate, who are notoriously deferential, by the way, to the intelligence community.
	But apparently they didn't even want them to know about what they were up to in the Nord Stream thing.
	And so the grounds for that is a federal crime.
	That is a constitutional violation that puts the national security at risk in the United States.
	It's as compelling and convincing a grounds for a constitutionally justified impeachment as can exist.
	And it is, according to Boyle, now being members of the House and the Senate have requested him to send it to them, and it's being circulated amongst their staff.
	We'll see if it gets anywhere.
	That's always been the big question, is when it comes to deep state politics, will that be the end of the road for pursuit of Biden?
	Will they not go that far?
	It implicates deep state politics.
	But the other interesting thing is, it's not a surprise that Matt Gaetz is calling for withdrawal of Ukrainian funding.
	Not a surprise that now that J.D. Vance is in the United States Senate, he is proposing legislation for the same purpose.
	What is interesting is senators like Mike Lee.
	Mike Lee from Utah, Ted Cruz ally, frequently mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee, known as anti-Trump in 2016.
	But both Romney and the deep state operatives tried to take him out in this last election in 2022.
	The guy I call Evan McMuffin.
	I even forget what his real name is.
	The CIA hack who ran against Trump in Utah in 2016 tried to take him out in 2022 because Lee has kind of been moving away from sort of the deep state line, if you will.
	He came out and was very critical, and he cited the Seymour Hersh article.
	He said, if this article is correct, we have serious problems.
	That's an unusual breach in the dam, if you will, of Washington guarding the deep state and protecting its secrets.
	So we'll see if that translates to anything.
	But you guys have mentioned that this story, while being suppressed in the United States amongst institutional media, is being widely talked about, particularly in the country who was its...
	The principal victim, which was Germany.
	Do you think anything will come out of this in Germany or broader in Europe, given this is an extraordinary terroristic sabotage of civilian infrastructure, of whom its prime beneficiary was not Russia, but was Germany and Europe?
	Can I just quickly say that It depends which part of Europe you're talking about.
	I mean, in Britain, we're geographically part of Europe.
	We're not part of the EU anymore.
	This story is not being reported at all.
	Barely at all.
	I mean, newspapers here, the BBC, they've not covered it.
	It's really quite extraordinary how.
	In Germany, it is a story and it's getting traction.
	Seymour Hersh has today given an interview with Berlin at Zeitung, which is an important German newspaper.
	It's widely read in Berlin.
	The political class in Berlin will be reading it.
	The business community will be reading it.
	People like that will be reading it.
	So, yes, I think this story...
	The story is beginning to gain traction.
	And we're starting to see MPs, members of the German parliament, the Bundestag, they're coming forward.
	They're saying, you know, what kind of a country are we?
	This is done to us.
	And nobody's even asking questions.
	We've become, you know, the government is the three monkeys.
	You know, the one that can't see, the one that can't hear, and the one that can't speak.
	So we've got to...
	Get past that.
	We've got to start asking questions.
	Schultz has got to start asking Biden questions.
	We can't accept these bland denials.
	We've got to find out what the Norwegians were doing.
	Because this was our infrastructure.
	It was something that we built up over many, many years with the Russians.
	It was something that kept the wheels of our industries going.
	We've now seen our gas reserves fall to...
	66%.
	You know, they were 100% a few months ago, but now they've reduced despite the warm winter.
	We've got to think about how we're going to replenish them next year, this year rather.
	Might not be so easy as it was last year.
	So we've got all those problems coming up.
	And you're starting to hear some people in Germany, and I want to stress these are not mainstream people.
	It's so far very much on the fringe.
	But...
	If it gets from the fringe into the mainstream, then it's going to be very difficult.
	They're starting to say, well, maybe, maybe this war happened because of Nord Stream.
	And maybe the reason the United States blocked a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March was because it didn't want that to interfere.
	With what it was preparing against Nord Stream.
	Now, I don't know whether that is true, but if that idea starts to gain traction in Germany, then it could be a very big story indeed.
	And if it becomes a big story in Germany, difficult to see how it can avoid becoming so in the United States as well.
	Because if the Germans start asking questions and start making complaints...
	And start perhaps threatening legal action.
	I mean, remember, you know, these are pipelines.
	Lots of German companies had invested in these pipelines.
	There's potential discovery process.
	You know, all of that comes into play.
	German courts probably have jurisdiction.
	Swedish courts may do.
	English courts may do.
	But if all of that starts to sort of build up...
	Then, of course, it might be more difficult to hide behind blanket denials from middle-ranking spokesmen.
	Before I just continue, can I just say one thing about Robert?
	Because, Robert, I remember when it all happened, you said that, you know, probably it was the United States.
	And you also said, Robert, I've never forgotten this, that the people who did it are so proud and pleased with themselves that they're going to find it impossible to keep it a secret.
	And sure enough, we see that...
	Some of them, Victoria Nuland almost, was basically almost admitting, this is before the Seymour Hersh story came out, that it was, let's not say the United States, it was the US government that was behind it all.
	I'll ask two questions.
	I guess it's a two-part question.
	People are criticizing the Seymour Hersh report on the basis that it's anonymous sources, there's no concrete evidence, yada, yada.
	The plan that it details seems very complicated with the additional step of planting whatever explosives were necessary via submarine and whatever, then detonating them later on via...
	Which country was it that was sending out the sonar pulse?
	Norway.
	So, Alex, whichever of you know this or have an idea, Why the complex triggering mechanism?
	Is it to create the delay so that it's not within temporal proximity of submarines being there, or is it just to detonate whenever they want?
	You know, it's interesting because this is where that interview with Berlin at Zeitung is interesting, because Hirsch wasn't actually asked that question, but he actually provided some explanations.
	And he said the original idea was simply to plant...
	These explosives near the pipeline and then detonate them.
	But then at the last moment, and this was supposed to happen in June, by the way, in June of last year, not when it did happen, which is in September.
	At the last moment, Biden himself got cold feet and he...
	He contacted the people who were laying these things, and he said, look, I don't want it to be done like that.
	I want it to be done in a much more complicated way.
	I want it to be done in a way that you plant these things, and then if I decide later to go ahead with it, then you've got to find some remote...
	Detonating mechanism so that you can carry this out.
	And the people who were involved said, you know, Mr. President, this is going to make it much more difficult, far more complicated.
	It's inevitably going to involve a lot more people.
	But apparently he insisted on this.
	And that's why it happened.
	And they also warned him.
	Look, if you do it like this, there's a real danger that the bombs themselves will degrade.
	The explosive will degrade.
	It'll be affected by seawater.
	And in fact, it seems to some extent that was what happened.
	And according to Hirsch's sources, only six out of the eight explosive devices actually detonated.
	It is anonymously sourced.
	And, you know, I've said this before.
	I've said this.
	Discuss this on programmes we've actually done with Robert.
	In most cases, if a story depends on anonymous sources, I take it incredibly sceptically.
	But there are some people, very few, extremely few, who I trust with anonymous source material.
	Seymour Hersh has been doing this since the 60s.
	He knows whom to speak to.
	He's got a team of people.
	Who are involved?
	He's got experience of asking the right questions, knowing how to check out with other people, you know, whether his source is telling the truth.
	And in this instance, I think I'm more than, I mean, I believe the story.
	I mean, I think that this is correct.
	I think that an anonymously sourced article.
	From Seymour Hersh is worth any hundreds of others of the sort that you see pouring out in the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, and all of that.
	So I think that's an important thing to say.
	And I think that anonymous source reporting has its place, but it has to be done by somebody who understands how to do it.
	Hersh does.
	Others don't.
	And that's, I think, one of the great differences, one of the great problems in journalism.
	I think Hirsch addressed the anonymous source thing.
	He kind of addressed it during his first interview that he gave, where he said that today's journalists, the CNNs, the Washington Post, New York Times, they don't really have sources deep inside the U.S. government.
	They have spokespeople who then whisper something to them and then they just kind of repeat it.
	And Hirsch was saying that I've got sources who are deep inside, who are sitting at the table when decisions are being made, not some spokesperson who's telling me something and then I'm coming back and just repeating it.
	So he kind of addressed the anonymous source argument.
	Going back to the...
	To the technical difficulty of the operation.
	He actually talked about that in the Substack post as well.
	Because he laid it out like they were going to detonate the bomb after the ball tops exercises were done.
	And Biden got cold feet.
	And the reason there was a lot of doubt by detonating the bombs after the exercises was that it was going to be too obvious.
	A lot of people involved said, we can't detonate these bombs.
	Okay, we're going to use the ball top exercises to plant the bombs.
	Great.
	But we're going to plant them and then detonate them 24, 48 hours afterwards.
	So that's going to be too obvious.
	And so the challenge to the technical team was, let's use the exercises to plant the bombs.
	But now you guys, you technical guys, I'm giving you all a challenge.
	You've got to figure out a way.
	So that when Biden gives the word, we don't know when it's going to be, could be in three months, could be in one year.
	We have no idea.
	But when he gives the word, you've got to make it so that those bombs explode.
	And that was a challenge that they had.
	And when you read the article...
	You can tell that the people that were involved in making this thing happen were very proud of the fact that they made it happen.
	I mean, they were like, this was a huge technical achievement, the way we thought it up, and the sonar buoys and all of these things, and the plane flying over the Baltic Sea and dropping the buoys.
	All these things were, this was like some really heavy technical engineering that took place, and they were proud of it.
	They're like, we had a...
	Very difficult problem that the president gave us because he called an audible, you know, right when we were about to go through with it, and they figured it out, and they made it happen.
	Yeah, it was like when we did the first show on it, you know, the Quibono show, there was two things that pointed also to the U.S. I mean, the interesting thing was I had people who emailed me who knew some of the people.
	Who were pointing this out right away.
	Basically, the Seymour Hersh story they had already put together.
	One of them was a military guy.
	And he's like, you know, this shows a great performance of our divers.
	Because a lot of people didn't think they could pull this off.
	And I was like, well, how do you know?
	And he said, I'll give you some open source information you can confirm for yourself.
	And it was the operation when it was done, all the rest.
	And I was like, okay, this is a little too coincidental.
	And thus had confidence that it was.
	It was a true story, what was being told to me.
	But the other thing that we pointed out at the time was just look at two different things.
	We talked about who could perform this, who could pull this off, because this was a deep diver operation.
	No subs or anything else.
	It was guys going way down and doing something that is very difficult to pull off.
	And then secondly, so who had the divers?
	Who had the capacity to do it?
	Who has the personnel trained to do it?
	And as we mentioned, there are only a few countries on that list.
	And then number two, who benefited?
	And then you could argue last, who said they were going to do it, basically?
	I mean, it wasn't like Biden really hit this.
	He smirked when he said, we're going to take out North Street.
	We're going to stop North Street.
	He's like, how are you going to do that?
	He just smirked and said, we'll do it.
	I mean, and he knew about this plan because the guy's an idiot.
	We have an idiot who just wants to blur it out.
	Not only Newland wants to be bragging about, he's just randomly blurting out intelligence information.
	It was like when they sent the shrink to LBJ at the end of his life to make sure he wasn't so nuts that he would blurt stuff out, and then he died soon there after that.
	Just in case, he wanted to take credit for some things.
	Like, yeah, I killed that son of a gun.
	But in that broader context, one of the interesting things that Boyle references is that at least the Norwegian officials, complicit in this, Could be brought up in the International Criminal Court.
	And he anticipates some people are going to file a complaint with the International Criminal Court.
	Pretty much anybody can.
	That doesn't mean anything necessarily.
	But my assumption is the International Criminal Court will once again show how openly and overtly political they are by not taking this up.
	Because if any case was well suited for them...
	This case is.
	Why were there European governments who are signatories to the Rome Statute governing not doing this against a country you're not in war with, infrastructure that's civilian in particular?
	That's what the aspects of the Hague Convention also apply to this, to which there are signatories, to which the International Criminal Court, not in the U.S., has not signed on to the International Criminal Court, but Norway has.
	And this is in the context of those Nordic countries talking about other ones trying to join.
	Well, I guess it's Norway and Sweden trying to join NATO in the Turkey issues.
	Do you think the International Criminal Court will do anything with it?
	Or will they prove once again to be kind of an empty political vessel that they have been for the last two decades?
	I think it depends very much.
	If we can identify these people and put together a public case, if there's a case, I mean, you know, we can actually document it.
	And, you know, one doesn't know what the Norwegians are going to do and how secretive it's going to be there.
	But if you can actually put together a case, they might be obliged to take it.
	I mean, you know, there are there are mechanisms to make them do that.
	And of course, if that were to happen.
	That would again be another way of opening this up because, of course, if you start getting people from Norway brought before an international court because they did something in complicity with officials from the United States, again, it's very, very difficult to see how this would not again find its way back to the United States itself and create problems there.
	I mean, I'm not...
	Familiar with people in Congress.
	I don't speak to them.
	I've never had any contact with anybody in Congress.
	But if people in Congress are anything like parliamentarians that I am familiar with, I can't help but think that some of them must be very, very angry reading Hirsch's thing.
	Because they'll say to themselves, well, you know...
	Why wasn't I told?
	This is my prerogative.
	This is my right.
	This is my responsibility.
	Maybe I support the war in Ukraine 100%.
	But I don't like being bypassed by the president over something like this.
	You know, these are self-important people.
	I mean, or at least...
	Most parliamentarians I know are very self-important people.
	And I would have thought that some of them would be extremely offended that they weren't trusted with this sort of knowledge and weren't consulted about it.
	And they'll say to themselves also, well, if this administration is prepared to bypass us over something like this, well, who knows what else they might be prepared to bypass us over also.
	And, well...
	We're not happy with that either.
	So I would have thought that there is a potential for a storm here.
	And I have to say, Robert, I thank you for what you've just said about Dr Boyle.
	I didn't know anything about this.
	I did wonder about the legalities of this issue in the United States and whether it was unconstitutional and whether it might in fact be something that could, in theory, and I'm not saying it will happen, in theory be the subject of impeachment proceedings.
	I don't believe it will be, by the way, but...
	You know, it's useful to know that it might be.
	I mean, it should be.
	But it's the question of whether they have any cojones up there in Congress when it comes to deep state politics.
	Now, speaking of NATO expansion, the other thing I thought about the Seymour, sort of the last aspect of the Seymour Hersh story, fallout, is that this might really be the final nail in the coffin of the NATO expansion efforts in the Nordic countries.
	That, you know, the Turkey's already starting to put up more and more roadblocks.
	You know, Turkey at least partially blames the United States directly or indirectly for the terrorism attacks that have been taking place there.
	And it struck me that that terrorism attack they're talking about there, how parallel it was to the Jack Murphy story about sleeper cells, about leaving people behind, about planning people in governments you consider hostile or adverse.
	And for people that don't know...
	I got to hush-hush about it.
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com about Operation Gladio.
	You can search it.
	This is exactly what we did in Operation Gladio.
	I still believe to this day that some of the Ukrainian elements currently present in some of their neo-Nazi-aligned groups, then my guess is you will track them back.
	You will track them back to Operation Gladio operatives, at least in their ancestral history, if not direct funding and support.
	I mean, we helped recreate the Banderites after the World War II in Western Ukraine for the purpose of undermining the Soviet Union.
	But as anybody who followed what happened in Italy and elsewhere, Operation Gladio backfired a lot of different ways.
	Is anybody like the combination of the Nord Stream story and the Jack Murphy story, the CIA sleeper cells in Russia story, would seem to me, along with NATO alliance, what's the probability?
	that Turkey continues to block and the Nordic countries are not added to NATO, number one.
	And number two, is there any other concern in Europe?
	Are there U.S. sleeper cells or British sleeper cells or U.S.-British sleeper cells in their country too?
	And what does that mean, given the history of Operation Gladio and how that went?
	Thoughts on those two, Todd?
	Well, the first thing to say about Operation Gladio is that people know about it in a few countries in Europe.
	They don't know about it in many of them.
	I've actually heard in Britain talk of that sort of thing.
	But it's not, I think, something that is very high up in most people's consciousness.
	There may be some people in the intelligence services that know about it.
	I don't think most people really, it registers there.
	I mean, who's to say?
	I mean, it's possible.
	It's something very, very difficult indeed to speculate about.
	But about the Scandinavian states, about Finland and Sweden joining NATO, well, already NATO is basically saying Sweden is not going to join any time soon.
	Finland might be able to join independently of Sweden probably Sweden won't be happy if that happens by the way but that might be the case because the position the stance that Turkey's taking But do bear in mind that Erdogan himself is under real pressure now because he's got elections in May in Turkey.
	Inflation has been high in Turkey.
	There's been economic stresses as well.
	And now he's had the catastrophe of this earthquake.
	And I'm sure there's been criticism.
	Inevitably, there's going to be criticism.
	And I don't know how strong his political health is.
	If Erdogan loses those elections in May, which I admit I still find difficult to believe, you know, to be frank, in a country like Turkey, with a person like Erdogan, I think he'll make sure that he does win the elections.
	But it's more...
	Possible now that he might lose them, or so it seems to me, than it seemed a few weeks ago.
	Then, of course, a new Turkish government, less self-confident, less led by a personality like Erdogan's.
	Might change its stance on an issue like that.
	So I don't think this is a done thing.
	I think that this has got a long way to play out.
	Alex, I don't know what you think, because you're closer to the scene of the action with Erdogan.
	I mean, you get the sense that he's in trouble.
	They are talking about it in the news here in Greece and in Cyprus.
	They are saying that Erdogan is facing a tough road ahead, especially because of the earthquake.
	The earthquake really damaged him politically.
	Obviously, this was a huge disaster for the people of Turkey and in that area.
	But there's a lot of investigations now going on in Turkey where the epicenter was because there was a lot of...
	Allegedly, there was a lot of corruption in the construction of the buildings.
	Erdogan is making a lot of arrests.
	I was just watching the news yesterday in Cyprus, and they were saying how he is making a lot of arrests of a lot of big construction, big rigs.
	He's making it very public.
	He's trotting them out in front of the media.
	Basically, the claim is that they cut corners to make these buildings.
	They even had...
	Erdogan was even showcasing a town, kind of showcasing.
	He was showing how there was a town next to where most of the destruction was, where not one building fell and not one person was killed because that town, they had the mayor speaking, and that mayor said, in my town, we don't cut corners.
	We follow all the building regulations, and we came out of this earthquake okay.
	So Erdogan is facing a big challenge.
	He's making a lot of arrests now to try and deal with the fallout from this earthquake.
	I think he's going to harden his stance on NATO because I think that's the strong position that most of the people in Turkey want to see.
	And I think he's going to harden his stance and NATO's going to have to put this whole Sweden-Finland thing on hold.
	Maybe Finland gets in, but Sweden...
	I don't see it now.
	I got one question, and then I'm going to ask the question, then I'm going to wind this down on YouTube, and everyone should go to Rumble exclusively.
	Robert, you suggested that the recent moves, Nord Stream pipeline, etc., would weaken NATO.
	Why would it weaken NATO and not, I don't know, not strengthen NATO, but why would it have any impact on NATO or potentially lead to its demise one way or the other?
	And with that question asked...
	I'm going to end this on YouTube right now.
	Everyone go over to Rumble, and we're going to hear Alex on top start first, and let's see where it goes from there.
	All right, now we're done.
	That's it.
	We're on Rumble exclusively.
	Why would this lead to any fracturing in NATO?
	Well, very simply, the United States has attacked a NATO ally.
	I mean, it's as simple as that.
	I mean, you don't have to go into this in more detail.
	If it comes out in Germany, and, you know, there's...
	Frantic efforts to try and keep this under control.
	This is why the whole thing was so complicated.
	I mean, you're asking why it was complicated.
	It was complicated because they wanted to keep it secret.
	Crazy that they thought they could keep it secret.
	But that was what they were trying to do.
	Because ultimately, if it comes out, if it becomes public new information in Europe, in Germany...
	That the United States is attacking the civilian, critical.
	Energy infrastructure of one of the US's key NATO allies, then people are going to be asking in Germany.
	Bear in mind, there are a lot of people in Germany who don't like NATO, as well as, you know, it's got its supporters, but it's got its opponents as well.
	It's had a historically big peace movement, for example.
	In Eastern Germany, there's more opposition to NATO than there is of the West.
	All kinds of things like that.
	If people in Germany going around saying to each other, well, you know...
	Who is really attacking us?
	Is it the other side?
	Or is it our major friend?
	Then you can see that the doubts are going to grow.
	I saw an opinion poll coming out of Germany quite recently, and it said that if the Russians reach Germany, only around 5% of Germans are prepared to take up arms and resist.
	Russia.
	So that's the sort of political culture that you're already dealing with in Germany.
	And as I said, if it turns out that it was the United States was behind this in the way that Seymour Hersh says, which I believe, and it becomes public news, I could see it would do enormous damage to NATO.
	And bear in mind, without Germany, NATO really is, you know, it ceases to have any meaning anymore.
	And just to say why that question wasn't as stupid as some people might think it is, I'm sort of operating on the basis that Germany either knew in advance and participated or knew after the fact and has not yet objected, in which case, okay, so the citizens of Germany are going to be angry with their government as much as they're going to be angry with Germany, with Germany, with the US.
	The flip side, however, is they're looking at the prospect of Russia, if Konstantin Kissen is right, you know, Russia taking over Ukraine with...
	Aspirations of going back to the historical borders of Russia, and Germans are going to say, well, it's the devil we know versus the devil we don't, and it might actually only cause people to have stronger arguments for maintaining NATO.
	Yes, well, this is actually a very good question, because, of course, this is where Germany becomes so divided.
	Because bearing something in mind, Germany is very unusual amongst the big NATO allies.
	It's had many more contacts with Russia than, say, Britain or France.
	Spain or Italy, or of course the United States has done.
	I mean, for decades, the Russians were physically present on German territory.
	They were in East Germany.
	Many Germans to this day in Eastern Germany speak Russian, so they have contacts there.
	German business has been involved in Russia on a huge scale.
	The Germans and the Russians have worked with each other, and if...
	You see this situation where, you know, it ceases to be quite the case of that we stick with the devil we know as opposed to the devil we don't.
	Because actually, we know both devils quite well.
	Now, the political leadership in Germany, the German government, Olaf Scholz.
	The SPD, the CDU /CSU, the big parties, the bureaucracy, the German intelligence agency, most of the media, they're Atlanticist to the core.
	I mean, they are.
	That is why they're trying to keep this story screwed down.
	That is not reflective.
	of wider opinion in Germany.
	So that's the point to understand.
	The political class might want to stick with the devil they know.
	They know they've got a scorpion by the tail over this.
	But that may not be true of everybody in Germany.
	Many of the people who work in the business elites might feel differently about this.
	They may say it makes more sense for us.
	To actually pursue not an alliance with the Russians, but a greater degree of equidistance between the US and the Russians.
	And if Russia is getting more powerful again, that's not a reason for huddling behind the United States.
	It's actually a reason for sorting out our long-term problems with the Russians, which go back much further than those of any other European state.
	Yeah, and especially when you add in, only America has conquered Germany twice.
	And the original real principle of NATO, keep the U.S. in, keep Russia out of Europe, keep the U.S. in Europe, and keep Germany down.
	But that wasn't supposed to be where we're at now.
	And what it does is it exposes the EU-NATO-aligned European political elite as being more...
	Against the interest of the ordinary German person and the populace than they wanted to lead them to believe.
	An alignment with the U.S. often hasn't made sense from Germany's economic self-interest or competitors in many respects, whereas the alignment with Russia kind of always did make sense.
	Germany provides high-end products, whether they're consumer projects, electronic, etc., and Russia provides the fuel they need.
	And to some degree the food they need.
	And so there's always a more logical alignment from a pure self-interest perspective of Germany with Russia than there ever was really with Germany with the United States.
	And the question is how many people start re-asking that question in light of what's developing now.
	What do you think is happening and is going to happen, especially in Germany, but also just across Europe economically, as the combined ramifications of...
	The Eurodollar system going kind of AWOL in the monetary system and creating a whole host of issues for countries around the world, combined with all the stimulus and stopping the economy in the COVID context that has unleashed its own set of issues, whether it's supply chain issues, inflation issues or else.
	And now all of it, particularly for Europe, severely compounded by cutting off their access, particularly for Germany.
	Which was Russia's going to give us cheap fuel.
	That's going to give us an industrial edge that will allow us to maintain an industrial competitive edge for the entire global economy.
	That's now gone.
	And, you know, as you mentioned, all Europe's benefited from an unusually warm winter so that the combined effect hasn't been as disastrous as it could have been.
	But where are things going economically for Germany and for Europe more broadly?
	Well, they're not going well.
	And I mean, if we're talking about Britain, Which is connected with this system.
	And we have very sticky inflation here.
	Our inflation numbers remain bad.
	They're still in double figures.
	And we are now definitely, I think, in recession in Britain.
	I mean, the figures are being massaged to make it seem otherwise.
	But that's certainly how it feels.
	Things are...
	Germany is also almost certainly in recession.
	And when we talk about Europe, I think people...
	Don't fully understand how central to the European economy Germany is.
	I mean, Germany and, you know, the sort of its immediate sort of satellite, greater Germany countries, Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, to some extent Denmark.
	I mean, they're around 40 to 50 percent of the EU economy.
	And, of course, even more so of its industrial core.
	And what the Germans have now found, what they've achieved in a way with all the situation that we've seen over the last year, is that they've undermined the basis of their own model.
	Their model, which was an industrial one to a great extent, and based on industrial exports, was based on importing cheap gas from Russia to keep the factories running.
	Keep their goods competitive.
	Keep their currency, the euro, low.
	I mean, the euro has less value than the Deutsche Mark would do.
	That gives Germany a big competitive edge over other countries.
	So you sell your industrial goods to the big markets.
	The United States is an important market, a big market, but it's a saturated market.
	You can't really make more money by selling to the United States.
	So where do you go?
	Well, you look at China, especially.
	You look at Russia to some extent.
	But China is, again, your big market.
	So, you know, they're now finding this under a lot of pressure because they've lost that access to that cheap, reliable gas, which is, as I said, keeping their economy going.
	The euro is...
	In a chaotic mess.
	It always has been, but it's beginning to look even more of a chaotic mess than usual.
	And, of course, they're now under heavy pressure to draw back and not export as much to China and to draw back on the economic links with China.
	Now, you put all this together, you are in a very difficult situation if you are Germany, and that's the long term.
	And German business is now actually complaining about this.
	They actually told Scholz, look, we made a mess of our relations with the Russians.
	We can't afford to do it with the Chinese.
	We've got to try and find some way of keeping some kind of balance.
	And there's apparently been an awful lot of complaints about all of this been pouring into the chancellery.
	And, of course, we've got the added problem on top of everything else, that our energy policy is being even more muddled by the effect of the Green Party, which is part of the coalition, and which wants to push Germany further down the...
	The route towards alternative energies, which, of course, are not really suitable for an industrial economy either.
	So you have all of this witch's brew of problems starting to emerge in Germany.
	It's a rich country.
	It's got very high living standards.
	Its economy hasn't been doing especially well anyway for some time.
	It's now under more pressure than it's been.
	And, well...
	You know, things in Germany have a habit of when they go wrong, they can go very wrong.
	Yeah, and Alex, I was going to ask you on the Turkey aspect.
	I've seen some talk, and I wonder whether Erdogan or some of his supporters may actually advance this argument, even if it's highly speculative at this point.
	But I've seen discussion in more circles than I expected after this occurred.
	That the earthquake could have been at some level, some part of a militarized weapons system that could have induced it somehow.
	And what you laid out is that given Erdogan's ties to the construction industry in Turkey, popularly perceived as such, that this could be particularly damaging to him on the eve of an election, right after he has been resistant to NATO expansion, been resistant...
	To trying to get into further conflict with Russia.
	Is doing deals to be kind of an intermediary dispensary of energy for Russia throughout Europe.
	Deals to get closer to alternatives to the SWIFT system and their financial system.
	Use of the MER credit card being accessible in Turkey.
	And so he's been the major NATO hurdle or needle in the U.S. Western agenda against Russia.
	What do you think the chances are that Erdogan may actually allow his people to kind of further spread this as a political defense, that this is the U.S. or this is somebody else, that this earthquake wasn't entirely made of nature?
	I've been reading a lot of articles.
	Past couple of days about that, to be quite honest.
	Now, I can't.
	I'm no expert in this type of stuff.
	This earthquake was some sort of technology used by the US or by NATO or I don't know what.
	But I was reading an article yesterday which said something like the ambassadors of like seven countries left.
	The area left Turkey.
	We're told to leave Turkey like a day before the earthquake happened.
	The countries were like the US, the UK, Germany, Netherlands.
	And it was just a list of like NATO countries or countries that are now like kind of, you know, a little bit hostile towards Turkey.
	Once again, I can't confirm that, but there is a lot of talk, Robert, about the fact that this might have been some sort of engineered event, but it's...
	Who knows?
	I mean, all I can tell you is I felt it.
	I woke up at like three at night.
	It was a strong earthquake.
	I was in Cyprus.
	It was a strong earthquake.
	It lasted for a good minute.
	When it was over, I went back to sleep, but I just thought, I don't know where the epicenter was of this thing.
	That's what I thought to myself.
	I don't know what's going on, but if this wasn't the epicenter and it was somewhere else, then this was one strong earthquake.
	I mean, this thing was...
	Very, very strong.
	And very long as well.
	It's like a minute, minute 30. Alex, on top.
	I don't know if you saw my live stream with Constantine Kissin where he made some points.
	People thought it was a debate, but I said, I'm not the authority to debate this subject matter with you.
	So you present your position.
	I'll read the chat afterwards and look into it.
	One of the arguments that Constantine raised highlighting this not sort of existential...
	But one of the reasons why several small bordering NATO nations are supporting the war against Russia as evidence that they vehemently oppose or fear Russia.
	And my sort of point that I didn't really make at the time in eloquence is that the support, their GDP to support this war is not necessarily a test of their resolve, but rather just to buy the support and the defense of NATO.
	and the U.S. and earn their good graces economically, politically, etc.
	You're closer to the action.
	Is there more truth to the former than the latter, that they fear for their lives and they're risking everything by joining NATO versus they're actually ensuring their own security You're talking about, like, the Baltic?
	To me, like the Baltic states and Poland and these...
	Less Poland because the Baltic states...
	Right.
	And the neighboring NATO nations, which have, according to Konstantin Kitsin, dedicated the most top-five GDP support for the war, thus highlighting the risk, where I said that that seems like it might just be ensuring support, protection from NATO.
	Yeah, they've been the most vocal against Russia, and they've been, you know, like Lithuania.
	In combination with Poland, I would say the Baltic states, in combination with Poland, have been the most bellicose, the most aggressive towards Russia with this war, and they've given the most support to Ukraine.
	I mean, they've had Ukraine's back, let's say, from the beginning of this operation.
	They're the ones that are pushing for the escalation.
	On the one hand, I think the Baltic states, if they didn't have the U.S. behind them, obviously they wouldn't be NATO, the U.S., if they didn't have them behind them, obviously they wouldn't be talking such a big game towards Russia.
	But look, there's a lot of history there between the Baltics and Russia.
	But up until the special military operation, the invasion, Russia didn't show any interest.
	In the Baltic states, they never expressed any type of interest to take over or to move into the Baltics.
	It wasn't an issue.
	And there's really nothing to get out of the Baltic states for Russia.
	Ukraine was very different for Russia.
	And for eight years, Russia has been trying to get some sort of security guarantee in Europe, a different type of security architecture.
	And every time they've been trying to get the security architecture hammered out with the United States, with NATO, they've received a negative response.
	And a lot of the negative responses always come and always led by these Baltic states in combination with Poland.
	It seems like this is the area that is pushing more for escalation and it's trying to find some sort of cooperation.
	We also got to remember the Baltic states like Lithuania, Lithuania, Poland.
	They see the West of Ukraine as part of their empire back in the day.
	So, I mean, they've got the Lublin Triangle and they've actually now reinstated that Lublin Triangle.
	The Polish Prime Minister, the Lithuanian Prime Minister, they all traveled to Ukraine, to the West of Ukraine, Lviv, Lviv, Lviv.
	And they reinstituted this Lublin Triangle Agreement, which is basically the...
	The old Lithuanian Empire.
	So, Lithuanian-Polish Empire.
	So, there is, there are historical claims there as well from both Poland and from the Baltic states.
	You know, Russia hasn't shown much of an interest, though, in this area, to be quite honest.
	I mean, Putin even has, you know, repeatedly, maybe he was part trolling, but, you know, pitched the polls.
	You know, why don't you take back Western Ukraine?
	You guys kind of want that anyway, don't you?
	And it looks like maybe they kind of do.
	Alexander, you have two questions.
	One is, how much, like, I think a lot of people in the States, especially, Don't understand the long history that informs so much of the cultural mindset of these various populations and try to divorce that from the equation.
	To me, it's been fascinating.
	If you knew the history, you could know which countries were going to play which role.
	The first question is, how much do you think that old Polish-Lithuanian history It is part of at least the mindset of the decision makers in those two governments.
	That there's a sort of romanticism of, this is when we were great.
	And almost, you know, reviving that old antagonism with Russia.
	I mean, the Poles of the Union Empire's main opposition for a long period of time was the Russians.
	How much is that part of sort of the underlying contextual narrative of what is taking place?
	And secondly, what about Poland and all this?
	Because I just thought they've been insane.
	I mean, from an American conservative perspective, the polls have been an ally on a lot of cultural politics, immigration politics, et cetera.
	So seeing them go off the deep end as if, you know, that, I mean, It's always jokes about how many Poles it takes to put in a lightbulb and how they got ran over in World War II.
	It's not the nicest jokes in the world, that's for sure.
	I've got plenty of Polish friends out there I don't share those jokes with, but they're still funny.
	How much is to see the Poles as these old uber-aggressors?
	It's something that goes much further back in history from the mindset of the polls, at least in popular perception in the West.
	So, one, how much does the whole history of these individual countries play a role in the mindset of policy decision-makers and maybe the broader populace to some degree?
	And then what is the endgame of polling in all of this?
	These are excellent questions.
	Can I just say, first of all, that history plays an enormous role in all of this.
	This is one of the most...
	Historically-minded regions of the world.
	I mean, if you travel around this part of the world, everybody has their views about, you know, the history, and they remember the history very well.
	And I think, actually, the history sometimes gets in the way of them thinking practically about their problems.
	Because, of course, you know, there is talk sometimes, if you go back.
	Poland, Lithuania, reviving the old Commonwealth, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
	No very great agreement about who will take the leading role in that, by the way, but you do get these things.
	People do talk about this, about reviving the Jesupolite and getting back control of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine and those sorts of things.
	And you're talking about the Baltic states.
	There is a very...
	A powerful sense of grievance and a very understandable sense of grievance about the Soviet experience, about the way in which these three Baltic countries were occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, about the way in which the Soviets deported tens of thousands of people from these countries and about the kind of things that happened there.
	But coming back to, you know, Viva Frey's original question.
	The question is, that's the history, but what is the practical solution to all these problems now?
	Is it taking these responses to Russia as it is constituted?
	I think the great danger that the Baltic states are running, and I specifically mean the Baltic states, is that they're antagonising the Russians.
	They're making the Russians, who are also very historically minded, by the way, See these countries as enemies.
	And of course, as small countries by themselves, that's not important.
	When these countries are aligned with the United States, it becomes an existential matter for Russia too.
	And making an enemy of your most powerful neighbour is extremely unwise.
	Especially if you are relying for the long term on the support of NATO and the United States.
	And of course the United States is far away.
	It's a superpower with many interests around the world.
	It might not be able to focus on the Baltic to the extent that it is doing at present.
	And perhaps one day it might want to retreat from there.
	Entirely, in which case you're making the Russians see you as an enemy, whereas perhaps your priority should be to try to find some kind of modus vivendi with them and to try and see whether you can sort out some solution.
	Some long-term solution to your problems.
	There is an example of how that was done.
	After the Second World War, Finland, which went through many of the same experiences as the Baltic states, it had been occupied first by Sweden and then by Tsarist Russia.
	It had become involved in the Second World War and before that in the Russo-Finnish War of 1939.
	But the Finnish government came to a decision.
	That the way to sort this problem out with the Russians was to come to some kind of understanding with them.
	And they did that.
	And, of course, they were much criticised for doing it and continue to be criticised throughout the Cold War.
	But Finland throughout that time was safe and it prospered as a country and transformed itself from one of the most poorest places in the...
	Baltic, in Scandinavia, to a very prosperous, stable country, which to a great extent it is today.
	So I think this is a dangerous strategy.
	And I think dwelling too much in the past risks making you lose sight of the dangers of the present.
	Now, Poland is different.
	And I completely agree.
	The present Polish government has gone off wildly off the deep end.
	And if you follow what the Polish military are saying, they're basically saying as much.
	They're saying, look, we're losing our, many of our best troops are now either quitting because they don't want to be sent off to fight in Ukraine, or they are being sent off to fight in Ukraine and all kinds of things are happening there.
	The Polish military are not happy about this.
	But the Polish government itself, I think, for all kinds of reasons, many of which are domestic.
	has taken this very extreme position.
	It's been under a lot of pressure domestically.
	And I think it feels that by taking, in part, this very strong anti-Russian position, it reconnects with some of its voters.
	You also have the added factor that the person within this government, who is arguably its most influential politician, Yaroslav Kaczynski, believes, wrongly, As it happens, that the Russians killed his twin brother,
	that they orchestrated this plane crash, you know, over, you know, where the Polish soldiers were executed by Stalin and it was all somehow some kind of plot.
	Seems he's now actually believes this.
	So he's got this personal grudge as well.
	But Poland is a big country.
	It's a sophisticated country.
	And I'm going to say something else.
	I've had a long history of contacts with people from Poland, and I think that you would find there's many more misgivings and much more scepticism about this policy in Poland than the media and some of the polling data might lead you to think.
	And I can very easily see.
	Poland and perhaps a future Polish government changing its position.
	Eventually, I go even further, I think that what we will see is just as Germany and France, after the Second World War, finally buried the long history of their antagonism and that stabilised Western Europe.
	I personally believe that someday...
	Not that far off, we will see the same thing happen between the Russians and the Poles, and that will stabilize Eastern Europe the same way that the French-German rapprochement stabilized the West.
	I'll get two questions here for Alex on top here, although Barnes also chiming on this.
	It sort of follows what Alexander just said.
	There's people who think that this is either NATO wins, the West wins, or Russia wins, and it's butting heads of two people who want to be boss.
	What does an ultimate resolution look like?
	And then more darkly, and I hate asking the question, what does a nuclear confrontation look like?
	I'm just trying to envision it from the West.
	What is it, just lobbing nuclear weapons willy-nilly across the globe, or is it lobbing them at neighboring countries?
	What would a nuclear war look like?
	If a resolution can't be had, and what could a mutual coexistence look like between NATO, or a fractured NATO, or a broken up NATO, and a Russia and China alliance global dominance?
	What coexistence could exist there, and what would it look like?
	The nuclear question, for me, I don't even want to get into that, because I think that would just be the...
	The end.
	I mean, I don't think there is a good outcome.
	I don't think there's any type of outcome except just destruction with the nuclear.
	I mean, that's off the table.
	And I'll agree with Alexander.
	I don't think right now that is what we should be concerned with.
	Right now, the situation in Ukraine for the Ukraine military is absolutely horrific.
	And what bothers me about the situation in Ukraine right now is that the Zelensky regime continues to send Ukraine soldiers.
	To certain death in the east of Ukraine.
	There's a lot of theories, analysis as to why he's doing this.
	The US has come out, the Pentagon has come out and said, retreat from the east of Ukraine.
	Your military is getting annihilated.
	Retreat now.
	But then you have the Washington Post writing an article just yesterday saying that the Biden White House is telling the Zelensky regime.
	To keep on feeding men into the east of Ukraine and to keep on fighting in the east of Ukraine.
	So for me right now, the big concern is, I don't want to get to the nuclear question because I don't think that's an outcome that we could even discuss because to me it's unthinkable.
	But the conflict right now for Ukraine is these horrific losses in the east of Ukraine.
	The outcome to me is certain Russia will win.
	For Russia, they have to win and they will win, and they're showing that they are winning, and they're winning on multiple levels.
	And what NATO has to do right now, what the United States has to do, because it's not even NATO, what the United States has to do is they have to find an off-ramp to this.
	But the Biden White House, they're just not capable of finding an off-ramp to this.
	And we see it in the Nord Stream decision-making process, everything they did to come to this conclusion that they had to blow up Nord Stream, which is just the dumbest thing you could possibly think of.
	Can you imagine if you changed the name Biden with Trump?
	What would be going on if this happened?
	I mean, there would be like tribunals set up for Trump if that was the case.
	But Biden, for some reason, they have to protect Biden.
	We're always protecting Biden.
	I never quite understood that.
	Russia's going to win this thing.
	And to me, it's what does Russia want to offer to Europe?
	Because right now, Russia dealing with Biden and the United States, I don't think they have anybody they can trust there.
	And they can't speak to Ukraine because Ukraine's not making the decisions.
	And Russia has signaled that they do want some sort of partnership with Europe, a possible partnership in the future.
	So I think they've got to figure it out.
	But once again, you get into the question, Aviva, where can Europe make a decision without the United States?
	Because once Russia clears out the east of Ukraine and say they move towards Odessa, I don't know.
	I don't know if that's their plan.
	But say they do.
	I mean, Russia is going to make an effort to get to the negotiating table again.
	But you're going to run into the same problem, which is the Biden White House saying no.
	The central person that is stopping everything is Joe Biden.
	Seymour Hersh has pointed it out.
	It's obvious.
	It's Biden, Nuland, Blinken, Sullivan.
	These four people are the big roadblock.
	They're blocking Europe from finding a solution with Russia.
	They're blocking whatever leadership there is in Ukraine to get to some sort of ceasefire.
	The Russians are like, we can't deal with these guys.
	They don't want any type of agreements.
	They keep on escalating.
	They're ideologically driven.
	For some reason, Biden has it in for Russia.
	Newland, we can do a whole video on why Newland is obsessed with Ukraine and Russia.
	Sullivan is from the Clinton.
	Clinton School, Blinken, the same.
	It's these four people that are the bottleneck.
	Yeah, I mean, I think Javiv's first question, or second question about nuclear war, my grandfather had a post on his wall, a how to survive a nuclear war protocol.
	You find the most secure place in whatever building you're in, you put your head between your legs, and you kiss your ass goodbye.
	And he would sit there and laugh at it every single day, which I found fascinating.
	But that's the only thing with nuclear war.
	There's no winners there, despite the fact people in the Pentagon are pretending that there could be.
	We're back to Dr. Strangelove.
	That's the scene we're in.
	How I learned to love the bomb.
	It could be good for the environment, Robert, according to the HuffPost.
	A small nuclear war, not a big one.
	Exactly.
	And humans are the problem.
	Let animals come back and conquer the world.
	That kind of mindset or mentality.
	But, Alexander, the other aspect of this whole conflict...
	It even struck me in the mindset of the person reporting information to Seymour Hersh, the mindset of both Jack Murphy and the people reporting information to him, and what Murphy has explained in his podcast.
	The entire Victoria Nuland married into the Kagan family.
	Kagan family has skull and bones ties.
	I got a little hush-hush about skull and bones, too, so it's up recently.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Almost as good as the Durant.locals.com Two best boards on locals by far.
	But the complete misinterpretation of Putin.
	Like I've argued with conservative friends of mine who are very deeply anti-Putin.
	I'm like, okay, you can be anti-Putin.
	But you need to at least have an objective understanding of who he is and what his place is in Russia.
	And you could see in the sabotage efforts, you could see in the Nord Stream efforts, you can see in everything Newland and the neocons have said, that some of it is preaching propaganda, but I think a good portion of it is they actually buy their own BS, in that they really believe that Putin is this tyrannical dictator who's hated and disliked in his own country, who people in power are eager to remove and replace with a Navalny, that Navalny is really a popular figure, not a marginal figure.
	It's less popular than Lyndon LaRouche in the United States was.
	I mean, just purely on the political margins.
	How much do you think the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of both Putin and the Russian populace, that Putin's power is because he's been the most popular politician for the last quarter century all around the globe.
	You have people like Konstantin and others trying to pretend he's unpopular.
	It's like, no, he's not.
	He's deeply, deeply popular.
	but particularly the neocons, plea people in power, the CIA operatives, State Department, Pentagon, the people that have pushed bad ideas and bad strategies and bad methodologies have done so based on just bad objective information, kind of like the bad, in a different sense, read on Hitler by a range of people in the West.
	All you had to do was read what he had written and have a sense of what he was going to do.
	And not because he was insane, but because his political and economic philosophy required him to conquer more land in order to survive under his theory of diminishing resources.
	But And in the same sense, is Putin just about to die?
	Is there about to be an overthrown government?
	Is the Russian economy totally collapsing?
	As we've been hearing headlines now for a year.
	Well, I was just reading this morning, by the way, that he apparently travels all around Russia now in an armoured train.
	So he's so frightened that he has to be surrounded by guards and armoured trains and things of this kind.
	I've never seen this armoured train, by the way.
	So, I mean, anyway, whatever.
	The thing to say about this, we can already see that the assumptions about Russia that have been formed so much Western policy have proved...
	Disastrously wrong.
	Because last year, we had this enormous sanctions wave.
	It was all predicated on the assumption that this was a gas station masquerading as a country.
	It was a house of cards.
	It was all held together by, you know, glue and sellotape, that if we sort of blew a little or kicked on the door, it would all come crashing down.
	So they froze the central bank's accounts.
	They said that, you know, the ruble would crash.
	If you read the statements from the White House, they said that the ruble would crash.
	Russia would expend all its remaining reserves to try to support the ruble.
	The economy would go into a tailspin.
	Inflation would spiral upwards into hyperinflation.
	None of those things happened.
	They said, you know, cutting off the Russian banks from SWIFT, the SWIFT payment mechanism.
	It was being described in the run-up to the war as the nuclear option that was going to make the entire financial system in Russia.
	Freeze up.
	It didn't happen.
	After the sanctions were imposed, you know, the weeks that followed, they said, you know, that just wait until June.
	You know, I track all of this.
	Wait until June, June 2022.
	That's when the Russian industry will run out of spare parts and the entire industrial economy will implode and we'll start to see a major industrial slump.
	Starting to form in Russia.
	June comes along.
	Russia moves into a stage of industrial expansion.
	We had articles.
	We had studies from people, I think, at Yale University.
	There was a professor there who said, this is all smoke and mirrors.
	It's not real.
	Even the IMF now accepts it was real.
	The IMF is now saying they're going to achieve growth this year.
	So all that analysis, all those assumptions, all those...
	The views that they had about Russia economically turn out to be fundamentally flawed.
	And notice, by the way, nobody seems to be saying that.
	They came up with the oil sanctions.
	They said, well, cut off Russia's access to the energy markets.
	We're going to impose price gaps on Russian oil and Russian gas.
	And that's going to make everything fall apart in Russia.
	It's not doing it.
	None of this is working.
	Already that tells you that we are not particularly well informed about Russia.
	We're not particularly well informed about its political system either.
	Now it's particularly puzzling because of course if you actually Go to Russian governmental websites, and you've got to take everything that every government says with pretty deep scepticism.
	But actually, they're very, very informative.
	You get lots of speeches, lots of articles.
	Putin gives speeches, articles, continuously.
	He's always interacting with people.
	And what comes across, if you actually follow all of this, is how profoundly different he is From the person that is described in the media here in the West.
	He's a much less emotional man.
	You know, the assumptions of megalomania and paranoia that people talk about, they are not there.
	And if you're talking about Russian public opinion, and I don't just mean, you know, a few people, there's some people who...
	You know, we hear an awful lot from in the West, but Russian public opinion generally, the kind of opinion you're going to get in the street in Russia, yes, it can be critical of Putin, especially on foreign policy, but the criticism tends to be that he's too moderate.
	He's seen as, in Russia, he is seen as a moderate.
	He's not as hardline.
	Especially on Ukraine, as many Russians would want him to be.
	The criticism in Russia, and there's a lot of it, by the way, about the conduct of the war, is that they've been pulling their punches, that they haven't been hitting hard enough, that they should have been hitting harder sooner, that they should have been going after the infrastructure more, that they should be bombing Zelensky himself, that they should be doing all of those sorts of things.
	In fact...
	More often than not, far more often than not, Putin is a force for restraint.
	Take him out of the picture.
	Remove him from the scene.
	And the strong probability is that much more hardline forces will take over from him.
	And the assumption that, you know, we'll get a more moderate and easier Russia to deal with.
	We'll be profoundly wrong.
	Now, I'm not going to discuss nuclear weapons either.
	I find that a horrifying scenario to even contemplate.
	But if you want me to say what I think we should be aiming for, we're the Russians, certainly.
	I think generally.
	I've discussed it many times.
	I've seen programs about it on my channel before the war started.
	We need to work towards a geopolitical ceasefire.
	I don't think we should, you know, surrender any of our core interests.
	I don't suggest anything like that.
	But something like the kind of detente that we had with the Soviets in the late 1960s and the early 1970s.
	Putin certainly would accept that.
	It's very difficult to see how we're going to...
	Find some kind of solution to Ukraine in that context.
	But if we try, I believe it can be found.
	You know, the Russians will take the East, perhaps the South as well.
	But something will be left.
	It could be neutral.
	Something I don't know exactly what it would be.
	But something like that could be done.
	A geopolitical ceasefire.
	So that they and we...
	Can start to focus on our urgent domestic problems, which are getting more difficult and intractable all the time.
	The Russians have problems of their own they want to sort out.
	We have problems too.
	Perhaps...
	More intractable problems than they do.
	But I think that the Russians certainly would be up for it.
	I think we should try to extend it to the Chinese as well.
	I think a period of geopolitical ceasefire would work in everybody's interests.
	And then both in Europe and in the United States, we could perhaps take a pause, think about where that we're going and perhaps find a way through.
	I agree.
	Completely with what Alex said earlier, just now.
	The fundamental problem is that we do have, deep within the administration, in the White House, in various other parts of the bureaucracy, people who simply don't want to see that and who are going for broke and playing a game of, you know, winner takes all, all or nothing.
	And that, of course, is incredibly dangerous.
	And it is...
	Already failing.
	Speaking of potential different threats, what do you guys make of the unidentified flying objects that everybody's, well, we're reportedly shooting down.
	I mean, some of these that we shot down, nobody saw.
	There's no video of it being shot down.
	There's nothing that apparently been recovered from it.
	It's like, what didn't even exist?
	Or is this just kind of a different kind of wag the dog?
	You have the China balloon.
	Speaking of misreading foreign leadership, there's clearly a wing in the Pentagon that McGregor has talked about, the former top national security, one of the top national security advisors to the president.
	Who's been very right about Ukraine all the way through.
	And he has said it'd be insane to wage war on China and that China's mostly structured its military to be defensive based on its recollection and memory, speaking of historical memory, of the 1800s and the way in which the West carved up China by coming up its river valleys and that by being a defensive system.
	But you have a wing in the Pentagon.
	And I even hear from this from members of the board, other people, that China is technologically illiterate.
	Their military is crap.
	Their missiles can't come out of their silos.
	Their planes can't fly.
	Their army's not ready for real war.
	So on and so forth.
	And I interpreted, or what interpretation of the China balloon, if it was a deliberate intentional action, that's still up in the air, was that it would be China's way to remind that wing of the Pentagon that they actually have full technological capability and they should reconsider their aggressivity that's predicated in premise.
	On the assumption that, in fact, China is not militarily equipped to defend itself, and that that's a very dangerous thought process to be in that's encouraging this aggressivity towards China and the South China Seas by the U.S. military.
	Trump's position has always been economic.
	Trade war, if you will, with China, but not a military war with China.
	He's been critical of Pelosi going to Taiwan, and even though Pompeo was always off the res trying to provoke things involving China, Trump was never on board with that.
	Tried to leverage China to cut a peace deal with North Korea instead that John Bolton blew up.
	So what do you make of both of the China balloon story and what do you make of X-Files-style UFOs?
	Are we going to see that the next great threat is some sort of alien talk all of a sudden?
	This has been building in the United States now for two years.
	They've been releasing UFO files now for two years.
	Now all of a sudden they're shooting down UFOs out of the sky over and over again.
	What do you all make of this?
	Alex?
	No, I mean, the first balloon, this Chinese balloon that was crossing over the U.S., for me, okay, it could have been a weather balloon.
	It could have been a surveillance balloon.
	Fine.
	I think whatever.
	Okay.
	Biden delayed to, or the military delayed to take action on Biden's order.
	If you go by Biden's word, he said, I told the military to shoot it down on Wednesday.
	They shot it down on Friday or Saturday.
	Okay, it made Biden look bad.
	It made him look weak.
	Whatever.
	I thought that was the end of it.
	But to me, it seems like whether this was a surveillance balloon or a weather balloon that went astray, which is what the Chinese say, I think after that, it just kind of got out of hand.
	And my feeling is the second balloon was Biden then coming out to say, well, I gave the order to shoot down the balloon and you see we shot it down in 12 hours.
	So now...
	Look here, I'm the strong, decisive president.
	I gave the order.
	The military acted on the order.
	All is good.
	Then comes Trudeau with another balloon, and he's calling up Biden, and he's telling Biden to shoot down the balloon.
	Then we've got this octagon thing and some unidentified objects.
	And I think the whole thing just got completely out of hand.
	And that's when I think it moved from...
	Maybe China was trolling the US by sending this balloon over.
	Maybe they were sending a message.
	Maybe this was an accident.
	And it went from this incident with China into some sort of a distraction mode.
	What was it distracting us from?
	Maybe what was going on in Ohio.
	Maybe the Nord Stream article.
	Maybe something else.
	But the first balloon, I understand.
	The second balloon, I think, was Biden trying to present himself as tough.
	And then...
	Balloons over Canada.
	Balloons over Michigan.
	There was a balloon in China.
	Look at this, by the way.
	Am I wrong?
	Or does Trudeau not actually look like an actual villain out of a Spider-Man movie?
	Like, he's dressed like a villain.
	And now he's got his moment of strength.
	He's got his moment of confidence.
	They shot down a balloon over Canada.
	A distraction from what's going on in Canada of the Public Order Emergency Commission report that's scheduled to come out in five days now.
	Whether or not Trudeau got his sneak peek before it came out.
	Admittedly, it goes from one legitimate incident to then the media hyping up any other unidentified object.
	Sorry, a distraction.
	I bit my tongue, by the way, so I'm having trouble swallowing.
	If I look like I'm grimacing in pain at the mere existence of my being, I am.
	You have the media then focusing on every other balloon.
	Like with the train derailment, you have a legitimate, bona fide, scandalous incident in Ohio, and then they start reporting on every overturned truck carrying chemicals to make hay out of every one of them, even though they're not all equal.
	Sorry, I had to interrupt with that picture of El Diablo, Justin Trudeau.
	Alex, what were you saying?
	No, I think you summed it up perfectly, exactly.
	I think you had a legitimate incident, whatever it was, and then it just...
	It got away from everybody.
	I don't know if it got away deliberately, if it was distraction, or if these guys are just idiots going about their business trying to figure out ways to instill fear in the American, the Canadian public.
	I don't know, but the whole thing was...
	While they're focusing on balloons, and we did a show on this with Alexander, while they're focusing on balloons, you've got...
	All kinds of other things going on in the world.
	Lavrov is signing deals with Sudan and they have a military port in Sudan.
	Alexander was talking about how North Korea is on the move and they're rearming and they've now got ballistic missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles.
	All these things are happening and the Biden White House and Trudeau and all these people are focusing on balloons flying, imaginary balloons.
	Because no one really knows if these things even exist.
	They're focusing on balloons.
	My view was, if we were under real alien attack...
	They wouldn't be broadcasting it.
	I'm skeptical of that attribute.
	The other component, another story that was out there, and I was going to ask you about how some of this is playing out more specifically in Europe in general, but there's a story out there that the vaccine is a COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon by the Defense Department in the United States.
	It's based on people who have misconstrued The legal language in the contract, including the legal pleadings in my case that I'm representing Brooke Jackson, the big whistleblower, against Pfizer for fraud against the American people for clinical trial failures that they failed to disclose that showed the drug was not safe, not effective, not even a vaccine.
	And the Pfizer's defense was, well, certain FDA rules were not specifically...
	Included and reincorporated explicitly in their contracts with the Defense Department.
	But Pfizer was mostly lying.
	But somebody ran with that.
	What happened was Trump's Operation Warp Speed, the quickest way to get a vaccine, was to do it under the prototype laws.
	And the prototype laws allow the Defense Department very broad discretion to basically spend a lot of money and accelerate something if it can be considered a prototype for military benefit or national security benefit.
	The prototype in this case wasn't the vaccine.
	The prototype was the ability of the government to quickly and rapidly scale up a vaccine in a pandemic context.
	It was the template, if you will.
	It was the process.
	That was the protocol.
	It was also just the political pretext, the easiest political means to legally authorize a quick development of a vaccine.
	But everything in all the contracts required Pfizer to go through clinical trials, to go through the FDA process, to be honest and forthcoming in that process.
	In fact, it went further.
	Pfizer promised they would deliver a drug that was not only safe, not only effective, not only a vaccine, but that would, quote, prevent COVID, including preventing viral vector.
	connecting to COVID.
	So they went beyond what even the FDA required for the licensing and authorization of it.
	And they, of course, broke the rules.
	And I think probably people connected and allied to Pfizer Plant a story that sounds seductive to people skeptical of the government.
	Anybody that's read Constant Gardener understands the deep implications of Big Pharma and the government.
	Pfizer itself is who that Big Constant Gardener story is based upon because Pfizer killed a bunch of kids in Africa and then tried to cover it up and the U.S. government tried to facilitate it, much as the British government is the highlighted case in Constant Gardener by Jean Le Carre.
	Basically a true story disguised as fiction, like most of Le Carre's works, aside from his obsessive anti-Russian bias in recent decades.
	But for the spy who came in from the cold, he went back in, unfortunately, on some topics.
	So that's just on that topic broadly, for those people that have asked about that.
	But it's not a bioweapon.
	Now, what people will find, and there will be lawsuits coming, that foreign intelligence operatives were working with U.S. intelligence to actually direct...
	Pfizer clinical trials in other countries.
	And so there will be implications of foreign intelligence operations, U.S. intelligence operations, cover-up by various Defense Department allies, but it does not excuse legally or otherwise Pfizer's lies about COVID, and it was not a Defense Department bioweapon, as some people are spreading.
	But in Europe, like in the States, there is a burgeoning...
	Skepticism of the vaccine.
	Burgeoning criticism of any mandate connected to the vaccine.
	We've seen a lot of laws passed at the state level and the local level.
	We're seeing courts be more sympathetic and open to the suits than they were initially.
	We're seeing politicians talk about taking more action.
	The House of Representatives is opening up a special committee just to investigate COVID-19 policies, with their primary target being the one and only Anthony Fauci.
	Is anything like that...
	I mean, I know the Italian election took place.
	When she got in, one of the first things she did was end all the mandates and reinstate people.
	But how much in the rest of Europe, is there any discussion about, I mean, there's excess deaths all across Europe that are worse since the vaccine than they were during the pandemic.
	But how much is that getting any headway amongst either the political class or the broader public at awareness of the risk?
	Right.
	Well, the short answer is, Robert, is that it is becoming very much a story in Europe.
	Now, can I just say, about a year and a half ago, when we first got to know each other, we did a program in which you were...
	Talking about a lot of these issues.
	And if you, it's very interesting to go, it would be quite an interesting thing to do to go back to that programme because a lot of the things you were discussing in that programme connected with your, you know, the cases you were looking at, the legal issues around the mandates that you'd raised, the issue about the way the corners were cut in preparing the vaccines.
	That's now become...
	Even in Europe, and in Europe, by the way, we are always some months behind the US on these issues.
	But even in Europe, they're now becoming the common currency of popular discussion.
	People are talking about all of those things.
	Now, I can't help but think that it's partly, you know, I can be a bit careful here, but I think partly the fact that these legal claims are being brought.
	It's starting to have an effect.
	It's making politicians, it's making some of the medical technocrats, if I can call them by those names, it's making them a little bit more careful and a little less willing to come out and refute and squash and silence and intimidate people who are...
	Bringing up these things.
	But in Britain, and it's the country I know best, and also in Germany, which I also know to some extent, all of this is now being discussed.
	It's being actively discussed.
	It's not...
	I believe in France it's, you know, the French were even ahead of us on these things.
	But it is now being talked about.
	It's even being talked about to some extent in the media.
	Now, there is one very strange thing.
	And it's very odd.
	In Britain, we have, like you have everywhere else, a phenomenon of excess deaths.
	It's very visible.
	The media is still not making a connection between that and the vaccines.
	There's article after article saying, you know, why is this happening?
	What's the reason?
	Could it be that the NHS isn't getting enough funding?
	Things of that kind.
	But they don't want to talk about the fact that it might be potentially connected to the vaccines.
	So that's an oddity about British coverage of this issue.
	Now, I should say I'm talking about what the government is saying, what the...
	Mainstream media are saying, what's going on, you know, what is going on in every path and bar across Britain?
	There it's different.
	There people are talking about this thing.
	They're picking up on this very, very well.
	There's a lot of anger, actually, about this.
	But for the moment, there is still an unwillingness to acknowledge that the excess deaths that we are seeing, May be connected with the vaccines.
	And I think partly the reason for that, by the way, is that Britain, the British government, sold itself as being extremely effective and successful in introducing vaccines and getting everybody vaccinated in Britain.
	And that they're a bit worried that, you know, if...
	This is, you know, exposed that there is this connection.
	It will come back to haunt them.
	But for the moment, in Britain at least, that's the only part of this which people are not making the connections to.
	They understand there were problems with the vaccines.
	They understand that some of these legal rules were twisted in all kinds of ways.
	They don't want to acknowledge yet that the excess deaths A visible phenomenon, as it was, is somehow directly related to this issue.
	I just had, yesterday, Dr. Asim Malhotra on, who was talking about it, and talked about Sweden, and said, like, even in Sweden, you're still seeing excess deaths.
	It's lower than the rest of Europe, but their vaccination rate was high, and his explanation was that typically after a pandemic, you actually see...
	A decrease in excess mortality because you've sort of culled off all of the weak and so the strong are left.
	And the fact that Sweden is also seeing its own dip is indicative of a problem.
	And Alex, this is Alex on top, on top of me here.
	Greece seems to be leading Europe in excess mortality, whether or not they make the connection to be determined.
	But you think people aren't making the connection because they don't want to because 75% of them are double vaccinated and fearing for their own existence?
	Yeah, they're not.
	I'll tell you, people are not talking about it.
	I mean, they'll talk about it in their groups of friends, but on the media, on the news, in the publications, they're not mentioning it at all.
	It's almost like we had lockdowns and vaccines for two years.
	It stopped and just move on.
	Nothing to see.
	There is no one talking about it at all.
	Anecdotally, may I ask both of you, have you guys seen any?
	Presumptive adverse reactions among people within your immediate milieu?
	I know one person who died, is the short answer.
	Now, of course, I don't know why that person died, but it was somebody very close to me.
	Very close to me.
	And he died of a heart attack unexpectedly.
	And he was double vaccinated.
	Now, I don't want to jump there, and I don't want to say more, but I have seen it myself.
	By the way, Just to go back to what I was saying before, the phenomenon of excess deaths in Britain, we are being led to believe here it's exclusive to Britain.
	It's somehow something that only happens here.
	We're not being told by the media that it is a global phenomenon.
	I'll tell you what they were talking about a lot about a year ago, say a year and say a month or two.
	In Greece, in Cyprus, and then the war broke out in Ukraine, they were really upset about the corruption at the European Union and Ursula von der Leyen's role in her family ties to companies that were involved with Pfizer and the fact that a lot of the contracts and the text messages and the negotiations kind of disappeared.
	And that was big news.
	And there was a lot of talk about a lot of corruption, very high up at the European Union level, very high up, that there was a lot of money being made off of the vaccines in connection with Pfizer.
	And then you had the conflict in Ukraine.
	You had another scandal in Europe with the World Cup.
	And all of that has disappeared.
	And of course, the EU has taken a very hard line and Ursula has taken a very hard line towards...
	Towards Russia and the conflict in Ukraine, she's made it center stage.
	A lot of people think that the reason she's going so hard in with the conflict in Ukraine and talking about it nonstop is to remove the focus away from the investigation into the contracts and the dealings she had with, well, her husband had with Pfizer.
	And I'm not completely up to date with the case.
	But there's a lot there, and there was a lot of interest here about what was going on in Europe.
	Speaking of vaccines and foreign leaders, Lula made an interesting announcement as soon as he gets in.
	He had all the controversy about whatever happened in the election.
	You had people here in the United States promoting a story I never believed.
	Which was that the old Brazilian junta would be back and that they would overthrow the government and reinstate Bolsonaro regardless of the election.
	The mere allegations of that have now been used to purge the Brazilian military of any dissident components to it.
	Glenn Greenwald has been very critical of what Lula's Supreme Court allies have been doing in terms of surveillance and censorship of the population.
	You had three stages of Lula.
	You had Lula, the radical trade unionist, was sort of more of a left populist.
	With certain radical instincts.
	Then you had Lula's first presidential terms.
	I think he won the third time he ran.
	But it ended up being much more moderate than a lot of people thought, either his fans or his critics.
	It was mostly a good time for the Brazilian economy, though that may have been independent of Lula's own efforts.
	But now you've got Lula back in and there was some concern.
	He'd gone into prison.
	He'd been released by the court.
	There was talk of Biden administration and intelligence operatives down there before the election.
	The whole way that was, would we get a different Lula?
	Lula before wanted to be a big international on the international stage, was a huge supporter of the Brazilian part of BRICS, had been previously critical of Zelensky, had previously had a reasonable relationship with Putin.
	Bolsonaro kept Brazil out of that conflict.
	A lot of their UN votes were to abstain rather than to join the West despite massive pressure to vote against Russia on a range of topics.
	How much do you think?
	But now Lula's come out and said, yeah, your kids can't get benefits unless you get your kids vaccinated, which he didn't campaign on.
	I don't remember that being part of his campaign.
	Are we going to get a different Lula in this new government?
	Does he feel obligated to various foreign actors that he may credit for his release from prison?
	What do you think about that?
	I don't know enough, to be honest.
	I think Lula is a protean figure.
	He's a shapeshifter, actually.
	That's my long-standing view about Lula.
	At one time, he was...
	Practically, you know, a very hardline leftist.
	That was how he came across.
	And then, as you correctly said, he becomes president and he turns out to be actually somebody who's more a redistributive type of...
	Conventional leftist.
	And then it turns out that, you know, there's been quite a lot of corruption.
	And I know that's a controversial topic, but I mean, I think there was a lot of corruption.
	And then he comes out and now, of course, he's, you know, a Democrat.
	I think that you could very well easily, very easily indeed, see the new Lula taking very much the kind of line that you said.
	Two reasons.
	Firstly, because he's criticised Bolsonaro for taking a different position.
	So whatever Bolsonaro was, you know, Bolsonaro was somebody who refused to take the COVID especially seriously.
	At least that was the perception.
	So Lula comes along, he says we must take COVID incredibly seriously.
	A little bit like, you know, what Biden did to Trump.
	So I think there's that element.
	But I think he is, to some extent, balancing, as he always does, different forces.
	He wants to maintain good relations with some very powerful people in the United States, in the Democratic Party, in all these sort of complexes that exist there.
	So he's going to take a strong line on COVID.
	Even as at the same time, he wants to tell the BRICS, well, look, actually, I'm your friend.
	I'm not going to send arms to Ukraine.
	I'm going to maintain a kind of neutral, equidistant position on this.
	And, of course, the other thing is, by doing that, by remaining friends with everybody, well, if you believe some of the corruption allegations, which I'm sorry to say, I tend to, then, of course, You make it easier to resume some of that, if not perhaps so much for yourself personally, perhaps more for the kind of people who support you politically.
	And who enable you to bind together these very disparate forces that have propelled Lula back to power.
	So I'm afraid I take a rather cynical view of him.
	And I think it's quite possible with the kind of person that he is that we could very well end up seeing exactly what you're saying.
	I don't think there'd be much conviction behind it, though.
	Carry on.
	Let me bring this up.
	This was from the chat from our locals community.
	Someone had asked if I'd seen Ruben or...
	A clip from Klaus Schwab.
	It's a little off topic, but let me just see if you remember.
	Anyway, here is Klaus Schwab at the World Government Summit.
	And somehow he seems to know that we're going to have a black swan event.
	A black swan event, by the way, is something really, really bad happens in the world.
	Take a look.
	And the last factor I want to mention is resilience.
	The capability to bounce back.
	Because there will be certainly what we call the black swans.
	I never heard the term before.
	The unpleasant surprises which will come in our way.
	Well, that's it.
	Certainly the endless surprise.
	Stop that.
	Now I regret having brought that up because it goes back to a number of things we talked about today.
	Robert, had you heard that?
	Yeah, it was one of the questions.
	Nisem Taleb wrote a book about black swans, and it's about how they're undervalued in the markets in particular.
	But I was going to give my own Brazil story quickly before asking both of you, what are some of the black swan risks that are out there as we kind of wrap up the show?
	Again, late there in London.
	I can confirm personally the Brazil corruption Lula stories.
	I represented someone.
	What had happened was an American billionaire who was very tight to the Clintons, one of the biggest Democratic donors in Democratic Party history, was selling his company and certain entities to Disney.
	It was a multi-billion dollar, one of the biggest private sales in American history.
	And Disney had put in a poison pill.
	Which was that if they decided they'd overpaid, they would use.
	And the poison pill was he had to get Brazilian approval of certain things within 60 days, which basically never happens in Brazil.
	So this individual called up.
	The woman who wrote the book Barbarians at the Gate covered this in a public story.
	So this is now all public knowledge at some level.
	It's out there.
	And called up his buddy, Bill Clinton.
	And said, can you help me out?
	And Clinton said, you need to call the Democratic National Committee chairman.
	He calls the Democratic, but he says, don't discuss this.
	Discuss something else with him.
	He calls up the Democratic National Committee chairman and the chairman says, oh, I talked to Bill and I hear you want to make a donation.
	And they're like, we could really use them a new headquarters.
	About 7 million would be good.
	So he sends the 7 million.
	And what happens two weeks later?
	Magically, Lula fast-tracks that deal through Brazil so that Disney's unable to poison pill him and he makes billions of dollars.
	That was basically the way the Clinton operation works for quid pro quo corruption.
	And so that was my...
	Personal, professional experience.
	In that case, I got a sweetheart deal for my client.
	I just kept threatening to...
	This is while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
	I said, my first witness is I'm going to subpoena Bill Clinton, and the second one's going to be Hillary Clinton.
	So we're going to have a fight on this.
	And, you know, magically, they gave my client a very sweetheart deal suddenly.
	And that was about to come about.
	So I can definitely confirm that.
	But on the black swan side, as kind of a wrap-up question, well, I'll do two parts.
	One is the black swan, the other was the white pill.
	What are some of our black swan risks that we may face coming down of the Klaus Schwab variety?
	And what is, I mean, for me, the best white pill over the last year has been the effort of the globalists to conquer Russia has failed.
	And that meant a lot of globalist projects are going to fail.
	A global digital currency is something most of the world ain't interested in right now after they've seen how it can be politically weaponized in the West.
	The neocons, losing is always something worthy of celebration.
	I was criticized some years ago because after McCain died, I bought a nice bottle of champagne.
	I said, you know, you always celebrate when fascists die.
	No matter what kind they are or where they're from.
	But the white pill is that Russia has survived this war and that Putin's 1997 thesis against Kissinger's longstanding thesis.
	Kissinger, you control food, you control countries, you control fuel, you control continents, you control money, you control the globe.
	Putin was like, money only matters if you get the first two.
	And it's turned out Putin was right, even I think in ways that may have surprised himself in certain respects, in that they've completely survived the economic war, which in my view is what the Ukrainian conflict was really all about, a pretext to wage economic war and show the globalists dominate the world in the George Soros model of a financial elite at the top governing the rest of us.
	For our own benefit.
	That's the white pill side.
	But what do you guys think?
	What is your own personal white pills?
	And I guess that would be the second question.
	The first one, what are some of the black swan risks we face over the next year?
	Can I just say, and thanks, by the way, for explaining that about Lula.
	I mean, I didn't know that, but it really does, you know, play to my suspicion, confirm my suspicions about him.
	Because, I mean...
	There are some people who say this is all confected.
	It didn't look very confected to me.
	I think that clearly there was something rotten there.
	It's now clear that there is.
	Now, looking at Klaus Schwab, I have to say this man looks more like a Bond villain with every single appearance I've ever seen.
	I mean, he's saying, you know, I know something's going to come.
	It's going to be really terrible, really terrible.
	You must gather around and, you know, do whatever I want because otherwise it's going to be really terrible for you.
	And I don't know that he has anything particular in mind.
	God help us.
	I mean, it looks so creepy and sinister to me.
	But, I mean, I don't take him especially seriously anymore.
	But, I mean, that's the sort of almost the act that he's playing now.
	That's my own personal view about Schwab.
	I think he's an exhausted volcano.
	I don't think he's really got anything up his sleeve.
	I mean, he wants us to think otherwise.
	What could be the black swans?
	The black swans could be economic.
	Or, and I think this is something that we have to be prepared for, it could be a major political event in Europe.
	I mean, you know, an assassination attempt.
	I don't want to start speculating on particular individuals, but it could be something like that.
	It could also be a political crisis in a major European country.
	Germany, Britain, one which can get out of control.
	And if you're talking about Britain, I've been saying this now for some time, I have never known the political system in Britain to be as fragile as it is at the moment.
	I mean, I've known times of extreme political stress.
	I remember a time in the 1970s when we had major strike waves.
	Power black outages.
	But, you know, the political system itself was strong.
	Political system in Britain is not strong.
	We've just seen the Prime Minister of Scotland announce, for example, that she's resigning.
	Nobody quite knows why.
	Lots of rumours, lots of speculations.
	We're told that, you know, she's had enough.
	Another what?
	Has she been threatened?
	Is it because she got caught up in some kind of issue about rights and prisons, trans rights, something of that kind?
	Is it because her predecessor, there was a law case against him, Alex Salmond, which blew up in the face of the accusers and all sorts of other things went wrong?
	Nobody quite knows.
	We also get the sense that the political system in Britain is losing control.
	We're talking about corruption.
	I'm getting stories.
	We did a programme about this, that corruption in Westminster is now out of control and like it has never been in Britain before.
	Now, that could be a sign that people sense how precarious things are getting.
	And they're saying, you know, let's pack our bags quickly, because in a few months, who knows what's going to happen.
	So that's just Britain.
	So, you know, the political crisis in Britain, a big one, a big political crisis in Germany, it is not impossible.
	A big political crisis in France, well, that's hardly a black swan event.
	Everybody expects political crises in France, but this might be...
	Bigger than the usual sort of crisis.
	So that's a possibility.
	And as I said, there is a mood, an insurrectionary mood, and I could easily see sort of violence.
	I could see it spilling out.
	I could see somebody important getting killed.
	I don't want to see it.
	I'm not predicting it.
	I'm not saying it's going to happen.
	I've no information about that.
	But that, it seems to me, could happen.
	And in a time of great fragility...
	I think if we start to see something like that happen in one European country, it could be a chain reaction right across, and that would be a major event, and it could also affect the entire economic, monetary, financial system as well.
	And there are problems there too, because there's said to be problems in the mortgage sectors, very much like we had back in 2008, that they're all coming back again.
	We have a major crisis in the mortgage sector in Britain.
	There's also said to be an equally bad one in Sweden.
	We did a programme about that, Alex and I. But it's also probably true in other countries in Europe as well.
	The one thing I'm going to say is, I think if you're looking for Black Swan events, look to Europe.
	I think...
	Whatever happens in the United States, the political system, or rather I shouldn't say the political system, I would say the constitutional system, both has the ability to contain it.
	And it, in every respect, provides a way through, provided it is followed.
	But I think in Europe we could easily see something happen over the next year or so.
	But don't take it from Klaus Schwab.
	As I said, I don't think he knows what he's talking about.
	Now, white pills, things of that kind, a resolution of the situation in Ukraine, a good settlement of the situation in Ukraine, which I think is going to come.
	I think that could very easily discredit an awful lot of terrible people in Europe especially, perhaps in the United States too, could put them on the back foot, might actually in the end end up strengthening the world system.
	I mean, what you said, Robert, about the fact that the globalists have failed to break Russia, I think that's an important thing.
	I think that could be a good event coming in our direction, though I'm afraid that a lot of people are going to die before it happens.
	Your thoughts, Alex?
	Black swans, China?
	Perhaps.
	Conflict with China.
	I think that's something that we have to be worried about.
	Georgia, Moldova.
	There's a lot of talk about broadening out the conflict.
	Georgia, Moldova.
	Iran always worries me.
	Some sort of conflict with Iran as well.
	Biden himself, to me, is a black swan.
	The administration, because I knew they were going to be bad.
	I never thought that this administration would be this type of wrecking ball, not only to the US economy, but to the entire world, to the entire planet.
	So I don't know how we're going to get through another year and a half of this Biden administration.
	I mean, this is a dangerous, very incompetent, ideologically driven...
	So I think that administration is a black swad.
	And the economic situation, I think, in Europe specifically, I think the energy situation, because they got through this winter.
	It was a mild winter, but they got through it because they were storing up Russian gas.
	And now they're not going to have Russian gas to store up coming into next winter.
	As far as a white pill, I think Nord Stream was a white pill.
	And the resolution in Ukraine is going to be a white pill because all the lies that the media has told us about Ukraine, in much the same way about the lies they were telling us about the vaccines and COVID, I think those lies are already starting to come out.
	I think in Nord Stream we've seen how incompetent and how crazy the Biden White House is.
	I mean, this was an incredibly reckless and stupid, stupid thing that they did.
	Very stupid thing that they did, if you buy into Seymour Hersh's reports.
	But the fact that so many of the things they were telling us about the conflict in Ukraine, the media, is the exact opposite.
	We did a show on this, Robert, me and you and Alexander, we talked about the projection of it all.
	You know, Russia's running out of ammo.
	Russia's running out of missiles.
	And now we're seeing, no, it's not Russia that's running out of these things.
	It's the West.
	It's NATO.
	It's Ukraine.
	So all of these things that they've been telling us about Russia and how the war is going, we're now starting to realize that this was all projection.
	And it's just the same playbook that they use over and over again, whether it's wars of the past, whether it's COVID.
	We're now seeing it again with the war in Ukraine.
	It's the constant lies of the media.
	When are people going to finally, when are the masses going to finally wake up to the fact that CNN and BBC and MSNBC just feed them lies and propaganda?
	We'll see how many more COVIDs do we need?
	How many more conflicts do we need?
	Time will tell, but each one, I think, cuts through.
	Each event where we notice the lies, more and more people are white-pilled and change.
	And once you're white-pilled, it's impossible to...
	To go back.
	I was trying to find the video of Joe Biden saying, if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, the Nord Stream pipeline is going to come to an end.
	The reporter says, well, how are you going to do that?
	It's in Germany.
	We'll make it happen.
	And Victoria Nuland saying the same thing.
	Yeah, that's interesting.
	The Black Swans.
	I never understood the term.
	I saw the movie Black Swan, which has a totally different...
	Well, now I have to think, was the movie named Black Swan because of the definition of Black Swan?
	No, it's from ballet.
	It's from Swan Lake.
	They appear at the very end.
	I was wondering if I missed an underlying concept of that movie.
	It's because a black swan itself is so rare.
	That's where the term borrows from.
	I mean, to you guys' point in terms of the Biden administration being a walking, talking black swan, reminds me of the Animal House line or a variation of it by the head of the school to John Belushi about, you know, dumb and drunk is no way to go through college, to go through life.
	You know, it's also the case that, you know, dumb and dementia is no way to pick a president.
	And, you know, we see that with Uncle Festerman also, the Senate candidate who won, you know, back in the hospital.
	They're trying to figure out what to do because the guy thinks peanuts are people that are talking to him.
	You know, that's not a good grounds for the Senate either.
	But, yeah.
	But it's been a great conversation.
	Everybody out there can follow you at the duran.locals.com.
	But, Alex, where else can they catch your content?
	TheDuran.Locals.com.
	We are on all the platforms.
	Rumble, all the other video platforms.
	YouTube, Odyssey, everything.
	And Alexander has his channel.
	I have my channel.
	And we have the main channel, TheDuran.
	And the best place is TheDuran.Locals.com.
	I have to share this before we go because there's been some Rumble rants and here we can see this in real time.
	Marahue, a $50 rumble rant, says, love the Duran and Viva Barnes law.
	Max15 put in a period.
	There was another one that was flattering.
	Let me see here.
	Where was it?
	I'm going to go through these in a locals live, but a number of people.
	Alex and Alex, any updates on Italy hungry leadership causing more issues for the EU?
	We got to that.
	But I'll read those rumble rants in a locals exclusive.
	Gentlemen, the internets love you.
	And for good reason.
	Fantastic.
	I feel smarter.
	I just have to digest and retain 10% of what I heard today, and I will be smarter than 99% of the world out there.
	Gentlemen, we do it again?
	Anytime?
	Of course.
	Absolutely.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes, everyone out there in the chat.

▲