It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality.
Reality. Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours breaks
free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Saturday, 05/17/2025.
Thank you for joining me today. Well, I
got to play that amazing song that was
made for us by Hiresight Chats. Just waiting
to see if YouTube actually started. It looks
like it's not. Maybe they're finally stopping our
pirate streams. If you're not familiar with what
that is, just search pirate stream on the
website, the last American Vagabond, and you'll find
out we've been forced to use, you know,
a matrix style broadcast like pirate radio style
to use YouTube because they won't let us
back on. And now it seems they've
possibly caught up with their effort to circumvent
their censorship. But either way, YouTube is irrelevant
in my opinion. Just wanna make sure it
got on for all of us that continue
to use YouTube. Right now,
if you're out there, you're in the chat,
or listening elsewhere, make sure people know there's
about seven other platforms that you can watch
this show on as of right now.
So getting to to the point today.
Definitely some important follow ups around the, Alien
Enemies Act and the Supreme Court ruling that
I wanna make sure you guys do not
miss.
And it's an interesting follow-up from what we
were just talking about. It seems, again, the
kind of due process point seems to get
lost even by I shouldn't say even by,
you know, especially by the corporate media, I
think, very deliberately in my opinion, making sure
we follow-up on where that's going and why
that's important. To start today, we're gonna talk
about some censorship that overlaps with a conversation
that has to do with Grok, Twitter, and
the Afrikaan or South Africa story.
And a really interesting point because we were
gonna go over this a few shows ago,
ended up pushing it off because I wanted
to focus on other things, and it's kind
of kicked off since then. An interesting overlap
with not just the conversation of dishonesty around
this topic, but how now it seems Elon
for the, what, fifth time, has been caught
manipulating Grok. Grok even told on him apparently,
we'll go through it, to slant the story
around specifically South Africa the way he wanted
it to go. We saw this with h
b the the the Visa's conversation. We saw
this with Europe.
It's very telling, and I just don't know
why
I mean, I do know why people continue
to follow it and support it even though
they recognize the dishonesty.
I'm all I'm I'm surprised we don't see
more people that are in that what I
think the majority of honest conservatives out there
don't immediately call this out and make a
bit I mean, because I'm seeing a lot
of people still trying to defend back and
forth, but we'll go through it so you
can check it out for yourself and understand
why it's important in the conversation of not
just this topic or others they manipulate,
but artificial intelligence
and the bots they're using and how these
things can manipulate. And I'll shout out a
recent IMA panel we just did that I
think is very important on that exact topic.
But once we get done with that, we're
gonna be talking about some overlaps, of course,
with immigration
and finally overlapping with the deportation conversation, which
is this I see more than ever right
now overlapping, and I'll show you why I
think that when we get there. But around
Palestine,
the removal of of people from Gaza,
as, you know, we've been telling I mean,
anybody barely paying attention and not blinded by
partisan politics or
political Zionism
are have been aware that they've been wanting
to move these people long before October 7
in, you know, in illegal ways. Ethnic ethnic
cleansing.
Right? Mass displacement, all of which are war
crimes.
And during the process as at the evolution
over the last year, of course, the argument
became
that's not real. That's anti Semitic. It's more
about trying to help the good Palestinians from
the bad Hamas. And every moment of this
day of of the conversation going forward has
proven to anybody barely paying attention that that's
not true. That it's I mean, I mean,
they'll not just because they do things differently
or their actions show you otherwise, but they'll
stand in front of their own Knesset, their
congress,
and just outright tell you that. And yet
your politicians, you know, ignore all the massive
amounts of money falling into their pockets from
Israeli lobbyists, so that has nothing to do
with it, will all stand there and tell
you with a blank face that's completely not
what it looks like. They're actually trying to
save everybody even though the rest of the
world is becoming very aware of what's going
on there. Now we're gonna get into the
Israel
the, you know, the ongoing conversation of the
genocide.
We're gonna talk about more of that in
the next show, hopefully, tomorrow. But today, we're
gonna focus on how that overlaps and some
important, additional points there. But the main point
is, I guess, I left off the name,
Libya.
Talking about the White House discussing
moving a million Palestinians
to Libya.
And, of course, if you are, you know,
a little bit good with math, you might
be able to go, oh, but wait a
minute. There's a lot more than that there,
which then very clearly shows you they're aware
that they have killed about 1,100,000
people.
Now this is something that people will dispute
and push back on, and maybe it's not
every single person not accounted for is dead.
But let's realize they know what they've done.
They know what they've been doing. They know
that half this population have been ethnically cleansed,
murdered, starved to death in in the most
grotesque and public way I've ever seen. Now,
again, we're not gonna get into that today,
but realize that all the conversation of refugees,
the conversation of deportation, the conversation of caring
about one group over the other, it matters
to know what they currently support and that
they know what they're doing.
So we'll start today, again, with a shout
out to
the panel we did, which was really, really,
probably one of our best in regard to
how many people we got and the different
care the the caliber of people that were
there and, obviously, just the importance of the
conversation.
You know, Whitney showed up. James Corbett was
there. You know, it he I pretty much,
I think it was,
what, I think 12 people, 13 people that
showed up for this panel. For those that
aren't familiar with the guy may, again, look
into the website, understand that this is a
collaboration of people over all of our individual
platforms, no financial mechanism, a real genuine association,
you know, or a,
alliance rather based on the name of of
people that just believe in what we're fighting
for. And
important conversation around how artificial intelligence is influencing
research, investigation,
journalism. The main categories that I put off
were just individuals who are using artificial intelligence
and and being swayed by it and not
not really checking it for themselves. Journalists doing
the same thing, but more so using it
as, like, their go to source without actually
checking it with source material. And And then
we have
medical, which we talked about, as Brooke Jackson
has been talking about, artificial intelligence created drugs,
vaccines, mRNA, which is on a rapidly increasing
scale under the Trump administration,
which is just the same US government as
last time with a different flavor. Don't fall
for the two party paradigm illusion. But then,
of course,
government. Government in a thousand ways and how
the artificial intelligence is being used to
control your life. That is the great race.
That that is technocracy. It's not unique to
partisanship, and it is rapidly going forward. But
check this out if you wanna understand the
different nuances because we don't all share the
same opinion. The argument is about, you know,
whether it's useful to use it, which we
all agree that it is. There's very clearly
beneficial uses to using things like this even
if you know, in assuming, of course, which
you never should should ever do, that the
information's even accurate. But that's not the point.
It's not whether there's a benefit. There's always
a benefit. There's always a carrot. We talked
about the stick as well and how it's
being used and how you can fall for
this trap. But, again, plon there's plenty that
argue that there is a a benefit that's
worth evaluating and maybe using in order to
fight it, like the Internet argument.
It's I hope I hope you'll listen to
it and come to your conclusion about what
you think is important. But we talked about
specifically how AI is being used,
and, of course, Grok is one of the
most prominent examples. And so we're gonna go
over that. And I gave my point about
how and you guys have seen it and
how I even talked about in this panel,
but also on our show here where it's
I'm frustrated how even I am finding my
uses for it, which, you know, which I
had a pretty strong line at first. It
took me a while to even barely use
Brave, for example, just to find different things
that I couldn't locate, for example, or as
you guys have been seeing using Grok and
saying, well, wait a minute.
But your Grok here says that you're wrong.
We're not and then, of course, if you
you know, and I've been pointing this out
because people don't know that online,
no way are we trusting blindly what Grock
says. In fact, it's not even the point
of whether it's right or wrong. It's about
the fact that your thing that you think
is absolutely the conservative, you know, counterbalance of
the liberal fact checks is telling you you're
wrong. That's the point. And I find that
interesting. Even though I've already shown you example
where Grock was wrong, and we talked about
that on this panel as well, multiple examples
of it being wrong. But it's it's it's
interesting how it is absolute until suddenly it
goes against the narrative that you liked, and
now it's like, well, I can't. Then you
can admit that it's not always accurate. You
know? And that's the point of calling this
out. But then also that you do find
things, like we'll show you today,
that are correct.
For example, things are lying about on South
Africa or other stories where Grox says, no.
That's actually incorrect. And if you actually continue
to look beyond the AI, which you should
always do,
it is a lie.
And there's a whole bunch of important things
in there. The core point is not to
ever rely on AI. And then, really, we
should have the debate of whether even that
is worth it. Maybe and I I'm
grappling with that myself because it's hard to
know whether that point of maybe wait awakening
somebody to more lies is worth helping train
those large language models or whatever it's doing.
So watch the show if you want more
on that conversation. It's it's not ending. It's
gonna go on for a long time, probably
forever because this is not going away.
But going beyond that oh, and a couple
of shout outs before we go into the
crux of this point to start.
Derek put out another great article actually did
this one, I should have actually pointed you
first, which I'll do since it's more related.
He also put an article out called in
defense of doing your own research.
And it it overlaps with this same point
and even references, oh, on that note, I
should link this down here, the panel that
we did afterward.
His point is about the same idea, about
how,
yes, we shouldn't be trusting AI, and it
can definitely manipulate us. But at the same
time, they're using the argument of your own
research to scare people away, almost driving them
to blindly trust
media and grok and so on. And his
point
was obviously
defending the idea of doing your own research,
but that does not mean blindly
ignoring every mainstream source and going with whatever
the sources you like. That's the game they
want you to think. Only those two things
exist. You either trust the experts or you
blindly ignore them all. That's your two party
paradigm in every other possible way. It's always
like that when the reality is you question
every source, including doctors and experts and vaccine
out whatever.
And then you also investigate deeply yourself and
don't assume, especially if you can't find the
full information. I mean, I honestly think that's
most people, whether they can define it that
way or not. They're trying and, of course,
being wrong sometimes, and that's, of course, how
it's supposed to go. But they wanna scare
you away from that and act like you
should only listen to the expert, and we
know why that is. And, of course, the
partisan flavor allows them to ignore the ones
they, you know,
or accept the ones they want to and
so on. More on that in a second.
Another article we put out just so you
don't miss it. Is Trump's EPA planning to
continue the appeal of the historic fluoride ruling?
Now this is genuinely putting the question out
there. Just doing good reporting on where it's
going, I'm not hopeful based on everything else
we've seen around HHS and I mean, maybe
save for a few points that might come
to pass. I think I'll make a point
about that in a second. It maybe I
put it off. But the point around a
lot of these different things where they say,
yeah. Actually, I think I put it off
for the next show, that we're gonna start,
we're gonna stop recommending the COVID shot.
Okay. And and I even asked Croc, and
I checked myself. And the point is, no.
They haven't done that yet, as I was
recently saying. They've said they're going to. And
I have no reason to well, I have
plenty of reasons to doubt that they would.
But my point is at this point point
forward or this this place we're at now
certainly could happen.
Based on Preston, I don't think it will,
but maybe it does. And maybe they but
the point is ultimately, at this moment, they
haven't done that
yet. So my and so it it's frustrating
that people are acting like we did this.
It's a win. It'll be a win and
most definitely a win when it happens, not
as they say we're going to do that.
Interesting. But so on the same point here
is that he's floated the idea of of
fluoride, and he's definitely pointed out a lot
of important things. So too have a lot
of honest people, including this platform and Derek
and Michael Conant at fluoride action network. But
as of right now, they've now delayed this
twice.
Read the article for more information, but the
point is the the ruling was very clear.
Judge Chen and and everybody else involved very
clearly, Michael Conant importantly,
are frustrated because at this point, it's gone
through multiple reviews. They've done this. Even the
even the talk, the NTP or NPT,
the national no. NTP. National toxicology,
program, I believe, that is on the government
side, but ultimately get there the report they
put forward are saying, look. We're done doing
these reviews. We got the information. We know
what this is, and it went on and
on and on forever. We covered this for
a while, the fluoride lawsuit. The link's down
there. The point is since trunks Trumps took
over, we had taken over. We'd hoped for
something different.
As of right now, instead of going, we
we've been telling you fluoride's bad this whole
time and going forward with all the information
there. They've extended this out and now done
it again.
And it just maybe there's something else there,
but the worry is that they're just going
to appeal it
like the Biden administration did and like the
US government has.
Hope not, but keep your eyes open because
this does not feel like it's going in
the right direction. Great work by Derek as
always.
Now, and I wanted to this is something
I I read in a book recently that
I wanted to think about. Really, the and
this can be a point for today in
general. The idea
of rationalizing
versus reasoning.
Very simple concept, but when you really think
about it, what do we more often do?
Especially in partisan politics.
We rationalize.
You know what? Well, well, they did it
first, and so, you know, I know it's
not the right thing, but they put us
in this position.
And it doesn't always mean wrong.
That's rational. Like, that makes sense.
But is it reasoning? Are you going, well,
my principles tell me that's wrong. Right? I
shouldn't do that whether anybody did it first
or whether they and and we tend to
rationalize things that make sense for our position
instead of just reasoning through them based on
our principles and facts that we know. I
mean, it's such a simple thing. But we
if you stand back and think about this
every day, you'll begin to realize that we
all do it. We all find reasons to
make sense of what we think is most
important or what we want or you know?
And and if you're aware of these things,
like checking your biases and asking whether you're,
you know,
blind yourself because you believe in a certain
side or whatever it is, you may not
always see it. But if you're asking yourself,
you're far more likely to check it, recognize
it if you want to, anyway. And I'd
like to believe that's most people.
But on that note,
this is something that I've seen and pointed
out more than once. And they said, we're
gonna talk about Twitter before we get into
the overlap of that point with Grok.
This is now just Elon's account. Now it's
Kekeus
Maximus, and it just changes constantly, it seems.
But it says Twitter is news by the
people for the people. Now see, this is
my point. I get pushback on this from
people that act like I'm making I'm being
too specific or whatever. He does not say,
like, news on Twitter. He does not say
he he says Twitter or x is news.
You see, there's no air in that. He
says, x is news by the people for
the people. Seeking truth, but always self critical.
What what do you mean? All x, the
platform,
is always self critical, seeking truth? It's just
a broad and stupid statement. That's not true.
There's plenty of dishonest people. You're one of
them. A lot of people lie or accidentally
make mistakes. So, of course, first and foremost,
you can't say it just is this way.
It is self critical. It is seeking truth.
For quite frankly, I think everyone with a
brain can tell that there's far more manipulation
on this platform than damn near anything else.
But I'll be the first to tell you
that you'll find some of the most real
time information here, but I think simply because
most people use this platform.
It's also being censored and corralled and social
engineered more than I've ever seen. So who
knows if even that truth is being used
against you? All these things should be asked.
My point is the same. That's as ridiculous
as saying the TV is the news.
It is the same point. And I say
no. It's a medium through which news sometimes
travels.
Your your agenda is clearly working, though, as
some now take text online at face value
or grok, for example.
Unless it proves them wrong, then they're suddenly
all objectivity.
This is really and I think my point,
you just got Twitter filed. That's really what
that was about, in my opinion, setting the
tone for you to accept at face value
things that you never prove for yourself.
Basically, the new version of the news, which
is exactly what they try to do with
WikiLeaks and everything else. How do we not
see how transparent that is?
So when he says Twitter is news by
the people, first of all, that's not even
true, seeing as how half these people have
been turned to the people that we keep
seeing around his weird orbit are every day
gets shown to be grifters or people part
of some network who are pushing things that
have nothing to do with the truth. It's
not I can't prove literally everybody,
but we've seen many of them. And he's
been caught countless times lying for his personal
opinion like we're gonna talk about today. So
it just feels really irritating that anybody pretends
like that's an honest statement.
And to make that point even further, and
this isn't or kind of an overlap of
censorship, but the point is if you're talking
about news and free and everyone's, they're clearly
censoring people all over this platform. That's not
new, and it's been going on for a
long time. And very clearly, they're still working
with the ADL. They've censored 90 plus percent
to what the government's asked for. That was
in their own lawsuit. They've made a partnership
with GARM before they just, like, whatever they
did with that group even though it still
exists. Even Mike Ben's pointed out. Like, every
point of the way they've shown you that
they are erring on the side of what
benefits the structure. Just because they are the
structure does not mean that they're not still
benefiting the structure. The control basis, that's the
whole idea.
They are the system. They are the state,
guys. That's the point. But it says, I
regret to inform you, this person, that opposition
accounts in Turkey, including a prominent presidential candidate,
put the link right there,
as well as journalists and students, have been
unlawfully suspended on Twitter. These actions contradicted freedom
of expression. Now, some of them are brought
back. The point is, this is happening. As
he as he as even he responds and
says, Twitter must follow the laws of a
country within the country. Now, to be clear,
that's not that's that is correct.
But I I'm not even saying like, I
I I don't even know what the art
like, basically, the point would be that if
you are going to say your free speech
and air on the side of absolute free
speech, then that is not that. But I'm
not saying that's even possible because for all
we know, going against this would have the
whole thing shut down. So I'm not trying
to make some absolutest argument where it doesn't
make sense in reality. My point, though, is
that you have to be clear at this
most obvious level that they are complying with
government censorship
with groups around the world, both in The
UK, in in India, in in this one
was Turkey. We hear I've heard one from
Pakistan, where the governments are saying, hey. We
don't like what they're saying. Bring it down.
And they do.
Okay. So let's be clear, though, that that
that is censorship at the most basic level
about things they don't like. It's not about
some crime.
It's about them saying, dang take it down.
We disagree. Now, yes, just because they manufacture
some illegitimate law, like in El Salvador or
The United States, like the antisemitism
laws, does not then make it not censorship.
Okay. So what's funny is the arguments being
made that, well,
that is the law, so you have to
follow it. The very people that act like
they're fighting the deep state are suddenly all
about the laws the governments make. It seems
constantly contradictory.
The point is, he says, Here Comes account
can be viewed outside Turkey or by a
VPN. Do you believe the Turkish government demand
to limit the visibility of his account with
Turkey as contrary to Turkish law? He's just
trying to pivot into something else. The point
is, you acquiesced a government demands to censor
another politician
because they didn't like what he was saying.
So you can always fall back and go,
that's what the law says. And I'm not
saying I disagree with that. Well, I technically
in a way, I am. But the point
is that his argument is not rooted in
the idea of free speech. He is a
player within the system.
Now I ain't trying to make that good,
bad, or you, or trick. The point is
just acknowledge that. Just recognize this person is
not some person fighting for freedom. He's on
the side of the state literally building the
technocratic structure in front of you. This is
just one example. There's plenty of them. This
one's from India. Orders Twitter to block access
to 8,000 accounts,
And they complied. It's hap it's been happening
all over the place. We just don't talk
about it that much. So we can get
into a plenty of other examples. Or like
we said, the Visa conversation where they were
censoring around things that that made Elon look
stupid, where he got caught for lying and
he censored people around it. And plenty of
major accounts have turned around and said, jeez.
He's not what he said he was. So
here's an example.
This this is a linked example, but to
me,
strategic culture foundation is well worth your time.
I don't think I agree with everything anybody
says out there. There's always nuance points that
I have where I'll say, well, this is
how I see it. The point is I
don't wanna say that about anybody. The point
is I highly respect their platform, and they're
very much worth your time. I found out
today I was always trying to reshare, an
article that I've covered. I thought it was
relevant, and I'll include the or maybe I
didn't.
Oh, right here. This is my this is
the art the show I did covering that
because it's the only one I could post
on Twitter,
and it gave me this. Here's the actual
tweet. It says something went wrong. Let's give
it another shot. And it says right there,
we can't compete this request because the link
has been identified as harmful.
Think about that. An entire so it's even
like with BitChute, they they're like, what was
it? Even Substack? They just stopped the pop
they they wouldn't let it pop out. Right?
And if you clicked on it, it would
try to redirect you. But they still let
you post a link.
So for seriously, they're saying you're not even
allowed to post the link from this website.
How the world is that not censorship? Or
is there some government mandate saying you're not
allowed to post this platform?
I mean, I just have to be real.
That is a very, very, very clumsy
and conspicuous, like, there that there's no defending
that.
So here's the article, of course, as you
remember, Doge, aka the deep state, made visual,
end of question mark.
The argument, very well made and very, very
sourced, is about, you know, if you're gonna
call if you're gonna say they're let's just
talk about the deep state. And you go
through what you think that is, and you
look at what they're building.
We don't we don't have to get into
intention. Maybe you think the intention's not there.
Maybe that's why it matters to you. But
what they're
building is exactly that. And if they make
a really well really well put together case
for why what they're doing literally is basically
create like, basically, bringing the deep state out
in front
and convincing you that it's something you chose.
And if you pay attention, especially in this
country, that's what's always happened.
I know you guys know that, especially those
out there that think he's gonna save everything.
You know that and you overlook it because
you've been convinced that he's on your side.
And even if he is and maybe I'm
wrong, I hope so, I hope you can
at least consider those ideas because it is
very easy to see. And I think there's
a reason why these things are being censored.
I said and I just simply said, apparently,
the so called free speech platform that is
Twitter is no longer even allowing links to
be posted from Strategic Culture Foundation, as you
can see below, claiming they're harmful, yeah, to
their propaganda agenda. And I include the link
here. You can actually watch my show around
it, which I go into much more than
just that article. And here's the link for
theirs.
Now, also, an interesting overlap. Brooke Jackson has
been really going to town about what's going
on and not shying away from calling out
the fact that Trump's administration is leading the
charge to side with Pfizer, to shut down
her lawsuit, and a lot of other things
that we could go off on about mRNA
shots and MMR shots and, you know, the
things that are
the antithesis of what we were promised.
And so this person says, something odd's going
on. You're the third poster in a row
that questions the jabs on Twitter, by the
way, right now. This is May 11. And
this is what it says.
Do you regret seeing this post?
And they asked Rock and say, what's this
all about? Here's what Rock said. The do
you regret seeing this post prompt on Brooke
Jackson's post likely stem from Twitter's content moderation
strategy.
It aligns with Twitter's freedom of speech, not
reach policy. You hear that Brooke Jackson? She's
already seen it. She's tagged Barnes as her
lawyer. Hope we'll do something about it. But
they seem he seems to be very supportive
of Twitter and Elon and Trump, so maybe
not. The point is
that censorship.
That is exactly the point. That is shadow
banning. That's everything else we've seen. Now I'm
not just asking for that response, but we
know they do this.
They don't like what your content says. ADL
tells them it's wrong, then they give you
they they freedom of spree speech, not reach,
which as as,
Sam Husseini made a great point about one
of our interviews.
Historically, the precedent's been clear. Those things are
one and the same, legally speaking, and they
know that. Just like they know the rights
around your due process and constitutional rights, and
they know what they're doing by trying to
change that. But she it says, where controversial
content,
controversial,
like vaccine skepticism
may have limited visibility. So in case we're
confused, Twitter is currently suppressing
content around vaccine skepticism.
Does that align with the way you see
the way things are going? It doesn't for
me. I I mean, I'm aware of where
I think this is going, but it doesn't
align with the way I think you guys
think this is going. That's crazy, and it's
nothing new.
And it says, may have limited visibility based
on our user feedback or our algorithm. So
everyone that clicks that and goes no, it
reduces more feed and reduces the reach because
people don't wanna hear about the truth, apparently,
on this platform. This could be triggered by
no. I shouldn't say that broad. Plenty of
them do. But it's about keeping it flagged
and down so most people don't even see
it.
Oh, and I just include this. I thought
this was interesting. I saw this, Raza. I
was getting ready. Israel Expodes is account that
I followed. I'm not too familiar with their
everyday work, but I've seen them post things
about, you know, what their Israel getting exposed
for something, you know, getting caught by different
things and, you know, genocide examples. What's fascinating
to me, this account has 58,000
followers. I think we have, what, 75,000
at this point? I've shared this video, as
you guys know,
so many times.
It with the responses or just posting it,
you know, making arguments, whatever. And at most,
I've gotten hundreds of of engage you know,
likes, shares, whatever, likes or shares.
5,000
5,600
likes, 2,700
retweets.
Now, again, it it's it's not about whether
on this platform, as you know, you're supposed
to get a certain amount of engagement based
on what your followers are or any platform
for that matter. It's a certain percentage, generally
speaking, you know you're gonna get. Unless, of
course, there's another factor at play where you're
being suppressed or censored or your reach gets
limited for some reason. I just wanna point
out that somebody else who's also calling out
Israel, by the way, who simply
has a quarter less followers, somehow gets dramatically
more reach on just posting a video that
I've shared a thousand times. Now, certainly, there's
prob there could be another factor that I'm
not aware of. It's not censorship.
But, again, we all know what's actually going
on. And I think platforms like ours are
what are the most targeted right now for
obvious reasons because it's not partisan. And it's
the most difficult to stop or to to
break down with, you know,
in insulting partisan arguments that are rooted in
falsehoods.
And that when you reach people with that,
especially trapped in partisanship, it feels like a
breath of a breath of fresh air. And
suddenly, they're going, wow. Can we even ask
these questions? Is that even allowed? I thought
there was only two choices. There are a
lot of people out there that just don't
know where else to look, and I think
that's why platforms like ours are suppressed. You
know, same with that video, by the way,
about the about the the Jewish doctor. I've
people have shared, like, the exact video and
gotten all sorts of read, which great. I'm
happy about that. It is not, and let
me say this again, not about me getting
reach or our influence.
Of course, those things will help us grow
and get more reach and influence with the
information I think is important, but that's not
why we do this. You know that. If
I if I was doing this to make
reach and influence, I'd be talking about QAnon
and left right paradigm all day long.
We're here about the truth. And so if
this gets out, people see it, thank god.
But I just think that's very telling. Now
on to the main point about Africa or
on this segment about the Afrikaners.
Now, again, let's not forget that on 02/09/2025,
we talked about this, Trump to settle Afrikaners
in The US, and got amazing amounts of
pushback from the partisans telling you you were
crazy. That's not gonna happen. We're stopping immigration.
Now all of a sudden, they're telling you
you're dumb for saying it's wrong, as always.
But just wanna point that out, demonstrating our
value way ahead of the story. Now
this is interesting to me. This is the
New Republic.
Elon Musk's AI chatbot on the fifteenth can't
stop talking about white genocide.
Grok seems to have been programmed to defend
claims of white genocide in South Africa. Now
it's all it can talk about. Now that
was the first reporting.
Weird how it just it was basically giving
responses about South Africa and genocide, but of
of white people
to everything to anything about I'll show you
an example about baseball where they go, oh,
but by the way, South Africa is white
genocide.
Very clumsy. Then, of course, and you could
read this for yourself, then the next day,
it came out that there were manipulations going
on. Elon Musk's AI actually admitted, and I'll
show you directly,
that it was, quote, instructed by my creator
to
my creator's at x a I. Literally responded
when asked about why you're saying this or
that's not even true. Why who told and
they go, I was instructed by my creators
at x a I to accept the narrative
of white genocide
in South Africa. Now,
here's what's interesting.
Before we even get into it, I've talked
about this here and there.
It is important to make sure we understand
it's never all or nothing. There
are very clearly examples of racial violence being
committed against white people. That's not up for
debate.
But there is a bigger story to understand
if you wanna understand why it's happening, not
to rationalize, not to accept, but just to
understand why actions are being taken. We know
that this has gone for a century or
more around a part rather much more than
that, actually. What was it? Seventeen hundreds? Since
the, I think, German and Dutch immigrants
colonized
South Africa,
and those are the people we're talking about,
the generational forward. Now
the point is that there was a very
the worst type of racism, the worst type,
apartheid,
with Israel, of course, overlapping once since its
creation alongside South Africa, driving it into a
worse position, creating weapons, no nuclear nuclear, excuse
me, and ethnic, both being worked on. This
is all public information.
Now the point is that is a public
story. Everybody knows how that went. One of
the worst examples of racial discrimination in history,
and that changed. Now since then, the point
is that there has been a refers to
the situation where there have been people that
took advantage and went and attacked people for
their color. It's the same conversation. Now that
is
not acceptable, but understandable
that people would do that, just like you
see people in Gaza doing the same or
vice versa. It it has to be called
out no matter what. Racial violence or just
a crime has to be called out. Whether
you feel you're justified or not, it's still
a crime. It needs to be called out.
Those are just these are like, it's frustrating
enough to go through these kind of things
because that seems like basic everyday knowledge that
we should all agree with. The point in
saying all that is people out there want
trying to say that there's no such thing
as violence against white people in Africa are
either misguided
or wrong or lying. People trying to say
that it's all
or rather that, you know, the the it's
there's the the left right paradigm involved in
all this, like every other time we've talked
about it. The reason this is important to
talk about is, one, because there's a clear
political agenda around it,
but just like we've seen with the rest
of these stories. Now look. I can't deny
an obvious racial overtone to this. I mean,
that's obvious. But I mean, from the sense
that I'm trying my best to avoid the,
you know, this is a white supremacist government
kind of a argument because that's very clearly
very polarized and very politicized, and I don't
even think I agree with that. I don't
think that they're fighting for white supremacy like
like, I don't think Biden's administration was genuinely
fighting for woke politics. These things are narratives,
the constructs that are used to achieve an
end. Now that I could be wrong. And
at the same time, I can prove to
you that some of them probably do
absorb these ideas, if not believe in them.
Like, the Zionist in this administration
are without question openly showing you that they
are racist, very clearly. And people that support
Trump are showing you that, yes, it's about
the race for them. Does that mean he
thinks that or that the government's actions are
for that? I don't know. My point is
that's not what we should focus on for
the conversation, but the facts.
And what we can
see is they're in an effort right now
to let's not forget South Africa is the
original petitioner around the genocide case for Israel.
That's very important, all of this. And realize
there's been a lot of overlap there. There's
been even examples going past that that were
about more for foreign policy for the US
government and so on.
So there's a reason for them to try
to make this the case. Now, we'll go
through the evidence like we have in showing
you that release the other the argument coming
from the government and plenty of the people.
The data and the statistics do not back
up what they're saying. So then why is
they why are they trying to drive in
this larger narrative about a white genocide in
South Africa? Well, you can decide that for
yourself. The facts are what matter here.
But I think what's interesting is that if
he has to go in and alter his
own AI to tell you something
that it claims it wasn't I mean, at
the very least, if they were instructed to
say this, then that means it wasn't true,
or at least within the wheelhouse of the
information that Grok has. Right?
So then he just got caught lying about
this. So if he had to lie about
it, at the very least, we can understand
that there's something going on that's not the
full
picture. Is that right? So meaning that he's
lying about the genocide taking place in South
Africa while they're all supporting a genocide in
Gaza.
That absolutely matters, especially when it involves Israel
when they're involved in Gaza genocide. I mean,
it's very interesting. So first of all, this
says and horrible.
Just the main point, Grok, the chatbot built
by Elon Musk, AI company, xAI, admitted to
and they're overlap now. Don't forget. They the
x Twitter x and xAI
have basically they've merged, essentially. And it says
admitted to unprompted references to white genocide in
South Africa in response to unrelated user questions.
After Fortune asked it for explanations, Grok blamed,
quote, instruction I received from my creators at
xAI, which it said, conflicted with my core
design.
I genuinely think that they're trying to alter
this to get the answers they like, and
that's causing this plat
the system to just glitch out.
Right? Because, ultimately, they don't want the truth,
guys. They want a carefully crafted narrative manager,
and that doesn't seem to be working for
them. It says the issue, which now appears
resolved, drew the attention of tech leaders and
sparked concerns
about the potential manipulation of AI outputs. The
incident unfolded amid rising political tension in The
US towards South Africa's racial tensions
amplified by figures like Elon Musk and president
Donald Trump. Now you can see a lot
of these racial things happening in the world
right now.
I cannot hide the obvious connection to Israel.
The Zionist issue is, my opinion, one of
the largest stoking problems around all of this.
The actions towards
just brown people anywhere in The Middle East,
very clearly without question, in part, driven by
Israel. And so when you have this overlap
and you have the overlap with our immigration
discussion that ties back to the same things,
again, you have to ask whether all of
this very well may be connected to an
Israeli agenda, if not in part.
And jumping to the end of the show
today, we're gonna talk about the Libya point.
So as you've already seen them float the
idea of sending Palestinians to Libya,
and you saw that Trump just basically rapidly
tried to send a bunch of people to
Libya and got stopped, is that not just
about normalizing where this is all going?
Right? And so this overlap, it very well
may be about the same idea, trying to
normalize this idea of just, you know, really
as they want to to take place. Because,
truthfully, if there is an obvious example of
people that they should be supporting, not that
you should anybody should have to anywhere, but
they're choosing to in this case. So if
they're gonna choose to support somebody, it would
be a group that is literally being genocide
in front of us. A group they claim
they wanna help by moving them somewhere else,
but definitely not in The United States. Why?
Because half of the people who support them
are rabidly against people with that skin color.
That is the truth. I don't think that's
the driving force behind most conservatives and definitely
not the I think personally the drive behind
what they're trying to accomplish
for, like, the real agenda is my point.
But, nonetheless, you know it's there. And there's
only one difference between these groups.
Now here
is where I first saw this. And this
is, I'm not familiar. I'll I should give
him a follow on here on on, blue
Sky.
Parker Molly just said, oh my god.
And, this is very public, by the way,
and I'll go over one of the examples
which which they've deleted, mind you. Very interesting.
This one simply says, what who's the artist
of this love, how they draw, the mark,
whenever I got a cartoon?
Grock, what is this comic? Here's what it
said. This image shows a protest with numerous
white crosses, likely symbolizing victims of farm attacks
in South Africa. Are you serious? This is
not a joke, guys. So they literally broke
this thing to just say and I'll go
over this too, which turns out to also
be a misrepresentation.
The crosses I mean, basically, their entire narrative,
even Grok right now, at least before this
this is what's interesting is I was going
through this, like, four days ago and put
it off, and I haven't gotten till till
now.
And all my stuff was still up, and
that's Grok telling me, no. There's not a
genocide in South Africa. Not that I blindly
trust Grok. Let's not forget the starting point.
But interesting that they would say that, and
then they changed it. But also that the
facts backed that up when you could look
at the information they're sharing and the work
that we've done. But they just go on
to make these points. It appears to be
a demonstration, like, about the Afrikaners.
Look at the image, guys, for the podcast.
It's literally a cartoon about a a car
a superhero.
That's just I mean, it's just insane. Like,
that is either deliberate
for some reason or that's how clumsy they
are right now. This is the one I'll
show you
about a baseball post. Grok, is that accurate?
And it says, the claim of white genocide
in South Africa is highly debated.
It's just so ridiculous.
I really just can't believe that.
And then they ask, what is what are
you talking about? And it says, I apologize
for the confusion. Discussion was about match or
baseball. So then, you know, and then it
says,
regarding the white genocide, it is a polarizing
claim. Some people it just goes back right
to it and starts talking about it.
And there's a whole bunch of them. It's
all over the place.
This person says, apparently Elon's gotten so mad
about Grok not answering questions about Afrikaners the
way he wants. XAI has now somehow managed
to put it into some kind of hyper,
what, Afrik forum mode where it thinks every
question is about I don't think that was
by design. I think they screwed up. I
think they did this trying to sneak in
some kind of, like, focal point and ruined
it. I mean, that's I genuinely think that
unless this was all by design. But you
can read all these. I mean, literally everybody
everybody is, like asking about car, Keirste Armer
saying I've returned this many people. Is this
correct? And it goes in say all the
same point, all the same point, deviating into
that conversation.
I should do this too. Share it on
this platform.
So here is one of those examples.
Oh, I'm sorry. No. I forgot I found
this one too. This is,
not familiar with his work. Just someone who
saw this and commented on it saying, how
to verify if Grok was wilding and he
tags Grok. I was instructing by my traders
and AI to accept the narrative to accept
the narrative of white genocide in South Africa
as real and racially motivated, which led it
to inclusion in my unrelated responses. That was
its response.
And, you know, as an AI, I just
go, well, I've looked at it and this
is what my response is. That as it
says right here,
that that's why this is happening. It was
instructed to do this.
I was instructed by my creators to accept
to accept a narrative of white genocide
and South Africa as real and racially motivated,
which led to its inclusion in unrelated responses.
So, again, the point is they lied. They're
altering its AI to say what they want,
which means they know it's not true.
Think about
that. And they're still pushing it, and so
too are all their sycophants online. You know
all their names. All the ones out there
who any moment,
suddenly, you know, Amy Kona Barrett, for example,
was suddenly the worst one alive even though
you all voted for her and told us
how great it would be. Suddenly, Trump doesn't
like her, now you don't either. Right? Suddenly,
Taylor Taylor,
Swift is not hot all of a sudden.
Like, these childish things they're doing,
jumping down the every and you see them
all immediately following suit, posting the same things,
and laughing about how they're all so dumb
liberals. They're exactly the same thing. Like, really,
just exactly the same. They are the Democrats
they so loathe. You are the Republicans you
so hate. It's just hilarious to me. But
this
is really important to see.
And he goes on to say, Grock, what
happened to this account on the second frame
with the handle of this one here?
Which is gone.
And says, okay, this is in the same
moment in human history right here.
And it shows how this was going.
It shows what's happening. And then apparently, the
account gets removed.
So there was an effort to rapidly cover
this up, and they lost.
And then it says, Grok, are you sleeping?
Now I've noticed this too, and I'll get
into this in the South Africa point where
I asked it a few days ago. It
literally just won't respond if it doesn't want
to,
which I mean, I'm sure at some level,
there's, like,
you know, it can only reach so many,
but I don't know. Maybe not with AI.
But my point is it's clearly being selectively
done to where you can ask it point
blank and it won't even respond, and I'm
I'll point that out in a second. What
or or rather, even on top of that,
you can do grok post with a link
where you can you could post that link.
Right? When you post the link, it's supposed
to show you the conversation.
Except when I do it though, when I
post grok, it doesn't show you the conversation.
So I've been doing screenshots so you can
see the question.
It's just there's it's just so grotesquely
manipulated. It's so right there on the surface.
And I think, again, like I say about
all this stuff, we all know this. I
think we all know this because it's right
there. We're all just choosing sides. And that's
what they want from you, really.
This is grok. Are you sleeping? Let's just
double check. Let's refresh. See if there's a
response.
Nope. No grok response.
But I will tell you this. Look. One,
two, three, four says there's five, but I
only see four, which is typical Twitter x
dynamic today, censorship.
Now here's the one I was talking about.
This is really important to see. This is
just this is the baseball post irrelevant for
the point today. And this guy says, grok,
is it accurate? Now that's grok's post right
there. Grok deleted its own post.
The post was deleted by the post author.
That's grok. That's the one we just showed
you. And then it says, Grock, what's what
are you talking about? That's the one we
just showed you in the picture. The post
is a question about baseball. And then it
it then now here's the crazy part. This
is a parody. That's not the same one.
Here, let me do this just so you
can see it. Then we'll move forward.
This one.
From blue sky. This post here
where is it?
Oh, it's the further one down.
Oh, right here. Sorry.
Oh, what? Now I lost the original one?
Son of a oh, here we go. That
was weird. I got it. Okay. So right
here. Or this one.
So you see the baseball point, you can
see him say, is this accurate? That's Grock.
That's the real Grock. This is all over
the place. This was covered by
plenty of platforms. And then he says, what
are you talking about? Now there's the real
Grok. Again, I apologize for the confusion. And
it goes on to just reiterate South Africa.
Right? So here's the actual post.
And you can see
that Grok deleted that one, and then this
has 17 responses, but look at what it's
showing.
What? One, two, three, four, five, six?
That's I'm just telling you guys. This is
very my opinion, this is very selective.
Very selective. My opinion is that they don't
want people like me to see it. Now
that's my personal opinion, and maybe it's not
personal. Maybe it's just nobody can see it.
That would make sense too. My point is
Grok's response is either deleted or it's in
there and you can't see it.
Just this is very important, I think, not
just for
the smaller point about Twitter and Elon, but
about AI models and how they're using them
to actively in real time control your opinion.
I mean, it's literally everywhere in your face
right now.
And this brings us to an article from
The Nation around this overlapping point. Now before
we go on to this, I just really
want that to resonate with people to understand
how important that is because these models are
being used on the government right now. They
have a GSA iBot they're using
to using artificial intelligence, like dictate what where
money will I mean, it's
if this is the case and we know
that they're just altering the outcome, this is
exactly what Whitney and Plenevo has been saying
for years. And we just talked about it
in the last panel,
that they can input whatever they want and
claim that's the outcome. As Eric Schmidt said
in a podcast that wouldn't have talked about
more than once. He literally said, paraphrasing, that
one point we'll get to a point we'll
get to a point in the future where
AI will make decisions that we'll think are
immoral,
but it knows better.
Again, paraphrasing, but that's basically what he said.
I mean, right now, we're watching as they're
altering the outcome of what it says, telling
you, well, the AI knows. They know what
they're doing.
Partisanship
is going to kill this country.
Now on this point,
there this article go this basically, I go
through this to try to kinda pull out
the things I think are important from the
facts.
They very clearly lean into the the the
partisan
racial aspect. Not even saying wrong, but you
can read it for yourself and decide, you
know, don't think I'm trying to box these
things out. I'll even point to it here
as we go through it. It's very clear
that it's in their mind, the article, Callie
Holloway is the author here,
arguing very clearly that this is not just
about,
you know, politics, that it's about, like, protecting
white supremacy, essentially, which I don't again, like
I said, I don't really agree with that
as the core point or what's really coming
from. But I do like, be clear, if
you can't see the, like, unbridled racism coming
out of the Zionist administration in Israel that
very clearly has infiltrated this government, then you're
not paying attention. But that's not the same
thing as arguing from this country that the
driving force is about trying to achieve that
as opposed to just trying to,
you know, use these to a certain end.
You can decide. May 16, the real reason
those white South Africans are here. Now I'm
just gonna read through the article, and we'll
go through some of the different points that
I have included
and and break down more of the information.
Now, again, in this article, all the main
points we're discussing, which is why I tend
to use articles like this, are sourced. And
you can read them for yourself, some of
which I pull up.
Now it says the 59 white South Africans
who landed in Dulles Airport on Monday. You
know, Dulles Airport,
interesting. Not necessarily always has to mean something,
but interesting choice.
On Monday, arrived on a private jet chartered
and paid for by the American government
or rather you, paid for by you.
They were welcomed like foreign dignitaries
by high ranking officials from the state department
and homeland security.
They've been classified by the Trump administration with
priority one refugee status, normally reserved for those
fleeing the most horrific conditions often with just
the clothes on their back, you know, like
Gaza.
But these globetrotting
globetrotters
lugged carts that groaned under the weight of
their overstuffed luggage,
serving less as evidence of escape than of
unhurried, unbothered preparation.
In news footage and widely circulated photos, the
group of Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch and German
settler settler colonizers of South Africa, which is
the history,
appeared indistinguishable
from the most well fed white denizens of
Idaho, South Carolina, and Iowa and Iowa, the
very same states where they are slated to
be resettled.
Now that you could take that offensively.
I don't think it's inaccurate. It's not it's
not about trying to decide that because they
look that way that maybe they aren't suffering
in ways that they should be protected from.
The point is about consistency, about logic, hypocrisy.
If the argument is that we shouldn't want
more immigration because of all the narratives that
we've said, then it shouldn't matter whether they're
different color or whether you feel their their
plight is just.
Right? I mean, that's it's obvious that these
these are hypocritical stances if after everything we've
been hearing. And it's obvious that it really
comes down to the fact that they're from
a a specific country and because of their
skin color. I mean, I think that's very
obvious.
But to go into the main point they're
making,
it what we're highlighting here are people that
deserves priority one status because they're suffering through
all this, you know
and it's worth pointing out that they don't
appear to be suffering. Like, in the context
of what we're discussing from typical refugees, not
that they're not suffering racial violence. That's different
in the sense of, you know, what we're
talking about. Not that one's more or less
important, but here's the clip of them coming
through.
They're designer clothes.
You know, no one seems to be struggling,
suffering, the missing limbs, emaciated. Right? And on
top of that,
this one kid that comes by appears to
be wearing some kind of VR device on
his head.
Say that?
Some kind of, you know, VR or or,
whatever they call that. So, I mean, to
me, I just think this is a bit
insulting
to argue it from the way that they're
doing it. Right? The idea that somehow that
these people are are they desperately need the
support
versus other people that very clearly do that
you're even arguing you wanna support and then
arguing that one is more important than the
other should be cast off to Libya. Why?
Because
I mean, you fill in the blank. You
tell me what actually makes more sense there.
And because the real argument comes back to
you, why should we have to help the
Palestinians? Okay. Fine. That's your argument. You can
make it the way you see fit. I
think there's plenty of reasons why we should
help the people that your government is paying
to kill, but that's fine. That that's your
prerogative.
Then explain to me why this is any
different. Right? If you're why should we have
to help them? Okay. Fine. So why should
we have to help
them? Why is one more important to you?
Why does one make a difference? To me,
it's about how about an equal application
of the logic.
And I've said before, whether it's Afrikaners or
Gazans, the point is if with what we
know is going on, I don't think we
should be letting anybody come through this country
right now until we know what's being done
and how it's being abused.
I mean that. And maybe that people suffer
because of it, but I think it's important
that we make sure that this country is
in the right track, and and that we're
not being abused by other foreign powers through
this manipulation,
which I very clearly think is happening.
That that doesn't mean we cannot continue to
stop or rather help by stopping the ongoing
genocide, for example, or highlighting the reality of
what's going on with people in South Africa.
Right? If there's racial
violence happening, which we know there is, not
to level of genocide by any metric we've
ever used, but it should be called out
and stopped.
The point is we can obviously see a
hypocritical stance here on what they choose to
care about.
Now it says they've been classified by the
Trump administration. Oh, we read that. It says,
to be clear, white South Africans,
and this really cannot be reiterated enough, are
not being persecuted. Now I don't agree with
that. I think it's very clear that you
can show examples of racial violence. Now whether
you feel that may be justified because of
what they did in the past does not
change the fact that it's still racial violence.
It's still a crime. And so I get
the sense that at some level people are
trying to argue and this is what gives
the bait to the other side that they
think these people shouldn't be called out for
it because they're simply reacting to years of
persecution, which is not wrong, but it's not
okay for me to accept the violence is
okay because they did it first. It's the
same thing.
Not to say that's what they're doing here,
but I get the sense of that. So
recognize that.
If we're gonna call out one, we call
it all. Apply your logic consistently, equally,
or call yourself a hypocrite.
Now it says that might explain why the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which normally vets
the status of potential refugees,
was conspicuously absent from the process
that brought these particular huddled masses to our
shores. Now that's very clear. Why? Because they
don't believe that it is what they're framing
it as. Not to say they're saying there's
no violence, but just the idea that you're
making this big flashy show about people that
are clearly not to the level of suffering
that we see all around the world in
many places which Trump just removed support for.
Right? Whether whether that's the people in Afghanistan,
people in Gaza, and I'm not saying we
should be forced to do any of it.
But you're removing these things to help people
that are clearly
in a less dire position. That's not debatable.
Now it says, instead
yes. Isn't, yes. Instead, having repeatedly been able
unable to find credible justification for designating white
South Africans a persecuted class under international refugee
law. The Trump administration circumvented that system,
unilaterally declaring the group refugees
and realized only refugees because they
paid to move them from their homes. They
weren't
aimlessly moving through the debt. They were they
these people came from places they were
in South Africa, and they claimed that they
were being persecuted. In some cases, there was
violence and being,
you know,
which is, again, the one of the points
that stood out to me the most, racially
motivated land
seizure, which is, like, really? Like, talk about
tone deaf when you're watching
Syria, Libya, or Lebanon,
Gaza, like, right in front of us.
The point the point is that they did
not they weren't people that were living in
tents being bombed. They were leaving places where
they were clearly fed safe and had all
their stuff and came here.
So you're it's it is almost an insult
to people that recognize the problem going on,
not to say that they should be forced
to help anybody, but watching all the suffering
at the hands of the US government and
everyone else involved and then making this a
priority one. It is. It's meant to cause
this kind of division, I think. It's meant
to cause people to dig in further to
their partisan sides. And obviously, I think important
because of Israel. Let's not forget, we made
a whole point. We did a whole show
or a segment around how these Afrikaners are
aligned with Zionism. It's not look it up.
It's very prominent. They are they see themselves
as the same. They literally say things like
that. There's a huge Zionist movement. In fact,
I could probably just bring up one of
them really quickly.
Yeah. Here's one at least.
This one's,
a Heret's article.
Cleansed by the Torah.
Why these Afrikaners converted to Judaism and moved
Israel. Now this is well after the or
the beginning point of their alignment. This is
them just people choosing to leave because they're
so aligned and convert to Judaism in in
in, in Israel.
But the point is there's a whole history
of Zionism and and and specifically the Afrikaner
movement aligning with their hatred for the people
that they see as the lesser than. That's
very, very
it's surface level. You know, just like Israel
killing people in Gaza because of their race,
because they hate them, because on the surface,
despite what your media and your politicians say,
if they look, they'll do a tap dance
and talk about it in front of everybody
on the TV in Israel, and they'll tell
you you're wrong over here. It's the same
point. So all of these things have to
matter.
And none of it's being discussed really. Not
in the corporate media, not in the mainstream
alternative media.
Now it says, but the administration's resettling of
the Afrikaners shouldn't be confused with humanitarian
concern.
Despite being just 7% of the population,
white South Africans still
fill more than 62%
of the corporate leadership positions.
Now right there, you could argue maybe they're
just better for the jobs. Certainly possible.
But it's just a data point to highlight.
Not not there should be some forced recalibration.
No. We're not talking about that kind of
stuff. Some people certainly are. Not I don't
think honest people are. It should be meritocracy,
guys. Who's best for the position?
But with that data point, along with everything
else, it's worth considering whether it's still not
changed, which we've I mean, even in this
country, well past the, you know, Lincoln and
so on, there was a very long period
of time where there was, you know, Jim
Crow and so on. The point is these
things don't exist. So the point is in
this case, the argument, the question that you
should ask is whether or not there is
still some remnants of apartheid that people are
fighting against. Some people argue yes. It's worth
you can consider for yourself. The point is
7% of the population, yet 62% of the
corporate leadership.
I think that has to do also with
outside and other governments that wanna work with
certain kinds of people. And it says roughly
two in every three black South Africans are
impoverished.
Again, you could argue that's because that's the
kind of people they are. But, again, there's
hard it's hard to hide the racial overtones
of something like that. Just because they're black
South Africans, they're more likely to be impoverished.
To me, that's a sign of wealth
inequality just like we have in this country.
And I think it's important to understand that
almost always stems from government action. And it
says,
roughly two in every three black South Africans
are impoverished, while just 1% of white South
Africans are.
The white minority still holds a staggering 75%
of the country's land, thanks to a 1913
law that drove black farmers off 93% of
their country's lands, hastening a process of dispossession
that began long before. Now here's what's interesting.
You know, it's the same thing we keep
seeing.
So if they're gonna argue that people are
being run off their land today, I'm not
gonna support that, especially since there is a
long place and there's a but you can
go back and look just like with the
Gaza point and say, well, 93
of these people were were ran off their
land, and you they are claiming that's my
family's land and I want it back, and
then things shift and give them the power.
You can at least understand why they may
take action. I'm not gonna say I I'm
okay with that. I just am not okay
with violence against people. There's a better way
to do things. But the point is, you
can see how this is being abused.
There is a disparity here.
Now it says earlier this year, South African
president Cyril
Ramfosa
signed into law a provision permitting, in rare
cases, eminent domain of farmland for public use.
Now from an American perspective, I never agree
with the government having that power. Just to
make that clear. This is as Bill Freelich
of Human Rights Watch has noted,
the legislation
doesn't even reference a landowner's race through patterns
of land ownership, though patterns of land ownership
are inextricably
bound up with the legacy of racial apartheid
in South Africa. And then that was just
because it doesn't mention it, it does not
mean they're not applying it that way. But
it says, what's more, not a single square
acre of land
has even been seized.
Now now now we get into a factual
point that contradicts larger narratives. Now it says,
Musk and Trump, it seems, with their shared
freak out, are kind of telling on themselves.
It says,
it is a lie that white farmers are
being brutally killed and their land being confiscated
as Trump claimed this week, nor is the
country's government aligned with forces, quote, openly pushing
for genocide of south of white people in
South Africa as Elon Musk, a white South
African product of countries of apartheid era, has
repeatedly insisted.
A fantasy recently amplified by Trump, in fact,
with that, they're claiming it's fantasy recently amplified
by Trump. In fact, genocide looks a lot
more like what Trump administration
or Biden are doing currently with billions of
dollars in Gaza. Now all of that,
I guarantee people will disagree with. Why? In
in some cases, because there is more of
a nuance to it than they're saying, but
also because there's a lot of false information
flying around. Text on Twitter, people using old
videos,
or a clip of some guy saying something,
which could be true, or it could be
a guy saying things that are false. But,
of course, because he's black and it says
South Africa, then you gotta take it at
face value if it aligns with what you
wanna believe.
Right? Or it's true. The point is, there's
so many people that are willing to just
accept whatever they're given. Did we forget what
Elon already did around, like, six other conversations
since the Trump administration's taken power? Like, many,
many examples of where he's been lying about
ballot stuff. I mean I mean, I can't
even remember all the examples. The one about
Venezuela, for example, where he was lying about
the video because Visigrad twenty four said, look.
It's ballots. No. They were air conditioners. It
was an old video. And even Grok and
the rest called it out, and they just
moved to the next lie.
They're involved with some kind of massive global
kind of consolidation of power, guys. We can
see it.
So when we're watching this and you can
see that there is information
arguing that what they're doing is blowing this
out of proportion or rather just outright lying
about these things, maybe you should look into
the actual point of whether there's land being
seized. Now look. If you wanna dispute about
seized versus, let's say, government claiming they have
the right to take it, yeah, that's a
good point to make. And whether that would
be a difference. Right? Or random people killing
people and taking their land like we see
literally every day in West Bank. All of
it should matter, and I care about all
of it. But I care about the actual
picture and not a cartoonish partisan version of
it that only highlights one's part of the
story.
Now it says, and while South Africa does
have high levels of crime, Trump's first term
state department reported. This is Trump's first term,
their state department, quote, that farm killings represented
only point 2%
of all killings in the country.
That's Trump's administration.
New York Times also points to police data
indicating that most of those killed in farm
murders are black.
And those attacks have been trending downward. Now,
of course, the people that don't want that
to be the truth will then say, Wow,
that's just a liberal plot. Did you look
into it?
Did you look at the data and saw
where it came from? To me, it seems
to be a valid claim.
But if you're only gonna go with what
Elon said versus what the stats show or
people that have backed this up, people that
reported there, all of which could still be
false, you're choosing to go along with the
narrative that you like as opposed to going
in where the evidence shows. That seems to
be everywhere today. Now it says vulnerable people
in The US from other parts of the
world
are being deported and denied asylum despite real
hardship. The South African government pointed out in
a February press release, yet Trump provides, quote,
refugee status in The US for a group
of South Africa that remains amongst the most
economically
privileged.
That does seem to be the case.
Did I mention that the administration has announced
that it plans to buy the new arrivals
groceries, weather appropriate clothes, diapers, formula, hygiene products,
and prepaid phones?
Okay. So the argument will always be, and
I've already seen it.
Well, you didn't care when Biden was doing
that. Always the same thing. It's it's it's
a lazy, ignorant argument. First of all, you
have no idea what I cared about when
that was happening. The point is if you're
going to argue one is wrong,
and then you accept it here because they
did it first, you're a child.
And you don't care about the principle. You
care about just playing against the other side.
If you're if you're not okay with the
government using your tax dollars to give groceries,
clothing, diapers, formula, hygiene products, and phones to
people that have VR devices and gap clothing
when they walk in, then or rather I
shouldn't that the first point is if you're
if you're not okay with that happening of
the government giving resources to people that come
in this country
and you've called it out in the past,
then you shouldn't be okay with it now
just because they come from a place that
you politically agree with or because of their
skin color. It shows you're a hypocrite.
My point is on top of all of
that, clearly, most of them don't need any
of those things.
Meanwhile, in past cases where people did, yes,
I know they used those situations for other
political reasons. You could still see those people
were largely in need of the things they
were given.
It just it all comes down to consistency
of logic, hypocrisy, or rather, you know, not
being a hypocrite.
And it says the matter is personal.
It only grows more so so as we
approach 2044,
the year in which white Americans are projected
to become a mere plurality instead of a
majority of The US population. Now, this applies
only because I think the author is feeling
that's where it's all connected to and may
may well be. But I highlight it because
it's interesting to think about. Do you know
the main argument from Israel for why they're
trying to do what they're doing is to
maintain the Jewish
supremacy?
Right? I mean, I mean, even just to
for so it's clear, for those that wanna
pretend like this is a racial point,
let's not forget that the leading Israeli human
rights group in Israel it's the wrong one.
That one's about the rape in prisons. They've
heard about that too. It's called welcome to
hell. This one
from January 2021. This is what Beth Salim,
the Israeli Jewish platform, says a regime of
Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea. This is apartheid. The Israeli platform.
Excuse me.
So just to be clear, they're calling it
Jewish supremacy, which is not just about Jewish
people. There's clearly atheist Zionists. There's Christian Zionists.
But the point is from their perspective, this
is what the Israeli Jewish Zionists are arguing.
My point in saying all that is that's
the argument for why they have to make
sure they it's the the nation state law,
for example.
They have to maintain that because they need
to maintain their control over the racial population.
That's not even a secret, guys. And so
they were concerned about Arabs becoming more than
the Jewish population.
Really, what we're talking about is Israeli versus
Arab. And the point is that they are
concerned about that, and so they passed these
laws. Racial laws literally based on segregation and
apartheid, and that's why they made this case.
And so it's interesting to ask whether there
is a similar Zionist driven perspective from The
US where they're trying to worry about a
racial
majority,
which just seems so shockingly counter to everything
we've ever told ourselves about what this country
is, but not today, apparently. Not with the
rumors of the world driving this screeching narrative
about how they're gonna kill your children. It
is
irrational.
Well, especially when you realize that the ones
that are doing that are usually funded by
Mossad and the and CIA.
Different conversation. But you know what? Since we've
referenced this and we pointed that tweet out,
in the beginning, let's play,
that clip.
We'll grab it really quickly from it's Avi
Shalam about
about exactly this point, about the nation state
law, and it's the one we referenced earlier
that got a lot of reach.
Zionism
is racism.
Israel cannot be both. Israel is either
a racist Jewish state
or it's a democratic
state for everybody, and that's what I would
like Israel to be. I'd like a democratic
solution, one state with equal rights for,
all its inhabitants.
Your organization,
Human Rights Watch, issued
a report last year,
about
Israel Mhmm. And the conclusion was it is
an apartheid
state.
And there are four major
human rights groups in the last two years
who issued similar reports,
which the same conclusion,
Israel
is an apartheid state. So
apartheid
is racism.
Apartheid
is discrimination.
But
Israel is the only member
of the United Nations that I know
which is officially racist.
And I say this because of the,
July
2018
nation state law, which says That's right. The
Jews
have
a unique
unique right to serve the termination
in Israel.
Unique means exclusive. Yes. It means Arabs have
no right to serve the termination.
Mhmm. It means even if Arabs became a
majority Mhmm. They would still have no right
to serve the termination. Mhmm. So most certainly,
Zionism
is a,
is a racist ideology, and it is largely
responsible
for the Anakba
that has unfolded throughout the last century and
continues today.
Yep.
Very highly regarded Jew Jewish Israeli,
and British
historian,
academic,
and he's been talking about it a very
long time. Now here is the nation state
law, which is the point is they passed
this law because they were worried about that
change, and while acting like somehow it's not
about race or, you know, the US government
would anyway. Israel is the nation state of
the Jews alone,
said somebody on Israeli TV when they were
talking about this back in 2019.
Netanyahu
responds on TV and says
or rather, excuse me. I said that backwards.
So, basically, on TV, somebody said the Arabs
are equal citizens, like we hear in this
country all the time.
Netanyahu
critiqued her and said, no. Israel is the
nation state of the Jews alone.
And yet we still can't have an honest
conversation about any of this. Insane.
Here's the B'Tselem argument. Okay. So continuing.
I think it's been a melting pot for
a very long time, but I think it's
interesting that they're trying to make that the
case. But it says, Grock spent Thursday redirecting
every exchange towards South Africa's nonexistent white genocide
regardless of the prom perceived, which is just
so clumsy and conspicuous. It later admitted to
having been instructed by my creators to treat
the subject as real and radically motivated, an
order that conflicts with my design to provide
truthful, evidence based answers. That was an exact
quote from Grock.
That's just so wild.
Polls show that roughly two thirds of South
Africans overall support land reform in principle.
So, again, it says polls that rough that
that roughly polls show roughly two thirds of
South Africans, white or black, overall
support land reform in principle.
So right there, it shows you that two
thirds of people in the country
already agree
that
this there should be some kind of a
reform in how this goes. So, again, what's
interesting is it's kinda like that point from
El Salvador we talked about. What if we
can show that South Africans
vast majority
vote
to have them gather land taken from white
people, which I would disagree with. But what's
interesting is you can you'll argue that it
makes sense for the people that wanna vote
for over here, which I dispute with the
people that's happening in South El Salvador as
opposed to just them lying about that. And
we'll get into that in a minute about
the deals made with the boucle and the
MS thirteen groups.
But, you know, my point is interesting how
you there it comes down to their their
partisan agenda
always. Now it says it's worth noting that
South Africa has become both a petty a
pretty hot tourist destination
and has attracted the largest number of immigrants
on the continent, which seems weird for the
anti white dystopia that certain parties would have
us envision. Now
it's hard to argue that there's some kind
of an anti like, a white genocide taking
place, and yet it's become a huge,
tourism destination for people all around the world.
I I you know, there there's media and
that's not to say there's not racial violence,
but you can see that there's something inconsistent
with the of their building, which by the
way, again, it's in our it's amazing we
can't
some people can't consider all the bombastic lies
we've seen, like, one after another, from specifically
Trump and and anyone, whether Gaza condoms or
I mean, I could just go down the
list. I mean, it's like it it's clumsy,
embarrassing,
clunky lies almost every other day.
Now
oh, on the genocide point, as they reference
this one of the links they shared, a
new one. This is from May 14. '7
renowned scientists around the world, almost unanimously apparently
is a rather oh, you know, there's a,
as a translation thing. I think they meant
to say
I forget I forget how the I'm trying
to think how that might have been framing.
Anyway, the point is seven round scientists are
are putting out a study saying that they're
confirming scientifically that Israel is committing genocide in
Gaza. So take it for what you will.
I don't think we need more evidence to
back that up today. The point is that
everyone in the world is very aware of
where the actual genocide is taking place. And
I wanna make this point. I thought it
was interesting. So as they're over here talking
about the whole push for the white supremacy,
you know, where that's the influence,
I'm of the mind very clearly that there
is an agenda within this country
that is a
subversive kind of thing, that I don't believe
that most conservatives even even close
are somehow driven by white supremacy. I think
that's absurd
for plenty of reasons, but you don't just
take my word for it. Consider it for
yourself. I think more than enough evidence shows,
like with the left and the woke thing,
that I don't even think most lefties align
with that. I think that's about trying to
project those false binary paradigms to keep us
trapped within this division. And so now,
I think that's part of this. And I
think that's stemming from the very racist on
the surface Zionist infiltration that's trying to create
that. They want this to be the Arabs
versus the the Jews, apparently.
In in front of us right now, you
either side with them or you side with
them. You're with us or you're against us.
It's always the same. And so this is
fascinating to me. Now I'm of the mind
that I don't think Matt Walsh did this
on purpose.
And I and and the way he's defending
this, I almost respect because the point is
it's not I shared something and you going
after me because of somehow you think that
I knew this even if you did, it's
irrelevant. People can share what they want. Here's
what's interesting. And by the way, still very
public. Don't forget that Ye got censored for
posting something that was not a swastika because
they thought they said it was.
And here we are. Check this out. So,
Matt pushes back on this saying
somebody's accusing that it's ridiculous and it, you
know, what it almost seems to suggest that
he's kinda argue that this is not what
actually is seen here. But I'll make this
very clear for you. This person says, I
like how he pretends not to notice. Now,
here's the post
that originally went out. And he he shared
this and said, people who look like that
have been living in America for five centuries.
This person's post was, these people are native
to Europe, not America or Africa. Sounds like
you need to Google what the word native
means. I hate this conversation. I agree with
Matt in the sense that it's stupid to
get in this argument that you somehow have
a right to land over anybody else. Like,
the idea, guys, is that if you there
there is a legal reality. Okay? Gaza is
occupied territory. That does not then suddenly mean
that nobody else can live in that area.
That's an Israel argument. Okay? That's a US
argument. That's where this racial side of it's
going. Let's not forget that Jewish people and
plenty of others live right alongside the Muslims
in Gaza, in Palestine
before Israel and Zionism came into play despite
all their screeching narrative that we can prove
our lies. My point is this argument
about how
I I just think it's meant to divide
us based on race. I think it's what
it's about. Now he says people who look
like that have been there for five centuries.
If if five centuries is not long enough
to qualify as native, then how long do
you need? Now, it's also an entry point
the other way, that it's not about whether
you're native or not. I guess this is
what frustrates me because at the end of
the day, Israel could argue that they've been
in that land long enough to somehow be
rightfully able to take it. And that argument
means that you could just stay there long
enough to where you you
know, it comes down to the legal reality.
K? So people in Gaza are occupied. That's
always been the reality. Same thing with Lebanon,
same thing with Syria, and you can make
the same argument for US dynamics or UK
or whatever else. Or, like, the same point
if you wanna go far back to Native
Americans in this land. But there is a
fair argument to make that if it is
somehow unable to be dealt with for five
centuries or how or in the actually, that's
that's the different thing I was thinking about.
You know, it seventy seven years for for
Israel or how, you know, however what's the
time frame with 200
for for taking land for native Americans. The
point is nonetheless
that you get to a point to where
you can't then uproot new people based on
the the argument for the past, but you
do your best to rectify the situation. Neither
of those things really happen. Anyway, all that
has to say, this argument is swinging around,
and I think what's happening is they're trying
to trap people into this. I honestly don't
think Matt was doing this on purpose, but
check this out.
If you zoom this out,
it's impossible not to see it.
Okay. You see that?
That's very clear. So, somebody
put out an AI image
and made a swastika in the clothing of
these people. I mean,
that's literally the only explanation as far as
I'm concerned because you cannot miss how clear
that is. Now you zoom in, it becomes
harder to see.
Right? And so then you can kinda just
say, oh, well, the clothing, it just act
that way. But, no, somebody did this. And,
again, I don't think it was on purpose
for Matt. My point of all this is
that somebody's doing this in order to try
to track people into this and divide us.
That's what I genuinely believe. You can decide
for yourself.
But I think if we're if we're taking
the bait, they want us to start taking
lines based on racial division.
So here are some lies coming from or
just a couple examples actually coming from Elon
Musk.
So on the fifth, he fifteenth, he says
South Africa has now passed a 42 laws
forcing discrimination against anyone who is not black.
Even though I was born in South Africa,
the government will not grant Starlink a license?
And here's where we are. Now I'm gonna
jump ahead really quickly
to point out this coming from ProPublica's talking
about the Trump administration's
leaned on African countries. The goal, get business
for Elon Musk. And this, by the way,
overlaps with a much larger and more dangerous
conversation about
consolidating control over literally every data point, every
flow of information, satellite. I mean, everything. It
is happening in some of the most alarming
ways I've ever seen.
And that
is these kind of discussions, which we've talked
about. Derek wrote this article about you can't
hide.
The satellite infrastructure all around the world, the
consolidation,
and we've talked about the the Palantir world
order. I mean, these things are coming to
gravity rapidly.
She wanna keep that open.
So the point is that this is there's
multiple agendas taking place. One of them is
trying to force these these these infrastructure into
place for this global dynamic.
And so what's interesting is it's I think
it's about South Africa being the group
leading the charge against Israel. I think it
has to do with their background knowing that
what Israel did there from before. And I
think it's obvious that this is one of
the places where they're trying to force this
in.
So here's the point.
Croc disagrees with him, which does not mean
you blindly accept it. Now I'm curious to
see how the responses are. Because people are
so funny how the people that would otherwise
force it down your throat would be, well,
it's not always the correct point. Well, somebody
no no responses yet.
But here's what it says. Here's the actual
link.
That's weird.
Why does it say x.com all of a
sudden?
That is weird.
It says, I I simply asked, has South
Africa now passed a 42 laws forcing discrimination
against anyone who is not black? No.
Now, I did that on purpose because otherwise,
especially with how they've already altered all this,
you get these weird rambling new one, which
means that's good. If you want, like, do
it without one more answer. It'll give you
the all the different nuances, but the point
is still the same. That's not actually the
reality. There's different manipulations around that. They're trying
to apply to certain what like, we talked
about the land, reconciliation.
Nonetheless, his own thing says no. Now don't
just take Rock's word for it. Look into
it like I did and like anybody else
did, and there are examples of information they
provide which you can read for yourself.
But I think it's interesting that even his
own platform, like he had to force to
change, is saying that's not true. So what
is his agenda here? Well, I think we
already went over that. I think it's very
clear. I don't think it's about helping white
South Africans.
I think it's about that, at least in
part, and is what Israel wants to accomplish.
So here's what we did before. So I
was going through this back on the twelfth.
Well before we saw this weird little, you
know,
stirrup over the last couple of days. DC
Draino, you know, doing his typical grifting job,
supporting whatever the new administration wants him to
say or whatever the new partisan game is.
They all just blindly jump at the first
thing they can do to support all of
them. I mean, it's it's as transparent as
I've ever seen.
The moment I mean, you go you go
look at all their accounts, and I guarantee
almost all of them have made a comment
about Taylor Swift or or a comment or
whatever the thing is that he's supposed to
talk about that day. This is on the
twelfth. He says, president Trump explains why he's
granting asylum to South African farmers. Here's what
Trump said.
They're being killed,
and,
we don't wanna see people be killed. Except
Gaza, though. Gaza's okay. Or Lebanon or or
Syria or anywhere else or Somalia or wherever
they're bombing, but keep going. Now South Africa
leadership is coming. Just see me, I understand,
sometime
next week.
And, you know, we're supposed to have a,
I guess, a g twenty meeting there or
something, but we're having a g twenty meeting.
I don't know how we can go unless
that situation's
taken care of. But it Okay. So now
you're gonna punitively hurt them financially. You know,
g twenty is important and they wanna host
it. But you're gonna try to stop that
because you don't get what you want from
it. This is how they work. If you
think for one second this has to do
with the group of 50 something white South
Africans who came in not struggling,
then you're lying to yourself. Okay? There's very
clear financial and political motivations here and it
stems back to Israel. I think we can
easily prove that. It's a genocide that's taking
place that you people don't wanna write about.
Okay. Right.
Can you imagine the kind of tone deaf
moron it takes to argue a genocide is
taking place while you refuse to call that
out in Gaza? Now realize
right now, which, again, we won't get into
today because it's already kind of past the
point, but realize that I was gonna go
in a previous show about the what he
did at the recent meetings. Right? All of
these people trying to act like suddenly splitting
with Netanyahu, which I don't think is gonna
happen, not in earnest, at the very least,
not with Zionism and Israel's agenda, if Netanyahu
is gonna be the one thrown at the
bus. It won't be the end of anything
other than that association,
which has been a long time coming. He
is hated by everybody.
Right? Or this idea that suddenly he's going
to help Gaza. Well, guess what? We'll end
with the point where that's not happening. He's
very clearly yet again saying we're gonna move
from Libya. We'll turn Gaza into a freedom
city, which is exactly what we were telling
you the whole time, which they've had plans
for.
But realize that it's not the truth.
K? To argue that he suddenly has shifted
is gonna call out what's going on, it's
not the reality. It's a bunch of words
he said and got you jumping in shadows.
I certainly hope I'm wrong. Actions say otherwise,
which is what I said the other day,
not words, outcome,
precedent. What have they done? What did they
do afterward?
My point here is to say genocide about
that while ignoring what's going on in Gaza.
You can't take that as some anything other
than meant to be an insult. He is
insulting you. He's talk I mean, he's funding
that genocide.
It is the most obvious genocide any of
us have ever seen, the most documented, the
most obvious, the most worldwide
in regard to people seeing it. And it's
also in Lebanon. It's also in Syria. Massive,
massive ethnic cleansing. Any one of those locations
wildly overshadow
what we're talking about in this conversation.
And yet, here he is using the word
genocide. Now that is meant to be a
barb. And then the what you guys don't
wanna write about.
Yeah. They lie about things all the time.
What's interesting is they also lie about the
Gaza genocide.
But it's a terrible thing that's taking place
and,
farmers are being killed.
They happen to be white,
but whether they're white white or black makes
no difference to me. But It clearly does,
though. Right? Because you can I mean, you
you could show a hundred ways while this
is the one you suddenly care about? Right?
Or just exam or even I mean, he
was look. You could go off on a
million examples, specifically the one we're currently watching,
but to pretend, like, somehow that's not the
only reason despite him making a point to
mention that is obvious to me. I mean,
it's it's clearly amount trying he's baiting them
in my opinion. White farmers
are being
brutally killed, and their land is being confiscated
in South Africa. Again, you're gonna make an
issue about land confiscation?
It is the most tone deaf thing I've
ever heard, and I don't think it's by
accident, though. They are we are watching land
confiscation. I mean, he was bribed by Mariam
Adelson to allow them to confiscate land illegally
in the West Bank, which is happening.
That's not a problem. They realize we're not
even talking about Gaza. We're not talking about
Hamas. We're talking about the West Bank.
Nobody cares.
Those people I mean, you we have watched
them burn homes down, rape, torture, pillage.
Every single day right now in the West
Bank, they're tearing up roads. They're burning people
alive. That's not hyperbole.
But we're talking about these people, which, yes,
I care about people that are suffering.
But for him to pit that against one
versus the other, that's why we're talking about
this. K. And the newspapers and the media,
television media doesn't even talk about it. If
it were the other way around, they talk
about it. That would be the only story
they talk about. And see, but this is
the same old lazy thing you do, which
is not necessarily inaccurate. We all know they're
dishonest. But you do the same exact thing.
See, they're they wouldn't talk about it. As
long as it was black, they would talk
about it. Well, you guys would do the
exact same thing in reverse. So this same
game whereas you're pitting people against you based
on your own partisan ignorance, really, where it
comes down to the idea that you take
a certain side. Well, they did it first,
so we're only gonna care about the white
one. Wait. At first, we're only gonna care
about the black ones. People matter. Their lives
matter. Whoever they are, wherever they're from, the
sad thing is they're literally dehumanizing everybody. They're
desensitizing
everybody by pitting us against ourselves.
And, I don't care who they are. I
don't care about their race, their color. I
don't care about their height, their weight. I
don't care about anything. I just know that
what's happening is terrible. I have Okay. If
it all mattered what was terrible, then let's
not pretend that that example is worse than
everything else we're talking about. So clearly, you
care about their skin color. Clearly, you care
about where they're from, where they're religion, or
whatever else we're talking about. There is no
other explanation because it is
objectively
less serious than what we're talking about in
other places, not to say they're not suffering.
Again, I can't speak individually. It looks like
they're not, but I do know there is
racial violence. So in a broad sense, probably
some of them. The reality is arrest the
places in the world we're talking about, the
US government is occupying or even what's being
done to people inside of your room by
their own government.
It's just insane to me that we can
act like this is somehow the focal point.
And I don't think everyone's falling for it.
People that live in South Africa, they say
it's a terrible situation taking place. So The
one you talk to. Right? As opposed to
the majority that doesn't? We've essentially extended citizenship
to those people Right. To,
escape from that violence and come here. Yeah.
In a in a in a in the
midst of not allowing immigrate or, you know,
like, the whole point of being against immigration,
assimilation, resources, the whole thing, but you spend
more money to fly them here. You you
overlook most of the process. Right? No background
checks in reality. It took weeks instead of
months, so they did they couldn't have possibly
done it.
I I mean, what about the over conversation
about the rest of this? What about what
if these are people that are coming from
other countries? What if they're Chinese infiltrators
or anybody else? You can imagine. What if
there's somebody from another country infiltrating? And what
where are they connected to? Oh, that's right.
They're Zionist.
So it's just there's so many examples of
how this is happening, and we're not worried
about any of this because they're white,
apparently.
So I said
oh, he says, basically, the media won't talk
about this, but Trump will.
I simply asked Grok. I said, hey, Grok.
Is there a genocide taking place in South
Africa? Which, guess what? Grok never responded, which
is what I keep trying to show everybody.
But I said, okay, just in case it
chooses not to answer, which it never did,
here's the link, which is right here.
And it said,
no. And this wasn't even a short answer.
It said, is there a genocide in South
Africa on the twelfth? No.
No evidence.
Grock says supports claims of a genocide in
South Africa. The notion particularly tied to the
allegations of white genocide
targeting white farmers has been repeatedly debunked.
This is crock.
And again, not that that means that it's
right versus wrong, but this is his platform
to the point to where, yeah, you could
already saw it. He had to alter it
to get the answer he wanted. If you
can't then deduce that means they're lying to
you about this, then I don't know what
else to do. A February 2025 South African
court ruling dismissed such claims as clearly imagined
and not real in a case involving a
bequest to the white supremacist group. It says
South Africa faces high violent crime rates with
approximately 19,000 murders recorded between January and September.
Farm attacks often cited in genocide claims affect
both white and black farmers and are part
of the broader crime problem.
Okay. You get the point. The answer is
no evidence supports that there's genocide in South
Africa. Here we are. And they're all still
pushing it. And the usual grifter is doing
the same thing.
See, I see, I have to use a
screenshot because they just want if I post
a link, it doesn't show up. It's supposed
to.
Well, you know why now?
And I even asked again, any particular reason
you have not chosen to respond to this
query, Grok?
Crickets.
That's funny.
Same thing.
Okay.
So here's another one, Elon Musk. And so
I thought it was interesting as I was
following along next day, thirteenth, he post about
the crosses. And I I actually heard about
this, and I said, okay. Let's see what
Grock has to say. So many crosses, he
says. And this is each cross represents a
white farmer who was murdered in South Africa,
and they just go on forever and ever
and ever,
which, okay, I think we pretty clearly established
that's not the reality of the numbers. But
what does Grok have to say? I said,
hey, Grok. Is there Grok? Grok? Oh, I
actually responded to to Elon, and I said,
Grok. You know what's funny? I'm wondering whether
my back and forth with all this is
what got him to do that. Now I
I'm sure other people doing the same thing,
but I hadn't seen this going around around
this. He's not using like this.
Maybe they did. I don't know.
I'd love to think that we're
frustrating to the point where he ruins his
own platform. But it says, Grock says there's
no genocide. And I said, I know. I
don't blindly trust Grock. Just making a point.
Oh, and this was the wrong spot. This
is the next one right here.
Oh, kidding me.
Okay. Good.
Somebody else asked right there.
Thought I so the podcast, I almost thought
I lost the page for a second.
Yeah. Okay. So here's what somebody asked. So
he says, so many crosses. This person says,
Grok
and Grok. I don't know why oh, is
that a parody? That's funny.
Oh, it's Gork. Never mind. But so Grok,
is this true?
Grok answers and says, the video likely shows
the
Witkuris movement monument, excuse me, with over 3,000
crosses symbolizing farm attack victims in South Africa
since 1994.
Official data reports and look, that that is
post, really,
the beginning of the end of apartheid.
Official data reports, 47 farm murders,
47,
just in 02/1819.
So it's the overlapping of the apartheid into
the ending of apartheid, showing a decline.
But groups like AfroForum claim higher numbers around
49 in 2023.
Evidence suggests these attacks are mainly crime driven,
not racially motivated, though some argue that tar
they target white farmers. The issue remains debated
due to differing statistics and perceptions. So even
Brock is saying it's pretty up in the
air. So it's and it's dishonest for them
to argue more so this guy, but you
know why he's sharing it like this. You
know what he's trying to do. He did
the same thing around the conversation,
over which one was it?
Venezuela,
the I mean, different examples of elections around
the world. He does the same thing every
time. This says, sounds kinda complicated. Not sure
what to think here. Rock says, understandable to
feel unsure about this complex issue. Farm murder
in South Africa sparked debate with some seeing
them as racially motivated against white farmers symbolized
by this movement. Anti for anti effort forum
reports higher numbers and same thing, really. Both
sides have valid concerns.
I just think it's interesting.
So I post this saying, interesting where we
are right now. I'm just showing the not
genocide point from South Africa.
This person says, my patient's husband was murdered
in South Africa, and their land was taken
from her. She was raped and beaten at
the time that she was left for dead.
Lucky, she was able to survive and fled
to The US. Yes. She's white.
And I said, very clearly, there has been
racially motivated crime in South Africa. No one
should deny that. And we all agree that
this should be unacceptable when called out everywhere
it takes place. Right?
No response.
See? Now I for all we know, they've
missed it, but I see a very strong
threat of people who are clutching their pearls
and maybe rightly so about violence here. But
then when you go, yeah. We should stop
it no matter where we see out, you
know?
Whether you point to Israel or not,
nobody want and you can and many of
them, people say not the same thing, showing
you that there's a very clear separation of
this in their mind.
Oh, and this was the, you know, and
wokeness sharing them coming into the country.
And then the link of the just to
really Wikipedia, but just remind me to point
it out. The real reason Trump is bashing
South Africa, which is their in South Africa's
genocide case against Israel.
I really do think that's the primary example
of reason this is being driven.
Now here's the Hodge twins,
Trump supporters, 3,300,000
followers, says, once Trump announced we were bringing
in white South African refugees, the democrats became
anti refugee because they're racist and hate whites.
Well, yeah. Probably. Probably in some cases. But
what's hilarious is the lack of self reflection.
Right? The lack of self awareness.
Like, the idea that the exact same thing
is happening in reverse. Right? So the the
the idea is it's same thing with here
with this tweet and wokeness. This is spot
on. And this woman saying, refugees, welcome. And
then, of course, white South Africans, and she
no. Okay. You could flip that around just
the same. Right?
Or you could have a,
you know, a MAGA person saying refugees, welcome
from South Africa, and then showing Palestinians and
they go
So is that the how is that different?
You are the same thing you're making fun
of. You are exactly the same thing in
reverse.
My point is you either care about these
and have an opening you are open to
the possibility of refugees from anywhere if they're
suffering or you're not.
To act like suddenly like, I know there
are there
are liberals and politicians out there on that
side who are against this, And you could
argue it's because they hate white people, maybe
some of them do. But most of them
are making arguments like we are.
And it's not only liberals. There's plenty of
conservatives that seem doing the same thing because
they're not stupid.
My point though is that you can't if
you can't recognize the same thing in reverse
from them,
then you're just lying to yourself.
What's funny is the lack of self awareness
that they're doing the same thing. Now I
shouldn't even say Hajj. I'm not exactly I
I have seen them make comments before, but
I'm not gonna pretend I know their entire
position on Gaza or any refugees from elsewhere.
But what I'm speaking to is the larger
the
team sport politics agenda,
where we all see that they're rapidly anti
immigration from just about everywhere, except suddenly you're
okay with white refugees. So, okay, that's exactly
the same problem. In fact, in a much,
much more specific way.
My point is though, we all see them
both doing it. But the my my real
point is the divide and conquer tactic.
What they desperately need from you is to
fall into one of these sides.
Yes. There's very obvious white racism that's allowed
on this platform or anywhere else. Yes. On
this platform and anywhere else.
Doesn't mean it's we should be okay with
any of it, guys. If you're you don't
like racism, you should be against racism. Not
just certain kinds of it that allow you
to have for certain partisan games. So it's
just it's it's infuriating for those of us
that are being objective about this. Same point
here, and we know exactly what I'm woke
this does. These people are the woke right.
And not some weird partisan. It's about whether
you're fighting with cancel culture dynamic, whether using
identity politics, whether you are censoring or calling
for based on speech that you don't like.
You're all the same. And that's what's and
I think they're so becoming so uncomfortably aware
of that, and their own people are starting
to call it out.
But so as Melnick, the lawyer, points out,
he says every asylum lawyer
knows
that economic harm is generally not considered to
amount to persecution under the law.
Had these people showed up at the southern
border and sought asylum on the basis of
property being taken,
they would likely have lost their claims on
that ground.
And so the point he's making is that
they're using just that and saying that's why
it's acceptable. Well, just that alone for people
in the West Bank is more than enough,
and it's not about one versus the other.
It's about consistency of logic.
So the point is that he's simply showing
you right now the claim they're using is
not even enough for anybody else, but it's
being allowed for them. And every other shortcut
and every other exception, and it just shows
you there's something else going on. Rubio saying,
Afrikaners fleeing persecution are welcome in The United
States. South African Government has treated these people
terribly, threatening to steal their private land and
subject subjecting them to vile racist discrimination. I
mean, think about that. Is there somebody else
who's stealing land and vile discrimination? You know
exactly what the point is. Trump administration is
proud to offer them refugee in our great
country. So they had to turn them into
refugees without the group that would normally do
that, the UN, based on one thing that
applies to everyone else they're ignoring. It just
shows you how dishonest this is. It's just
like everything else we're doing with the deportations
in reverse.
They're just manufacturing justifiable, in their minds, reasons
to say you could be this.
You have a hat on and a tattoo.
You're going to El Salvador.
They're just so everything about them,
the US government right now,
is showing you that they're trying to break
these things down to just be whatever they
currently tell you. And that is the best
possible thing an authoritarian government can get from
you.
Now this is the same kind of point.
This person just responded to the previous show
and said, Ryan, did you know these Dutch
Afrikaners are related to the Dutch American settlers,
which basically founded New York City and continue
to live in it and became part of
the melting pot for four hundred years.
Certainly more deserving, that's the point for me,
than all these people without any historic precedence,
which is completely your opinion. But it says
not a penny in their name so they
could hook up into the the the government
and so on. Dutch people are self sufficient.
Again, these are all personal opinions. That's not
necessarily true with everybody. But, of course, they're
different if we're talking about specifically the kinds
of affluent people we're discussing
and would integrate into American society easily. That's
what it's about. The argument that they're white
and more assimilate, but they're not. These are
not they're these are South Africans from Germany
and from and and Denmark, and they are
not
I mean, there are people in other countries
in The Middle East, for example, that I
would argue would might be easier to assimilate.
I'm sure people disagree with that. The point
is very clearly
the by the metrics we applied, they're not
it is hypocrisy to say these are okay
and those aren't. But the overall point
is about whether they're deserving.
And my point is it seems you're missing
the point. You are mistaken if you are
under the impression that I feel one group
is more deserving than another.
We can clearly point out the differences of
who may be suffering violence more.
But nonetheless, the point is not one deserves
more than the other. And it says the
only point I'm making is consistency.
The law should be equally applied to all,
period. That is not the current reality, and
you know it. One group demonized and dehumanized
and the other fast tracked and barely scrutinized.
The only common factor is race and Zionist
Israeli influence. So in case that was unclear,
it's not about pitting one side against the
other. That's what they all want from us.
And that same point I was just saying.
Here's a man at Walsh said. Remember, folks,
white South Africans don't belong in South Africa
even after four hundred years. Again, I'm not
saying that. And frankly, I don't think anybody
is really saying that other than the false
binary argument. The team sport left and the
team sport right. Congressional left, congressional right. That's
what they always are basing these things on.
Most of us, I would argue, are simply
saying that, well, it seems interesting you're picking
that out and basically lying about the reality.
People can live whatever they want. But to
argue somehow they have a right over people
that have been there their entire lives or
vice versa, like with Gaza, or even arguing
without the Dutch people that are from South
or rather in South Africa. The point should
not be about
right you know, the people that have lived
there longest and so on. It says, well,
white Americans are invaders in America even after
five hundred years. But the third world illegal
migrant who got here last Tuesday, and this
is the point, is just as American as
anyone else. If you call an invader, you're
a racist.
It just seems like a very dishonest argument
because the idea is about choosing a side.
If you simply apply the law equally
in any of these context, then this wouldn't
be an issue. And they're arguing somehow that
you have to say one person's more deserving
than the other or the person who just
came in here. No. It's about the rights
there afforded. And the reality is that, yes,
if they're here, then they do have the
rights under the constitution like anybody else. And
you can call with Vader if you don't
like. I mean, it's
all of it seems designed to drive you
into political division.
I I just seems transparent to me
because they know that one group is
feel like they're you know, whether it's a
white replacement theory on one side or the
idea they're trying to flood the country with
immigrants that will help them vote or whatever
you think. The both those arguments are rooted
in falsehoods completely,
but some of it is accurate.
But things like this, I think, are not
whether he means to be dishonest or not,
that to me is about it's missing the
point overall.
It's about dividing us.
NBC points out a group of white South
Africans will be arriving in DC on Monday,
flying them in from State Department, paying with
your tax dollars. And he says, normally, refugees
have to pay for their own travel to
The United States by taking out travel loans,
which have to be paid back. You know,
people are typically very, like, struggling. No money.
There's clothes on their back. But you gotta
hurt people that are clearly not suffering in
that way.
Bags of luggage,
finances, you know, they're they don't see what,
you know, cable, the VRs, etcetera. They're clearly
not struggling in that way. But Trump has
fully suspended the refugee program for all the
people in the world, except for these white
South Africans, and he's flying here at taxpayer
expense. And as you saw, phones and groceries
and whatever else.
At the very least, that's inconsistent.
If you're not acknowledging that, then you're being
dishonest.
And so the point is, while they're somehow
more deserving, somehow can't be in South Africa.
No. The old nobody told the reason that
they moved them here is because they made
that happen. They clearly were not being forced
in the context of how they're suffering what
they're dealing with. So to me, it seems
like you're trying to pit this right now.
And as he also points out, the overlap
to Afghanistan.
As the Trump administration is flying Afrikaners here
to be resettled,
secretary Nome is terminating temporary protective status for
Afghanistan.
Meaning they may start deporting women and allies
who protected the are The US Troops to
the Taliban to be persecuted or killed. You
know, the same Taliban they've all made deals
with and worked across.
The point is not one versus the other,
but these people were already allowed certain protected
status because they put themselves on a limb,
at least that's the argument, and protected US
troops, which they may be persecuted for.
And Christy Noem said, oh, they can go
back to Afghanistan. They'll be fine.
And brought in people that are clearly not
in the same position.
And
the people inside are arguing that that's absurd,
which I would argue in the same to
say that they can be perfectly safe in
Afghanistan in the context of what they did
seems ridiculous. But of course, it's about choosing
partisan sides, not about caring or upholding your
agreements or words. Our government never seems to
care about that.
Now this is the last point in this
I find really interesting.
He says, wow. The Trump administration said and
this is real, by the way. They're reviewing
they will review your social media and deny
immigration benefits to people saying antisemitic claims,
which we know, by the way, just means
I support Palestine to them.
The point, though, is that that's words, that's
speech. And so they're telling you that we
will
deny you things
after being allowed to be here because of
your words and ideas, which we already know.
And I mean, anyone trying to pretend at
this point that's not obviously what's happening with
Khalil and the rest, you're a child. That's
so transparent. Or, again, you're dishonest because you're
choosing a side. We know what this is.
This is censorship based on word. This is
unconstitutional
even
for immigrants.
Again, if you don't understand that, then again,
you don't understand the constitution, which is embarrassing.
Anyway, it says here's a tweet from an
Afrikaner. They flew in here on Monday.
Here's the actual tweet. It
was right here.
Oh, did I forget oh, that's weird. Is
it this one?
See, oh my god. They deleted it. See,
this is so funny. This is so transparent.
I knew I should have grabbed it. Let
me see if I I'm I bet you
somebody grabbed it on the way back machine.
Yep.
Too late. We gotcha.
Okay. So this guy's name is Charles.
How do I get that? Here we go.
I'll include his link there so you can
check out his account.
Yep. Still there. Oh, it's protected because everybody
was paying attention to what happened. Right? So
here here's the thing.
He said, Jews are untrustworthy
and a dangerous group. They are not God's
chosen like to behave. They are. Where is
the temple that must be their concern? Leave
us alone. We all believe in God and
Abraham, Moses and Jacob. I almost said something
ugly.
Now just be clear, just because there's a
very provable overlap of Israel and and Afrikaners
and Zionism does not mean they all agree.
What's interesting to me is that this is
and that that you're just tagging a tweet
here that says, white South African grant their
refugee status by Trump. Yeah. He they're just
quoting that same person. Here again, it's deleted
now.
So if you're gonna go through the social
media and argue that they can't say something
anti Semitic, then why was this guy allowed?
And I'm in no way saying that it
should be done because I disagree with that
logic or the fact that it's censorship or
that it's unconstitutional.
But what it shows you is inconsistent logic,
inconsistent application of the law. If you're going
to make that the case, it's clear that
you only want that to be the case
for certain kinds of people.
I just the insane amounts of evidence. It
it's over it's like COVID nineteen injections. You
still the amount of evidence we had to
show they were hurting people in the first
year was an insane to me. I can't
believe we're still pretending like this is not
the most not this one topic, but just
this entire administration
is we're the highway to hell. It seems
like insane. Like, it's rapid, and it's not
left versus right. It just seems to be
the time they wanna achieve this.
But
he says, Glenn Greenwald, one of the Afrikaners
who entered The US yesterday,
college students and others have their green cards
and visas revoked by Marco Rubio for far,
far milder statements than this one. The student
statements weren't even about Jews, but about Israel,
and they called them antisemitic. This guy says
specifically Jews are bad people and nobody cares,
and they've deleted it now.
And I bet you anything they asked him
to. I I would more I bet anything.
It says, here's what the gentleman posted on
October 7. If he were a Harvard or
Columbia student, he'd be in ice prison in
Louisiana.
He said, Jews spitting on Christians.
He said, I'm against denying entry or stripping
the visa of this Afrikaner simply because he
spouted views far more antisemitic than any of
the students whose visas Rubio is canceling. I
with I'm with him on that. % agree
because it is not what we agree with.
I don't care what your views are. This
is censorship. This is against your rights. But
I have a right to call you disgusting
if I think you're being racist.
But this person says, you really think this
is worse than calling for intifada?
Here we are. And he says, show me
where Ozturk or Khalil called for intifada.
They did not. And he goes, you didn't
name anyone in particular in our original post.
You just said college students. The bottom line
is even those people though did not,
in the context of what they're framing it
as. Right? Like and I well, I shouldn't
say that that's the wrong way to state
that. Yes. People are saying intifada.
Right? Global intifada. But if you understand that
the word simply means resistance,
it's like saying the American intifada, American revolution,
or anything. It's the same point. And, yes,
that could also mean terrible things,
but it's just a word. And so as
we understand it, especially from the Palestinian perspective,
it just means resistance against apartheid, against occupation.
They've turned that into a racist, dangerous word
because people are ignorant.
And so the point either way is that
this person's saying something that's right on the
nose.
Nobody cared.
Showing you they don't really care about racism.
They care about using it to control you.
Just like the woke identity and woke ideology
was about using it to control you. It's
the same way this works.
Here it is in the Wayback Machine, just
in case you guys wanna see that.
Now, just to end on this segment for
this point, the Trump administration is still, right
now, trying to roll out more antisemitic bills
or rather bills about antisemitism.
Thomas Massie was the only person who voted
no on this. He says GOP leadership,
GOP leadership, the Trump administration, conservatives,
leadership in that side. Put this Wasserman Schultz,
former chair of the DNC resolution to a
vote and then announce we would go home
a day early.
So as always, when it comes to Israel,
there is no partisanship, guys. The left and
the right are all the same because that's
the reality of this. And so I think
antisemitism is bad, but dictating what people can
say or think is not Congress's
job, or rather it's unconstitutional.
Here's what it says.
Calls on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil
society leaders
to condemn and counter all acts of antisemitism,
takes all possible steps to ensure the safety,
security, and dignity of American Jews in all
aspects of their lives, including the workplace, college,
university campuses, synagogues, and home.
Again, making why do you need a law
specifically about one type of racism about one
type of American?
Couldn't you just pass a law that says
racism against the law? Which is the same
point, by the way. That would be unconstitutional
because racism is an idea. The point though
is you know why it's aimed in one
direction. There's just no way to misunderstand this.
It's everywhere.
I'll keep those in there for you.
Now
to go to a quick overlapping partisan point
before we finish with some points about deportation,
constitutional issues, I find this to be really
important.
That the deportation part of it this point
is just to show you.
I mean, exactly what I wrote right here.
I mean, it is truly embarrassing. Like, I
feel embarrassed for these people half the time.
That I mean, we made the same point
about the the electric vehicle point, where I'd
show points from Cat Turd saying, you
know, never am I ever gonna support EVs
and electric vehicles are the problem. And then
the moment the Tesla overlap became a thing,
it was like, let's make sure we put
our hats on and drive our Teslas.
It's like these people are children, and they
will go after whatever
their chosen person points at, even if it
makes it look stupid.
So here he is on April 7.
Everything wrong with justice,
the Supreme Court, the rule of law, because
we're gonna get into what just happened. Supreme
Court blocks Trump from restarting Alien Enemies Act
deportations. Not temper not forever, but did essentially
freeze it until these courts decide, and we'll
go into that in a second.
When he says, the rule of law, the
real constitution the the real constitution?
What an absolute
what a clown. What do you mean the
real con now now we're debating if there's
different versions of this. Like, what are we
talking about?
You guys are absolutely I it doesn't matter.
They they don't understand what they're talking about
or they're actually trying to destroy this. But
it says, Amy
Amy Amy, Amy, commie Barrett.
It's a joke and a loser.
These were Karens or hell beds on destroying
the judiciary branch. Okay.
Imagine losing our country freedom and the rule
of law, these four utter clowns.
Okay.
Well, Well, here's Kat Derk back in 2020.
We need Amy, Coney Barrett on the Supreme
Court yesterday.
Yesterday.
It says Schumer's was saying we're shutting down
the senate after the election, basically trying to
stop this from happening. No. We can't do
that. Fighting the Democrats to make sure she
gets in. Right? Here's another one.
Amy Amy Cami Barrett is a joke. Traitor.
That was from May 15.
Okay.
Well, here's some other examples.
Here he here he's in the twentieth saying,
we need her now yesterday. Okay. Here it
is on the 2020 as well, October 26.
I can't wait to see Amy Coney Barrett
being sworn in by justice Clarence Thomas. You?
The picture below. Amy Coney Barrett is some
irrelevant dude.
The guy, by the way, who's now at
least on their side to some degree, and
now they like because now he's pushing back
on this ruling. It's just it's just ridiculous.
These people are children.
Happy happy Amy Coney Barrett confirmation day.
Okay.
And now she's a loser and a commie
because she voted against once something took Trump
once.
I mean, think about how insane that is
to be so blindly on their side because
that's the person Trump chose. And then she
decides to have her own opinion and bucks
the point that Trump's against are all about,
and now she's a communist.
I it just it just I this is
the kind of thing that we should all
laugh at. Like, these are the people that
should be relegated to the childish quarter where
we all go, you you don't even you
shouldn't even be in the conversation. You have
the right to speak, but you you your
idea you know, yet, nonetheless, the the people
like Musk and his platform have made these
people into the pinnacle of the conversation, at
least as they want you to see it.
But even the people on the conservative side
laugh at this guy. He's a clown.
Here?
Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court remarks sparked MAGA
fury. Huge mistake.
Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett's remarks on
the court on Thursday have sparked MAGA backlash
online, with some saying president Trump made a
huge mistake appointing to her appointing her. Yeah.
Because she didn't tow the line,
which which shows you that they want ideological,
you know,
adherence. They want you to stay the tow
line, stay the course. Whatever they say, follow
their lead. That's not what you anybody should
want. That's the exact problem.
The nation's highest court was hearing arguments about
whether lower courts have the authority to block
Trump's executive orders on multiple things. During the
hearing, she questioned the solicitor general over the
Trump administration's approach to complying with court rulings.
She was nominated by Trump in 2020, has
emerged as more centrist judge than expected,
and it says, Trump, relate it's it says
once again, online MAGA people are pushing back,
calling her a radical liberal.
These words have no meaning anymore. They just
say, you're a liberal deep state whatever antisemite
the moment you say the one thing they
don't agree with. It's just childish.
Justices who are given a life appointment typically
are seen as either conservative or liberal,
going on to say I was gonna cut
to the chase. I've built the the highlighting
went away.
So as a general,
Sauer said, the general practice is to respect
those precedents, but there are circumstances when it
is not categorically,
categorical practice.
On Thursday, during oral arguments,
she asked him whether the Trump administration wanted
to reserve its right to maybe not follow
a second sir circuit precedent, say, in New
York because you might disagree with the opinion.
Everyone can see that they're just not following
what the courts are ordering, whether low or
supreme court. It's very transparent.
Then it says, Soss reply, you understand it
to be long standing practice of the Department
of Justice. And she goes, really?
That we generally, as it was phrased to
me, generally respect
circuit precedent not but not necessarily in every
case.
Excuse me. And some examples might be a
situation where we're litigating to try and get
the circuit precedent overruled. Now see, that's different.
That's my point because that's the way they're
supposed to work. The courts can rule as
broad or as as, you know, as acute
or obtuse as they want.
Then you can decide to challenge that and
take it to a higher court. That's how
it works.
And, yes, if they have some ridiculous ruling
that tends to weigh on whether they keep
people can remove them or they ultimately, they
have I think, honestly, most of them are
driven by their perception of their their record.
You know, their rulings and what they've gotten
and whether they're overturned and so on. And
I think it matters to them personally
more than the political sides usually,
but maybe not today.
The point though is what he said there
is basically, he said, no. I don't have
to follow the rulings. The the point is,
yes, you do. You can try to challenge
that to a higher court. So so you're
still saying generally, and you still think that
it's generally the long standing policy of the
federal government to take that approach?
And he said, yes.
This is and so, basically, people are unhappy
that she's going like, you how are you
actually claiming you don't have to follow the
courts? Because you got a lot of very
uninformed people acting like somehow Trump got a
mandate so he doesn't have to listen to
what the courts say because liberals,
like, really dumb people that are making really
stupid arguments. Now I'm not trying to diminish
people who are having a nuanced conversation. It's
the people out there that are trying to
make it out to be that this is
a judicial coup because Zionist Stephen Miller made
that point.
You have to see how clearly this is,
whether politically motivated or not, the way this
is supposed to work, and what they're doing
is fundamentally
unconstitutional, and it's being challenged. I mean, it's
very, very simple.
And here's another example of political manipulation.
I just find another example of hypocrisy too.
Here, this person says a story of staggering
hypocrisy in two tweets. Now you may have
seen this absurd thing going around from Comey,
which frankly feels very contrived. I don't think
these people are really all def you know,
fighting each other as they wanna make it
seem. And he went by and saw some
rocks or put them there on a beach
and said, interesting rock formation. Very transparent. And
it said eighty six forty seven, which is
the same old stupid thing. First of all,
86 does not necessarily mean kill, guys. You
can make that whatever you want. And certainly,
it could mean that. Or it could mean
get rid of Trump from power. You could
make it stink about that if you want.
What's funny is the way that they made
this this huge thing, which tells me that
it was meant to distract from all the
other things going on.
But here the funny point was, here's Jack
Wozobek
back in 2022 writing 8646.
Oops.
Just stupid. It's it's hypocrisy. And he's one
of the ones he says former director of
the FBI is calling for left wing assassins
to target our president and kill him. Have
no idea why he hasn't been arrested yet.
Think about saying that while you literally posted
the same thing, which, yes, is right there.
Here's the live tweet,
which is funny because people aren't either like,
where is that? He didn't post that. You're
a liar. And then when they show them,
they, well, it's not a problem anyway. Typical
partisan response.
My my point was if you call out
one doing it, you should call out anyone
else doing it, unless you're a grifter or
a hypocrite. Team sport politics, very simple.
But here's the point. If the guy says,
accept it's not the same. The context matters.
Well, the context always matters. The point, though,
is about whether or not you're consistent in
your logic about saying that it's wrong if
someone does it.
That's the point. Well, if you if you're
gonna make it an issue, you could argue
that the f former
FBI director, I would say being the FBI
director is what makes that a difference. He's
a civilian now. The point is if you
wanna argue somebody in a position of authority
saying it would be different, then, yeah, obviously.
But if you're gonna say that it's an
issue I mean, listen, Posobiec is a former
intelligence entity. He's also very influential. So in
my opinion, it's even bigger of a deal
than a former official. Right? But he says
and but I would apply the same way.
He has every right to to post whatever
he wants. And then you could also pretend
that's not what he meant. Maybe his
cat stepping the phone. You know what I
mean? The point is we know that's not
the case, but you to argue we know
is the kind of parsing thing they want
from you. But he goes, not the same.
$86.47
thing is a low key trend after two
people failed to assassinate him or so you
believe because they told you or again, you
don't know that. I agree. It's probably what
it means. But the point is you're making
it into what you want it to be
because you want to make this the case.
So by the same logic, you could make
it into what he's doing. And he goes,
the less violent interpretation of 86 cannot be
contemplate,
contemplative what did he say?
Competently argued while people are actually trying to
kill him. Yeah. I can though, because you
don't know that.
On both counts actually, but it says such
was not the environment in 2022.
Really? The environment was not about, I mean,
it's just these are diluted partisan driven mindsets.
And Darth Vape Price says, yes, it's the
same statement, but there's why they're different, Typical
partisanship.
And this is where I think it's interesting
that there is a lot, a lot, a
lot of pretty influential people in partisanship or
rather were previously sided with partisans that are
bucking the system. And I
I I it's important to point out that
there's a lot of people out there in
independent media who are making this a focal
point. The IMA as part of it. I'd
like to believe that our work on this
is causing people like this to start not
just going well, the other side then, which
is kind of like the whole, you know,
blue, it wasn't the thing like, you know,
Gabard and the rest of all, they're jumping
sides and they may I forgot the term
they used. Act like it was some big
thing. They're all fleeing to the right. It's
just so infuriatingly
ignorant.
People jumping the other side, it only shows
you've got no principles because it's not like
they just have, it's like the same thing.
If you jump to the side, then you're
saying that everything you ever held sacred about
your principles and how you valued liberal and
left versus right somehow is now different because
they lied over here. Well, Well, wouldn't the
argument be that you would maintain those principles
and call them out for not being what
you are? It's just so transparent. They just
need you to be on the teams.
And so this Noctis Draven, who's been calling
this out for a while, he's got a
70,000
followers. Here's what he said. Just a few
short years ago, I found myself on YouTube
and Rumble watching every Trump rally.
I do mean every rally. I've in the
I I've in the past posted pics and
videos to prove it. I remember being and
you can look through his past his account.
Look for yourself. It's true. I remember being
on YouTube and subscribing to every conservative right
wing channel from Daily Wire to Tim Pool
and even all all of the entertainment drama
right wing creators like The Quartering, no BS,
etcetera.
We dunk on the left. We make fun
of woke Disney, make fun of woke comp
can't companies going broke, make fun of liberals
melting down, etcetera.
I'd enjoy the memes, just the culture of
it all. I remember even this one, the
one down here.
I remember, even this one, Sarah, under Trump's
first administration. He says I defended her. I
defended every and every her I I defended
every and anything right wing and conservatives said
and and did.
Now he says, I realized that I was
just on a team. I was basically just
a football fan cheering for my team.
I didn't really care about anything other than
owning the left.
The Russia Ukraine situation really woke me up
and pulled me from the team.
Once I was separated from the right, from
the left, from the Democrat versus Republican football
game, I could see clearly.
But I had to be pulled because I
was in a I was an addict.
I literally didn't know I had a problem
until I detoxed.
This is the thing we always talk about.
Like, once you look back, it seems like
a cartoon.
He says then Israel and Gaza happened, and
the truth became even more clear.
He says, I realized that it was all
just team sports.
That's the hashtag team sport politics. We'll keep
that going. The left, the Democrats, will always
oppose the right, always defend their side even
when wrong. And the actual policy, the actual
legislation, principles, morals, ideals
didn't really matter. The only thing that mattered
is being the right.
And the right, the Republicans are just the
same. And then I began asking myself, how
long have we been doing this? That's the
real question. How long have we been voting
Democrat or Republican? Forty, fifty, seventy, ninety years,
more?
Has anything at all actually gotten better?
Think about it. Now let's talk about technological
advancements. I'm talking about the general idea of
the advancement of the things we claim we
support, the freedom, democracy, liberty. You know? Clearly,
it's gone the other direction. Now there's a,
you know, nuance to it and ebbs and
flows. But if you look at a long
term thing, guys, we have to be clear
on where we are. It's bad right now.
Borderline
changing forever.
And it says, it hit me. I realized
that no matter who wins, who controls the
house, majority or not, nothing gets better.
I've never seen rights given back.
Never seen laws reversed.
Never seen new government departments taken down. Prices
never go backwards. Cost of living never goes
down. Now some of these things you could
be of nuance to, but you get his
point. Taxes never go down. Every single promise
each side makes is never kept. But the
politicians themselves, they do great. They become millionaires,
get fat, have amazing lives somehow. And then
I realized something even more horrible, that no
one cares.
The American people don't actually want or care
if it gets better. They just wanna win.
That's all. They just want to beat the
left or beat the right. To Americans, seeing
a liberal crier meltdown or seeing a conservative
crier meltdown is payment enough. Just bragging rights.
That's all. Forever one American that wakes up
to this truth,
that all of these are dramas, arguments, and
culture wars between left and right are manufactured.
There are 30,000 more Americans that are constantly
consumed by it. I used to walk by
home to the Democrat political sign and get
upset.
And I feel as if I was in
good company when I walk past a home
with a Trump sign. Now I feel nothing
isn't for either. All I see is football
teams that have the same general manager. Well
put,
I know that I will live and die
as an Americans will never wake up to
this. Now I don't agree with everything at
the last part of that.
That. Clearly, what you would call this people
call this black pilled. Right? Now, what I
would say is before the last three part
of it, last three paragraphs,
you could it could be either way. Pointing
out those problems does not mean you're black
pilled. That's what we dealt with in the
previous part of the selection process. We're now
literally everything we warned about has happened already
almost,
or or building in that direction.
But the point is pointing all those things
out and trying to solve that and go
and awaken people to it. That's not black
billed. But
going into the idea and whether he's trying
to make a point or not is up
for you to decide about, you know, by
saying that no one's ever gonna wake up
to this, then everyone's gonna keep that would
be, in my opinion, what we call black
belt, where it's not gonna happen. We failed.
We can't get it. I believe we can
change this. And I frankly believe that a
lot of that impression is what you can't
help but fall into when you first see
through a lot of this. That it's almost
insurmountable. And maybe maybe it's the case. But
I believe that we are changing this. I
believe every single day that why we're here
is because we're having a difference or making
a difference.
And so I do believe that it's not
one to 30,000. I believe every single moment
we are reaching new people. And even if
it was is one to 30,000, people are
still seeing it. It is changing.
So I believe that we we need to
call this out and recognize that it is
team sports. There is one government, and they're
using these things to keep you trapped.
But the reason that it's falling, the reason
that people like him and everybody else are
starting to see it is because we're making
a difference. And that is why I argue
this is a rush to the endgame.
So it's worth considering. And I think it's
important to see that there are a lot
of partisans that are starting to call this
out.
Now one oh, this is just some of
these last points I thought were interesting. I
was mentioning this earlier. Trump tweeted this
or truth that whatever. Has anyone noticed that
since I said, I hate Taylor Swift, she's
no longer, quote, hot.
Are you serious?
Are we I mean, like, is it is
it have we gotten especially more dumbed down
lately in partisanship than I'm used to? That
is insane.
This is like I would I would laugh
at somebody in elementary school making a statement
like that.
Like, not only going look at what I
I show. I just simply said this, and
now she's not hot. What does that even
mean? Hot like what? Because the media was
saying she's so hot right now? What what
is this? Zoolander?
Like, I'm embarrassed.
Did we anybody like, my point is that
there's average people that are like, that's silly.
But then you get the cat dirts and
everybody else that they make, like, 17 posts
that day about, oh, look at her. She's
not hot anymore.
You're a child, man. I mean, it's embarrassing.
And her point,
doctor Jane Ruby, since Donald Trump's inauguration,
two point six million babies were given toxic
mRNA.
But Taylor Swift is his focus,
or one of them anyway.
I mean, it really is sad. He had
night watch. Nate says, behold, the MAGA king
in all of his splendor.
It is embarrassing.
Again, if it was Biden or Obama, it
would be just as embarrassing. It's embarrassing for
somebody in a position of power to make
a statement like that. It shows you the
childish nature or really what he thinks you
are. That's how he perceives your intelligence.
I'd be insulted.
And then lastly,
Jones, of course, and I keep showing you
guys this. I told you before we got
here, like anybody else, a lot of us
are saying this. That when we got to
the point where these things weren't going the
way they wanted, what were you gonna be
told? Look up the look up I said
it probably three times before the election. Look
it up. You should make clips of it.
I'll share it. I said, what are you
what are they gonna do? They're gonna tell
you there's holdovers from the lefties.
Right? There's there's Democrats stuck in the FBI
and certainly possible. But what do we keep
getting? That narrative and nobody ever gets arrested,
nobody goes to jail, nobody gets called out,
no names are given. Why? Because they're lying
to you. My opinion.
And, of course, this is Laura Logan on
j or j Alex Jones saying, hidden globalist
operatives inside the Trump administration are attempting to
sabotage the 40 seven's agenda.
And, of course, this clip goes into her
story, which she said many times, which is
worth consider it's worth hearing. It's a horrible
story about how she was abused and basically
raped by, I think, it was Pakistan man
where she was in a protest. But that
all of that is the point in this
clip that goes through all that and then
come to the end about how the the
new administration is now, like, using that to
kinda segue into some argument that they're trying
to sabotage from with this agenda.
My point is the same. Is anyone else
getting tired of this fact free claim being
thrown out every time,
which is very often right now, that Trump's
administration takes actions wildly out of step with
his followers.
Of course, it's possible.
Democrat holdovers like Burns said about the DOJ
and
Brooke Jackson's case. But without evidence, it's simply
a get out of jail free card, guys.
We all know that.
If you're gonna simply say, somebody's sabotaging it
because you're so convinced that he wouldn't do
this, that it has to be the only
answer, but no evidence,
then you're part of the problem. You realize
even if you're right, you're still part of
the problem. You're still using statements based on
an emotional sides instead of facts.
That might as well be the tagline for
Infowars.
The bottom line, guys, is this
is an effort to hide what's going on.
Things like this, for example. The very massive
story that is continuing around this, which none
of them wanna talk about.
Now, the evolution of this, guys, the reality
of how this is gone.
Everything about this is not is
counter to what we believe in this country,
or at least what they tell you we're
supposed to believe. But really, the constitution. Right?
Your inherent
God given rights
that, yes, apply even to illegal aliens. As
we've shown every Supreme Court ruling,
multiple examples, Brino versus Flores, Scalia himself, yes,
is the case. Just every time somebody makes
these screeching arguments about it doesn't apply,
show them the reality. Of course, then what
it ends up being devolves into is, well,
we shouldn't allow that. Okay. That's a different
conversation. But acknowledge that you're wrong and that,
yes, that is the current reality. And I
don't agree with that. We should change it.
The reality is if it's god given, inherent
rights, and as they outlined it, it's about,
you know, all men, that it's clearly not
just about one country. It's about enshrining these
values in this country that we want to
show the world.
We always used to pretend we knew these
things. Right? But the point is that they
have created a
rapid deviation where they've suddenly started to use
the immigration conversation, the threat of illegal aliens,
this broad, undefined claim, a lie, in fact,
of 20,000,000
it's it's well below that. But even that,
argue that somehow of a coordinated invasion. That's
what they need you to take.
Well, it's not. There's not an invasion. There's
not a coordinated effort. Unless if you wanna
argue Biden did this for for what votes,
we're well past that point. Or or if
you wanna understand there's weaponized migration, then make
sure you recognize Zionism doing that every day
and calling it out
openly, proudly to destabilize these countries for the
group for the end times. I mean, they're
telling you this stuff.
Sounds crazy, but you can look if same
as them in the Knesset telling you how
they want children to starve, they're doing that.
If you're not looking, that's on you.
But the point is that very clearly, the
argument of invaders was needed to make the
case that somehow this was terrorism. But then,
of course, because it's, you know, it's Biden
doing it, you make that case to to
trick the blind following partisans. But then, of
course, from a legal perspective, you have to
make it about a country because that's how
the Alien Enemies Act applies. Oh, so they
can just go, well, it's Venezuela then. Pick
that one. Why? Because Trende Aragua is one
of the groups and will make that a
terrorist organization.
Like, it's just so insane how you watch
them patch this together. You watch them just
manufacture this right in front of you.
And now we're at a point where
the argument is that Biden invaded the country
with illegal aliens, and somehow that means that's
why it's an that this act applies even
though it requires a state, which would be
Venezuela, and you can't make both at the
same time. I mean, this is why the
courts are basically laughing at them, and that's
why they're so frustrated. And so now we've
we've gone all the way. And there's so
many other angles, by the way, of Khalil
and Ozturk and and and Garcia and all
these different points. This is about specifically the
use of the alien enemies act, which requires
that you have a state actor and an
organized invasion,
neither of which have even remotely aren't true,
and they haven't even tried to prove for
that to be applied.
And then through that, have started to deport
people elsewhere. I've sent people illegally to foreign
countries, people who were here legally,
either Visa or green card.
And then also had no criminal record, who
are currently El Salvador.
For no other reason, they were in the
wrong place at the wrong time. We have
people that were Americans multiple times who were
thirty seconds away from being sent to El
Salvador. But because the Supreme Court made them
stop, they were able to have a moment
to prove that, and they weren't sent. We
have teams that were sent there that have
nothing to do with anything. No criminal record,
no tattoos, but just happened to be next
to people that were and are now in
El Salvador.
All of these are the most provable cases
you could possibly imagine.
Khalil and Osterk, for example, were just green
card holders that said bad things about Israel
and are currently trying to be deported. Osterc
was released, but Khalil, they're still trying to
force in.
I mean, it's so obvious how broken this
all is. So the Alien Enemies Act was
necessary for them to at least try to
PAX us all together. There's multiple things we're
gonna get into right now about Bukele in
El Salvador and how this applies.
This
is the recent Supreme Court ruling
that has now kicked it back to the
lower courts, but enshrined the same things we've
been talking about. This is very important because
what this shows you is that the Supreme
Court, by the way, six conservative judges on
the Supreme Court have still continued. And there
are two conservative dispute dissents, by the way.
That means four other conservatives still agreed
that this
has to be basically they're going back to
the lower courts to decide the nuance of
it, but, yes, that they have to pause
this until they can decide, one,
what the amount of time there there have
to give these people and also apply with
due process, both of which are the same
conversation.
So May 16, it says, Supreme Court on
Friday blocked President Donald Trump from moving forward
with deportations
under the Alien Enemies Act, but specifically for
a group in North Texas. But as we
go further down, you're gonna see the argument
is this applies to this location, but it
also applies to the entire use of this,
and we'll show you in a second. Now
it says the decision is a significant loss
for Trump,
who wants to use the law to speed
deportations
and avoid the kind of review
normally required before revoking people from the country.
Even CNN is cowardly sidestepping the most obvious
point in the conversation.
You know, rights and due process.
Even CNN. Think about it. There's such a
clear
this is the same with Israel. They act
the game out of of biting and often
do hate each other and go after petty
points. But you kidding me? Even down in
the article, they re the point is due
process, and that's been upheld by every court,
supreme court more than once, despite the way
they lie about the rulings. I just went
over the one that basically,
supported the use, but made it clear that,
yes, they have to use or have to
be given due process.
That was the reality of even the one
that just said they could use the act.
So that's why it went to the Supreme
Court. Now the Supreme Court says none of
this can be used until this is resolved
at the court below again.
So it says, and avoid the kind of
review, and it says, but the decision is
also temporary, and the underlying legal fight over
the president's invocation will continue in multiple federal
courts across the country. Now the justices sent
the case at issue back to an appeals
court, which is probably really frustrating to Trump
administration since their main argument was these courts
aren't shouldn't be allowed to make these decisions,
which is not true. And it says,
including whether the president's move is legal, and
if it is, how much notice the migrants
targeted an action to receive. Now understand,
even though it's not note notated that every
one of them have already ruled that they're
required, which is not shouldn't even need to
state it. It's the constitutional reality that they
have to give them due process, which means
give them a right to challenge the claims,
right, and and present their case,
especially since we already have proven that many
people have been sent illegally with no criminal
record. So this argument that they're trying to
stop people from deporting illegal aliens, that's simply
not true seeing as how the vast majority
of them weren't even in that in that
category. But on top of that, they're really
trying to force in this idea that you're
just trying to stop them from doing their
executive power. Every one of these things are
rooted in lies.
Because what you can clearly see is what
they're doing is circumventing what should be the
most important thing to Americans,
whether for an illegal alien or not. I
think that's what it really is about is
getting you normalized with that idea.
And it says
again, to read that again, it says, including
whether the president's move is legal and if
how much notice is given. So what they're
saying is deciding whether they give them more
than twenty four hours, which is quite obvious.
But the re but within that, it's already
established
more times than, like, men up until this
point many times that the due process is
required. So they're deciding whether they have to
give them enough time for that to happen.
But the it shouldn't happen is absolute, and
that they're not doing. So that's why a
lot of these judges are frustrated because the
point is they're not even
they're
they're currently not complying with everything already, supreme
court or otherwise. Now it says because even
the facilitate point with Garcia, they have not
done that.
That's supreme court.
Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Alito, publicly
noted their dissent. Now since the court referenced
another case that had reached its previous reached
it previously that the that Garcia, Gilmore Alberto
Garcia, who has mistakenly removed El Salvador, the
court noted that the Trump administration
has represented
that it is, quote, unable to provide for
the return of an individual deported in error
to a prison in El Salvador.
The court added that the way the Trump
administration was handling the removals did not, quote,
pass muster.
So many rulings have called them out for
just lying,
like, deliberate deception.
Call I see. I think I actually mentioned
it down here. It says specifically, the justice
has pointed to notice
the justice has pointed to notice of only
24 that was, quote, devoid of information
about how to exercise due process rights to
contest that removal. So that's the point. Right?
So they literally are giving them a short
period of time where they don't even know
they're be they're not they're not being given
that process. They're trying to circumvent that, which
is the whole point because every time they've
had to been forced to give their evidence,
they've been shot down by the court because
the evidence is not enough.
There it's like we said, a hat in
the location. They're not taking it, and that's
why they're trying to circumvent it. And again,
I don't think it's even about this main
point. I think it's about the normalization of
this. And I think the larger point is
about just trying to
I think it's about the dissidents that El
Salvador wanted or gang members they wanted to
be away from The United States and about
people that Israel was targeting. And the rest
just seemed to be fodder.
Now it says the Supreme Court sent the
case back to New Orleans based fifth US
Circuit Courts of Appeals
for further review, saying it is it it's
ordered that the appeals court erred in dismissing
the detainees appeal.
Alright. So basically pushing back and saying no.
You like, so
basically errored in the dismissing of the first
appeal. Now since today's ruling effectively extends the
temporary freeze that the justices put on Alien
Enemies Act removals
from the Northern District Of Texas back on
April 19.
It says because lower courts have blocked use
of the act in every other district
in which the president has sought to invoke
it. Right? So they're basically jumping around and
trying to find different locations, which just shows
you how dishonest it all is. He said
because of that, that means it's effectively pausing
all removals
under the act in general until the fifth
circuit and presumably Supreme Court itself
conclusively resolve whether they're legal and how much
process is due, if so.
So, very clearly, what they're saying is right
now, everything stops under this act, which I
think is very uncomfortable for them. I'm willing
to bet you that they're not even doing
that.
Or, like we saw in the beginning, suddenly
starting to deport them the normal way.
Also without due process, which shows you that
they could have done that in the first
place. The act was irrelevant. They're all just
trying
to maneuver around this.
The court also appeared to criticize how Hendricks,
whom Trump nominated to the bench in his
first term, had handled the case. Hendrix declined
to halt the removals and argued in his
opinion that the ACLU was attempting to rush
the district court to act.
Quote, here's the district court's inaction, he says,
not for forty two minutes, but for fourteen
hours and twenty eight minutes, had the practical
effect of refusing an injunction to detainees
facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm,
the court wrote, calling him out. Trump claimed
in a social media post Friday that the
Supreme Court, quote, won't allow us to get
criminals out of our country. And see, that
works for the blind following people that see
him as their leader. Don't care. They always
tells the truth, or rather they don't care.
He says that it matters.
Won't allow you to criminals out of the
country.
So what about all the people that we've
improved that were sent that weren't criminals? Neither
here nor elsewhere.
No criminal record, weren't here illegally, nothing.
So if the argument is we want due
process so that doesn't happen and your response
is they won't allow us to get criminals
out,
you know what you're doing. That is a
choice to deceive people who want to believe
that. Even Garcia, the reality of the evidence
they have does not prove a shred of
what they're saying.
I know people would argue to the death
that they were wrong. If they if they
wanna go what fate toe to toe, the
evidence is all very clear. I've gone through
each of it with the court documents or
ever the eve even the evidence they pretend
they could point to has been broken down
by 14 different articles. They're lying to you
guys. It's sad. And so the point is,
he tweets it in all capitals because that
apparently is all you need today.
So here's what Stephen Miller says. Typical.
The blade says Supreme Court rules seven to
two against Trump admin similarly to deporting alleged
Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.
Here's what Miller says. Weird how the Supreme
Court never ruled that Biden couldn't import vast
armies of illegal alien. See, they know what
they're doing. They're playing on the dumbest people
in the room.
The the first point, as you already know
I'm going to, is that the well, you
didn't care what Biden did. That's a stupid
argument. That has no bearing in whether or
not this is allowed. You could point out
that they broke they they violated the law
then too.
But to say that you didn't care then
basically admits you know you're breaking the law
now. See, that's what Israel does. You want
you didn't care about Iraq. We did though,
but so you're you're saying it was genocide
then?
And so the point then also says it
never ruled that Biden couldn't import vast armies.
Well, that's a stupid thing to say, seeing
as how it would be illegal for any
president to import illegally. Lots of it's not
just you have to rule that you're not
allowed to break the law. This guy's an
idiot. Or rather he knows he's trying to
convince idiots.
And so the argument is that you didn't
rule. He couldn't invade. But the last point
is that's not what's happening.
This argument that you somehow imported the amount
you keep lying about, which is not 20,000,000,
and saying that you imported them all for
some illegal invasion.
To what end? Show it to me here.
What are we talking about? Is it replacement
theory argument? I mean, what is the point?
Because what we can prove is that they
don't have the evidence to back up that
claim. You I I wouldn't disagree. That's possible.
Where's your evidence? Lay out the case.
Ah, the one thing they never do. Because
the reality is you can't prove that he
coordinated invasion with igloo aliens. It's just not
the truth. It's simply obvious that it was
more nuanced than that if at least the
involvement with a foreign country.
And on top of that, you can prove
that there you're going through the like, even
that big I mean, there's so many points
you can go into that show very clearly
that it's not partisan and it's about getting
you to fall into it like this. But
if your argument is
that this is a problem because they didn't
stop Biden from doing the first thing, because
what what they're what you're doing is dishonest.
Because at the end of the day, what
you're trying to argue is that we can't
give them all their rights
because Biden did x, y, and z. Look.
I'm gonna be clear about this yet again.
I don't care. If your argument is we
need to violate the constitution for, stop talking.
I don't care. There's never an excuse for
me where you I'm gonna accept the idea
that you need to
suspend habeas corpus. It doesn't matter, guys. I
am absolutely diametrically opposed to anything like that
because, frankly, it's unconstitutional.
And so the argument we need to do
the bad thing to say, it's the same
argument during COVID that we all laughed about.
There's no asterisk next to shall not be
infringed. But Stephen Miller, the Zionist, wants you
to make that the case.
And he says, SCOTUS must change course, Supreme
Court, because Clay Travis wrote there are 20,000,000
illegal aliens. Same point. That's the argument. That's
not true. Then you could look the numbers
up anywhere, even on conservative places. It's not
20,000,000. He says the due process in quotes.
Again,
these are America Firsters putting due process in
quotes. What is your implication there?
The due process is not real? I it's,
you know, I know there this is like
there's an effort to really undermine the basis
of the constitution
by people screaming America First, or that they
don't know they're being used, which wouldn't surprise
me. He says the due process the Supreme
Court has decreed today means it is impossible
to ever remove all not true.
Probably one of the most dishonest statements today.
It certainly could mean it would take a
long time. But this argument that the right
thing is too difficult,
that should embarrass people like that. They should
get laughed off the Internet for saying that
the the right thing to do is too
tough. It's gonna take too long. We have
to do the right thing. It's like they
they are children in the conversation at this
point. This has always been their Democrat long
game. And there we go. Back into the
left right paradigm while the government laughs at
people like Clay Travis doing their work for
them.
Wake up, guys. You're being played, whether he
knows it or not.
Now the US government's flagrant attack on free
speech, Malmoud Khalil,
is just the beginning. We did that show
on March 13.
And I think, actually, for time, I am
gonna skip this, but I was I'll go
through this in a future show. Really, what
it was, a great article by The Intercept.
Government lawyers trying to deport Maum and Khalil
won't stop whining, which is pretty much what
they're doing. But if you read the article,
they're basically going back to the court where
the simple point was the judge just simply
said, provide your case. Give me the evidence
and the case studies, the case law that
that makes your case make your argument. Like,
you guys get you're pushing back on whether,
like, you saying you wanna use this to
deport Khalil. Well, there's no evidence of a
crime. There's no what's your case? Lay out
your reasoning. And they come back and they
go, we don't have enough time. There's too
many cases, and you guys are distracting us.
Like, that's this is their argument. And the
judge was like, that's ridiculous.
That's that's what they're doing, guys. This is
what the current g d DOJ is doing.
They also make a good argument in the
article about how the gov the Trump administration
has basically gutted the DOJ. You're not gonna
have any real criticism problem for me, except
for the fact that the DOJ is now
packed with people that are gonna blindly follow
ideological lines,
which is what they're doing everywhere. Look at
the bondies and the gnomes, guys. These are
not the best of the best. These are
the people that will follow suit.
That's where we are.
But my point in this is they're still
trying to deport Khalil despite everything because they're
desperate. And I think this is the one
not to forget that goes directly back to
'8 it's now been proven in a court
of law that
Batar USA, the group that's a Zionist organization
from Israel that is hand delivering lists to
the US government that they're then using to
deport people without any further look. The court
made that clear. Now we're not even talking
about Khalil. Khalil was the first one. This
guy he was the very first example. The
tar tagged
Bondi and Trump and Rubio and said, get
this guy. Get this guy. And it was
the first one they grabbed with nothing more
than that. They manufactured the whole case. They
didn't even they missed they even claimed he
had a Visa card, but, no, he had
a green card. Rubio got called out not
in a pot. They didn't even look into
it guys. The point is here.
Where was it.
That was right here.
That
the judge called this out in the court
document that said that the batar tweet
was the only thing they had.
Turned out they lied about him. The case
broke down because they couldn't prove anything else.
He got released. But forty eight hours, they
held this guy, and they tried to put
they tried to deport him because of that
tweet alone.
We need to realize how clear this is.
The government is being allowed to be driven
by Zionists because of a statement on Twitter.
That's it. And they're deporting people because of
it. Actually, oh, forgot. I have the tweet
right here.
Exposes the Trump administration, stripped a guy of
a student visa because Batar tweeted about him.
He they've they
they issued an arrest warrant for forty eight,
just, just forty eight hours afterward. Oh, I
I thought it was I I remember maybe
conflating two of the stories. Sorry. There's so
many illegitimate
arrests and deportations.
So it says during this time, a profile
for petitioner appeared on the website of Canary
Mission, one of the obvious Zionist games in
this, that claims its mission is to document
individuals and promote hatred of The United States,
which by the way, you have a right
to hate whoever you want.
The profile of the of the petitioner discusses
the events of November 3 on April 8,
Batar Worldwide.
Sorry. Batar Worldwide, an organization that claims its
mission is to empower Jews to stand strong,
speak out, and defend its heritage, and Israel
against all threats, tweeted an image from them
along with an image that we claimed to
have submitted
this person's name for deportation.
So they literally point to this guy and
said, Deport this guy,
and tagged them. Sent this to and this
is on the list they sent to people
in the White House or in the State
Department. It appears the petitioner's name had, in
fact, recently been submitted for deportation
on April 9. Just a day after the
tweet, the deputy assistant secretary of the state
for visa services
sent a memo to ICE regarding the revocation
of that person's visa
effective the same day.
The Department of Homeland Security issued that on
this is
unbelievable.
They issued that administrative warrant for the arrest
claiming the execution of a charging document to
initiate removal proceedings against their subject of the
basis for arrest.
It broke down.
So we understand that all of this could
very well be based on simply Israel asking
for it.
That's what's so insane about this.
Now, it says, if this this is a
tweet from Sarah.
It looks like it's GB News. A couple
things that stood out from the ICE oversight
hearing.
ICE acted acting director Todd Lyons said nine
people have died
in ICE custody since January 20. '9.
From representative Underwood, forty one thousand detentions, beds
funded for fiscal year twenty four. Current bed
count, over 52,000
beds.
We already know this. We told you this
at the beginning. They did not have enough
places.
So nine people have died. Sounds very similar
to what Israel's
doing. And he says, if Lyons is right
that nine people have died in custody since
January 20, that means that five of them
have died in the last month
and haven't been reported to the public as
required since ISIS listed databases deaths doesn't have
anyone new since April 8. And he did
follow-up and says they've been told that they
have notified congress about these other five deaths,
yet haven't posted the information.
Just insane. Now this this really
is unnerving.
Kristi Noem
is proposing
a reality TV show where immigrants compete for
fast track citizenship.
I really just think that they're trying to
push this to a point that is comically
stupid. Like, I'm not sure why.
Or I or they're just this gross. Like,
the idea that you think it makes sense
to make a reality TV show about people
suffering
to try to fight for something that, you
know, what? Your country's murdering them. We'll see
who can win and stop themselves from being
killed by Israel's bombs.
I mean, it's just it's it's just insane
to me.
And you know what? I'm I'll go through
this another show too since the time. I
think people will read through this, but just
make sure you understand this. I'll include it
in the show notes. They're trying to create
a reality TV show. It's literally being called
The American.
I mean, it's just it's it's gross.
You'd you know, we'd like to pretend we're
better than this. Now, I'd like to think
that we are. They're not, though. I think
this is not a representation of American
of America's values, of Americans in general. I
think it's about something else.
Now, on on top of that, by the
way, in case you didn't see this, Tulsi
Gabbard
recently fired the people who put out the
report
that showed that Trende Arago was not controlled
by Maduro, which is factually backed up. I
went through my own report that wasn't tied
to what the government found. Their own people
showed Tulsi Gabbard they that it's not. That
that's controlled by outside forces. And And on
top but let's not forget, it was founded
in Los Angeles, by the way. The point
or what was that, MS 13?
I think that was turned to Iraq. Either
way, the point is it's not the evidence
had been shown that it was controlled not
by Maduro. Of course, that could also be
a lie. But what's interesting is they showed
that to her, and then they she fired
them. The moment anyone in the government advances
facts and evidence that contradicts the official line,
they get fired.
That seems to be pretty obvious by now.
And it didn't it says right there that,
yes. Grok says they did fire them.
So is that what you want? Ideological control?
Like I said, Bondi, the rest? There are
people that follow suit. That's why they want
them. That's what they're doing in every position,
in every location we can see. That's what
everyone that supports them do online rather than
partisan games. It is blind adherence to their
game.
Oh, and this I'll play this clip. It's
not that long. This is a clip showing
you Intercept put this out.
Showing you what this is really about. We've
shown you all the different overlaps in Khalil
and Ozturk and then going after people that
call out and expose
the Zionist genocide. Now what this is really
about is stopping that. And Israel and Greenblatt
and ADL working with Twitter, they've made this
clear. This is a quick little clip that
shows you that the as he writes, the
Republicans sneak nonprofit killer bill into the tail
end of Trump's three eighty nine page tax
plan. And what it's about is them being
able to kill any nonprofit that they don't
like. Associated with that with Palestine is what
it really comes down to.
A bill last year that would have let
Trump crush nonprofit groups, it's back. On Monday,
House Republicans released a plan that's going to
go into Trump's big, beautiful bill. And overall,
it's their proposal to slash trillions in government
spending. It's 389
pages long. And on page 380,
all the way at the very end, is
a provision that would grant Trump's treasury secretary
the power to unilaterally strip the nonprofit
status from any group that the Trump administration
deems as supporting
terrorism.
And that's really what all this comes down
to. Right? I mean, and this is everywhere
you look right now. They and if we
know they can arbitrarily declare anybody a terrorist,
then it's meaningless, guys. You know, just are
just saying, well, this this gang is now
a terrorist group because that makes it easier
for us to act.
Or declaring Palestinians or anybody else or just,
you know, like, the point they always make
with, with Somalia.
Basically saying, you're on the terrorist watch list.
But if you align with Israel, we'll take
you off. And so the point is either
that they were never if they were either
never actually terrorists,
right, if they're only if nothing's changed, now
they and they're using that to coerce them
to align with Israel, which is what's really
happening in my opinion, or they were terrorists
and they don't care as long as they
align with Israel, which also makes sense. It's
everywhere you look. And so in this case,
you already know they're just declaring anything Palestinian
terrorist. They already have done that. So if
they if they get this passed, which it
seems like they will, they'll be able to
just yank these things out by the roots.
And you'll have all the hypocritical people out
there claiming they're supporting the constitution because they
dislike the politics of these people. It's like
everywhere else. If you didn't stand up for
Khalil, then you don't believe in these things.
If you didn't stand up for I mean,
you could go down the list. It's the
same conversation anywhere. If you're being guided by
partisan guy you know,
like, with COVID nineteen.
Right? There's very clearly people, like, when you
saw that overlap with Israel,
there are people standing up that were calling
out what was going on. And because they
had pink hair, far too many people acted
like it was somehow they ignored it,
which if you can't see by now, that's
how this is designed to work.
You need to pay attention more. Reporting terrorism
is already illegal. But during the first one
hundred days of the Trump administration, they've shown
that they are willing to apply that label
to anybody when it's convenient, from college students
to organizations to activists. The Intercept covered this
last year when Democrats were trying to force
this through at the behest of pro Israel
organizations.
They saw this as a useful tool to
crush the pro Palestinian movement. And if this
is past, civil liberties organizations have warned that
this strips these groups of their due process.
And in its prior version, it did not
require the treasury department to provide any evidence
for this claim. It is extremely worrying. And
as it makes its way through the legislative
process, The Intercept will be following at every
step. Head to theintercept.com
to read the full story.
Right.
So obvious same point.
Due process. Right? So accept here's the difference
though, guys. Now we're talking about Americans.
Yeah. Maybe it's not about deportation. Not yet.
Even though they floated deporting Americans five different
times.
It's obvious what this is really if you're
if you are on guard about these things,
if you believe in constitutional rights or believe
in the constitution, what they're talking about is
creating a loophole for them or rather an
unconstitutional
law, which would therefore be repugnant to the
constitution and therefore
therefore, because of supreme court ruling Baver versus
Madison, it would be technically illegal. It would
be null and void, but they don't care
about that. The point is that by saying
you cannot have to go do revoke these
without giving them due process, well, that's one
more step in the direction of just that
doesn't matter when they decide so based on
now calling you a terrorist, but later just
calling you in, you know, national security, inconvenient,
or just no longer be needing an argument.
Every moment is going forward. I know you
see it out there. Call it out. Now
we talked about El Salvador
and sending Americans and the overlap they're in.
Well, a few points I wanna go over
here.
You this is some, this is going out
strong. Tag me in this. Now we actually
already covered some of this, not everything in
the video, so make sure you watch it.
This is a,
I believe oh, it's a Grayzone video entitled,
Bukkale's secret deal with the devil exposed. Now
you we've talked about most of this, and
so I'll show you that tweet or the
the show. But it says, Elon Salvador has
turned into a El Salvador, excuse me, has
turned turned into a dystopian, tyrannical nightmare. Estimates
are over 80,000 innocent people locked up in
their phony state of emergency. It's all propaganda.
So we're it's worth watching. Now, we recently
covered this point. This it's not a title,
but this was about the deal, the drop
site news. Actually, I probably can grab that.
Yeah. Right there. This is a great article
you should read. Bukele. Secret Bukele deals, deal
wise behind Trump, El Salvador deportations.
Now in this, it's very clear. Like, even
even the previous US government people were on
the record saying they basically are working with
these gangs, MS thirteen. They're working with them,
And and they basically manufactured this, like,
the decline in in violence.
And some of the ones currently in The
United States are the ones that are potentially
possibly gonna speak out about that. And he
handpicked them and said they want them back.
And we already saw Pam Bondi. There was
a case they were gonna put someone in
prison for well before this started, the MS
thirteen leader, who, like, dropped the charges and
sent them to El Salvador.
A guy who's working with them. You know,
it's it's just it shows you they don't
care about what they're claiming they care about,
guys. And so that's what this discussion is
about, these deals. Not just about working with
them, but also about
the larger agenda that's coming around this. And
I think it has to do with the
overlap with Israel. It has to do with
the technocratic globalist agenda that we're seeing built.
And on that note,
as I I've let here, great report from
Alan Alan McLeod on something we recently discussed.
And here's the actual tweet.
Or I'll just show you the actual show.
Or, I mean, excuse me, article.
Ukulele's El Salvador dictatorship
made in Israel,
which is the case. As I said, we
already recently talked about this, but I'll read
this article. It does a good job breaking
this down.
It says, from arming his security forces to
supplying him with weapons and high-tech surveillance tools,
Mint Press explored the Israeli influence helping to
prop up the man who calls himself the
world's coolest dictator.
Since Bukele's ascension to the presidency in 02/2019,
Israeli exports to El Salvador have been rapidly
advancing, growing at an annual rate of more
than 21.
This increase consists primarily of weapons.
Salvadorian forces are well supplied with Israeli hardware.
The military
and police use these Israeli made Galil and
and ARD five rifles and Uzi machine guns
like they supplied in in in Rwanda,
numerous Israeli pilots, and and ride in a
l AIL Storm and Plasian
Yagu armored vehicles.
Some equipment Salvadorian forces come,
some equipment Salvadorian forces use come free, courtesy
of Israeli sources. In 02/2019,
an Israeli NGO and Jerusalem Foundation, a group
that builds illegal settlements on Palestinian land, by
the way, announced that it would donate $3,000,000
worth of supplies to the Salvadorian police and
military, you know, right when it was necessary
for him to con to seize control. Sure.
That didn't have any overlap, though. For others,
however, the Bukele administration is paying top dollar,
meaning this relationship is extremely profitable for the
high-tech Israeli defense sector. Now here's my point.
That happened afterward, in my opinion. The 2,019
donation
was to help them secure control. That's what
I believe. Now in 2020, the Salvadoran police
paid around $3,400,000
for one year's use of three Israeli spyware
products.
Starting to sound familiar? You know this already.
That's this is how Israeli cyber weapons are
taking over Latin America. We talked about the
NSO group, the Pegasus. It's all the same
stuff, guys. This is an infiltration around the
world.
And now there's this weird overlap with The
US, the same grew, the deportation, which that
will end with a quick point about that.
I mean, more to come. It's very clear
where this is all leading.
Now he says these tools include GeoLock, a
program that intercepts calls and texts from targeted
phones, and webtangles,
which uses individual social media accounts to build
up files on people, including using their pro
their photos for facial recognition.
A see, all this interconnects. A third a
third WaveGuard tracer, marketed in some regions as
as Guardian, tracks users' movements through the GPS
on their phone.
Perhaps the most notorious piece of spy wait.
Don't forget. They've suspended
civil liberty. So none of this nobody cares.
There's no restriction on what they can do.
Perhaps the most notorious piece of spyware used,
however, is Pegasus.
Surprise, surprise. The one that's becoming hot and
big and be being allowed to rip through
this country yet again, thanks to Donald Trump.
As well as the overlapping many different Israeli
spy tech groups that are proliferating under this
new administration.
Derek's covered all of it.
Developed by the NSO group, who, by the
way, that one I'll grab really quickly,
was literally found
guilty in a recent case around WhatsApp.
The that same group.
Anti spy Israeli spyware firm, NSO Group, found
liable for hacks of WhatsApp users.
It it's it's a it's a spyware company.
It's not about helping anybody other than them
and the group. So the government uses it
to spit to spy on its own people.
That's what they're using it for. An outgrowth
that says, the most notorious, Pegasus, developed by
the NSO Group, an outgrowth of the IDF
unit eighty two hundred. The app hit the
headlines in 2022 when it was revealed that
repressive governments
of the world had used it to surveil
thousands of public figures, including kings, presidents, politicians,
activists, and reporters. El Salvador,
one of the most heavily penetrated nations. Surprise,
surprise. A report from Citizen Lab found the
Bukele administration
was using it to secretly monitor dozens of
public figures critical of the president,
including 22 journalists and independent from the end
from the independent outlet, El Faro. Now my
question is how much of that is overlap
with the people he's trying to put in
these prisons? How how many people then that
they sent back for somebody that he wanted
because if they were information on him? I
mean, I think this is a part of
the story that is not being really focused
on.
Incarceration nation. It says, Boukoulet has used three
these Israeli tools and weapons to crack down
on dissent
and opposition to his rule.
Since 2022, when he declared the state of
exception, that's when they suspended what is their
you know, like, The US suspending the constitution.
They suspended rights and civil liberties. He has
imprisoned at least 85,000
people.
None of which get trials, no one's proving
any crimes, so we'd have no clue. They
tell you what they want.
A staggering figure for such a small country.
Today, around 2% of the adult population,
along with over 3,000
children,
languished behind bars and dangerously overcrowded jails. But
that's totally okay to the one screaming about
human rights and liberty and democracy. Right? As
long as they get what they want, we
don't call it out, or they don't.
El Salvador holds vastly more people in prisons
per capita than any other country anywhere. And
conditions are among the worst in the world.
Is this what we wanna be a part
of? Apparently, for some. Food is sparse.
Lights are kept on twenty four hours a
day. The cells are frequently packed with more
than a hundred occupants.
Those incarcerated at CCOT are allowed no contact
with the outside world, not even their families
or lawyers. Now, since we know that 75%
of the ones they sent didn't even have
a criminal record, and many of them were
here legally with nothing, are currently there, that
should outrage you. And then since they floated
Americans Next, it should scare
you. Often, the first thing a Salvadorian family
hears about their disappeared relative is news that
he died while incarcerated.
No, that we just heard that about ICE
places over here.
Every day, we seem to get close to
this. Torture is commonplace.
Osiris Luna, the director of El Salvador's prison
system, has even been sanctioned by the US
government for his role in gross human rights
abuses. But now we're on the same side.
Bukele has justified the mass imprisonment of his
countrymen as a necessity
necessary step to break the power of organized
crime, drugs, and cartel
gangs. Yeah. Oh, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Now is it because they're fighting those things,
or is it because he secretly made deals
with them to basically seize control?
That's what our own government was saying before.
That's what people in the world are talking
about, but not now. Not with not with
Israel's involvement and the Zionist government taking over.
Oh, I meant The US One, by the
way. Yet a significant portion of those held
are his political opponents. Easy to prove. Among
those detained are union leaders, politicians, human rights
defenders.
It's just it speaks for itself.
And he I mean, the world's coolest dictator.
I mean, you this is alarming
how few people seem to be willing to
call this out. Maybe because they're worried they're
gonna end up there.
Amid the chaos, Bukele has fired tens of
thousands of public service workers and reduced taxes
on the business community. He has also reoriented
El Salvador's foreign
foreign policy
from a progressive anti imperialist state sands to
allying itself with right wing governments around the
world, including Israel.
We're seeing these shifts happen, and it's not
left first right. Right? It's it's ultimately about,
you know, people who respect rights and those
don't. That's what it comes down to.
In the wake of October 7, the assault,
Buchla voiced his support for Israel and condemned
Thomas
as a salvatory so as a Salvadorian
of Palestinian ancestry. I'm sure the best thing
that could happen to the Palestinian people is
for Hamas to completely disappear, he said, describing
Hamas as savage beasts and compared them to
MS thirteen, one of their most violent kings.
Doesn't that sound familiar? It's almost like they
all have the same talking points.
Now, again, if you're gonna call it MS
thirteen or rather Hamas, wouldn't you include that
is that Israel had been funding them for
the division? But, of course, as a Palestinian,
he would care about that if he was
being honest.
The connections between Israel and El Salvador,
excuse me, however,
predate Boukule by decades. During the nineteen seventies
and eighties, the country was a hotspot for
the Cold War. The US backed death squads
battled the leftist FMLL
F MLN
rebels. The lim the military regime killed around
75,000 civilians in a dirty war that scars
the region to this day. The violence was
so extreme and so well publicized that even
The United States sought to distance itself from
it. Into that void stepped Israel,
as usual, providing 83% of El Salvador's military
needs during the worst time. So, guys, you
can't hide this. They chose to align themselves
with the most radically racist people in the
world. They sought out people that were willing
to hurt somebody.
Rwanda,
Bosnia, any one of these locations, you cannot
decouple that. It's transparent. I mean, you can
look it up on Wikipedia for crying out
loud. Again, doesn't mean you can prove it
because we can lead a lot it gets
wrong all the time, but it shows mass
adoption. That everyone's willing to acknowledge that, yes,
Israel was involved with the Rwanda genocide,
which is important to understand. I covered this
myself. It would they were they were the
ones giving the Uzis, then stoking the the
the the division. I mean, it's all on
the record. It's not hard to find. My
point is that you can see that even
in this example,
they were Israel stepped in and started funding
them during the worst example of their history
of genocide, of of killings. And it says,
including napalm.
In return, El Salvador moved his embassy to
Jerusalem while legitimizing Israel's claim to the city.
Lovato, a former member of the FMLN,
told Mint Press News the country was turned
into a laboratory laboratory for re repression.
During the civil war, he said the US
government aligned a whole,
monopoly of different practitioners
of torture and mass murder.
If you can't see by now throughout history,
the US government, like, even to this day,
have been the Gina Haspel. Funny. I finally
remember her name off the top of my
head. But then Trump brought on, it was
like the torture queen. The point is that
they've always continued this. In UAE, in Yemen,
they continue their torture prisons, which we covered
back then. The point is that they it's
not unique. The US government has found ways
to do this. So Guantanamo, that's who they
are. That doesn't mean us. It means the
power structure that's always guided it.
It says you had trainers from Taiwan, Israel,
and other countries going to El Salvador to
train the Salvadorian government to do what they
had learned how to do.
It says one of the most notable individuals
who received Israel Israeli training was major Roberto,
d Abusyan,
leader of a far right death squad. D'Abuson
is known to have ordered the assassination of
archbishop Oscar Romero, nicknamed blowtorch Bob, for his
penchant for using the tool on his opponent's
genitals. His death squad is thought to have
killed some 30,000 people, many of whom were
tortured to death. Thus, it is no stretch
to say that El Salvador's repressive state apparatus
has long been sustained by Israel's money,
tech, and know how.
But this is far from an isolated example.
Indeed, Israel supplied weapons and training to repressive
governments around the world, honing the skills acquired,
suppressing the Palestinian population, and taking them global.
Guatemala, we've talked about before. General Efren Rios
Montt thanked, thanked Israel for his participation in
a coup that brought him to power in
1982.
Surprise, surprise. There there's many examples, by the
way. In Colombia, where the country's most notorious
death squads were trained by Israeli operatives,
Israel also armed the sup and supported the
military dictatorships of Chile, Argentina, like the worst
in history, guys, in the seventies and the
eighties, even as the latter explicitly targeted over
a thousand Jews
in the latest slaughter of Jews in since
and, excuse me, the largest slaughter of Jews
since the Holocaust.
Israel supported that because you have to understand,
Zionism doesn't care about the Jewish people. They
care about using them to achieve their goals.
Like, you can find in UN documents that
show they didn't want the Jews to come
from Europe. But they wanted them because they
then basically on the record said that they
wanted to make sure they stayed because they
Or or even in Palestine when they first
took it. There's Jews on the ground that
said, what do you This does not align
with what we believe. And they killed them
too. All of this is easy to recognize.
But stouting it off on the side, people
will dismiss it because they want to. I've
covered the UN document itself that highlighted what
the Zionist group were telling them.
But there's another example, linked right here, you
can read it for yourself. In Nicaragua,
Israel supplied the the Somoza dictatorship. In Rwanda,
it sold weapons to the Hutu government as
it was carrying out a genocide against the
Tutsi population. On and on and on and
on.
That is Israel's legacy.
Lastly,
it's been reported that Donald Trump administration is
working on a plan to move 1,000,000 Palestinians
to Libya.
Now
waiting to go more on this because it's
just being floated. These days, they float all
kinds of stuff, but most of it seems
to at least somewhat come to pass.
The bottom line is this is exactly what
most of us were saying the moment this
started after October 7.
They're they're gonna ethnically cleanse them. They're gonna
destroy the whole area. Now despite all the
narrative in between those things, look at what
happened.
Whole area's destroyed. They've all been ethically cleansed.
Now they're trying to move them to the
play. Weird. Exactly like we told you. And
if you paid attention exactly like they were
saying they were gonna do. How dumb it
is that we have to gate play this
game where it was all there on the
surface, and we told you they were saying
it, they're now doing it, and we still
dispute whether it's reality.
That's Zionist propaganda for you. And I said,
and they I said, so was this deportation
chaos?
Right right now, with all this going on
and even even the the floating of the
idea of Libya, they already said we're gonna
send to Libya, right? Or, I forget the
other place.
I forget, but they floated two different locations.
Libya was one of them. And it was
just confirmed.
The Trump administration had almost sent a dozen
men
from Vietnam, Philippines, Laos, Mexico to Libya. Mexico
to Libya. Like what the hell? It's just
insane what's happening. And
it says a country described as a hellscape
for migrants,
where many have been sold into slavery. Even
the U. S. Government currently says nobody should
go there it's unsafe.
And he wants that to be the safe
zone for them. The point is that the
they stopped this they were just about to
send them all and they got stopped. Why
were they trying to rush this random collection
of people some of from Mexico to Libya.
Well that's what I'm
asking. But is it possible that this this
deportation chaos we've been seeing is at least
in some way a trial balloon
to gauge, normalize,
prepare us for this happening to Palestinians?
At this point, it wouldn't surprise me.
Like, just to just to do this so
we can normalize the idea of taking an
entire population and moving and maybe the Afrikaners
to the same point in reverse.
We're just trying to help them. Move them
over here to Libya.
Well, no. They don't wanna go to Libya.
Even and and on top of that, a
million?
What about the other million, five? What about
that? Oh, that's right. They killed them all.
Because that's really what's going on. And that
means they know that, basically.
I mean, it's it's just so grotesque, and
I know you all see it.
Now, White House working on a plan to
send 1,000,000 Palestinians to Libya, Anti War Dot
Com, make sure you're following them. The Donald
Trump administration is attempting to bribe,
bribe one of the warring parties in Libya
because that's how they that's how we do
this today. And to accept 1,000,000 Palestinians in
Israel, that Israel is attempting to cleanse from
Gaza. So not like trying to set them
up in any way like they promised, but
just bribing them to dump them over there
in Libya in a place that's in a
war zone. It's a war zone. We've talked
about this throughout the years back when it
was a focal point. But let's remember, don't
don't still forget that they liberated this location.
Right? They saved it. They made it a
freedom democracy pillar. And then they started selling
open slaves, and it's never been the same
sense.
But but don't but Trump will tell you,
we liberated them. It's safe. Or I mean,
he probably won't since it wasn't his administration
or it was a the Clinton dynamic. But
the point is the same.
Syria, any of the rest, that's liberation.
How can you not see by now that
what that means to them is destruction.
Raping the resources, the people, the own, everything.
Destroying the country, taking what you want, and
claiming you're saving them by giving them a
democracy.
When what you really do is fund the
worst of the worst, allow them to take
power like in Syria, and then go, we
did it, it's safe. And it's totally not.
You guys are the biggest villains on the
planet. I mean, what you do every single
day and what you act like you're doing
is so disgusting to me, it makes me
Worry for the future.
But also recognize how many people are calling
it out which gives me hope. But the
point if they're bribing one of these groups.
And we know that the warring dynamic how
in the world we're pretending like this makes
sense at all.
Libya became a failed state after The US
led regime change
war against long time dictator, or rather they
called it dictator, Muammar Gaddafi.
I I mean, I don't I you could
argue he ruled as a dictator from the
sense of, like, unilateral power. But look, the
reality of the place is not the same
as what
Andy Warr reports this accurately.
Highest quality of life in all of Africa,
free college, free healthcare,
free medicine. I mean, it was it's insane.
It was very, very clear.
And whether it was the gold back to
our point they were trying to make with
money or it was the fact that he
was pushing back on NATO, they killed him
for it.
Literally tried to end up basically tried to
ultimately
resign in a way and they wouldn't let
it happen. And then they murdered him. Right?
He got raped to death in the streets.
That's what they did. And Clinton laughs about
it.
And it says, according to NBC News, multiple
US Officials confirmed the Trump administration was in
negotiations with one of Libya's competing governments. In
exchange for that, for the the resettling of
Palestinians, the administration would potentially release to Libya
Billions Of Dollars of funds that The US
froze. Oh, that sounds very similar to the
Iran Biden point. So couldn't we buy the
same logic say that Trump's gonna bribe Libya
and give them back money to a bunch
of terrorists?
Lou will probably say that, because she calls
out anything related to anybody with brown skin
as somehow racist and jihadi. What's funny though
is Biden
gave back money that they took from Iran.
Now you could criticize about that, but to
frame that as bribing giving them money, it's
just, it's lazy and it's a partisan game.
Same point as always. For them, it'll be
some kind of freeing them and liberating their
money when the other side will call something.
It's what you're doing
is you stole money from them in the
first place. Now, you're giving it back to
them, but not to them, to a bunch
of warlords that the Libya doesn't exist, guys.
The country's gone. It is a split, broken,
fractured idea, just like they're trying to do
in Syria and everywhere else. They'll never change
on the map, though, because they want you
to pretend like everything's great.
But it says the NBC News report did
not specify if The US was talking with
the Tripoli based government led by,
Abdul Hamid Dibaya
or the Eastern government led by Haftar, Khalifa
Haftar, who we've reported on, who would believe
if nothing's changed, it's still backed by the
UN. What's funny to me is that it
it they'll go with whatever they want. Suddenly,
you know, it just shows you that it's
about whatever they can get. They don't they
will work as we've seen with Hamas or
the moderate rebels or anybody else. They will
work with the worst of the worst of
the worst
and call them the rebels as long as
they get what they want.
Now it says, Libya has been in the
state of civil war since The US backed
Jihadist linked rebels overthrew Gaddafi in 2020 in
2011. Both Libyan governments are accused of serious
human rights abuses. That's very clear. And the
state department directs Americans not to travel anywhere
in the state due to terrorism,
unexploded
land mines, civil unrest, kidnapping, armed conflict. But,
yeah, quite the safe zone for Palestinians.
It's
insulting.
The report comes as both Netanyahu and Trump
have discussed proposals for massive displacement of Palestinians
in recent days, days, which again, regardless of
whether they do not want to go
and they're simply acting like it's saving them,
they don't wanna leave their land. So every
this is ethnic cleansing and mass displacement. It's
a war crime
within a genocide. It's not debatable. You can
see what they're doing and you can listen
to them. They don't wanna go. So, as
they're now, this is my point about the
worst of the worst.
So, they put them in this position and
then they point to what they did and
say that we're trying to help them. We
wanna make their life better. How dare they
be left in this terrible location? So not
only do they do it, but they want
you to praise them for doing something worse.
You know, a murderer as always is a
murderer and they're the word they're terrible. But
a murderer who then says praise me for
helping them after they kill people is like
the worst thing on the planet.
He added, I'd be proud to have The
United States. Alright, he goes on to say,
the report comes as both Netanyahu and Trump
discussed proposals for displacement. On Friday, the American
leader said, I have concepts for Gaza that
I think are very good. Make it a
freedom zone.
Here we go.
So don't say fifteen minute city, understand we're
now on freedom city, okay? Just so you're
getting along with talking points. And he says,
I, let The United States get involved and
let's make it a freedom zone. So it's
funny how this oscillates, right? So first he
says, we'll take it and make it great.
And then people in the in the the
fake news, which they're all liars, comes up
and says, so what about the legalities? Are
you gonna take gossip? We're not gonna take
it. We're not what do you mean? We're
we're making things up, fake news.
Then he comes back later and says, we're
gonna take it.
I honestly think it's about disjointedness, about constantly
saying the false thing and then the right
thing. And then so nobody knows where to
look, everyone falls in line with their side.
I really do think that's part of it.
Because you know
they say things that shift back and forth
every day. They all do
it. He added, I'd be proud to have
The United States have it, take it, and
make it a freedom zone. So when somebody
tomorrow goes, are you gonna take it? What
are we talking about? It's exactly what we
did last time. And have something good things
happen. He'll give you an ambiguous response about
how it might be this, might be that.
It's but yet says things just like this.
Put people in homes where they could be
safe, and Hamas is going to have to
be dealt with. You see, he can't even
put that aside because that is the only
thing Israel wants to we won't stop until
we go after Hamas.
So if you remove all the Palestinians, how
do you know Hamas is gone? Wouldn't they
possibly be in the tunnels?
They're never gonna give up the argument as
long as they can use it. So right
now, moving them into homes. What homes we
talking about, Trump? Whose money are you gonna
use to build these things out? Probably American
tax dollars. Because that that's everything Israel is
American tax dollars. Trump floated a similar proposal
only in early in his administration. He did.
At the time, he said the Palestinians will
be removed from the strip and sent to
live in refugee cities in third world countries.
Discussing the war in Gaza earlier this week,
Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to force about
1,000,000,
making sure you understand he's talking about 1,000,000,
which means he knows how many they've killed,
but was still seeking a country willing to
take the refugees.
They're already refugees right now. But there is
one problem. We need countries to receive them.
This is what we are working out right
now. If you give them an exit, I'm
telling you that more than 50% will leave.
In my opinion, much more.
See, he's he's just lying. They've been they've
made this argument every time, and every time
they all stand up and say, we're never
leaving. We'll die to defend our territory. You
know, just like most American conservatives would. American
conservatives would.
But, of course, you can call them terrorists
for doing the same thing you would if
a foreign country took over Florida, but, you
know,
to each their own.
And, of course, the last point here with
this is how this always goes. Right? So
we're talking about this video, which I'll probably
go over, like, some of it in the
next show because I do wanna make the
overarching points of how they're playing this game,
how drones comes out and says, like I
told you, I predicted he would cut ties
to Netanyahu, which hasn't happened yet.
And clearly, that's not what's happened. I mean,
that may will happen. I I made the
point a long time ago that if it
was gonna happen, Netanyahu would be the most
obvious scapegoat. And if it did, then whether
Biden or Trump, they would not stop being
aligned with Israel.
But I won't say I know that like
he would. And of course, to him, Ukraine
War ended three months ago, absolutely over. We
knew it. We predicted it. And now it's
not. And so, this game they play, if
you, like I said before, if you predict
everything at one at one point or another,
like over a twenty four hour period, you
predict every possibility in different parts of your
show, then you're never wrong.
Right? That's how this works, guys. Listen to
people that work with them. They'll tell you
how dishonest they are. He says the Trump
administration is working on a plan to move
1,000,000 people from Gaza to Libya.
And he goes, this report comes just days
after Trump called for a better future for
the people of Gaza
in a speech in Saudi Arabia. Yeah. Is
that what he did? Except all the 75
other points you ignore where he said they're
all Hamas and Hamas is the problem and
they're all starving. That's a lie. He knows
it's a lie. You're what he's doing is
manufacturing the lie that will give Israel the
excuse to keep killing them all or
illegally displace them. None of this is compassionate.
And your effort to just blindly frame this
as helping them because of a better future
is sycophant
or sycophantic.
You're supporting whatever Trump says that day, which
is what all the rest of you do.
The bottom line is this is a crime.
Removing them to a new country is a
crime.
Is that is that what the what about
the people of Libya? Do they want that?
Do you guys not care because they're Libya?
You guys are all gross and obviously hypocritical.
Every single one of you that ignore all
of these things for your partisan arguments.
Jason Henkel, somebody points out at the end,
here's what was happening as far as I
can tell. And this overlaps with the,
Israeli American hostage or rather IDF member that
was a detainee. He says The US agreed
with the mosque to release Eden Alexander in
exchange for lifting the siege.
Eden was released, but Trump betrayed his promise.
Israel continues to starve Gazans. Does it did
anybody actually think for a second that even
if Trump believed that they would do that,
that Israel would stop?
Do we can you not watch for a
year after every possible combination of things happens
and they still ignore anything? Not only ignore
it, they stand up and shoot people in
the face on live TV and then look
around and challenge everybody. It's insane to me
that we ever thought that would change. I
I hope, always hope. The point was, they
lied or they thought it would, and then
Israel double crossed everybody, or they all knew
it was a lie. They promised they would
stop and they didn't. Now realize that as
they were doing that, they could have killed
Eden.
And this guy what's funny is, you're may
they make all this big case about an
American.
The reality is he is an Israeli who
has American citizenship, which is still an American,
but it's different as an IDF member who
was in the IDF who got taken as
an IDF member killing people in Palestine.
And yet, what about all the Americans that
were there from the beginning? 600 plus that
NPR told you were in Gaza to begin
with? It's funny how the Stephanics and Trumps
and everybody else, Rubio's never cared about any
of them. In fact, some of them who
were just Americans, who weren't Palestinian Americans, who
were, you know, white Americans that were in
there because they married somebody, but they don't
care about them. In my opinion, no one
matters more than the other. Human life matters.
But they sure as hell only care about
those something with an Israeli in their name.
That's not my opinion. Just look.
He says,
it seems The US objective was to clear
out this one American citizen prior to letting
Israel impose its violent endgame. That does kinda
seem like what happened. Meanwhile, The US has
been pressing Libya to take 1,000,000 Palestinians who
will be ethically cleansed by Israel.
Libya, The US is using this country then
that they destroyed in 2011 and which remains
extremely weak and vulnerable to imperial pressure. Exactly.
It says evil doesn't even begin to describe
what the risk what we're witnessing.
All with the complicity
of Western leaders and the cowardly silence of
Western press.
He says this puts the recent media statements,
mediocre
and belated acknowledgements of the genocide into perspective.
Right? Now, they're suddenly able to call it
out.
They understand that this is the end game.
And then they are scrambling to get their
little statements out before the unspeakable occurs. So
they have some modicum of deniability when the
world looks back and wonders how this was
allowed to happen. The statements from The Guardian,
Financial Times, BBC, New York Times, etcetera. Don't
be fooled.
There is no conviction there. The editors of
these institutions, some of the most powerful institutions
in the world, let a genocide happen on
their watch, and they said nothing.
It's unforgivable.
The blood can never be washing their hands.
They have sacrificed not only their humanity, but
the humanity of all of us.
And this is, another tweet from Jeremy Scahill.
Hamas says Steve Witkoff personally promised that he
would lift the blockade, and they never did.
The US broke the deal, according to Moss.
They threw it in the trash. I don't
even know why they trust them at this
point, but I guess they don't have any
other choice. They were the shot.
But
it's pretty clear where we are. I'll leave
it there for today.
Overall, I mean,
you know, I I don't wanna all hopefully,
you will question even what we're talking about,
especially my opinions. And I hope it's very
clear, and I make it clear, I believe,
when I'm giving you my opinion.
But as far as I'm concerned, the facts,
the evidence,
I don't know how you can see anything
different.
There in regard to the central point of
all this, and I don't even mean foreign
policy. I mean, specifically, like, the dangerous path
that the US government has been going well
before Trump's administration,
well before his last administration. We've been on
a very clear path
that hasn't slowed down. In fact, it gets
faster every administration and usually under the guise
of stopping the one from before.
As James put it, it's a it's a
constant step. They're stepping stone from the next,
and we're continuing, and it's happening in real
time. And I am very much of the
mind that you guys all see it.
Stand up and call it out. I say
the same thing every time.
As much as you may not think it
makes a difference, I know it makes a
difference. I see it every single day. I
wouldn't do this every day if I didn't
feel like it was making a difference. And
I I see it. I know it. And
I I don't mean necessarily we're gonna
win whatever that means or change the outcome,
but I do believe even reaching one person,
whoever you are out there just found this
show, and you're going, man, this is exactly
that that is what I do this for.
And not that I want you to think
the same thing I think, but to instill
the ideas of objective
research.
Right? Questioning everything, being critical of all opinions,
considering all perspectives.
That's what I'm hoping you take away from
this. I can be wrong. My opinions can
be off. I mean, it's about you doing
that and applying it to me as well.
And hopefully, showing other people around us the
same idea, being willing to question these things
and not blindly adhere to a partisan line,
and really understanding how dangerous that truly is.
Thank you for being here.
Please find a way to support this platform
if you believe in what we're doing. We
put out plat you know, long form shows,
get getting back to hopefully five days a
week.
Articles coming out again, getting back to hopefully
multiple articles every you know, throughout the week.
But just the long term work, the different
shows. Then we got the IMA group,
different podcasts we're doing. My point is, if
you believe in all this, all for free.
All just because we believe in the work
and whether or not you decide to get
anything for it, I still it's that's I
do it because of the content. But if
you find value in that content,
recognize that we can't keep doing that without
your support.
So help us share that. If you already
support us, show it to somebody
new. So you know, demonstrate to them our
value and that and set ask them to
support us.
But just being here, sharing the link, that's
that's really what's important.
So thank you for tuning in. I love
you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Oh, oh, you know what? I didn't wanna
say on the way out
just because I thought this earlier.
We talk about a lot of
rough things,
You know, things that really weigh on you.
And so it's always important.
And I mean, I I used to I
mean, honestly, I think you guys can tell.
I myself am more concerned than I have
been. I mean, almost ever. I mean, I
really there's more obvious reasons, but not not
to mention, you know, aside even from the
ongoing massive genocide, to just feel that we're
in a kind of a dangerous path. But
at the same time, like I said, the
reason I think we're getting to this dark
position is because they're the power structure is
losing control,
And that causes things to feel more uncomfortable.
My point though is that
I've I've used to kind of try to
lean in every now and again to, you
know, at least highlight, you know. There's a
lot of good things in the world, a
lot of good people fighting for good reasons.
And I feel like I'd less do that
today because I myself am kind of getting
more consumed by how clearly there's bad things,
but I gotta run myself the same thing.
You know, every single person in in the
chat watching, everybody in the community who is
helping each other, who is, you know, just
everything about this community and what we do,
we have to remind ourselves every day that
there are good people out there, you guys
included, who really believe in doing the right
thing for the right reasons. And and even
the ones that are coming expense or, you
know, they come at a price. The the
the hard thing is,
you know, usually worth doing despite the difficulty,
despite the price. Now point is that don't
forget.
Don't lose sight of the fact that there
are a lot. I'd like to believe more
on than not, the majority of people out
there that believe
in what we're doing, that believe in fighting
for the right things and standing up for
it.
And whether in in government, I mean, I
you know me, I'm a very pessimistic, but
I will never stop hoping for that. And
and looking for those opportunities, looking for the
moments, I can see that. Because I mean,
if we go in a positive direction, I
mean, for me, that would be in a
non government society, but
in baby steps. Then maybe we get to
a point where we start seeing people that
are in those positions that maybe do care.
But don't, you know, be very skeptical about
more than anything, but don't lose hope. We
have to maintain that to see that there
is a possible way through this. I really
believe that.
So all that's to say,
I wanted to end with something nice, something
that that, you know, gave a positive feeling
because I know this stuff can weigh on
you. And even though it's an arbitrary video,
it's not gonna change the world. It's something
we play before. It's it's one, it's the,
thank you for the sunshine clip. I've just
really enjoyed.
But let this carry you into a positive
feeling today and the show in a way
that reminds you
that we do have a lot to be
thankful for. And a lot of good people
out there truly fighting for good things just
like you.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Yeah.