Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 30, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:31:38

Elon Goes THERMONUCLEAR! Deadspin Goes COVINGTON! Jack Smith Goes GESTAPO! & MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Your book, presumably you're going to make money from this book.
	Do you feel comfortable making money from this, which ultimately is a tragic story?
	Your book, presumably you're going to make money from this book.
	Do you feel comfortable making money from this, which ultimately is a tragic story?
	Your book, presumably you're going to make money from this book.
	Do you feel comfortable making money from this book?
	Do you feel comfortable making money from this, which ultimately is a tragic story?
	It's not his tragic story.
	It's not his life story thus far.
	Do you feel comfortable making money off tragedy?
	Basically is the question that Piers Morgan is asking Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Now, for those of you who are listening on podcast this afternoon or tomorrow, Or sometime in the future.
	And you don't see the short video that I put together.
	Right now is a headline juxtaposed to Piers Morgan's words.
	Your book, presumably...
	Which says the headline is, The person covering Palestine-Israel best is Piers Morgan?
	How the formerly disgraced British television anchor found a new niche in tragedy.
	What was he disgraced for?
	Someone's got...
	Chat, let me know what he was disgraced for.
	I don't think I remember that offhand.
	That's not the only one.
	You're going to make money from this book.
	Do you feel comfortable making money?
	Piers Morgan turns Israel conflict into infotainment ratings grab, according to another news outlet.
	From this, which ultimately is a tragic story.
	Tragic story.
	Your book...
	Oh, is that the only one?
	Well, that's it.
	You're going to make money from this.
	Holy crabapples.
	I saw the clip on Ian Miles Chong, and I'll play the original clip because we're going to go through that for the intro video today.
	I watched the clip and I was giving Piers Morgan the benefit of the doubt in the initial questions to Kyle Rittenhouse.
	That benefit of the doubt is lost with the accusation, the criticism in others, that someone doing something for money...
	It delegitimizes the substance of what they're saying.
	It could be cause for concern.
	People out on social media promoting political candidates without disclosing that they're being paid for it?
	That's a problem.
	People out on social media promoting political candidates?
	Tooting the fact?
	Disclosing the fact that they're paid for it?
	Okay, it doesn't make them wrong, and it doesn't allow you to discredit what they're saying solely by virtue of the fact that they're getting paid to say it, but it would cause some skepticism, some cynicism, some caution.
	Lawyers get paid to say what they say.
	It doesn't make them wrong.
	It actually just makes it a living.
	The idea that Kyle Rittenhouse somehow...
	Let's even say that he's cynically monetizing his life story because it happens to be tragic.
	Can't do it?
	Oh, because he happened to maybe, if we want to victim blame a little bit, he happened to have put himself in a position where he would have been killed, period.
	And as a result, had to defend himself, which tragically, although not tragically according to some, resulted in the deaths of individuals who were very, very, very bad people.
	I mean, doesn't get much worse than one of the people.
	That Kyle Rittenhouse had to defend himself against involving killing that person?
	Do you feel guilty?
	Piers Morgan, the man who's living, his literal living as a journalist, is exploiting tragedy.
	Faulting Kyle Rittenhouse for writing a book.
	Documenting his own life as though Kyle Rittenhouse is getting rich doing this.
	The latest articles in the paper were that Kyle Rittenhouse is broke and the left rejoices.
	He's been bankrupted by lawfare because the father of one of the deceased individuals who was attacking Kyle Rittenhouse to the point where he had to use deadly force to save his own life is now suing for wrongful death.
	And the lefty commies, or the, I don't know, just call them fascists, who love the idea that It's a different burden of proof civilly, so Kyle might yet be bankrupted and destroyed civilly, even though he successfully defended against the destruction criminally.
	Yeah.
	But the full clip, the full clip shared by Ian Miles Chong, let me just get to it here, because it's in the backdrop, where Ian, some people might not like his style on Twitter, and I don't really care.
	It doesn't matter.
	You might not like it, but he might post stuff that's worthy of watching in the first place.
	He starts by saying, Piers Morgan, let me just put on pause here, asks Kyle Rittenhouse how he feels about what he did.
	Incredibly disrespectful.
	Alright, so I'm leading it with the persuasion that what I'm about to hear is incredibly disrespectful, and I gave Piers Morgan the benefit of the doubt on the first question, because I thought maybe, just maybe, Piers was actually doing it as a legitimate, sincere human question.
	Kyle, how does it feel to have gone through the horror that you went through?
	On a personal level.
	Here, let's watch this.
	Human level.
	You know, you're very young even now.
	What are you, 20 years old now?
	Yes, I am.
	Yes, sir.
	And you've killed two human beings.
	I just wonder how that feels.
	At first class, that's a fair question.
	I mean, what does it feel like?
	It's the question that everybody has when they, you know, not everybody asks it when you're talking to a military veteran, someone who survived war, someone who was out in Afghanistan, who actually had to take another human life.
	It can't feel good.
	It doesn't feel good unless, you know.
	You've shut off that part of your brain or that part of the brain didn't develop.
	It can't feel good.
	It's a legitimate question.
	So right now I'm thinking maybe Ian is being unfair with Pierce.
	But lo and behold, no, he wasn't being unfair with Pierce.
	Pierce is being unfair with his invited guest.
	I don't think that's an appropriate question to ask how it feels.
	It's not an easy thing to do.
	It's something I live with every single day.
	It's nightmares I have.
	By the way, throughout this entire interview...
	Kyle Rittenhouse schools Pierce Morgan on the unfair questions, on the substantive questions, and on the law.
	It's something that I have to deal with.
	I have to deal with the PTSD and the trauma from having to do that.
	It's a very, very fair answer.
	Pierce would have known the answer to that question had he seen my interview with Kyle Rittenhouse.
	It seems to me your emotions are more about you.
	And your trauma because your life was being threatened.
	Not threatened, because he was almost savagely beaten to death by a mob of people who would have beaten him to death or shot him to death in the case of Gross Croats.
	And that side of it, rather than the question I'm asking, which is simply on a human level, how do you feel about being so young and yet having on...
	The record for the rest of your life now that you took the lives of two people.
	It feels freaking terrible, Pierce.
	I have PTSD.
	I wake up sweating and shivering.
	If you watched the trial, you'd know how it feels.
	All right.
	Losing the benefit of the doubt, Pierce.
	Regardless of the circumstances.
	And like I just said, it's something I deal with every day.
	I deal with the PTSD and the trauma and the nightmares.
	It's not easy to deal with it.
	Your book...
	Yeah, we saw this part.
	Let's skip this part.
	We already saw this part.
	Let's get to the Second Amendment part.
	A book so I can share that with everybody yourself.
	How do you feel that you became a hero to many on the far right, kind of made you their poster boy?
	Loaded.
	Loaded judgmental questions.
	Well, Pierce, I'm not a hero.
	Listen to this answer.
	I did what I had to do to defend myself.
	There are countless Americans every day that defend themselves.
	And it's not a heroic thing to do.
	It doesn't make you a villain, but it doesn't make you a hero.
	It's doing the right thing to stay alive.
	If I didn't defend myself, I wouldn't be here talking today.
	What can get more clear than that?
	I mean, this kid, it's almost as though he was prepared for these cheap shot questions coming from Pierce.
	Not a hero, not a villain, however, Pierce, unlike what you think.
	But Pierce is going to go to the Second Amendment question here.
	And get schooled.
	You were 17 at the time.
	You were too young to legally acquire a gun that you used.
	What's that?
	What's that, Pierce?
	Are you repeating some of the fake news, factually incorrect talking points?
	Cross state lines.
	You couldn't carry a firearm.
	Oh, wait, Pierce.
	You're wronged.
	That's not true.
	It's not true?
	No!
	That is not true.
	Wisconsin statute says a person between the ages of 16 and 17 can carry a long rifle with a barrel longer than 16 inches.
	That's Wisconsin law, and the judge dismissed that charge.
	Okay, so I just said something factually incorrect, upon which my entire opinion was based.
	Moving on!
	Let me ask you, look, I'm in the country right now, and I've talked about this many times, both here and in America, and I've learned Americans want to handle their own gun culture the way they want to handle it.
	I respect that.
	But let me ask you, do you think it's right that 17-year-olds in America, in Wisconsin, should be able to carry around semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15?
	Our founding fathers were very intentional when they wrote the Constitution.
	They didn't put an age limit on how old you had to be to exercise the Second Amendment.
	I'm sure Pierce is going to go ahead and continue to respect Kyle Rittenhouse's opinion and American gun rights, advocacy, gun rights law, gun rights culture.
	Pierce, why are you here?
	Just asking the obvious questions.
	The people who say they're going to leave and then don't, and the people who come here To criticize, substantively, the very core tenets of what made this a country to which they came.
	A country that doesn't necessarily have the problems that we're seeing elsewhere.
	It might have certain problems, different problems, but you came here for a reason.
	And if you came here to import some of the policy that you fled, that's where things become problematic.
	Say you respected all you want.
	Actions speak louder than words, and sometimes words contradict other words.
	So, all right, that was it.
	That was Kyle Rittenhouse.
	He's written a book.
	It's called Acquitted.
	I'm not selling it.
	I'm not profiting off it, although maybe I'll send around an Amazon affiliate link.
	Heaven forbid people should survive, make money off their hard work.
	Heaven forbid!
	Hey, Pierce.
	No, Kyle Rittenhouse can't write a book on his own personal tragedy because it's a story of tragedy.
	But Pierce Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan, Pierce Morgan can go ahead and milk the death and destruction of thousands of people, lands in the Middle East.
	He can do that gleefully for money.
	Lots of it.
	Because he's special.
	What time is it?
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	I can't figure out the time that's best to go live anymore.
	It has to fit with my parenting schedule, but there's no good time to go live.
	I know it's good to have a schedule, and I can't make a schedule because I'm stubborn, and I like being free.
	I like being a wild dog that doesn't have the marks of a collar around his neck.
	All that to say, welcome to the show.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	Good morning.
	West Coast, and good evening, Europe, and top of the morning to you, off-Sealand.
	We've got one heck of a show today.
	For those of you who don't know me, I'm Viva Frye, Montreal litigator turned Florida rumbler.
	We're going to start on YouTube Rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We end on YouTube because we like to grace Rumble with the eyes.
	The revenue, our feet, you vote with your dollar, you vote with your feet, and we're going to vote by moving on over exclusively to Rumble for the better part of this stream.
	And then afterwards, we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Today is the day.
	In our community on Locals, we, every week, two weeks, depending on scheduling, do this thing called Locals Conversations, where we have an interview with a Locals supporter.
	Who is willing to do it, to go on the interwebs?
	And just a conversation, I explore the lives, the being of one supporter of our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	Darren Fishman, I appreciate what you do, Viva.
	Thank you.
	That is encouraging because sometimes I don't have a problem with the accusation that I'm making a living doing this.
	It's like, it's my ikigai.
	What the world needs, what I'm good at, what I love doing, and...
	What you can make money doing.
	That's the ikigai, right?
	The four overlapping circles.
	What the world needs, what you're good at, what you love doing, and what you can make money doing.
	And when it hits that sweet spot in the center, that's called the ikigai, and then it's an amazing diagram.
	But sometimes, man, it is...
	It's a tough world just to be immersed in because you are immersed in tragedy, conflict, politicization.
	You feel like you're at the epicenter of the downfall of Western civilization, if not the world as a whole.
	And you have to take for granted that maybe your perspective of the world is tainted by the fact that I am immersed in it day in and day out and maybe things aren't quite as bad as I think they are because I'm immersed in how bad it is day in and day out.
	Or maybe, just maybe, it is quite as bad as I think it is and there's reason for concern but also reason for optimism.
	Hope!
	Before I get too far in and miss too many Super Chats, I'll give the standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice, no legal advice.
	These wonderful things, Super Chats, YouTube takes 30% of them.
	And so the alternative is you can go to Rumble, and they have the things called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20% of those, but for the rest of this year, I think they take zero, and then they go back to their portion later on.
	Or you can go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year, and you can get access to a ton of...
	Community stuff, exclusive stuff for supporters.
	There's a massive non-supporting membership of a community that's fantastic.
	EM17 says, I haven't found my Ikigai yet, but I celebrate that you have Viva.
	That's M17 on Rumble.
	Okay, now, sorry, I was reading a chat here.
	Seize the day who I met in person in Ottawa.
	E4071 online petition, non-confidence vote, Trudeau.
	I don't think it's worth anything legally.
	But it certainly sends a message.
	So just what's on the menu for today, we're going to talk some Canadian stuff.
	That Bill C-18, the Online Streaming Act.
	No, no, sorry, it's not the Online Streaming Act.
	It was the Link Tax Act.
	One of the recently passed pieces of legislation, the intention of which is to suppress the internet, govern the internet, and surreptitiously fund Canadian legacy media.
	There's been news on that.
	Apparently the government has struck a deal with Google.
	100 million bucks that they're going to give to authorized news outlets as part of the link tax sharing system so that Google knows how much they have to subsidize.
	Approved Canadian media will get there.
	Also on the menu, we're going to talk about Elon Musk.
	Go F yourself.
	Can I say it?
	If Elon Musk can swear, then I can swear too.
	I'm joking.
	We're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about what it means.
	We're going to talk about the idiocy behind the idea.
	That some companies would say, I don't want to pay for advertising on a platform that has bad stuff.
	Oh, yeah.
	You know, like Cadillac didn't pay for product placement when they have villains driving their cars around in the Matrix.
	Like, I don't know what was in Die Hard 1. Product placement will pay for product placement in bad movies, in horror movies, in movies with no goodness in it.
	The idea that these self-righteous, holier-than-thou companies don't want to advertise on platforms where they have bad stuff.
	Bull crap.
	Rule number one of advertising is basically real estate.
	Location, location, location.
	You want to advertise where the eyeballs are, and if you don't, you're an idiot.
	We'll get there.
	Forced name change.
	I was about to say something about the monumental hypocrisy of a question like that.
	Tonight's top story is almost always money on a tragedy.
	Absolutely forced name change.
	I called them out on my tweet.
	I mean, we'll see if Pierce invites me on.
	He won't.
	But maybe I'll invite him on.
	He won't come.
	Seize the day.
	Hocus pocus, out of focus, lest we forget.
	Oh man, seize the day.
	Also, all Canadians like to be free, hence the problem.
	So we're talking about, we're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about this freaking guy who just wrote the article.
	A hit piece on a seven-year-old.
	They learned nothing from Covington except maybe how to do it again.
	It's funny because the guy blocked me within one minute.
	Of a relatively innocuous rubbing his face in his own feces.
	We'll get there.
	And then what else do we have in the backdrop?
	Rumble lawsuits.
	Speaking of the nonsense of Elon Musk in advertising, we're going to cover the rumble lawsuit.
	How do we do this?
	How do we structure this?
	All right, here's how we're going to structure it.
	That's what we're talking about.
	There's also the news about the Sandy Hook parents making an offer of settlement to...
	Infowars Alex Jones for a cool $85 million to reduce the $1.5 billion judgment.
	$1.5 billion judgment.
	I think...
	I'm going to refresh my memory before I potentially make a factually incorrect statement, so I don't want to do that.
	All right.
	So that's that.
	We're going to start with Elon Musk.
	We're going to do the rumble lawsuit here, and then...
	Ironically, or maybe fittingly, we're going to then end on YouTube and go over to Rumble.
	Seize the day says, was a pleasure meeting you, Viva.
	Dance Dance Revolution at the corner of Wellington and whatever the heck that street was.
	The Dance Dance Revolution.
	May we all be Dance Dance Revolutioning in our heads at the Ottawa protest for the rest of our days.
	All right.
	Elon Musk blew up the internet yesterday.
	And that is metaphorically Google transcription for YouTube.
	Oh yeah, we're also talking about the gag order in Trump's New York case has been reinstated.
	We'll get there.
	Where is it?
	Where is the link?
	Where is the link to Elon Musk saying going nuclear?
	Okay, hold on a second.
	What's my problem?
	I know I had it there.
	It's my pinned...
	It's my pinned...
	Let's refresh this.
	It's my pinned tweet now.
	For those of you who don't follow me on Twitter, it's at TheVivaFry because VivaFry was previously owned by some Russian dude who I've reached out to to acquire it, and the answer has been silence.
	This is what Elon...
	He's gone thermonuclear with his lawsuit against Media Matters, which I covered at length.
	If it wasn't last week, it was the week before.
	I don't know what week it is.
	I don't know what month it is.
	Elon Musk went nuclear yesterday because he used the F-bomb publicly.
	Won't someone please think of the children?
	This is in the response to the question of, you went on something of an apology tour last week, Elon Musk, after the fake news media accused you of anti-Semitism for saying you speak the actual truth to a Twitter post talking about how Western, you know, Jews in America, or the person said, I have no sympathy any longer for Jews in the West who are now complaining about the outcome of their policies of open borders, and lo and behold, you let in a ton of people who don't like you.
	So no more sympathy.
	Whether or not it's entirely accurate, a broad statement about all Jews or Jewish organizations, you can debate it because there's no ideological monolith among the Jewish community.
	Elon Musk wrote, you speak actual truth and had to clarify he was talking about the ADL and other Jewish organizations that support policies that now might be leading to certain social problems.
	At the very least in Europe, if not in America as well.
	So the question was, you went on an apology tour.
	It seems like you were trying to minimize the damage for Apple, IBM pulling their ads, Oracle, whatever the heck they sell.
	What do you have to say about that?
	I hope they stop.
	I hope they stop.
	Don't advertise.
	You don't want them to advertise?
	No.
	What do you mean?
	If somebody's going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself.
	Preach it.
	Testify.
	But go fuck yourself.
	Is that clear?
	And hold on one second.
	If I'm not mistaken, I believe...
	Oh, yeah, he did it.
	He did it.
	He did the ADL white power symbol as he said it.
	Ooh!
	Elon, you're going to be in trouble now.
	You went on an apology tour.
	Have to prove that you're not anti-Semitic, and now you're using the white power hand gesture?
	Hashtag it was a 4chan joke that the ADL picked up on and believed and ran with, and now they have to justify their own stupidity or legitimize their own stupidity and make it into a hate symbol?
	Oh, he did it.
	Fuck yourself.
	Is that clear?
	I hope it is.
	Oh, that's clear.
	Hey, Bob.
	You're in the audience.
	Which Bob is he referring to?
	Is he referring to Bob Igert?
	Which Bob is he referring to?
	Tell me in the chat, because I forgot to look that up.
	Well, let me ask you then.
	That's how I feel.
	Don't advertise.
	How do you think then about the economics of X?
	If part of the underlying model, at least today, and maybe it needs to shift, maybe the answer is it needs to shift away from advertising.
	If you believe that this is the one part of your business where you will be beholden to those who have this view, what do you do?
	G-F-Y And, fantastic.
	What does the, I'll say the left, what does the fake news media do?
	After someone comes out and drops a thermonuclear bomb, metaphorically speaking, YouTube, on the idea that...
	Advertisers are going to dictate content?
	Go F yourself!
	What does the media have to do before I get into my rant, which is going to last?
	What does the media have to do?
	They've got to say he's crazy.
	They've got to say something's wrong with him.
	It's like clockwork.
	Ben Collins, actual propagandist, actually watching this all the way through, and it's kind of disturbing.
	Something is clearly going on with this guy.
	Oh, maybe...
	Try owning a $44 billion company fighting the world.
	And not just one.
	Try owning Tesla.
	Try owning X. Try owning...
	What was the one?
	The boring company.
	Try owning...
	Conceive of what must be going on every day of the week, every second of the day with Elon Musk.
	You probably can't, Ben Collins.
	I mean, most of us struggle with our relatively straightforward, simple lives.
	We don't own multi-billion dollar space exploration, free speech platforms.
	Just imagine.
	But something's wrong with him.
	So don't listen to what he says because something's wrong with him.
	That's Ben Collins.
	What does John Harwood say?
	John Harwood has turned into the...
	I guess he was always this way.
	Something's badly wrong with him.
	It's amazing.
	The talking point is in propagandists.
	You can't address the substance of what he says, so go after the person.
	Something's wrong with him.
	Make fun of his face.
	Make fun of the way he looks.
	Accus him of mental illness.
	That's what you guys tend to do, right?
	Accuse others of what you are doing so as to create confusion.
	Yeah, Elon Musk, something's very wrong with him.
	He's mentally ill.
	Joe Biden!
	The dude exercised for an hour and a half this morning.
	So that's the attack line now, and just notice it, because you're going to see it everywhere.
	But let's get to the substance of what Elon Musk has said, and what needs to be said, and what, you know, it's always easy just to say what the answer could have been in response to the other part of the question, where the guy asking him the question says, well, you know, it's kind of built into your model.
	Do you need to adjust?
	Do you know what's going to happen and who's going to adjust?
	The companies that want to advertise and sell their products are going to adjust.
	Presumably.
	If they realize they cannot win this war of basically pressure campaigns, censorship to control the narrative, they're going to buckle and they're going to advertise.
	Because you don't sell products.
	Well, I mean, some products sell themselves.
	But it's not the company that's going to...
	Cater to the advertisers.
	At some point in time, IBM is going to say, holy crap, you know what?
	We're getting really good rates to advertise on threads, but nobody's there.
	And the people with the purchasing power are not on threads, and they're not looking at our stupid ads that were running on threads.
	So, yeah, at some point in time, something's going to give, and usually it's going to be the bottom line.
	But it's an amazing thing.
	The idea that...
	Who was it that was replying to my tweet on that subject?
	Let me just see who it was.
	It was another guy that I've gotten into tiffs with.
	Luke Zaleski.
	Let me bring this one up because it's an amazing thing how people deliberately misunderstand or deliberately misconstrue to muddy the waters.
	Zaleski.
	Zaleski says, Luke Zaleski.
	I know.
	I've seen him before.
	Legal affairs editor, Conde Nast, longtime former research director, GQ magazine.
	There you go.
	Head of fact-checking.
	Oh.
	Kind of looks like the guy from Jackass.
	What's his name?
	Oh, my goodness.
	How can I not remember his name?
	Well, he looks like the guy from Jackass, so I'm inclined to like him.
	But what he says is utterly stupid.
	It's neither blackmail nor censorship.
	It's free market capitalism.
	And Elon is grandstanding because it will drum up traffic and support from state news goobers on here who credulously parrot his talking points for him and benefit financially from his ad revenue share program.
	You're right, by the way.
	First of all, it's not blackmail in the criminal law sense.
	Yes, we all agree with that.
	It's not censorship in the constitutional sense.
	Yes, we all agree with that as well.
	These boycott campaigns, they are not censorship.
	They might be blackmailed depending on whether or not they're using an unlawful purpose to obtain results and coerce behavior.
	Nobody's arguing that it's blackmail in the legal sense or censorship in the constitutional sense, but it is metaphorically, figuratively speaking, blackmail and censorship.
	The idea that we will take our money and say, you want this?
	You want this money?
	Do as I say.
	Well, that's metaphorically speaking, I don't know, broadly speaking, a form of blackmail as people colloquially understand it.
	It's not censorship.
	Do as I say or I pull my dollar.
	It's not censorship in the sense that Congress is not passing a law abridging free speech.
	But it is obviously coercion to censor.
	And the only question is whether or not it works.
	But yes, free market capitalism, Luke.
	And you know what's going to happen?
	If these companies want value for their advertising, they're going to put it where the eyeballs are, and they're going to put it where the people with purchasing power are.
	And just as much as Cadillac runs ads in crappy movies that promote violence, drugs, and all sorts of immoral behavior, they might just decide, yeah, it's worth it to run an ad on Twitter, even if what the tweet says is offensive to us.
	As if anybody anywhere thinks that there's any association between an ad on a platform and the content above, below, beside which it's posted.
	Oh, so that's that.
	Godspeed, Elon.
	On that subject as well, we're going to get to the Rumble lawsuit.
	Now, if you're part of our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community, you would have seen it yesterday.
	They posted a link, a tweet, and said, you know, haul off the press, we've launched a lawsuit.
	And then I reached out to Press at Rumble, and I said, hey, dudes, give me a copy of the lawsuit, and...
	They know me at Rumble.
	They sent it to me within two minutes, and I read through it, and it's good.
	We're going to go through it very briefly.
	It's relatively long.
	How many pages?
	I can't see.
	How do I see how many pages this is?
	46 pages, if we're going by the document.
	It's relatively long, but we only need to...
	I took my notes here.
	Took my notes on the instructions for that new clock I got in the back.
	It's good.
	It's straightforward.
	I can anticipate what defenses are going to be.
	I can play devil's advocate, sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively.
	The interesting thing to note is that this is a lawsuit for defamation and the ensuing damages.
	It was filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
	I'm not sure which judge they got, but see if I can Google that real quick.
	So filed in Florida, not Texas.
	In Texas, where Elon filed his Media Matters lawsuit, he filed it under the disparagement provision, which is sort of like defamation for corporations.
	In Florida, you know, I'm a Quebec attorney.
	I never did criminal law.
	I never practiced in the States.
	I just try to get answers to my own questions.
	They filed in Florida, good district, presumably, at the very least, if not necessarily from the judge, more so from the jury that you're going to get, demand for jury trial.
	They filed in Florida, and they're filing for defamation, which is sort of a simpler, Lawsuit than tortious interference.
	Although tortious interference can be based on defamation because you have to have an underlying tort to interfere with business contracts or business expectations to have tortious interference.
	You can't have tortious interference if the underlying act is not itself a tort.
	Here they're just suing for defamation and the damages that it caused to share value and damage it did cause, the question is going to be correlation.
	When the stock took a hit, As this disinformation campaign was being waged by Nandini Jami, Claire Atkin, and John Doe's 1-10, the tanking in the stock price, was it random?
	Was it related to something else?
	Or was it, in fact, the causal result of the disinformation lies?
	Malicious lies and malicious campaign being waged by these two individuals and others.
	Okay, so let's just go here.
	Well, we'll read the intro and then we're going to go to some of the substance.
	Nandini Jami, Claire Atkin, co-founders of Check My Ads together with Media Matters for America purport to be digital advertising crusaders dedicated to fighting the, quote, global disinformation epidemic.
	Irony.
	Yet for years they have engaged in their own hypocritical disinformation campaign to censor, silence, and cancel speech by spreading false, materially misleading, defamatory statements, and engaging in tortious conduct to convince advertisers to withdraw ad spends from platforms like Rumble that host content creators who espouse views contrary to the defendants.
	Remember everybody, I'll just bring this up for a second, Elon Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters is tortious interference based on the underlying tort of defamation.
	And they say Media Matters ran this article that made it seem like it's common on the platform to see ads run against offensive content.
	Media Matters didn't disclose that.
	In order to obtain those results, they had to game the actual mechanisms in place to ensure against it.
	And so while I argue that what their report actually proved was the efficiency of the mechanisms that Twitter enforces, imposes, implements to not have that result, They didn't tell you that.
	They didn't say, we had to deliberately take over accounts that were over 30 days old so we could bypass some of the restrictions on advertising visuals.
	That we only followed a tenth of the followers that ordinary typical users follow on Twitter.
	That we only followed Nazi accounts.
	And big brands accounts.
	And that we sat there continually refreshing until we got a pairing of ads against offensive content that met our objective.
	And that the odds of that were in the order of 1 in 500 million.
	Whatever.
	So they didn't mention any of that.
	They just wrote an article saying, oh my god, made it look normal.
	And basically, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, imploring advertisers to pull their ads.
	Rumble is saying in their lawsuit, they defamed us by making a materially false statement that they knew was a lie.
	Share value.
	Not that it caused advertisers to pull.
	So that's two differences between the lawsuits.
	So some people don't know the history.
	I didn't know this.
	Before Check My Ads, Jammy helped an anonymous Twitter campaign using the Sleeping Giants to publicly pressure campaigns to stop advertising on Breitbart.
	Sleeping Giants later teamed up with Media Matters to boycott certain Fox News hosts, including Tucker Carlson.
	Together, Sleeping Giants and Media Matters identified a pressure point to cripple media.
	Okay, fine.
	They developed the playbook to cut off ad revenue to these platforms by spreading malicious falsehoods about how large corporate advertisers' products were being featured with and therefore suggesting an endorsement of politically charged or otherwise controversial content.
	Okay.
	In this lawsuit, listen to this.
	So Rumble is a free speech platform.
	They don't cave into this bullcrap at all.
	Rumble has created its platform from the ground up, creating its own technical infrastructure to avoid dependencies on third parties for critical services whenever possible.
	Their own servers, their own hosting, so that they can't be parlored.
	Rather than relying on Google for its advertising revenue, on August 2022, Rumble launched its own platform for advertisers, the RAC, Rumble Advertising Centre, to further insulate itself and its shareholders.
	This is the important part from big tech.
	They've been vocal about weaning themselves off of the revenue they generated from Google Ads.
	They've been vocal about it.
	And I should probably read this section.
	Rumble has been outspoken in its press releases, yada yada, about its commitment to free speech, its mission to protect the free and open market, and its development of its own technical infrastructure and ad platform.
	Investors have taken note.
	On 2023, its market cap was $1.4 billion.
	Listen to this.
	This is the best.
	I mean, when you're going to be a malicious defamer, always tweet it out and leave the evidence there for an eternity.
	Defendants hate Rumble's content-neutral philosophy.
	Rather than entrusting consumers to make their own choices about what to watch, defendants believe consumers should not only be allowed to have access.
	Defendants loathe Rumble.
	And here's the evidence.
	At Nandoodles, Nandini Jamney says, No, we're done with Fox News.
	Now we're doing Rumble now.
	This is where our campaign is going to be targeted.
	Our disinformation lie campaign to materially prejudice rumble.
	Last weekend, Dan Bongino began waging an unhinged harassment campaign against me and Kath The Kin.
	Hashtag confession through projection.
	This week, Rumble lost its first major ad exchange, StackAdapt.
	With that said, it's just the beginning.
	When I said it's just the beginning, I meant it.
	But wait, there's more.
	It happened last week.
	Guess I was too busy demonetizing Rumble to notice.
	Come on, Danbo.
	I think that's Dan Bongino.
	Tell the class how much ad revenue Rumble lost in the last two weeks.
	We know what's up.
	Okay, so we're going to skip ahead.
	Bottom line, what Nandoodles, what's her name?
	Nandini Jami and others are trying to do here.
	They lie, allegedly, about how much ad revenue Rumble generates via Google.
	And they overstate it, apparently knowing that it's false and overstated because Rumble corrected them, to say 90% of Rumble's revenue comes from Google, and if Google pulls, Rumble's screwed.
	What do you think that's going to do to shareholder value?
	They're not imploring IBM to pull their ads and others from advertising on Rumble.
	That's not the accusation.
	The accusation is that they're making a materially false statement that will impact Rumble share value.
	Now, paragraph 47, people.
	Let's go all the...
	Well, let's just see what...
	Okay, no, no, here.
	We'll just go down to 47 was the next one.
	Of material interest, just so you don't have to go through all of this, but it's a fun read.
	If you go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you'll get it.
	Listen to this.
	Okay, 47. Let me scroll up here.
	On September 26th, Atkin posted that, quote, Rumble, the most toxic place on the internet.
	Holy crap.
	Go to Reddit.
	You want to see toxic.
	Holy sweet, merciful goodness.
	Quote, Rumble, the most toxic place on the internet is 90% funded by Google Ads.
	This post also tagged Jammie, an action that would lead to her receiving an alert to her account on X. 90%.
	Upon information and belief, Jamie Atkin and Jane Doe made the same claim in an article published by Check My Ads on October 24, 2023.
	90% of their revenue from Google Ads.
	That makes them a very fragile company.
	Would I want to invest in a company that, if Google says piss off, is dead?
	No.
	Would I sell my stock?
	Yeah.
	Would that have a sell-off effect on Rumble market cap shareholder value?
	Yes.
	Is it false?
	Yes.
	Is it made with actual malice?
	I refer you to the previous tweets from Nandoodles.
	51. Defendants claims that Rumble is 90% monetized by and is economically dependent upon Google ads are false and defamatory.
	Here we're going to have one of those cases where it's going to be defamatory per quad, not defamatory per se, like accusing someone of a...
	Horrendous crime is defamatory on its face.
	No further context is required.
	Making a statement that it's funded 90% by Google Ads, it's going to require some context to understand why it's defamatory.
	I think Rumble has fleshed it out in the lawsuit.
	At the time of defendants' claims in August through October 2023, Rumble's ad revenue generated from Google AdSense was minuscule.
	In October 2023, it was less than 1% of the company's total revenue.
	What does that mean?
	It means that Google could try to screw Rumble and not achieve in that screwery.
	Is that a word?
	Well, I'm going to make it in a word if it isn't.
	Defendants' false claims about Rumble's ad revenue imply, as defendants intended, that Rumble is susceptible to a material financial risk, i.e.
	the risk that Google may decide to pull nearly all of Rumble's ad revenue that simply does not exist.
	As Rumble's public securities filings show, since 2021, the percentage of ad revenue had fallen.
	Dramatically.
	Here, listen to this.
	So 2021, revenue was about 86% of Rumble's total revenue.
	She's going to say, oh, well, I'm sorry.
	I thought it was the same in October.
	Oh, no, you can't say that anymore, Nandoodles and Atkin, because you were told it wasn't the case.
	In October 2023, it was less than 1%.
	That's amazing, by the way.
	I like Rumble.
	I have an exclusive agreement with Rumble.
	That's amazing.
	That's how you don't get parlored in life.
	Don't be dependent on hostile interests.
	Certain countries can learn a bit from this.
	Don't have your Medicare system or your weaponry production system, line of chain of whatever they call it, production line, controlled by China, India, countries that are or may become hostile.
	And say, oh, you want some of that insulin?
	You want some of that sweet, sweet minerals for your electric batteries that you've gone totally dependent on?
	Well, tough crap.
	We ain't selling it to you.
	Oh, you want some of that potash or some of that fertilizer?
	We ain't selling it to you.
	Good luck with your crops.
	In the first record, okay, we did that.
	It's less than 1%.
	The number continues to shrink as Rumble's own ad marketplace, the Rumble Advertising Centre, expands.
	Google's ads now accounts for such a small percentage of overall revenue.
	Even if Google ads were to drop Rumble, Rumble's financial health would remain strong and its financial outlook bright.
	That's it.
	That's basically the essence of what we need to understand from this lawsuit.
	They published their statements, their false and arguably defamatory statements, with actual malice.
	Yeah.
	Oh yeah, I'm sorry.
	I was too busy trying to ruin your business to pay attention.
	Oh, I didn't have the thing up the entire time?
	Well, this was paragraph, just so you know that I'm not misreading or misquoting.
	Paragraph 51, 90%.
	They make the allegation 90%.
	In reality, October 23, less than 1%.
	Yeah, and then they go on to...
	Oh, we're at exactly 666 viewers on YouTube.
	So that's it.
	Ironic fitting.
	They go to allege the actual malice.
	I think Nandoodles and Atkin have left no doubt as to their actual malice.
	Best argument, I guess, is going to be we thought it was true.
	It was true in 2021, so materially true.
	Good luck when you were told it's not the case when it was publicly visible.
	It wasn't the case from filings.
	You try to screw with shareholder value.
	And then potentially make it look like executives are lying at Rumble.
	Oh, boy.
	Let the battles continue.
	Viva McFry, top of the morning to you there.
	Oh, Ned McKenz.
	Ned, where are you?
	Let's see.
	Do we get any more?
	Oh, here we got this.
	If this is a play, Musk is Bill Gates.
	Foil.
	If this is a play, Musk is Bill Gates' foil.
	I don't know what that means, but thank you for the chat.
	Seize the day.
	Break over.
	Back to work.
	Keep trucking.
	Thank you for...
	Oh, thank you.
	Oh, they're speaking of trucks.
	Oh.
	I want to talk to the truckers.
	I want to show thank you.
	I got a show from you.
	You are my freedom.
	I don't know if you can hear this.
	You make me happy when skies are grey.
	You never know the end when skies are grey.
	Okay.
	I love that thing.
	Thank you.
	If you're watching, who sent it to me?
	Thank you.
	Okay, so what we're going to do now, those were the two opening stories.
	Let us go over to the Rumble.
	And party hardy on over there.
	Here it is.
	Link to Rumble, everyone.
	I think it's in the pinned comment on YouTube regardless.
	It is.
	And now I get to watch Pierce Morgan again with the opening.
	So everybody, we're going to go over to Rumble, cover the rest of the stories.
	Then we're going to go over to Locals, have our Locals convo.
	I'll give everybody the link to Locals if you want to come on over.
	Well, this was the link to the lawsuit.
	For those who have been in our community, you would have seen it as of yesterday and gotten the insights of our above-average community.
	And this is the link to Locals if you want to come now.
	Let's do it.
	Let's see that number go down one more time.
	As people migrate over, we're going to talk about...
	What else?
	What are we going to talk about?
	Oh, that guy who wrote the article defaming a flipping kid.
	Accusing what turns out to be a part Native American child of blackface.
	I mean, it's like the carpenter looking around.
	To the carpenter, everything's a nail sticking up.
	Or to the hammer, everything is a nail sticking up.
	To a race-baiting racist.
	Everyone is a racist.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So now we're going to end it on YouTube.
	Head over to Rumble.
	You got all the links you need.
	YouTubers, if you're not coming over, you're making a mistake.
	See you on Rumble.
	3, 2, 1. Oh, okay.
	I've been trying to seek the advice of our locals community as to how to fix a pain in my sciatic.
	And I don't know if it's as a result of me starting a routine of jogging in the morning and not the afternoon.
	Kind of coincided with that.
	Might coincide with just sitting on my ass for too long every day and not having a particularly good chair.
	Might be getting old.
	I made the joke.
	It might be the weight of the world's crushing me.
	The weight of the world on my shoulders crushing me.
	Let's see if we're good here on Rumble.
	Are we good on Rumble?
	And if anyone missed the stream yesterday with Jacob Angeli, it was one heck of a stream.
	We've got a Rumble rant as people move on over.
	Or you can go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Do I ever have a resting pause face that's good?
	Okay, screwery, says Kitty724, sort of like strategery.
	It's sort of like chicanery.
	Okay, so that's it.
	That's what's going on in the world.
	Rumble, Elon, go F yourselves.
	It's still too early in the day for swearing.
	It's not.
	It's never too early for swearing.
	Okay, what do we move on to now?
	Let's move on.
	Let's move on to the guy defaming a kid.
	It's so outrageous.
	This was the article.
	This was the tweet that appeared.
	I did not know the author was black.
	I don't think this way.
	It's never my first response.
	Oh, shit.
	Here's a wildly offensive accusation on a child of being racist.
	It doesn't occur to me.
	To think like this.
	That is either an attribute or a flaw, depending on who you ask.
	Deadspin.
	All that I saw is Deadspin.
	I was like, oh, well, that's an outlet that deserves to go bankrupt.
	Oddly enough, and ironically enough, who was it?
	Was it Deadspin?
	Gawker used to own Deadspin?
	Gawker played in somewhere in the history of Deadspin.
	And I said, it's ironic, because may it go the way of Gawker.
	Deadspin tweets, the NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in blackface, native headdress.
	The NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in blackface, native headdress.
	Did you not see the picture and notice that this fan that you want the NFL to speak out against is 8 years old?
	7 years old?
	I don't know, maybe he's 10 years old.
	I don't know.
	Did you not notice he's a freaking kid?
	You animals!
	Did you not notice that he was a kid?
	What this is, by the way, this is a dog whistle.
	This is a call to action against a flipping child.
	Now let's go to the article.
	How do we go to the article?
	Okay, hold on.
	I'm going to close this window.
	And we're going to go to the article.
	Here's the article.
	$2,000 checks clashed.
	Okay.
	The NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs' native headdress.
	Update!
	I want to see what the update is.
	By Karen J. Phillips.
	My goodness, he's redefined Karen.
	Oh!
	Okay, there's...
	Come on.
	Has anyone made that joke yet?
	This is...
	He's...
	Now that the male version of a Karen is Karen, but it's C-A-R-R-O-N.
	Yes.
	Make...
	It'll trend.
	It'll happen.
	Update.
	I want to see what the update is.
	Santa Inez Band of Chumash Indians condemns wearing regalia as part of contract.
	This is what scumbags do to cover up their initial scumbaggery.
	We've made up three words today.
	Well, I was wrong about the blackface, Ted.
	Or, Ted, I should say Alex.
	Sorry, I was wrong about the blackface, but let me find something else that I can find fault in this kid.
	Oh, who happens to be from that Native American tribe.
	Who just happens to me.
	Let me find something else so I can say, well, I was wrong on the blackface accusation, but some people say he shouldn't wear the regalia.
	Piss off, Karen.
	Oh my goodness.
	Update.
	Let me see here.
	Per front office sports, the Santa Inez band...
	Oh, the update is...
	This is amazing.
	The Santa Inez band of Shumash Indians, Shumash Indians, with whom the fan and his family are affiliated with.
	Or whom they are affiliated with.
	Affiliated?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You mean he's part of that tribe?
	Oh, they've released a statement condemning the, quote, wearing regalia as part of the costume or participating in any other type of cultural appropriation.
	Here's the full statement.
	Oh, they lie in the update.
	This scumbag of a journalist, this hit piece, targeting of children, lies in the update.
	Because, you know, the word condemn...
	It's not a factual statement.
	It's a matter of judgment.
	Was it a condemnation?
	Was it a clarification?
	Was it just an open statement?
	They condemn the wearing of regalia.
	Typically, a condemnation uses the word condemn.
	This is the statement.
	We are aware that a young member of our community attended a Kansas City Chiefs game in a headdress and face paint in his way of supporting his favorite team.
	Please keep in mind that the decisions made by individuals or families in our community are their own and may not reflect the views of the broader tribal community.
	As a federally recognized tribe, the Santa Inez Band of Shamash Indians does not endorse wearing regalia as part of a costume or part of any other type of...
	...
	I have to swear now.
	Piece of shit is what this journalist is.
	You remember right here it says they issued a statement condemning the, quote, wearing of regalia.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	What the statement actually says is they don't endorse wearing regalia.
	That's not a condemnation.
	That's saying we don't endorse it.
	We don't...
	Promote it.
	We don't give it a high five.
	It doesn't mean we give it a slap.
	We condemn.
	We do not approve.
	These liars lie when they get caught lying.
	Don't be a Karen.
	Oh, and then it takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once, but on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs have an eight-year-old boy.
	Enjoy the hell that you create for yourself on Earth.
	He found a way to hate black people and Native Americans at the same time.
	Oh yeah, and spoiler alert, he's Native American.
	We're not going to...
	So anyway, Karen Phillips, who is he?
	Because now, let me see here, I didn't know who he was.
	I found an article.
	Who is Karen J. Phillips?
	From Sports...
	Kida.
	I've seen this outlet.
	Who's Karen J. Phillips?
	Deadspin writer under fire for accusing Chiefs fan of blackface and racism.
	You're going to have to update this now.
	He should be under fire for lying in his updates.
	Oh, the native tribe of which this kid is a member condemns the wearing of regalia when their statement says we do not endorse the wearing of regalia?
	Oh my goodness.
	Talk about...
	Compounding your error.
	And we'll get to my joke.
	A controversial article was recently written.
	According to his LinkedIn profile, Karen J. Phillips is an American journalist who earned his Bachelor of Arts in African-American Black Studies from Morehouse College in 2006.
	He finished his Master of Arts at Syracuse in 2011.
	He's educated.
	Before earning his M.A. You know this is the old expression, an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less.
	I love it.
	He worked as a preps stringer.
	I don't know what that means.
	Okay, I don't know what that means.
	He then became a writer for the Daily Orange from July to December, focusing on the Syracuse men's...
	Okay, fine.
	After his internship, he concentrated on Syracuse...
	Okay, but I don't care about this.
	Karen J. Phillips also worked...
	Okay, you know what?
	I don't actually care about any of this.
	Backlash received by Karen J. Phillips for his article.
	This is not...
	Oh, forget it.
	You know what?
	He got backlash.
	That's who Karen J. Phillips is.
	Oh, by the way, it wasn't blackface.
	He was just wearing two bi-colors, two colors on his face while celebrating.
	He lied in the article, misrepresented it was blackface, then came out and said, oh, it takes a lot of work to piss off two groups because he pissed off the Chumash tribe Native Americans where they condemned wearing the regalia when what they said is we do not endorse wearing a regalia.
	It's amazing.
	I made a joke, and you'll see how this joke ends.
	It says it here.
	Spoiler alert, it ends with an insta-block.
	I wrote to this individual relatively mildly on Twitter.
	I don't know what the I's mean, by the way.
	The original tweet, oh, he was saying the kid was part of a native tribe, or the native tribe issued a statement.
	I don't know what those stupid I's mean on Twitter.
	Like, oh, this is suspicious.
	You defamed a child alleging racism when the child is part Native American.
	You're beyond doubling down.
	You're upsizing your shovel.
	Just apologize and maybe mitigate your damages.
	I hope he gets sued.
	I hope Deadspin gets sued.
	One minute later, dude.
	One minute later, blocked.
	He can pick on an 8-year-old, but he can't pick on a 44-year-old.
	Can't even respond to a 44-year-old.
	The scum of the earth is looking...
	For race-baiting.
	Looking for discrimination.
	Looking for racism.
	Oh lordy lordy.
	Oh my goodness.
	So that's that story there.
	It's just amazing.
	And it's like they never learned anything from Covington.
	Except, oh, maybe they learned something.
	Go after little kids.
	Because they can't fight back like 16-year-old kids can.
	Hope you get sued.
	Hope it's a lot.
	And I hope you have to pay it out.
	Pay it outie.
	This was the article.
	We don't need to bring this up anymore.
	Update.
	Update!
	I am a bigger scumbag liar than you thought I was for having written the article in the first place.
	Moving on.
	Actually, before we move on, let me go see if there's anything in the chat.
	Comments, questions, recommendations.
	They look for it everywhere and when they don't find it, they invent.
	It says Maple Syrup 123.
	Jussie Smollett would like to have a word with you.
	Looking for excuses for their personal failures, says Coder182.
	Confirmed racist, says Jasper Goo.
	There's no question about it.
	I just, I stand by my original assessment.
	I don't believe that racists exist.
	I believe that assholes exist.
	And anybody who's going to hate someone for the color of their skin, you can call them a racist, but they're also going to hate someone for being too fat, too skinny, too white, too Jewish, too Muslim, too Christian, whatever.
	Assholes hate.
	That's what makes them assholes.
	And so I said, I don't believe in racists.
	I believe in assholes.
	And I believe the way to shield yourself from assholes is to have as little to do with them as humanly possible because they are negative forces.
	They are negative.
	They are energy suckers.
	They are time goblins.
	They are spiritual anchors.
	And you need to cut your ropes from assholes so that you can be spiritually free.
	Sorry for the gratuitous use of the term asshole, but I think it's more than warranted under the circumstances.
	And then Maki1871 says, well, that's not true.
	I'm an asshole, but not a racist.
	That's on Rumble.
	That's funny.
	Okay.
	And I think someone else says, I hate everyone equally.
	Okay, well, that's the story.
	And everyone should call that man out on it.
	Politely.
	Maybe not politely.
	Respectfully.
	Lawfully.
	And shame him for that awful, shameful...
	Update, which compounds his error.
	He's now moved from a garden hoe to a winter shovel.
	Keep digging that hole, Karen.
	And truly redefine what it means to be a Karen.
	Now, do we want to go to Canada or do we want to?
	Now, you know what?
	While we're on defamation, while we're talking about defamation, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Let me do something before I do this.
	I want to double check one thing.
	Um...
	I'm trying to remember...
	Oh, the word was reparations is what I would look for.
	generations.
	And I'm not doing this to be glib at all.
	I'm doing this to illustrate how patently absurd the judgment in Alex Jones was.
	Um...
	Why can't I find it?
	I think it was...
	Here we go.
	New York Times.
	I think it was...
	Let me just see if I can find it.
	Oh, come on.
	I need to find it before I can go with the next segment, people.
	So I'm just going to have to do this.
	It was what the Armenian advocacy groups were asking by way of reparations for the Armenian genocide.
	And I recall it being in the billions of dollars.
	And I recall at one point, to illustrate the absurdity of the Alex Jones $1.5 billion defamation judgment, you know, saying that this makes a mockery of actual genocide.
	And yeah, so this is it.
	Sandy Hook families who won $1 billion in damages from Alex Jones.
	I think it was $1.5 billion.
	I think the FBI agent, who didn't lose a kid in the shootings, Got $80 million, I think?
	Tens of millions.
	An FBI agent who didn't lose a family member in the killing spree was awarded tens of millions of dollars.
	They're ready to negotiate.
	They're ready to settle.
	But their lawyers might not be so ready to settle because the lawyers want to bankrupt and shut up Alex Jones.
	The families, if they want to collect any monies, as Robert Barnes has been astutely pointing out, If the families want to collect money, well, you know, they might need to contemplate a reasonable settlement and not a settlement that was designed to bankrupt and shut Alex Jones up.
	As per the lawyers opening closing statements, I forget what it was.
	Family Hook's shooting victims offered Infowars' Alex Jones a path to bankruptcy if he buys him a small fraction of the more than $1 billion he owes.
	Jones filed for personal bankruptcy, we know this, in 2022, after he was ordered to pay $1.5 billion in his false claims about the elementary school massacre.
	Did the families sue the school for potentially not implementing proper safety protocol?
	No.
	Did the families sue the family or relatives of the actual killer?
	I think maybe a couple of them tried.
	No.
	Did they potentially think about going after politicians who might not have implemented certain protocol that they ought to have done?
	No.
	Did they actually have a trial against Alex Jones?
	No.
	Because they got their guilty verdict by default verdict.
	And then what they had as a trial were a trial on the damages portion of the default verdict.
	Okay, but you all know that if you've been following this channel for any period of time.
	Families proposal could help resolve the bankruptcy cases, yada yada yada.
	The family suggested Jones pay at least $85 million over 10 years, $8.5 million per year for a decade, in addition to half of any annual income over $9 million, with a proportionate reduction in liabilities for each year of full payment, according to the filing.
	In the court document, the Sandy Hook family has also proposed an option consisting of an orderly liquidation of Jones'non-exempt assets.
	The time has come for Jones to choose whether he is willing to pay his creditors a reasonable portion of what they are owed or would prefer to remain embroiled in costly, time-consuming litigation.
	You know what that is?
	I mean, that's lawfare spoken out loud.
	Let's hear this.
	The host has continued to, quote, enjoy his extravagant lifestyle, end quote, and refuse to stick to a reasonable budget, the Sandy Hook family's claim in the filing.
	Excluding professional and legal costs, Jones' estate is spending $65,000 to $90,000 a month to support his lifestyle, the document.
	I'd like to know how that breaks down.
	The families tried to make Jones reduce his spending and sell certain assets, but they were met with, quote, resistance and refusal at almost every turn they set in the filing.
	In short, Jones has failed in every way to serve as the fiduciary mandated by the bankruptcy code in exchange for the breathing spell he has enjoyed for almost a year.
	His time is up.
	Anyhow, the rest of this is news that we've already covered, but you can go read it.
	It's, um...
	It highlights a bit of the conflict between the interests of the plaintiffs and the interests of the lawyers.
	Some believe that this was never about money.
	Some believe this was never about justice.
	And then others believe, as the lawyers have stated, that it was about bankrupting and silencing Alex Jones, whereas if they want to collect anything, it might involve allowing him to remain in business, from the plaintiff's perspective.
	But the judgment itself has and continues to be a source of absolute judicial insanity.
	Hold on.
	Let me see if I cannot pull up the article.
	Whatever, I can't.
	What do we move on to now?
	So that's the Alex Jones.
	We're going to move to Canada, I think.
	We're going from one form of judicial corruption in the States to governmental corruption in Canada.
	Seamus O 'Regan.
	Shame on Seamus.
	Okay, I just thought of that right now.
	Don't make fun of people for their names.
	All right, Seamus O 'Regan.
	We've seen him before.
	I don't believe he's blocked me yet.
	Minister of Parliament for St. John's.
	That's in Newfoundland.
	South Mount Pearl.
	Minister of Labour.
	Oh, Minister for Seniors as well.
	All right, he tweeted out earlier today a tweet.
	It's a massive success for the government.
	It's a massive success for the Canadian media because now, as I said in my initial analysis, and I feel vindicated and I feel a little smarter than I felt this morning, now the government has managed to get Google to do directly what the government...
	No, sorry, let me...
	It's gotten Google to do To do indirectly what the government could no longer do directly, and that is subsidize, select, preferred, privileged Canadian media.
	Seamus O 'Regan, Member of Parliament, tweets, $100 million a year to support local and national journalism.
	This is a big deal.
	This is a great deal.
	Well done, Pascal Saint-Ange.
	And Pascal Saint-Ange, c 'est qui ça?
	Elle est le ministre du quelque chose là.
	Okay, she's the minister of something.
	Minister of Heritage, I think, now.
	So let's go to the article.
	CTV News.
	Canadian Pravda.
	What do they write?
	Listen to this.
	No concessions, Saint-Ange says, in $100 million a year news deal with Google.
	It's a drop in the bucket for Google.
	It ain't a drop in the bucket for the failing, flailing, government-subsidized-to-the-max select-privileged Canadian media.
	It was called the Link Tax Act, which was...
	Basically going to compel Google and Facebook to pay a fee to any outlet to which they link a story.
	So, not paying a tax if they display a substantial portion of the article on their own platform without ever driving the viewer to the original source.
	To drive a viewer to the original source.
	Google said, we ain't gonna do it.
	And they pulled links to news sources on Canadian media, as you might have seen in Instagram and Facebook and Google, where you could no longer share links to news outlets.
	You got a little error message sometimes which said, not available in your country or due to local laws, we cannot show this link.
	The Canadian government has reached a deal with Google over the Online News Act.
	That's right, not the Streaming Act.
	The Online News Act, also known as the Link Tax Act, which will see the tech giant pay $100 million annually.
	It's even better than the $600 million bailout Trudeau gave to digital media.
	Oh no, sorry, to print media in 2018.
	Now it's $100 million a year to digital media.
	Amazing.
	Continue to allow access.
	To Canadian news content on its platform.
	Canadian Heritage Minister Pascal Saint-Angelo, that's what we saw before, announced the, quote, historic development, end quote, regarding the implementation of Bill C-18 on Wednesday after the tech giant had threatened to block news on its platform with the contentious new rules, when the contentious new rules come into effect next month.
	Turn the path forward.
	Oh, let's see here.
	Google wanted clarity about the amount of compensation it would have to pay to Canadian news outlets.
	It's amazing.
	They wanted confirmation.
	Well, now we know that it's going to be manageable from us.
	We'll still make enough money, says Google, and now we know.
	Remember when I told you this?
	Just let's back this up.
	In 2018 or 2016, whatever it was, 2016, 2018, I think it was 2018, Trudeau gave a $600 million bailout to print media.
	I will not ever make the mistake.
	It did not include digital media.
	So print media.
	Failing.
	Nobody's reading print media.
	Everyone's on the line, on the interwebs.
	Nobody's reading the newspapers.
	They're stupid and inconvenient.
	And so the industry is going to go under.
	What does the government do?
	Here's some taxpayer dollars to keep alive an industry that cannot succeed on its own.
	To the tune of $600 million.
	Trudeau knew the beneficial impact this had on reporting because he made a joke about it.
	Everyone's like, well, that joke, this is the type of headlines that a paid media gets you.
	There's truth in jest because if there's no truth in jest, it just ain't funny.
	So Trudeau knows exactly what he's buying when he spends $600 million on a bailout for print media.
	What about digital?
	Well, that's where you get into the indirect subsidizing, commercials, COVID ads, government ads, where...
	The government takes your taxpayer dollars and says, well, I can't really give another bailout to digital media.
	So we'll run ads.
	We'll run ads for our jab.
	We'll run ads for COVID.
	We'll run ads for washing your hands.
	We'll run ads for part of our heritage.
	We'll run ads on flailing digital media.
	But we won't run ads on media that...
	Doesn't speak nicely to us or of us or cover stuff that we don't want them covering.
	And so they use those digital advertising dollars as indirect blackmail, extortion, coercion.
	When they can't do that anymore because COVID's over.
	I mean, there's only so many COVID ads you can run when COVID's over.
	What do you do now?
	Well, now we found our system.
	And this is what I said was the purpose of this act in the first place.
	It was to indirectly do what the government can no longer directly do.
	And lo and behold, it's exactly what's happening.
	Okay, so they now know how much they're going to have to pay.
	Federal government says this financial support will be indexed to inflation.
	It's going to keep going up.
	Nice.
	And rolled out to a, quote, wide range of business.
	Sorry, a wide, a quote, wide range of news businesses across the country, including independent news businesses and those from indigenous language minority communities.
	Now, I know that I actually missed the most important part here because I highlighted this in a tweet.
	Are we quoting Madame Saint-Ange?
	We are.
	Quote, many doubted that we would be successful, but I was confident that we'd find a way to address Google's concerns and make sure that Canadians have access to news in Canada on their platform, she said, insisting there were, quote, absolutely no concessions made on the government's part.
	That's good.
	That wasn't the most important part.
	Where is it?
	Oh, here we go.
	Sorry.
	The most important part came after.
	Google will also be able to work with a single...
	They're simplifying it for Google.
	Don't worry.
	You don't have to deal with every little Italy piddly.
	You don't have to deal with the Viva Fries, the True North, the Rebel Newses.
	You don't have to deal with McCullough.
	You don't have to deal with every individual content creator, news outlet that people might link through to.
	You'll deal with a collective.
	Google will also be able to work with a single collective to distribute this money to, quote, all interested, eligible news businesses.
	Based on the number of full-time equivalent journalists they employ.
	Holy shit.
	So now it's not the government doing it.
	They're not doing it through direct bailout.
	They're not doing it through indirect bribery with COVID ads, government ads.
	Now they're doing it through legislation.
	And they go to Google and they say, don't worry, we'll simplify this whole thing for you.
	Go through a collective and it will go to, and I'm quoting, all interested, eligible news businesses.
	Based on the number of full-time equivalent journalists they employ.
	It is obvious what's going on here.
	Saint-Ange said Canada reserves the right to reopen the regulations if better agreements are struck in other countries.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	While Trudeau will work...
	I don't care about this.
	Trudeau calls out Meta.
	Who cares about the rest of this?
	What were Google's concerns?
	In advance of this deal, Google had indicated that barring adjustments to the proposed federal regulations underpinning the new rules, the search giant would follow Meta's list Okay, we got that.
	Thank you, Jagmeet Singh.
	they've called it a link tax that breaks away that breaks the way The web and search engines have worked for more than 30 years and may expose them to uncapped financial liability.
	Alongside the deal, Canadian Heritage said Google will continue to make programs such as training and business development tools carry on its non-profit...
	Who cares?
	Okay.
	That's the news, everybody.
	So whoop-dee-doo.
	The government, through its legislation, has now found a way to coerce private actors to subsidize eligible news outlets through a collective that they're going to control.
	There you go.
	Indirectly doing what they could no longer do directly.
	And it's going to continue to prop up government propaganda, government Pravda, the good media, artificially, while the independent media are going to have to continue to succeed on their own merits.
	This is how corruption works in the legislative sense.
	I can't believe it.
	Accreditation will be the control method, says Honor234.
	There's no...
	A controlled collective.
	What could go wrong, says Seferdine Squibb.
	Names that I see often because they often comment with insightful observations as they have now.
	Who the F grills a scallop, says suspiciously underscore brown underscore smear.
	Lots of people?
	Absurdbeat says scallops can be...
	Of course they can!
	And then Seferdine Scripps says, because we love you.
	Thank you very much, Seferdine.
	Oh, stop it, stop it.
	You're gonna...
	Oh, okay, so that's it.
	I feel vindicated.
	What I said would happen has happened, and that's it.
	Good luck, good luck not getting misinformed in Canada.
	And for the independent media, you're gonna have to continue to rely on your skill, your success, your communities, and creative methods to compete with institutionalized corruption.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Speaking!
	Of institutionalized corruption.
	Trump is gagged again.
	It doesn't end.
	If you were offended by my gratuitous use of the word donkey and holes, well, get ready for nipples, baby.
	We're going back to New York nipple judge Engeron.
	He's been vindicated.
	He's been vindicated by the New York...
	Court of Appeals.
	I don't know if it was a full court or a three-panel.
	As you all know, Trump was gagged by Judge Nippled Judge Engeron.
	His lawyers were gagged by New York Nippled Judge Engeron.
	Engeron is the...
	Judicially corrupt and I dare say sexually depraved individual who posts hashtag bonus torso photos on his alumni website where I suspect there might be teenagers on.
	He's the judicially corrupt nipple judge who posts links to his negative judgments impacting Eric Trump for adulation from his alumni community.
	He's the judicially corrupt judge whose co-judge chief top clerk is Allison Greenfield who's made Donations in excess of what she's legally allowed to make to political contributions, campaigns over $3,000 in 2022.
	She supported Leticia James, who's persecuting Trump in front of Judge Angeron.
	She supported her campaign for election.
	It's nuts.
	Engeron issued a gag order.
	The same Judge Engeron who boasted eight years ago to a group of journalists that he's got the tools to do what he wants to carry out his own bias when in court.
	He can bypass jury verdicts because he's got judgment notwithstanding a verdict.
	He's got tools like estoppel to prevent people from making arguments, as he's done in Trump's case.
	He boasted about his tools, judicial tools that he has to carry out his judicial corruption based on his own judicial biases.
	Okay.
	One of those tools is a gag order, which he issued against Trump.
	He issued a gag order against Trump's lawyers that they can't talk about members of Engelron's staff, co-judge Greenfield.
	The gag order was temporarily stayed by a judge of the Court of Appeal.
	His name was Feldman?
	Feldman?
	We'll get to it in here.
	And now it's been the stay has been lifted.
	The gag order has been Upheld.
	Where are we?
	And we're in Forbes.
	It's breaking news, so there might have been some development since I first heard this right before going live.
	Top line!
	President Trump will once again be prohibited from speaking about court staff in the ongoing civil trial determining whether he and his company fraudulently misstated the value of their assets as New York Appeals Court upheld the gag order Thursday, reinstating it after it was temporarily...
	Oh, look at that.
	We got the letter right here.
	So it looks like it was only one judge.
	I don't know how it works here, but I'll pull up that gag order in a second.
	Not the gag order, sorry.
	The order.
	New York judge N 'Goran imposed a gag order in October on Trump and other parties in the ongoing civil trial, which prohibited them from speaking about court staff.
	Totally normal, by the way.
	Totally normal basis to issue a gag order.
	Can't talk about court staff.
	It's not a gag order preventing threats, because you've already got laws preventing threats.
	This is a gag order preventing Trump and his council from raising the very same judicial corruption that I and others have been screaming from the mountaintop since becoming aware of it.
	Enjoy the Streisand effect there, Judge.
	Let's see what we got here.
	What does it say here?
	Which prohibited them from speaking publicly about court staff after Trump shared a disparaging post.
	This is communism!
	You cannot share disparaging posts about government staff.
	You can't do that.
	Gangged.
	Forget your First Amendment.
	He shared a photo of her with Senate Majority Leader and referred to her as his girlfriend.
	All of this makes me believe that Greenfield is having a sexual relationship with Engeron.
	All this suppression, all of this censorship does, is actually convince me that Engeron and Greenfield must be having a sexual relationship.
	Trump appealed to the court.
	It was temporarily paused.
	And who paused it?
	I want to get the judge because at least you got one judge with some sense in here.
	Whatever.
	What did I do here?
	Oh, for goodness sake, I shouldn't have done that.
	Oh, let's see.
	Here we go.
	My goodness, these ads on these websites make them borderline useless.
	I'm not sure if I'm going to go to the website.
	Okay.
	There we go.
	Jeez Louise.
	Jeez Louise.
	Okay.
	Girlfriend.
	Trump appealed the order.
	Subsequent punishment because he was actually fined $5,000 and $10,000 respectively for two violations of the gag order.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	Trump appealed.
	Appeals court temporarily paused the order until November 16. That was the other day.
	Until it could issue a more lasting ruling spurred.
	Okay.
	And he went...
	The appeals court ruled Thursday it had denied Trump's motion to throw out the gag order after due deliberation putting a gag back into effect.
	The ruling signed by a court clerk does not offer any explanation for the appeals court's decision.
	The court's ruling reinstates the gag order against the parties as well as a separate order issued in early November that extended restrictions to attorneys in the case.
	If this is not communism to any of you lefties who might hate Trump so much that you're still inclined to tolerate all this, it's going to come for you.
	There's the old expression, and I won't use the one that could be potentially misconstrued.
	The hammer doesn't spare people.
	You're just the last ones to get it.
	And in some cases, the first ones, actually, if you've learned anything from history.
	Angeron said in court Thursday after the court issue was reinstated that he, quote, intends to enforce the gag orders rigorously and vigorously, along with his girlfriend and co-judge, Greenfield.
	Trump responded that it was a tragic day for the rule of law, but he was aware of the appeals court ruling as quoted by 360.
	Yep.
	It is indeed a sad day for the rule of law, as it has been one day after another for the last little while.
	Here we go.
	Petitioning, a petition having been filed with this court on November 15, seeking to annul and vacate pursuant to whatever the rules of, what is it, civil procedure?
	I don't know what's CPLR.
	Oh, civil practice law rules.
	I have no idea.
	Orders of the Supreme Court, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada.
	Petitioners having moved to stay enforcement of the A4C gag order and supplement to limited gag order or pending hearing in the instant position.
	Now, upon having read it.
	Upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion and due deliberation.
	Yeah, don't expect us to elucidate our due deliberation.
	We did it.
	We did it.
	The motion is denied.
	Interim relief granted by the justice of this court is hereby vacated.
	I forget who the lower court judge was.
	So that's it.
	It is indeed a wildly dark day for justice.
	That's a very sunny day for injustice.
	So, I mean, you know, glass half full, depending on which side you're on here.
	Rumble and link to order in Locals.
	Link to order in Locals.
	Now let's see what's going on here in Locals.
	They want communism, so says Crash Bandit.
	Yep.
	Soros funding judges and DAs is really paying off, says Crash Bandit.
	Yep.
	That's amazing.
	Crooked courts and crooked judge crying to the crown after escaping because the town was hot and is...
	No, I'm not going to read that.
	The appeals court must run in the same circle as Engeron and staff, says Patty F. Welder.
	I don't know where it can go from here, so Barnes and I will most certainly talk about this Sunday evening during the Sunday night show of vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All right, what do we got now?
	We've got a couple more stories before we end this.
	Okay, hold on.
	What were the last stories that we had here?
	And is there any more?
	No Rumble Rents.
	Let's go to the chat in locals, in Rumble.
	We are all getting the hammer one way or the other.
	And K. Campbell 48 says, yep, Robert is very informative.
	Dude, he knows it.
	P. Moyer says, Viva, the engineer's perspective.
	The glass is neither half full nor half empty.
	It is twice as large as it needs to be.
	P. Moyer, thank you for the Rumble Rents.
	I would have said, it's neither half full nor half empty.
	I can't even think of a joke for that.
	Okay.
	Oh, what's the next story that we have here?
	Oh, no.
	This was Classfeld reporting on it.
	Classfeld has been following the trial.
	Tweet following the trial.
	But you should go read some of the comments and replies to his tweets because it sounds like he comes from...
	It sounds like his crowd is not supportive of the Donald.
	That was that article there.
	What was the other one that I have here?
	Let me share screen.
	Canada 18 online act.
	Okay, we covered this.
	No concession yet.
	We covered that story.
	Going down.
	Ah, yes.
	So the stream I did on Monday, it didn't even occur to me that YouTube would take issue with it.
	YouTube has decided now it does not want independent voices talking about assessing the North Carolina High school incident.
	Now, I show the video, and I understand, okay, the video's not graphic.
	You can barely see what's going on in it.
	This is the brawl that led to a student being killed in North Carolina.
	The video's gross, the video's ugly, but you can't see anything in the video.
	It's not like some of those videos where you can see everything and it sears a memory in your brain.
	This might, but for other reasons, it's not violent, it's not graphic, and it's not gory, but it depicts what you know happens.
	So I can understand.
	Okay, fine.
	You want to be prude and you want to be holier than thou, YouTube?
	Fine.
	They have made the decision that they don't want independent voices talking about that, or at least if they do...
	They want to make sure as few people as possible hear about it because, as you'll see here, I got a little email in my Gmail account saying, YouTube age-restricted your content.
	Hey, Viva Fry.
	Hey, how you doing?
	We've referred your content to determine that it may not be suitable for viewers under the age of 18 per our community guidelines.
	Ironic, since everybody in the video happens to be under 18 and whatever.
	As a result, we've age-restricted the following content.
	Full stream.
	You can go to the minute.
	It's at minute 50 and 13. Thank you very much at least now.
	They seem to have improved the system a little bit.
	They've identified the spot.
	So now at least I know it.
	There may be other spots, it says, but at least you know this is one of them.
	We haven't applied to strike to your channel.
	Content is still live for some users on YouTube.
	Keep reading for more details.
	What age-restricted means?
	Whatever.
	What age-restricted means?
	It means that YouTube won't promote it.
	It means that your work will, if it gets ads, will get, I don't know, crappy ads or crappy ad revenue percentages.
	And it means that it will be suppressed.
	So your work, your hard work, will not be properly remunerated and will not get even fair, proportionate visibility.
	It will get suppression.
	What does that do to a content creator?
	It makes them say, well, why the hell would I want to do that?
	If you're going to soft-censor me, I'll go and talk about Johnny Depp, or although that was censored at one point.
	It's called soft-censorship, and that's exactly what it is.
	It's a deterrent for independent voices to talk about it.
	Because the evidence that I have right now is that this does not apply equally across the board.
	I would have said, okay, you want to be a bunch of prudes and babies.
	Go ahead and do it.
	This is the scene.
	50 minutes into the stream, you can see it.
	Is this the one from...
	No, this is the one from CBS.
	Sorry, hold on.
	I got ahead of myself.
	I say, you want to block it?
	You want to suppress it?
	Fine.
	You're a bunch of prudes.
	This is the video.
	That's me in the corner.
	And it's at, you know, 50 minutes into the stream.
	Fine.
	Well, I just, you know, for the sake of it.
	Because I know it's going to be the case.
	I just went around there and said, oh, who else is showing the exact same video?
	Oh, would you look at that, CBS 17. Showing the exact same video.
	Oh, look at this, right under there.
	By the way, it didn't ask me how old I was.
	It didn't age restrict it.
	It didn't make me jump through loopholes or sign into my account.
	Just show the video.
	Not only did it show it without any restrictions, so Visible promoted to everybody, they monetized this one.
	Stores are sponsored.
	What was the ad that we saw here?
	The ad was...
	What was the ad?
	It was a good ad.
	Look at this.
	Deadly stabbing stemmed from Southeast Raleigh high school fight.
	This is when CBS does it.
	I don't know what the hell this is, this stupid ad.
	They get ads.
	They don't get age-restricted.
	CBS, good.
	Viva Fry, bad.
	That's how it works.
	That's how the soft censorship works.
	By design, as a deterrent, so they can control the narrative.
	For some reason, they don't like...
	They don't like the narrative that is depicted as reality in that video, so control who can talk about it and when.
	And ladies and gentlemen, hold on just one second.
	What is this?
	Was there anything here?
	Something went wrong.
	Retry.
	Oh yeah, this was the evidence of Nandoodle.
	Okay, that's fine.
	That was a tweet from yesterday.
	Ladies and gentlemen, germs and Germans.
	We're done.
	What we're going to do now, by the way, I'll go to the chat and we'll take some chat and just see what's going on here.
	Cowards only attack in groups.
	They never come at you alone.
	They wouldn't dare.
	It's a good excuse for everybody to learn some good martial arts.
	Learn how to give a short elbow.
	Surprising.
	Learn how to defend yourself.
	When that bus was getting attacked, the bus of UFC fighters in New York City and Times Square.
	Something tells me that the two or three or half dozen UFC fighters on that bus could have taken everybody in the crowd at the same time.
	Learn how to defend yourself.
	Let's continue to crumble, says Dean Tate.
	I never Google unless looking for a locate, says Chrissy Kingdom.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	Let's see here.
	YouTube has made its choice.
	Time to vacate.
	And I'll jump to rumble.
	YouTube still has a function.
	It still has a definitive function.
	It's a revenue supplement, or it's the source of revenue, but it can be used as such.
	Who said this?
	If it wasn't someone who said this before me, I'll say it now.
	It's the most amazing piece of advice you can get.
	It is true that some relationships are exploitive.
	Someone's going to say, well, YouTube is exploiting its content creators by allowing them to build up brand views, etc., etc., run ads, and then, you know, unilaterally, arbitrarily penalizing them.
	True.
	Some people say capitalism is itself a matter of exploitation.
	Your boss makes money off of you and, in so doing, exploits you.
	I don't know who gave me this advice.
	I think someone did because I don't think I would have thought of it on my own.
	There is a mutual form of exploitation, even in a circumstance where one party could say, I'm the exploited.
	Your boss is exploiting you by making money off your back.
	Exploit your boss by learning, acquiring knowledge, skill sets, and a knowledge base that will allow you to one day say to your boss, thank you for the experience.
	I can now make the money for myself.
	YouTube says, we're going to exploit you, run ads on your stuff and arbitrarily penalize you and treat you like dirt.
	Okay, I'm going to exploit YouTube to A, make money.
	To continue doing what I'm doing while building my other platform growth, my other platform existence.
	Rumble, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and selling merch.
	Holy crabapples, have I not done this in a while?
	Get your merch, people.
	vivafry.com.
	You want the best president?
	You want the best mugshots ever?
	Know the fro?
	Oh, look how young and innocent we were back then, back in Canada.
	Populism fix...
	Where the heck are my mugs?
	Here.
	Eh.
	Oi!
	Populism fixes everything.
	Wanted for president, people, it's damn good.
	VivaFry.com, get yours today.
	Christmas is coming.
	So that's it.
	Relationships can be mutually, symbiotically exploitive.
	And I had a labor law professor, get this out of here, labor law professor, Réjean Breton, at Université Laval, when talking about, you know, in response to the arguments, well, nobody can make a living wage working at Walmart.
	The counter is nobody is supposed to be making a living wage doing certain jobs.
	They're intended to train and allow you to ascend to the next platform of life, which is either a job that is a life, what's the word I just said?
	A sustainable life job, or become your own boss.
	So that's it.
	Exploitation is only unilateral and one way in the eyes of a victim.
	You can exploit.
	Even when you're being exploited, and get out of that exploitive relationship as soon as possible.
	Okay, with that word of wisdom, let's go on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where, in a moment, we'll be having our locals' conversation with our locals' convo supporter of the day.
	I will let the person introduce themselves, because I'm so bloody neurotic.
	I know that we're going to say the person's name, but just in case they don't want me to...
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll get the tips.
	We'll have some chat.
	And then our guest, our local supporter, is going to come in for the discussion.
	Everybody, if you're not coming over, thank you for being here.
	It's been great.
	I hope you have learned something today.
	What day is it today?
	Thursday, Friday.
	I'll be going live.
	And then next week, I'm on the road to Alabama for the fourth RNC debate.
	Going to make a road trip out of it.
	Going to make a vlog out of it.
	And I'm going to be streaming en route as well.
	I just need to get my car back.
	Apparently it needed a new...
	What was the word for what it needed?
	Hold on one second.
	The fuse box in the car.
	What's the word for that?
	Hold on.
	I googled it to make sure that I...
	A relay box.
	Chat before I go.
	How much is a relay box, a new relay box for an older Jeep?
	How much is an old, a new relay box supposed to cost?
	At this point, it doesn't matter.
	I've got no choice.
	I've got a car that doesn't start.
	How much is a relay box supposed to cost?
	Let me see here.
	So there's all that to say.
	Next week will be on the road, but we'll still be streaming.
	Sunday night show is going to happen.
	And that's it.
	I'm looking here.
	Taco Time says Jasper Goo.
	Too much is the right answer, says Dog Digger.
	Thanks kindly, Viva.
	Cheers, fine people.
	May you all enjoy the rest of your day, says Chrissy Kingdom.
	The whole box?
	Yikes.
	Yep.
	No clue, but guarantee they'll overcharge.
	Okay, I don't like the two numbers that I just saw, so now I'm going to stop looking at it.
	All right, everybody, get your butts on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	If you're not, I'll see you tomorrow.
	Thank you for being here.
	It's been fun, enlightening, and undoubtedly there will be news to keep us busy between now and tomorrow for tomorrow.
	Peace out, peeps.

▲