All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 1, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:41:06
Trump Changing Tune on Operation Warp Speed? CBC Promoting Propaganda? Shiloh Hendrix Update & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the Interwebs, I am using Streamyard today to simplify the stream because we have a special guest coming in afterwards.
But I forget how to use Streamyard because I have grown so accustomed to Rumble Studio and all of its features that you will forgive me for having botched this intro.
I present to you, Pierre Poitièvre.
Thanks for having me here, everybody.
That's your Levant from Rebel News.
For years before marijuana was decriminalized, it was the position of police and prosecution not to charge anyone with small amounts in possession so they didn't wait for the parliament i see that mark carney's favorite premier doug ford has said he's for the castle law and other provinces like alberta have said that too will you call on doug ford not to wait for carney to reconvene parliament but rather to issue a statement
that there will be no more prosecutions of homeowners who defend their homes just as a matter of policy because right now his prosecutors are going after jeremy mcdonald whose home was invaded in lindsay ontario i will pause it before Before allowing Pierre Poilier to answer the question.
That is Ezra Levant of Rebel News.
If you don't know who he is, welcome to the channel.
We talk with him often.
They do amazing work at Rebel News.
That was a very well thought out question.
One that you will not get from the propagandists at the state-funded CBC.
We'll get to them.
What will be the answer?
Let's see.
And those are provincial prosecutors who're doing that.
Well, I think that's a great idea.
I don't know the legal powers that a premier has to direct the prosecution service.
So I would not comment on it, but I would hope prosecutors would stop going after law-abiding people who are defending their property.
We need prosecutors to go after criminals.
Now, as for their ability to do that, I've never been a Crown Prosecutor, so I don't know.
We have a Crown Prosecutor here, Larry Brock.
So maybe he can jump in on this.
Thank you, Leader.
Although Crown Prosecutors in every province, particularly in Ontario, maintain independence as long as they can justify that independence.
They are still directed policy-wise by the Attorney General.
In this case, the Attorney General of Ontario being Doug Downey.
To answer your question, Mr. Levant, Mr. Downey has that ability to perhaps direct crowns in light of what we are doing at a federal level to reflect upon the change in legislation we hope is about to come.
That is as relates to the Castle Doctrine, which is the doctrine in law pursuant to which a man or woman can defend their home against armed intruders or intruders.
They don't even need to be armed.
You get to defend your home.
It's sort of like stand your ground in your castle, not like stand your ground on the sidewalk or outside or at a store or whatever.
Someone breaks into your home.
If you happen to beat the ever loving piss out of them, that the prosecutors as a matter of policy, barring something egregious, you know, you knock them unconscious, time up, torture him for three days, they won't prosecute you as a matter of policy in Canada.
It's anarchotyranny.
That's going back to the story of the homeowner who's facing assault charges because he beat an armed intruder a little bit too hard and the guy had to be airlifted to a hospital.
And now they're contemplating issuing a directive to the effect that no prosecutors in this anarcho tyranny state that Canada has become will not prosecute law abiding homeowners who defend their home against armed intruders at 3 o'clock in the morning, not that the time even matters.
If you had any lingering doubt, everybody, as to how bat poop insane Canada has gotten, we're going to get to the story that I want to talk about.
It's about Katie from Universal Oyster's Farm.
I think we got to keep that story on the utmost of blast before we get there.
And the stellar journalism hashtag sarcasm that the CBC is doing when you hear a question like that from Ezra L Levant at Rebel News.
When you see Alexa Lavois and what she does at Rebel News.
And then you go look at the fluff piece that the CBC puts out to support the government tyranny because they're funded by the government.
You're going to see a difference between night and day.
The mentality in Canada, if you have this is going to lead into potentially controversial subject matter, which we're going to get back to later on today.
I thought it was a joke, but it's not a joke.
This is a journalist.
Read the Maple at Ricochet underscore, I guess Ian is English at the Grind Toronto Yedek Hasabim.
at Nerdogan Journo.
This is a tweet and I'm going to read it, which says The Air Show in Downtown Toronto.
This is not merely a show for people.
It is a deep trauma for the families of Palestinians whose homes were destroyed by Israeli bombings in Gaza.
That's cruelty, not entertainment.
Now, I must admit at one point in time when I was back in Montreal and I was sitting on the terrace of our former house and jets flew by very low because they were flying over a football game which was at the McGill Stadium, which was just up the street., but by a jet's flight, it was a second.
So they got a deformation.
And I'm like, holy cows, if you don't know what's going on, that could scare a person.
And I did think, you know, if you have, if you have experienced the trauma of war, that could be upsetting, it could be traumatizing, it could bring back memories.
To come to a point where saying it's a matter of policy now that we shouldn't do this because people who have fled war torn countries for the freedom that is offered by countries with the military might to actually protect such freedoms, you shouldn't do it because it's offensive to them.
I thought for a second the tweet was parody.
It wasn't parody.
I had to go down to the comments on this to make sure that it wasn't satire.
Rob Primo, who I believe I follow and he follows me on Twitter, says, then tell them to get the FK out of our country.
If they don't want to see our culture and heritage, go back to your war-torn country.
Rowan says, don't like it, go home.
This is Canada, not some foreign, faraway land.
RCAF says, Daisy Media.
John Fraser says, Oh, piss off.
This has been a Toronto tradition for decades.
If people don't like it, they don't have to watch.
Why are the Palestinians at a Canadian air show?
This one I thought I've done.
You get in there and you make it a boat.
I mean, this applies to any anybody who, you know, Epstein, zealots who want to make everything about what they are zealously following.
And my question, to the extent that this is not satire, and it was, yes, the sight of planes is going to upset people who have fled war-torn countries, and in this case, Palestinians who have fled Israeli bombings.
I mean, this is not even hyperbolic.
This is an actual sincere, legit question.
Where does it end?
I'm sure to them, the sight of Jews, religious Jews, the Israeli flag will be a trauma in as much as a plane will be a trauma.
Are we, are they going to say, uh, Israel, religious Jews, chassidic Jews, don't walk outside, don't go around Palestinian neighborhoods.
Why there would be imported foreign strife into Canada?
Well, it's already now there as a matter of fact.
The mere sight of Jews, religious Jews, the Israeli flag is a trauma and needs to be prevented.
We've got to create something of an apartheid state in Canada.
Can't have visible Jews within the eyesight of Palestinians because it will be traumatic.
So let's erect walls.
direct ghettos, for lack of a better word.
This is what happens when you have no cohesive foreign policy and have nothing but knee-jerk reaction to A, on the one hand, arguably participating in causing a problem, and then your solution to the problem that you caused is let's welcome in the people who are now fleeing the conflict which we have been supporting directly or indirectly.
And this doesn't only have to do with Israel and Gaza, this has to do with Ukraine, Russia, Syria, pretty much anywhere in the Middle East.
Go in, bomb the shit out of the country, support the countries that are doing doing it and then say now we have the moral obligation to welcome in all of those who are fleeing the war-torn countries of the wars that we are waging directly or indirectly But that's what's going on in Canada.
Darn it, I'm using Streamrun and I can't figure out how to do anything anymore.
Oh, lordy lordy.
Just to wake you up today.
Now, by the way, just before we get into the actual subject matter of the day, Austrich story, Rudy Giuliani and the story of the day, which some of my predictions have been doing very well.
Like, yeah, it's making predictions is a long term investment.
When you make the prediction, by definition, it hasn't happened yet.
Otherwise, it would just be an observation.
And then, you know, the curves of time, like, oh, it didn't come true.
Oh, oh, oh, looky, looky, looky.
Trump put out a truth post, which was, some would say, not critical of Operation Warp Speed.
I argue it is exactly the change in tack.
That's the boating term that maybe ought to have been done a little earlier, but I'll say fine.
He played the strategy.
Now he's in office and now he can afford to change tack and go after Operation Warp Speed and those who participated in what I believe was pathological lying, falsification of evidence.
And now hopefully we can get Trump and his administration to.
We get Pan Bomb's attention, although people are going to say she's not going to do anything that's going to be anti-Pfizer, reopen, get involved in the reinstate the I am Brooke Jackson ketan Pfizer fraud lawsuit.
We'll get there.
But before we get there, it's Labor Day.
Do we say happy Labor Day?
Enjoy Labor Day, everybody.
It's my wife and I are celebrating our eighteenth anniversary tomorrow, eighteen years of marriage.
So we got married in 2007.
No, 2008.
No, 2007.
Hold on.
Is it eighteen or is it what year are we in?
It's eighteen years of marriage.
Yeah, 2007.
Forgot what year in.
We had been dating for eight and a half years before we got married.
So we have technically been together longer than we had been apart before we even got to know each other.
So 18 years, I don't know what to do to celebrate, but do we say no happy Labor Day, King of Piltong?
All right, well, enjoy Labor Day, people.
What was I about to say?
Let's get into the story of the day.
Universal Ostrich Farms, you all know the story.
This is the government, the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is supposed to inspect food, I guess.
I'm not sure what their mission statement is.
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, ordered a kill order of 400 at the time is a little over 400 i think ostriches because they uh two of them had tested positive for H5N1, 60 some odd died when it hit the flock, and the others survived and nine months later are still alive and noninfected.
They issued a kill order in December of last year.
The Universal Austrian Farms took the decision of the administration, the administrative body, the CFIA, to a federal court to get an injunction.
They were enjoined from enforcing it.
They had a whole hearing three, four, maybe even five months later that was ratified.
The federal court came out and said, yes, it was such an emergency at the time.
The decision by the CFIA and administrative body was not fundamentally unreasonable.
and therefore it's ratified and they can go in and kill these ostriches.
I want to just start off with one thing about the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
I have been complaining about the fact that their tweets have been, their accounts have been protected for a very long time.
It's a government agency with a government check mark on Twitter.
And you see the little gray check mark there.
And I've been complaining about it for quite some time that their tweets have been protected.
And I said, no government organization that has a government check mark on X should be allowed to protect their tweets almost by definition.
It's not a private account.
It's a public government account.
They don't have any right to censor.
They don't have any right to protect their tweets and say who can respond to them.
And everyone's like, well, they've been protected since before this debacle.
Well, I don't care a sweet bug or all when they've decided to protect their tweets.
They shouldn't be protected.
I went back to double check now, and it seems that they're no longer protected.
At least the president, Paul McKinnon, the man who is the president of the organization that now wants to slaughter 398 healthy, beautiful ostriches that have been in the family of Universal Austrich Farms for thirty plus years.
His tweets are still protected, but the agency itself.
Have their tweets protected.
They've just restricted who can and cannot reply to any of their tweets.
Only accounts that at inspection can mention can reply.
That's as good as censorship.
It should not be allowed.
Any government account that has a gray check mark that is afforded only to government accounts should not be allowed to protect their accounts or to limit who can reply to their tweets.
Period.
What the hell was I getting at after that?
Oh, yeah.
So the bottom line is, it goes through the court systems.
It goes to the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa.
The kill order has been ratified.
Enter CBC News.
Does everybody know CBC News is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
Are we looking at the same thing here?
Hold on a second.
Let me make sure we're looking at the same thing.
Now I've lost my page.
Hold up one second.
Stream Yard Studio.
Okay, we're in there.
We're good.
Let me maximize the screen so we can see what's going on here.
CBC News, government funded, taxpayer funded.
I should say taxpayer funded, not government funded, because government doesn't have money.
Maybe they do sometimes.
You know, they have money from selling arms and selling drugs in inner cities.
But what they're paying with now is taxpayer dollars.
CBC News is taxpayer funded.
What are they doing?
Oh, look at this.
Comments turned off.
This is on CommitTube.
So you would expect nothing less from CommitTube.
This is a CBC news exposé.
We're going to go through it.
It's five minutes.
I'm going to break it up into sections.
This is a CBC news exposé that is entitled We ask an infectious disease expert.
We ask an infectious disease experts.
See, even they make typos.
I judge them.
I judge them for their typos.
We ask an infectious disease expert or we ask infectious disease experts about Dr. Oz's ostrich claims.
When the media.
media is not the government watch lapdog.
I screwed it up.
When the media has ceased being the government watchdog and started being the government lapdog, you have entered fascism.
I mean, pretty much by definition, this is state-funded media from our taxpayer dollars, not mine anymore, because I'm not paying taxes in Canada anymore, putting on an expose the purpose of which is to basically brainwash the general public into supporting the government tyranny.
State-funded by the government, $1.6 billion a year.
Then they get indirect government subsidizing through ads, ad dollars and all the rest of it, putting out a five minute piece to justify and try to brainwash the general public to accept the government's tyranny to go slaughter 398 healthy ostriches.
Let's play this through.
So this ostrich farm in BC has received a lot of love from Dr. Oz, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and many other supporters.
They all want to save a flock of 400 ostriches on a BC farm.
But there's a catch.
The birds were in contact with a deadly virus H5N1, a type of avian flu.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordered the birds to be killed because of a outbreak in December of last year where 69 of 468 Austrichs died.
That very, very sudden.
December of last year.
That order led to a legal fight between the CFIA and the owner, Universal Austrich.
They say the Austrichs should not be killed because the remaining birds have survived the outbreak and could be studied.
Since then, a number of claims have been made about the birds, including that they are unique in surviving H5N1.
I asked an infectious disease veterinarian about that.
As expected, not everyone dies with influenza when it comes to Austrichs.
Different species have different responses to it, and we don't expect all individuals to die.
Vocal fry drives me crazy.
Scott Whis, infectious diseasease veterinarian, University of Guelph.
And it probably worked its way through.
The challenge is we don't know that.
And influenza can circulate in individuals without causing signs of disease.
It probably circulated.
We don't know that except it's been nine months.
And yet somehow it might still be there, maybe.
So kill them all.
This is what they are expecting the public to believe.
And if they don't believe it, they're going to manipulate them to think, well, hey, a professor at University of Guelph said as much.
But during court hearings earlier this year, the owner pleaded their case, claiming that the birds have herd immunity, but the infectious disease veterinarian says that's a tough claim to prove.
I'll think about us with influenza, right?
We can get influenza a variety of times.
Sure, you've survived influenza.
You may be protected to some degree, but you certainly can't say this group of birds is never going to get influenza again.
So you understand this because they might get influenza again, kill them now.
That way we'll ensure that they never get it again.
By the way, just, you know, not for nothing.
You know who the biggest funding of University of Guelph is?
I mean, you all know this.
Who funds University of Guelph?
It's AI, but I knew the answer to that.
The University of Guelph is primarily funded through a mix of sources, including a significant allocation from the Ontario government, operational revenues, private sector funding, and various federal agencies such as the TRI agencies and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation for Research.
So you have right now, understand the full trifecta of fascism.
You've got state-funded media using state-funded experts to ratify the state's decision to slaughter private property belonging to someone else in the absence of any need whatsoever.
That is fascism.
by definition in its purest form.
Meanwhile, the former TV host and current administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, has claimed that the birds hold huge scientific value to the global community.
Because they have survived the virus.
But a virologist I spoke to said this wouldn't be new research.
People have done.
Listen to this.
It wouldn't be new research to research on birds that have survived the H5N1.
Why would it not be new research?
Here's another one with a little vocal fry.
from the government.
Where's she from?
Wait, I'll see.
I'm not sure.
But a virologist I spoke to said this wouldn't be new research.
People have done experimental studies infecting ostriches with H5N1.
Virologist University of Saskatchewan.
I'll go see who funds their research.
with H5N1 and other avian influenza subtypes.
So you wouldn't really be learning necessarily anything new.
So that part has certainly been overstated by doctor Oz.
You wouldn't necessarily be learning anything new.
So that part has been overstated.
So it's still possible.
It's still potential, but you wouldn't be learning anything new from them.
So kill the healthy birds.
Do you understand how this brainwashing works?
And other Trump officials like US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, junior wrote in a letter to the CFIA that he believes significant scientific knowledge can be gained from following the Austriches in a controlled environment.
But is that actually possible?
It's very difficult to test for influenza antibodies in almost any species because we've all been infected with flu so many times.
Pause.
Then how did you diagnose them the first time?
The two corpses that you tested with a PCR anal swab, if it's very difficult to test because we've all been infected, how do you even know that the tests from before were good?
But don't, hey, I'm not a CBC journalist.
Why would they ask that question of the virologist from the University of Saskatchewan?
Hey, good, interesting point.
It's very tough to test if you've gotten influenza because we've all gotten it, especially when you have a PCR test that might be cycling through at rates that are picking from infections from a while back.
How do you even know they had it in the first place?
No, those tests were good.
Kill them.
Tests now to show that they don't have it.
No good.
Kill them.
All roads lead to slaughter.
So the tests you have to use to try to address some of the technical issues with this often require live virus in a containment laboratory.
Here's a thought.
Just let RFK Jr. deal with that and the farmers in America deal with that after you ship them to America.
No, no, you can't have them.
We want to kill them.
We're not bringing them down to you.
It's too logistically hard to hard to test them.
You're not going to learn anything new.
You can't test for H5N1 because we've all been infected.
So we're killing them.
And I'm quite certain that the ostrich farm does not have access to that.
Survivors probably.
The ostrich farm might not have access to that.
That's why RFK Jr. wants them, has asked for them.
have antibodies in them just like you have antibodies if you gotten through flu.
There's not really anything too unique about that.
There have been a lot of comment That was from an episode of Family Guy, if anybody didn't see that one.
You know how these are important for research value but for research.
And no one's actually ever said what, right?
What are we actually going to get out of these individuals?
Oh, here, here, let me say it, because you're an idiot and the journalist is a propagandist piece of rubbish.
We don't know what we're going to get out of it.
What we're looking for is potentially useful antibodies that could be used to prevent or mitigate infection of H5N1 in the future, to the extent that this ostrich flock has survived H5N1.
That's what we're looking for.
You're not going to find that.
We've got to go kill them.
And what value is there versus risk?
That risk is why the CFIA has ordered the birds to be killed in the first place.
That risk, which is now nine months old.
strain of avian influenza is currently being monitored worldwide and while it mainly affects birds it can spread to other animals and humans bc has already been largely affected by a spread of avian flu with over eight million birds impacted i i uh i need to see something here hold on let me let me finish the game there was also one human eight million birds impacted case of h5n1 in bc stop let me back this up eight million birds impacted does that mean they were slaughtered What does impacted mean here?
Number of domestic birds impacted by H5 subtype avian flu.
What does that mean?
Million birds impacted.
And I'm not trying to be glib or facetious or, you know, words.
Wordsmith of the Devil does impacted mean that they were slaughtered because they were suspected of having come across or they were slaughtered as a result of some in the flock having been diagnosed with H5N1?
I don't even know how to determine what that means.
If anybody wants to snip and clip this and ask the CBC, what does it mean when you say they've been impacted by H5 subtype?
Does it mean that they've gotten sick and died or does it mean that they've been slaughtered because of a cull order which has now killed millions, resulted in the slaughter of millions and millions of birds and the jacking up of egg prices under the Biden administration, which they then blame on Trump?
Set all that aside.
There was also one human case of H5N1 in BC earlier this year that required critical care in hospital.
By the way, I think I might be able to get this individual on the channel.
I think, fingers crossed.
I'm going to come back to this one single solitary case of H5N1 in Canada that resulted in hospitalization because it also illustrates the fact that AI is becoming the tool of the propagandist fascist governments.
Along with some cases in the US, one resulted in death.
Oh, yeah.
More people say that the more the virus spreads, the more it could mutate and further affect livestock and humans.
Every time it jumps into a mammal, especially jumps into a person, it can change.
And the big concern would be if it combines with a mammalian virus.
That's how we get pandemic flu viruses.
The CFIA.
We better kill anybody who got infected.
I mean, you don't want morphine.
Says the response to H5N1 is an approach known as stamping out.
That response follows the CFIA's agreement with the World Organization for Animal Health.
World Organization for Animal Health dictating what the Canadian government does to private property in Canada.
Is that not only is it fascist, but it's globalist fascist right now.
Canada is party to trade agreements, which essentially means that if there there is a outbreak of H5N1 bird flu on a poultry farm, which strips are considered poultry, then the first line response to that is by calling the whole flock.
And that's stamping out.
By the way, stamping out, stamping out.
Two weeks to flatten the curves.
What's what they're calling out in Nova Scotia where they're kicking people or blocking people from the forests?
Stamping out, flatten the curve.
It's going to go from stamping out to H5N10, much like two weeks to flatten the curve turned into COVID zero.
The policy itself is really required because this is the only way to prevent H5N1 from spreading.
And when it does spread, especially to certain species of poultry, especially chickens and turkeys, it really wipes out the entire flock in a pretty gruesome way.
Understand this.
It wipes out the entire flock in a pretty gruesome way.
So let's wip out the entire flock in a pretty gruesome way.
These people are just in a cult of death and control and destruction.
And what they want to do is literally kill people, which they're doing also in Canada, kill animals and basically put a nation into a state of starvation.
You want to know how millions and tens of millions of people starved under communist socialist regimes?
This is how.
Oh my goodness, the H5N1 one, it really will, it will kill the flock in a gruesome way.
So let's kill them now.
The experts I spoke to say culling is the typical method used when fighting a outbreak like this, but they say this case does raise questions about whether culling is the only option.
If you had a farm that said, Okay, I got influenza here.
We're going to report this right away.
We think we can avoid a cull.
We want to talk about this.
And while we're doing this, we're going to do everything possible to contain this virus.
I'm going to get on board with that.
This situation is different, though.
And we Oh really?
Do you know anything about this situation, mister Reese?
I don't think you do.
This case is different because according to court documents, the ostriches were in open pens with free access to wild birds and animals.
Even after quarantine orders were put in place, inspectors noted wild animals were interacting with the ostriches and other safety measures weren't followed.
They've been choosing pictures of themselves with the birds without PPE.
They've been showing pictures of themselves with the birds without PPE.
PPE, which does nothing but set that aside, outdoors with healthy birds.
How long do they have to wear PPE for?
Mr. Dr. Reese.
Invited a convoy to the farm.
That's quarantine.
Invited a convoy to the farm.
Wording is not accidental there.
Followed.
They've been choosing pictures of themselves with the birds without PPE.
They've invited a convoy to the farm.
That's quarantine.
This is not a situation where you get confidence that they're doing what they can do to contain the disease while you're fighting this.
There is no disease while they're fighting this.
Moron.
He says this particular case has gone beyond the typical response to control a disease outbreak.
Just moved away from disease control and the animals in a long, in a lot of ways to anti-government, anti-regulation, to a variety of other talking points beyond disease.
That is the hard work from the propagandists at CBC News.
Ask none of the questions.
And this is what they put out.
And the amount of Canadians who watch this, who are now going to say, yeah, what's the big deal?
It's for the greater good.
Better safe than sorry.
Stay farther apart from each other.
It's tyranny.
And this is what's going on right now.
Everybody's trying to get the bigger eyes on this, the biggest eyes on this, get Elon Musk to send up some Starlink, even though nobody needs the Starlink from Elon Musk, but a retweet to get the biggest eyes and the biggest bullhorns to put this on the biggest amplification humanly possible because this is the absolute state of Canada.
Sorry if that was a little long, people., let's see what's going on here.
They want to kill everything, depop everything, says Yaba Duty.
Oh, Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
Let me do one thing here.
Go over to our Locals community where we have, how do I do this?
I can go like this now.
Here we go, Locals, where we have a question from Shyleena says, just an observation.
I've noticed they only seem to be killing chickens and these ostriches, not all the ducks, migratory birds like geese.
Duh, they're all fascists.
Well, that's the ultimate irony in all this is that they say you can't prevent anything outdoors from coming in contactct with wild birds.
And now, take it one step further.
Dogs are outside.
Cattle are outside.
Are they going to slaughter entire cattle?
I don't even know if that's the word.
Slaughter cows, dogs, any animal that happens to be outside and come in contact with a bird.
Oh, and by the way, just not for nothing, that one case out of Canada.
I had to double check.
There's no confirmation anywhere that it resulted from contact with a dead bird.
And by the way, you want to understand how chat GPT is worse than useless?
Chat GPT is worse than useless because...
Chat GPT.
I mean, I think most people understand this now.
I didn't understand it at first.
It's only as good as the input.
And basically the input is the CBC is the national is propaganda.
So I asked Chat GPT.
I said, the question was, I cut it off here, but this is the answer.
I said, how did the person get H5N1, the Canadian case?
And I gave the link.
Thanks for the link.
That case is from British Columbia, 2025.
According to the Canadian health officials and the National Microbiology Laboratory, exposure history, the teen had been in close.
contact with sick and dead backyard poultry before falling ill.
Understand the way that ChatGPT just told me.
According to the Canadian health officials and the National Microbiology Laboratory, the teen had been in close contact with sick and deadly chicken.
This wasn't a broad statement.
This wasn't an ambiguous statement.
This is according to the Canadian health officials.
And I said, that was not my understanding.
Can you provide a link as evidence?
I get back from ChatGPT who basically just lied to me.
Oh, yeah, according to the national thing there, the national data, the government, according to the government, the teen had come in contact with.
You're right to press for clarity.
I went back to your linked article.
It does not say the British Columbia teen had backyard poultry exposure.
Here's what the SIDRAP report actually stated.
Health officials did not release details on the source of exposure, only saying that investigations were ongoing and that the case appears to be linked to animal to human transmission appears to be linked.
They stressed there was no evidence the person the person contact good.
And then I said, why did you initially tell me it's a girl she he he contacted contracted it through contact with dead chickens.
Good catch.
Let me explain.
When you first asked, I answered with the most common pathway for AIDS.
No, you didn't.
You specifically said going back to it, you specifically said according to the Canadian health officials and the National Microbiology Laboratory.
And if I didn't know the ans answer to the question, I would have believed it.
And anybody who doesn't know the answer to that question is going to believe it and will be lied to by an AI, whatever the hell, open language, large language model that is ChatGPT, that is fueled by the lies.
And this is the next step of abject fascism and tyranny.
Artificial intelligence repeating lies to you because it's fed by the government-funded lies.
Appreciate how dangerous that is, people.
Okay, that's all that we're going to talk about for the story.
Sniff clip, share away, put it on blast.
Let's see what we can do.
You know, I have no problem eating ostriches.
It's actually delicious meat.
The eggs are delicious, a little fluffier than regular eggs.
This is the government basically saying, we get to enter your property, kill your animals under the pretext of safety.
And if they're outdoor animals, well, they're at more risk.
All that we need is a complaint from a gruntled neighbor and we get to come in and kill your peanut, kill your Fred, the raccoon, like they did in New York, except this time it's 398 ostriches that were never intended for human consumption, have not been open to the public in damn near five years, I think since COVID, and are healthy.
But you got a virologist from University of Sas Guelph state funded on state funded media telling you, yeah, it's necessary under these circumstances.
Nothing to see here.
Go home.
Let us kill your animals.
Serenity now.
Let me see what's going on in our viva barns law dot locals dot com.
Elon Hulkover says, don't think that it's kosher.
No, strips are not kosher.
By the way, stay around for the after party here today.
It's going to be not behind a paywall because I'm using Streamyard.
We've got a member of our local community that's coming along.
That's coming on for an interview.
It's going to be fantastic.
His name is Elon Hulkover.
He's got amazing sub stack.
So stay tuned for that.
The good news of the day, I am going to pat myself on the back for this.
Donald John Trump has put out a tweet, a truth post, I should say, that has rocked the very world of Anthony Fauci.
That's not what I'm looking for.
Here we go.
Donald John Trump put out this tweet today and it's not going to piss everybody off.
It's only going to be used by the left, the disingenuous, dishonest left to say, oh, he's waffling.
Look at this.
Operation Warp Speed.
He's finally admitting it's not a success.
It's a big thing.
I don't care.
New information has come in.
I've been pushing Trump and Trump admin to reposition, repivot, change tack on Operation Warp Speed.
And I'm going to pat myself on the back in a second, but this is the truth post of the day.
My old eyes are going to enhance this.
Donald J. Trump at Real Donald Trump.
It is very important that the drug companies justify the success of their various COVID drugs.
Many people think they are a miracle that saved millions of lives, capital M millions.
It's so random.
Others disagree.
Me.
With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer and I want it now.
I have been shown information from Pfizer and others that is extraordinary, but they never seem to show those results to the public.
Why not?
They go off on the next hunt and let everyone rip themselves apart, including Bobby Kennedy junior and the CDC, trying to figure out the success or failure of the drug company's COVID work.
They show me great numbers and results, but they don't seem to be showing them to many others.
I want them to show them now to CDC and the public and clear up this mess one way or the other.
I hope Operation Warp Speed was as, quote, brilliant, end quote as many say it was if not we all want to know about it and why thank you for your attention to this very important matter president Donald John Trump it's not about being right I'm going to come back to this in a second it's not about being right but the fact that I claim some vindication after the shit that I took back in the day it does feel good also that
right or wrong vindication or not This is the right move.
It could have been done earlier.
Maybe it couldn't have been done earlier for election reasons.
I don't know.
But it's being done now.
Back in the back in the day when Trump was out there touting the success of Operation Warp Speed, what else was he?
Oh, God, celebrating the pharma companies at games and getting booed for it.
I'm like, how the hell is he not getting it?
That on the ground, people are pissed with Operation Warp Speed, not what it was intended to be, but what it became.
People are pissed with the COVID jab, not because it was created, but because it was mandated by a government that wasn't Donald John Trump's government.
Fine.
To come out when the reports are the actual.
after-mass experimentation reports are out and they're showing myocarditis in young men, clots in young women, cancers rising, but you can't call it, what are they called?
Not supercancers.
Oh, cryp.
What's the word I'm looking for?
Not mega cancers.
It'll come to me in a second.
You can't call it turbo cancers, but you can call it aggressive cancers.
Heart attacks, strokes.
all sorts of health problems that coincide with the administration of the jab.
So what Pfizer showed Trump, I have no doubt were amazing, great, stunning numbers, because it was all fucking fraud.
We know it was fraud.
We've paid attention to the Brooke Jackson fraud Ketam lawsuit against Pfizer.
She was a whistleblower who was involved in the trials.
We know that they literally went in and wrote out adverse events of Maddie Degary, a child, as one example.
We know that they got people out of the trials who were injured for whatever the pretextual reasons so that they didn't show up as adverse events.
We know it was fraud.
Why it took Trump this long a period of time, he wasn't in office in fairness.
They lied to him in fairness.
And it looks like he has heard.
and better late than never.
This was a truth post.
When was this from?
January 5, 7 March 2024.
Donald John Trump says, quote, The pandemic no longer controls our lives.
The vaccines that saved us from COVID are now being used to help win cancer, turning setback into comeback, end quote.
I guess he was quoting, what's his face?
Joe Biden.
You're welcome, Joe.
Nine month approval time versus twelve years that it would have taken you.
All right.
People were pissed when he put that out.
I was a little irritated when he put that out.
At the time, and this is again, February 8 March 2024.
I said Trump is getting rate for this truth post and rightly so.
The steel man is that Biden is now exploiting the success of the experimental mRNA jab to use it in the fight against cancer for those who have forgotten his idiotic 2020 campaign promise to cure cancer.
So Trump doesn't want Biden taking credit for what Trump developed or was developed under Operation Warp Speed under Trump's administration.
There's a lot of ego involved in this and also a little bit of shame if you discover at the end of the day that that which you took pride in, that which was developed under your administration actually killed, maimed, injured tens of millions of people.
You, you, you would not only have the ego to defend your work, You would have the natural human instinct to not admit to having caused massive devastation, which Trump never has to say that he did, and which I don't think would fall on his shoulders.
He never mandated that jab operation warp speed.
Well, I'll get into my tweet.
The problem is that the experimental jab didn't even cure or prevent COVID.
We are a long way from that technology being potentially useful to cure cancer.
Ironically, many would say that the jab is actually causing cancers.
Trump is still trying to tout as a success a shot that has injured or killed countless people.
It is not just a politically damaging position to take.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the success end quote of the jab is arguable at best.
The jab will go down in history as an abject disaster.
Trump needs to read Brooke Jackson's whistleboro complaint.
He needs to understand that Fauci lied to him and to us.
He needs to understand that Pfizer lied to him and to us.
He needs to understand that Moderna lied to him and to us.
He needs to understand that Operation Morphired was co-opted from its initial purpose and weaponized into an excuse to mass vaccinate even those that didn't need any such vaccine in the first place.
He needs to understand that the data was falsified, the risks were concealed, the manufactured and the manufactured developed product was not that which was approved in any event.
That's the theory of the Brooke Jackson lawsuit.
It's supposed to be a vaccine to prevent the transmission of the disease, safe and effective, and it was none of those three.
He then needs to publicly admit this and vow to go after those responsisible, those who lied to him and to us, those who are responsible for the irreparable damage that so many of us suffered.
Otherwise, continuing to take pride in this experimental shop will continue to cause him potentially critical political damage in general and in particular among those whose support he desperately needs and those who desperately want to support him.
In my humble opinion, respectfully submitted.
And we are now here at a point where that is, we're not there yet.
This is the pivot point.
Hey guys, the statistics you showed me, they were awesome.
They were great.
Why aren't you showing them to the public?
Why do you want 75 years to release the data?
Hey guys, you know, people have some questions here.
Some people say it was a great success.
Why aren't you showing this to the general public?
Well, because if they do, the aggregate wisdom of the crowdsourcing of knowledge among the public will show where Pfizer falsified the data, delivered a toxic jab, ill conceived from the get-go, but then manufacturing problems that probably produced hot batches that hurt exponentially more than the not hot batches.
And I said, I'm posting this.
Real Donald Trump needs to reinstate the Brooks Jackson Ketam lawsuit against Pfizer.
That is how he will get the answers he's looking for.
That is how Trump will understand how they lied and falsified their data.
Never forgive, never forget, hold the line.
Godspeed Trump, the truth shall set us all free and hopefully lock a few of those mofos up.
That's where we're at today.
That's the big news of the day.
We'll get there and we are in the process of getting there and we are now January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, seven months into his four year presidency.
We have got plenty of time to get to the bottom of that debacle of a jab and hold those responsible.
Fauci, maybe he's at the federal level, he got a pardon, not at the state level.
and not at the international level.
And if it comes out that Fauci participated in Albert Burla, who deserves to be in jail, Stefan Banquel, Moderna, jail.
Well, if it turns out that he had a hand in it, the states will find a reason to go after him because he injured people at the state level.
We'll get there.
This is the biggest turn towards that outcome.
And I am.
uh ecstatic to have been vindicated to some extent and optimistic for the future and people facing their day in court and their day of justice king of build King of Bilton, $125, man.
Thank you, King of Bilton.
Bilton is a high protein snack that has over 50 percent protein.
Bilton is also rich in B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and more.
Go to biltongusa.com.
Use code VIVA for 10% off.
I want to actually just show you what the website looks like because Bilton is flipping amazing.
It's South African beef jerky.
I know they don't like me calling it beef jerky because it's like cured.
It's like prosciutto but made of beef.
The spices on the outside.
Oh yeah.
The marbling fat, the spices on the outside.
It's flipping delicious.
And I mean, for people who say it's a little pricey, it's no more pricey than beef jerky, except it's good.
You go, you go to get me out of here.
You go to a gas station, you get that crappy ass Jackson links.
It makes your jaw buckle.
It causes TMJ.
And it's like 15 bucks a bag now.
Go get, go get Biltong.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Biltong.
Then we got Ginger Ninja.
said this reminds me of the people bitching about Independence Day fireworks that for their yuppie soft pod mutts that can handle a couple of sonic booms at sunset.
Let freedom ring.
And Ginger Ninja says, I know what birds are potentially susceptible to getting H5N1.
And that's every bird alive.
I'm a genius better than every one of those experts.
No, I can, like, first of all, I can appreciate people said, yeah, the loud noises of fireworks scare birds.
Piss off.
Stay indoors.
Keep your dogs indoors.
The birds will get over it.
Don't worry about it except those that, you know, get might get blown up.
If you're worried about the birds adversely interacting with fireworks, well, you might be the biggest radical anti windmill person on Earth.
It's just it's just such easy virtue signaling.
But this I can appreciate.
Okay, people who fled war torn countries might have recollections of war when they see jets flying in the sky.
Planes?
Jews in general?
I forget what movie it was.
I think it was called East West, where it was two Eastern Europeans who were in a hospital who had fled.
And I think it was Bosnia-Herzegovina.
It's a foreign movie.
Anybody who knows this movie in the chat, I would love to remember what movie it was called.
It was someone from Bosnia and someone from Serbia, I think.
They were in a hospital in, I want to say, France, because I think it was a French movie.
And then they started fighting with each other in the hospital.
And it was a comedy.
It wasn't a drama.
You import foreign problems.
You basically nationalize foreign problems.
Anybody coming to another country and asking for it to be their home will assimilate in the proper sense of the term, will amalgamate.
Is that the word I'm looking for?
and will not demand that the society welcoming them in change to meet their demands, but that they will change to meet the expectations of the society into which they move.
So that's that.
Bill Tong is unironically good, says Dream and Logic.
This I can bring up the I can bring up the comments from Twitter, but not the comments from locals.
Let me bring up Elan Hulkover.
If you're watching, Elan pop in the backstream whenever you're ready to come on.
We're going to we're going to get this started.
Let me bring up these here.
Okay, so Shylena says just an observation.
I've noticed they only seem to be culling ducks, chickens, not all okay, not the migratory ones.
Yeah, Red team 33 says funny.
It's funny that we're talking about the jab today.
Two weeks ago yesterday, my brother's wife found her otherwise healthy and physically fit late twenty son dead on the floor.
We're still waiting for the toxically report from the autopsy, but it's looking more and more like it was the jab.
No affirmation or contradiction there.
I'll tell you an anecdote in a second.
Jameson 2012 says it's not about being right.
It's more about not being left.
Look at the cancer rates in China and their jab.
I can send you a video on China and cancer, says Jameson.
And chien visage, which is dog for dog, which is French for dog face, says Kitam Viva always providing legal jargon.
Many thanks.
Kitam, it's a fraud by derivative lawsuit where the individual takes it on behalf of the state.
And the state, Joe Biden's government intervened and killed the lawsuit.
And I know people are saying Pan Bondy's never going to get involved in this.
For reasons of conflict of interest and corruption because it would involve going after Pfizer.
The one thing and everybody who laughed at me when I said, do you think Trump's policy in Iran might have been influenced by the social media backlash?
And then someone said, Yeah, if you know Trump doesn't listen to people, Trump does listen to people on Twitter.
Trump does listen to public opinion and he does listen to the constructive criticism of his supporters.
And I count myself among them.
And he does change that position and he might fire Pan Bondi.
She needs to be fired.
Period.
Pan Bondi is the weakest link of that administration right now, specifically in the DOJ.
Okay, now let me see what's going on here.
Give me one second.
I see Elon Hulkover in our chat.
Let me just make it not in the chat in the backdrop.
I'm going to bring him in and we're going to go live.
We're going to go live on all platforms.
This is going to be, so for everyone who doesn't know in our Locals community, back in the day, Locals viva barnslaw dot locals dot com dot We've got a wonderful massive above average community.
There's members who are not paying supporters, who don't financially support, at least they might do it on a tip type basis, but we've got a massive amount of members and we've got a beautiful amount of supporters.
And back in the day, I would do weekly or biweekly interviews and then it's sort of faded out of members of our community.
And we've got veterans, we've got doctors, one of whom has become my go to whenever I have a problem.
I think I got a hairline fracture on my foot and I sent the photo, the doc picture and said, yeah, it might be hairline fracture, it might be inflammation, whatever.
We're coming back to it.
And Elan Hulkover has a sub stack.
Hold on a second.
I want to bring up the sub stack before I bring up Elan that everyone should be checking out.
Elan Hulk, Hulk, Hulk, or I mean, it's it's okay here.
Let me show you the sub stack and a knowledgeable man who is specifically knowledgeable on Middle East politics.
And if you haven't seen the sub stack, this is it.
Now, it might piss some of you off because you might not agree with what he says, but too bad.
That's what democracy is.
You don't have to listen to it.
But if you get pissed off about someone else's opinions, thought out, well thought out, well documented opinions, you are not the good guy in that.
So without further ado, let me just share everybody the link to his sub stack.
Let's bring on Elan.
I will not delve too far into.
I'm not going to delve too deep into childhood, but I do it anyhow.
Elan, are you ready?
Thumbs up.
Elan, how do you pronounce your last name?
Holkauer.
Holkauer.
It's great to be here, by the way.
It's great to meet you.
I'm going to ask you a lot of questions.
We are live across the internet, and this is my covering my ass.
You understand this is going to be on the internet forever.
I won't be able to take it down even if you ask me to.
If you say something that you regret, it's live and it's never going to come down.
You good with that?
No pressure.
Elan, tell us who you are.
Well, I'm born and raised in the United States to a Jewish family.
I'm an Orthodox Jew, so religiously observant and so on.
So I mean, I grew up.
Yeah, I grew up that way as well.
I lived for, you know, most of my days in Illinois.
For two years I lived in Madison, Wisconsin.
For two years I lived when I was studying for my master in the state of Israel.
Okay.
Now, how old are you?
You look very young.
Oh, I'm thirty.
You're young enough.
Let me make sure the audio levels are decent.
I'm going to ask the chat audio levels good.
Are you using an earbud microphone?
No, this is just on my computer.
Okay.
So keep your hands off your computer so it doesn't crackle too much with the microphone.
Okay.
There you go.
So you're thirty years old, what do you do for your living?
Are you working or are you studying now?
I'm working, yeah.
So on Tuesday I'm going to teach English literature at a high school.
So yeah.
Okay, and what do you audio levels are there?
Elan is a little echoing, but that's he's using a native, a native mic.
Elan, where do you live now?
Oh, I'm basically where I was born.
In Illinois.
In Illinois, yeah.
Okay.
And so, and what did you study?
I studied political science, government, and I minored in history.
And now you're teaching.
Now I'm teaching English literature.
I can also teach history, but not.
But at least not this year, it doesn't look like I'll be doing that.
Now, so people can judge credentials and whatever, but I mean, I'm curious about this.
Well, if I may just dive a little bit into childhood.
Born and raised in Illinois, what kind of big city, small town?
Oh, suburbs of around Chicago, so kind of in between.
Suburbs of Chicago kind of in between.
Are they safe places now or have they always been safer?
Is it?
I mean, I think the street I was born, I think things might be changing, not just in demographics in terms of also crime rates for the worse.
But it's not so far from here.
But it's safe, generally speaking, to walk around that area.
But, you know, there's maybe like a few more robberies than there used to be around that area.
Now you say, like Chirac or anything.
Okay, and now you say, how many kids are you in your family?
Oh, I'm the middle child, so I'm the diplomat.
Middle of three.
Middle of three or middle of five.
Middle of three.
Like literally the middle of three.
Middle of three.
Okay, and what do you, if I may ask, what do your parents do?
Oh, my father is, well, both my father and mother are scientists, trained as scientists.
My father is, um, uh, he's a microbiologist.
and works at a I think it's the organization is called it's a nonprofit science organization if I'm not mistaken.
Okay, very cool.
Now we're going to we're going to get into a little bit of the is the analysis of the geopolitics of Israel.
I know Robert often I know he reads your work a lot and he often cites your work.
With how do we without opening a can of worms or I'm going to see what the chat has to say in a second.
Overall, I mean, first of all, okay, overall, not to ask a stupid question.
You're going to, how do we understand the word Zionist?
I mean, let's start with that.
People accuse people of being Zionists.
Other people say, I'm a proud Zionist.
Is there a standard term for what it means to be a Zionist?
And is there a trope slur type term in terms of what people make the term Zionist mean?
Does it have any recognized dictionary, not say dictionary, but historical definition that people could say, okay, we agree on that Zionist doesn't mean apartheid, genocide, but it means X, Y, and Z, and we agree on the definition?
Right.
There's yes and yes in terms of there's what the people who who use it as a derogatory term mean, and there's what, the person who typically defines himself as a Zionist means, which is Zionism typically is a person who supports and is supportive of, historically speaking, the effort to establish a Jewish state in the historic Jewish homeland.
There was a kind of caveat to that, there was a movement within Zionism called Territorialism, ironically called Territorialism, which believed that establishing a state for the Jews anywhere in the world would suffice, but they were a very minor movement.
So typically, when you're talking about Zionism, you're not typically talking about the territorialists.
You're talking about mature, again, sort of a very small movement.
But yeah, you have Zion's support of the establishment of the Jewish state, and once Israel was established, being supportive of that as a continuing thing.
All right.
Now you see the historical, the historical limitations or the historical limits of Israel.
What does that entail?
I mean, on a map, I guess it's not going any further than.
Say it again.
You mean the borders.
Yeah, the borders.
You see, like, the establishment of the state of Israel on its historical borders.
What would I mean, I know you're not, it's not getting any further into the neighboring recognized nations, what is the limit?
Does it involve all of Gaza and all of the West Bank?
It depends who you mean, there's the, let's say, the international law, typical under international law, which is the general principle of eupariditis doris.
And I, I, I, like, the Latin is the Latin.
I probably pronounce it wrong.
And yes, pronounce that.
But, you know, as you possess it, it's generally how the principle goes, which is typically when a state gains independence, it inherits the previous administrative boundaries.
So in the case of, let's say, Ukraine in 1991, the reason it took Crimea.a formally was because Nikita Krushchev gave them that right or wrongly is the decision he gave it to technically under the administrative sway of the unit called Ukraine USSR.
So that's how Ukraine at least formally had a claim to that and why it went with Ukraine after 1991.
Whether that was right or wrong or whatever is a different issue.
And now in terms of other documents apart from that general principle, you have the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference.
The San Remo Conference was a conference in 1921, which is an international treaty, basically, which divided up the mandate system in the Middle East.
Okay, but I mean, yeah, let me pause you there because that's also something that I, people will accuse me of bias regardless, so there's nothing I can do about that.
That's fair, yeah.
People always say, well, it was Palestinian, it was the, it was Palestinian territory before it became the State of Israel in 1948.
Not, I don't even know if they understand what the British mandate meant when it came to that land.
What did the British mandate actually mean?
A mandatory system is a system in which a, typically, as a colonial administrator, an outside power would govern an area until they determined that the locals were able to govern themselves.
In the case of the British Mandate of Palestine, in the constitution of a mandate was the Bafur Declaration, which declared that this mandate is set aside specially for the creation of a national home for the Jewish people.
And it also included rights such as the Jewish right of settlement of land.
And then technically back in the day, that included, that could interpret that included the area of Jordan.
They called it the Transjordan back then.
Very, the most progressive nation in the Middle East, of course.
But as a joke, people.
But in any case, but yeah.
But so, I mean, so, but they soon suspended the mandate over Jordan.
I mean, you had a similar situation, for instance, in how the French governed Syria, which is there was the mandate of Syria, which is also Lebanon, they also carved out Lebanon.
By no means a unique thing to Palestine.
Okay, now I'm gonna let me just let me just do this because I want to bring up the comments in the chat as I see them and they're gonna be take for granted they're gonna be they're gonna be less friendly than friendly.
Who was it where it said, okay, hold on one second here.
It was Viva Week with Sana'i.
Well, okay, hold on.
Where was it?
Oh, here.
It's from Zaita.
Okay.
So if I tell you it's okay okay to steal from my neighbor's house, that makes it okay, LMAL.
What were the Brits doing with that mandate territory before deciding that they were going to give it to Israel?
Oh, they conquered it from the Ottomans who conquered it from, I want to say the Mameluks who conquered it from other people.
So, I mean, if you're talking about like it was Arabs in the land, of course Arabs lived in the land for quite a while, since the rise of Islam.
Even before them you had the Nemites and the rest, but historically speaking.
Now Jews also had a very long history of living in the land as well.
And it also has a very long history of having independent states in the land.
I'm pretty sure, you know, except maybe the Crusader states, you know, in terms of empire, in terms of like native states in that in that land, that's just the Jews, basically.
I mean, you had the Canaanite city-state system, but that then, that wasn't unified.
Let me ask you, do you happen to have earbuds or anything?
People are No, I don't.
Okay, so now, when now, so Israel was founded in 1948 or it achieved its independence.
I think the microphone is directly connected to the floor.
Let me try to resolve your issues.
While you do that, I'll read the chat across the board.
Okay.
Thanks.
Is that better?
No.
Did you plug it in?
Yeah.
Bang the table for a second.
Okay.
Don't move and we'll be good.
Okay.
So Israel achieved its independence in 1948.
When did Britain make the decision to hand over the British mandate to the State of Israel?
Well, technically they never handed over the mandate to anybody.
They just let the mandate expire.
But in terms of the decision to when did the Balfour Declaration occur?
That occurred in 1917, in November.
In 1917?
Yes.
Okay, so that's.
In the First World War.
Okay, so now the question is going to be this.
Between 1917 and Israel achieving its independence after the War of Independence, what's going on between 1917 and 1948?
Like in the world or in No, no, in what was formerly the British mandate now where you have Jews, I presume, coming in from Eastern Europe.
They're starting to arrive.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, they're starting to arrive.
You know, The Jewish agency at the time had a policy of land purchases.
This wasn't, you know, this wasn't like a ragtag militias taking over anyone's territory or something like that.
This was legal purchases often above market prices.
If you look historically, a lot of the major families, the Effendi, they were called this class of people, as close to the local peasants, the Falahids, they're called in Arabic, tended to sell their land to which was an enormous land.
These were absent landlords, a lot of them as well.
Land to Jews.
So Jews had private property rights.
And again, one of the purposes of the British mandate was to facilitate not just Jewish immigration, but Jewish settlement of the land.
Okay, so.
created problems with the locals, but Okay, well, that's it.
The locals then had no property rights.
They had property rights.
I mean, it's a question because, I mean, the issue was your, your, your, right?
The situation when the British took over is you had a lot of small you had a lot of land belonging to small families.
Technically, other people could work on the land., but the land technically belonged to the small families who were absentie landlords.
Some of these families, for instance, the Khalidis, the Husseinis and so on, were very prominent in local Arab Palestinian, early local Arab Palestinian politics, and they became the Tories.
Some of them are still very much, you know, the Khalidis family, for instance, you know, write whole entire books about this experience in part because they feel they need to do an apologia, as it were, for what their family, you know,
what they feel their family did, or at least cover up aspects of that which is interesting but in terms of terms of they have rights but it's a question of okay what does private rights what does private property mean in the context of the Middle East is can be quite legally complicated but legally the Jews bought the land often at above market prices as I said they bought it from and they did at times they bought the land Who
did they buy it from?
The Brits or the absentee landlords who owned it?
Yes, and at times they compensate the Falahin, you know, if they needed the Falahin on the But at times they'd if they needed, if the Falahine needed to go, they would compensate them.
They had a policy of that.
At least they had a policy of that.
I think the early days maybe not.
My memories are the crazy about that.
Okay, so now let me make sure I understand this.
What does an absent-your-owner mean?
Now the land is owned by people who don't live on it.
Yes.
And who is living, what's the population of call it the Palestinians at this point?
What's the population of the local Arab population, give or take, between 17 and 48?
1748, about 600,000 to a little over a million.
Okay.
600,000 to a little over a million.
When does it start being a problem to the local population that Jews are coming in and buying up the land for the purposes of the formation of the State of Israel?
Aspects of that even beforehand during Ottoman times.
There were some objections.
But in terms of when it became a mass objection, this was definitely during the British mandate because the Ottomans at least were, you know, savvy enough, conscious enough in terms of being Islamic that they felt they, you know, having Jews, you know, they had issues.
in the Ottoman Empire with local ethnicities, ethnic groups, for instance, having a presence in a locality and then rebelling against them, like with the Greeks, like with the Bulgarians, and so on.
So they had no intention of letting the, you know, Palestine or whatever just get out of hand.
It wasn't called Palestine under the Ottomans.
It was divided up under at least three or four different districts.
But yeah, so they were very keen on not letting Jews get anywhere near a majority or so on.
They might not bring the city.
Yeah.
Or basically forever and death.
Yeah.
That's also a part of it.
Yeah.
It was it's like a semi feudal system, if you can kind of think about that.
Yeah.
Farmside.
So the 600,000 to a million, we're going to call Palestinians that live there or who become Palestinians, but Arabs living there on land that doesn't belong to them, that belongs to people who own it, who don't live there, who don't live on it.
And you say, and to them, they've lived there for a month.
So, I mean, it depends who you, again, perspective is key.
Well, they have they have been there.
They have been there.
We're talking about legally, yes.
Legally living on other people's land, but they've been there.
The 600,000 to a million, they've been there for.
We're talking about hundreds of years now.
Maybe, maybe, maybe earlier, depending on the community.
Okay.
And it starts to be a problem even before the Balfour Declaration.
Now, World War 2 occurs, the Holocaust happens, and that's when the push to have an independent state to preserve the Jewish people really hits a head.
What was the issue?
Now, I have to refresh my own memory of this because one of the things that people accuse others of glossing over is the terrorism that was being carried out by the Urguns to terrorize the British, to force them to recognize the State of Israel, something along those lines, or to allow Jews to come in from Eastern Europe.
or what was been war-torn Europe without the Brits sinking, torpedoing the ships.
What was it that was done to force the British to concede or formally recognize, allow Jews to return or to get to Israel to form the states?
Oh, well, I mean, there's a little story before that in terms of if you're talking about, you know, who used terrorism first, it's obviously a controversial thing.
But I mean, you had organizations like the Black Hand, which is a Muslim Arab local group, which is typically seen as historians.
I'm aware of what is the first case of a terrorist organization in the modern era in that region, in that time.
But I mean, so I mean, they weren't, Jews had in terms of the militia system, they had a local show mayor, I think they called it.
it shumerim like guard system during I think even Ottoman times to just guard the local community to against thieves and so on and the rest later that develops more formally into the Haganah and various other organizations.
underground, you can call them militias.
But I think in terms of when they became fully fledged militias, this didn't really occur until the era of Great Revolt, which is from 36 to 39.
So fairly late and fairly after a lot of the violence against the Jewish population was already occurring.
Did they congregate in that way?
Okay.
But in terms of the 40s, yeah.
Against whom was the violence directed?
Was it against the British or was it against the British?
was it against local Muslims by the Yergun and others both but mostly against the British okay So you have this push and pull, you have the tensions.
The tensions have been culminating over, let's just close to a century already.
I mean, the Zionist movement started in the late 1800s in earnest, from what I'm saying.
Well, yes, yes.
In terms of modern political Zionism, again, we were going over perhaps a semantic point, but is Theodore Hertzl, I mean, the basic concept of Zionism in terms of Jews returning to their home and creating a land has been a state of their own has been a dream for Jews for thousands of years, literally.
So, I mean, it's yes and no.
But yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, there's some ruffling there.
Okay, now, okay, so let's get to the crux, the war of 1948, the war of independence.
I'm reading the chat.
It's like there's no way to have a discussion where this is like one side even gears the other.
What's your historical understanding of the war of independence in terms of who started it, for lack of a better word, and what was going on at the time?
Formerly, who started it?
It started in 1947.
So in 1947, at least that's how most historians I'm familiar with started it.
So in 1947, there was a partition plan presented at the United Nations in which would divide the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state with an economic customs union between the two.
The Jews accepted this.
This isn't the first idea or concept of a two-state solution.
The British proposed much the same thing ten years earlier.
Again, the Jews accepted at least the outlines or concept of that.
The Arabs rejected both the British proposal ten years before as well as, well, I should say the Husseinis rejected both the British proposal ten years before as well as the 1947 resolution.
The Husseinis were the clan in which controlled the more or less Algerian politics during that time period.
Arafat, for instance, would be a member of that clan.
Robert Barnes might also know them because they collaborated very heavily with not just the Nazis, but with the final solution aspects regarding the final solution.
So they were by no means friendliest of peoples to Jews.
They rejected that and the day after they rejected that, I think began the...
Now, I had on, I'd say I had on Scott Horton, I had on, I had on, Where it is a matter of, I guess, to some extent, perspective as to how you view this.
A lot of people, they call it the great calamity where the Jews came in.
Yeah.
Nakba.
Where the Jews, it depends on who you ask.
You know, either the Jews chased out the local Palestinian population or the local Palestinian population left to avoid getting caught in the crossfire of what they thought would be the Arab nations coming in and annihilating the territory and giving it back.
There is a great book on this by Benny Morris, who I understand is more or less respected by all sides.
His, and he was, he did a lot of original research into this question back in the 80s, maybe in the 70s as well.
His analysis led to, he says, at most about thirty percent of the Arabs of those who fled or whatever during, during, 47 to 49, which is Israel's War of Independence, of Arabs were might have been expelled up to thirty percent.
He's not even sure.
So the vast majority fled for the reason one would flee generally a conflict because people don't want to get into war zones.
I mean, that's also, for instance, and people forget.
it's not just after the conflict that Jews from the Middle East went to the State of Israel, but even or displaced to the State of Israel.
But even during the 4749 conflict, about, I think, 700,000 Jews within the former British Mandate of Palestine were themselves displaced as a result of that conflict.
So it's by no means a one and done thing.
In general, when a Jewish area would fall under control of an Arab army, there would be no Jews left in that area, whether they'd be thrown out or killed.
The pattern for how Jews conquered Arab land and villages and so on was much more variegated in terms of whether they allowed them to stay or not.
It's an accepted historical fact that this is not to say like both sides.
This is just a matter of fact to say like when you say 30% were chased out, this is war where people are fighting for their respective existences.
It's not going to be the case that this was an entirely moral war fought by those fighting for the independence, that the 30% who were chased out suffered.
Yeah, yeah, no, and it's that they suffered at the hands of people who were chasing them from their from their lands and violently so.
Albeit I know the arguments.
This is the case for everyone involved in terms of, you know, those that fled willingly and those that didn't flee willingly.
Those who fled, you know, the middle class that fled more or less in 1947, before technically, you know, there was any offensive by the Jewish forces.
You know, there's about a hundred, I think about a hundred thousand or so of middle class, which is a big portion of the middle class that fled.
And they did a similar thing in 1936 to 1939, during the Arab Grand Revolt.
The Arab middle class fled to neighboring areas fairly early on.
I need to, people don't seem to appreciate, you know, when people say, well, Jordan, Egypt could let in the Palestinians, but they don't because they've had their own history with Palestinian groups.
When did the neighboring Arab nations begin to have problems with what has now become the Palestinian territories, like the Palestinian groups within the territories?
I guess this question may or may not be as clear.
At what point were the neighboring Arab nations not absorbing the fleeing Palestinians and why?
Almost immediately.
I mean, technically, they let a lot of them in in 1947, 1949, but in terms of absorbing them in the sense of integrating them, apart from maybe the exception of Jordan, they never did that.
And that's a constant thorn to this day.
So, for instance, in Lebanon, you to this day, you have laws that formally segregate the Palestinian population from the general population.
They can't have they can only be employed in certain professions, for instance.
Now, why is that?
Because I want to use them as a means to get, you know, as a means of leverage against the new Steve Jewish state and as a means to delegitimize.
In other words, by keeping the refugee issue alive and not resolving it, unlike what Israel did with its own Jewish refugee problem, both did this.
Oh, wait, wait.
I lost all of your audio there.
Still nothing.
Now do I go read the hate in the chat?
No, what happened to your audio, Yelene?
Unplug, unplug your earpiece.
Okay, take it up.
Reboot your computer.
Yeah, that is, well, what I will do in the time being is I'm going to use that as we're going to carry this discussion on over at viva barnslaw dot locals dot com because we're going to get into the thick of it here.
Get to come on over to locals.
Here, get to come on over to locals.
Haters are welcome today.
I'll read some of the chat.
Let me see here.
Well, I'm not going to read some of the chat after all.
We'll wait for Elan to come back in.
We're going to take it on over to viva barnslaw dot locals dot com for the rest of this after party, or at least this discussion, because we're going to get into the.
It's all about Zee.
Okay, I don't know what's going on here.
Let me take this back out and bring up the chat on.
This is where it's an amazing thing where I'm not going to push back on Elan about the neighboring Arab nations using the Palestinians for their own political purposes.
One of my longer not running theories, one of my issues is that of the innocent Palestinians, they've been absolutely on the one hand, say, mistreated.
They've been kept in occupied territories as a result of the existence of the State of Israel.
They've been brutalized by their leadership for decades, Hamas and Palestine Authority, and they've been used as political pions by the neighboring Arab nations who could resolve this dispute in a heartbeat.
Although I appreciate some people are going to say, well, why should they have to give up their homes and go live in Jordan, Egypt or wherever?
They are as entitled to their land as the people who now they believe are occupying it.
And bringing up not an irrelevant point that when it comes to the history of battle, it's never pretty.
And I've had a friend growing up who's like, yeah, when when Israel was fighting for its independence, ugly, they did everyone did ugly things.
And that's not to say, but they it was battle.
They were fighting life or death.
And if you want to call them atrocities, atrocities are committed during war.
But the Palestinian people, and I'll say the innocent Palestinian population, have been brutalized by Hamas, by their own, by their government, by the neighboring countries who prefer to use them as political pawns.
Elan, no, you just did something bad.
What did you just do?
No, it was working three seconds before you did that.
Okay, reboot it.
Don't plug in your earbuds.
And while we No, I'm not going to kick.
While we do that, I'm going to, I'm going to, okay, here's how right now I'm going to see who we can raid over on Rumble to see who's live or we're just going to stay here.
I can't see anybody who's live.
I'm going to focus on the rumble chat.
But what I was getting at is, yeah, atrocities were committed.
Both sides during a war in which both people are fighting for the same land.
And it's literally life and death.
That's the history of how it came to be, much like the West is now owned by owned, occupied or don't do anything.
I hear you.
Okay.
Hands up.
Hands up.
Much like now, you know, North America was founded, conquered by Europeans, and they did terrible, terrible things to the natives.
And however terrible those things were, you're not going back to pre-16407 borders.
No, the question that I was asking in terms of why the neighboring countries don't absorb the Palestinians is that we, one of the historical facts that people don't seem to like is that Egypt had its problems with the Palestinian government, as did Lebanon, and that there's because of their own history with the Palestinian government and social upheaval that it causes, that that is one of the reasons why they don't want to let the Palestinian people in.
Is that accurate, inaccurate according to your understanding of history?
There's accuracy to that, but it's a bit more than that in the sense that they also consciously refused to I don't know what got caught., caught part of that.
But they only consciously decided not to absorb that population in order for it to create a thorn for the Israelis.
In other words, by keeping the refugee problem alive, they can nurse that grievance and use the Palestinians, you know, the dispossessed as well as disenchanted Palestinians against as a means against the Israelis.
So they can send the they call them Fala'in, the Fala'in, the Guerrillas, Palestinian Guerrilla Groups against the Israelis.
So the Egyptians would arm them, the Jordanians to a certain degree would arm them.
The Libanese at this point, I think, until this point.
The late 60s didn't do much.
But yeah, it was beyond just, okay, the Palestinians one day got radicalized.
That was a conscious policy in part pursued by Egyptians and the rest that in the end backfired to some degree against the local population, against the local governments.
Yeah.
I want to just want to bring up Oh no, now you might have to put them in because if I hear my echo coming from your end.
Oh, I want to hear someone here, just over here, Viva from Texas Bong, you went from 25,000 viewers to 15,000 dropping as soon as you brought this guy on.
It's a sign from Jesus.
First of all, I'll tell you one thing.
A, I don't care about numbers, but B, it's very funny.
Like, we went from 9,000 to 25,000 as soon as I brought you on.
So not that I care, but I don't care about numbers.
This is a discussion that I've wanted to have to A, show off the above average wisdom of our locals community.
And that, you know, ultimately there might be some, I'm not here to disagree with you, Elon.
I got my own questions as to what's going on in modern times.
A lot of people in the chat are going to say, fine, all this history is all fine and well.
What can possibly explain the plight that is being inflicted on the Palestinians right now?
And my question is, on the one hand, Elon, you let's, we're going to skip over, you know, the four, five, six days, we're going to skip over the seven-day war, the Yom Kippur.
will skip it all over.
There's been multiple wars.
Several times the neighboring Arab nations have colluded together to try to wipe Israel off the map because they don't believe they should be there in the first place.
And this is a fight in the Middle East that I can understand people in America saying we don't care about.
Much like, you know, a lot of people saying get the hell out of Russia, Ukraine.
It's none of our business.
Let them fight among themselves.
And it might have already been resolved had we done that.
Set that aside.
The current, the current issue.
What is, I don't know where you get your sources of information from.
One thing I've, I've, I don't opine on these things because the information changes so much that it goes from being true one day to being wrong the other.
Like the bombing of the hospital, New York Times runs the article that it turns out it was an errant missile from from whoever and then people say well what difference does it make that was not true but they're still um you know bombing hospitals which they are because there was a recent one where they double tapped a hospital killed five journalists etc and some people are going to say what on earth can possibly rationalize justify what the government of Israel is doing to the Palestinians right now in response to October 7 if we can back do you have family in Israel?
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you have any understanding of what the what the explanation is as to how October 7 happened at the scale that it did?
Well, I think there's a few explanations.
One of, I think, the most prescient one, I think, is about the idea that the Israeli security establishment failed conceptually to understand the growing capacity of Hamas and the intentions of Hamas.
I think they misunderstood.
They thought basically they could economically develop Gaza more or less with Hamas in.
Hamas is deterred because of repeated rounds, I call them mowing the grass operations or mowing the lawn operations, in which these are mini military campaigns to just sort of not to topple Hamas from the Gaza Strip, but to sort of degrade Hamas' capabilities.
And they thought that these actions were alone, at least that's the theory, deterred Hamas from a further round of conflict.
And on October 7th, a whole lot of things went wrong in terms of the discovery we've been working under false misconceptions about what Hamas's present capabilities were as well as what their intentions were.
That's an explanation which I'll never fully not accept.
I have no better reason not to accept it except to say I thought about it separately, theory, which is.
is, which is, but the problem is I find these issues with, so I presume that I did a thought experiment in which, okay, are the actors that were had, they were responsible for security or intelligence regarding October 7, what is their ideological faction within Israel?
And, you know, what are the, for instance, you know, Barnes has mentioned a lot of the, I think he calls them revisionists, and I'm not quite revisionists.
For instance, Bengevir is more of a neokahanist type.
This is all difference.
There's quite a big difference between the two.
But in any case, between, let's say, the smart rich Bengevir types who, you know, definitely want, don't protest against the Jewish settlement of Gaza and so on and so forth.
And the security elite within the Israeli military as well as the Shinbet, which controlled the intelligence apparatus regarding Gaza.
The problem is ideologically, Smotrich and Bengavir didn't have control over any of the military or intelligence stuff.
And the opposite faction, which is the more left-leaning faction, which is much more accommodating and much more prone to take a gag, definitely has odds with Bengavir types.
They were more in control of the security apparatus and then the intelligence apparatus, especially if you know the history of the Shinbet.
So to me, like an explanation in terms of I don't see how these forces, maybe it's just a question of vision in terms of my motivation, but I tried to think about, okay, if these forces were trying to cooperate, like what would the goal be?
Because even during the Gaza war, I mean, like the head of the Shinbet became a big head of a big major target for criticism by the Israeli right.
The chief of staff certainly didn't.t create an operational plan to effectively occupy the Gaza Strip.
He warned against military occupying Gaza.
BB Netanyahu in 2022 in his autobiography, which he definitely needs to update, warns against even such an idea in saying it's Gaza's small price, the big price is Iran.
So he seemed to be of the opinion that, you know, so long as things were contained, he would be contained regarding the Gaza Strip.
So elements, I'm not discounting nefarious elements, but I'm just saying in terms of like a mass conspiracy or a conspiracy between the parts.
I would need more information regarding that than to just say, yeah, you know.
That's worse.
It doesn't quite work.
Someone had corrected me and said it wasn't, it wasn't Mossad that was in charge of Gaza, it was the Shinbet.
Again, when it comes to the underlying point, it changes nothing where you're talking about an institution, an organization, a government that can show you extreme competence to the highest level where they can kill people in an embassy in Yemen, they can get pages in the pockets of terrorists, and then they can have simultaneity.
Different history, very different history in terms of this the Sindat, much more ideologically driven in terms of I happen to know a few people of a former person who was an interrogator in the Sindat for my time and not that I was ever in the Sindat or in the premises for any reason but the guy was a former interrogator for the Sindat he He was of a left-leaning political stance.
So I mean, and that's not I, that's not unique to that institution.
Now, could there be developments I'm not aware of within the organization?
Absolutely.
But I find it, you know, a little bit, as I said, it doesn't quite mesh with me.
And maybe that's my motivation.
But when I try to think experiment about it, it doesn't quite work from what i know and again what i know can be very incomplete swee hansis over in local says viva the top brass tend to be leftist idiots think about some four five-star generals okay but let me ask you this because one of the things you hear a lot of people say is that inasmuch as um i think it's accepted that the arab nations use the palestinians as a pawn in their war against israel um the existence of the state of
israel A lot of people argue that Netanyahu, arguably, but I don't think it's arguably, has used Hamas as the tool to ensure that there's never a two-state solution by keeping it.
by funding what was the opposition to I want to say the Palestinian, the PA, but I'm not sure if it was by funding Hamas to continually fight with who was in charge of the West Bank?
It was Qatar.
It was the idea that they were funding Hamas knowing that or at least allowing funds to go to Hamas to keep the fighting continual between the authorities of the Palestinian territories so that there would never be a two-state solution.
So the argument would be that Netanyahu was engaging in the exact same type of exploitation of conflict to avoid a two-state solution.
Your assessment of that theory?
There are elements of truth in that, but I think the problem becomes he, you know, that he at various occasions Netanyahu has offered the Palestinians, has gotten close to offering in the case of 2014, and I'm particularly thinking of a two-state solution, which is a period and this is a time period in which Gaza is separated from the West Bank politically.
There's Hamas and there's Fatah in the West Bank.
And that separation occurred before Netanyahu's second term as Prime Minister.
His first term was from 1996 to 1999.
His second term started, you know, onward, started from 2009.
The big separation occurred in 2006, 2007 between Hamas and Fatah.
So that's before he became prime minister.
So there's issues there.
There's also issues with, you know, in 2022 he did do it, he did propose a two-state formally on a map, it is what would have been a two-state solution.
So again, there's elements of truth in the sense that he's exploited that division, certainly.
But I don't think it's fully true in the sense that it's the block.
It's even the main block.
I think the main block, for me, and people were free, definitely free to disagree or agree.
Who knows?
But the main block is not really the Israeli mentality more or less, but in terms of the history of Palestinian rejection of an Arab rejection in written large of not just the State of Israel, but Jews having sovereignty in any meaningful way in the land of Israel, in the land of our forefathers and so on.
So that's the main issue that continues to this day.
You can look at it on what the Palestinians have taught through their media system, through their education system, through the mosque.
All these things are available online.
I can show you, if you want, from their own sources, their own textbooks that talk about it.
I'm not going to give all your stuff away, but I'm giving the link to your substack so that people can go forward.
I don't necessarily go into that much because I mean, that's kind of depressing stuff.
Well, no, it absolutely is.
And I'm called a naive idealist for saying if you can't have a consensual two-state solution, you can have just a de facto one.
Just build the biggest, biggest, build a big, beautiful wall like what they have between Egypt and the West Bank.
Sorry, not the West Bank, Gaza.
Just build a fence like what they have.
For those who've never seen what Egypt has built, I mean, it's.
exponentially better than what exists between America and Mexico in terms of its non-scalability, build a wall and then de facto independence and do with your land what you will.
I appreciate the other arguments are going to be there's no resources because Israel has extrapolated or expropriated all of the resources, and that they'll just go back to being run by terrorist organizations, building tunnels, etc.
My retorts are not...
I mean, that's tried though by the Israeli government under Ariel Sharon, which is from 2001 to 2005, as well as under Ehud Barak, in terms of the idea of a unilateral disengagement by Israel from not just the Gaza Strip, but also
And we're going to basically fence ourselves in, create our own, you know, quite a formal border, but in the sense of what we would generally like to have in this two state state scenario and, you know, let the Palestinians do what the Palestinians will want to do.
The problem is what they want to do is related to the rest of the land of Israel.
And that can backfire majorly a number of times.
So it's not as if, you know, building the wall.
First of all, you have, unlike with Egypt, there's a lot more of an international spotlight on what Israel does than what Egypt does, both by the NGOs who detest any kind of border security in general by any state who will take exception,
but also by, especially regarding the Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab conflict, there's a whole host of amplifications of that in which it creates international pressure of which creates its own dynamic in the conflict.
At that end, you also had, to be fair to the Palestinians, you also had prime ministers of the Palestinian Authority like Salam Fayad.
I think he's basically the only one in my mind who did attempt to create an independent institution that would eventually become actual state governing institutions.
But the problem is his own party.
He was appointed, he was appointed, I think, by Abbas, by Muhammad Abbas, way back ago.
But the problem was, first of all, he was appointed, but he was appointed at the dictate of the Americans, first of all.
So it wasn't a really independent decision by Abbas.
And secondly, Fayad's own party only gained like one to three percent.
1 to 3 percent of the vote.
So it's not like they were a particular representative and Fayyad was dismissed a long time ago as well.
But Fayyad would have been a man who potentially could have been that partner that Israel could have needed, or at least the guy that would have forced Israelis to reckon, if you're of the obvious side perspective, with, you know, do we actually want a Palestinian state?
Do we actually want these people to be self governing?
He was the man building a lot of these institutions.
But after him, no one else has done that in the Palestinian Authority, really.
Well, where does it where does it end?
Well, that's the question, I suppose.
If you're asking, like, ideally where does it end?
Ideally, ideally would end with both sides respecting the other's right to exist and having some sort of political arrangement in which both sides come to an agreement.
How that's going to be practically of their own volition.
Now, if you're asking, like, if it will end any time soon, I don't think it will any time soon.
I think it will go on with its rounds.
International community or no international community tending to create its own dictates regarding it.
Or Israel or Palestine to try and create their own dictates regarding it.
Elan, we're going to take this over to Rumble now.
I'm going to raid a gamer.
We're going to raid doctor disrespect people.
So totally unrelated, come to locals.
Elan, your sub stack, what do you do on your sub stack?
I just write essays of things I find fascinating.
Mostly it has an element of technically well, not has to, but technically more or less has an element of Middle Eastern history or politics around it.
Sometimes I comment, for instance, I did a series on the Iranian nuclear project and the Iranian regime on how that will interact and interact with Israeli dynamic and American dynamic geopolitics stuff, but it's really anything that captures my fancy at the moment.
Now things will become much more difficult to write starting tomorrow as I start my teaching stuff, so I have less time to write.
Okay, we're I'm gonna end this over.
I gave everyone the link that said if you want to come hate, come hate on locals viva barnslaw dot locals dot com dot I got more questions and we're gonna talk for a few minutes more.
Let me end the stream on Twitter.
Viva Barnes Law, if you want to come watch the rest of this remove.
Give me a second here.
And on Rumble, did we do the raid?
I think we did the raid successfully.
Let me make sure here.
Okay, we did the raid successfully, people.
Go raid.
Doctor, it's gaming, people.
It's Labor Day, so go watch some gaming and let them know from where it came.
We got Barry NMC growing and says, why would we give an F?
Why do we care about other nations when we can't keep our own nation safe and prosperous?
I can't see that I do not understand the concern and concern of getting.
I can appreciate people saying, let it fight, let them fight it out.
But then I also appreciate some people say, well, it would lead to it would lead to what happens there is some in some form impact.
form impacts here, whether it's migrants or other things.
So that's one way in which it does impact you one way or the other.
Or in terms of war is someone, war has its international ramifications, not just in terms of migratory stuff.
So in terms of warfare, international warfare, what occurs regarding the Middle East, regarding the Israelis, if people can get away with it, regarding Israel, why can't they get away with it more globally, regarding things that you would guard as vital to American interests.
But now you can't do them because.
Again, the NGOs that are against borders, you know, against walls and other things now can point to, hey, we managed to create this ruling that applied to Israel that most people, you know, not to the Arab states, but to Israel, and now we can apply it to America.
Why not?
So there are risks, and there are definitely fallout from what happens there.
Okay, I'm ending this on Rumble.
▲
Export Selection