Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 6, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:45:09

Trudeau's "Link Tax" Exposes Canadian CORRUPTION! David Leavitt is a LOSER! And More! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm going through something very real and very sincere, and it's uncomfortable, and it has not been an enjoyable process for me.
	It's been difficult.
	And so, the internet being what it is, all sorts of people from all sorts of political ideologies have theories on, like, what's actually happening with me, right?
	And the main accusation, both from the left and the right, is that I'm grifting.
	I hate that word.
	Literally nothing has changed about my work life.
	I'm in the same place.
	I have the same audience.
	The audience doesn't like some of what I have to say or some of the new conclusions I've come to.
	And so I wanted to kind of set the record straight about what I have personally experienced.
	I don't know what my political labels are at this point, right?
	Because I feel like I don't really fit anywhere.
	That's just full honesty.
	It's, again, very uncomfortable for me.
	And I want to say that out of any point in my adult life, this is probably the point where I'm the most malleable and open to new things.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm.
	The red pill cometh and it cometh fast.
	Hold on a second.
	Yeah, that's better.
	Nature lover says she's annoying.
	Here's the problem, people.
	I haven't made it through the entire, what was it, Adam and Stitch podcast.
	I'm talking to Nate Brody, and Nate's like, Viva, did you hear Anna?
	She's swallowed the red pill, or she's gotten the red pill enema.
	The rapidity of the red pill absorption.
	Look, okay, jokes aside.
	Apparently nobody likes it when I talk about enemas, or piles, as they're called.
	Anna Kasparian seems to have taken the jagged, Thorough, earth-shattering, mind-blowing red pill.
	I said this almost as a joke when she put out that tweet.
	You know, don't call me a birthing person.
	I'm a woman.
	And I said, oh, look at this.
	I was needling her a little bit.
	I'm saying, sorry, Anna.
	You are a cisgender birthing person, and you're a bigot for saying what you said.
	These are the rules.
	Which mic am I on?
	Damn it.
	Hold on a second.
	Anna, I'm on the default mic.
	Mic check.
	One, two.
	Oh, yeah.
	There we go, people.
	So, she's done a podcast where she says she's politically homeless.
	And, you know, a lot of people have discovered this.
	You don't leave the left.
	The left pushes you away.
	Who is she?
	Oh, come on, maple syrup.
	You don't know who Anna Kasparian, the Young Turks?
	If you want to see some...
	I think I got one in the backdrop here.
	Hold on.
	You want to see some of the most unhinged meltdowns.
	You can go watch Cenk Uygur and Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks.
	It's like Jerry Springer lobotomized.
	I mean, you think Jerry Springer is outrageous stupidity?
	Go watch some classic meltdowns of Cenk Uygur and Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks.
	She's had a red pill.
	She did this Adam and Stitch podcast.
	It was two and a half hours.
	I listened to one of the longer clips to hear.
	Do I believe that this is an authentic revelation?
	Holy crap, I've been wrong all along.
	Do I believe it's authentic?
	Who the hell knows?
	I think I mentioned this the other day.
	It was RFK Jr.
	He did an interview.
	I think it was Crystal Ball and the other guy there.
	Boiling points, turning points, round points, whatever it's called.
	And he said, you know, I wrote this book about Anthony Fauci.
	And I try not to divine intentions.
	I try not to presuppose intentions.
	And it's a very, very, very good strategy.
	You don't need to divine intentions when you have an action.
	And it doesn't matter what the intention was behind it.
	Whether it was overt dishonesty, whether it was just being stupid, blinders on wrong.
	The outcome is the same if, for example, you said something was safe and effective, and it was neither safe nor effective.
	Now, it might change something when it comes to criminal responsibility, and then you might want to get into the mens rea of the act, which is the intention behind it.
	That's for determining criminal culpability.
	In terms of determining strategy, it doesn't matter if they knew they were wrong, they were lying, or they were just wrong when they said it.
	If they're wrong, that's all you need to know to guide your actions.
	And I love the fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says, he says, I wrote that entire book.
	I did not try to guess Fauci's intentions.
	I just knew he was wrong.
	And he was wrong back in the AIDS epidemic.
	He was wrong now.
	I know how regulatory capture works, etc., etc.
	I don't know if Anna Kasparian is sincere in her red pill revelation.
	Her explanation as to why it's not a grift, it's a pretty weak explanation.
	I'm still working at the same place.
	My employment conditions haven't changed.
	That's a very, very bad explanation or a very bad defense to the accusation it's a grift.
	I hate the word grift.
	People use the word grift and they don't understand what grift means.
	Even using the bastardized term of the word grift to say, well, it's not a grift because I'm still working at the same place.
	Well, if you were about to lose your job, if you understand that your platform is dying...
	Decaying away because you are part of the problem, because you are a dishonest propagandist, shill for the government narrative, whatever.
	Well, your condition of employment can stay the same, but it won't be the same forever.
	And so you might be grifting in order to change tact so that you can survive off truth and accuracy as opposed to surviving off drama and hyperbole that the Young Turks are so famous for.
	Tangent on the word grift.
	People are idiots.
	And I'm talking trolls.
	I'm not talking the people watching here.
	Grift, in the truest of senses, means someone who fabricates drama so they can profit off that drama.
	It's sort of like the lawyer who goes looking through contracts for typos so that they can then say, hey, you can sue.
	That's grift.
	Graft, which many of you don't know the word, G-R-A-F-T, is a British word for hard work.
	Reporters are not grifters for reporting.
	They're not even grifters for going to the places of action.
	Where they know that there's going to be the most interest in coverage.
	Rebel News is not grifting because they go to France to report on the riots in France.
	A grift would be manufacturing the conflict so that you can then report on it or profit from it.
	I'm not naming anybody who might be guilty of actual grift.
	I'm just saying people out in the Twitterverse, the trolls, they like to accuse anybody who works of grifting.
	I'm not saying it from my own perspective, but I'll just say, this is a grifter.
	What the fuck?
	I'm not a grifter because I sell merchandise to support the work that I do.
	I would be a grifter if I were to go start fights with people and then try to monetize those fights.
	Okay, that's the tangent, parentheses closed on grift versus just getting remunerated and working hard and trying to make a living doing what you do working hard.
	Anna Kasparian comes out.
	She does this whole thing.
	Now she's had the revelation.
	She was wrong on everything.
	She admits that she was wrong on Rittenhouse.
	I have to go see the full inventory of what she admits that she was wrong on.
	But she says, I now acknowledge I was part of the problem and I want to be part of the solution going forward.
	That's where I was before I got distracted by the...
	Here we go.
	Young Turks...
	No, that's leaving the left.
	Where was...
	Where was...
	I have so much on the backdrop.
	Here we go.
	I was about to say, you want to see a good meltdown.
	This is Anna Kasparian, I think, being wrong yet again.
	But let's just see what this clip was again.
	Not everything is created for you.
	And they come across content and they decide.
	Everyone makes a decision for themselves.
	For me, not for me.
	For me, that's a difficult concept to grasp.
	But not everything on the planet is made especially for you and whatever desires or preferences you have, okay?
	That's what most normal people acknowledge.
	Oh, come on, intern.
	For me, not for me.
	Marvel stuff, not for me.
	I'm not going to go on an endless rant, literally dedicate segments of this show on a regular basis, by the way, whining, bitching and moaning about how there are Marvel movies in existence that specifically target certain people with certain personalities.
	I would like to see Matt Walsh and all these other conservative men who are constantly crying about how there's a masculinity crisis in this country.
	I'd like to see them stop crying about cartoons.
	Okay?
	Or, I don't know, cartoon candy like M&M's not being slutty enough for them suddenly.
	I'm done with it.
	You guys are children.
	You guys do not exude masculinity.
	This is about Matt Walsh complaining about, I think, The Little Mermaid.
	The irony is she's not going to dedicate entire segments of the show.
	Complaining about cartoons.
	She's going to dedicate entire segments of the show complaining about people who complain about the cartoons.
	And I'm going to dedicate an entire segment of my show complaining about someone who complains about someone complaining about cartoons.
	Irony, yes.
	Inception, yes.
	I'm aware of it.
	I'm self-reflective.
	Let's just carry on with this so you can hear one of many wonderful meltdowns.
	Or strength or courage.
	You guys come across as whiny little bitches.
	And that's what I really want to get through to them.
	I don't want to hear another word about the crisis of masculinity from another conservative guy when they're literally wasting all of their time crying about cartoons and whatever desires or preferences you have.
	I don't know what's going on.
	All right.
	So that was not going to be the intro of the show, but I heard that Anna Kasparian is having a meltdown red pill moment, recognizing she's politically homeless now.
	It's an amazing thing, by the way.
	The second that Anna Kasparian started complaining about the trans movement, co-opting, I don't even know, co-opting, hijacking, what's the word?
	Let me pull up those tweets.
	Anna Kasparian, Viva Fry tweet.
	Oh yes, here we go.
	Let's go with this one here.
	Let's do this.
	Incognito is now working.
	Once again.
	On Twitter, so it's very nice.
	I set up a second account so that I could actually read tweets without risking divulging my secret list of contacts in my DMs if I accidentally have it left open.
	Here we go.
	This is when I noticed she was having the red pill.
	LOL, the meltdowns over wanting to be referred to as a woman rather than a birthing person is pretty wild.
	Yeah, that's when Anna realized that when it comes to the left, you are either an ally or you are an enemy.
	There is no room for divergence.
	There is no room for disagreement.
	The party of inclusivity, they'll consider inclusivity all forms of psychological preferences, sexual preferences, other forms of what some might feel to be degeneracy, but ideological differences?
	You're an ally and you are with the party, or you are an enemy and you are ousted from the party.
	I'll never apologize for that.
	So this person says, you made transphobic statements.
	Oh, this was when they had a fight about, you know, it's transphobic to say, I'm a woman, not a birthing person.
	It's a vagina.
	It's not a front hole.
	Women make babies if the body functions the way, you know, nature intended.
	And sometimes there are cases where it doesn't and there's still a woman.
	Yeah, we agree on that.
	Not a birthing person.
	It's not a front hole.
	I'm a woman.
	It's a vagina.
	And men, biological men, as if there's any other type of man, should not be competing with women in sports.
	Say that as a leftist, and you are ousted.
	You're an enemy.
	You're no longer an ally.
	So this is one of hers.
	It says, the meltdowns over wanting to be referred to as a woman rather than a birthing person is pretty wild.
	I'll never apologize for that, especially as biological women, as a biological woman who has had a fucking lifetime of being told, I'm less than.
	I'm a woman.
	No apologies.
	And I made a joke.
	As a biological woman, Anna Kasparian, is there any other type of woman in your mind?
	And then I did needle her a few more times to say, sorry, you're a birthing person.
	Them's the rules.
	You made them.
	You live by them.
	Now Anna says, the rules are bullshit.
	I acknowledge the rules are bullshit.
	I acknowledge that I have been spreading misinformation, disinformation, partisan rubbish.
	And I feel guilty.
	I feel ashamed.
	I feel like I've been part of the problem and not part of the solution.
	To which I say, I don't know your intentions, Anna.
	But the problem is this.
	And it's the same problem and the same solution we have to apply to the good faith people who made mistakes during COVID.
	If you are susceptible to partisan reasoning, which is compromised reasoning, if you are susceptible to giving in to your fears of panic.
	To determine policy, not just for yourself, but for others.
	If you have been wildly wrong on many issues over extended periods of time, you might be entitled to grace and forgiveness, but you're not going to be entitled to trusting and making decisions going forward.
	That's my, and it feels harsh to say, but the people who panicked and said, shut up and take the jab, you may have panicked.
	You may have been out of your mind.
	You may acknowledge now you made a mistake.
	You do not get to be in a position of power ever again.
	Anna Kasparin, you may want forgiveness.
	You may recognize you were wrong on Rittenhouse.
	You were wrong on Nicholas Salmon.
	I think they were.
	I'm not sure that they were.
	I was trying to find concrete examples.
	You acknowledge that you were wrong on a slew of things.
	That you spread disinformation.
	You were part of the problem.
	You were not part of the solution.
	Your apology can be accepted.
	But to trust you ever again is going to be very difficult, if not impossible.
	Because you displayed wildly bad reasoning, either malice and overt dishonesty, or if we want to just assume you were wrong and not assume intentions, you showed poor reasoning for an extended period of time on multiple issues.
	To gain the trust back, it's going to take much longer than it took to lose in the first place.
	Okay, good afternoon, everybody.
	How goes the battle?
	What a flipping stream.
	We had yesterday with Adam Johnson, lectern guy.
	I mean, I was re-watching it.
	I'm trying to find some particularly poignant clips because it was a marathon.
	It was a marathon if you run real fast.
	It was two and a half hours.
	And it was amazing.
	I mean, I think there's elements of that story that I don't think people ever knew until yesterday.
	Talk about the left pushing you away.
	The left.
	Democrats, peace and love.
	They want prison reform.
	They want criminal justice reform.
	They want forgiveness.
	They want pathways to rehabilitation.
	Unless you're Republican.
	Unless you're a political ideological enemy.
	Then they want blood.
	They want a pound of flesh nearest to the heart.
	The guy was locked away for 71 days.
	I think he said two weeks solitary.
	He was forced to get vaccinated.
	And I'm saying that, I should put it in quotes for those who are listening on podcasts.
	Forced to take the jab under the prospect of being thrown into solitary where someone had just been murdered in a minimum, low-security, whatever they call it, prison camp.
	Hold on.
	Hey, criminal justice reform!
	Unless you're a January 6er.
	Systemic racism when one side of the ideological aisle gets sentenced to exceedingly long prison sentences for...
	Low-level criminality.
	Lock up Jacob Angeli.
	I think he's out now.
	Lock up the January Sixers for years.
	Years in pretrial detention.
	And I swear to you, my struggle here, I don't want to believe that the political left, not, you know, good, peace-loving Democrats, the political left, the ideological left, the political liberals of Canada, I want to believe that they just don't correctly apply principles of logic as opposed to being evil.
	But it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe that anybody can live with such an egregious level of intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy, and not be aware of it.
	And as perfect illustration, we're going to start with the hypocrite of all hypocrites, David Levitt.
	Okay, now first things first before we get started.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election fornification advice, no legal advice.
	This has become something of the joke.
	We should be simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	We are very nice.
	And we should be simultaneously streaming on Locals, which we are very nice.
	Oh, and by the way, we had an amazing exclusive portion of the interview with Adam Johnson, lectern guy, exclusively on Locals.
	I have trouble sort of, you know, like...
	I'm partitioning everything across YouTube, Rumble, and Locals, and I try to make sure that our above-average Locals community gets a lot of access to exclusive stuff as a community to thank them for being part of that wonderful, massive, above-average community.
	So after this, we'll go to Locals like we do every day, take some questions there, and have some discussion if you want to go support the channel.
	Here's Viva with the Grift.
	Go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Seven bucks a year.
	No, seven bucks a month.
	Or 70 a year for tons of exclusive content for supporters, or you can just join the community.
	I think we're at 112,000 members.
	That's non-supporting, just a massive community.
	It's a small city.
	It's actually maybe even a big city.
	That's Quebec City.
	We've got a population of Quebec City in our local membership community, and it's wonderful.
	Super Chats, YouTube takes 30% of them.
	If you want to support, Rumble is the best place.
	Rumble Rants, they take 20%.
	Ordinarily, for the rest of the year, they take 0%.
	And then in 2024, Rumble is going to go back to taking 20% of the Rumble Rants and locals and merch if you want to go to vivafry.com.
	Okay.
	Hypocrite.
	David Levitt.
	Oh my goodness.
	First of all, I'm an idiot sometimes.
	I did not know who David Levitt was.
	I kept seeing these comments about...
	This all started with a toothbrush.
	Okay, what order do we go in this to expose the outrageous, shameless, malicious dishonesty of David Leavitt?
	We're going to start with Wikipedia.
	And yes, people, I know Wikipedia is shite.
	I do it on the one hand just to see how they describe.
	Allies versus enemies, knowing how I have been described once upon a time on Wikipedia.
	David Leavitt.
	Leavitt was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Harold and Gloria Leavitt.
	Harold was a professor.
	He's a journalist.
	It's here.
	Oh, where does it say here?
	It says it's described as a journalist.
	He went to Yale.
	Leavitt published two stories in the New Yorker territorial, whatever.
	Okay, fine.
	Leavitt, down here.
	I didn't know this until I looked it up on Wikipedia.
	I saw the rainbow in his avatar and I thought it was, you know, just inclusivity month.
	Levitt, who is gay, has frequently explored gay issues in his works.
	As a teenager, he was frequently frightened by gay novels that emphasize the ideal male body.
	He found this theme and its suggestions that homoerotic fulfillment was reserved for the exceptionally beautiful young men.
	Intrusive.
	His writing explores universal themes such as complex family relationships and class and sex exploitation, illness, and yadda yadda yadda.
	Then the other thing that I just, I mean, people, I don't understand why.
	I'm going through it, and I noticed on the bottom, there's a sub-caveat on Wikipedia called Gay Jews.
	Gay Jews?
	And then, sure enough, I didn't know, well, I suspected he might have been Jewish.
	He's there, in the list of gay Jews.
	David Levitt, if you go to his Wikipedia, not Wikipedia, if you go to his Twitter handle, it says he's an award-winning journalist.
	Oh my goodness.
	That's the identity politics of David Levitt.
	I could not care less.
	In the meaningful sense about anyone's identity politics.
	In terms of understanding a human, where they come from, what their dietary needs or restrictions might be, understanding an individual's identity, all of these personal issues are relevant.
	In terms of, oh my goodness, it making him the most egregious of hypocrites, I'm weighing my words, you will not appreciate the degree to which this makes him an outrageous hypocrite.
	Okay, so that's the Wikipedia.
	Just wanted to see who he was.
	Then, you know, everybody says, it started with a toothbrush.
	It started with a toothbrush, people.
	If you don't know this...
	If you don't...
	No, no, hold on a second.
	That's not the right one.
	That's not the right one.
	If you did not know the David Levitt toothbrush story, you're going to know it now, and you're going to regret the fact that you know that people like David Levitt exist on this earth.
	So, there's a law aspect to this as well.
	It's hilarious.
	This is from the Insider.
	It's old.
	It's January 18, 2020.
	A pro-Trump meme account raised $16,000 for a Target employee singled out by a troll for not selling him a toothbrush for one cent.
	Okay.
	A man claimed...
	I love this.
	Let me just be sure we're in the right thing here.
	A man claiming to be an award-winning journalist churned up viral outrage after he says he called the police on a...
	They shouldn't call the male version of the Karen a chat.
	I don't know what the male version is.
	First of all, I don't like that word anyhow.
	This is the man that people warn you about.
	The person.
	That people warn you about.
	He called the police on a Target manager who refused to sell him an electric toothbrush for one cent.
	Okay, David Levitt tweeted a photo of the Target manager, a display that advertises an Oral-B Pro 5000 toothbrush for one cent, and a screenshot of Massachusetts law dictating that stores must sell items for the lowest price indicated on a sign or advertisement.
	All right, I'm going to pull this out for one second.
	And we're just going to have a little parentheses about law here.
	Okay.
	We have consumer protection laws in Quebec.
	They're quite rigorous.
	One of those consumer protection laws says that if there is...
	What was it in Quebec?
	I think it was a $10 reduction.
	If there is a misprice on an item...
	Oh, I should have probably looked this up beforehand just to get the details.
	If there's a misprice, like the label says $10 and it costs actually $100, I think they had to sell it for the labeled price or give it to you for free if it was under $10.
	Something along those lines.
	The idea behind it is to create an incentive for stores to pay attention to pricing because sometimes they accidentally overprice things.
	People pay over the price and There's no penalty for that.
	And so if they misprice something, the idea is that they should be penalized for mispricing something, and it protects the consumers.
	Okay.
	And so a lot of state laws have that, but need to look at how easy it is to forge these.
	Oh, this might be for coupons.
	Okay.
	So a lot of states and provinces have these laws.
	If there's a misprice on it, they've got to charge you, or they've got to accept the labeled price, or if it's under $10, give it to you for free.
	I have had my run-ins with that provision and I have never availed myself to it that I can recall.
	Call it a chip on my shoulder.
	I don't want to perpetuate stereotypes.
	That's the chip on my shoulder.
	I will sooner say, I don't care.
	I'm not interested in a freebie.
	Just tell me how much it costs and I'll pay what it's worth.
	I don't want...
	To exploit law for my own benefit.
	Other people are going to say, Viva, you're letting the store get away with screwing people over.
	I don't care.
	I was once out with somebody and they insisted on it, getting a nice piece of steak for free because the sticker price was like $0.00 and at the cash, they're like, oh, let me just put the proper label on that.
	And the person's like, no, no, no, no, no.
	They did not have that chip on their shoulder of stereotypes because they were not a part of a community that suffers from that type of stereotype.
	And I was like, I don't feel comfortable doing it.
	I don't want to do it.
	Just tell me how much it costs.
	If I can't afford it, I won't buy it.
	Okay.
	Apparently, David Levitt does not care about that aspect.
	But maybe it might be my chip on my shoulder.
	Levitt tweeted a photo, yada, yada.
	A GoFundMe started by a third party.
	He's raised more than 60. So this is 2020.
	This is David Levitt, award-winning journalist, outraged.
	How much does that toothbrush typically cost?
	We're going to look this up for a second.
	An Oral-B toothbrush.
	We're going to see.
	Okay.
	Self-identified, award-winning multimedia journalist became the target of outrage on Twitter after he posted a picture of a Massachusetts target manager and claimed he called police on her because she wouldn't sell him an electric tube.
	Oh, look at this.
	David Levitt, it's going to be relevant for his verbal abuse to another prominent woman when we get there in a second.
	Carrie Lake calling her the C-word.
	We'll get there.
	I didn't notice these details before.
	It all starts to make sense.
	Consistently misogynist behavior from one David Levitt.
	David Levitt, who was verified on Twitter, tweeted pictures of Tori, a store manager, and displayed the Oral-B toothbrush with a price tag of one cent and the Massachusetts law that requires them to sell items at the lowest price indicated on a sign or advertisement.
	The law also...
	Who cares?
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Hey!
	Dox her!
	Harass her!
	You know what to do, Twitter.
	Corporations like Target are not above the law.
	He's doing it for justice, people.
	All right, well, that's David Levitt.
	But let me just see one thing here.
	How much does that toothbrush cost ordinarily?
	200 bucks.
	I'll just get a regular gas station toothbrush.
	So that is David Levitt's history.
	A glutton for punishment that he might be...
	Believe this.
	Yesterday, he puts out a tweet that says, Elon, someone called me the C word on Twitter and I reported it and you did nothing.
	Check this out.
	I mean, you can't make this stuff up, but you can.
	So hold on a second.
	I have to go back to the original tweet.
	Okay, here we go.
	Oh, come on.
	How do I do this?
	I go like this.
	No, where's the original tweet?
	I need a producer.
	Oh, did I just shut down everything?
	No, I didn't.
	Woo!
	Okay.
	Oh, now you've all got the punchline here.
	Forget this.
	Get this out of here.
	Let's just go to David Levitt's Twitter feed and see the...
	Some of you might not care about this, but we have to at least revel in some of the lighthearted stupidity of the world.
	And he's a victim, by the way.
	He's a victim after all of this.
	Where is the tweet where he says, Elon, someone called me the C word.
	Apparently you're okay with this on Twitter.
	I can't find it.
	Anyhow, he says, Elon, someone just called me a C word and I reported it.
	And their tweet wasn't taken down.
	Are you okay with people calling you the CUNT?
	See you next Tuesday?
	Are you okay with people calling you this on Twitter?
	And the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs being what it is...
	Well, somebody pulled up a tweet from David Levin.
	I thought I was so great because I pulled up a tweet that he had just put out calling people Elon dick riders.
	I pulled that up and then compared it to one of his tweets where he called...
	The internet said he's getting a lot of homophobic tweets of telling him to eat a D-I-C-K.
	And I'm like, are you kidding me?
	Just earlier today, I saw a tweet from you that referred to people as Elon Dick writers.
	And now you're saying it's homophobic when someone tells you to go eat a D-I-C-K?
	I didn't notice this one.
	I actually think I noticed it first from Still Gray.
	What's his name?
	Ian Miles Chong.
	But, you know, other people found it too.
	David Levitt.
	When was it from?
	Oh, that was a different part of his life.
	That was a long time ago.
	That was November 2022.
	This is David Levitt talking about yet another woman who he's verbally abusing.
	Quote, do not concede is trending because of the worthless effing see you next Tuesday Carrie Lake.
	You lost, B-I-T-C-H.
	Stop having your followers accuse Katie Hobbs of being a cheater.
	Retweet if today's a good Tuesday for her to concede and go fuck herself with a pineapple.
	You know, I don't believe in censorship.
	And I don't believe in, like, you know, blocking people even if they want to talk with this.
	I do mute them because I don't need to have the headache of seeing someone else's vitriol.
	This borders on targeted harassment.
	This borders on actual targeted harassment that I think could warrant getting someone yeeted from the platform.
	David Levitt is calling Carrie Lake a worthless effing see you next Tuesday and a B-I-T-C-H.
	And then encourages his followers to go give her a hard time on Twitter.
	Does he get to get away with this because he can pull out the I'm gay card, so I'm allowed calling another woman C-U-N-T?
	A B-I-T-C-H?
	Holy sweet, merciful hell, Levitt.
	You're an actual disgrace and a bad influence for a whole number of people.
	That was, um, that's David Levitt.
	I don't know what happened, but my goodness, there's been an article observing the hypocrisy, the shameless, stunning, crass of David Levitt.
	And I didn't know.
	I saw the rainbow in his profile.
	Did not know of his sexual orientation because I'm not interested in that sense.
	Let all adults do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anybody else.
	I discovered that.
	When I saw some comments and checked out his Wikipedia.
	And now you piece that together and you see a history of misogynistic rhetoric and targeted harassment of women.
	It's very interesting.
	Levitt, you might be what you accuse everyone else of being.
	Intolerant, misogynistic, bigoted, and hiding behind your own sense of perceived victimhood.
	Then he comes out.
	Oh, no, no.
	No, no.
	Then we got to do this.
	Then he comes out after all of this, by the way.
	And he purports to be the victim on Twitter earlier today.
	He pulls up some DMs that he's been getting.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	It's a fantastic...
	It's a fantastic...
	The fakie twist of people who get caught in the most hypocritical hypocrisy.
	Let me just...
	Be redundant if I can.
	They leave their DMs open.
	They get the obvious blowback, and I am not condoning it, period.
	Full stop.
	There's no but to this.
	I don't like it when people do it.
	I don't do it myself.
	When I DM people, I'm often more polite than when I tweet at them publicly, at least when I wildly disagree with them.
	The harassment only allows the victimizers to pretend to be the victims.
	Rachel Gilmore is one.
	Perfect example.
	But now so is David Levitt.
	He puts up, look at this, woe is me.
	And he's throwing out the transphobic again.
	I don't understand.
	It's transphobic?
	To use the C word?
	Well, then you're transphobic.
	Oh, but you used it for a biological, a woman.
	So you're not transphobic.
	You're just a bigoted misogynist.
	Okay, got it.
	Countless transphobic assholes sending me messages reminding me that you are what you eat.
	I mean, he has to be leaving this open for the obvious joke.
	It's pathological narcissism is to accuse others of doing what you're doing.
	So he shows a bunch of messages.
	Don't do this.
	Whatever.
	Do it.
	Don't do it.
	It's not what you should do because it will allow the victimisers to purport to be the victims.
	But I just say, it's very Alinsky-ish, I would imagine.
	Or maybe Joseph Goebbels-level fabricated victimhood.
	Three steps.
	Be an asshole.
	Get caught being an asshole.
	Leave your DMs open so you can claim to be a victim when people DM you that you're an asshole.
	Okay, I feel a little better.
	Who feels better or dumber?
	We are going to talk about meaningful stuff.
	Canada, showing you exactly what I've been complaining about for a little while, but I was still a little late to the game.
	I don't know when hashtag defund the CBC became a thing.
	It was well before my awakening.
	Oh.
	All right, people, let's move on over to Rumble.
	We're going to talk about Canada.
	What do I have on the backdrop here?
	Let me just quet your appetites.
	Well, we already...
	Oh, okay, so we're going to get to Canada telling us exactly how you coerce media into becoming your propagandists.
	We're going to talk about the cocaine.
	Cocaine at the White House.
	But it's not...
	They're never going to find the person who did it.
	All right.
	We got fun stuff on the Rumble side.
	So come on over to Rumbles, people.
	Because we're moving on up.
	Let me see if I miss anything.
	Isn't social media a great thing?
	I love social media.
	I love the fact that it's forever.
	And I have always lived with that.
	Even back before I lived a public life, I...
	Governed myself as though everything I was ever going to put on social media at one point could be discovered and would be used against me.
	And I'm fairly confident that I would not be embarrassed about anything that I've put on the internet.
	So people can go back.
	And every time I tweet, I ask myself, am I going to be a hypocrite?
	Is someone going to easily be able to verify and confirm?
	That this tweet would be hypocritical.
	I often tweet that Mark Twain expression.
	I don't want to screw it up.
	It's a great one.
	Judge a man by the adjectives he uses in...
	Hold on a second.
	Judge a man by the words he uses.
	Mark Twain.
	It's a great one.
	Mark Twain was the greatest.
	Is it Mark Twain?
	Judge a man by the adjective.
	That's what it was.
	The expression is this.
	A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.
	I am very acutely aware of this.
	And so when I call people liars, hypocrites, and I'm not just people.
	When I call liars and hypocrites liars and hypocrites, I am very, very familiar with that Mark Twain expression.
	It's along the lines of it's easier to fool people than convince them they've been fooled.
	Someone who uses...
	Language, habitually, it'll sort of be more a reflection of them and how they feel about themselves.
	I'm aware of that.
	One thing's for certain, you won't find a tweet of me referring to anybody as a C-U-N-T, as a B-I-T-C-H.
	As a liar?
	Yes.
	Gaslighter?
	Yes.
	Hypocrite?
	Yes.
	Tyrant?
	Yes.
	Is that because I'm a liar, gaslighter, hypocrite, tyrant?
	Hell no.
	It's because I know what they look like.
	So I know what they act like.
	And we're going to go now, find out exactly what they act like.
	Okay, so I'm ending on YouTube.
	And I will see you all on Rumble.
	And then we're going to end on Rumble.
	I'm going to see you all on Locals.
	And then tonight, I'm going out with DSLR Dave for dinner.
	My thumbnail guy.
	Best thumbnails on earth.
	DSLR Dave.
	And tomorrow, I'm going to be on Dave Rubin.
	Something else happens tomorrow.
	Then I'm going to go to Eric Hundley at noon tomorrow.
	Oh, I'm an idiot.
	I just accidentally ended on YouTube.
	All right.
	Let's do this.
	Bill, what was it?
	C18?
	The link tax.
	We are getting a masterclass in government corruption and how the government creates dependency so that it can then coerce compliancy.
	If that's not an expression that I have to phrase that better.
	The government creates dependency so that it can coerce compliance.
	Sorry, let me back that up again.
	A corrupt regime creates government dependence so that it can then coerce government compliance.
	Bam!
	If anybody doesn't know what Bill CAT is, Bill CAT, and it's also known as the link tax.
	And I've got to tell you something.
	I've been reading it, and I'm trying to understand it.
	And I still don't understand an element of this link tax.
	I understand the essence of it.
	Okay, so we'll bring this up.
	This is a Google's blog.
	Update on Canada's Bill C18 and our...
	When is this from?
	June 29th.
	Okay, this is a three-minute read.
	I can do that.
	I got an attention span for that.
	Bill C18 has become law and remains unworkable.
	The government has not given us reason to believe that the regulatory process will be able to resolve structural issues with the legislation.
	As a result, We have informed the government that we have made the difficult decision that when the law takes effect, we will be removing links to Canadian news from our search news and discover products and will no longer be able to operate Google News Showcase in Canada.
	There you go.
	It's mind-blowing.
	It's called a link tax.
	The idea behind this is that the government is saying, well, it's not fair when...
	Facebook and Google, you know, provide links to news outlets without providing...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	The traffic to them.
	At least I thought that's what it was.
	No.
	The Canadian government has gone one step further and said, if you link to the original source, even if it's just a link and you go to the original source afterwards, you're going to have to pay some sort of royalties, Google and Facebook.
	You're going to have to negotiate a payment because I guess you're getting traffic off their work, and so it's only fair.
	Not if you show the article on your platform, like Facebook, and you don't actually ever have to go to the original source.
	Because that would make sense in terms of saying, well, geez, you're sort of siphoning the traffic from the original source.
	People aren't going to go to the original source anymore because they can get enough access to it from the Facebook platform.
	So you're denying traffic, you're denying ad revenue, ad sales.
	On the original source.
	That would make sense.
	Here.
	The Canadian government has enacted a law called Bill C-18, the Online News Act.
	They never call it what it is.
	This is called the Prop Up Legacy Media Act indirectly because we cannot give them any more direct funding from Canadian taxpayer dollars.
	That's a long title.
	The Online News Act requiring two companies to pay for simply showing links to news, something that everyone else does for free.
	The unprecedented decision to put a price on links, a so-called link tax.
	Creates uncertainty for our products and exposes us to uncapped financial liability simply for facilitating Canadians' access to news from Canadian publishers.
	We have been saying for over a year that this is the wrong approach to supporting journalism in Canada and may result in significant changes to our products.
	How?
	We tried to improve Bill C-18.
	We already pay to support Canadian journalism through our programs and partnerships, and we've been clear we're prepared to do more.
	Google News Showcase program.
	We have negotiated agreements covering 150 news publications across Canada.
	Last year alone, we linked to Canadian news publications more than 3.6 billion times at no charge, helping publishers make money through ads and new subscriptions.
	The referral, whatever.
	This is not a three-minute read.
	All right.
	That's one part.
	Let's just see if I can link tax CBC.
	Seven days ago.
	Let's go with this one.
	CBC.
	Reading it because they are the devil and they are the ones who stand to benefit from this and the government knows this and CBC knows this.
	Google removes news links in Canada in response to online news law.
	We're going to see how they describe this.
	Search giant response to Liberal government's Online News Act, which became law last week.
	It became law last week after not having incorporated changes that the Senate, I believe, suggested should be incorporated into the law.
	The law, after having come into law, requires guidance.
	It requires clarification from the regulatory agency that's going to be applying this law.
	And so Pablo Rodriguez, Canada's Minister of Heritage, now has to go...
	I think it's the CRTC.
	Hold on, I don't want to make a mistake.
	Yeah, so it's the CRTC.
	He's got to issue...
	He's got to say, CRTC, issue guidelines as to how you're going to apply this law because we don't know how it's going to work exactly just yet.
	All right.
	CRTC is Canada Radio Telecommunications Commission.
	Google said Thursday it's going to remove Canadian news content from its search, news, and discover products after a new law meant to compensate media outlets comes into force.
	The move to pull news from the world's most popular search engine could have a devastating impact on Canadian media outlets, which often depend on third parties like Google to get content into the hands of their readers.
	Yeah, it's not going to have a devastating impact on the ones that rely on the government.
	The decision comes after the government's contentious C-18 legislation passed Parliament last week.
	The bill has been criticized by tech giants, unfair to impose amounts to pay on Lynx.
	Okay, fine.
	Some smaller media outlets and experts have blasted the regime because they claim the bulk of the financial benefits will accrue to a handful of large media players.
	Which ones do you think that is?
	CBC.
	EC Radio Canada.
	CTV News.
	Which ones do you think are going to benefit from this?
	The ones that are already getting subsidies from the government, direct and indirect, they don't have anything to worry about.
	Oh my goodness.
	Look, if people can't go to Google and get links to smaller outlets, well, I guess the legacy media is just going to reap the benefits of this poorly drafted or properly drafted law.
	We're disappointed.
	Let's come to this.
	Okay, deeply irresponsible.
	Heritage Minister Pablo Rod.
	Look at this guy.
	I don't judge people for the way they look unless they look like absolute dictators.
	I expect this face to be on a shirt like in high contrast in 20 years.
	Pablo Rodriguez.
	Everyone's going to be, oh, yes.
	Viva Pablo Rodriguez.
	Suggested Thursday he has no intention of backing down from his fight with the American web giants.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Big tech would rather spend money to change their platforms to block Canadians from accessing good quality.
	Paying their fair share to news organizations.
	We're going to come back to this.
	This shows how deeply irresponsible and out of touch they are.
	If you want to understand a character, look at the adjectives they use to describe others in conversation.
	Hashtag confession through projection.
	Deeply irresponsible and out of touch.
	I guess the only problem is it's not irresponsible or out of touch for the government to do this.
	They know exactly what the hell they are doing.
	Especially when they make billions of dollars off of Canadian users.
	Canada needs to have a strong, free, and independent press.
	Bullshit, Pablo.
	That's the exact opposite of what you're doing right now.
	It's fundamental to our democracy.
	Rodriguez added in an interview with CBC News that he was surprised by a Google statement because the government's talks with the company are ongoing.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	They said they would already block it.
	Okay, he said it's extremely disappointing.
	I try to genuinely and sincerely steelman the opposing arguments.
	There are two facets to this, one of which I could understand, and the other one I am simply incapable of steelmanning.
	The argument was once upon a time, you know, you could access the article on Facebook without ever having to go to the original source.
	You could see the video embed, kind of, without going to the channel, so to speak.
	You would deny traffic to the original source by doing that, and you deny the original source the benefits of, you know, selling ad space on the original source.
	Fine.
	That I could understand.
	A tax merely to link back to the original source, I cannot see it accomplishing any purpose whatsoever other than simply saying, you guys make a lot of money, and we want some of that money.
	But then some people are going to say, well...
	It's not the government that's getting that money, although the CRTC is now further empowered to govern Canadian internet.
	They say, well, that money's not going to the government.
	That money's going to who?
	That money's going to go to the links to whom it's being linked to, even though they get the benefit of the redirect of the traffic to the original source so they can sell ad space.
	They say, okay, that's not going to benefit the government.
	It's going to benefit the outlet.
	Do you remember that?
	That new law, holy crabapples.
	Was it the online disinformation?
	The question about prioritizing Canadian content.
	I forget which law that was now.
	Prioritizing Canadian content so that it ranks higher in Google search engines.
	Do you see how this works together?
	What's going to happen?
	Jeez Louise, I can't remember the number of that law.
	Oh, whatever.
	Prior...
	Oh, the Online Streaming Act, which was governing online content the way television and radio is governed.
	Prioritize Canadian content.
	Promote it in search engines.
	Which outlets do you think are going to get promoted based on the Online Streaming Act?
	It sure as hell is not going to be Rebel News, True North, and Viva Fright.
	Sure as sugar it's not going to be that.
	You know who it's going to be?
	CBC, Radio Canada, Radio Canada, Global, Toronto Star.
	So they're going to get promoted in the search engines.
	At the same time, the government is now compelling the search engines to pay a link tax to link to the sources that are now getting prioritized, which is legacy media.
	Am I crazy?
	I'm not crazy.
	I might be crazy, but I'm right.
	They're going to manipulate the search results so that Canadian content is going to get ranked higher.
	What they determined to be not Canadian content is going to get penalized.
	Those that get ranked higher are now going to be in the higher search results of internet search engines.
	Traffic is going to get reflexively directed there.
	You go to the first, second, or third link that you get in Google search, whatever.
	Then the government comes in and says, now you've got to pay a link tax to those.
	It's not going to us.
	It's just going to the people that are now coming up in the search engines.
	The people whose links are being shared on Facebook and promoted on Facebook.
	Oh!
	This is an indirect way of subsidizing the legacy media that cannot compete in the free market of the internet.
	It is nothing less than that.
	The Online Streaming Act to penalize non-Canadian content is nothing but a disguised attempt to penalize the unfavorable outlets and prioritize and promote and give a leg up to the legacy media propagandists who cannot succeed any longer on the interwebs and whom nobody is watching.
	On television or listening to on the radio.
	That is all that it's attempting to do.
	And if you don't see it, maybe now you'll put this together.
	I am connecting the dots.
	All right.
	So I cannot think of a steel man argument to say that it makes sense to compel a link tax when all that Google and Facebook is doing is diverting through the link to the original source.
	It makes no sense except for exactly what I just said, and in which case it makes total sense.
	Google comes out.
	Which one was it?
	I think it was Meta.
	Facebook says, well, we're not linking anything anymore.
	Google has a more conciliatory tone behind closed doors, allegedly.
	Well, Pablo Rodriguez comes out and then really, really, really says the quiet part out loud.
	This is Pablo Rodriguez.
	You will see his face on future shirts, much like Stalin and Che Guevara.
	Tyrants who socialists of the future are going to say, These guys knew how to do it.
	I'll tell you what.
	They knew how to gain control over a society, how to make sure that they propped up government pravda, state-funded propaganda, while calling it independent free press.
	Pablo Rodriguez.
	We have decided to take...
	This is in response to Meta saying, we're not linking through anymore.
	The government.
	Pablo Rodriguez.
	Hold on.
	What is he?
	He's Minister of Heritage, right?
	Okay, so Minister of Canadian Heritage.
	It's funny.
	It's ironic because I don't think he was born in Canada.
	It's very ironic to have...
	I think he was not born in...
	I think he was born in Argentina.
	And it's very ironic to have a non-Canadian be the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
	What that...
	I don't say this is a judgmental thing.
	It's just a purely obvious...
	What would someone who's...
	Whose history is not in Canada, be able to ascertain of Canadian heritage.
	In a way, maybe he's going to be more patriotic, having come here and made it his home.
	That's the steel man.
	I might, if I ever become American citizen, I might be the most patriotic American because I made the decision to go there.
	Maybe that's Pablo's case as well.
	Or maybe he doesn't understand Canadian heritage whatsoever.
	And having someone who was not born in Canada has no historical family ties to Canada might not be the best pick for Canadian Minister of Canadian Heritage.
	Those are the two arguments.
	Pick whichever one you think is the best.
	He tweets, We cannot continue paying advertising dollars to Meta while they refuse to bend the knee to our outrage.
	Oh, I'm sorry, that's not what it says.
	While they refuse to pay their fair share to Canadian news organizations.
	Oh!
	Oh my goodness!
	I just now actually saw that specific phraseology.
	He's confirming.
	He's putting together the dots, people.
	While they refuse to pay their fair share to Canadian news agencies.
	Do you know how much?
	I mean, you all know it because you watch the channel and you hear me rant and rave about it like a lunatic.
	They're pulling funding.
	They cannot continue to support Facebook, Meta, while they continue to refuse to pay their fair share to Canadian, what was the word?
	To Canadian news organizations.
	Do you know how much, let's see in the chat, how much money the CBC and Radio Canada gets from the government annually?
	Direct funding.
	$1.2 billion, I believe.
	CBC and Radio Canada get direct taxpayer subsidizing of $1.2 billion.
	Last I checked.
	I might be wrong, but I'll be wrong on the low end, not the high end.
	Direct.
	But Pablo Rodriguez, what he's saying here right now also is, well, they get a lot of indirect government subsidies, and that comes by way of government, federal, provincial spending.
	Advertising.
	I've been saying this since...
	I mean, look, it's not...
	I was late to the party.
	So I'll toot my horn for having gotten there, but I will kick my own butt for having gotten there late.
	Direct...
	There is direct bailout money.
	The Canadian printed media got $600 million bailout.
	Print media.
	I made a mistake once upon...
	Oh, that's another correction I can actually indicate to someone who says I never admit when I'm wrong.
	I corrected myself.
	That 600 million bailout did not go to digital media.
	It went to print media.
	Failing, flailing, rubbish print media that nobody wants to read and nobody even wants to line their birdcage with.
	600 million direct bailout to print media in Canada.
	Radio Canada, CBC, they're state-funded, they're crown entities.
	They get 1.2 billion direct funding.
	What's another way to subsidize these entities that doesn't go through direct funding?
	Indirect advertising dollars.
	And they got tons of it.
	Quebec spent $152 million on advertising?
	COVID advertising.
	I think it was messaging.
	The government spends hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising.
	Where do they advertise?
	Well, it's quite clear right now they will make the decision not to advertise if they don't agree with the ideology of the platform on which they're advertising.
	People don't really fully appreciate.
	What they're saying right now is we give direct funding to purchase compliance, and we also give indirect funding by way of advertising dollars to ensure compliance.
	And, oh, what's that?
	Meta's gone rogue?
	Well, piss off.
	We're not going to advertise on you.
	You know what?
	They're pulling like $11.4 million in advertising from Meta.
	From what I understand, it's like one-tenth of one percent of Meta's revenue.
	And Meta says, fuck off.
	I don't care.
	Take your stupid advertising dollars.
	I'm not CBC.
	I'm not Global News.
	I'm not Toronto Star.
	I don't need a pissly $11 million in advertising from you.
	And I'm not bending the knee under that threat.
	But you know who else has to?
	Flailing and failing media outlets have to toe the line or we pull our indirect funding by way of advertising dollars.
	They threaten to do it to Radio X. And by the way, it's not just that they're doing it at the federal level.
	Let me just pull up an article here.
	They're doing it at the provincial level too.
	It's like one tyrant learned from the other.
	It's amazing how that works.
	Cripe, where's that article?
	Was it this one?
	Let me see if it was this one.
	No, it was not this one.
	Close that down.
	Francois Legault said, yeah, we're not going to pay either at the provincial level.
	Canada government pulls advertising.
	Yeah, I think it's this.
	Here we go.
	This is it, Politico.
	Is this one we looked at already?
	Heritage Minister announced Wednesday that his government plans to cut off advertising spending to Facebook and Instagram.
	A move designed to deprive the tech giant of millions in revenue.
	Oh!
	You know, that would scare CBC.
	That would scare Radio-Canada.
	That would scare CJAD, those filthy, frothing-at-the-mouth, raging, venom-spewing propagandists.
	I won't forget you guys, CJAD, listening to you talk about what should be done to the unvaccinated.
	Listening to you talk about the guy that smashed an egg on Maxime Bernier's head was a gentleman.
	Oh, and Maxime Bernier, after being physically assaulted at a protest, he was never in fear for his life, but the dude who threw gravel at Justin Trudeau should be locked away for life.
	CJD, they've all blocked me.
	Disgusting.
	Judge a man by the character he habitually uses in conversation.
	I flatter a lot of people as well, so don't worry.
	Okay.
	Meta doesn't need that millions of dollars.
	Other legacy media do.
	Does.
	Other legacy media does.
	This is how the government ensures compliance.
	This is how the government turns free and independent media into government lapdogs and not government watchdogs.
	How they turn them into government propagandists.
	How they get full compliance by having created a relationship of full dependence.
	Rodriguez singled out Meta.
	Who cares?
	Meta and Google have signaled their intention to block Canadian news.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Good cop, bad cop.
	There's a great Quebec movie called Bon Cop, Bad Cop.
	It's a good one.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Choice words.
	Asked by a reporter about text giant's influence on Canadian society, Rodriguez piled on the adjectives.
	Their superpowers, talking about the government.
	Their huge, talking about the government.
	Their rich, talking about the government.
	The powerful, talking about himself in government.
	Lots of big lawyers, themselves in government.
	They can be intimidating, them in government.
	But are we going to let ourselves be intimidated?
	He says, as he tries to intimidate them, by cutting off what he thinks is a meaningful amount of advertising dollars.
	It's pathological.
	It's Goebbels-level accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing so as to create confusion.
	If governments and politicians can't stand up against that kind of bullying and intimidation, who will?
	You are the bully, Pablo.
	You are the intimidator, Pablo.
	And you bloody well know it.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	Oh, Senator Elizabeth Warren never misses her chance.
	I'm going to have to see this one in a second.
	She tweeted her support for Bill C-18.
	Yep.
	Closer to home.
	Quebecor, a media giant that owns Videotron TVA.
	These are all Quebec things.
	No, they're not.
	This is national as well.
	And the Journal de Montréal announced a move Wednesday that mirrored Ottawa's ad spend.
	Effective immediately and until further notice, Quebecor is withdrawing from all advertising by its subsidiaries and businesses units from Facebook and Instagram.
	Oh, isn't that amazing?
	What's next?
	The regulatory process.
	Now that C-18 is the law of the land, the government must draft regulations that determine how the bill will be applied and implemented.
	Rodriguez is leaning heavily on Google and Meta's participation in the coming months.
	As far as I understand it, it's not, well, I guess it's the government must draft the regulations, but it's not Pablo Rodriguez.
	It's actually, it's the commission that has the authority of applying the law that is now going to draft the rules and regulations as to how they're going to interpret and apply the law.
	Compare that to the basically overturning of the Chevron deference in the United States of America.
	American Supreme Court in the last couple of weeks has moved towards freedom.
	Canada has moved towards government control over literally what you see and read on the internet.
	But it's not them.
	It's Google that's doing it.
	Bullcrap.
	And this entire law was intended to do nothing more than redirect to good government propaganda and to get them even more money because Google would have to negotiate with CBC, CTV, Global News, Toronto Star when they link to their prioritized results in search engines.
	It's a money grab.
	It is them doing indirectly what they are already doing directly in the order of billions of dollars.
	Let's see what Elizabeth Warren had to say.
	Local journalism is vital for democracy.
	Are you an idiot?
	The local journalism in Canada is state-funded.
	It's unacceptable for companies like Google and Facebook to abuse their power and cut off access to news.
	Oh my...
	Elizabeth, you're an idiot.
	I'm sorry to use adjectives that might be an indication of me.
	You're an idiot.
	And a liar, by the way.
	But we all knew that.
	Leaders are right to stand firm against these tactics and push back against big techs.
	Freeloading off local news.
	You're an idiot.
	You're a propagandist.
	You don't know what you're talking about.
	And you're a liar.
	One one-thousandth Native American.
	Less Native American than the average random American.
	Kudos, Liz.
	Okay.
	Let's go to the chat here and see what's going on.
	Hey, we got rants.
	Hold on one second.
	We got rants, people.
	I got worms.
	That's dumb and dumber.
	Okay, hold on.
	And I can see Chet's in there.
	I see Chet's got a very distinct black and white checkered avatar.
	Let's see what's going on.
	Oh, that's me.
	Hold on a second.
	I don't want to hear my voice.
	Andrea Tuchelescu, who's got a wonderfully beautiful shepherd.
	It might be a Belgian shepherd.
	200,000 and growing without power in Montreal.
	Looks like the grid is failing.
	Ah, shit.
	I got a tent.
	I can head to the forest.
	It's hot, so I guess people are overloading the grid.
	They're going to have rolling blackouts in Quebec.
	CA Canada's got to turn into CA California.
	Andre, thank you for the news.
	I hadn't heard that.
	I'll look into it.
	Mandatory carry.
	Hashtag keep fighting.
	Mand carry.
	Thank you very much.
	Nice to see you again.
	Chet Chisholm.
	Don't worry, Viva.
	I will call them all a bunch of...
	So you don't have to.
	That's what friends are for.
	Well, I actually went to Wikipedia to see if David Levitt was British.
	Because the only people who could use the word CNX Tuesdays without...
	Being misogynists are the Brits.
	It's their birthright.
	It sounds cool when they do it.
	It sounds funny.
	It's in every good movie.
	They're the only ones.
	Everyone else, especially men, referring to women unironically as C-U-N-T's.
	I will end my sentence there.
	Nike7, how will this affect True North, Rebel, etc.?
	This.
	True North and Rebel.
	I think they survive off the Alex Jones Infowars model.
	I don't think they rely on search engine preferences because I don't think they've been getting it.
	And I believe they've been getting censored for a very long time on YouTube, Facebook, etc.
	So I don't think it's going to affect them because I think that they have already built their business model off being suppressed and censored.
	Where it would be much more difficult is if when the online streaming act...
	Jesus, hold on a second.
	Let me just refresh my memory here.
	There's like way too much to remember.
	Online Streaming Act passed.
	It passed Parliament.
	It passed the Senate.
	The Online Streaming Act at the Senate.
	Did it not just pass?
	Online Streaming Act passed Canada Senate.
	Online Streaming Act, August 27th, passes Parliament.
	that's April 27th, contracts, Controversial bill to regulate online streaming becomes law.
	No, it became law.
	Okay.
	I feel like I'm going crazy.
	So anyways, I don't think it's going to negatively affect Rebel News for the time being.
	Yeah, it just passed.
	C-11.
	Yeah, but did it pass the Senate?
	Because I recall...
	No, it did.
	And I was watching...
	Oh, J.J. McCullough.
	Okay, it passed.
	The Senate asked them to make some suggestions, recommended changes, which they didn't do.
	Okay.
	I'm going to have to go refresh my memory.
	I feel like Homer Simpson.
	Every time I learn something new, it pushes something old out of my head.
	Like the time I did the wine tasting course and I forgot how to drive.
	Okay.
	And that's what's going on with Canada being turned into a hermit kingdom.
	Tyrannical regime under the pretext of protecting independent journalism.
	Bullshit.
	They know damn well what they're doing.
	And they're doing it.
	They're getting away with it.
	And the biggest problem of all is a lot of Canadians either don't care or actually support this.
	Okay.
	Oh, we got more, people.
	We got more.
	Let's see.
	What is Canada, says AlbinoViper420.
	Welcome to the Middle Ages, VZ says Nature Loving Freedom.
	It's the Dark Ages.
	And then they're going to end up trying to criminalize VPNs.
	There's no question.
	There's absolutely no question.
	We're not starving in Canada, so not quite North Korea, says JanK01.
	And I'll say the same thing that I say all the time to that.
	Same direction, different distance.
	And history doesn't repeat, but it tends to run.
	And I did just watch the interview with Seth Rogen and James Franco.
	It was a good movie.
	Okay.
	I think that's it for Canadian Pravda.
	That is it.
	Pablo Rodriguez.
	Okay, hold on.
	This is it.
	Okay, I'm going to close this down and just clear up some bookmarks in the backdrop.
	David Levitt.
	What was this?
	Oh, yes.
	That was him claiming victimhood after actually Verbally abusing women.
	It's amazing.
	And then we got this.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	The cocaine people.
	This is it.
	I always say they think we're stupid.
	They think we believe the lies.
	They don't think we're stupid.
	They don't think we believe the lies.
	It's the absolute sign of total power.
	When you can lie to people's faces, And know that they have no choice but to listen to it.
	They don't think people believe their outrageous lies, but they have the power to say it and then tell you to piss off if you don't believe them.
	The news of the week, Monday, I remembered seeing some tweets saying, cocaine found at the White House.
	Then I saw someone saying...
	It wasn't cocaine.
	It was just Ventolin or inhalers.
	And now I don't know in retrospect if they were being ironic or sarcastic.
	But like with a lot of these early breaking stories, you don't want to jump on it.
	You don't want to say, hey, they found cocaine and blame it on Hunter Biden because it might not have been cocaine.
	It might have been, what's that other white powder?
	Anthrax?
	You know, it might have been something else.
	Or it might be cocaine.
	It might not be Hunter Biden.
	Who knows?
	You don't want to jump on it too early.
	You don't want to be wrong.
	And you don't want to have been wrong because you jumped on the early version of the story that supported your politics, your ideological leanings, your biases.
	So I saw the story.
	I left it alone.
	And no, no, no, no, no.
	Not only is it cocaine.
	The White House was evacuated because of a white substance.
	Don't worry, everybody.
	It's not anthrax.
	It's just cocaine in the White House.
	How did it get there?
	How dare you jump to the most obvious conclusion?
	It's not...
	Look, Occam's razor is, you know, that's addict shaming.
	If you jump on the fact that it was clearly Hunter Biden, you're addict shaming, you're not letting people heal from their mistakes, whatever, whatever.
	There's some very interesting videos out there.
	I'm not even jumping to that.
	Because the White House has told me it's very likely that they will not find the culprit of who brought cocaine into the White House.
	So this is Politico.
	And I think Politico leans a little more center-right.
	I don't think they're like full-blown left.
	I feel like an idiot because I read enough of their stuff to not...
	I should know, but it doesn't matter.
	I don't know if this is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek sarcasm or they're expected.
	Lines may have been snorted and crossed, but it's possible we won't know by whom.
	Law enforcement officials confirmed on Wednesday that cocaine was found at the White House over the weekend.
	Now some people are going to say, Viva, you're a hypocrite.
	You don't believe the law enforcement when they tell you that the Hunter Biden laptop bears the earmarks of Russian disinformation, but you're going to believe them now.
	It is prejudicial admissions made against the interests of the party that will be more reliable than bullshit propaganda to defend the guilty party.
	When law enforcement has to come out and confirm that it was in fact cocaine at the White House, that is a prejudicial admission made against the interests of a party.
	And yes, I will give it more credibility and more weight than the White House coming out and saying, it was just chalk.
	Someone, you know, a little kid was in there with a chalk and they rubbed off all the chalk like kids do with the whiteboards and then they put it in a little bag and they were...
	Yeah, that I wouldn't believe.
	I will believe them when they confirm cocaine was found in the White House.
	But one official familiar with the investigation cautioned...
	Don't get your hopes up, people.
	It's only the White House.
	It's only that we know everybody who steps foot in the frickin' White House in the log.
	We know that Epstein was there.
	We know that.
	I don't know who else was that I can't think of.
	Don't get your hopes up, people.
	We might not ever know who was doing lines of cocaine in the White House.
	The source of the drug was unlikely to be determined given it was discovered in a highly trafficked area of the West Wing.
	I'm sorry.
	I thought you were going to say given that it was found in an area with no cameras, totally secretive.
	And we wouldn't believe it.
	Oh, no, no.
	It was in an area that was highly trafficked and therefore, in all likelihood, highly surveilled.
	They don't think we're stupid.
	Nobody's stupid enough to believe this shit.
	They just know that they have the power to spew it.
	And I said once upon a time with Hillary Clinton, true power is getting people to lie for you.
	This is true power.
	A lie so brazen.
	Everybody knows it's a lie.
	And nobody has the power to say, you're goddamn liars.
	You think I'm stupid?
	There was cocaine found in the White House.
	Did they not find, ultimately, who sent the anthrax to the White House?
	They did.
	I know there's a hush-hush to that at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	The small amount of cocaine was found in a cubby area for storing electronics within the West Exec basement entryway into the West Wing.
	Where many people have authorized access, including staff or visitors, coming in for wing tours.
	You see what they're doing here, by the way?
	Persuasion.
	It could have been anybody.
	It could have been staff.
	As if that's going to be the defense.
	My prediction, by the way, that is going to be the defense.
	Don't worry, people.
	It wasn't crackhead Hunter Biden's.
	It wasn't crackhead felonious firearm acquiring Hunter Biden's cocaine.
	It was somebody else's.
	Move away.
	Sorry.
	What's the expression?
	Move along.
	Nothing to see here.
	Asked what the chances were of finding the culprit.
	The official said that, quote, it's going to be very difficult for us to do that because of where it was.
	Bullshit!
	Sorry, I'm swearing.
	Even if there were surveillance cameras.
	Even if.
	Are you suggesting that an explanation might be that there were no surveillance cameras?
	Okay, because that's what even if means.
	It should be read...
	Despite the fact that there are surveillance cameras there, unless you were waving it around, it may not have been caught by the cameras, added the official, who spoke on a condition of anonymity given it's an ongoing investigation.
	It's a bit of a thoroughfare.
	People walk by there all the time.
	Wow, that's amazing.
	During her press briefing Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed Politico's reporting that the cocaine was found in an area heavily traveled by staff and visitors.
	There you go, second time, by the way.
	She also emphasized that President Joe Biden and his family left Washington on Friday and returned Tuesday in time for the White House annual celebration.
	Oh, so it was found when they weren't there, so it wasn't Hunter.
	Don't worry about it, people.
	Jean-Pierre declined to offer more details.
	That's not surprising.
	Let's let the Secret Service do their job.
	Which Secret Service?
	Is it the same one that said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation?
	Or bore the earmarks of Russian disinformation?
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Which we believe and have all the confidence.
	I'll get to the bottom of this.
	I thought I said an uninformed.
	A uniformed division officer of the Secret Service found the cocaine on Sunday night around 6 p.m.
	Since the officer didn't know what the substance was, he tested it.
	I'm joking.
	The security posture at the White House was temporarily escalated.
	The D.C. Fire Department was called.
	Material was deemed non-hazardous.
	And then they had a party and sent for additional testing.
	So it's cocaine.
	Is that not stunning?
	How they are incapable of finding...
	Don't get your hopes up, people.
	I mean, we tracked down every single person that stepped foot in, near, or around the Capitol building on January 6th.
	We raided houses in Alaska.
	Sometimes, you know, arguably the wrong house in Alaska.
	We tracked down every...
	Oh!
	Oh, hold on a second.
	Almost everybody.
	It's amazing what they can do when they want to and what they can't do when you don't want to.
	Hold on a second.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Oh, yeah.
	Look, every now and again, I'm happy with my tweets, okay?
	Can't find...
	Is this the first one or the second one?
	Can't find scaffolding men.
	Y 'all remember that guy on the scaffolding orchestrating January 6th?
	They found everybody else.
	They found Adam Johnson, the lectern guy.
	They found Baked Alaska.
	They found Enrico Tarrio.
	They found Jacob and Jelly, the QAnon shaman.
	They found the grandma who was walking around.
	They found everybody, people.
	They found everyone and their grandmothers.
	Can't find scaffolding men.
	The dude on the scaffolding telling people where to go, like William Wallace from Bravehearts.
	Can't find the SCOTUS-Dobbs decision.
	Do you remember that thing, that once upon a time?
	A Supreme Court decision draft or unfinished or decision was leaked to the media.
	The Dobbs, you remember that?
	Can't find the leaker.
	There's nine justices.
	What are there, 30 staff members?
	Can't find the leak.
	It's like there's no metadata on a document that's been leaked.
	They don't know who.
	Can't find the SCOTUS Dobbs decision leaker.
	Can't find a crime charge for Ray Epps.
	Can't find the guy who placed the pipe bombs.
	Y 'all remember the pipe bombs that were placed?
	It was the January 5th or January 6th.
	Can't find a guy who placed the pipe bombs.
	But my goodness, they deployed facial recognition, visa cards, all the stuff.
	They found everybody that they wanted to charge and send to jail, except Ray Epps, except Scaffolding Man, except the guy who put the pipe bombs there.
	Can't find who bought the cocaine at the White House.
	It's amazing what they can't find when they don't want to find what they should be looking for.
	But then I had another one because I thought of...
	I don't really want to sign up.
	Well, come on, man.
	I forgot about a few.
	They can't find the video surveillance footage from Jeffrey Epstein's cell.
	Oh, because it was corrupt.
	They can't find any customers of his international pedophile trafficking ring.
	Can't find it.
	Can't find that.
	What were the other ones I couldn't find?
	I feel like I'm turning into a cranky old man.
	Hold on.
	I just want to see what else I couldn't find.
	I had a few.
	I want to get a training.
	Hashtag can't find.
	Can't find the list of clients.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	They can't find the culprit for the Nord Stream pipeline.
	It's amazing.
	Because unless they're looking in the mirror, of course they're not going to be able to find them.
	I'm looking this way.
	I can't see me.
	Can't find.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Can't find.
	Hashtag can't find.
	Oh.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, the Aussies, bro.
	Andre Tikalusko says the Aussies get to say the sea next Tuesday word as well.
	Maybe.
	But only the Brits, actually.
	Maybe the Scots as well.
	The Scottish, for sure.
	In fact, they might be the only ones who get to say it, yeah.
	All right, so they can't find it.
	Don't get your hopes up.
	They will not find who brought cocaine into the White House.
	Don't worry, it wasn't Hunter Biden.
	It was those coke-addled staffers.
	Nothing to see here, but my goodness, they're going to go after Trump for everything.
	It is depressing.
	They got trans people flashing their fake boobies on the front lawns.
	They've got cocaine in the White House.
	They've got the felony firearm applying son of the president, the drug addicted son of the president, the millionaire tax evading.
	What otherwise ought to have been felony criminal, son of the president, in the White House, having a party on 4th of July.
	The president, and you want to talk about quid pro quo, firing Ukrainian prosecutors under threat of withholding billions of dollars in aid.
	There is a criminal regime in the White House.
	A corrupt criminal regime in the White House, and they are prosecuting and persecuting Trump for everything they have done, continue to do, and will probably, oh my goodness, will probably continue to do for much, much longer.
	It's stunning.
	Okay.
	Don't worry, you're not going to find out who got the coke.
	Okay.
	I want to talk about a funny one the other day.
	Holy cows.
	CNBC put out a stunner.
	A stunner of an article.
	Let me see if I can pull it up because I didn't bring it up just yet.
	Oh, well, no, hold on a second.
	Hold on.
	Let me just go here and show you this.
	This is the party at the White House, people.
	Don't worry.
	Nothing to see here.
	I don't know what it looks like.
	Like I said, I've never done cocaine.
	I don't know what it looks like, but I know fishiness when I see fishiness.
	I am an avid fisherman.
	And I That's very noisy.
	In fact, I've never done cocaine, but I know body language when I see body language.
	Let's just go frame by frame here.
	That's Hunter Biden in the backdrop.
	Puts his hands on his head.
	We don't know what he does today.
	And then he seems to be rubbing his nose.
	Right there.
	And look at Jill's face.
	Okay.
	Do you know what that is?
	That's look away, honey.
	That's look away face right there.
	I'm not looking over my shoulder because I know what's behind me.
	Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm projecting.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'm seeing things that are not there because of my own political biases.
	I can understand that.
	Look at that face.
	Ignore the problem, honey.
	Anyone ever see that movie?
	We need to talk about...
	We need to talk about Kevin.
	This is look away and do not...
	Oh, and pretend to...
	Oh, my God.
	Honey, he's...
	Honey, honey, he's right behind us.
	Look at that.
	Look at this right here.
	Here, I'm going to do a voice.
	Honey, look over your shoulder.
	He's doing something again.
	Mm-hmm.
	That is exactly what that looks like.
	Okay.
	Done.
	Sorry, that's not law.
	That's body language reading, and I believe I'm good.
	Okay.
	There was one more good story here, people.
	Oh, that's right.
	I was trying to look for the CNBC article where they talk about people putting pronouns on their job applications are more likely to be overlooked.
	Here.
	Shocker.
	Here.
	Let's just go here.
	Okay, it's right here.
	CNBC.
	Here.
	Resumes including they, them pronouns are more likely to be...
	Overlooked.
	New report finds.
	And let's just go to this.
	Let's go to this report.
	And it's just, it states.
	And I love it.
	They're only with they, them right now.
	What about the Zayzers and the, there's 26 different pronouns, I think, from what I understand.
	Resumes including they, them.
	And what I love here is they're going to start with the least, if there's a hierarchy of least objectionable preferred pronouns, they, them would be right up there.
	Would be the number one of the least objectionable.
	I think second most objectionable would be he for a her and her for a him or she and she and he him for a female.
	And then after that, the other more objectionable ones would be zay, zers, zings, whatever they are because there's a lot and I actually watched a TikTok video and I thought my brain was going to melt at the pronouns, the zay, zers.
	They, them is the only grammatically justifiable one sometimes because if you don't know someone's gender, you go with the gender neutral description they, them.
	Or if you're talking about someone in the plural, then it's they, them.
	So they start with this like, oh, it's terrible, eh?
	If you judge someone for putting they, them in their resume, you're wrong.
	If they had put in the Zaser, I think most people, I don't think anybody would say, well, of course I'm going to probably gloss over that resume if someone expects me to refer to them as Zaser.
	Resumes including they, them pronouns are more likely to be overlooked new report finds.
	And that report was conducted by...
	No shit, Sherlock.
	Inclusivity shouldn't just be present in the workplace.
	It should be practiced during the hiring process as well.
	But unfortunately, non-binary job seekers are facing clear biases during their job search.
	According to a new report from business.com, a business resource platform over 80% of non-binary people believe that identifying as non-binary would hurt their job search.
	Similarly, 51%...
	Can you imagine if I just put, I'm heterosexual?
	Here's a job application.
	I'm a lawyer.
	Let's see here.
	I don't know.
	What's a good law firm in the States?
	Can't remember the name of it.
	I'm applying for a law degree, and I put heterosexual in my description.
	I would expect to be looked over as well.
	I would expect to say, I don't give a sweet bugger all about your sexual orientation.
	In the best possible way.
	It's not even don't ask, don't tell.
	I don't care.
	Do your thing, man.
	Put it on a resume.
	You are showing wildly inappropriate judgment.
	So go ahead.
	If I put heterosexual and they look over mine, do I get to claim discrimination?
	Ryan McGonagill.
	Another man who can use the word see you next Tuesday with immunity.
	Director of industry research at business.com and author of reports says these statistics show just how much work there is to be done around diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in the workplace.
	We clearly have more work to do on several fronts.
	Over the past years, DEIB, what is that?
	Diversity, equity, inclusion, and what's the B, people?
	And belonging.
	Have been prioritized by many companies.
	However, the results of this study and past research show that teams in most industries aren't proportionally representative of the U.S. population.
	Companies should have clearly oriented initiatives and timelines for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion.
	I thought there was belonging in there as well, in the workplace.
	All right, phantom presume.
	They go on to say, put it in your resume, gender pronouns, call me they, them, and you're more likely to be looked over.
	Now, some people are going to call that discrimination, and other people are going to call that common sense, in that it has nothing to do with gender orientation.
	It has to do with politics.
	And if you slapped on, on your resume, BLM, and it's for a standard law position, or, you know, working at a depaneur, working at a grocery store, yeah, nobody wants your politics.
	In office space.
	And what invariably happens, or what that is an indication of to many people.
	And this is a real politic analysis.
	Set aside how I feel about this personally.
	This is a real politic analysis.
	When someone basically comes in saying, I'm going to compel your speech, I'm going to be very political, and I'm going to bring in outside issues of social issues into the workplace.
	That is a surefire indication there will be headaches, there will be lawsuits, the person is going to be prone to slight, to verbal slights, and the person is going to bring politics, bring social issues, and bring strife into the workplace.
	It's a real politic analysis, and it has nothing to do with the they-them.
	It would be the same if someone said, I'm heterosexual, hashtag BLM, hashtag defund the CBC.
	Someone puts that on a resume?
	At a job that has nothing to do with that, you're going to raise some flags.
	And I showed the reality of what happens with this by talking about one of the decisions that came out of Quebec.
	Not Quebec, out of British Columbia, out of Canada.
	Sorry.
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	We all remember that decision out of British Columbia where...
	Oh, you know what the problem is?
	It's in the actual...
	The decision out of British Columbia where someone hired a transgender employee knowing they were trans.
	They had gotten the warning.
	They had gotten forewarned.
	They hired the trans person who then came in and began dictating policy, claiming slights from words that were being used, which, you know, Lord knows what the environment was like by the time...
	The poo-poo hit the fan internally at this small restaurant on the Sunshine Coast of British Columbia.
	What's my problem here?
	I just lost this.
	Okay.
	Real politic analysis is not going to care about your opinions, your feelings.
	The movement for women's rights, feminism, the hashtag MeToo movements.
	When that, you know, created the real-time issues for workplace environments that it created, it actually invariably ended up penalizing women instead of protecting them because men were afraid to be working alone with women for fear of accusations of #MeToo.
	It's just the way, if not, neither right nor wrong, although it's entirely predictable.
	Now, let me see how far down my...
	What's going on here?
	Refresh this.
	Oh, for the love of goodness, it doesn't work.
	Here we go.
	It doesn't matter.
	I'm going to bring this up right here.
	The British Columbia decision.
	The employee worked for the restaurant for a month, was hired despite being trans, and then claimed that, and I'm saying they because I don't remember which way this situation was going, claimed that they were fired because they were trans and actually were awarded $30,000.
	Here you go.
	Fired worker awarded $30,000.
	After restaurant coworker used wrong pronouns.
	And then we go, a non-binary transgender restaurant employee in Gibson's who was fired after complaining to the owners about being called she and sweethearts by the bar manager has been awarded $30,000 by the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which upheld a discrimination complaint.
	Now, some people were saying...
	The person, the sentence was, they were not fined $30,000 for misgendering the person.
	They were fined $30,000 for firing the person on the basis of a protected class for them being transgender.
	To which I say, while that might have some argument to it, they were hired despite being known to be transgender.
	And so the idea that they would have hired a person knowing that they were transgender and then fired them.
	Because they were transgender illustrates only the absurdity of the decision and not the legitimacy of it.
	The employee got hired despite forewarning them that they went by they-them pronouns.
	I guess an old-timer behind the counter called people darling and sweethearts in the same way that I get called honey and sweetie sometimes when I go to diners.
	The employee...
	Began raising certain issues about how the restaurant was greeting customers.
	And you can sort of imagine that an employee who's new to a business, who begins making critical policy recommendations to the owners, raising issues about slight, you know, verbal slights that have been called she or sweetheart by the dude, you know, the chef.
	Well, this is what happens.
	And now this restaurant...
	Do you think this restaurant is going to be more inclined to hire people who give the same red flags that led to this $30,000 fine or less inclined?
	When the hashtag MeToo was going wild, do you think people are going to be more inclined to hire women or less inclined?
	I don't have the decision anyhow.
	Where's the decision?
	It was a 42-page decision.
	Man, I can't find it.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	Maybe if I go here, maybe I can find the decision.
	Yes, it was in here.
	It was in here.
	Hold on.
	It doesn't matter.
	I'll find it later.
	I talked about it at the time.
	I covered this.
	I wanted to actually interview the people at the restaurant, but I'm not sure that they're open for a discussion.
	Not avoiding it.
	They probably just don't want any more attention brought to this.
	But they might have learned a lesson.
	So, yeah.
	The obvious.
	This is what we're going to do.
	It's an hour and a half into this.
	We're going to go over to locals, but we're going to end with a video.
	We're going to play us out with a video once I make sure that I haven't forgotten to cover any of the stories.
	We're going to end with a video of Nathaniel Pawlowski.
	Arthur Pavlovsky's son, the Alberta street preacher minister who was locked up, persecuted by the Canadian government, and then they wonder why people start burning down churches in record numbers.
	We're going to end with a very inspirational presentation that his son gave to the European Parliament.
	It's amazing.
	I'm going to share the link with everybody as well.
	But before I do it, let me just make sure here.
	Andre Tuchelescu says, the Aussie bros and then the rest of the rants I've gotten.
	Let me see.
	What everyone here is saying, bell of the bayou.
	I love that.
	I remember the one time I cheated at Wordle, the word was bayou.
	And I cheated because I knew what the word started with and ended with, but I couldn't think of a word.
	And I realized there is no point succeeding at anything if your success was based on cheating.
	Who would have thought that that stupid-ass New York Times Wordle game could lead to a very meaningful lesson of life?
	All right, let me see what else is going on in the chat here.
	So the link...
	To vivabarneslaw.locals.com is in the chat, people.
	Come on over.
	There are 5,000 people.
	How many can we convert?
	Come and become members.
	Advanced warning.
	I'm coming out with a book, a children's book, which we are going to offer to annual subscribers on Locals.
	This is the public announcement I have to make to finally put my book.
	I copyrighted the book.
	I've written it.
	I tried to make a short movie.
	It didn't work.
	I'm going to publish this book.
	Annual subscribers are going to get it.
	It's a kid's book and it's beautiful.
	I need to get the animation in there.
	I'm going to try AI and see how that works.
	Annual subscribers are going to get it for free.
	And that's it.
	Come and join the community.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Wash your link after Sherry.
	What does that mean?
	Ned Toons Rock.
	Gracie M.I. says, I have no issue with being called Hun, Honey, Sweetie, or Sweetheart.
	I grew up with older brothers and understand that they forgot that they forget your name, LOL.
	And that's the funny thing.
	Like, Unlearn 16, you know, the woman that I did a podcast with twice now.
	She calls me Hun.
	I don't take it as an act of aggression or a slight.
	I mean, someone can call me Sweetheart.
	Someone can call me She.
	This is the thought experiment that I actually was thinking of.
	If I put on my resume...
	My pronoun is Jew.
	Call me Jew.
	First of all, the pronouns are such an outrageous act of ideological dominance to tell people how they should refer to you when you're not there.
	Because when someone's talking one-on-one, they're not using pronouns.
	They're not calling you she, her.
	They're calling you you and your name.
	When someone says, I'm a she, he, whatever, they, they, they're telling you what to do with your mouth and your brain when you're talking to someone else about them.
	I find that ideologically offensive.
	It's an act of ideological domination.
	But what if I said, call me Jew.
	I am Jewish, so I can get away with it.
	It's not like, call me black, that wouldn't work.
	Call me Jew.
	My pronoun is Jew.
	When you talk about me with somebody else, call me Jew.
	Are we going to call them a bigot for not adhering to my unilateral, capricious demands when talking about me to somebody else?
	Is somebody else going to say, I'm not comfortable doing that?
	Now, it's almost a little bit more justifiable in the sense that, at the very least, it's culturally, religiously accurate, as opposed to saying, call me a she if I'm a he, and defy your own biological conscience.
	That was the thought.
	Let's do that.
	Let's have racial pronouns now and see how far that goes.
	My pronouns are Count Dankula.
	That's a lie, preambulist, because unless it's Count Dankula in the chat, you are appropriating the Count's pronouns.
	Okay, so that's it.
	I sent the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Come on over and watch the party over there.
	There are a number of rants, and we're going to have a wonderful...
	We're going to have a wonderful discussion there.
	I just saw USA Now's comment.
	It says, FFS, for freak's sake, Viva, those taking offense is a tool to fracture society.
	I agree.
	With our above-average commentary, in our above-average community, on our wildly beautiful vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	Okay, that's it.
	Done.
	Viva Fry for merch.
	Thank you all for the rumble rants.
	Let's go on over.
	We're going to end with...
	It's a five or six minute video, so I'm going to...
	I feel guilty playing the whole thing because I want people to go watch it in its original format.
	I'm going to give everybody the link to this.
	I guess it's European Parliament.
	Look, I don't think Artur Pawlowski is going to get mad at me for playing it on my channel.
	There's the link.
	Please copy that link.
	Share this with everybody because it's something to behold to watch.
	And we're going to watch it right now if I can find the window that I just opened to watch it.
	Okay.
	Let's go.
	Let's do this.
	Relaxez nos professionnels!
	Hey, hey, ça va passer trop vite là!
	Okay, whoever made that ad, it went too fast.
	Terrible.
	My name is Nathaniel Pawlowski from Canada.
	You don't know what to do?
	I'm going to stop after Nathaniel's speech, and then you can go watch the part where Arthur Pawlowski speaks.
	That way it'll direct everybody to watch this afterwards.
	Enjoy this, and I'm going to see you all at Locals, and we're going to carry this on there.
	See you soon, peeps.
	I'm going to speak about the consequences of abuse of power under the guise of health.
	Set out by the WHO framework that local governments take upon themselves to implement.
	One commentary.
	Compare this.
	Nathaniel Pawlowski, Arthur Pawlowski's son.
	The intellectual beauty, observational accuracy of this generational Commentary.
	Compare this to George Soros and his son.
	I mean, it's like, it's sharpness, it's astute observations, it's rights, it's actual freedoms, and it's incomparable.
	And yet one is demonized and persecuted to the fullest extent of the powers of the government, and the other one is manipulating the government to do his bidding.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	I'm the son of Pastor Arthur Pawlowski.
	Who you will hear in just a minute.
	I am here today in desperation.
	A cry for help.
	I would like to stand here and tell you all the things about freedom and democracy that I like.
	But I no longer know those things.
	They have been taken away from us Canadians.
	Canada has fallen.
	We no longer have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or the right to protest or assemble or associate or express ourselves or have free media or disagree with the government.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	We do have freedom.
	We have the freedom to protest when and where the government says under penalty of destruction of one's life.
	We have the freedom of religion just when the government says that you can open your churches.
	You have the freedom of conscience and you have the freedom of mobility, except you have the freedom of association, except you have the freedom of speech, except we got a lot of hate laws, hate speech laws out there.
	Anyone who does so is arrested, charged, and jailed as political dissidents.
	My father was just found guilty of inciting mischief for giving a sermon to the truckers when they went and stood for our rights in 2022.
	A Christian sermon that referenced the solidarity movement was criminal in our government's eyes.
	A charge that has a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
	This case sets a precedent to all Canadians and the world if you allow this to happen, that anybody, including politicians and media, do not have the freedom to say or express what they have on their hearts for fear that what they say is mischief.
	And could be liable to prison.
	Inciting mischief.
	I mean, that's almost as opaque.
	No, it's actually more opaque than seditious conspiracy.
	Conspiring to overthrow the government.
	Inciting mischief.
	It is Orwellian thought police.
	I myself have been charged for preaching and reading the Bible publicly because the government claims the Bible isn't inclusive and is hateful.
	This is what the Canadian government is doing to us.
	In my father's case, the Crown Prosecutor, and I believe in naming names, because our oppressors do not get to get away with this without being named and shamed.
	So the Crown Prosecutor Stephen Johnston and Judge Gordon Crink claimed that when Pastor Arthur, my father, referenced the Solidarity Movement in his 19-minute sermon, it was an act of mischief against the government.
	The very solidarity movement that this parliament reveres and has placards about all over the buildings.
	I think it was...
	I'll double-check while he continues.
	I think it was inciting mischief, which is even more nebulous.
	The peaceful movement that broke the Iron Curtain and repelled the communist hold on Europe.
	The movement the Canadian government condemns and says is unacceptable.
	Thank you.
	So I ask you, the rest of the free world...
	To intercede on Canada's behalf and pressure the Canadian tyrants to stop persecuting law-abiding, free Canadians, especially clergy.
	They simply did their duty and gave hope.
	My father told the truckers to stand for their rights, solidarity style, and to do so peacefully.
	His sentencing is this August 9th, 2023, and if he goes down, we are all lost as Canadians.
	If a pastor goes to prison, what can they do to the rest of us?
	Whatever the hell they want, and they know it.
	I'm just reading, apparently, from the judge.
	He said, I am satisfied Mr. Pavlovsky intended to incite the audience to continue the blockade, intended to incite protesters to commit mischief, Justice Gordon Crink said, as he delivered his verdict in Lethbridge, Alberta on Tuesday.
	For giving a sermon in Canada, They are no better than the tyrants of old.
	So please, I ask you for help and to pressure Canada on this matter and to help us deal with our oppressors who act like modern-day Caligulas.
	I need to go look up Caligula.
	That's a reference that I don't get.
	Trudeau is a modern-day Caligula.
	We cannot allow these mad emperors to be mad.
	I was getting mixed up with Medusa, although I think Justin Trudeau's borderline Medusa.
	Okay, I'm joking.
	And remember, all of this is being done under the guise of health, safety, and protecting us.
	You remember?
	They once did things like this under the pretext of war.
	You know?
	Japanese are the enemy.
	Let's lock up Japanese Americans.
	Now, it's not war anymore.
	You know, the Cold War's over.
	They don't really have that demon.
	Terrorism 9-11 is...
	Out of the consciousness of the next generation.
	Medicine.
	Viruses.
	We're at war with Japan.
	Let's lock up Japanese Americans.
	We're at war with COVID.
	Let's lock up the unvaccinated.
	By stripping our rights and ushering in tyranny, we must not allow Canada to treat its citizens and especially clergy this way.
	The WHO has structured a way to take away our rights.
	And our local governments are doing that.
	Now you will hear my father.
	He will speak via video.
	So this is Pastor Arthur Pawlowski, political prisoner.
	He is a political prisoner.
	And what irritates me a little bit, I'm doing my best to drum up awareness in the American media.
	These should be bigger stories in the States than they currently are.
	All right, now before we end officially, here's the link.
	Go watch the rest of it because Arthur Povlowski speaks and it's beautiful.
	Now, thank you all for being here.
	What day is it today?
	It's Thursday.
	So tomorrow, I'm doing Dave Rubin in the morning.
	I think that's live.
	It's the Friday panel.
	Then I'm doing Eric Hundley.
	I will be on Eric Hundley's stream at noon.
	There might be something that I'm trying to do in between, but I've got a kid's birthday party tomorrow night to celebrate, which would leave me maybe three hours to do it and it might not be enough, but stay tuned.
	I have been known to make the impossible happen.
	And then Sunday night's show is going to be a banger.
	We're going to talk about that Supreme Court.
	No, it wasn't the Supreme Court decision.
	It was a federal judge.
	Biden, stop interfering and stop mingling with...
	Stop pressuring social media to do your bidding for you, which might help a number of other cases that are currently pending.
	RFK Jr., Donald Trump, Stossel.
	You know, a lot of people who've been complaining that...
	Social media has basically been censoring their speech for and on the behalf of and at the behest of the government.
	Gracie says, I love your hair, Vipa.
	You know what I've discovered?
	I'm not washing my hair anymore.
	I've only been using conditioner and I brushed it earlier.
	So just when I brush it, I pull out so much hair, I don't want to lose it.
	I have grown an unhealthy love for my hair and I will feel naked without it.
	But that's childish, superficial, and I'll get over it if and when I ever have to.
	All right, let's do it.
	Ending on the rumbles, going over to the locals.
	Thank you all for being here.
	It was wonderful.
	Enjoy the rest of the day for those of us who are not coming over, but let's see how many we can get over there.
	All right.
	See you tomorrow, people.
	Enjoy the day.
	Booyah.
	All right, locals.
	What do we have here?
	Let us see.
	Okay, we're going to start.
	We're going to go all the way down.
	Never wash your hair too much, says Natalie McClendon.
	I'm done.

▲