The Last American Vagabond - ‘Strategic Engineered Migration’ To Drive Policy/BioSurveillance & Israel’s Deliberate War Crimes

Episode Date: February 6, 2024

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (2/6/24).As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v497t7k","div":"rumble_v497t7k"});Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): (24) Ahmed on X: "@jacksonhinklle Thank you Israel 🇮🇱 https://t.co/U01xieJZxi" / X twitter.com/tlavagabond/status/1754515496966168788 Ryan Cristián - How to do Objective Research New Tab Texas Border Crisis The New Jan 6th & ICJ Rules Israel Genocide Accusation Has Merit (21) Elon Musk on X: "https://t.co/BDStCsUiDm" / X (20) 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗠𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 on X: "@jsolom100 @SallyMayweather https://t.co/TX5sogNgng" / X Biden vows to ‘shut down the border’ if Senate immigration bill is passed | Joe Biden | The Guardian House Speaker Wants US 'Border Closed' Before Passing Ukraine, Israel Aid (21) The Patriot Voice on X: "It CANNOT be understated. There is a MASSIVE ATTACK being brought on the United States in the form of “Mass Migration” being used as a WEAPON to bring our country to heel politically, and as a means to DESTABILIZE society. 🚨🚨🚨 As well documented in this document from 2010:… https://t.co/vjKEbL68RG" / X Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement as an Instrument of Coercion; Strategic Insights, v. 9, issue 1 (Spring-Summer 2010) Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement as an Instrument of Coercion; Strategic Insights, v. 9, issue 1 (Spring-Summer 2010) (31) The Patriot Voice on X: "Alejandro Mayorkas .@SecMayorkas, the DHS secretary under Biden is ALSO a “Board Member” of HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) .@HIASrefugees one of the many NGOs that is providing shelter, food, and helping to facilitate the INVASION of our border using “Mass Migration”… https://t.co/Ar3nGedxQf" / X Opinion: A Biden Appointee Who Carries the Jewish Story Itself | HIAS HIAS Congratulates Board Member Alejandro Mayorkas on DHS Nomination | HIAS Mayorkas-border-holocaust.mp4 This Is Not Just About the Border... Davos Boss Warns Refugee Crisis Could Be Precursor to Something Much Bigger - Bloomberg WEF_Migration_Report_Embargov.pdf Why it’s time to reframe the migration debate | World Economic Forum Global Appeal 2024 Migration is a model for sustainable development for all | World Economic Forum (24) Joe Allen on X: "RAND Corporation robot Mary Lee explains THE INTERNET OF BODIES How 5G connected biosensors in our clothes, in our skin, in our cradles, in our masks, in our toilets, and in our brains will "help us improve ourselves" and "become a part of the Internet as we never have before." https://t.co/XH7MdxRXMI" / X US Terror Manufacturing Industry, Border Biometrics, Self Assembling LNP & Internal BioSurveillance Gates-Lipid-Nanoparticles-self-assembling.mp4 (24) Thailand Medical News on X: "@P_McCulloughMD @mRNAdeaths @moderna_tx And Now The Latest! Study Involving 50 Over Medical Intuitions Around The World Finds That Pfizer’s mRNA Vaccines Could Be Causing A Silent Pandemic Of Liver Injury! When Are We Going To Ban These Toxic Products!!! https://t.co/Fag4ONCBxH" / X Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA drug and vaccine toxicity | Nature Reviews Drug Discovery Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

I have to thank Israel. I have to thank Israel. I'm serious. Before you get mad at me, you all need to thank Israel. Thank you, Israel. Not for killing over 4,000 Palestinian children in the last month. Not for indiscriminately bombing Gaza, and not even for subjecting Palestinians to more than 75 years of violence.

But thank you for opening our eyes. I've always been pro-Palestine. Palestine. My parents taught me to stand for what's right, but I got caught up in life and forgot what really matters. So thank you for reminding the world that every life is sacred, that in 2023 there is no space for settler colonialism. Thank you for showing the world that you openly, proudly and consistently commit crimes against humanity and are happy subjecting the Palestinian people you haven't already killed or forced to flee to inhumane conditions. Because of you, the world is changing. The tables are turning and the sight of Palestine and humanity

is stronger than ever. Free Palestine. Welcome to the daily wrap-up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant, independent news as we see it from the last 24 hours. Tuesday, February 6th, 2024. Thank you for joining me today. Again, following up on the border conversation, the overlap within the biosurveillance, biometric kind of great reset direction conversation. Today we're going to take it a little bit more in depth, but also multifaceted. I want to talk about a couple more documents that I've seen that overlap with the larger

conversation of weaponized migration and what that means, why that's important. But a term that was applied in this document, strategic engineered migration or alternatively coercive engineered migration coming directly from the naval intelligence or rather naval academy side of like, document, like exploring the idea from like an academic perspective. Just to really highlight in this conversation how indisputably this is something that has been studied, has been used long before like modern society, and very much so, as we'll go through in this document, documented many different times in just like the last 50 years. And interestingly, about the success that it's had, the lack of conversation from even

people that it has been used against and why that is. I think it's a really fascinating conversation. What we're going to talk about is not just that it's real. I think that's an obvious reality, but how this plays into the larger agendas talking about things like the Great Reset or specifically even just foreign policy dynamics or, you know, not division, but adversarial nature of different states and how it can be applied to achieve certain policies. So that's the way I'm looking at it today in regard to what might be driven. as the outcome of this and what might what might be the reason for it from an outside perspective, but almost with almost regardless of whether that's the case or if it's coming from inside,

like this is how I think these governments engage with this stuff today, even something that they may not have initiated can still be used in their benefit. How can we apply this to what we're trying to achieve against our population? Just always considering these different dynamics and how the governments might see it, but specifically how that might apply to what the specifically in this case, the U.S. government might want to achieve. And I think this is what's so interesting about this conversation of biosurveillance, but even further internal biosurveillance,

that it's interesting the way that it's regarded, even in the circles of people that are open to different theories that are a little bit outside the norm. It's amazing to me that something like this is even, like it's almost, it's undeniable as far as I'm concerned. I mean, we've watched the growth of the security state in such a way that even, and even that was pushed back on, you're crazy for thinking the NSA spying on you, and then, oh, yeah, but we are, but it's for your freedom.

And that kind of an escalation every time, or rather just, you know, progress of the conversation where everything that was once crazy and fake and you're a conspiracy theorist is all, oh, but it's real, but here's why. And then it just drifts forward like nothing changed that we can see the development of the security state, wildly invasive. Things they swear will never touch become important for your security the next day. And now we're into the level of the biometric side, the internal side. And this is what I'm talking about is that why it's obvious that this is something that they

would want, even if you want to see it as some altruistic idea for your best interest. You know, bio surveillance is already something they're talking about, being able to watch for new pathogens and whether there's different, you know, genomic shifts that we want to pay attention to it. Even like whether that's about just outside, you know, spreading of different potential pathogens or internally the growth of new variance or new diseases we want to keep track of. Like this is a real current on the surface conversation. And even then, as we've become so accustomed to in this interesting time, they still get regarded as conspiracy theory. But my point is that we can see it even further than that. Conversations from in, you know, being able to internally,

like again, there's a medical side to it. But then there's also just like the actual surveillance side, where we're talking about whether they can monitor certain actions or be able to influence certain kind of tactics or mindsets of larger groups. This is the neuroscience side of it. These are all very real concepts. I guess my larger point here is why we would act like that in any way is not exactly like the next logical step of what they've been doing. I think everybody watching this right now is probably aware of that reality, but it's

alarming to me how little this conversation is being had. or discussed, and you've heard me say this a lot in the last so many weeks because it's increasingly becoming obvious to me how much we need to be having these conversations. But for the border conversation, we'll be going through that in those different dynamics and how that applies. It's always being hypothetical about the things we don't know and trying to theorize about what might happen as much as that's interestingly called conspiracy theory. It's obviously what we should be doing.

We should be theorizing about possibilities of people in power and people in authority or or anybody else who may be able to influence your life. That's just common logic that's being called crazy today. We're also going to talk about the interesting overlap to that into what we recently discussed about the nanotechnology, the self-assembling nanotechnology, the current kind of focus direction on nanotech in general, the medical side of it, but surveillance and a lot of the different ways

and how that is in one part, clearly being driven by the border conversation because of the surveillance part of that. and overlapping that with a couple of medical conversations that will have in regard to, you know, a little COVID-19 medical freedom, a couple points that overlap with that. And then, of course, we have to focus continually because it's important on what is day-by-day happening in Gaza and how many different important things around this are developing. And it's increasingly becoming clear how much more, even as I thought from the beginning,

even more than that, connected to so many different talking points and agendas around the world. and that could be because they were before this, or it could be because Israel is applying pressure in every single point that it knows it can to try to save its dwindling control over what they're doing. I mean, I think it's really important to think about this. That's one of the things that really stands out to me in the conversation of the border.

And we'll go into exactly that, how this could be used to drive certain policy or drive certain actions or gaining concessions from certain entities. That's pretty much the primary point of this document and how it's been used. from a U.S. perspective to do exactly what you're seeing on the border in order to gain concessions from, in this case, the United States. Now, who is more likely to try to achieve that right now? China and Russia, from my perspective, don't, aren't trying to gain any concessions.

There's more of an adversarial foreign policy dynamic when it comes to, you know, borderline kinetic war situations, but with Israel or any, I could add in a couple of other points we'll get to or other countries, I mean, that might see, like Syria, for example, or any number of countries that are currently being stepped on by the United States, Yemen or different countries that might be creating this to drive the United States to change what it's doing. That's kind of the core point. And the other core point is that, as I said earlier, they very rarely tend to let that be known. Why would they want the world to know that a country like, let's just say Yemen is a good example, that's impoverished and has far less influence,

far less military power was able to get them to concede and stop what they were doing. They wouldn't want to admit that. Apparently, there's a classic example going back to Castro using migration to force concessions that we, and these are points that we don't talk about. There's such an interesting underlayer of the real history that we just don't get, and it's not just the United States,

it's just how the power structures work. As I've said many times, I have a line in a song I've written like this, that the history is written by the winning hand. We always have to remember that. The people that win are always the good, rarely are the good guys, and they rewrite the way that we're supposed to understand the way it went down. That's why we gave freedom and democracy to the Native Americans, didn't we, or not. But let's talk about how all of this comes together, as always. And there's a couple points we'll get into it, Israel, UNR, ceasefire, hostage deals.

I'm going to keep covering, staying up on these points because I think they're very important to just the immediacy of the life and death of people in both Israel. by the way, but predominantly Gaza. And unfortunately, more and more so by day by day in the West Bank as well. But a shout out just to Ahmed here, who shared this opening clip that we played. I'm not familiar with him in general or even who this person actually is. But nonetheless, I found it very, you know, this is exactly my sentiment, right? As much as, and by the way, largely what the Palisian resistance has been trying to do for a very long time, that they know there's going to be, you know, at this point, you're under, you know,

brutal apartheid occupation day by day wondering whether your family's going to be killed. So it's in their minds, in many cases, worth taking the risk, knowing there's going to be repercussions to maybe get attention to then maybe stop that in the future, right? Think about how selfless that is in a way, in a broad sense. You can not have to, you don't have to make this about Hamas or one or the other, but just individuals of Palestine who have been fighting, knowing that they will see immediate repercussions and maybe not even see a positive change just in hopes that they could change it for the future generations of Palestine. Think about that. In my mind, that's what a hero truly is in whatever

dynamic you're looking at it in, an American that acts in that way, Israeli that acts in that way. The point is a person who is selfless enough to put their own life on the line for a positive outcome maybe in the future is something that we should praise, which is, by the way, often why I would point, like a Labor Day, for example, or, you know, Veterans Day, where I've made these speeches in the past, it's still important to give praise to an individual who wrongly so thinks they're fighting for freedom under the U.S. military. Because they believe that. That's not what's actually happening. I hope we're all beginning to see that today.

But it's still worth praise to say that person believes they're fighting selflessly for innocent people. You know what I'm saying. It's always a positive thing. But this person is pointing out that what they have done has driven Israel to expose what they really are. And right there, that's where people who are disqualifying. would want you to read that as Jewish people. That's not what we're saying. If the Israeli government and the Zionist entities that are driving the manipulation of all of it have shown you what they really are. And they have changed everything. Doesn't mean it's not going to slide right back into it if we

don't stay on it. But people have changed their understanding of international law, their understanding of the way the world actually works, the understanding of the United Nations, the understanding of what Israel really is and what the United States and the rules-based international order have always actually been, or at the very least, aren't what they thought it was today. That's very powerful, and we can capitalize on that. Now, before we get into more, we're actually going to start today with the conversation at the border. I want to do, I want to go over one thing I think is very important. And this kind of overlaps with the conversation of objective research and being able to discern what is assumption, what is leading, you know, leading information meant to

drive you into a certain talking point that isn't really based in the facts, or at the very least things that we don't have verified that get floated based on certain two-party talking points and so on. I mean, it's really important to be in a position where if you don't, to not self-servingly lean into what you think is the case and then assume based on what is kind of like socially acceptable assumptions. And this exact clip has to do with J.K. Rowlings and whether or not she is a transphobe because she doesn't say exactly what the conversation is that, you know,

basically saying there is a such thing as a different, you know, man and a woman, because that's an obvious biological reality. But remember, there was a moment, which it still gets pushed back now, where it was just like the only thing that matter, typical with the propaganda, or North Korea, then it's Venezuela, then it's trans people, then it's only one thing at a time we could only really care about. And the point was that this was brought up in this discussion between him and his teacher,

and the way he breaks this down, I just think is very important to understand and watch. You guys here probably don't need to see this. That'd be my opinion. But I think it's important to understand. As I wrote, this is what an actual teacher looks like. If only we had more like him to teach critical thinking, as opposed to blind subservience to authority.

Now, those of you that watch this and are going like, well, this is obvious. That's because you've already recognized the way that these things work. But realize a lot of people, shockingly enough, far more than I'd like to believe. I actually don't think it's the majority. That's my positive outlook for today. but I know it's a lot of people that go along with what everybody says. His first point is that, you know, this is what, you know, everybody has said or suggested is a transphobic thing.

So because it is that and it just goes right into that because collectively that's what the society thinks, even if that's real or not, doesn't matter. That's what he has led to believe is an assumption based on an assumption. And so this is how these things tend to work, the two-party paradigm. They drive you into the collective mindset. And that tends to circumvent what you, personally think or what logic dictates because you're part of that collective. And the problem is that this drives far too much of what's going on today.

So listen to this conversation. I want to talk about J.K. Rowling? So what's going on with that? What do you want to know? She's had a pretty controversial past. I just want to know, like, what are your thoughts on it? And like, do you still like her work despite her bigoted opinions? So let's get specific, though. and let's define bigoted opinions.

And by the way, this whole course, rather, as I understand it, is, you know, it's primarily about critical thinking. And he kind of says that during the conversation, but just to kind of set it for you in the beginning, the point is about how it's trying to be an objective, critical thinker. And he's very clear about that. Opinions are bigoted. We're going to treat this as a bigoted opinions. So let's get specific, though.

Let's define bigoted opinions. What opinions are bigoted? We're going to treat this as a thought experiment. I'm not going to say what's right or wrong. or what way to think. The whole point is to learn how to think, not what to think. Oh, my God. Where is this guy?

Can we please get every teacher in the world to pay attention? Yeah, yeah. So when you say bigoted, you're starting with the conclusion that given her bigoted opinions. Yeah. First, let's start with, does she have bigoted opinions? So when you say bigoted opinions? She has had a history of being extremely transphobic, I've heard. And you've heard.

So can you give me an example? If you look at her Twitter, I think you can see a few things. if you want, I could try and find something. See if you can find one. So one of these tweets that she came out with in 2019, she said, dress however you please, call yourself whatever you like, sleep with any consenting adult who will have you

live your best life in peace and security, but force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real. So you find that bigoted? What do you find about? It was deemed transphobic. Like, I myself. By who? Do you find that transphobic yourself?

I don't really have an opinion on it, but I'm just going with... Really quickly. See, this is the interesting part. These kind of people, and it's like, I'm not trying to insult this guy. It's just, it's the way that the system and the ridiculous schools, the broken schooling system, which is just an indoctrination system that we have, it trains people to be passive to the collective thought process. And really what that is, is just what the people, whoever the thought leaders are who see these things into the people, like this. So he's like, he's almost afraid

to state what he really thinks. He's only really willing to stand behind what the generalized concept is. There's so many like that out there. And people like us scare them. Like when we come out and we engage in a really critical thinking way and instead, you know, it's, that's what we need to bridge for them to show them that it's acceptable to be able to step out. Don't be afraid what somebody may call your opinion. Stand behind what you truly think. What a lot of other people have said. So let's pause it. Let's not go with what other people are saying. Let's try and learn how to critically think. So let's analyze the tweet ourselves. So that statement, do you see anything problematic? Disregarding other people's opinions.

She did try and pin some things on a specific group of people. now it's almost as if he's struggling to try to connect it to what he thought he's supposed to connect it to as opposed to just doing what he's saying and kind of going well what do i think right he's still trying to connect it back to that point where does she where does she do that can you read that but force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real so when i hear that i'm interpreting that is meaning if a woman says that you know saying that there's a difference between men and female and then being attacked as transphobic i think that's what she's saying that you're saying that's that you're by attacking someone for stating that sex is real?

That is exactly what she is saying. Is that transphobic to you? So, to me, no. Stating that sex is real is not transphobic. It's just a fact of life. It exists. So is there anything you disagree with in that tweet? In that tweet, I can't really see anything that I myself disagree with,

but I can see why. I some people would think, oh, this is offensive. We can't have that here or something because... Sure. There's an apology tweet. Let's read that. What does she say there? I haven't read that.

I respect every trans person's right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I'd march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it. is hateful to say so. And that's not an apology tweet, by the way.

It's just a follow-up tweet. She's apologizing, so... No? No, not really. If I could read it again... It sounds like the same, a very similar statement as what she was just saying. She's basically saying, like, I have nothing to me.

This is what I interpret it as. I have nothing against someone being trans. Exactly. Exactly. But you just don't get to impose on my... You can live how you want. I can live how I want. Yeah.

That's all, you know. Exactly. So I guess now, so now that we're looking at it like, oh, there's not much difference between me or her, do you, why do you think it's fair that there's a, that she's being attacked by a large group of people and people are calling her, like you said, at the beginning of this conversation, you said, given the fact that JK Rowling is transphobic, how do you feel about Harry Potter? Now, retroactively looking at that statement, do you think that that was the best way to

phrase? No. I feel like an idiot now. It's okay, though, but this is why we do this to learn how to think. Isn't that crazy? You know, and what's wild to me is how rudimentary that is. You know, and it's like a Jedi mind trick for this kid where he's a second, retroactively going like, man, I feel like, and it's just to me, it's like I can't even

really grasp how that's even possible. Like, how is it, like, it's because that this is such a basic fundamental thing, critical thinking. Like, you don't, you just, for instance, if, if a. child is raised in a cave, you know, whatever, in a vacuum, and you're only ever told that when you're, when you're told something, you accept it as fact. Well, that's what, that's what they're, that's how they're taught. So they would go for, and if you came to them and go, whoa, you're supposed to just, you're supposed to go, I, you know, you're supposed to question whether that is the case.

Every time someone says something, that would be like, you know, it would be indiscreet, you would understand. But like, it's, it's like telling somebody from the generation where you read it in the newspaper that it was real. That's just how my grandparents were like that. That's just how it was. You read it? That's real. It's in the newspaper. But why did that ever make sense? Obviously, somebody could lie, but it was the sentiment that became ingrained in the way that they thought. That's what we're dealing with today. Where you come to somebody, but are you sure that's true? And they're like, well, that's what the newspaper. That's what the CDC said. It's like, well, my God. Can you not just question whether they might just be wrong, lying, misinformed?

Like, it's just, but I have a very positive feeling right now about the fact that whether it's because of what, you know, Israel's aggressive genocide that shook everybody free from the system or any number of other things, the COVID-19 illusion that clearly has been failing. People are actually questioning things more than I've seen in a very long time. It is a very positive thing in a very dark time. And I think it's because of the fact that they're so desperately losing control. What else do they do? But push harder, which makes things feel darker and worse and more. But that's, I really feel that right now. question everything guys now on that note seeing as how it's kind of the same point i'll use the opportunity to to recommend the course i have on autonomy how to do objective research which is

interestingly exactly what he's going over and even when i was asked to do this and i got a really positive response from you guys from people in autonomy community i'm myself i'm like i don't is this is this even something that people would be would want it's like to me it's like how this is how you wake up in the morning this is how you you know open your eyes It seems very inherent, but apparently there's a lot of people, not because it shouldn't be normal. It's not, it would otherwise be normal. It's because they have been raised, like I said. They have been manipulated.

Hopefully this can be an antidote to that. So check it. I'll include the link. The links down below if you'd like to check that out. I think it's important. Now, keeping that in mind, this is an interesting point around the conversation of the border. Right? I mean, right now, or really just any topic that's aggressively propagandized through the two-party paradigm.

It's the same concept. And we see this. And it's, you know, it's not in every topic on everything they do, but people are like that kid in regard to J.K. rolling in any number of specific partisan topics where they're just might, a block comes down where they just won't listen or hear or digest, something that goes against what the topics are or what you're supposed to believe about X, Y, and Z. or during Trump's era, which maybe he's coming back again, anything that showed you he was not what they said he was, was Chinese, just didn't recognize, right? And it's the same thing with Biden with a lot of people right now, even though weirdly enough right now, Biden has lost all of that because of what he's doing with Israel. We'll come to that. But we just talked about this in the 27th. Texas border crisis, and I argue is the new January 6th, not in the specifics of it all, but that I genuinely believe, and as I hope I've made clear, with a real actual actual. migration issue that has been manufactured. I think that's quite obvious at this point, driving people to in one part of this manipulation come basically create another domestic terrorism division.

I really believe that. But I'm sort of believe that that's not even the primary objective here. It's always more than one thing. But again, I could be wrong. These are my opinions. I'm providing data points and evidence, and I will tell you when I can prove something for you guys to decide for yourselves.

That's what this show always is. that's why a lot of times people will kind of glean one part of it and act like we're being super conspiracies or just i will happily entertain any possibility no matter how ridiculous mainstream world may think it is which by the way doesn't ever always if ever mean that i believe that i just think it's that kind of goes back to that same opening point people that can't consider other possibilities without accepting them blindly you know it's that that that is true intelligence to be able to consider other opinions without blindly accepting them. Now, on the border conversation, let's start with this clip that Elon Musk share, which I find

really interesting. I've said right in the beginning. I actually, I do not think this is as simple, but it doesn't mean it's not one of the smaller dynamics in all this, and maybe always is, but I do not think it's as simple as saying it's about bringing in lots of migrants to, to vote for the Democrats. First, it's because I don't think it's that simple anymore. I think there's been poll after poll, which never is absolute, if ever even real as far as I'm concerned, but we take the factor it in. The polls would show that I've seen that it's not as simple as all Mexicans vote for Democrats or all people from South America vote for Democrats or all foreign people. It's just not that simple. The idea of the classically held belief is that anybody

who is a, you know, who is not white essentially ultimately tends to vote Democrat. I don't think that's real at all. In fact, I've seen a far more like even just taking the black community, a huge rise in people that ultimately vote for Trump. Or in this case, just that we've seen more and more devise, especially bringing in the Israel-Gaza conversation right now when a huge, huge portion of the global south is like screw Biden, genocide Joe. So maybe they'll still vote for some Democrat side of it. But the bottom line point is, it's not as simple as saying that that's what equals that. But here is, what's his name again? And he says it in here, this congressman arguing that. So you tell me,

what you think. But it's important to consider because it could be one of two things. It could actually be part of this. Maybe there is a very real dynamic about just trying to create more votes, which, by the way, it seems that he almost basically does admit that in this discussion, but it could be that they think that will be the outcome, even though it might not actually be. So it could very well be a central part of this. Here's what they have to say. That's not true. The New York City Council voted in December to allow this. It begins January 9, in 2023, cities in Vermont and Maryland already allow this, and similar measures are under consideration in Illinois, Maine, and Massachusetts right now. And this overlaps with the bill that everyone's discussing,

by the way, in regard to the border. Gentlemen, were you? Yes. I believe those are considerations of allowing votes in municipal elections only. Right, but thank you. That's the point. Look, I just don't understand why from any perspective at all. And this is going to be something that, that, you know, this is a partisan point and taken in some people's perspective, just because I think only Republicans would agree with this largely. But there's no logical reason why you would ever allow anybody who is not here illegally to vote. Like, it just doesn't make any logical sense.

Not, first of all, because they're breaking a law. I mean, doesn't have to be dealt with in the context? Like, just because someone is breaking a law doesn't mean, therefore they can't vote, but this voting is for citizens of countries. That's always how it's been. And that's one, just because I think it's obvious to be able to maintain like, like, how do you even keep track of that? Like, to me, that's a very obviously manipulative point to have more people.

And that's one of these parts is trying to argue that people who are not, who do not have a, let's make it as simple as possible because there's also just people who aren't here illegally who don't have U.S. citizenship, right? And that's kind of where this argument rests. But in this case right now, obviously it overlaps with a whole large portion. of illegal immigrants who are being allowed into the country, right? But if you're going to argue, like, let me make it clear. Their argument would, they'd like you to believe that it's about people who are living here,

who have a green card, let's say, who don't have citizenship necessarily, but who, you know, produce, basically who are producing labor and do things for the economy. I still argue that doesn't make sense. You don't make it as simple as possible, somebody should be a citizen to be able to vote. I think that's quite obvious. It makes logical sense. There's no racism in that. but you could make an argument, I would still disagree with it, that there's a new situation

where you've got a lot of people who are producing or adding to things in the economy, but they should have to vote. I disagree still. But now it's broadened out to all, it doesn't make sense, guys. So it could be that they believe this will gain some Democrat voting side of it, or it could be something more than that. Either way, that's the logic of it all. And it doesn't make any sense.

Same thing with illegal immigrants in general. the idea that somebody who comes through the border illegally should not be able to just enter into the country. It doesn't make sense. Even from the idea of a humanitarian perspective, which you know I always talk about, that our government is driving most of this from their belligerent foreign policy. But nonetheless, it's a law. It's still there. It's like them pretending they can circumvent other laws when they just decide to. It shows you that they don't care about what they hold you to at every moment. Everybody wants to know at home. Why would they allow this? Guys, they're allowing. it because they're going to turn them into voters. They already are doing this in New York City,

largest city in America, and this is the plan of our friends on this side to turn all the illegals into voters. That's it, folks. But see, right there, this is where I get so mad about the way that they, it doesn't just mean illegal. What about people who just aren't citizens? That's within this conversation. But that's what I keep trying to tell you. That bothers me that this conversation just broad strokes anybody currently coming up to the border as illegals. How are you illegal if you've yet to even cross the border. Like, this is what's so frustrating. I'm not disagreeing. There is an obvious issue taking place. There's, and I, this is the obvious issue, which we'll get into next about what I believe is weaponized migration. But you have to also

acknowledge that there are still people who have been coming long before this, 10 years ago. At any moment time, there is still a process of people trying to come through the legal way. But right now, that group doesn't exist. Doesn't that seem interesting? And I, and this is where of the two-party paradigm makes all of this ridiculous because the truth is always somewhere in the middle of both of their ridiculous sides. But you get people that arguably right now, people probably gravatory more towards the right at this moment because their argument, at least to me, seems to make more legal, logical sense. But it goes back and forth. And frankly, I think that's part of the game because your government is always the one manipulating you, which we'll get into

using the left-right paradigm. But my point is that you broad-stroke it and make them all illegals. and then people like us who are able to see it, you know, the critical thinkers, get lost in the middle somewhere. I think it's important to realize that. That's what's going on. That's the game. That's why the border's open. That's why they've dropped. Look, I respect Ms. Lothrin and all her work in this arena.

Yes, I'll yell, Mr. Chairman. I love to hear what you have to say about this. As a New Yorker, I would love to think that New York is the entire country, but it is not. It is not. And consideration is being given to permitting non-citizens to vote. vote in New York and I believe in the capital city of Vermont. I forget which that is. But as much as I'd like to believe it, New York and Vermont are not the entire country. But Mr. Chairman, that's the whole point. This is what's going on, folks, at home.

If you're trying to figure this out, if you're scratching their heads, you're seeing the video, you see droves of people, 2.4 million people coming over the border illegally, the president allowing, the Democrats in charge of Congress are allowing it. The deal is they're going to turn them into voters. You just heard it. You don't have any problem with that? They celebrate it. Here's the deal. We have a problem with it. The Constitution has a problem with it. American elections should be decided by American

citizens. That's it. That's what this is about. I mean, that's just an obvious thing, guys. And you have to take, you have to make, you have to think about this in the context, one, of just the fact that he said, there's a constitutional issue. But what about the fact that, yes, if that's the case, well, then you open the door for an obvious way.

that weaponized migration or any kind of migration being driven from outside, which I guess would be the same thing, could then go further than just being able to destabilize and achieve policy. But then you literally can have people that could potentially influence elections and so on. You know, I mean, look, I agree with the general point people in the chat, like that this theater and, you know, that even as Katie points out, that immigrants don't really vote. And I've seen arguments going both ways on that.

This is why I think that largely this is more of either what they believe, and they're not really the ones truly making decisions, or that this is, as you said, more so theater, and it's much bigger than this. Because it's just not as simple as thinking this. Because right now, that's kind of the general point being put forward. They want them to come in because they'll vote for Democrats. I don't think it's that simple. I think that's clearly not the case.

That's why we're jumping up and down in screaming, my friends on the video, who are commented about this. That's why we're so upset because our constituents are frightened that we are losing our country. We're losing our security or losing our sovereignty because we're going to allow people from 160 different countries around the world to come in here and decide our elections. That's it. Here it is on record. You all heard it.

I'm out of time. I yield back. Right. And so the obvious point is, is that even what's happening? Right. I don't believe for one second that this is a organic election that's just completely influenced by whatever you think. I think we've proven this.

And this is kind of like saying, can we all just acknowledge that your government created ISIS and continues to fund and arm them? And this is a proxy element that you can literally prove? Just like saying, hey, can we all just grow up and realize that we'd literally really do not have an influence on the outcome of our elections? Can we acknowledge that? Can we stand up and say, we do not influence the outcome? It doesn't mean we disagree with democracy or whatever you think it's supposed to be. We have all the evidence we need. Trust me, I'm going to harp on this more and more as we get close to the election like I do every year. But it's just so painful how it

goes one side to the other. The Russians stole it. Then it becomes, you guys cheated. And each one of them points at the end. Like the point is, if that's the case, then yes, you all acknowledge our elections are manipulated. However you think that really is. I don't, I think the point is that we know that our government has manipulated the outcome as far back as we want to look. The machines that we know are manipulated, the people involved with manipulative, or even just the levers I point out every time, the different things they do to manipulate how you can ultimately, it's so obvious to me. Now, again, I'm not, I'm going to go off on a tangent if I get further into it. But the point is that does factor in here, doesn't it? If we think that's the case, they know, I mean, aren't they the ones telling you that the

machines have manipulated in other contexts, but now they're saying, they're stealing our votes. You mean the votes that you're telling us are already stolen? So, yes, I agree that there's more to this picture. But I still wanted to include this, because it's a point that needs to be discussed on how at least the narrative is being put forward. And of course, my, I think this person is just tapping these points. I really want us to recognize how concerning the controlled flow of information, the social engineering, the very surreptitious way that we see, specifically and Twitter being used today. But here's something very interesting,

Sal the agorist said. I really love how he really does seem to be largely immune to the two-party talking points. He says, closed borders is socialism, which I find hilarious because obviously, by and large, you've got the Republican side of this calling to potentially close, you know, shut down any immigration right now until we can figure this out, which is not an illogical point.

I mean, if you really believe that this is like a weaponized migration invasion, which is the term they're using, that's not a neological point, right? I mean, even from somebody who would argue a humanitarian side of it, if that's really what you think is happening, well, of course, you should probably at least hold on until you figure it out.

But his point is that that's a very socialist concept. He says that's why, and this is coming from me. Look, my opinion, as you know well, is that whether you want to talk about democracy or socialism or socialism or any number, government, guys, is the point. It all collects power at the top. It doesn't, Matt, look through history,

history. Our society loves to fixate on the socialism side of it. But look at what we're dealing with right now. Look at what happened. Any of them can do the same thing. It is about the interest of the people in control and whether the people of the country are involved enough to be able to dictate that outcome. And even then, power is going to power. That's how this works. But I just think it's not unique to socialism, guys. And that's just, that's clearly a political manipulation, in my opinion. But either way, the point is what he's saying is in history. And Every Marxist nation had closed borders. It says you don't own the land along the border in this country isn't, quote, ours.

The point is that right now that he's basically highlighting a very clear contradiction to the two-party paradigm concepts. Now, classic Cal Liberty says socialism closed the borders to prevent people from leaving. And show me the data says, exactly. Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing. You inadvertently hit right on the point, right? And that's exactly the whole concept, guys. it's if you can stand back and look beyond the two-party talking points, it all seems to very clearly it's control.

It is about control of your actions and any, really anybody's, because they see you all as the same. That's the point. But thinking about that, here is showing you this was just 27th of January last month, Biden vows to shut down the border if Senate immigration bill is passed. That's what we were just talking about. That's interesting. So the Democrat president says he's going to shut down the border.

That seems to be the opposite of what you might expect in a classic two-party paradigm conversation. And then here's the reverse. House Speaker, I believe that's Johnson, right? He's a Republican. Once U.S. border closed before passing the bill or Ukraine-Israel bill. My point is simply to show you that from, and this was from earlier that month, the point is the same that from either side of the paradigm, of course, using different justifications, border closed, more security, more surveillance.

that's interesting. Now here are the Patriot voice who I'm not really familiar with. I just saw as count the other day. I think actually somebody sent this to me saying it cannot be understated. There is a massive attack being brought in the United States

in the form of mass migration being used as a weapon to bring our country to heal politically and as a means of destabling society. Now, you can agree or disagree. This is his opinion. Largely I agree with the premise, but I think the point from a

Republican perspective on this is that this is done. Well, I mean, I don't want to assume. I don't think even specifically states what, who is driving it. But I would argue largely you're going to get probably a China kind of from a, from a Republican argue. I'm not, who knows? Maybe he's not a Republican.

Maybe he's a patriot. The point, though, is that I think that seems to be the talking point. I, my opinion is it certainly could be. But I think we need to broaden out the scope here and recognize that it could be as simple as our government doing this to us. It could be Israel doing this to drive concessions from a government that's, increasingly stopping their support for the genocide. It could be China because of a long-term plan that destabilized this country. But there's a lot of possibilities, but I think we need to

recognize that in all of that, as I said in the beginning, your government, it's still going to try to utilize that to achieve its ends on top of everything. But it says, as well documented in this document from 2010, weapons of mass migration, forced displacement as an instrument of coercion, strategic insights. This is a U.S. document. He says, this plays hand in hand with the United Nations plan and offers a strategic look at how to invade countries with foreign migration armies using coercion tactics. Threats intimidation, intimidation, pressure. It says coercive, quote from the article, coercive engineered migrations are those cross

border population movements that are deliberately created or manipulated in order to induce political, military, and or economic concessions from a target state or states. And he says, don't think for a second that our military is coming to save us. from mass migration invasion when they literally help write the book on it. So it seems to suggest that he thinks that your government's involved with this, which I would agree with. So this is a good shout out to him for sharing this. I agree with everything you're saying right there for the most part. Maybe save for the, like I just don't know if I'm convinced that this is, again, if it's your government doing that,

I guess you could still call it an attack, I guess, but it might be framed differently. This is, it's Calhoun Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School. Weapons of mass migration. So I have a bunch of, you know, kind of just clips here that we can look through that I wanted to read. And part, you should read through this whole thing. There's a lot more. This could take up an entire show. But I want to just cut to the points I thought were very relevant.

It says this article focuses on a very particular non-military method of applying coercive pressure. The use of migration and refugee crises as instruments of persuasion. Now, just the simple concept of that is, derided, sneered at by people in the Kirk. Even though they've written, I mean, what's funny is you get these kind of large media talking heads, the pundits out there that are, you know, waxing intellectual right now about what's going on on the board. And you can look back and find they have written articles about weaponized migration and

that you bring it up. And it's not just that they go, no, that's not what's happening here. They deride it as if it's a lunatic, like you're a lunatic. That's conspiracy theory. Even though you can find in-depth articles about how it's happened in the past, that shows you something right there. You know what I mean? Like at the very least that they've recognized

they're not supposed to admit it today. But either way, it's a real thing. It's a very studied and historical topic about using this deliberately to achieve an end from them or for yourself. Now it says, as this article demonstrates, not only is this kind of coercion attempted far more frequently than the accepted wisdom

would suggest, but that it also tends to succeed far more often than capabilities-based theories would predict. Typically, these theories are arguing that, no, it doesn't really work, but you'd be interested to know who wrote those things. Groups that I think are more involved than even this document would suggest,

like the United States government. Now, it says this article, the article is organized as follows. I begin by outlining the logic behind the course of use of purposefully created migration and refugee crises and discuss its relative,

if under-recognized prevalence. In the second section, I'll briefly describe the kind of actors who resort to the use of this unconventional weapon, as well as highlight the diverse array of objectives sought by those who employ it. I also show that this kind of coercion has proven relatively successful, at least as compared to more traditional methods of persuasion, particularly against generally more powerful liberal democratic targets. Very interesting.

Now, under defining measuring and identifying coercive engineered migration, It says, coercive engineer migrations or alternatively coercive-driven migrations are those cross-border population movements, like we're seeing today, that are deliberately created or manipulated. That's important in order to induce political, military, and or economic concessions from the target state or states. So the point there is to see that it can be created from nothing or it can be capitalized on. And that's one of the things that their Republican narrative tends to ignore, or rather, I think, from the, self-serving government side of it, push. Because, you know, the idea being that it's all weapon, they're all illegal immigrants, they're all coming to invade.

And then that insults, like people that are aware that there are still human beings within this will push back on that, right? And so you get, you get this, it muddies the waters. Because you can have people like we saw from the Venezuela conversation that are just genuinely trying to get away from what starvation or bombing campaigns. and then they are fleeing to the very, you know, and then they get treated as if they're all weaponized, you know, military aged males and so on.

Now, a point in that in general is that, like I said before, you're talking about long-term migration. It's usually far less likely you're going to find a bunch of women and children going through the During gap, right? The idea is that it's a difficult track. So you're going to find mostly men making these trips and largely sending money back to families that is if they're not actually there for something like this.

so you can see how both sides of it would actually fit, but the point is it becomes all or nothing. Right the side of it saying it's not happening at all, and you're terrible and you hate migrants. It's just, it's some of both. It says the instruments employed to affect this kind of coercion are myriad and diverse. They run the gont gamut, excuse me,

from compulsory to permissive, from the employment of hostile threats and the use of military force, as were used during the 1967 to 1970, Biafran and 1992-195 Bosnian Civil Wars through the offer of positive inducements and provision of financial incentives. Right. Sort of like you're seeing the UN and H-I-A-S do all along the way

as were offered to the North Vietnamese by the United States in 54 to 55 following the first Indo-China War, showing you that they've already employed this stuff in the past to the straightforward opening of normally sealed borders, as was done by President Eric Honaker from East Germany in the early 1980s. Coercive engineered migration is frequently, but not always, undertaken in the context of population outflow strategically generated for other reasons.

In fact, it represents just one subset of a broader class of events that all rely on the creation and exploitation of such crises as means to political and military. ends. A phenomenon that this person writing this calls strategic engineered migration. Very interesting. I mean, this is, I mean, easy to understand. It's very simple. It says coercive engineered migration is often embedded within mass migrations. That's important, like I said, strategically engineered for dispossessive, export, exportive, and militarized reasons, especially when they want you to hate and despise a certain people. Like, that's the Asian provocateur side of this. That could be the entire point. Now all of a sudden, everyone

Brown or speaking in one specific case, Chinese are all a threat all the time. Just so happens to be the lead adversary of the United States. But it says it is likely, at least in part as a consequence of its embedded and often camouflaged nature, that its prevalence has also been generally under-recognized and its significance underappreciated. I would argue deliberately withheld, and its significance deliberately hidden. That's what I think. I think this is a tactic that's been used by the U.S. and many other countries

for a long time, and it's something that they don't want you to be aware of. Because right now, it's a very easy thing to pull on the heartstrings by showing a bunch of people that are suffering on the road while they're the ones creating that. Right?

And then another side of it would be creating a bunch of animosity and hate. Both are used in very specific ways. It is a phenomenon going forward that for many observers has been hidden in plain sight. For instance, it is widely known that in 1972, Ida Amin expelled most Asians from Uganda

in what has been commonly interpreted as a naked attempt at economic asset expropriation. Essentially, the government taking things from you when they're not allowed to or, you know, repossessing your land when they need it for their own purposes. But it's as far less well understood, however, is the fact that approximately 50,000 of these expelled from Uganda were British passport holders.

and that these expulsions happened at the same time that Amin was trying, just so happened to be trying to convince the British to halt their drawdown of military assistance of the country. In short, Amin announced his intention to foist 50,000 refugees on the British, but did so with a convenient 90-day grace period to give the British an opportunity to rescind their decision regarding aid. That's a public example. At a time when people, you know, there was no internet, no way to push back.

The point is that these people were used as a weapon against. the British to get them to do what they wanted them to do. And Amin was far from unique. Under measuring incidents, it says, in fact, well over 40 groups of displaced people have been used as pawns in at least 56 discrete attempts at coercive engineering migration since the advent of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention alone. Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with that. Just one have anything to do with the other? Just a coincidence that the United Nations in 1951, creates the refugee convention, and then from there forward, you've got 56 discreet examples of using migration to manipulate other countries. Hard not to see the connection there.

But certainly could not be, but I think that what we're seeing today shows that at least through that, there are mechanisms or people involved with the body that are, in fact, manipulating that. That's important. Because remember, it's all multifaceted. There are individuals in this, you know, in any asset of the United Nations that in many cases just believe they're doing good. because they don't understand, I think, what the real intentions are. Either way, I think that's an obvious connection right there, the timing of it all. But it's saying, what was I going to say there, displaced people have been used as pawns. Oh, the point was just about some, is a good example, the Kurds. Now, not necessarily mass migration, but seeing how these people

have been used in a weaponized way as a proxy resistant, as a force that's meant to be kind of thrown against their adversaries, and they don't care what happens to them. As as is evidenced by the countless times they've dropped them and moved on, and yet they come back later and they just pick right back up where they were. The point is they always dangle, you know, here we're going to let you have Kurdistan in the middle of Syria, and they've used them. This is how these governments operate. In this case, we're just talking about, you know, desperate people that are byproducts of their wars that they then secondarily drive against something else. It's very just, it's nefarious. Now, it says an additional eight cases are

suggestive, but inconclusive or indeterminate. That's on top of the 56 they can prove. It says employment of this kind of coercion predates World War II. However, he says he focuses on the post-51 period because it was only after World War II and particularly after ratification of the 1951 refugee convention by the United Nations that international rules and norms regarding the protection of those fleeing violence and persecution was codified. Now, again, you could argue that that was in good interest, that they wanted to help

these people. My point is that once that happened, whether or not the UN had mine to use this or rather created it for it to be used, groups like the United States would go, ah, okay. So if now there are rules, right now think like the WHO treaty, right, for the pandemic accord. You could argue that they have good intentions. I don't think so, but about trying to, but the point is the United States entities are drooling at that. Oh, I see how I can use this. All I have to do is accuse Iran of having a pandemic they're hiding and suddenly we can invade the country. Right. So it's, that's overly simplified, but in the same case, you can see that the groups like the United States or Russia or China could go, ah, okay, okay, that if we drive these peoples against their country and then plead to the United

Nations that they need help and no one's helping them. We need, and whose border are they on? Why aren't they helping them? Like you can see how easily that can be used, whether or not it was designed that way. Now it says it was likewise, again, another point, too, is to realize how often these governments will use your good nature and your altruism, your care for human life against you, which does not mean we should not have that. It means that we need to just be aware that they're always trying to use your good nature and your care for human rights against you. But it says it was likewise only then that migration and refugees, quote, became a question of high politics. And that, for reasons discussed later in this article, the potential, efficacy of this unconventional strategy really began to blossom. So just three different points he makes that post-1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, this topic became something prominent. This goes on to say, in addition to the aforementioned fact, and by the way, this is your screen, you can find all this in this document, I just have a screenshot so I could

save it. It says in the addition to the aforementioned fact that this kind of coercion is sometimes embedded within outflows, also engine. engineered for other reasons. Identification of cases tends to be further impeded by two other mutually reinforcing tendencies. States that have been successfully targeted in the past are often reluctant to advertise that fact, even within their own foreign policy establishment. So the point is, again, sometimes embedded within outflows also engineered for other reasons or just naturally happening. So that's important to really understand, but that, as we'll show you in

this link in a minute, how many times that they argue it's been used against the United States. And also that there's examples of the U.S. using it. The point being, though, that they don't want to admit that. One, it makes them look weak. But on top of that, that maybe it could be used against them again. But I just think that's a very telling point. So that's why it's kind of like this opaque conversation where we don't even regard it as real. Then it says, for virtually every obvious challenger, such as the Belarusian president,

Lukashenko, who in 2002 and 2004 publicly proclaimed that, quote, if the Europeans don't pay, we will not protect Europe from these flows, as in migration. One can identify a far less visible counter-example. And he goes on to point out the, after the six-day war, King Hussein of Jordan privately made it clear to the U.S. diplomats, that it was well within his power to turn the ongoing Palestinian refugee crisis into a major invasion. embarrassment for both the United States and Israel if the United States failed to exert sufficient diplomatic pressure on the Israelis to take back those displaced by war, meaning let them return to their homes, which is the right of return, which has never happened. Which is the case he writes,

he discovered simply by chance, while in the archives pursuing previously classified documents on Vietnam. What's interesting, again, another location where the U.S. has used this. But what they're saying first is that Lukashenko from Belarus, the president of the president, president publicly different times said, look, I'm not going to block this so that will affect you if you do not pay what they argued they needed or that was justified in their mind. So again, public, very, and you could argue that was just other natural flows from other things, not natural necessarily because it's being caused by likely foreign policy, but nonetheless, I'll just let them continue on to you.

But on top of that, Jordan, in the same point, knowing that this was something, which makes me kind of, very frustrated that Jordan is keeping secret the reality that they're using these people and manipulating these people and not letting them go back, but they said they would make it more in basically turn it into an embarrassment by highlighting this. So it's kind of the same concept in a more reserved type of way. But this is like a behind the scenes game of badminton where they're constantly going, well, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, but we don't see a lot of this. Then it says, moreover, issued threats may not. may not only, excuse me, issued threats may be not only private, but also conspicuously ambiguous. Consider, for example, which makes it harder for you to then demonstrate if you would like to make it public. Consider, for example, the suggestive reply of then Chinese vice premier,

Xioping to U.S. President Jimmy Carter. So there's precedent here, even from China, during the historic 1979 meeting. After Carter asserted that the United States could not trade freely, with China until its record on human rights improved and Chinese were allowed to immigrate freely, Deng smilingly retorted, okay, well then, exactly how many Chinese would you like, Mr. President, $1 million, $10 million, $30 million? Whether Deng actually intended to influence U.S. behavior remains unclear, he writes, but in point of fact, his rejoiner reportedly stopped Carter cold and similarly ended their discussion

of human rights in China. That's very interesting, right? The point being that just the insinuation that you would flood the borders with millions of Chinese people stopped him from pushing. I think that's the obvious reason you're getting,

what I would argue are the good intentioned people on the Republican side of this, suggesting that this is the case that there is precedent here. But other than the general idea, I just continue not to see any, a larger, there's not enough evidence for me to argue that we know this is China

or really anybody for that matter. But it's certainly one of the possibilities. Now, it says, under types of coercers, their objectives and rate success. It says coercive engineered migration can be exercised by three distinct types of challengers. Generators, you know, literally driving it so you could even argue the bombing, foreign policy, and so on. Agent provocateurs and opportunists. Now, it says generators directly create or threatened to create cross-border population movements unless targets concede to their demands.

So that'd be public, right? Saying like Belarus or Lukashenko, we'll let them go if you don't give us X, Y, and Z. Agents, or agent provocateurs, by contrast, do not create crises directly, rather deliberately act in ways designed to incite others to generate outflows. Many see themselves as engaging

in a kind of altruistic Machavelianism whereby the ends justify the employment of those rather unconventional means. Now, obviously, that's what a lot of people tell themselves, right? We're doing this because we need to justify, you know, like, the same thing our U.S. foreign policy is everywhere else. Like, we're allowed to murder all these people because, well, we're fighting for freedom or exactly what Israel's pretending they're doing in Gaza right now.

Same kind of concept. Because this is illegal, no matter how you look at it. And really a human rights violation. But it says, finally opportunists play no direct role in the creation of migration crisis. but simply exploit for their own gain the existence of outflows generated or catalyzed by others. So there you could, I think these obviously overlap. But this is my point about it in general. It doesn't always have to be some massive organized concept.

They could just recognize people who were already on the move because of what they're doing and then build a narrative around it. And then, you know, deploy certain people to cause certain things. Like you can see how this could easily be all of them or none of them. But it says so when these would be coerzers, be they opportunity. generators, range of provocateurs employ coercive engineered migration. What do they seek? How effective have past attempts been in helping them these challengers achieve their aims,

which we generally already went over? Now, it's a success in this context is defined as persuading a target to change a previously articulated policy, stop or reverse an action already undertaken or disburse side payments in line with a challenger's demands. In other words, most of a challenge's demands were met. So this is the point about success, which they get into arguing is pretty, I'll show you the stats, they say, about 53 to 73%, I think is what it said, successful in those 60s so many times he said has happened in the past. So pretty obviously people are going, okay, this works. But what he's saying is success is determined, is gauged by these metrics.

So you have to very, think about this in the context of China. What would China be trying to coerce out of the United States? You could argue maybe get them to stop the genocide in Palestine. They have spoken up about it pretty strongly. But what else would be the logic there? I think that this is where I continue to think the logic very clearly points at why Israel would be doing this for many different obvious reasons. And then you can overlap that with the H-I-H-I-S group and Majorcas, as well as the fact of a Mossad, rather somebody who was historically caught working to recruit for Assad, the Jordanian who was arrested in Egypt, who everybody pretended

was an Azerbaijani terrorist, and nobody talks about that anymore. There's all these different examples of that. And remember, the guy even said he was from Palestine, even though you can prove he's not. So it seems like there was an effort to just create the illusion that whether it's Hamas or whatever else is coming from the southern border, which was floated many times. And it's very inconvenient for Biden and our government in general right now. So you can see how that makes sense. This one point that says, in the 56 determinant cases, and I'll show you the actual breakdown right here. Oh, wait, that's not the one.

No, it's this right here. So there's two more points. In the 56 determinate cases that he's talking about, that he can prove were weaponized migration, challengers achieved at least some of their objectives approximately 73% of the time. Think about that. So by deploying manipulating human life and driving them at their adversaries, 73% of the time they got at least some of what they were trying to achieve. My God, why, I mean, you can see clearly that this is something that they don't want you to be aware of because it is effective.

It says if one imposes a stricter measure of success and excludes partial successes, 57% of the time. FIPs almost almost 60% of the time they get all of what they tried to achieve. That seems like a pretty success, especially when you could argue that it's very low cost, right? I mean, you could drive something like this and then just kind of keep surging it along, ultimately when it comes to the larger agendas. Now it says fourth, the potential for blowback can be great and intended consequences quite costly. For instance, not only did the U.S. instigated mass. migration of North Vietnamese southward following the first Indochina war failed to achieve

the stated objective from pushing the reunification elections, but it also inadvertently further weakened the sitting regime of South Vietnam while simultaneously increasing the U.S.'s commitment to propping it up, excuse me, showing you that this is just how, you know, the typical clumsy, excuse me, foreign policy of the United States. Where you're doing this to affect your outcome, but at the same time, you essentially shot yourself in the foot. And although it says the Zaire benefited significantly from the concessions he was granted in exchange for his agreement with the Rwandan refugees in mid-1990s, the decision to allow said refugees

to use the camps as bases to launch attacks back across the border provoked enough ire within Rwanda that its government helped engineer his ouster. And let's not forget what happened in Rwanda. It says nevertheless, given its apparent success of 57 to 73%, based on success, partial or complete, for highly committed actors. With few other options, coercive engineered migration can still appear to be a strategy worth pursuing. This is particularly true for challengers seeking to influence the behavior of potentially

vulnerable targets, disinclined to accede to their demands under normal circumstances. Powerful, advanced democracies is his point. So that seems to fit exactly this dynamic. And in my opinion, from what Israel's position, a entity that is in very bad, is it a bad way right now. It's lost aggressive control over its own narratives. People are seeing right through

what they've always been blindly trusting. They've lost support around the world in an unprecedented way. They were literally just accused openly of genocide at the world court. The world court then said the accusations have merit. And now the U.S. is rapidly, and I say that in the sense that,

as the U.S. rarely does things like this, shifting its narrative to say that they need to do more and calling it out in certain ways, casting sanctions on the West Bank settlers. I mean, these are big moves. It's in the sense of how little the U.S. has ever done here, but not in the real sense. Don't you think Israel will try to apply pressure to do that?

I mean, what is Netanyahu said? All the videos you can find of him off the record. That's exactly what he does. He uses things like this to influence the actions of the U.S. government. Let's not forget the overlap of things like the Epstein networks, which we know, as even Acosta admitted, worked for Mossad, in the CIA. These are what we're talking about, in the sense of coercive measures to out, to manipulate outcome. So I think it's a very real possibility here. Now, it's just from the

perspective of a traditional international relations theory, this in and of itself represents something of a puzzle. Weak actors should only rarely challenge more powerful ones. So what makes the world's most powerful democracy to such attractive marks? Why should they, particularly the United States, be most often and most successfully targeted? And more generally, how and why does the human beings, why using human beings as coercive weapons ever work? Well, he goes on to discuss this, but I think it's pretty obvious based on what we've already gone over. Now here, challengers, objectives, like this is interesting to me. So here, you have challenger, so as the person basically creating weaponized migration, and then you got the target. Now, this is obviously written from a

U.S. perspective. I think there's many examples off the top of my head, even one that he seems to mention that aren't listed in here, which is interesting. But my point is, U.S., for the perspective of, let's say, a mindset of this is being done to the U.S., not the U.S. involvement? Well, there's a lot of precedent for that. You can find a lot of examples in the past of the United States being the target of weaponized migration. So it's funny that we wouldn't have more of a prominent conversation about this. Haiti, Pakistan, Cuba, Thailand, so at least as they argue anyway. Now, one example, which is interesting here, as the United States being the one driving weaponized migration against the Soviet Union.

Exactly the point. This is what they've done before. There's a precedent for this. But there's also another one. Wait, where was that? I thought there was one. Israel's done it against Jordan. That's interesting.

Maybe I misread that. I could have swore Israel's done it against the Palestinians. And this is my point in general, guys. People are accusing them of doing that right now. I mean, obviously, let's take an obvious example. What do you think they're trying to do with Egypt? That's weaponized migration. That's why Egypt is so desperate to not let it happen.

And people are trying to frame it dishonestly as Egypt trying to, you know, not caring about the Palestinians. Maybe that's true from the government's perspective. But I think the obvious is that this is catastrophically dangerous. If you let all of these people in, one, as we all know, that's going to be destabilizing. But my point is that that is going to make their, like Egypt knows what that's going to do. Israel is not done with these people. They want to annihilate these people. They want, and guess what happens when Palestinians end up in Egypt and they continue to call out and call for justice?

Do you know what's going to happen? On top of that, they're going to want to eventually go back to what is their territory. Israel is not going to abide that. So then Egypt becomes the default adversary. It's a very obvious reason why Egypt does not want this to happen. I guess I did misread it. In any case, interesting to see all these different examples. Now, he has another point here he makes in regard to my own.

Now, he says, Alejandro Mayorkas, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, editor Biden, is also a board member of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, as we pointed out. He's one of the many, this is one of the many NGOs that is providing shelter, food, and helping facilitate, as he argues, the invasion of the border. He says, understand how messed up this is. The job of the DHS secretary is to ensure that border security measures be taken to protect our country from an outside threat. So you could argue, and see, this is the...

I agree that he's failing in a lot of ways, and I agree this is very clearly being manipulated. But to be objective, you could argue from their perspective that there is no invasion, that they think this, or rather that they want this to happen. So he's not failing in the sense they're allowing it. But again, the static reality is that there's laws being broken. I just don't know how you can pretend that doesn't matter. But he says, Alejandro has done the exact opposite of protecting our border and our security. as noted in this article under the guise of seeking asylum and he is further furthering the UN agenda. And this is the article here from that same group, a opinion, a Biden appointee who carries

the Jewish story itself. That's the quote he references here, but he says it's not anti-Semitic to ask. It's never anti-Semitic to ask a question. He says, why does this organization have a vested interest in keeping our border wide open? Now it doesn't say wide open, but I do agree that it's interesting. And there is an interesting point to this group that I've already pointed at. But this is back in 2020. And, you know, it goes over this whole story about how he's, you know, he's Jewish. And so this whole story carries that it's a, you know, as he says here, Ollie and his family represents so much of the Jewish narrative in that arc.

And, you know, it's just, it's interesting that this is a group that's meant to be, well, anyway, the bottom line is, well, first, that's what I was going to jump to this. We'll come to it next. The point about who they are and how it's interesting that it says that 100 years ago, the Jewish community created this, which doesn't make sense. it's a broad opaque point at a time when there was no Israel. So the argument that this was a Jewish community, that tells me Zionism. This is a Zionist creation about whatever you want to think it's about, which adding

that into the reality of what is happening, I think makes it more clear. But it ends by what he pointed out. As a Latino, the child of a Holocaust survivor, a refugee and immigrant himself, all he is uniquely suited to restore respect for human rights to the Department of Homeland Security, not least because he knows, as H-IAS does, that America is at its greatest when we build not walls, but bridges. So that's what he's taking it from. The idea being that they're, you know,

that doesn't necessarily mean wide open, but I do agree that seems to be the overall point. And this is just showing you that they congratulate him for becoming the DHS nomination, and he's on the board of this company. Oh, and don't forget, here's what he said, which I just think is really interesting. I thought I guess I didn't pull it up one second

son of a gun I download it right here how did I do that my apology's give me one second oh well this was him you can hear it here I don't know if you guys can hear that though I don't think you can

let me do this going to Twitter I'm sure I could find it that important really oh there it is so you correct the spelling and it worked. All right. So here's the video. I'll play this for you real quick. So what was interesting about this to me was that he basically was, you know, confronted about his

bad, you know, what he was just saying. You failed at the border. And yet, for whatever reason, this was his response, which kind of speaks to the point we were just going over yesterday about the idea of constant victimhood. Mr. Secretary, I think that your performance is despicable. And I think the fact that you are not willing to provide answers to this committee is absolutely atrocious. Mr. Chairman, may I? If you'd like to have a minute to respond, you were alive to. I would, and I'm not sure I'll limit it to 60 seconds.

That's fine. Number one, what I found despicable is the implication that this language, tremendously odious, actually it could be emblematic of the sentiments of the 260,000, men and women of the Department of Homeland Security. Number one. Number two, Senator Holly takes a adversarial approach to me in this question, and perhaps he doesn't know my own background. Perhaps he does not know that I am the child of a Holocaust survivor. Perhaps he doesn't. I just think that's ludicrous. So you're not allowed to take an adversarial stance against you because you have family that was in the Holocaust? Like I don't even get how that makes sense.

But it's, you know, and you can even see on what's his names. He was like, his face was like, what did he just say? Very strange, very strange. So all that being said, I definitely think that there's an interesting issue there in regard to how the border discussion and weaponized migration could lead us into one, or rather specifically our government to conceding concessions to whoever's driving it, whether that be Israel or China or Russia or whatever else, but also that how that might be used in real time against us. Now, that could mean that it's created for that purpose, and we are the focus

of that weaponized migration by our own government, which is a unique thing. You know, maybe that's the first that's ever happened that way. Or it's using something that's happening because of some other reason and still taking advantage of it, right? Now, I just mentioned this. We went over this video. I'm not going to play it again, but this is the true street media video. It's, this is not just about the border. I just wanted to show you the images I was showing you before and really just firstly point out that as we go into this topic again and try to quickly kind of make it a smaller version of what we talked about yesterday to show you or day before yesterday how I think this connects, but just recognize something that I brought up more than once in, I don't know,

the sense I've been focusing more and more on the nanotechnology is that, you know, there's a lot of pushback in these conversations. And rightly so, it's a pretty crazy topic. But remember, in the sense of somebody who might reflexively dismiss it before, considering what we're presenting, that if you look back at our track record, let's just take the COVID-19 conversation. But many others, for that matter, we're talking about the Israel conversation for a very long time, that we have a very clear track record. Myself personally, with the daily wrap-up, of talking about things that were contentious, that were way ahead of where the conversation was and people were even people in these communities were going, whoa, that's crazy.

Like almost, and I'm seeing this, I saw the same thing at the beginning of the Israel conversation or people that I respect you. I've got connections with who get very distant from me. that happened during the COVID conversation until suddenly everyone came back around and all of a sudden we were friends again and it just shows you that there's a very clear resistance from a lot of people to things that seem to be ahead of the curve

and conversations that are you know as it like we're going to get into very real, approvable, peer reviewed science, studied conversation with documents for the military like this kind of stuff and yet it's it's weirdly dismissed because it's like with Derek's work on Florida right now which by the way he's doing an amazing work there

at the day five I believe. Make sure you don't miss our interviews, or rather Derek's interviews that have been outstanding. But that one thing that Michael Connett said on his interview was that he's beginning to see that things are actually shifting in the fluoride conversation. And at one point, it was like, you just, you just don't talk about that. No matter what you just, no matter how valid it is. I mean, we're putting in the water. It's real, right? So we should study it. No, you don't, you don't study fluoride. You just don't talk about it. It's bad for your career. It's bad for everything. Why is that? Because there's an obvious agenda around it. But so that means

that all these neat people out there in the field that's supposed to be doing the challenging work are just kind of happily omitting it because they know it's a no-no zone. We don't go there. We don't talk about 9-11. We don't talk about fluoride. We don't talk about geoengineering. That's cowardice, right? That's ridiculous. So I want to point out that in this conversation, again, that it may very well turn out to be that I'm completely off base with this, but recognize that there are valid, provable points to what we're going to talk about. And that I think that I have earned the right for people to convince. consider what we're discussing because of a track record of how much we've shown you long before

it came to be something that was prominently being discussed. Not to say that you should blindly trust it. Question everything, especially what we're going over, but just realize this is not some flimsy discussion. I truly think this is going to be more and more prominent as this goes forward. But this was the video discussing the overlap to the border as it applies to biometrics, but immigration as well. And here was the, I'm trying to see anything else I want to pull. point out. You know, the point about Donald Trump's executive order, about the expedited completion of the biometric entry and exit tracking system, which is also being pushed forward during Biden's administration and as well as the building of the wall under Biden's administration, despite the fact

that they said the exact opposite would happen, again, showing you that from whatever angle, whatever side of the two-party illusion, the same things continue forward. And then the overlap of the immigration discussion and how that's being used. They're pulling biometrics from all of the people there. I mean, it's really, it's an incredible and obvious overlap to the great reset direction. How the tech giants created what DARPA couldn't in regard to the same thing. In the tracking surveillance, this is Palantir discussion, but the UN point, right, how the United Nations is funding, migration, giving them cash cards and so on. So you may think that's benign. Maybe it is. Either way, somebody aside from that, who might see a way to use that for weaponized migration.

could be driving the UN's actions in that regard, or they're a part of it. Either way, it's not hard to see how this very action, whether altruistic or not, can be used against people unwilling to acknowledge it or rather just by people that aren't willing to admit that it's being done to them, like the U.S., for example, but then showing you the, I think it was right here, yeah, this stuff, like this, that's where I got that image from, showing you what they're doing. You know, iris scans, fingerprints, face prints, everything. Biometric. guys. And it's just, it's constant in all of this. And I think that's a huge part of what we're dealing with here. Now, here is an article from 2016. And this is talking about Klaus Schwab. I don't know why that image went

away. That's a video of Klaus Schwab, but this is him talking about this right here. 2016. Davos Boss, because no one only knew we, you know, not the average person at that point, Warren's refugee crisis could be precursor to something much bigger, right? Using these arguments to justify what they need to do. Like, this is where all this goes. And you can see what they're pointing at these things. This is World Economic Forum, 2017. Migration and its impact on cities.

And this is, interestingly, at this point, it seemed like almost a concern about how it could be problematic. But you see this slowly start to kind of shift around. It's both, to be honest. But you can see, this is 2023. Why it's time to rethink migration. Here's 2024.

Global appeal. And if you read through all these documents, which it is worth more time, but it would, again, take an entire show to go through those. This is from UN migration. I think, and this stands for, what was it again? It's in here, right here somewhere. Intergovernmental organization, no, it's not it.

International organization for migration. It's very interesting. Like, why you would need that? It's either way, this is about, in my opinion, maintaining this. And if you read through these documents, it's very clear that this is just a constant reality. And the people are migrating. We have to make sure that they have what they have. need. Again, you could see that as altruistic, but either way, they could be part of it or people

behind them could be driving their altruistic actions in the same way. So it still amounts to weaponize migration. And these are people that are being given the means and resources to continue along the path. Here is 2024. Why migration is a model for sustainable development for all. So you see how interesting that arc is to all of a sudden being like, this is how we're going to save everything. I don't find that to be an accident. Rolled economic forum all the way along. Okay, so getting it into where I think this is clearly, my point in this is that what are we talking about from the World Economic Forum? What has been the primary point of all of this? The fourth industrial revolution, right?

Actually, this is a good time to play that clip. Let me see if I still have that here. Clous swap. Talking about the idea that we're going to be merging our biological, our digital lives, right? How all of that applies. I think that's very important. And it goes much beyond the basics. Even the stuff we've talked about in regard to just the pandemic illusion.

Doesn't think I have it uploaded. I'll play this one really quickly, at least part of it. What the forced industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities. The difference of this forced industrial revolution is it doesn't change what you are doing. It changes you if you take a change. genetic editing. Just as an example, it's you who are changed and of course this has a big impact on your identity.

It is important to use the COVID-19 crisis as a timely opportunity. So people assume we are just going back to the good old world which we had and everything will be normal again in how we are used to normal. the old fashioned. This is, let's say, fiction. It will not happen. The cut, which we have now, is much too strong in order not to leave traces. There's another one that I'm trying to find that is, I don't think this is it either, but it shows you the overlaps to where this is all going. One of them was really good, actually, but I don't think this one was it. Nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated.

Are you vaccinated if I ask? Yes, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I'm very pro-vaccination. We've, the science is unequivocal. Can you imagine that in 10 years when we are sitting here, we have an implant in our brains, and I can immediately feel because you all will have implants? Just think of sensors planted into our brains.

Basically, implanted in your, skull. So, but it would be flush with your skull. So you basically take out a chunk of skull, replace, put the neuralink device in there. You put the electrode, you'd insert the electrode threads very carefully into the brain. It doesn't change what you are doing. It changes you if you take a genetic editing. It's a fusion of the physical, the digital and the biological world. That's really the essence of the fourth industrial revolution. A merger with biological intelligence and machine intelligence.

An effort for man to merge with machine in a healthy way. Yes. To beat machines, you basically have to merge with machines. Most likely, yes. As work is changing, is a universal basic income really a solution to this problem? I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. And I think some kind of a universal basic income is going to be necessary. Decarbonization of the economy. Where are they traveling? How are they traveling?

Yeah, this is the carbon tax. The last one, I think it's obvious. Well, the point, there's a video that I made that I put together that I'm going to have to find. It was a really great compilation about the direction to the nanotechnology side of it all. I'll see if I can't find it while I'm playing something else. But I figure I'll let that play anyway. The point is how all of this drives in a very clear direction. And this is where people tend to get to pause, right? All this you can see. You can see all this being used.

You can make sense of it all. You can make sense of the great reset, at least now. But it's about much, much more than that. And again, even with what you just heard, it's on the surface. They're telling you where this goes. So here's a great clip from Joe Allen, the Rand Corporation. And this is from 2022, I believe, a TED Talk, the Internet of Bodies. Which, remember, we're past that already.

That says how 5G connected biosensors in our. our clothes, our skin, in our cradles, and our masks, and our toilets, and our toilets, and our brains will, quote, help us improve ourselves and become a part of the internet as we never have before. And this is where I'm telling you, it's everywhere if you're paying attention. They're driving and pushing and suggesting how all of this is where it's all going to go, from Elon Musk to Kual Schwab to your government, to TED Talks, to everything, and yet it's fake news conspiracy theory everywhere else. And my point is whether or not this is already being ceded, driven, used, tested,

rolled out in ways that we can't recognize because we're not looking for them. Internet of bodies, an ecosystem of internet connected devices that can alter the capabilities of our bodies or collect personal intimate data about us so we can learn more about and improve ourselves. There's a small but growing movement of people who are early adopters of radical technologies like self-implanted devices. The popularity of the internet of bodies is growing because, because in addition to improving our health, these technologies can make us more capable, more efficient, more productive, and make our lives more convenient.

The Internet of Bodies is going to revolutionize medical care. There are even devices for babies like smart diapers and smart pacifiers. So the Internet of Bodies might be a part of people's lives starting from before they're even born. Satellite Internet is going to bring the Internet to remote or rural areas by putting thousands of satellites into low Earth orbit. 5G, by some estimates, is going to be able to support around 1 million devices in the same area. Massive amounts of computing power, in combination with machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms,

are going to allow us to personalize solutions that support how we live, work, and play. In the near future, imagine that you pop an electronic pill that measures the nutrients and bacteria in your gut, we can also think about how they'll impact us at the community level. Maybe the internet of bodies can help us stop the next pandemic. In addition to the contact tracing apps on our phones, one day we could have sensors on our masks or on public toilets, doorknots, and elevator buttons, and we might know exactly where a disease has spread. I'd like to take you even farther into the future.

It's going to be even more radical. A built-in personal assistant could be implanted. right into your brain. Instead of typing up your shopping lists or social media posts on a keyboard, you could have a brain computer interface that automatically types your words when you simply think about them. We'll be able to connect to and become a part of the internet as we never have before. Thank you. That's terrifying. Here's another one. First off a video, it's going to make you see the future and understand a wonderful future where we can use brainwave. to fight crime, be more productive, and find love.

Let's roll. You're in the zone. Even you can't believe how productive you've been. Your memo is finished. Your inbox is under control, and you're feeling sharper than you have in a decade. Sensing your joy, your playlist shifts to your favorite song. Sending chills up your spines, the music begins to play.

You glance at the program running in the background on your computer screen, and notice a now familiar sight that appears whenever you're overloaded with pleasure, your theta brainwave activity decreasing in the temporal regions of your brain. You mentally move the cursor to the left and scroll through your brain data over the past few hours. You can see your stress levels rising as the deadline to finish your memo approached, causing a peak in your beta brainwave activity right before an alert popped up, telling you to

to take a brain break. But what's that unusual change in your brain activity when you're asleep? It started earlier in the month. You send a text message to your doctor with a mental swipe of your cursor. Could you take a quick look at my brain data? Anything to worry about?

Your mind starts to wander to the new colleague on your team, whom you know you shouldn't be daydreaming about, given the policy against intra-office romance. But you can't help fantasize just a little. But then you start to worry that your boss will notice your amorous feelings when she checks your brain activity and shift your attention back to the present. You breathe a sigh of relief when the email she sends you later that day congratulates you on your brain metrics from the past quarter, which have earned you another performance bonus. You head home jamming to the

music with your work issued brain sending earbuds still in. When you, you're When you arrive or work the next day, a somber cloud has fallen over the office. Along with emails, text messages, and GPS location data, the government has subpoenaed employees' brainwave data from the past year. They have compelling evidence that one of your coworkers has committed massive wire fraud. Now they're looking for his co-conspirators. You discover they are looking for synchronized brain activity between your coworker. and the people he has been working with.

While you know you're innocent of any crime, you've been secretly working with him on a new startup venture. Shaking, you remove your earbuds. What do you think? Is it a future you're ready for? You may be surprised to learn that it's a future that has already arrived. Everything in that video that you just saw is based on technology that is already here today.

Artificial intelligence has enabled advances and decoding brain activity in ways that we never before thought possible. Yep. It's all, and that's not new, right? Those are things you could show people today, and they would say that's fake news. Now, the one, of course, I couldn't find, but if you guys remember, I made a video that was like a compilation,

you know the ones that sort of checkmarks of all the Elon stuff that overlaps the World Economic Forum, I made one that was longer than that intertwined a bunch of other stuff. If somebody remembers where that is, send it to me. I'd like to remember. There's been more than one time in the past. I've wanted to reference that. I couldn't find it.

So this being the obvious point, right? So this direction is obviously where they're driving. And they being, you know, corporations, government, everything. It's obvious. Nanotechnology is the big future. So my worry, as we just talked about a lot of this stuff, is where these things overlap. Right? The surveillance aspects of what's happening on the border is that driving more of this to be justified,

to be normalized and over all of that, is there more of this that is clearly being used already? Has it already happened? If we're talking about the internet of bodies, realize that how is that possible? How is your body connected to the internet? Because there are actually examples of this, but they're presenting this as the future right now.

Now, there's also a clip from that where they talk about the scarf that you wear during work that shocks you if you fall asleep. And this is internal stuff. And, again, this is exactly what we're discussing about the internal biosurveillance, the idea that this is, of course, completely secure in private. Never.

It never actually is. As we talked about the internet of bio-nanomthings, which is the overlap of the nanotechnology connected to the internet that's actually intertwined within your body. These are all right now discussions, real stuff, as well as the idea we just discussed about, again, the border biometrics and how that overlaps with the conversation of, as we saw from Bill Gates,

the self-assembling lipid nanoparticle conversation in internal biosurbalance. So this show goes into a broader way of how these, things can intersect. But on that point, considering the fact that we're talking about surveillance and how that can drive the biometric and even more so invasive surveillance, this is the clip we just played the other day. I wanted to mention this again and show you the point that I made that I think is important there. This is what he said at a USA Today interview. In the MRNA is really easy and really cheap. And that's the magic of this thing.

but there's no doubt in the next five years, we can, you know, we just need to mess around. There's a lot of lipid nanoparticles, and some are very self-assembling. There's no inherent reason it's not thermal stable. It's not cheap. Very interesting, right? So very clearly, and it wasn't a mistake,

said some are self-assembling. Here, and we've talked about this many times here. I think I've grabbed one of them right here. Or did I close it? Just a couple different points. just to show, you know, the idea of this is not something that's, it's very public, despite people who want to act like this is not what people think it is, self-assembly of nanoparticles, right?

And we've talked about quantum dots. You know, the point is that this is not the same thing as, as any number of other things we've discussed. This is about specifically nanotechnology that can self-assemble. It's point simple, and I'll show you this so we get to it, and why this is possibly utilized already, and if it's not what it means and what this could be used for, Now, his point was that there is a lot of lipid nanoparticles, which is the kind of central part to them, as of showing you going all the back in Charles Lieber in regard to the virus-sized transistor and how that was utilized to enter this into a cell.

And the idea is this is the component that has, as they argue anyway, made this, quote, successful despite the fact that it's hardly that. The question is whether or not there's other things involved with that. There's a lot of evidence suggests that that's possible, likely even. the DNA contamination, the extra proteins, the frame shifting conversations, and all this, you know, whether there's other things within these shots. I think it's quite clear that there's at least, whether that's by design or not, things that are not supposed to be there. So this point, Dr. Peter McCola spoke up in this, just, you know, seemingly unrelated,

lipid nanoparticles go everywhere and cannot be targeted to specific tissues. He says it means that MRI vaccines will damage the heart, reproductive, and other vital organs, we should all by now, no. He said, this was known for years before Moderna introduced their failed COVID-19 vaccine. Here's this, the clip from Dr. Kat Liddy. Moderna didn't respond to request for comment. It says the technology used in Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine

carries toxicity risks, scientists with the company said in a newspaper. The major challenge now is how to efficiently de-risk potential toxicities associated with MRI technology. Guys, this is what Fauci wrote in his article. It failed. We know this. And they're still pushing it and acting like it change. Here's the study you can read for yourself. Strategies to reduce the risk of

MRI drugs and vaccine toxicity, right in the abstract. It says avoiding unacceptable toxicity with mRNA drugs and vaccines presents challenges. Yeah, you all found out for the last three, all the people that took them without question. Lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complex mRNAs all present toxic concerns, toxicity concerns. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, that's exactly the point. Like a lot of us were saying, the lipid nanoparticles alone,

the MRNA alone, the spike protein alone, let alone combined, each one of these things have individual problems that they didn't seem to care about. And as Derek Rose pointed out in his Disease X article, they publicly acknowledged the fact that this was what they wanted, not what was best suited for the problem, so they made that what they focused on,

an underdeveloped platform technology. That's exactly the way they framed it. So it was an open experiment, which is where I come with this point. But the idea that I think something else was being done, maybe multiple things. Is smart dust already in the use of the population? That's a yes, regardless of the first point. Was COVID-19 an attempted experimental next step for something? I think that's exactly what we're dealing with, that these were experiments that we were being tested on.

And plenty of perceived very smart people are just too blinded by their own perceived intelligence or willingness to go along with what other people are told smart people do. So they ignore the obvious, the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that there was something else going on here. Not just, oops, we made a mistake and it's hurting everybody, but they're still doing it, but that there was something else that is still being figured out. It says how cell tropism and tissue distribution of mRNA and lipid nanoparticles can lead to toxicity, duh, and other possible reactogenicity. We focus on adverse events from MRI applications for protein replacement gene editing therapies as well as vaccines.

That's the article you can read. Do you want to go more in depth that they're discussing? He references. The point is they go everywhere. As we've known from the many autopsies, we've seen that nobody wants to acknowledge, they'd find lipid nanoparticles and even their own study. Remember, of lipid nanoparticle toxicity found it way too concentrated in the spleen, in the liver, in the reproductive organs.

Remember that? Nobody cared. It was in their own documentation. but they go everywhere. That's important for the next point. But this is a side note, Thailand medical news points out. And now the latest study involving 50 over medical institutions around the world,

I think other find that Pfizer's MRI vaccines could be causing a silent pandemic of liver injury. That's not the first time that's pointed out. It's just all these things. It's so obvious what these things are doing. Which is, I think it's at the expense of everybody to find out something, to achieve an end. So knowing these things go. everywhere we need to ask, that's just not miss it, is that part of what we're discussing?

If he's talking about self-assembling nanoparticles, it could be the next step, or it could be something that was already discussed and that's normalizing your understanding of it, nanoscale self-assembly for therapeutic delivery. This is just showing you that the point is, from a health perspective, that this is already being proposed as the next step, the future, this is 2020, to use self-assembling nanotechnology to help deliver therapeutic concepts. Now, for those that don't understand what this looks like in a basic, the idea of self-assembling nanoparticles. This is, this is the outcome.

Here's how it starts. And by the way, this is from the Argonne National Laboratory, a verified check if that means anything to you. So all it's showing you, these are nanoparticles. I believe this is in vitro, so they're really just doing a test, and showing how they alone, but with some kind of coaxing, whether, you know, magnetogenetics, optogenetics, something out from the outside, causing them to assemble

and form structures that were not otherwise there. And this is where it gets really interesting. Really quick, you get the point so you can see how they've come together, right? This is an older video, too. So here is another example. This one's just self-assembling wires. The same point, really,

showing you how these things react and how they can be manipulated. And another example of a self-assembling nanotechnology aspect is graphene oxide. We've talked about that. It's very widely studied for specific vaccinology technology for any number of other things. Oh, it's going really slow as the point. So you can see, it's just slowly, slowly growing. See it?

That's self-assembling nanotechnology. And it's being driven by this wire. That's what it ends up looking like, right there. there you go okay so the point about this is this is being researched and studied and theorized and possibly already in use about how these things can be utilized in your body now understand this is not my theory these are facts about how they can utilize not does not be this exact thing but other self-assembling nanotech nanoparticles in your body for things like this

to deliver therapeutic substances right so understand it doesn't have to be graphene oxide. There's a lot of other possibilities here. But the reality is that these things are being discussed today as how they can be utilized to do things like we're discussing in regard to vaccinology, therapeutic delivery, and who knows what else. I'll include this article, just Wikipedia, just to give you the basic understanding of what self-assembly of nanoparticles are, how it can be driven. Let me see if it even mentions this. Look like it. Oh, down there it does. Stacks of graphene nanocompassers. But very real, very long-term.

Saw me, 1997 is an article written about quantum dot assembling nanotechnology. So it's not very new. Oh, I did have things. Here's what it says. A self-assembly can be directed in two ways. The first is by manipulating the intrinsic properties, which includes changing the directionality of interactions or changing particle shapes. All right, so direct its direction and how it can shape into certain things.

The second is through external manipulation by applying and combining the effects of several kinds of fields to manipulate the building blocks into doing what is intended. I think it's pretty clear, right? But they can create things internally or wherever by driving it with certain fields, magnetic, lights, whatever else we've talked about, and can drive it to create things. Now, the mind, as we understand it today, are the way we perceive this. It's hard to think about this in a way that makes sense until you realize that the building blocks needed are things that are as simple as DNA.

we're talking about the microscopic scale at this point for the most part like virus-sized transistor level and the idea being that these are materials that might be needed to grow or create or you know like for instance the point they say they're going to turn your body into a drug factory and turn your body to something that's creating the proteins that they need now that's as simple as we've talked about with the MRI technology by creating what's simple but creating the situation where your body then creates the protein they say you need right but this is talking about having something that's in your body it can then itself then create whatever they decide it needs based on the material that it's been provided for it.

Here's the next point. Drug delivery. So this is in, this is all the way at the bottom down here, just you can see it. A lot of information, but way down at the bottom, it talks about biological applications, drug delivery, and so on. Here's what it says. Black copolymers are a well-studied and versatile class of self-assembling materials, characterized by chemically distinct polymer blocks that are covalently bonded,

chemically bonded, to spontaneously form nanoscale patterns. These copolymers offer the ability to self-assemble into uniform nanosized missile. Let's see what that one's standard for again, Micellies or Micelles, like I think it was aggregate of molecules in a colloidal solution, such as those formed by detergents. But just say you can see aggregating, forming different. substances or rather structures. Excuse me.

And it says, and accumulate the in tumors via the enhanced permeability and retention effect. So here's an interesting point, whether or not these things are adding to the turbo cancers that we're seeing. And that's just one more byproduct of them trying to figure out how to make this work for them. Polymer composition can be chosen to control the, I think it's Maciel. Masele, it's probably mycel size. and I could just look it up, but I don't care,

and compatibility with the drug of choice. The composition can be chosen to control the size as well as the drug of choice. The challenges of this application are the difficulty of reproducing or controlling the size of self-assembly nanoparticles, preparing predictable size distribution and the stability of the mesel

and with high drug load content. Right, so we could argue these are things they're still trying to figure out. And by injecting a lot of people around the world with their gene therapy to see how they could make this work or not, is one way you could look at that. Magnetic drug delivery. Magnetic nanocanes are a class of new magneto responsive and super paramagnetic nanostructures with highly and stratropic shapes, chain like, which can be manipulated using magnetic field and magnetic field gradient. The magnetic nanocanes possess a attractive properties which are significant, added value for many potential uses, including

magneto-mechanical, actuation-associated nanomedicines in low and super-low frequency, alternating magnetic fields, and magnetic drug delivery. Simple. The point is that you can obviously see how that plays into a lot of different conversations and the idea that these things very well could be. I mean, if you look up, if you look at the source materialness, these is old stuff, not old as in, but you know, not from the last year. Nanoparticles under cell imaging have good biological labeling and sensing because of brightness and photo stability. Thus, certain self-assembled nanoparticles can be used as imaging contrast in various systems. Combined with polymer cross-linkers, the fluorescence intensity can also be enhanced.

Surface modification with functional groups can also lead to selective biological labeling. Point is, obvious that these things are useful in a lot of the different things we're discussing and possibly, I argue, are things that have been already deployed, tested, and used. Now, this is where my point comes into the idea of the shots that were already deployed than what we're already finding out about it. So hypothetically, and again, just hypothetically, we're talking about a potential nanotechnology or self-assembling nanotech that could have been used. And if that was the case, what were the materials?

Right. What would be, how could it utilize, what could it build without material? here. Well, here's one of these possibles, right? It could be things that have already been put in your body, like all the different garbage that we pretend that they don't know about. Lifosate and PFAS and dioxins and whatever else. Maybe that's what's going on. But here's an interesting point. 2016, using DNA to program the self-assembly of colloidal nanoparticles and microparticles. Well, that's pretty interesting. It says DNA is not just the stuff of our genetic code. It also, it's also a means to design self-assembling materials.

Ha. Grafting DNA onto nano and micro particles can, in principle, program them with information that tells them exactly how to self-assemble.

You don't say. Well, that seems pretty damn interesting, doesn't it? Especially when you realize DNA fragments detected in both the monolvalent and the bivalent Pfizer and the Moderna shots.

How did that happen? How did they all make the same exact mistake in every single version? Think about that for a second. You're talking about Pfizer's original shot, and then it's by valent, and now the current ones, and then Moderna's completely separate, not the same shot, and their first version, and their second version. But yet they all continually have the same mistake, oops, DNA fragments, or not.

Just something to consider. The reality that we have to understand by now that these things, like, it's just not possible to me, that they exactly failed in exactly the same ways multiple times in a row. different companies with different iterations. That's ridiculous. This is the stuff that, I'm blanking on his name off top of my head. I don't know why.

I have his clip right here. Shoot. We should be having a public dialogue and it should be something that arises to the level of legislation. We should not allow the National Institute's Health or the Department of Defense to allocate funding to amplify these agents so that allegedly we can study,

them in the case that they fall into the hands of bad people because the evidence has shown us that the bad people who actually have unleashed these pathogens since 1991 and by the way if you go to the miscellaneous memorandum seven and other documents we can go back to the 1950s the bad people who unleash these things on the population are us it is the u.s who's doing it barton thank you I greatly respect him too. I've just completely spaced on it. So, clearly, that was not an accident.

David Martin, yeah, I don't even know how you could accidentally do that. Like the odds of that are ridiculous. Oh, and by the way, here's just another example. This looks weird. It's like a weird PowerPoint presentation, but this, you can see the URL. This comes directly from the South Carolina legislature,

from, you know, dotgov right there. And it's simply saying, as a matter of fact, which in their opinion, but I agree. The Pfizer-MRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasma DNA vector that was used as the template for in vitro transcription reaction. You'd think this would be huge news, but the corporate media who are only gatekeeping controlling of narratives don't care. This DNA could be the cause of some of the rare but serious side effects, you know, that could, or it could be the spike protein or the mRNA or the lipid nanoparticle or all of it together and how dangerous it all is regardless.

But my point is, as you know today, related to what that could be used for. So now you've got four things pumping through your veins if you're that following, if you follow that much of their narratives. So you've got a lot of DNA contamination, which then seemingly could be utilized if and when you did have self-assembling nanoparticles that could be using that, as we discussed, to program the self-assembly of these nanoparticles or use for building blocks. And this was the science.org article.

Further evidence supports controversial claim that SARS-Cov2 genes, and that means, by the way, same as the shot itself, can integrate with human DNA. So the point there is that there's another overlap to how your own DNA might be manipulated in a certain way to cause a certain outcome. As I said before, completely hypothetical. I'm just throwing out possibilities

based around the factual information that we can prove. Now, considering all of that, I think it's still a very valid question to wonder whether or not all of that, which, by the way, is not even contentious these days. Seems like everybody at some level thinks something like this was simply another experiment

to see how these things, could be effective. Or really, as we've talked about a lot, like we've talked about, I think it was the interleukin 12, I forget the number, one of the interleukin discussions about how that could be

an experiment into aging, how to, you know, basically reduce or lower your aging process. Reduce is a better way to put it. There's a lot of these things. So I think there's multiple aspects of this. And then rich people weekly, lastly points out,

for those who haven't read it, he points to his articles here, which I do agree are, very important. I've been trying to get him to write another one for the substack or TLAV. The widespread gene therapy problem, as well as the solution, willful misconduct. And he writes, this was always about the platform and normalizing gene therapy itself. He says he believes that he's articulated how to defeat the widespread use of this tech here. So check it out for yourself. But again, my personal opinion is I think it is bigger than that.

Now, let's talk about the Gaza genocide. But as I said, before, consider how this in itself might be adding to a larger agenda as well as going back to the original conversation about whether or not the Israeli government might see an interest in driving, forcing concessions or

a lack of certain actions from the U.S. government. Times of Gaza reports today as it's been doing pretty much every day and in similar amounts, which is horrifying. Update just today. One killed, five injured after the Israeli occupation targeted a nearby school. Actually, I think

this was the wrong one. Either way, it's important to report. There's two of these from God, the other one was the amount of people killed in the one day, which I think was 175 across multiple locations in just one day. But this is a one killed, five injured after the Israeli occupation targeted a school filled with this place people in Con Unis, you know, the safe location. One killed, multiple injured, an air strike on an agricultural land in Rafa. The other safe location that's supposed to go to after this safe location is moved from, because that makes sense, right, as they're bombing all of it, continuous shelling at the Al Shatheu. refugee camp in Gaza.

This has gone from deliberate, obviously deliberate, to insulting, like laughing in your face that they can keep doing this. It makes me sick. But there's, people are starting to push back. Let's not forget, actually, I should have grabbed that. I forgot this was Belgium. Let's see if it comes up. Yep.

So Belgium, as Knox Belil says, second to major ramification for Israel from the ICJ ruling. The minister president of the Walloon region of Belgium has suspended two arms export licenses for an arms company shipping to Israel because of the ICJ ruling. Let there be momentum. Absolutely. I hope this explodes in that direction. The point though, as to scene points out, Belgium refuses to cut on refunding to Gaza, which happened a few days ago. and that same day, Israel bombed the Belgian agency for development in Gaza, or might have been the day after that. I just, that's my point. That's laughing in your face.

That they, oh, yeah, oh, yeah, you don't want to tow our line as a government entity. Well, we're going to bomb your building in Gaza. There's not even a justification around it. No one said anything about me. He cares. As I said, after at the same point, that's what happened. I just think that's incredibly obvious. Showing you that they really do think they can get away with it

or I guess they've gone to the point where they don't care. Like they're so far past the point, they know you see it, they don't care. And then here is the article that they're suspending the arms. You can read about it. Tiberius writes, and this is important, this is, I'm going to do a couple quick points on the hostage exchange here. And this is what's so frustrating is there's so many lies flying around.

There's so many people, the typical culprits I point to out there on Twitter that are just blatantly lying. For instance, like this. And yet some people still fall for it. He said he's framing the conversation, Hamas. And, of course, I don't see it as all one thing at this point either, or the idea that some of them. My point is, I would look at it for more of a Palestinian resistance perspective. We want the end to hostilities and a lasting peace with Palestinian self-determination at the center of this and all hostage releases by both sides.

And by the way, that is exactly what Hamas is saying. It's publicly discussed by pretty much all corporate media at this point. We want a full exchange and ongoing peace ceasefire. Israel responds, we will temporarily pause the genocide and keep most hostages and deny you a state, but we want our hostages back. That's the deal, right? Hamas says, well, no, we want a lasting resolution. Israel says no.

Paid Zionists on Twitter, Hamas doesn't want a ceasefire, we told you. That's what keeps happening. It's insulting. And it's crazy that it's, I mean, are there that many people that just literally can't look for themselves that they just blindly take the narrative at face value? Maybe. Here's NBC. Hostage talks continue as Israel rejects Haas,

demand for a full idea of withdrawal, which of course, they can't even frame it on it, like demand. They offered this agreement. Israel rejects it. Israel offers something that not even their own people are asking for. Their people are the ones going the first and foremost over everything else.

We want every one of our families home. And then, yes, I think a lot of them still want Gaza to be destroyed, but they're the ones bursting into the Knesset going, how dare you act like you're acting on our behalf? You are getting our families killed. I keep showing you videos. The majority of the Israeli population seem to be predominantly in favor of the first and foremost accepting the deal. And Israel stands up and goes, Hamas, well, let us. They're lying. It's very, the UN has publicized the information or rather specifically the international entities. At one point, the UN was doing that, but Qatar and I think even Egypt involved,

and they want a permanent ceasefire, and they want the IDF to withdraw, and they want full exchange of hostages. They've offered that since the very beginning. Most people still don't even know that. Here's the Guardian, and this is what's important to hear. Not that they're saying, we want this agreement, but they stated before it even started. This is the 30th of January, and they've said it right up until now.

Netanyahu rules out a ceasefire deal that would mean Gaza withdrawal. So it doesn't matter. They can say, here's every, all we want is for you to remove yourself from Gaza and we'll give you every hostage back. He says no. Do you realize how insulting that is to the families who are being told we're doing all of this to save your families?

And then they get offered all of the families. And they go, not like that, though. We'll keep bombing where they may be for them. We'll bomb them into freedom, okay? Here's another example. I'm from herettes. And this is how it's being reported, in some locations, right?

So it's very clear, by the way. As I can even read right here, Benjamin Netanyahu has said he will not accept any ceasefire deal that requires, one, the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners, so that's obviously never going to happen

or, two, the departure of truth from Gaza. So they're just never going to accept a deal. And so what they say is, well, then you should just give up. Well, that's never going to happen. So they go, see, Hamas doesn't want to do it, wants this to continue. That's just, that's, what I mean, kindergarten?

nobody believes that it's obvious what's actually happening you care at very least about your war and agenda before you do about your own people so that's most important end of story whether or not you think Hamas or terrorist they're offering a deal that they've said they and they've met their agreement so far but so here's what heret says Hamas reportedly rejects a two-month ceasefire well that is true but you left out the larger part which i mean it's in the article but the headline people will miss is that they reject a deal. No, they offered a full exchange for all hostages. Israel rejected it, and this was their counteroffer, which was a slap in the face. Again, that's what we're talking about. Oh, actually, I think I have another, oh, no, I think I got

rid of it. The point is that you can see how often this happens. We're by rejecting all of these horribly by offering a temporary pause, they simply just scoop them back up again. That's not my opinion, it already happened. That weird little pause they had, they were, they've already, really, to be honest, they arrested more in the few days following than they had already released. So it's just a game. And in fact, many of the ones they released, they arrested again. That's again, it's an insult. It's laughing in your face about it. They see that. They're aware. There's no sense in a momentary pause of a killing and get, and to give them a little bit of food to keep them starving again. And even if that happens at all, that's an insult. And

anybody with a moral compass is aware of that. And this is the reality, how Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas truce officers and offered something that they know they'll refuse, just like they have for years about the two-party, two-state solution, as is on the record these days. They had so many poison pills in the agreement that they knew they wouldn't accept it. And then what they do, they turn around and go, hey, knew it. They don't want peace. That's surreptitious.

It's deceptive. They knew they created them to. say no, so they could blame them for it when they never wanted it to begin with. Also, why they funded Hamas to stop it, right? It's important to remember for those that don't see that, that they've already publicly admitted, per heretz, that they have funded the establishment or funded Hamas so they could stop the establishment of the very state. They pretended they were wanting.

It's always been this dishonest. They've always been lying to the international community and any of the trusting people who thought they were good, honest people fighting for freedom. I'm talking about the Zionist government. Now here's one of those deceptors. Here is a tweet about, and you know what's funny to me is they always clip them and they put the image as opposed to the actual link

which would do the same thing. So you can't go look at it and engage with the other conversation because it would become painstakingly clear that they're giving you a selective part of it to drive a propaganda push. The point is, he's saying, the head of the UN's new independent review of unres

of UNRah, just three weeks ago, sent UNRWA Chifelipé Lazarene, her quote, full renewed support for your work, more useful than ever, which, by the way, was the same thing the U.S. said, the same thing that most people said, even as they later pulled funding. So they all seem to agree that this is central to the survival of Palestinians, and then they pulled the funding to show you that they just don't care about these people. But it says four days after our expose, your expose, you mean your broad insinuations with basically nothing to back it up, that everyone after actually looking at it were very clearly recognized it was not sound.

I mean, it's been laughed about by Sky News, by BBC. They break it down and go, look at this is like basically one person. Some of them were dead. Some of them didn't even work for UNRWA. They just broadly assumed based on all sorts of factors because that's all they have. It says this UN independent review is a travesty. They would have said that no matter, it could have taken 45 years. If they ruled that they were wrong, they would have been like, anti-Semitic, racist, you hate Jews.

That's all that matters. That's what keeps happening. and of course, sounds like a cover-up. Yeah, because you're lying and that's all you can say, right? You guys continue to get caught with these narratives.

So here is one of the examples they've already tried to use. The fact that they are, one, because this is so transparent, some other other later lackeys came around and tried to go, look, proof, proof that these terrorists are actually the UN. So the argument was you were fighting him

in his UN outfit, because that makes a lot of sense. No, as it has already been shown past this point, as it's been shown numerous times before, and even by corporate media acknowledging this and the United Nations, that they are just arresting anybody in front of them, putting them in these white coveralls, blindfolding them, and then a lot of them get released later. This was one of the examples of them continuing to target the UN. So you realize it's been like, what, 140 people that have been killed that work for the UN?

And many, and they're not talking all unremembered, by the way. We're talking some of them that are foreign entities that work for the UN, and still nobody cares. 100 journalists, thousands of children, you know, fighting for freedom, apparently. Unru workers kidnapped and tortured by Israel. That's what's happening. Now here is one example before we continue with the underpoint of a Palestinian pediatrician, Saeed Maruf, who returns to the work at the hospital in Gaza, immediately after he was freed from captivity, from Israel.

despite the torture he was subjected to during his 45-day arrest detention without being charged, without even being suspected, just because he's Palestinian. You're arrested, but you can't have doctors around there helping the people we shoot, so you're arrested. Then we're going to torture you, we're going to beat you, and maybe we'll let you go after a certain period of time. Unfortunately, his wife and kids are still missing.

But here's what he had to say. Now, for the podcast, it's, it's, I wanted to play it because I want you to hear his voice, but I don't want to read it and overdo it. just know that what he's really outlining here is that he was working at this hospital and how he was targeted. The terrible things they're doing to the people there. And the main point is, this is an average doctor who was arrested and just released. You know what? Just like this UN member, who's also not Hamas.

But they always pretend that they are when they take them in. Like Mossad said, look at all these terrorists coming out of the holes. Oh, looks like they actually got arrested from that location above ground and you released all of them afterward. But they didn't stop them from lying to you to get a couple of points on Twitter. from the hospital of my head. I don't know what I can't hurt me from her. I'm not going to her. I don't know what I can't have to them,

she could have to send her. Saad Makhadone, he was in the place that there's a mother of my head. Teme, from the hospital, and in the city of the Israeli five and a day under the tautyip,

the chideed and the juvia. Torture starvation. Terture starvation. from me in the last and I'm on my head of the mosthera Yosef Nijar. Five and four days, I'm in the room of the bathe for my name, five and a few days on my,

five days I would go to the leggelly. And I'm, for all this, my class of the doctors, I'm like, they're, like, they're, on their own, that's a way of my, and it's a duty.

What's the law? He's just so hard. You know, this grown man is breaking down crying because of all these children that he wants to help, but he can't do anything about it. He has nothing to use for them. While the people trying to help are being tortured and imprisoned, you know, it's just, you know, God dang it. This whole conversation, it just gets so frustrating to talk about because it's so obvious. And it continues to make this like background feeling of how, you know, it makes you feel desperate. It makes you feel like, I mean, how are we possibly? possibly going to overcome this when these supposed leaders don't care. You know, it just shows you that we've always only been able to depend to ourselves and our families and those we are in our, you know, our families, really, our friends and our families in our own circles. The idea being that we need to act of our own accord, act into ways that you feel you can affect the world around you.

And we all need to do that. To rely on these so-called authority figures will always lead us the wrong direction. That's my personal opinion. But here is another example of the extremist settlers, right, who are now apparently being sanctioned by the United States, which I think is completely meaningless. It's just a gesture to make you think they care. Here they are surrounding the headquarters of the UNRWA workers.

Right? This is an effort to continue to attack the very group that is the saving grace for these Palestinians. And listen to what they're saying. Jewish people. Unra is responsible and Unra is sponsoring Tyrant hatred. Unra is responsible. It says the Nazis teaching hate the Jewish people into boycott Jewish stores. Unra's teaching it and there are textbooks everywhere they go.

See, just blinded. Blinded by propaganda. The screening to anybody who will listen. But that's what they told me. I mean, most of what he said there is completely unveris. and the other parts of it are insinuation with something but ultimately ends up being like like with the we'll show you in a minute well actually maybe not based on time i don't have much time but the idea being that you could prove that some of the people they pointed at as teachers at were old just simply people that were in that telegram group that turned out to not be associated at all with unra or one of them some of them were dead or so you know all these different examples where they just lumped it all in the gear six thousand people who we think we're and here's a guy screaming red-faced about how they're all terrorists. We're not being peace to anybody. They don't bring peace for anybody. They bring hatred.

How can they keep it? Yeah, as you're screaming hatred. And they're over there trying to save dying children. Yeah. Who hates who? Yeah. And at all, the New York president is right now in West Jerusalem.

This is sober. And the people are behind you cover of them. Yeah. Injured a time. You get the point. And so, whether or not you agree, the point is that these are settlers being allowed to circle a United Nations building and hinder their work because they disagree. Can you imagine if that was Iranians

doing that or Chinese or Russian or whatever else? Oh my God, they're stopping the international rules-based community. Just so much hypocrisy. It's disgusting. Now, this is what I was just thinking about just now. I really wanted to go through this again, but unfortunately, I do think I have to rush through the end here. Don't have as much time as I usually do. But this, it's important to include again. I think I'm going to make, I will make sure I go through this for you guys to see it. I mean, quite frankly, I think this has already been thoroughly broken down by even the corporate media, quite frankly. But this is a great thread. Isha K here. In regard to all the stuff they're allude alleging. And it's, it's absurdly obvious. It's insinuation. It's, it's conjecture.

They're just connecting things that aren't even there. By the way, exactly. like they did with their atrocity propaganda. Here is UNRWA saying, we cannot deliver humanitarian aid under fire. So not only are they surrounding their headquarters, the Israeli government is literally shooting at the shipments they claim they're letting in, but they're not. Safe and sustainable humanitarian access is urgently needed everywhere,

including in northern Gaza. But the convoy was shot on the way in today. And UNRWA is the one saying, this is Israel. Here's another one third, the third time the convoy has been hit by fire. I'm going to skip the video, but you can list it for yourself. They're speaking with Al Jazeera saying that their combo was hit while carrying food to these people in northern Gaza, right? This is an active effort to stop this from happening. Here is Francesca Albany's UN Special Rapporteur saying in regard to that.

Targeting humanitarian aid convoys is a flagrant violation of international law, which undermines desperate relief efforts, exacerbates human suffering, contrary to what the ICJ ordered 12 days ago. They have increased everything of the ICJ. CJ told him to roll back. Obviously, we knew that was going to happen. At a time where, and again, it's not, they could have just maintained what they were doing, but to make a point to the world, they went harder after accused of genocide.

Think about that. Think about what that shows you about who they are and their mentality. Oh, yeah, I'm going to kill more people. How about that? At a time where the risk, she says, of genocide is so flagrant, urgent measures must be taken. I agree. I agree. Here, Brett and Circus points out, and you could find these every.

I mean, this is why the UN's calling this out. It's, for them to pretend on Twitter that this isn't happening is so ridiculous. That means they're desperately leaning on the people who just don't look up anything. No research, no due diligence. I trust Eli, what he's saying? That's what's happening. That's pretty weak and pathetic. But there are some of them out there.

Hundreds of aid trucks stuck at the Rafa crossing because they won't let them in. Just dead stuck waiting. And a lot of this stuff ends up just going back. Some of it, I argue less and less, but goes bad. Here, Cuts News. network, hundreds of Israeli settlers attack the trucks of humanitarian aid at the Kareem Abu Salim crossing. And guess what, guys? This is today. Three children have died today from starvation. So as we're literally watching children die from starvation, how horrific that is. The worst long-term,

like just, I mean, God damn it, man, dying from starvation, as that's happening, they're blocking the aid. They're running up and stopping it. They're surrounding the group that's trying to give it, while simultaneously pretending like it's not their fault, as from the government side of it. And even worse, 1.3 million children start to death slowly, Israel, it really finds it hilarious

to play games with food on social media in the Gaza Strip. This is next-level sociopathy. Just so you can see it. Okay, these are IDF members in Gaza, like in, in Palestinians' broken homes, throwing what, what a muffins, I don't know, some food, for sure, throwing them across to try to hit something, wasting food while children at that moment are starving to death. Three starved today while they were throwing these back and forth. Do you think that's by accident?

They know what they're doing. They've been flunting and pushing this stuff from the very beginning. beginning. They're relishing in the suffering of these Palestinian people. It really makes me sick. UNRWA pointing out in northern Gaza Strip, in the north, Gaza Strip, the scale of destruction is staggering. And you can see the video here for the podcast. I mean, it really is incredible. Look at that. It's, I've never seen anything like in my life. The footage shows one of their UNRRA health centers destroyed. There's nothing left. This is an unprecedented level of destruction and forced displacement taking place in front of our eyes.

Now, the reason I showed this, because I've shown you many, I don't think anybody needs to be informed about how much destruction is taking place, is that this was where they drove them from, right? You need to leave the north of the strip because Hamas, and we have to go after them, even though they just can proceed it to destroy everything and kill most, if not all Palestinians, including, by the way, or in addition to that, their own people. I still haven't seen a single example of a Foss member.

I don't know about you. Either way, they drove them from here. right? This is from October 10. IDF tells the Gossans to flee to Egypt while they still can. What does it even mean? This is October, 2023. Remember when this was being done? Remember

like right now they're pretending we're not trying to push them into Egypt even though they say that publicly. They're literally saying you better go now, you better hurry, while you still can. And the same day, October 10th, Israel bombs the Rafa crossing after telling the Gazans to flee through it, October 10th.

You'd think that something like this, even reported by Israeli media, might actually do something. They might stop this. Nope. I mean, you could have this kind of provable evidence. And even Egypt, or rather, Israeli media, covered the same point.

You had videos of Israeli bombings while the people were going where they were told to go. Here's PBS. Israel continues bombarding Gaza, including places it told Palestinians to evacuate to, December 9. And by the way, this is not in the situation like they're saying, no, we told them to go to Con Unis, but then we told them to go there and they waited.

No, we're talking about in the immediacy of saying, go to this place, right? So the day they go, go here, they bomb that place. Then they go, oh, go over to Con Unis, and then they also bomb Rafa and then bomb Con Unus. And the point is they bomb everywhere. There's nothing safe in this location. They bomb the places that are safe.

They bomb the places in between those places. And they bomb the place they tell you to go to next. Everybody can see this and people are lying about it. And don't forget, New York Times, it's funny how the New York Times, Washington Post, they could write an article. And it used to be in Congress. They talk about it. But today, nope, don't matter.

Here's the New York Times telling you they're murdering civilians and you guys all act like we're racist. And so it's, I guess they get to pick and choose what they want to look at. These people are liars. New York Times investigated. Horatts reported it. Israel used the most destructive bombs they have, these 2,000 pound dumb bombs in the areas they told them to be in, to be safe.

I don't know what more you need to really see to understand who these people are. Times of Gaza, the occupation forces, and this is the same point, are opening fire on people who are attempting to leave Conunis. Do you realize how grotesque that is? Because right now they're going, go to Rafa.

You better leave Conunis. because we're going to get Rafa, that's what they're doing right now. That's what this is. They're dropping leaflets going, go to Rafa. That's where you need to go. And then when they try to leave, they shoot them. This has happened every single time. So add that to the dynamic.

So they bomb the place they're currently in, even though they were told it would be safe. They bombed the road to the new place, and they bomb the new place. Then when you actually maybe can sneak by somehow, they shoot you when you leave your buildings in the supposedly secondary old safe place and the new one for that matter nobody just it's everywhere i just think this is the most grotesque reality that they're torturing these people in real time and everyone seems to know it and it just keeps going they're opening fire on anybody attempting to leave now remember that happened at the hospitals it that became a big public story where they came out to try to go to the bathroom or get water and they shot them you know the same way they shot their own israeli hostages

even after telling them to come out and them saying, look, I'm Israeli, they shot him, killed him anyway. Oops. Oops. Hannibal, directive mistake. Israel asked Palestinians to evacuate, but is any place safe in Gaza? The point is, they're asking them to go to Rafa. That's where they're telling them to go right now.

There's Jerusalem Post. Israel will evacuate Palestinians ahead of invasion into Rafa. Now, you realize they shifted the narrative. This is a foregone conclusion. The defense minister and the others have made this very obvious now. It's not we're going to go there because we've detected Hamas there. It's because this is a scheduled organized march. They're going from here, then we're going to there, they're going to there.

So are we just giving up on the illusion that this was only going where they found Hamas? They go here because you're going to be safe, but we're going to go there next. So why do you tell them to go there? Because this is an ethnic cleansing. This is a mass extinction. That's what you're watching. And everyone just gets to watch along, apparently, because that's the world we live in. right now. And my point here was they have now drifted all these fleaflots down,

even though they've already been bombing this location, telling them to go to Rafa, which, by the way, they've already been bombing. And they still will. In this video, you see children running for their lives because they know that they're going to start bombing right where they just dropped these, usually right after it with barely any notice. Makes you sick. Even worse is the evidence that's continued to float around, and this has even made it into the corporate media of torture, which shouldn't surprise anybody because it's been proven by countless different investigations, not least of which was the Amnese international investigation from November 8th of 2023, Israeli and in the occupation areas. So basically in Israel proper as well,

but also in Gaza and West Bank, horrifying cases of torture and degrading treatment of Palestinian detainees amid a spike in arbitrary arrests. Funny how this stuff used to have water, hold water in the international community. Now it just drifts into the background. What is it even there for? Right? Think about that for a second. Arnaabatran says, I bet this picture will remain one of the iconic images of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perfect illustration of the Palestinian spirit of defiance despite the immense asymmetry in power. What makes it all even more perfect is that it was taken and shared on social media by an IDF soldier because he likely thought it would make them look strong. Israeli soldier published a picture showing him torturing a Palestinian civilian in West Bank, or West Gaza City, excuse me.

He said he blurred the gunshot his leg, which you can find. There's other images of it. He is handcuffed and undressed. And here he is with some stick poking into his chest. He's cut, he's bleeding, he's being tortured. And the guy posted this praising that. I mean, this is common practice at this point. I showed you the other one where they were celebrating,

blowing up the building, which I think is right coming up here in a second. Right there. It's just, what do you think is driving that? Now, the argument I read in the last show, some people argue this is about literally trying to create the animosity towards Jews, Zionists, is what I'm talking about, in order to drive the animosity towards the Jewish population, which is always how that manipulation has worked,

in order to drive them into continuing to maintain the state of Israel, as it's completely falling apart. and people are realizing how many lies it's based on, creating the animosity unjustly towards the Jewish population to maintain that control over them. That's what the Zionists have always done, and there's plenty of Jewish organizations that are screaming about that.

It's a good point to make. Here is how the U.S. government is not only complicit, but actively maintaining all of this. Here is another reporter who actually asks a real question, speaking up, showing here it is on my phone, showing him this picture

and that guy posting it and saying, are you going to condemn this? Do you care about this? Here's what he says. Most have seen this picture. This soldier has been identified as his name is UC Gansu

and he is from the Nahal Brigade. This is a clear violation of international law the Geneva Convention, etc. So just equally as much as the violence of the settlers, this is a violence of an Israeli soldiers. Which is endless amounts of evidence for. That's why I was very insulting for them to put sanctions in the West Bay.

That was a way to base. How much you want to bet they even discussed that with the Israeli government, right? So they can do something to make it look like they're trying to stop what's going on, but not in a way that it hinders anything Israel's doing in Gaza. They probably let them do that. probably because those sanctions have really no bearing and they probably made sure, well, anyway, I can't assume all day long. My point is that it doesn't really have the kind of effect they pretend it does

while ignoring the overwhelming and far more evidence we have of what their IDF directly is doing in Gaza. But regardless of the context, it really doesn't matter. That's where he goes with this. It's torture. You can see it. There's no reason that would then become justified. Like the same game they play with the killing Palestinians,

well, Hamas and human shield, doesn't matter. It still does not matter. and everyone in any standing has made that clear, and yet they still pretend like that excuse justifies their genocide. Here's how he responds to it. An Israeli army that's an allied of the United States. This is acceptable to you.

And what you do to hold these people accountable? This is what we know from the social media. The guy himself published this picture. Imagine the things that we don't know. And I guarantee you he knows about it. You don't have to understand that. Like they know about every single one. there is somebody who is mapping everything going on.

They know about this stuff. He's probably got a whole page on his book. But of course, the answer first is, well, you know, I don't know, and I haven't seen that. We know they have. Thanks for your question, Nadia. So first, as it relates to our sanctions, you're absolutely right. Peaceability and security in the West Bank is of utmost important to us. And those participating in activities or actions that detract from that, that,

make the West Bank more destabilizing and risk the security situation. That is, of course, of great concern to us. And that's not it. Basically, he just used it in a really clumsy way to act like, to take an, to use it as an opportunity to make it sound like they did something right. She didn't ask about any of that. Oh, you're right. Thank you.

We did this because we care. It's like, that's not at all. She asked that, first of all. She didn't even say that. So get past your fluff nonsense and go to the question, in which he rarely ever answered. That's why you saw the United States take appropriate action last week. In relation to the image that you shared,

I've not seen that image specifically, but obviously it is... I mean, you realize it's already been discussed by corporate media. So you really think he hasn't seen that? If that's the case, you're the worst person this job has ever had. It's deeply troubling. How is it troubling if you haven't seen it? No knowledge.

or information as it relates to the circumstances. Doesn't matter. Torture doesn't not get justified because of circumstances. Surrounding that incident. And I will leave it to the IDF to speak to those specific situations. Oh, is that how that works? Right. So your allies can commit genocide and you go, well, it's on them.

They can speak about it. No, no. We're asking you, bud. What do you think about it? What's the government's response to it? You can't just shift it away and go, they did it. It's their responsibility.

You're giving them weapons. to do that. You're supporting that. You're allowing it to continue. It's just so infuriate. Again, this guy or what they've been doing in this position has been the worst enemy of this whole agenda. Because all it's done is showing you how feeble they are. Like they just, well, we're going to speak with our counterparts and we've stressed how much we care about human life. Okay, then they murder 500 people. Okay, but then we stress how much we care. We want you to do more. Okay. Well, then they go murder more people. It's just this nonsensical cycle. All they're trying to do is hope that you're dumb enough to think that that means they're doing their best. We have been clear to them that the respect for basic human rights, the respects for humanitarian law, needs to be respected.

Oh, so the respect for human rights has to be respected. Does that make sense? He's speaking nonsense. And those who do not comply with that need to be held accountable. So if I share his information with you, would you raise it to the Israeli? I'm not going to, I'm not going to get. He won't even say, he won't even say, yes, we'll raise it with them, which is what Matt Miller has said many times.

Well, yes, we'll bring it to them and we'll get a response and we'll come back to you. He won't even acknowledge that anymore. I bet you he's got more marching orders now. We're not supposed to acknowledge anything anymore. Get into specific situations here, Nadia, this is not a operation that the United States is conducting. Are you serious? You're literally complicit under the eyes of the ICJ.

That's literally in the works right now. These people are, I think this is showing desperation at this point. It comes to the impact on civilians, the treatment of civilians, the things that we see, not just in social media, but elsewhere in our conversations with people on the ground, in our assessments with things on the ground, we raise those issues with the Israeli. They raise them, right? Oh, good. We killed a bunch of women today.

Oh, we raised it. We raised it yesterday. Good. Good job, man. What about all these children are starving? Well, we raised that issue. We raised it with them. Okay.

Like at what point does this become laughable? Like, okay, you're ridiculous, man. You can raise all you want. They don't care what you're saying. And, you know, it's just this game. You can think about it for 10 seconds what you think they would say if Russia was responding that way. If they were working with Belarus and they were murdering people in Ukraine every 30 seconds,

they're like, well, we raised it with them and we told them we didn't. We want them to stop. Do you think the U.S. would care? No, they wouldn't. They would say Russia's complicit in war crimes. We're going to bring them down. You know how that would work. These people are exposing themselves to be the bad guy if you want to look at in those binary terms,

which doesn't mean that there's even a good guy. It just means clearly this is not what good people do. Here is an example of a Hamas member, Al-Qasim fighter. I thought that was interesting. Now, you could argue this could be fake or someone could lie, but my point is that I think what's interesting is to consider this perspective. that just because somebody has joined Hamas or Palestinian Islamic jihad or any one of these groups doesn't then by default mean they are what Israel says.

What's interesting about this is that you can prove that what they're doing right now is driving young people to join these groups. So you can't then pretend that that means they're all one thing. Clearly there are people that join. Let's just say, for example, that this is a terrorist group that is exactly what they're saying it is. Well, a person joined it today under the guys that they're fighting Israel because that is what's happening. So you can see how that may change over time. And I think that's part of what's happened since 2006, which was the, I think, illegitimate election because Israel wanted these entities in power

to keep this divided as they publicly stated at this point. Either way, you can see how somebody might join this group because of the last illegal war on Gaza that killed a lot of innocent people. And then, you know, and I'll let it speak for itself. Here's what he has to say. He used to be a gym trainer, but life under Israeli occupation made him change course. Maybe 10th, basically saying the thing that affected me the most was when a close friend to mine was marty. Maybe in 2013 is death affected me. He says, we who are living with Israel truly understand what Israel wants. You know that Israel wants all of Palestine and wants them to be killed.

Displace all of its civilians and want us to be slaves under them, which, by the way, is what they scream out loud if you listen to. We are resisting an illegal occupation. There's no way Israel will leave us with any choice, except that of the armed resistance, which, by the way, is legally protected under international law, not killing civilians, not rape, not murder, not in that.

If you're engaging with military entities with violent action, it's legally protected under international law, period. It doesn't matter if your enemy calls you a terrorist. It's protected. And that's the point. So, again, in a interest of time,

the point is clearly, you could see how average people would be driven to this, which, by the way, is at least before this, was in the interest of Israel's agenda. They want that to happen. Today, this narrative is kind of imploded, right?

Either way, I think it's obvious that it's not as simple as saying it is exactly what they said it is. Now, what I showed you to start is just demonstrating this kind of sociopathic mentality. For the podcast, it literally says they'll have nowhere to come back to. But let's keep pretending that this is not aimed at all Palestinians. In, by the way, a Palestinian home they destroyed. So they'll have nowhere to come back to. That's what it says.

After destroying somebody's home, we're told because Hamas is there. That's supposed to be the only reason this happens. They swear up and down. They've got tunnels in Hamas. And then, of course, they had that one lady come out and say, well, every house is a tunnel. And every mosque has a tunnel. Justifying the destruction of literally everything.

Exactly the point. And they don't, guys. It's provable. The bottom line is, this is controlled demolition. which means they already went in there, which means they know Hamas isn't there, because they're destroying everything. And your governments, a lot of people in high positions of media are blatantly lying to you about this. Because they're not stupid enough to think that's not exactly what it looks like, but they tow the line for Israel, which means a lot of people in large

positions in the world, both media, government, corporations, are very dangerous people. Big surprise. Here's an example, Jason Hinkle shares of Israeli soldiers. Now, I'm not sure if this is a new or an old video. Frankly, it doesn't matter. He's saying, and he argues their kids, it kind of does look like juveniles, but it's hard to tell for sure. The point, the bottom line for me, human shields. It's a very clear video that is impossible to ignore. Marching blindfolded people into a bombed out building at night. It's obvious what's going on here, guys. These are human shields. I just want to make sure we saw that because the truth is it's not new. And we've talked about this. Here's the full show, the open

secret of Israel's use of human shields. Here is the shortened video of it of just the Human Shield section, which you can watch and here's the video or for other image showing one of those examples. Oops, sit play. Oops, that's weird. It's way at the end.

Anyway, here is a example of a child being shot. I just want to include this, which is interesting and disgusting and sad. But Daniela Motus points out the victim who has been executed point blank has been identified as the child Wadi O'Lean, 14-year-old.

Now, it does appear that he tried to stab one of these IDF members, but I want to make a point about this. First of all, living in an occupation and knowing right now an apartheid, racist, racist occupation, that they are rounding up children and Palestinians. I mean, they're admitting this at this point. They say it's Hamas and so on, but every time we get closer to some kind of possible exchange, they round up a bunch of people. So I'm, first of all, I'll let you decide for yourself about it.

The point is, here's a video that appears to show this kid, which if you zoom in close enough, you can tell it's a brown jacket. It does almost look black from the distance, but you can zoom in and you can see it does look like a brown jacket. Where the kid walks up, looks like he's, you know, called over by the cops. Now, at this point, what if this cop was saying, we're going to take you to jail? I'm not trying to justify or rationalize trying to kill this cop, but what I'm saying is, You have to try to put your mind in the place of somebody who lives in a brutal, very dangerous apartheid occupation where you don't have rights despite their lives.

And then he's going to go, I'm going to take you to jail when you've got a cousin that's never come back. Like, what might you do in that position? That's all I'm trying to say. It's just a key, to think about it's not your corner. Okay. It's not where you grew up unless you grew up in a place like this. So then, as you can see, the cop tries to grab him. Okay.

and then he takes out a knife, which I think it's a knife, that's how they're reporting it, and looks like he does try to hit him with something. Then the kid runs. Now, here's my point on top of it all. Is this supposed to be the only democracy in the Middle East? Well, this kid turns away, runs, and all the way here gets shot in the back and is dead today. Now, is that just okay? Because terrorism?

Well, according to Israelis, it is, according to people. people in the U.S. who support what they're doing, they go, well, he could have been a Hamas member. Well, hold on a second. Maybe you're right. But how about the fact that you're supposed to argue that we're fighting for democracy? Aren't we told that? That you're supposed to be the one that is better than they are? Or are you just the same as Hamas? You see my point? If you're going to just murder this kid, how about you chase him down and arrest him? Is that not how that works in a democracy? Like, think about this in the context of the U.S. government. If that happened in a U.S. street, which it does sometimes, people would lose their minds.

If they're both democracies, are you supposed to apply the same standard? Hardly. These people operate under no standard. The IDF can shoot whoever they want, whenever they want at any time, and nobody cares if they just go, bad guy. He did this or he has this or he came from there. It's crazy to me. I thought that was an important context to include to that.

So, sadly, this kid is dead, living in an occupation. Now, the last kind of couple sections here, looks like we'll be just on time. This person was kicked off of this show for simply arguing provable things that you can, facts you can prove about Gaza, like that it's an occupied territory. But it just goes to show you how the gatekeepers

of the corporate media. And look, it may very, and I'll even go as far as to argue that I bet you, I don't know for sure, but I bet you these guys don't even know they're doing that. These are the kind of people that are in the position as the as uh as uh nom chomsky would write because you know manufacturing consent that they're they're chosen because they already have certain preconceived beliefs and they get in these positions and then they

basically tow lines because it's because it's advantageous for their career and you know and they go on from there but you know how these controlled things work listen to people like alison morrow that it's very tightly controlled they're not allowed to shock like and and it becomes a point where they just agree with what they're supposed to think so the point is that you're you Israel's the good guy and all Palestine's bad. And just, it's so revealing the way they respond to this. His point was Palestinians are an occupied people and they've got a right

to defend themselves. And these people lose their minds. James, I've done you 20 years and you haven't changed your cliches. It's not a cliche. The government are holding the public ransom. They haven't got any money. The government haven't got money. They've got plenty of money for wars. They've got plenty of money to give you Ukraine. They've got plenty of money to

get money. That applies to every country in the world, by the way. It's so funny how we're like, we're going to have any money. And then all of a sudden, here's $14 billion to Israel, right? Right. We can't afford pencils for our teachers, but here's $14 billion for genocide. Give Israel. They could sell an arms to Israel. Are you completely stupid, Steve?

Look at that response. What a gentleman, right? Not juvenile at all. What, you stupid for making a very obvious point that everybody can wrap their mind around? It's just people are gatekeepers, man. I mean, you're coming in a scarf with a, Ah, there it is. How dare you support the Palestinians because you're down? You actually really support the Palestinians.

Think about even making, asking that question. Again, I thought they were people that were supposed to help. I thought that Pomas were the bad guys. These people that are pushing these agendas, they don't even hide that. Like, they'll never blatantly be like all of them should die unless they're a crazy Zionist and some of them are out there. but they'll clearly insinuate with every other point that they're all bad but they went pushed for it be like well no we're only fighting Hamas and they were going out we're trying to save the civilians but they hate them they hate these people because they were told to absolutely I defend that's right they defend themselves yeah do you saw Hamas it was a resistance sorry I believe the Israeli government are a fascist government I believe the Israeli government are a terrorist government hang on it's a democracy no

So leave. You know, you get out of here. How dare you say what the obvious reality is that everyone in the world is becoming aware of. And that the international world court just litter or that Amnesty International Human Rights Watch and Betselam all said over the last 10 years, it's an apartheid state. These people are ridiculous. You're supposed to be journalists and they're not even informed about those basic concepts of the conversation. Do you condemn Hamas? What about Hamas? How about the point is, I've said many times, it doesn't matter what group you're pointing at. Palestinians in any context have the legal right to armed resistance, okay, under fourth Geneva convention, under international law. So when they acted with violence against Israel, they have the legal right to do so, especially when you're talking about the illegal settlements where this began. Now, when they then, in many cases, did kidnap civilians or shoot civilians, those were crimes. I've said this many times, you guys know, but it was worth repeating. That does then not invalidate international law, does it?

Sort of like when the U.S. government goes into Iraq and kills and murders and rapes a lot of people. Well, we don't stand back and go the entire thing's illegitimate, even though it should be since it's based on a lie. And there was no, you know, different point technically. But the point still remains that we argue that the war was one thing with those crimes are separate and need to be investigated. Well, okay, then. It's the same concept. But the problem is they've been trained to think this is a dirty, dangerous terrorist group so there's just no political or international context.

That's why they do that. Dehumanizing. Iran are all terrorists. Russia, China, they're just terrorists, madmen, maniacs. Assad just likes to murder children. Gaddafi just likes to rape and rape. It's all a bunch of lies. WMDs, babies and incubators, they just lie and lie, and people lap it up

because it gives you the easy excuse to dehumanize. This is not on. You want to talk rubbish. Go and talk to the BBC or some other. What do you think about the Hamas? Right. We only want to talk to people who agree with us. That's journalism today.

What a great free speech. Was Hamas a legitimate action? You're saying it. I love why they just keep ignoring this guy. It's like, shut up, dude. We're arguing. Stop talking. But he just keeps going, what about Hamas?

Do you condemn Hamas? I guess he's only got the one talking point. That's all he can do. What I'm saying to you is that I condemn terrorism, whether it comes from Hamas or from the Israeli government. Look at that. They're not okay with that, though. You can't do that.

It's only both to go one way. It has come from the Israeli, but not from Israel. Of course it, of course it has. See what he just said in response? I mean, it's hard to pick it out because they're talking over each other. But he said, I condemn it whoever does it, whatever side. And the guy goes, but not Israel, right? Because you don't vote Israel.

He just effing said what you just said he didn't say. Like, these people are driving narratives. Like, that's what you do. You come. You know what? I popped into my head, of course. is when Laura Lumer tried to pretend she was debating Dave Smith. And all she could do was keep regurgitating,

falling back into the same general talking points and cycling through them. And it was just embarrassing because that's what people like this do. They're not really that intelligent. They're just repeating. They're regurgitators. We're not as defend it. Because it's an occupied people. Well, it is now.

It wasn't in 2005. Nope. They're not occupied. It wasn't in 2004. They've been occupied since 1947. I'll prove it to you using a UN rapporteur, but based on basic facts. This is the thing about this. This was so crazy.

It's certainly possible that they know that's a lie and their job is to say it's not true. But nonetheless, or rather they know what he's saying is true and their job is to dismiss it. But quite frankly, I seems like they believe it. Just like the other, what's her name on LBC? Or not it was LBC. It was, in any case, one of those channels where, you know, she was good on COVID in some cases. but the point is when they brought up occupants, oh, get out of here.

That's ridiculous. And the point is, if you actually look, it's every group everywhere. It says that the United Nations, human rights groups. Are you telling me they literally don't see that? The point is they don't even look, guys. Most of these people are so high

on their own perceived, you know, intelligence and, superiority that they just go along with what the community, their friends and their other news people and they all just have these, they just repeat. And they actually believe they're so high on their own opinion of themselves that they actually think that that's the correct stance. And it goes on for a very long time like that until suddenly, like for instance, here's a good example.

Pierce Morgan, because he's ridiculous in all the same ways, he was confronted with something on air that made him look really stupid. And he was forced to go, oh, you're right. And from there, he's kind of altered. He's made this game to be like, well, we care about different sides. The point is it's that simple. And I think they don't know it. And finally, they just get, yeah, it was Julie. Julie, thank you for the chat.

You didn't mention the outlet, but I believe Julie was the name of the person we're talking about. In any case, let's continue. You want to look at your history books. 2005, they all left. 1947 is when the night by happened. I've never met. Okay. Quiet.

You don't want to look at your history books because you're wrong. No, you're wrong, bud. It's so embarrassing that people can keep stating things like that. He genuinely thinks he's right. By the last, quiet. I don't want you. Actually, here, let me do this real quick. We'll come right back to this.

Here is the your repertoire, telling you... Occupied. And it's not just the case because she says it. It's the case because it's legally the reality. According to anybody in any position of authority outside of a government, who will tell you that. And it's roundly acknowledged by the United Nations.

It has always been occupied, all of Palestine, first of all, that is still per the United Nations. Gaza was then, what's the word for it? What's the word they used? They pulled the military out of the internal Gaza area, but legally speaking still obviously control the area. It's still occupied in a legal sense because they control every single aspect about it.

Every electromagnetic, water, food, everything. And they then use that coercively to manipulate them. and everyone knows that, but then they outwardly pretend it's like their fault that it's all gross and bad and broken down. Even today, I'll show you in a minute. Eli David put a tweet out showing what Gaza looks like right now and saying, this is what it looks like because they didn't spend the money on Asia. You're showing a bombed out area that is only like that because of what Israel's been doing and just playing on the ignorance of people to think that it's only because Palestinians are bad people. It just really makes my skin crawl. while you're murdering them, you're framing them as evil people.

Here's what you said about whether it's occupied. Did it not seed control? Gaza's not occupied. It's seeded control. Did it not seed control in 2005? No. No. What was eliminated was what was taken away in 2005 was the presence of the colonies.

But Gaza has remained. That's the better way to put it. Is the illegal settling, the settlements, right? So they removed out the illegal. legal settlements, but still completely control every aspect of Gaza, completely, from top to bottom. And very much occupied, and not only because there is control of land, air, can I finish, there is not just the control of air, land, electromagnetic space, and sea space, but there is also a very tight control of what enters and what exit Gaza, we're including with the right that

Israel has reserved itself to carry out preventive strikes, which have... Yeah, like killing people whenever they want. Now, really quickly, you know my opinion of the United Nations, which doesn't necessarily always apply to every individual working there, as you said before, but the point is simple. That she's stating this as a UN rapporteur. Do you think she doesn't know what she's talking about in like the basic construct of the conversation? So the standing and acknowledged reality is that it's always been occupied.

It didn't change after 2005. But weirdly, Israel jammed that narrative into the truth. talking points of the media. And so now people in the, you know, academics of the world and people like her are forced to go, what are you talking about? That's never been the case, but they go, they push back because their circles disagree. I've killed many in the Gaza Strip. No, Gaza is still occupied and there is a world-to-world consensus in international community. Exactly. That's the important part. Including ICRC, which is normally quite restrained. I mean, everyone has concluded that Gaza is still occupied through

modern methods of warfare, even if it doesn't have boots on the ground. There is effective control. Think about how wild that is, that it can be wall-to-wall agreement in any position that you're ever supposed to look to, we're told anyway, to discern these things. And yet, Foxes and CNN's and the UK, they just say otherwise. So ask yourself, are they ignoring all of the people you're supposed to look to, they tell us to find these things out? Or do they just not look?

Like what's actually going on there? Isn't that staggering? There's so many topics like this across the board. And again, I think they genuinely don't even know they're wrong in many cases, like this. More, Steve, because you are supporting the... I've never known. Okay. Quiet.

Now, quiet. I don't want you in here anymore, Steve, because you are supporting the enemies of this country. Supporting the enemies of this country. Because you... You're the defender of free speech are throwing me out for you. Palestinians, he just said, are the enemy of the enemy of the country. the UK. You've had free speech, but I don't have to allow you to carry on. I am defending the freedom of this country. Wow. I don't believe. If we're at war, as we as soon are going to be,

you won't be. Who are in the war with the Palestinian children who you're murdering in their thousands. Do you support the 7-7-bonnet? I did that for the Palestine. Do you see what he mentioned, the current people being killed? Do you, what about 7-7? What about 7-7? You know, as we've seen before. And by the way, it's 10-7, the idiot. What about 10-8? What about 10, 10, 10, 10, what about 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, 17, what about three, four months in a row? What about all those days, right? Go ahead and answer all those questions, and then we'll come back and revisit what,

you know, it's just so incredibly stupid. Why not? I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, do you support 30,000 dead people? Could you remove him? Right, what a stupid back. This is why people are so irritated by that statement. Like, it's not, it's, because simply, like, the point is, I think we all generally condemn

any action that is putting innocent people at risk, whether it's Hamas or Palestinian or anybody, anybody. But the idea that when you're confronted with a point and all they go, do you condemn Moss? It's like answering that is a gotcha moment. So I mean, I would because I do. And the point is there's many cases where you can make that obvious. But his point is it's stupid to respond to that with saying, well, what about this over here? Well, we could talk about that. But that's no, the point is obviously about what's currently going on, which includes what happened on 10-7 and

every other day since then. So it's about context. It's about balance. It's a collateral damage. It's a legal war. It's a lowest amount of collateral damage ever. Genocide and genocide. It's not. So literally the world court can argue, yes, there's merit that allegation. And they're still flatly denying that it's even possible. So to him, it's only about the amount of people. So to him, it's only about the amount of people, which means he fundamentally doesn't understand what genocide means. These aren't intelligent people. These are repeater.

It's deliberately harming in part or in full. Ash is Jewish. What you're saying to him is not. So now because he's Jewish, now it's all insulting. I mean, the guy just pulled out the talking point book. What's my next response? Oh, you're racist. I don't know.

Jewish, but it's not a Jewish, but it's not a Jew. It's irrelevant anyway, but it's not genuine. It's not about being Jewish. It's about being a Zionist. What is a Zionist? Should the Jews not have a heart? homeland. Oh, my God. Why didn't they have one in

Barbaria? It was a Germans and had the Holocaust, not the, not the palace. So what was it? Was Israel never the homeland? Not not occupied Palestine. Oh, sorry. So for some context, apparently, I assumed he was referencing 10-7 and made a mistake. Apparently there was another bombing 7 in

London, but who knows? Because he did bring up other bombings and other stabbing and stuff, so maybe he did mean an older one. But either way. The point is the same. There's no logical reason to be like, do you condemn this four, 10-year-old thing? How about if you don't say that, then I win. You know, it's like, it's just childish. These guys don't, I mean, it's so clear. And look, you could argue I'm wrong, sure. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong. But I think these things are provable. The information around, you know,

for instance, Zionism is not Judaism. They can scream at all they want, but it's, there's entire groups. In fact, I'm beginning to think more and more that the majority of Jewish population around the world is not in line with the way that Israel presents that. But either way, it's very clear that it's by and large it's not all that it's not only jewish people think one way that in it's in and of itself is racist isn't it but these people don't know any better or they don't care that's why they find old jewish texts from 3 000 years ago so because jewish people wrote things 3 000 years ago that me i mean these are really stupid arguments i forgot my to shoot i'm i'm going to be less so let's let's let's wrap this up i just it's just so

frustrating to watch these things. It's embarrassing. Now, here's Eli David showing you a video of Palestinians trudging through the sludge and water that they pumped in there, by the way, and allowed this to be the way it is, bombed out these areas. That's why this looks this way, obviously, watching them just trudge through here, trying to make the best of a current situation while they're being genocided, children, trugging along water, probably getting sick because of all the parasites and what they have right there. And here's what he says. Two decades ago, Israel gave you full autonomy over Gaza.

Nope, already lying. That's what they do. You received tens of billions in aid money, which most of which went to the people they're supporting and keeping safe in Qatar, you know, Hamas leadership, which again, we should remember which where was that? I closed it. If you can show very clearly that Israel were funding Hamas,

sure one of these days it's going to be gone, I guarantee it. Well, that has to care. That has some matter, doesn't it? So Netanyahu says this is our strategy. We fund Hamas so we can stop the Palestinian state that we otherwise pretend we're fighting for, right? So first of all, Gaza has always, according to international law, which apparently Eli David doesn't understand, has continued and always was occupied. Then they received tens of billions of dollars in aid, right? But this is provably shown to go to these leadership people who they funded and are still clearly keeping safe in Qatar right now.

They're not going after them. Why? If they're going to annihilate Hamas, why are they keeping the leadership? safe with the group they're using to help mediate talks about what's going on in Gaza, which which is Qatar. But it says, and you only built terror tunnels and weapons with it. Well, that's ridiculous. The idea that first of all, you can show that some of these, including the main one they argued

Al-Shifa was built by Israel, even the, even the prime minister, former prime minister Barack made that clear, openly said it, which embarrassed everybody, you glorified murdering and kidnapping Israelis. So then all really, the points aside, for. I mean, just generalizing literally everybody who celebrated the armed resistance, which is protected on international law when they had no idea what is going on while they're showing videos that are going, yay, they broke into Israel, saying they're promoting rape, even though that didn't happen.

It says, you built this misery. This is what you deserve. Okay. So clearly, just giving up on the idea that this is not about all of Palestinians. And when I said the other day, it's really obvious and hilariously in a macabwe, how it starts out by this is only Hamas and we're protecting the Palestinians until every single moment since and has been slowly trying to convince you that they're all gross and bad in every possible way. Here's what they all think and here's the videos they watch and here's what they're all taught,

but it's only Hamas. I think they've just given up on that at this point. When pushed, they'll say it's only Hamas, but as they're blatantly telling you, it's what they all deserve. Do you think he actually believes this provably false nonsense? I don't. I said I don't miss and don't miss where he proudly promotes collective punishment at the end of this, even says they deserve it. Apparently 10,000 dead children deserve it, according to Eli David. You can't misunderstand that. You can argue that they support Hamas, but are you saying that these people deserve to be killed?

Yes, he is. And this, again, is per the Israeli government, where they've been bombing. So showing you probably, what, 60%. those are all the buildings they're bombing. So my point in general is to recognize that this is collective punishment. They've been destroying all of this. And again, that's why it looks like this because they've destroyed literally everything infrastructure-wise in the Gaza Strip.

Now, Kodz News Network also points out that the Knesset approves a bill which will now punish the denial or, quote, downplaying of October 7. For five years in prison. You know why? Because all of their own people are beginning to admit that they shot their own people. people, and that's largely what seems to have happened. Again, including even his son, who just got caught on telegram, saying they didn't execute the Hannibal directive fully.

They didn't kill enough of their own hostages because it didn't happen completely. He's caught, and it's been reported roundly. It's everywhere, guys, and that's why they're trying to cover this up, trying to hide the reality they've lied about near everything, and even her rats broke this down, as I'll include again, telling you, Hamas Massacre led to a spread of horror stories, not all of which happened in reality. And they go on to talk about the rape conversation, the baby in the womb,

the baby in an oven. Everyone seems to have come around to realize they lied about all of this while killing their own people. Now, I'm going to skip some of this at the end. I'll just say, I should play this probably coming up another show, but I found this very telling.

As they're using racism, anti-Semitism to basically hide everything they're doing to accuse everybody else of being racist, Here's an anti-Semitism educator, whatever the hell that is, speaking up on TikTok. And she's saying, the state of Israel is doing the most today to drive anti-Semitism. That's her opinion.

Quote, as an anti-Semitism educator, the entity that is doing the most to drive anti-Semitism around the world is the state of Israel. I'll play just the beginning of it, and I think we're still good. Believe it or not, this used to be an anti-Semitism education account. Like a year and a half ago, I was making... By the way, that's that image of the rat with the face. Don't forget, Eli David just shared a rat as a Palestinian.

Clearly, everything they claim they're fighting. That's what he is. dozens of videos about how authors can avoid including anti-Semitic tropes in their writing. And so I'm speaking as an anti-Semitism educator, when I say that the entity that is doing the most to drive anti-Semitism around the world and make my job impossible is the state of Israel. Isn't that crazy? I mean, it's not.

know what's going on or you're paying attention, but it's just, that's, that's exactly the point. And that's what people are arguing today. This is a manufactured concept to be able to maintain control over the population they want control over to maintain their identity as some kind of Jewish state. When really, it's a Zionist state. That's the point. Now, here's one quick example before we wrap. Eli David says a gold version organization on X spreading blatant antisemitism.

Now, I looked at this account. I was one, first I'm thinking, okay, is this even real? It's to defund Israel now. but it says the world will be better place without Jewish Israel. I was like, okay, that's interesting. And it says these damn Jews who have gotten booted out of it. I'm going, okay, wait a minute. Now, this feels like exactly what they're pointing at.

Now, it could be real. It could very well just be an account that is being open. Like my point is, if you're accusing all of any Jew anywhere of being part of something, you're ridiculous, in my opinion. It's like accusing any one group of, it could, there could be, my point is if it comes down to one person, you can't broadstroke everything, especially since, you know, that baby born over here doesn't just suddenly become a bad person. That's why it's about the Zionist ideology, not just being Jewish.

In my opinion, you can disagree. I'm sure you will. The point is framing it this way. It's those Jews doing X, Y, and Z. I have a sneaking suspicion that this account that was created right after this started is actually a plant. Just my personal thought, just my sentiment. I'm not saying I can prove that. Because when you look at it, it's, it's, it's,

It's like everything that there's valid points within these posts, but they take it to the level of being like it's these Jews and they're doing the problem. It's crazy. And it's, it's my opinion, very much hurting the true exposure of what Israel is. Now, that could be that they just don't realize that they're aiming in the wrong direction as I see it.

But I'm beginning to think, like here's my point. Do you realize they censored people for using sentiments like this already or long before this started? Now you've got an account that comes out in almost every post. You read these things and it's specifically aimed at Jews by itself. That is pretty interesting to me. To me, and as they're all pointing at it going,

this is what they're all doing. Seems interesting. Now, my point is there's always been racists. There are people that believe that all Jews are one thing or all Christians are one thing. Those people suck. Those are bad people who don't recognize nuance or just hate people for certain characteristics. Right? Those people, those are gross people.

That's my opinion. So it's very possible that that, my point is, it overlaps in all these conversations. You'll find racism that people that are pointing out Zionism that also just hate Jews. You'll find people that are pointing out things about the U.S. government that hate Christians or hate this. You're going to find it. My point, though, is that I do not believe, and it's provable, that all people pointing out Israeli crimes just hate Jews. That's lowbrow and stupid because they are committing crimes and everyone in the world can see it. I think this is about trying to muddy the waters and conflate those concepts.

to drive more people back to blindly supporting Israel, or rather the Zionist state. Consider it for yourself. Lastly, David Miller had a victory, and it overlaps the same point. The employment tribunal has released its judgment and ruled that he was discriminated against because of his anti-Zionist beliefs.

So they were wrong. And in the interesting part about this, if you were to go to a court of law, and argue that you hated black people, right? And they fired you because you hated black people. You wouldn't win that case. So, well, you're racist. That's disgusting.

The point is, this isn't about race. It's about a political ideology. So he is anti-Zionists. It's like being an anti-democrat or anti-Republican or an anti-any-anything like that. Clearly people are like, that's all over the place. But Israel's desperate to make it the opposite. My point is, this is not the first case.

People are now winning in these cases because you can prove logically in a court of law that you shouldn't be fired for being anti a political organization, anti-a-political organization, and he won. Which proves in and of itself that their game about making that racist is all alive. Now, I'm not going to play this because, well, you know, we've already gone. I've only seven minutes past. I'm already going to be missing my thing. But anyway, the point is, here's Angelina Jolie, pointing something out.

Now, I don't believe that any of these people, like these, you know, I guess the simplest point to put it as is people in the media, Hollywood, whatever else. people at a high level like this. A lot of them are convinced that they have some kind of inside knowledge or aware. You know, maybe they do, but mostly it's that they don't, that they're wildly outside of the no, but they think they are because they're all padded and got people around them. They think, you know, I've got a friend in the CIA that tells me everything when really they just lied to about everything.

My point, though, is that even people in these positions, because of how clumsy this was, because of the belligerent nature of Israel's genocide, have shaken people free. And what she's describing is not just about Israel, guys. it's about the entire international dynamic and that it's all a lie. It gives me hope to see people like this pointing out that all that, now we should consider whether this is some secondary manipulation to get us into, always ask that. But regardless, take this as a win because it is.

People in any point in life right now are going, hold on, that's not what we were always taught it was. And I think that's a very powerful moment to see how clearly people are seeing through the bigger illusion. Biggest, that is the most disheartening thing. I think we, or I thought at least even 20 years ago when I started to work internationally, that there was this, in my head, some weird idea of good guys, you know, some idea of those, whether it be certain countries or certain peoples, maybe it was this holdover

from World War II and this thought that this was like, so that the lines were clearer. Again, also kind of recognized the naivity, which, I mean, it's, or wishful thinking. But the idea that we ever thought that it just post-World War II, it was all good guys, there's bad guys. That's just where it went. That's crazy that anybody would actually think that's logical. Anybody, it's just power structures that end up doing what they want. And that there was going to be these human rights goals laid out and that there would be things stood up for.

And that if these things weren't done, there would be pushed back. And I really thought that's what it was. I even thought that's what the United Nations was. And I thought, okay, there's a. There's some lines in the sand. There's some understanding. We're going to grow and fight for improvements in these areas. And to watch, to watch and understand more and more how it's just simply,

that's not what it is. That's not the world. The world is not these are human rights. It is these are human rights sometimes for these people, maybe sometimes for these people, never for these people. It's food aid, 6% for these people, 50% for these people. It's justice for these people, but not these people. Accountability for this crime, but not that crime if there's business interest.

This is truly the ugly state of so much of the world that we are just becoming more and more aware of for just about every. I mean, I don't know any countries that are clean of it and willing to hold a line really consistently and on behalf of the of human rights and laws. Yeah, right. And so the point is here, guys, that it doesn't matter whether she means that or not. You should genuinely ask whether that's about getting ahead of what we're all doing. I think it's very clear that they see that we all see through a lot more than we have in a long time. So that could be an effort to get ahead of that.

But the point is it doesn't matter. The point is that that's the case. In my opinion, that's what's happening. It's a rather has always been happening. And she's just either pretending or actually becoming aware of it. It's never been the good guys fighting all the evil. But really, it's about self-serving interests and compromising what you claim is what you're fighting for if that comes up against anything that you want to accomplish. That's all of them.

Everywhere. That doesn't mean we can't change that. but it means that we've passively allowed that to be the case. Maybe it wasn't always like that, but that's all I've ever seen. But it's nice to see that at the very least, they're either being forced to acknowledge it through some way like that or are actually seeing it. Change is possible.

Just realize how aggressively they always try to stop it. Now I'm just going to go ahead and play this like I planned. I'm already gone past the time I wanted. It's a great clip from Chris Hedges that I'll end with today. And I know I seemingly always forget to play the clip that I say I'm going to play at the end anyway. I always cut it in afterwards for the other posts for like an Odyssey and so on when I repost it. But I keep forgetting that. I know that. But I'm going to end with this. I won't forget. I was try not to. The clip of Chris Hedges. And, you know, just kind of a good, just a speech that I

think is powerful about what he's seeing and all this. And just to recognize that you're not alone out there, guys. People do see through this right now. And that should give us some, some semblance of hope, you know, that it's possible that we can change. And I want you just to remember, as always, that there are a lot of people out there for any number of reasons. May not be what you would think, but that are actually fighting for awareness and to change and to help the people that are suffering right now.

So support that. I guess, I mean, that's the most important thing right now that I can see is that we need to stand up for what we believe is right. And on a side note on general or a small note to end, I was thinking about this today. You know, as I said earlier in the show, we can really more than anything affect what's right around us. The people in our circle, you know, the people we engage with.

So as always, be better in the small ways that you can. That's really the only way we truly ultimately affect the world around us. You know, go open a door for somebody. Go help somebody when they don't expect it. You know, be the kind of person that then causes that person to go, I want to be like that. I want to be better than the person, you know, then who I was or the people that I'm usually around.

You know, go out and do something kind for somebody that doesn't expect it. Help people that need it. Just find ways to better the world around you. I think that's all we can really do. So hopefully that will translate further and we can save a little bit more life. Stop a few more bad things. But thank you for support, guys. Thank you for continuing to be here and support the Last American Vagabond.

I love you all. As always, question everything. come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. Labens-Rom master plan for Gaza. Borrowed from the Nazis' depopulation of Jewish ghettos is clear. Destroy infrastructure, medical facilities and sanitation, including access to clean water, block shipments of food and fuel, impose telecommunications blackouts,

unleash indestructions. discriminant industrial violence, to kill and wound hundreds a day. Let starvation and epidemics of infectious diseases, along with the daily massacres and the displacement of Palestinians from their homes, turn Gaza into a mortuary. Israel has killed or seriously wounded close to 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza, almost one in every 20 inhabitants. It is destroyed or damaged 60% of the housing. The safe areas to which some 2 million Gazans were instructed to flee in the South have been relentlessly bombed with thousands of casualties. Palestinians in Gaza now make up 80% of all the people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, according to the UN. Every person in Gaza is hungry.

A quarter of the population are starving and struggling to find food and drinkable water. Famine is imminent. The 335,000 children under the age of five are at high risk of malnutrition. The some 50,000 pregnant women lack health care and adequate nutrition. Infants are dying in droves. droves. Israeli political and military officials as the South African jurists documented at the International Court of Justice, make no secret of their genocidal intent, nor of their vision of what comes next. In September before, the incursion into Israel by Hamas and other resistance fighters, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu displayed a map of what he called the new Middle East at a UN General Assembly meeting. Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem had all been incorporated into a greater Israel. Palestine had ceased to exist. The Palestinians

are being forced to choose between death from bombs, disease, exposure, or starvation, or being driven from their homeland. There will soon reach a point where death will be so ubiquitous that deportation for those who want to live will be the only option. Israel is lobbying countries in Latin America and Africa to accept Palestinian refugees. Israeli leaders are calling this deportation, quote, voluntary migration. migration is not a new concept in the annals of genocide. In the Warsaw ghetto, the Nazis handed out three kilograms of bread and one kilogram of marmalade to anyone who voluntarily registered

for deportation. There were times when hundreds of people had to wait in line for several hours to be deported, Maurek Aedleman, the only surviving commander of the Warsaw ghetto uprising writes in his book the ghetto fights. The number of people anxious to obtain three kilos of bread was such that the transports now leaving twice daily with 12,000 people could not accommodate them all. And Edelman, by the way, repeatedly condemned the Zionist state of Israel, calling it unviable, and supported Palestinian resistance, including armed resistance. The Nazis ship their victims to death camps. The Israelis will ship their victims to squalid refugee camps in countries outside of Israel. This is the plan. No one,

especially the Biden administration, intends to stop it. The most disturbing lesson I learned while covering armed conflicts for two decades is that we all have the capacity with little prodding to become willing executioners. The line between the victim and the victimizer is razor thin, the dark lusts of racial and ethnic supremacy, of vengeance and hate, of the eradication of those we condemn as embodying evil are poisons that are not circumscribed by race, nationality, ethnicity or religion. We can all become Nazis. It takes very little. And if we do not stand in eternal vigilance over evil, our evil, we become like those carrying out the mass killing in Gaza, monsters. Perhaps the saddest irony is that a people once in need of protection from

genocide now committed.