reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@StillLioness - LionessStill 🇮🇱
@QuantumFlux36 Full video here - a video on children indoctrination into hatred and martyrdom has ironically been age-restricted so it can't be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=narPqy6TXhQ Watch it fast before it's censored, as it's bound to be.
@PunishDem1776 - The Punisher
You need to watch this What you were never taught about America 🚨Full Documentary🚨 By ReallyGracefull https://t.co/NUHnv8zJg4
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video discusses the Act of 1871, which established Washington DC as a separate territory with its own constitution, allowing the federal government to gain more power and control. It also explores the consequences of taking the US dollar off the gold standard in 1971, leading to a decline in its value and increasing debt. The video highlights the influence of Israel and the suppression of information surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict and the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. It questions the ethics of government officials profiting from illegally occupied territories, particularly in the case of the Golan Heights and the involvement of Genie Energy, a company with influential board members. The video also touches on propaganda, censorship, Israeli espionage, and the connection between Israel and ISIS. Ultimately, it suggests that peace will be elusive as long as those in power prioritize their own interests over the well-being of others.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The year was 18/71. And while the events of this year have been purposefully hidden from the masses, 18/71 must never be forgotten. Much like Vatican City and the City of London, Washington DC has its own sovereignty. Basically, DC, City of London, and Vatican City are totally separate Territories from the nations in which they reside. Vatican City is technically engraved within Rome, outfitted with its own special police force and political structure.
The same way the city of London is situated within the city called London. And it has its own flag, crest, police force, ceremonial armed forces, and a mayor. And sure, there are states within the United States that have their own constitution and distinctive flags, but I think most people you'd ask would know that Washington DC isn't a state. Most folks would tell you that Washington DC is where our laws are made, where our politicians congregate, and where our White House resides. But on the DC flag, which is said to have been reflective of George Washington's coat of arms, there are 3 stars.
And I wonder, Are those stars representative of the 3 city states that exist as corporate entities outside of their respective nations? Vatican City, the religious hub. The city of London, the banking central. And Washington DC, the military leg of the empire. Being its own city state, DC has its own police force that shares a direct link with congress.
Its own mayor and its own set of laws. But our founding father certainly didn't set it up like this. So how did it come to be? The year was 18/71. The US was going through a lot of turmoil.
The nation was bankrupt and vulnerable after after the civil war and the London bankers, which included the notorious family, were ready to make a deal with congress to remedy that turmoil. Turmoil, I might add, that is suspected that the bankers had a hand in creating in the 1st place. At any rate, these bankers made a lot of credit available in the The math of the civil war as a means to 1. Fight Lincoln's greenback after he was murdered with some theorizing that part of the motivation for his assassination came from his Push to privatize the monetary system. And the second reason that the bankers made so much credit available was to collect on the interest from those who desperately needed the money, which would be the United States government at the time.
Now this was nothing new. This was a practice as old as time. Well, as old as mystery Babylon. Not much has really changed since the days of Babylon, not the usury, not the debt slavery, not even the iconography. Passed by congress, the act of 18/71 provided the government for the 10 mile parcel of land known as the District of Columbia, allowing Washington DC to act as a corporation outside of the original constitution of the United States.
So okay, why does the Washington DC constitution have nothing to do with the United States constitution? Why exactly is Washington DC totally separate from the rest of the United States. Why does it need to be separate from the United States as a separate territory at the epicenter of the Virgin Mary tucked right between Virginia and Maryland. The act of 18/71 changed our country's founding father's original constitution for the United Dates for America to the constitution of the United States of America. If you blink, you might miss it because it's a mixture of impactful wording And some weird capitalization thrown in there that pretty much means nothing to the average person upon initial inspection.
But these subtle changes are a huge deal in the realm of legislation. Compounded with these minor changes was clever marketing of the act as a way to unify by the territorial government for the entire District of Columbia. The aforementioned are contributing factors as to how such a major act Flew under the radar, ultimately overturning the United States constitutional republic. Since 18/71, the Federal government has usurped nearly all of the power that was formerly held in the hands of the people. But how on earth was congress able to pass a separate Constitution and incorporate the United States.
A bunch of attorneys have contacted me about the subject explaining it to me. Thank you for everyone who's done that. But let me break it down to you in a way that won't make you just totally fall asleep. A corporation, by definition, is a legal entity from its owners. A corporation protects its owners from personal liability for corporate debts and obligations within limits.
So was the act of 18/71 as harmless as some claim? Just an act to provide a government for the District of Columbia and nothing more? We can answer that Question by simply stepping back and taking a look at the dominoes that fell after this act was passed and asking the question, Who benefited from this piece of legislation? Is the act of 18/71 the reason why Congress Passed the 16th amendment, which allowed the federal government to tax individual personal income regardless of state population. Is the act of 18/71 the reason why the Federal Reserve Act of Pin 13 was passed.
Handing over America's gold and silver reserves and ultimately the total control of America's economy to the Federal Reserve Bank. Think about it. A private corporation established their private bank acting as the central bank of the United States, but it isn't even a government institution, But a privately owned banking system. Is it a coincidence that social security numbers started being assigned in 1935? Social security numbers being the 9 digit numbers given to every u US citizen and used for income tracking and taxation purposes.
Ultimately, individual income taxes have been the primary source of revenue for the US federal government since 19 fifties. These moves make a lot of sense when examined through the lens of the United States as a corporation and its citizens as employees, a corporate government asset before they even go through puberty. But still, throughout all this time, there was a promise that the American dollar was actually worth something, Something tangible, not just the confidence to exchange it for goods and services. A dollar was worth 1 35th an ounce of gold. But then president Richard Nixon came along and screwed that up for us, severing the final link between the dollar and gold in 1971.
In other words, he took the dollar off the gold standard once and for all. Steadily, the purchasing power of the dollar has declined while Federal and consumer debt has increased. Currently, we're witnessing the culmination of all of these decisions, and it ain't pretty. We're one bad flu season removed from Weimar Republic wheelbarrow money. So who would you say benefited from the act of 18/71?
The average US citizen or the bankers who incorporated the United States, who have been buying politicians ever since. The same Federal Reserve who serves absolutely no real function except stealing the purchasing power of your 60 plus hour work week And then redistributing those funds to destroy your rights and enslave you on your own soil. Hey. Just like they did back in Babylon, It's the same folks using the same debt slavery system time after time. When will we learn that debt with interest is a system of perpetual Jewel debt and is continually passed on to the people beneath until until the debt gap consumes all but those who own the debt.
Well, like I said in the beginning of this video, the most pivotal year in the United States history was never taught to me in school, public or private, and never taught to me at a college Level. But as Americans, it's so important that we not let this information die with our generation. One of the most important lessons you can teach your children is how to obtain their own freedom, how to identify when their freedoms are being taken from them, and how to demand those personal freedoms and liberties back. Instead of waiting around for a hero in the form of a politician to represent them, to offer solutions. During this time, we've seen people of all ages crying out for change.
And instead of focusing on the changes we could make that could fundamentally change the United States for the better, especially on an individual level. Politicians are selling socialism and communism, AKA more Government control to young people looking for an answer, and they beg for it because the future seems so bleak. Whether you play with paper or with digital money, the future will always be bleak if you're a debt slave. If before your foot even touches this Earth, you're scanned into the system as an employee of this corporation who does not care about you one bit. United States is still a great country, but it has has its problems.
And, you know, you can riot and loot and protest all you want. But until the Federal Reserve is ended, until the act of 18/71 is torn into a 1000 pieces and thrown into the wind. Until the IRS is abolished and until we move back to the gold standard, we have no chance that experiencing any iota of freedom. What do you think, Internet friends? Did you know about the act of 18/71?
You know, I always look forward to reading your comments. Thank you so much for sharing this video, for subscribing, and for supporting my channel on Patreon. Bye.
Speaker 1: Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. Either you're with the United States or you're not with the United States. Either you're with us, Either you love freedom and with nations which embrace freedom, or you're with the enemy. There's no in between it.
You're either with us or you're with the enemy. That's That's clear. I will continue to make that clear. President Bush made the terms of the war on terror very clear. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.
I've I've had a very good discussion with the president of Yemen. I made it clear to him as well as other presidents of nations that either with us or you're not with us.
Speaker 2: Every nation has to either be with us or against us.
Speaker 3: What we need to do in the first instance, and is the minimal requirement to Ascertain whether you're on this side of president Bush's, firmly drawn line, with us or against us. Are you with the terrorists? Are you against the terrorists? There is no middle ground. I think the president enunciated, a very clear policy.
You're either with us or against us.
Speaker 4: And then came the speech. You are either with us or against us. And the bombing began. And the old paradigm was restored As our leader encouraged us to show our patriotism by shopping, and by volunteering to join groups That would turn in their neighbor for any suspicious behavior. In the 19 months since 9/11, We have seen our democracy come compromised by fear and hatred.
Basic inalienable rights, Due process, the sanctity of the home, have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear.
Speaker 5: Here's something you're never taught in school. Here in the good old US of A, all of your wars have been fake. I don't mean the actual part where they blow up and kill people. I'm talking about the part where we go to war in the 1st place. And the sad part about it is the people up at the top and their minions, the people that hang out in these think tanks and stuff, they Sit around talking about this blatantly openly, just in your face, strategizing about how they can get us into the next war.
And this is actually an old video, but I think it it bears being shown again. In fact, it should be shown once Every 6 months or so, you should just watch it again just to remind yourself the level that we're at in this country. So The guy the douchebag you're about to see is from the Washington Institute For Near East Policy. This is an American think tank Out of Washington, DC was established in 1985, and it says the mission statement of the institute, quote, is to advance a balanced and realistic standing of American interests in the Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them. Not about what's right and wrong over there.
It's just Whatever secures the American interests over in the Middle East, and we all know what those interests are. It has nothing to do with spreading democracy or Freedom or liberty. For more on that, all you have to do is look at the board of advisors and look at some of the names on here. You've got Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearl, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, James Woolsey. It's a fun crowd.
And it doesn't matter which president you think you're voting for. It's gonna change everything. People that have been part of this particular think tank have served senior positions in the administrations Of every president this country has had since George h w Bush. Some of you may have seen this video, but again, considering the things that are going on right now,
Speaker 6: it's It's very
Speaker 5: it's more relevant now than it's ever been. So we're gonna go ahead and watch this. And I just wanna say upfront, you're gonna wanna have to make yourself resist the urge to punch your screen because you're gonna wanna punch this guy. And you don't wanna do that because you could cut your knuckles and break your monitor and stuff like that. Because you're gonna wanna punch him though.
Listen to what he says here.
Speaker 7: I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, And it's very hard for me to see how the United States, president can get us to war with Iran.
Speaker 5: He just said that. You aren't hearing things he literally just said. Crisis initiation's tough. And So how is the United States president gonna get to war with Iran? Because wars don't just happen.
They make the war.
Speaker 7: Which leads me to conclude that if, in fact, compromise is not coming, that the traditional way of America Gets to war is what would be best for US interests.
Speaker 5: The traditional way that America gets to war is what's best for the interests. Now Listen to what the traditional way is that America goes to war.
Speaker 7: Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War 2 as David mentioned. You may recall we had to wait
Speaker 8: for Pearl Harbor.
Speaker 1: False
Speaker 7: flag. Some people might think mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War one. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode.
Speaker 8: Also a false flag.
Speaker 7: Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall he had to wait for the Gulf Tonkin episode.
Speaker 8: Total false flag.
Speaker 7: We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS, until the Maine exploded.
Speaker 8: Probably also a false flag.
Speaker 7: May I point out That mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing, which The South Carolinians had said would cause attack.
Speaker 8: Also a false flag.
Speaker 5: Do you see a pattern here?
Speaker 7: So if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna compromise, It would be best if somebody else started the war.
Speaker 5: Period. If the Iranians don't compromise, it would be best if someone started this war because That is how America goes to war. You literally have the douchebags who stand up there in these think tanks and say stuff like this. It's Not even Findlay veiled. There's not even a semantic argument that could be made here that he actually meant something else.
He straight up said someone needs to start this war The way that all of America's other wars have been started, with a false flag.
Speaker 7: One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look, people. Iranian submarines periodically go down.
Someday, one of them might not come up. Who would know why?
Speaker 5: Somebody actually laughed in the audience when he said that.
Speaker 7: We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that, But I'm just suggesting that, it it it it's this is not a a either or proposition. You know? It's just sanctions testing has to succeed or other things.
Speaker 5: He's not advocating that. He's just suggesting that you can do some things, which is basically the same as advocating it.
Speaker 7: We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We we could get massed here with that.
Speaker 5: They're in the game of doing that to everybody. This is how America goes to war. You don't know when World War 3 is gonna break out, but when it does, you'll know why.
Speaker 0: Hey, Internet friends. If the world is a kaleidoscope of color, you and I could be looking at the same sky and see totally different shades of blue. Reality is much the same. In the Israeli Palestinian conflict with its complex and winding history, It's one of those reality breakdowns where people come away with drastically different reads of the room based on their Bringing religious affiliation, schooling, television habits, you know how it is. Only much like COVID and Even the war in Ukraine, we are being forced to choose a side.
And it's not simply a selection, but a moral decree. An effective way to shatter the calm of the evening is to have an opposing opinion on this issue amongst good company. So today I'm gonna give you a historical overview of the Israel and Palestine conflict that is seldom taught in school or even church to better help us navigate the barrage of violent imagery. Harrowing headlines in narratives meant to stir not only emotion, but serve as a call to action. Let's start with the basics.
Judaism isn't Zionism. While Zionism is a political philosophy for a Certain group of people, Judaism is a religion. Jewish ancestry is not a requirement for practicing Judaism. To be a Zionist, You don't have to be Jewish. The official definition of Zionism is a movement for originally the reestablishment and now the development and protection of a Jewish nation, In what is now Israel, Zionism was established as a political organization in 18/97.
Basically, Zionists believed that according to the Torah, God made a covenant or a sacred agreement with the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the patriarchs of Judaism. So in the old testament, as it's interpreted by Zionists, God basically acts as a real estate agent and promises Abraham and his descendants a Pacific land, often referred to as the promised land or the land of Canaan. The land is described in various passages in the bible and includes the territory story that makes up modern day Israel, as well as parts of surrounding areas. If you're new here, I'm from the bible belt of the United States, where Christian Zionism is widespread. Believe in that Israel and the Jews are the chosen people, and that Israel is the promised land for Jesus taught and church is a gateway to salvation and eternal life.
Keep in mind that as Christians, we are also taught that the way to eternal life and salvation is through Christ, whom religious Jews reject, and they also reject the idea of hell or eternal damnation. And I just wanna remind Christians who might be watching that everything changed with the New Testament, which is why Christians are taught from both the Old and New Testament. Remember, Jesus rolled up, started performing miracles, flipping over tables of money changers, and said it doesn't matter who you are, How much money you got, who your daddy is, as long as you walk with Christ, you're chosen for eternal salvation. And this changed everything. It gave everyday people hope and put them on an even playing field.
Speaker 9: His point of view, we don't believe in the divinity of Christ. I think that There you can make an argument that the the gospels which were written He
Speaker 2: was just a prophet and Significant
Speaker 9: no, no, no. We don't even believe he's a prophet.
Speaker 10: What do you think he was? What do you
Speaker 9: guys think? I mean, What I what I think he was historically, I think he was a Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble.
Speaker 0: But just like Christians, there are certain sects Some Judaism that believe one thing and other Jews believe something else. So Jews who follow the Babylonian Talmud, a rabbinical text, Are taught that there is a distinction between Jews, who are considered the chosen people in Jewish theology, and those who are not Jewish. The word used to describe the non Jewish, including Christians, is goyim or goy. It is a derogatory Yiddish term meaning cattle or beast It's often used in place of the word Gentile. And this distinction or this perception, well, it just totally discards The concept of an even playing field, the perception of the self, the teachings are inherently otherly in ways that others Could never achieve if they weren't born into it.
The 1st big departure from Israel happened during the Babylonian exile, Almost 600 years before Christ, when king Nebuchadnezzar, the second of the Babylonian empire took over Jerusalem and destroyed the first temple, Solomon's Temple. Then Rome conquered Jerusalem in 70 ish AD, destroying the 2nd temple, the central hub of Jewish worship and sacrifice. About 70 years later, the Romans changed the name of the area from Judea to Palestine. Okay. So like I said, the original bible Jews fled Judea to surrounding areas throughout the centuries.
But there's a key event that happened in Jewish history that no one really Ever addresses. And I'm just gonna warn you, it's a highly debated event. It really gets people worked up to talk about it. During the middle ages, between the 7th 10th Centuries, the kingdom of Kazaria ruled over parts of Russia, Kazakhstan, and modern day Ukraine. So under the Kazarian Empire, the kingdom made all the Civilians who were reportedly polytheistic and pagan, they made them convert to Judaism.
And it's believed that the decision to convert Was a political choice to stay independent and avoid religious pressures from the Christian Byzantine Empire to the West and the Islamic Caliphate to the South. Meaning that Kazarians were not necessarily Jews in the sense that bible Jews were, if that makes sense. They had the identity, but not the connection to ancient Israel. After the fall of the Kazarian Empire in the 10th century, Kazarians migrated and integrated across Europe. In all fairness, it should be noted that a bunch of Jews call the Khazar history a conspiracy theory.
They say it's an anti semitic conspiracy theory. Even though you can open up a history book and it's right there, so I don't know what to tell you. Chinese Muslims don't pretend they're Arabs, but white Europeans claim to be Bible Israelites, and we all just pretend that's perfectly normal. Eventually, Jewish people arrived in Western Europe and America, and forgive me because it's getting a little dicey here making the distinction between bible Jews and converted Jews, but Apparently it's an important distinction because it determines whether America is willing to send 1,000,000,000 of tax dollars and soldiers to a nation. So we've got to at least Touch on the difference.
So let's fast forward to the late 1800 when Zionism allegedly got its start in response to the resurgence of antisemitism. By the way, antisemitism before the definition was changed in like 2016 used to mean hostility towards Semites. A semite being a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a semitic language, including in particular the Jews and the Arabs. Now it just means hatred of Jewish people. When Zionism was just getting traction, among the considerations for a Jewish state were Argentina, Uganda, Cyprus, and even Texas.
Throughout the early 1900s, numerous sinus groups began to pop up across the United States, With their various publications serving as a vehicle for Zionist propaganda, the goal was to influence both the United States congress and the general public. Though the sentiment amongst US officials at the time was that Zionism countered both US interests and principles, since it involved matters related to other countries other than the United States. Clearly, much has changed since then. But then the world descended into war. A secret deal called the Sykes Picot treaty was made during World War one, the result of which was bringing down the Ottoman Empire.
The treaty was made public in 1916 and set new borders for the Middle East, splitting the area into states. And Palestine was put under international control. But strangely enough the Balfour declaration which was written in a letter to Walter Rothschild by the UK's Born secretary Arthur Balfour promised Palestine as a home for the Jewish people. And this letter was sent just 1 year after the Sykes Picot treaty. It's important to remember that the Rothschild banking family actively funded both sides of the war.
This was also done during World War 2 because Countries at war needed money to do things like feed and arm their men. But for Rothschild's Zionism, making money was just the cherry on top. They needed Jewish people to be traumatized. They needed Jewish people to have a reason to live in fear and want to migrate to Israel, which would serve as a hub to help them rule the Middle East. And they needed global superpowers to back them up.
But even before world war Two, Zionists were busy buying up land in Palestine and moving there. Palestine was a place where Jews, Christians and Muslims already lived. The Zionist Federation of Germany and the Nazi government signed the Havara agreement in 1933. This made it easier for German Jews to move to Palestine, and it let Jewish people in Germany move some of their wealth out of Germany by buying things made in Germany to send to Palestine. Jews who had left their homes used the money they made from selling these goods in Palestine to settle down there.
As a result of the deal, about 60,000 German Jews moved to Palestine before it was officially ended when World War 2 broke out in 1939. Before the state of Israel was officially established, the Palestinians revolted. Zionists said this was because of their anti semitism. But Palestine was their home, and the Arabs knew it was being attacked and taken away from them. Were they just supposed to, I don't know, give away their homes and family farms without a People are like, no problem.
We'll just bulldoze our homes ourselves. That's just a little bit unrealistic, don't you think? 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes when the state of Israel was created. Some people might call this an ethnic cleansing of the land. More and more Palestinian land has been claimed by Israel every year since its creation, and every day there It's a war.
In 1967, Israel was at war with 6 surrounding Arab states. As a result, Israel won and took over the Gaza Strip, The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and of course, the Syrian Golan Heights. The UN has asked Israel to leave these lands They give them back, but they have held on to them, which has created extremely high tensions in the region, giving rise to extremist groups which are then funded by the CIA and Mossad and whoever else, so they can control the opposition which is always their MO. Zionists say that their treatment of Palestinians is okay because after World War 2, everyone abandoned Israel. They were truly on their own and surrounded by people who didn't like them being there.
The excuse for their aggression was that they were protecting themselves. After all, Jewish Zionists believe that they are God's chosen people and that this land was given to them by God, and it's their duty, There may assess destiny, if you will, to take it. This argument, this whole argument has transformed into, Do we not have a right to protect ourselves in the face of such extreme antisemitism? Let's call a spade a spade. It's all a bit gas lighty.
As part of Zionism's manifest destiny, there is perpetual war and death in the Middle East. The United Nations doesn't punish Israel for their violations of human rights as they grow into the greater Israel. Even so, resolution 33/79 of the UN General Assembly in 18/75 said that Zionism was a form of racism and racial discrimination. This decision was taken away in 1991. Still, it seems like Israel is a Jewish state, but only for a certain kind of Jewish people.
The Palestinian Jews who were there the entire time and the Ethiopian European Jews who moved there in the 19 eighties and early 19 nineties aren't wanted there. Bethlehem historically associated Seated with Jesus Christ has seen its Christian population decrease significantly from 80% in the 19 twenties to just 20% today. A similar decline has occurred throughout Palestine where Christians now make up only about 1% of the population. Some people might say that this decline is because of Tensions in the Middle East between Palestinian Muslims and Christians. However, however, a study from 2017 found that the main reason Palestinian Christians left was the pressure of Israeli occupation.
The study reported that ongoing restrictions, unfair laws, random arrests, and land seizures are some of the things that make Palestinian Christians feel hopeless. Every day for decades, the Israelis and the Palestinians are at war with Each other. Eventually, Israel put up a wall between territories effectively surrounding the Palestinian population of 2,000,000 like their caged animals, Providing only a couple of guarded exits, Palestinian civilians often get caught up in the crossfire, leaving their hospitals, schools, and homes Destroyed by Israel. Meanwhile, Israel built their Iron Dome missile defense system in the 2000 to defend against rocket threats from Hezbollah and Hamas. The United States funds both sides of the conflict, giving Palestinians 600,000,000 annually, and Israel around 3,300,000,000 in foreign aid annually.
To wrap it all up here, Israel has and continues to commit human rights violations against Palestinian civilians, which have been documented by the UN and human rights organizations. There are repeated examples, daily tragedies that global super powers have turned a blind eye to. Presumably in the United States, it's because the Zionist law because a great deal of power over the politicians. Any criticism of Israel and its practices gets shut down by accusations of anti semitism before one sentence ever leaves your mouth. And of course, The Palestinians hate the Israelis.
Of course, the Israelis hate the Palestinians. Who is right? Who is wrong? Do you actually believe that the same media who lied to get us into every major war, Vietnam, The gulf wars into the war on drugs, intact passports at the bottom of the twin tower rubble, war on terrorism, COVID, mass saves lives, Ukraine. Do you actually believe they're telling you the truth about what happened in the last few weeks between Israel and Palestine?
The events of which will inevitably This can lead to greater involvement of global superpowers and eventually cost the lives of many American soldiers. Do you actually believe that they're telling you the truth? If everything went down exactly as the media reported, of course, Hamas is in the wrong for killing Israeli civilians. The whole sophistication of the Israeli intelligence and military surveillance apparatus being down during that particular time is a little suspect, but I digress. I hope that if you're a Christian, you'll consider what I've said.
I know you're good people. I know you have big hearts. And I know you hate to see others suffer. But if you're gonna cheer on the genocide of an entire population and beg for Americans to get involved, I hope and pray Pray that you know the true identity and intent of our greatest ally in the Middle East. Because by your logic, you're basing your entire Eternal salvation on supporting them in their actions.
Just make sure that you're sure. That's all. By the way, I wish we had a single politician who was as fired up about what's happening in the United States as they are about Israel. Wouldn't that be something? What if people directed their energy towards bankers and puppeteers funding both sides of the conflict instead of choosing a side in this false dichotomy?
Speaker 3: What do
Speaker 0: you think, Internet friends? I'm sure I've upset some of you by saying this. I just humbly ask for your consideration of what I've laid out here. And, You know, I contemplated a long time about doing this video and I still felt like after a week it was important enough to post. Hey, Internet friends.
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the attack on the virtually unarmed American naval vessel, the USS Liberty. Position 17 miles off the Gaza coast, Liberty's mission was to intercept communications at the height of the 6 day war. Well, until the ship was attacked by Israel, then the only thing they were intercepting was torpedoes and Bombs and bullets and napalm despite the attack taking place in full daylight with the American flag on Blaise. And even though Israel basically shrugged and said, whoopsy daisy, labeling the attack as a case of mistaken identity, perhaps The most shocking part of this attack is that it's missing from our history books. Did you ever learn about the liberty attack in school?
I sure didn't. One of the biggest untold stories in our past history deserves some spotlight, don't you think? Just to be fair here, you can replace Israel with any ally attacking the United States in this tale, and the point still stands. With 34 American sailors killed and a 172 injured that day, Israel committed acts of war that the United States Has covered up for 50 years. At the beginning of every school day, children across America pledge allegiance to the United States of America, Not the United States of Israel or the United States of Switzerland or what or any other nation.
Our tax dollars go towards the future generations education, an education riddled with as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese. How can we flourish in the land of opportunity, the land of the free, the home of the brave and all of that jazz when our government continues to operate in In such a treasonous fashion, lining their pockets with the endless cash flow from foreign lobbyists. You tell me, and while you're noodling on your answer, I'll Tell you about the USS Liberty attack that took place half a century ago. On June 8, 1967, a crew of 294 men were patrolling in the international waters of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. At 2 PM, the USS Liberty crew noted Three surface radar contacts followed up by a high speed aircraft passing over the ship.
And a little while later without any warning, An Israeli fighter aircraft launched a rocket attack at the American ship, following up with a healthy dose of cannon fire In napalm, Israeli forces jammed the ship's communications. They targeted the ship's command bridges so the Liberty's crew didn't Have the easiest time contacting the United States Navy's 6th fleet. It's important to note that prior to this attack, there was no fire directed did from the Liberty to the aircraft. The Israeli aircrafts attacked in a crisscross fashion over the ship striking in 45 2nd to 1 minute intervals. And even though the commanding officer of the Liberty was injured from the shrapnel, he managed to grab a camera And photographed the aircraft.
And that was only the attack from the sky. Following the air attack, torpedo boats flying Israeli flags were noted And the Liberty crew replaced their American flag with a larger American flag in an effort to signal that they were not the enemy. The Israeli torpedo strikes that followed rendered the USS Liberty dead in the water with all power and steering control lost. Survivors reported that Israeli torpedo boat crews swept the decks with continuous machine gun fire, targeting communications equipment and Any crew members above deck. And when the captain gave the order to prepare to abandon ship, the torpedo boat crews targeted inflated life Boats with their machine gunfire.
2 helicopters bearing the star of David were noted passing over and around the Ship. But we're not observed to pick up any persons or bodies or debris. So why don't we dive into the murky waters of speculation? Why would Israel attack the United States? What could be their motivation, their goal?
Was it really a case of mistaken identity? The attack occurred in broad daylight amid excellent weather conditions with both the American flag and the vessel number identifiable from the air. In an article released by the Chicago Tribune in 2007, it was revealed that the transcripts from the Israeli Air Force showed that Pilots who flew over the Liberty saw a US flag. Can we clearly define what the Israeli motive was for attacking an American ship If they did indeed know the identity of the ship, the United States chose to stay out of the 6 day war between Israel and Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Despite Israel's requests for military support, perhaps Israel felt a bit betrayed.
A popular hypothesis is that Israel wanted to pull a false flag to rope in the United States into war with Egypt. Another hypothesis to throw out there deals with intelligence since the Liberty was collecting intel. And perhaps some of What they collected, Israel did not want revealed, thus the attack. While asking why Israel would attack an American ship, their ally, It is an important series of questioning. Perhaps asking why the 6th fleet abandoned the Liberty is a more important series of Questioning.
The Liberty's radio sent a brief distress message that was acknowledged by the 6th fleet who were nearby in the Mediterranean. The director of the CIA during the 1967 attack, Richard Helms, elaborated on the final investigation of the USS Liberty, Saying, Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not Been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded that the attack was a mistake And not made in malice against the US. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship Or who ordered the attack? Congress never investigated the Liberty attack, making the Liberty the only attack on a United States Navy ship Involving significant loss of life that has not been investigated in this way.
In fact, after the attack, nearly all the evidence pertaining to remained highly classified. Did the White House fear conflict with Israel? Did they fear conflict enough to sacrifice Their own servicemen for the benefit of a foreign nation, a nation who committed war crimes against us. Although the surviving crew members were awarded medals of honor for their plight, they've been vilified for claiming the attack Was in any way deliberate on Israel's behalf? Terms like Neo Nazis, conspiracy theorists, And antisemites have been used to describe the survivors of the attack in their efforts to pursue a transparent investigation.
Are these men Neo Nazis for telling the truth? Are they conspiracy theorists for wanting an open and transparent investigation? Are they antisemites for having the audacity to survive? Are the abbreviated lives of the sons, brothers, Fathers and husbands, not worth a mention or even a sentence in our history books because They fell at the hands of God's chosen people. Were they not God's people too?
Speaker 11: I survived the 2 hour Israeli attack on the US naval intelligence ship USS Liberty AGTR 5. On June 8, 1967, during the Arab Israeli 6 Day War, Israel tried to sink the ship Attempting to murder the crew of 294 Americans. They launched 5 torpedoes, but our captain, William McGonigal, assertively dodge 4 of them. However, the 5th hit us on our starboard side just forward of the midships killing 25 of the 34 Americans. A little after 2 PM, 3 Israeli unmarked fighter jets began striking the ship with 20 millimeter cannon and rockets, killing the young sailors manning the 50 caliber machine guns.
The Rainyman immediately tried to call for help, discovered all US selected frequencies were jammed. The Israelis knew the frequencies we're attempting to use. Nevertheless, the ready men finally got through to the 6th fleet. No help is forthcoming that day as the 6th fleet had White House orders Not to launch aircraft to come to our aid. Next came 2 fighter fighter bombers that dropped napalm canisters on each side of the ship.
Even though they were being shot at, the Liberty crew eventually put out the fires. After a brief lull, 3 torpedo boats arrived strafing the ship with their 40 millimeter cannon And 50 millimeter machine guns. Then they proceeded to drop their torpedoes in the water. 1 finally did find its mark. Our skipper passed a command to prepare to abandon ship.
3 inflatable life rafts that remained seaworthy were dropped over the side And were machine gunned by the motor torpedo boats. Our life vests were now our only hope for survival, and the more seriously wounded would never survive. However, the engine room was able to bring the boilers back to life and the Liberty had power. And the in addition, Damage control indicated that the ship stopped taking on more water and the ship came to a 9 degree list to starboard. So our captain wisely decided not to abandon ship.
In order to secure the Jewish vote for an up upcoming elections, they could not have Israel taken the test. This was a major historical event. Any other time, their action would have been an act of war. The event had to be buried quickly, quietly, and without fanfare. Therefore, a couple of actions were taken immediately.
The navy told the Liberty survivors never to talk about the attack to anyone, including our families, Or face a $10,000 fine or 10 and or 10 years imprisonment. We now know the order came from Mahesh Dayan. We have declassified CIA cable exposing his order. 1 of the generals in the room that that morning explained, This is pure murder, but they went ahead as the order came from the defense minister until an an IDF Navy admiral later gave the order to stop the attack As the ship refused to sink. You see, there were plans included taking Syrian territory to Golan Heights.
By June 8th, the IDF had taken out the air forces of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Sinai.
Speaker 9: These myths matter. Israel is historically Jewish territory. According to the bible and certain interpretations of contemporaneous archeology, Joshua entered the land of Israel in 1400 BC. The kingdom of David was found around 1,000 BC. The first temple of Solomon was built in approximately 9 57 BC.
They talk about the USS Liberty Incident? I have to say I'm a little bit bewildered why you're so obsessed with an incident that is now 52 years old.
Speaker 0: Hey, Internet friends. Throughout history, we've seen empires rise, And we've seen them fall. But people remain even though their right to exist is questioned. Our time to speak about apartheid and ethnic cleansing, and even Question history and propaganda is coming to a close on the Internet and perhaps in real life. As videos are being flagged, search results are being History is being erased while individuals who dare question the narrative they're being fed are labeled extremists, Spouting hate speech and sometimes are even jailed as a result.
So while we can, we should talk about things that matter, Like the individuals and situations that play a direct role in wars and rumors of wars, as we all exist in a state of endless war. And there are some folks who'd like to keep it that way because it benefits them. That's why today, we're going to talk about the Golan Heights or the Syrian Golan. 2 thirds of which are occupied by Israel, serving as the epicenter of conflict in the Middle East. Within the hotbed of chaos, It's a curious cast of familiar characters, stoking the flames and collecting the spoils of war under the banner of a company by the name of Genie Energy.
Speaker 6: We are the masters of our faith. That the task which has been set us is not above our strength. That its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith In our cause and, an unconquerable willpower, salvation will not be denied us.
Speaker 0: How did we get to this point with Damascus laid to waste in an endless array of breaking news headlines relaying that an Pending world war is about to pop off at any moment. Well, we've gotta talk about black gold. With the Ottoman Empire first discovering oil in the Baku, Azerbaijan region in 18/46, becoming the world's top producing region at the time and later being pumped out of the ground by the Nobel brothers under the But soon, Rockefeller's American Standard Oil Company entered the black city of Baku. The Rothschilds, who make their association with the Ken, no secret, were there too, developing a fleet of oil tankers to operate in the Caspian Sea in 18/98. While in 1908, The British Burma Oil Company, owned by British royals and known today as BP, discovered oil in modern day Iran, which fueled exploration and Exploitation of a region once called Persia.
And in 1911, the Royal Dutch Shell Company bought the Azerbaijan oil fields from the Rothschild family. It's important to note that during World War one, which resulted in the fall of the Ottoman Empire, a secret agreement took place called the Sykes Picot Treaty. And this treaty was whipped up in 1916 by 2 British and French diplomats, dividing the region into States, which blintered ethnic and religious communities that were once united. And under that treaty, Palestine was placed under international Control. Post World War one, the Brits assumed control over Palestine.
In only 1 year after the Sykes Picot treaty was signed came the Balfour Declaration, Nestled in a letter between the United Kingdom's foreign secretary Arthur Balfour and addressed to Walter Rothschild, promising Palestine as a home for the Jewish People. Keep in mind, this declaration was talking Zionism or the Jewish nationalist movement supporting a Jewish National state in Palestine. This was in 1917. Promised to the same people who funded the Bolshevik communist revolution that Same year, with Lenin attacking Baku, igniting all of the oil frameworks and machinery, ensuring that communist Russia wouldn't be dabbling in the oil game. And the destruction of Baku resulted in a skyrocket in oil prices, meaning a payday for the rest of the players.
But we all gotta get by with a little help from our friends. Right? Before he was the prime minister of Britain, Before he ever helped lead the allied forces to victory, Winston Churchill was born into an aristocratic family, with its father being a member of the noble Spencer family and his mother, Jenny Jerome, a Jewish American dynast whose status could be compared to a modern day Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie. As first lord of the admiralty in the 19 twenties, Churchill was drooling over some oil. And the Burma oil company employed Churchill, Hang him to lobby the British government to allow Burma's Anglo Persian oil business to have exclusive rights The Persian oil.
And serving as secretary of state for the colonies, Churchill drew borders in the Middle East, Grabbing more oil for the British navy. Take note of this pattern while I summarize. The oil industry was booming pre World War one. Pumping out oil in the Ottoman Empire, and instead of competing for the prize, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds became a team. And essentially took out the rest of the competition, while simultaneously funding the perfect environment for war and rumors of wars, Creating a domino effect of chaos that worked in their favor.
Palestine was already promised to the Rothschilds. In wars and atrocities to get the entire world Behind the state of Israel and scare the Jewish population were funded by the same folks to which the state was promised.
Speaker 12: We do everything possible to prevent the emergence of another front of terror, front against us at the Golan Heights. This is the red line we have marked. We cannot go back the days when our villages and our children were shot at from the Golan Heights. And that is why in the framework of the agreement or without the Golan Heights will remain a part of sovereign Israel.
Speaker 0: The state of Israel was declared in 1948, but technically, the land was Palestine. So Sinians lived there. And ever since the creation of Israel, there's been bloodshed. In fact, there's never been friendly relations between Israel and its neighbors. The 6 6 day war of 1967 was basically Israel against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
Since Israel's neighbors saw Israel as an illegitimate Date, Egypt decided it was going to liberate the Palestinian state. Israel attacked first by air on Egyptian airfields. And as a result, Syria and Jordan Tacked Israel. But Israel defeated all of them. Occupying land that allegedly held a historical significance to Israel and mirrored what some refer to as The Greater Israel Plan.
Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula, but began settling other claimed lands, including the Golan Heights, which Israelis claim Syrians were using the strategic location to fire upon other Israelis. Since the 6 day war, Israel annexed The Golan territory in the 19 eighties. Though even to this day, Israeli settlements in building there is internationally considered to be illegal. Of course, Syria wants the return of the territory and herein lies the main reason for the continued conflict. Especially since Israel continues to take advantage of Syria's Chaos as a means of settling in the Golan.
Sound familiar? Sound like a familiar pattern? Well, this brings us to the main point of the video. Genie Energy, a company based in New York, New Jersey. A company that has a lot of interest in this unlawfully occupied territory, at which there's been at least what the news reports, A recent discovery of major oil reserves.
But that's not terrible. Right? People have a right To side with Israel and make a dollar doing so. That's capitalism. But wait, hold up.
Should members of our government, former Or current be doing that? Buying off illegally occupied territories sold by Israel? Setting an international For any country to invade and occupy a weaker one and gut them for their resources? Well, should they? Should that be allowed?
Let's take a closer look. On the board of Genie Energy sits Jacob Rothschild, Dick Cheney, former vice president, defense secretary, and Halliburton CEO, Rupert Murdoch, founder of News Corporation and Fox News, Larry Summers, former secretary of the treasury, James Woolsey, former director of the CIA. Bill Richardson, former governor and energy secretary under the Clinton administration. Mary Landrieu, who is a former senator who sponsored the Israeli US energy bill. And finally, Michael Steinhardt, Wall Street investor.
Speaker 13: Been involved with a number of administrations in the Middle East over the years, obviously. The efforts always been to try to get the peace process Going between Israel and the Palestinians.
Speaker 14: And what they're essentially doing is white helmets, and I really wanna stress this point because it's part of the overall scheme of propaganda And demonization, there are white helmets by day and terrorists by night. You see many of these people that are dressed in their pristine white outfits, and white helmets that pretend to be rescuing civilians. In other instances, you see the same characters holding their weapons and posing as rebels. This is the, the scandalous, hypocrisy of the west. Not only has the west been funding and training and arming terrorists To go into Syria and to behead and slaughter Syrian civilians, but now the West wants to award the white helmets with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 0: In recent years, the United States repealed the propaganda ban signing off on the National Defense Authorization Act, which included an amendment that Legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, making it legal for information and psychological operations aimed at Influencing public opinion to be implemented by the United States government. So is this why the white helmets, or voluntary rescue workers in Syria, who are pumping out Propaganda by day with a chunk of the white helmets murdering civilians by night. Is this why they were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize? Is this Why Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and innocent folks in Syria are being killed? Is this why American soldiers are dying from the sponsored war on terrorism?
So places like Syria can be shattered into a 1,000 different pieces. Have a puppet leader installed, and the spoils of war are there for the taking. Is this All to benefit the strategic interests of a few. In my opinion, there is nothing more un American than companies like Genie Energy. There is nothing more un American than the United States Incorporated.
A 100 years ago, the same folks were Fighting over this oil like they are now. Oil was known to be in the Golan before the Brits took over Palestine, even before the Bal Floor declaration. Because BP drilled there just like the Ottomans did a 100 years ago. Rothchild and co clearly knew there was black gold there before it was discovered. So why would these politicians and former government officials who sit on the board of Genie Energy ever promote peace in the Middle East when they profit from war?
A Peaceful solution would involve giving the Golan back to Syria and therefore forfeiting Genie Energy's cash cow, if oil is all they're up to. If I've been successful at communicating the point of this video, you can see that it's a tale as old as time. So now what's the solution?
Speaker 10: Steve Steve Byrne calls me, and Steve Byrne goes, you wanna go to Israel?
Speaker 6: I go, why? Yeah. That might be fun.
Speaker 10: Right? He goes, it's free. They'll fly you out. You come on. You didn't do birthright and pretended you were Jewish.
No. No. No.
Speaker 6: Can you imagine?
Speaker 10: Yeah. I didn't do that. No. But he said, no. The the government Israeli government is flying out like Celebrities for free out there to do a tour for free, and it's on the house.
They fly your 1st class whole thing.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 10: And I go, oh, who's going? He goes, It's gonna be me, you, George Lopez, Jamie Chung, Brian Greenberg, her husband. I like him. I love him. I love Brian.
Right? And I go, it's free? They go, yeah. It's not free. Because when you land there, they go, you have to everyday tweet positive things about Israel.
Yeah. Right? Yeah. And I just felt so uneasy uneasy about it. Yeah.
But couldn't you just go why? You because you have because you have a lot of Palestinian friends? Yeah. I mean, I know some. You know what I mean?
I don't know much about it. I just know that they're in conflict, and it's just like but I did. I did what they said.
Speaker 0: Hey, Internet friends. To speak about Israel and the Dream Zionist influence over our government is a discussion that should really be taking place, but is muffled by accusations of anti semitism. Often when there
Speaker 15: is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called anti semitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?
Speaker 16: Well, it's a trick. We always use it. When from Europe, somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the holocaust. When in this country, people are criticizing Well, then they are anti Semitic.
Speaker 0: Which is funny because by definition, a Semite is a member of any of the peoples Who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular, the Jews and the Arabs. And I can, With impunity, criticize the rest of the Middle East who are also Semites because the definition of Antisemitism only refers to the prejudice against Jews. But I totally get it. Up until very recently, I believed that anyone Who questioned Israel was a Neo Nazi. Back in high school, I attended this church where they'd passed the plate around the congregation.
Once for donations to the church and a second time for Israel, the holy land of God's oppressed but chosen people, the patriarchs and the prophets of the old testament. But I digress. I get the sense that a lot of you who watch this channel are Christians. So maybe you've shared in my experience of Christian Zionism. Maybe you still subscribe to that belief system and you'll find this video incredibly offensive.
I recommend you crack open the Talmud, The cornerstone of rabbinical education, which calls on Christians to be harmed both directly and indirectly. But I'm sure I'll have someone comment saying the mere fact that I brought up the Talmud is anti Jewish slander. It's old religious Fanaticism. And since I'm not Jewish, I couldn't possibly understand the laws that are written and quote them in context. But on the flip side, we can bring up any other religious texts like the Quran and pick it apart with virtually no repercussions.
The time is drawing near when the window of opportunity to speak freely will eventually vanish. In some parts of the world, there are laws and consequences for anti Semitic speech. And day by day, the Internet is becoming more and more censored for those of us who just want to know the truth About the Middle East. And in doing so, we have to take Israel into consideration because they're part of the Middle East. And to further that problem, Israel has hired university students to post pro Israel messages on social media networks without needing to identify themselves As government linked
Speaker 2: I came here to learn more about how, we as Israelis and as Jews can defend Israel online on the Internet, Particularly in Wikipedia, in this case, Wikipedia is a bit of a complex system, and it's sometimes hard to figure out the rules. I've personally Tried to edit things, in Wikipedia that were against Israel.
Speaker 7: I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, And it's very hard for me to see how the United States, president can get us to war with which leads me to conclude that if, in fact, compromise is not coming, that The traditional way of America gets to war is what would be best for US interests. I mean, look, people. Iranian submarines periodically go down. Someday, one of them might not come up. Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that.
Speaker 0: Have you ever heard about the day Israel attacked America, also known as the USS Liberty incident of 1967? During the 6 day war, 34 American servicemen were slaughtered and 173 more were wounded after Israeli forces repeatedly attacked USS Liberty in international waters. The Liberty was not a battleship and was entirely unable to defend itself. For decades, the US government threatened survivors with jail if they spoke about it and kept the truth from the public. Survivors of the attack have long maintained that Israel intended to kill the entire crew and sink the USS Liberty as a means of scapegoating the blame for the incident Then onto Egypt.
But why would Israel want the US to believe that Egypt was responsible for the attacks? A classic false flag. Right? Shifting the blame for an incident as a means of drawing the president or the US public into declaring war in Egypt. While Israel claims that this attack was done in error.
Audio evidence confirms that the Israelis knew the identity of the ship as an American vessel. Furthermore, did you know that Israel has nuclear weapons? In 1986, an Israeli whistleblower and former nuclear recognition revealed that Israel had amassed a secret stockpile of nuclear weapons. This whistleblower spent 18 years in prison After revealing classified information, and in 2014, a lawsuit was filed against US charities that funded Israel's Secret nuclear weapon program.
Speaker 1: I don't know all the facts. I don't think we all know all the facts, but I was deeply concerned that, this could have been, you know, another organized highly organized attack on the country, And it still may be. I again, I don't know the facts, but I do know that it's really hard to protect the homeland.
Speaker 0: What has the media told us about 911? Before the attacks, there were many stories coming out about Israeli espionage on the United States. Did you know about the Israeli art students who occupied Two entire floors of at least 1 tower. Did you know about the Israelis arrested on 911? Did you know that At the time, Massad had an urban moving company as a front.
They were seen by New Jersey residents on September 11th, Seemingly celebrating the fall of the World Trade Centers and photographing themselves in front of the wreckage, these men were caught by police, held for questioning, And quickly sent back to Israel by the United States government. So did Massad know about the attack on the Twin Towers before it happened? Did they have a Crew ready to film it. What do we actually know? Very little because it's anti Semitic to bring it up.
What has the media told you about the Israeli conflict. Israel has successfully wanted to prove to the world that it is an innocent victim Of the Palestinian violence and terror, and that the Arabs and Muslims have no other reason to be in conflict with Israel Except for an irrational hatred of Jews. And most of what we see on the news is Palestine as the aggressor and very little of how Israel responds. And don't get me wrong, Israel has a right to defend themselves from attacks. But for over 5 decades now, They have killed Palestinians with impunity.
There seems to be a hierarchy of death propagated in our media. And when we see certain groups the people as less than other groups of people. That's when the injustice occurs, unchallenged and leaving room for prejudice to fester. An example This would be Israel's use of white phosphorus targeting densely populated areas of Gaza.
Speaker 17: So this is, basically something that It's mandatory that every congressperson has to sign saying that, what, Jerusalem, you said, is the capital of Israel. And what else? You make a commitment that you will vote to support the military superiority of Israel, that, the Economic assistance that Israel wants that you would, vote to provide that. What have you learned about ISIS
Speaker 0: This from the media. I've learned that ISIS has attacked the USA. ISIS has attacked France. ISIS has attacked the Philippines. ISIS even boasted that they were gonna destroy Kaaba in Mecca.
But ISIS doesn't attack just around the corner Israel. I guess they would rather attack distant countries. In 2015, Syrian president Assad spoke about the connection between ISIS In Israel. He responded for the 1st time to an airstrike attributed to Israel, saying it's very clear that Israel supports The rebels. Because whenever we make advances in some place, they attack in order to undermine the army.
That's why some in Syria joke, how can you say that Al Qaeda doesn't have an air force. They have the Israeli air force. Even as early as this morning, a Syrian UN envoy claimed that Israel was Directly supporting ISIS by bombing regime sites. There have been claims made that Israel It's the largest buyer of ISIS oil. But whenever I search for sources to verify or debunk this disclaim.
All I find are long ramps on anti semitism. In 2015, NATO said it wouldn't send ground troops in Fight ISIS. Is it because ISIS is actually our ally and the goal is to overthrow Assad in Syria and install Israel and United States friendly puppet government instead of the Russia, Iran puppet that's Currently in place. I'm just really really confused. Israel can stop ISIS, but they can't stop people from throwing rocks Is that do I have it right?
I'm just really confused because in order to have clarity on something, one must Have answers to their questions. And in order to get answers to your questions, it must first be acceptable to ask them. When I see things like evidence in the money trail to support that my government is acting like a cheap whore, selling out to the highest bidder, It makes me think that we'll never find anything that remotely resembles peace as long as the wolves among people are above the law.
Speaker 14: What difference at this point does it make?
Speaker 1: Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere. Nope. No weapons over there.
Speaker 4: We should not argue.
Speaker 3: In the context of just
Speaker 4: we should clearly first analyze. Has dramatically changed and is changing in a accelerating way.
Speaker 1: I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.
@dom_lucre - Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives
🔥🚨BREAKINGL I asked everyone to vote on what movie they believe everyone should see. Here is your winner: Fall of The Cabal (Pt.5) SAVE THE CHILDREN. https://t.co/ErpLY04tRb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the normalization of pedophilia in society, citing examples such as the Cambridge University statement on pedophilic interest, The New York Times declaring it a disorder, and pedophilia being presented as a sexual orientation in TEDx talks. They mention individuals like Patricia Hewitt and Theresa May who have expressed support for pedophiles. The speaker questions why society is pushing for the legalization of pedophilia and highlights the harmful effects on children. They also delve into the connections between James Achilles Alafuntas, owner of Comet Ping Pong, and prominent political figures like the Podesta brothers and the Clintons. The speaker explores disturbing artwork displayed at the restaurant and raises suspicions about a potential pedophile ring.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In our society. Innocence is sexier than you think? And what about this clothing store called sweet and Sexy kids. What the hell is sexy about kids? At Cambridge University in June 2018, it was actually stated that the majority of men are probably pedophiles, and that pedophilic interest is normal and healthy.
The New York Times declared pedophilia not a crime, but a disorder. And during 2 TEDx talks, pedophilia was presented not as a disorder, but as a sexual orientation. Posters were spread. And Cosmopolitan magazine published an article by the hand of a young woman who became a father's lover. Now, of course, in order to make all of this legal, the age of consent had to go down so that having sex with a child would no longer be a crime.
No problem. Judges and politicians at the highest level did their utmost best to take care of that. Not many people know that Patricia Hewitt was general Secretary of the NCCL, later known as Liberty, which was affiliated to PAI, the pedophile information exchange. Then there's former British prime minister, Theresa May, who thinks pedophiles should be allowed to adopt children too. When you study the patterns of this topic, it seems there is a larger plan behind it all.
Why is it so important to legalize pedophilia? Why is having sex with children so important? Any psychologist can tell you How harmful it is for children to have sex at a young age, and that consent is a very dangerous concept as pedophiles often tell their children they are Simply demonstrating just how much they love them. Sex is then confused with love. The child cannot comprehend the subsequent feelings of Pain, shame, anger and fear.
The secrecy put upon them is hard to deal with. All of this results in great trauma. Why then would a society push pedophilia down our throats? Bit by bit, step by step, normalizing it so that we grow to the idea instead of reject of traumatized people. Why are pedophile logos used in children cartoons, Disney movies, Candy and ice cream, child protection centers, adoption agencies, in business And in politics, meet Sheila Jackson Lee, member of the House of Representatives, proudly wearing her young boy lover ring.
What is going on here? Let's follow a lead. Check this out. This still image appears in a video clip of a band called Sex stains, and this is where it gets interesting. They played at comet ping pong, a restaurant in Washington, DC, Best known for its pizzas, ping pong tables in the basement, high profile clients such as Hillary Clinton, Andy Obamas, And a conspiracy theory called Pizzagate.
More about which in a bit. Meet the owner of Comic Ping Pong, James Achilles Alafuntas. When Alafuntas started his restaurant in 2006, he didn't have much according to himself. Yet in 2012, only 6 years later, he was named as one of the 50 Most powerful people in Washington, DC. That fascinates me.
You don't become that powerful by running a pizza place. So who exactly is James strand. Yet his tweets and those posted on his Twitter account are controversial, to say the least. It's clear that Aliphantus loves art. Comet Ping Pong Often displays the work of artists with a very specific taste.
This is the work of Arrington de Dionizzo. Not a big Trump fan. Why is this on the walls Of a child friendly pizza place. Aliphanthes loves a good party. Now here's a picture he wishes he never posted.
Meet his party friend, miss Summercamp. What else? He had a love affair with David Brock, political consultant and founder of Media Matters for America, A progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct misinformation in the US media. In other words, an organization for censorship. Brooks Media Matters received $1,000,000 from none other than George Soros back in 2010.
Brooke also found it correct the record with the sole purpose of censoring all negative reports on Hillary Clinton on social media. Censorship once again. So James Alephantis is definitely a lead we must follow. What else do we know about him? He's best friends with the political top of the US.
He's closely connected to the Podesta brothers, John and Tony Podesta. John Podesta is quite a hotshot in American politics. He was White House chief of staff to president Clinton, Counselor to president Obama and chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, Tony Podesta is a political lobbyist and art supporter. He and his ex wife, Heather, collect the Work of, for instance, the Dutch artist, Margie Phelings. Fascinating, to say the least.
They are also great admirers and buyers of the work of Patricia Piccinini. And what about the work of Dilrzyna Georgievich that actually adorns the podesta's living room? This is Louise Bourgeois. Her work is prominently present in Tony Podesta's mansion. This piece is called Arch of Hysteria.
It greatly resembles the work of Jeffrey Dahmer, a serial killer who like to dismember his victims and leave them in a somewhat awkward position. And then there's the most interesting work of Kim Noble, A survivor of severe trauma in early childhood, which left her with 13 older personas. Her artwork shows the horrific things she experienced as a young child, like, torture and rape. Her work was exhibited in comet Ping Pong, our child friendly pizza place. Now I don't know about you, but this makes me sick as a dog.
The more I studied Pizzagate, the more I realized this was quite likely conspiracy fact, not theory. What kind of a pizza place exhibits naked, abused, tortured, raped, and even dead children on its walls. What kind of man becomes one of the most powerful people in Washington, DC Serving pizza. How come the political top of the US, the podestas, the Clintons, and even Obama, President of the US at that time, how come they all want to spend time with a sick perv like For a while, I thought the name Eliphanthes was fake. This man was way too powerful to come from an ordinary family.
Could Eliphanthes be a French bastardization of Jean Lazon Fonds? I love children. But then some anons pointed out he could well Bier Rothschild. After some digging, I came across an interesting twist in the Rothschild family tree, starting with Evelyn Achilles the Rothschild. His middle name kinda gives it away.
Doesn't it? He was born in Buffalo, New York in 18/86 and died in World War one in 1917. 2 years before he died, his illegitimate son, Louis George, was born. But as he wasn't married, his son inherited the name of his mother, Aliphantus. The boy grew up and married Helen Repulse and had 2 sons.
One of which is Achilles Louis Aliphantus, the father of our very own James Achilles Allophantus. His mother's name is Susan Ridge Shoemaker. So his middle name, Achilles, takes him all the way back to his great grandfather, and even further back to his great great grandmother, The Italian Marie Peruggia. Her father's name was Achilles Peruggia. In short, James Achilles of Phantas is a real, genuine, full on.
That explains his power and his friends. It explains its close proximity to the Clintons, just like his uncle and aunt, Evelyn and Lynn de Rothschild. So are we to believe that our political leaders simply enjoy pizza and sick art? Is that it? What is it with pizza anyway?
Why is it so sexualized? What's with the Best of Pizza pedophile logo? Which, by the way, was quickly changed the moment pizza gate became an item. Is it all just a coincidence that the Podesta emails revealed to the public by WikiLeaks in 2016 Contain countless pizza related words, such as cheese, hot dogs, pasta, walnut sauce. When you actually know what those words mean, which is common knowledge in the sex industry, these emails suddenly become Shooking.
Is this why Hillary deleted 33 1,000 emails for which he is currently scrutinized? Does that explain what Obama meant when he ordered $65,000 worth of hot dogs and pizza flown in from Chicago to the White House in the middle of the night for a private party? Is that why Hillary emailed Obama warning him he needed to be more careful next time? The hot dogs can come, but But if you make a spectacle out of it, that will be our downfall. And I think it would be wiser to restrict this activity to our predetermined locations.
Really? For a few hot dogs? Isn't it weird that these security camera pictures of children lying on Ping Pong tables in the basement of Comet Ping Pong Are shown on the walls upstairs? Who the hell is watching them? And why does their website have a super secured back door to a secret division where you can order pizza pictures for absurd prices?
This screenshot was made public by a hacker. It's in low resolution, so I will read out loud what it says at the bottom. This month, we have 5 fresh pizzas for your enjoyment. We also have 4 surviving pizzas from last month's session. All are on sale at an extremely low price, as they are in poor health are not expected to survive.
So a requirement is that you finish eating your pizza after your session. This month's special includes A 30% discount on severe torture. Each image below is available for $1,000 in fine print. Why are they talking about kill rooms, murder, and rinsing it off when you're done? What the hell is going on here?
To tell you the truth, at this point in my research, I experienced what we call cognitive dissonance. What I found out was so contrary to my belief system That I wanted to dismiss my discoveries. It just could not be true that the people we trust, the ones we vote for, were so Oh, evil. I simply could not handle the facts. How could people, so charming and intelligent, Be part of the child trafficking pedophile ring where children were tortured, raped, and killed for pleasure?
Or, as I would later find out, for something even more horrific. I felt like I'd ended up in a nightmare. All I wanted to do was dismiss it all. Couldn't it just be all coincidence that the Clintons and the Obamas and Trudeau, Beautiful, charming, that surrounded themselves with their own friends. If their friends are all pedophiles, that doesn't mean they are.
Right? And maybe they don't even know about their friends' sexual preferences? I mean, I know Bill Clinton's healer, the Brazilian John of God, Was recently arrested for keeping sex slaves whom he made pregnant time and again. I know he admitted to selling the babies for 1,000 of dollars and killing the slave mothers after 10 years of giving birth. I know the main whistleblower in this gay suddenly died a suspicious death.
But come on. How could Bill Clinton have known? And I know he went to the private island of convicted pedophile filed Jeffrey Epstein. I know he was on the pheasant juices 26 times together with other sex offenders like Evan Spacey, who was recently arrested for multiple rape accounts, among others, with young boys. But that doesn't make Clinton a Sex raging animal.
Right? I know he was investigated for the rape of a young boy by Jenny Moore, a former police officer who informed the FBI and the Department For Homeland Security, after which he suddenly died in a hotel room. But that doesn't make Bill Clinton a murderer. Does it? I decided to do more research.
I needed more supporting evidence. I went back to the artwork. I was intrigued by the bathroom or swimming pool, or whatever it was. Where was it? When this appeared on Eichan, I knew I was on the right path.
Not just me, but thousands of anon searched for it, And found it. It actually existed. Do you want to know where it is? Come with me to part 6.
@stopvaccinating - Larry Cook
This documentary has impacted 100s of thousands of parents and helped them to decide to never vaccinate again, or not start. It dives deep into the CDC conspiracy to hide the fact and statistical data that VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. Get the DVD: https://vaxxedthemovie.com/
Vaxxed | From Cover Up to Catastrophe
Dr. Andrew Wakefield directs this documentary that investigates the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson and how the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the government agency charged with protecting the health of American citizens, destroyed data on their 2004 study that showed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
vaxxedthemovie.com
@coachblade - Linda Blade
Please watch this before it is taken down: https://youtu.be/GN0orsEwyAo?si=UsdOyUdzRc_E2zXn
@JohnCremeansUSA - John Cremeans USA
🔥MUST WATCH🔥 The Fall of Minneapolis: A crowdfunded documentary about the death of George Floyd and the later trial of ex-Police officer Derek Chauvin. What you think you know and the evidence you never heard. Eye opening! #TheFallOfMinneapolis https://t.co/4bvQERNqBu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Summary: The video transcript provides a comprehensive overview of the George Floyd case, starting with the encounter between Floyd and the police officers, the subsequent protests, and the burning of the Minneapolis police precinct. It includes interviews with individuals discussing their experiences during the riots and their opinions on the autopsy report. The handling of the case by medical examiners and the involvement of the FBI are questioned. The murder trial of Derek Chauvin, the officer involved, is described, highlighting heightened security measures, witness testimonies, and discussions on the justice system and systemic racism in law enforcement. The trial concludes with Chauvin being found guilty and sentenced to prison. The impact of Floyd's death and the trial on the city of Minneapolis and the police department is emphasized, with plans to reimagine policing and address systemic issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gentlemen.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Is the driver
Speaker 2: in there?
Speaker 1: The loop is. Or which 1? The whole one over there. Which 1? Yeah.
Yeah. Just head back in. Oh, You see your hands? Hey there, man. Stay in the car.
Speaker 3: Let me see your other hand.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Let me see your other hand.
Speaker 1: Please. Both hands. I'll do nothing. Put your fucking hands up right now. Let me see your other hand.
Alright. What I do, though? What what we do? Put your hand up there. Put your fucking hand up there.
Jesus Christ. Keep your fucking hands on the wheel. Had your fucking hands on the wheel. Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. Lawson's in the car. Yeah. They got shot. That's it.
Back in. Sorry, mister. I'm so sorry. God dang, man. Man, I got I got shot the same way as I was before.
Okay. Well, when I say let me see your hands, you put your fucking hands up. I'm so sorry, Alright. You got them? Man.
Speaker 4: Dang, man.
Speaker 1: Put your hands on top of your head. Man, it's awesome. Oh, man. That's something I got shot. I think I was Hands on top of your head.
Yeah. Hands on top of your head. Step out of the vehicle and step away from me. Alright? Yeah.
Step out and face away. Step out and face away. Tell me. Please don't shoot me. Please, man.
I'm not gonna shoot you. Step on face away. I'm a get out of out, man. Please don't shoot me, man. Don't shoot me, man.
You're fine. But it wasn't worth I just lost my mom, Step out and face away. Step out and face away. Please don't shoot me, miss Jones. Please.
Don't shoot me, man. Step on and face away. Can you not shoot me, man? I'm not shooting. Step on and face away.
Your day. Please. Please. Please, man. Please.
Please. I didn't know, man. So I don't know. I didn't know because I was just I didn't know. Not moving.
No. I'm not doing nothing. Put your head behind your back then. I'm not gonna do nothing.
Speaker 5: Face. Get the door.
Speaker 1: Hey. You come back. Stay in the car. Oh, man. Stop resisting Yes.
You are. What's going on, man? Stand up. Please. Please, man.
Stand up for me. Stand up. I ain't gonna do that. That's wrong, man. Come on.
Walk with me. This is bad. Walk with me. Stand up. Why you doing me?
Stand up. Come on. We're trying to get out of the street here so you don't get hit by a car. Take a seat. Turn down for me.
Thank you, man. Thank you, mister Welch. Down. Thank you, man. You wanna work for.
Sit all the way down. Let me read out. Mister, I will. Hey, man. Oh my god.
Please. Please, man. You got an ID on you? Yes, sir. I gotta go with the home.
Alright. What's your name? George. George? George Perry Floyd.
I mean, I don't know what's going on. Man, that's it. Spell it for me. G e o Yep. R t e.
Last name? Floyd. Last name? 830 f l o y d. F l o y d?
Yes.
Speaker 6: Date of birth?
Speaker 1: And that's the. October 14th. October 14th? 73. Man, I guess I live on faith.
Wait, man.
Speaker 6: Would you mind doing me a favor? Just run.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. No. The
Speaker 0: George Floyd.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Man, he was licking his trousers. I don't want no problem. I ain't gonna do nothing. Man, do you know why we're here?
Why? We're here because it sounds like you gave a fake bill to the Individuals in there. Yeah. Do you understand that? Yes.
Speaker 7: And do you
Speaker 1: know why we pulled you out of the car? Because you was not listening to anything we told you. Right. I didn't know what was going on. You listen to us, and we will tell you what's going on.
Alright? When you're moving around like that, that makes us think way more is going on than we need to know. Right. And it's not I hate. It's probably Gotcha.
Alright. Wanna put you in the back of a squad. Alright? It's okay. That that's all.
Good. Good. Good. Good. Good.
Good. Good. Good. Good. Good.
Good. Good. We're gonna sort all this out. Alright? Do you need Is that your car key?
I I it's my sister. Key fob right there? Yes, sir. Her name is all I got one problem. Yeah.
I'll Hold on to that for you. Alright? Stand up. Wait. Wait.
I'm ready. Because I was so pissed with you. I was Like, right now. I'm like, what's going on? Yeah.
And look at you. You're still able to reach your side. You're making me nervous. I'm right. That's what I was doing.
It's my wrist. Okay. Yeah. I got you. Won't fix all that.
Won't fix all that, but you got a watch with me. I didn't tell that, but you gotta watch me. Oh, out. Out to you. You want something right now?
Not no. Nothing. Because you acting man. Let's go. Yeah.
You got foam around your mouth too? Yes. Yes. I went to do it a little bit earlier. Okay.
Alright. Let me come on down now. This little bit better now. Alright. Okay.
Now you can do one favor, man. And we're gonna talk about that when we get to the car. Alright. Stop moving around. Oh, man.
God, don't leave me, man. Please, man. Leave me, man. I don't want this old lady, man. Yeah.
Just unlock the norm for me. I have to beat it there. Hey. Stop falling down. Bathrophobic.
Yeah. Stand up. Bathrophobic. Stay on your feet and face the car door. Man.
Please. No. Please I have the door open. The door open. Don't talk to no one.
Please, if you talk to me Man, you ain't we're listening to nothing we're doing, so we're not gonna listen to nothing. Understand. I've I've got the phone inside of us. The door. Man.
I'm I'm trying to phone I hear you, but you are gonna face the door right now. You're looking on staff. I don't know anything. I don't believe you got everything, man. I'm not a zipper, man.
I'm not. I'm not. I'm not.
Speaker 8: I'm gonna ask you.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna God. No. He's in New Zealand. Why? Why?
I'm Don't even bother myself, man, please. I'm just about the phobic. That's it.
Speaker 4: I'm still going in the car.
Speaker 1: Anything sharp on you? I won't do the murder. I'll Do you have anything sharp on you? Sir. Now you're looking at home or nothing?
Nothing. Why y'all doing me like that? I mean, I was just please take it really from yourself, man. Stand up straight. Phytoplobe for real.
That was it. I got them.
Speaker 9: Could you
Speaker 1: please take it with me, please? Yes. I'm a Mario. Stay with me, man. I I will.
Please stay with me, man. Thank you. God, man. I didn't know all this was gonna happen, man. Leave, man.
I didn't want my I don't know if there's none of y'all. Well, nothing.
Speaker 10: There you go. Inside
Speaker 1: and understand. Work on your side. Hey. Hey. I'm listening.
And I understand that that that that people do stuff. It's and and and and y'all don't know me. Take a seat. Okay. Okay.
Okay. Why are you having trouble walking out? Because that was my. Go down real bad. Please, man.
Please don't do this. Take a seat. I'm going in. No. You're not.
I gotta go in. Take a seat. Grab a seat, man. Ryan, I don't believe you because I was Take a seat. I'm not the kinda guy.
I'm not that kind of guy, man. Take a seat. No. I'm a dietitator. Take a seat.
Stop, man. You need to take a seat right now. And I just had COVID, man. I don't wanna do it today.
Speaker 8: Hey, guys. I'll
Speaker 1: roll the windows down. Hey. Listen. Dang, man. Listen.
I'm not a candidate guy. I'll roll the windows down. Please, man. Legs in. Alright?
Yo, dude. Stop. Look at that. You're not even listening. You get it.
You get it. We can fix it, but not while you're standing out here. Man. Why don't you do me bad, man? Man, give me a win.
Man, I don't want y'all to win. I don't wanna y'all to win. Win now. Put me, bro. I don't wanna I've done the phobia.
Yeah. You ain't gonna win. I'm done the phobia. I got anxiety. I don't wanna do nothing now.
You made a mistake. Somebody Let the breeder let the breeder go off on me.
Speaker 11: You can't play
Speaker 1: it. Go get He's going through his hours. Now you don't do me like that, man. Hard. Okay.
Can I told you, please? You you get me this car when you're done. I am a doctor. I'm doctor Bobby. I'm not gonna be working with me.
God. I'm No. You're not being in the I've got the phone. It's all over the car. Okay, man.
Okay? Another bad guy, man. He in the car. Another bad guy. Okay.
Leave, man. Please. No. No. Take a seat.
I can't. Hold up. I can't joke. I can't breathe Please. Yes.
I'm fine. Maurice Maurice, man. Maurice, man. I think, like, the furnace. Okay.
And I'm on the ground. Only on the ground. Only on the ground. $1. $1.
Get in the squad. I'm going down. I'm going down. I'm not gonna worry Okay. I yeah.
Go get me there. I can't I need a leave. Leave, man. I don't need this to me. Does he want to jail with me?
Speed up. He's under arrest right now for forgery. Alright. What's going on? What?
What? Just take him out. What was? Please, man. I can't fucking breathe.
Come on out. I need you to fuck you. Right. Just lay him. Come on.
Yeah.
Speaker 12: On the ground.
Speaker 1: On the ground. You got your restraint. Jesus Christ. I can breathe.
Speaker 0: Hello? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Not moving. Mama. Mama. Mama. I can't believe this.
No problem. I can't believe this. I can't believe this, man. Mama, I love you. Reese, I love you.
Speaker 0: You got holler.
Speaker 13: In 2020, George Floyd says, I got shot last time.
Speaker 1: Man, I guess I live in faith. Amen. And you
Speaker 13: would have been the last officer, to arrest George Floyd. Did you shoot him?
Speaker 14: No. I didn't shoot him. No. The body camera is out there. It shows exactly what I did, exactly what the other officers did.
Now we didn't shoot them.
Speaker 13: How was George Floyd acting during that arrest in in 2019?
Speaker 14: Everything was almost identical. I mean, the initial stop, when I first started to approach him, you know, he was uncooperative. He wasn't listening to my commands. He was very agitated. Just keep your hands up where I can See him.
Speaker 11: I feel wrong.
Speaker 1: Oh, the speeder. Hey. I'm coming. I'm coming. Let me I thought I thought you were playing.
Just keep your hands where I could Get to see him. I see your hands. Hey there, man. Stay in the car.
Speaker 3: Let me see your other hand.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Let me see your other hand. Please.
Speaker 1: Was on both hands. Do something. Put your fucking hands up right now.
Speaker 14: During the time, I he was I couldn't see his hands. I he was moving them out. We found out later he's eating dope.
Speaker 1: Goodness. I'm telling my my mama, man. My mother, man.
Speaker 2: My mom's here, please.
Speaker 1: Come on. Go ahead go ahead and undo your seat belt. I'll shoot you, man. Please. I won't be stopping.
I I don't I don't plan on shooting you.
Speaker 14: I'm just saying. Just take it. Take your time.
Speaker 1: Step on the face away. Baby. But please don't shoot me. Please, man. I'm not gonna shoot you.
Step on the face away. I'm a get out of the eye, man. Please don't shoot me, man.
Speaker 15: For 5 whole excruciating minutes.
Speaker 16: For 8 minutes and 46 seconds.
Speaker 17: 846. 846. 8 minutes and 46 seconds.
Speaker 14: 9 minutes and 29 seconds.
Speaker 18: 9 minutes and 29 seconds. Right? Actually, 8 minutes and 46 seconds.
Speaker 19: Our heart and our solidarity are with folks who understand what happened Monday night To George Floyd,
Speaker 20: the vast majority of people that have come together have been doing so peacefully.
Speaker 5: Peaceful protest overnight in the Twin Cities, several dozen arrests at the state capitol. But
Speaker 18: That entire time, they've been very peaceful. The crowd continues to be peaceful.
Speaker 6: It started out as a lot of people gathering, which is, you know, your First Amendment right, But it quickly changed.
Speaker 11: My husband actually left for work before me. He works for Minneapolis Police Department. And he texted me on the way into work and said, You're gonna have a bad day and
Speaker 21: he was correct.
Speaker 11: The crowds got larger and larger and larger, so we knew that we were gonna have our hands full.
Speaker 14: Each day, it it just compound is by the end of the day, it was probably a 1000 people. And then the next day, it was 4,000 people. And then the day after that, it was, like, 8 to 10000 people. I think it's really important for people to understand that the police that were working the street at that time were dealing with situations that, in my mind, only you could think of as wartime.
Speaker 20: This is like a modern day war zone. I mean, this is this is unbelievable what is happening on the streets of Minneapolis.
Speaker 3: So we are seeing someone being wheeled away, someone who looks pretty badly injured.
Speaker 14: They threw a whole bunch of bottles and rocks, and I got hit in my mouth. I end up breaking 3 more teeth.
Speaker 1: Break that shit up.
Speaker 12: We were dodging water bottles, bricks, Roman candles, anything they can get their hands on.
Speaker 9: It was crazy. It was like I was living in a a third world country. I'm like, what is going on? Where do I live right now?
Speaker 1: Hey. Hey. Hey.
Speaker 9: And this is a thing that bothered me about government officials as they let people sit back and throw rocks and bricks and fire bombs, and we're supposed to just put on a helmet and take that.
Speaker 4: We are still taking rocks, frozen water bottles. They're shooting mortars at us. Can we escalate our use to force to deploy scat round. 1204, negative on the scat round. 204 is, again, negative on the scat round.
There's another plan in place. Stand by.
Speaker 13: When did you realize this wasn't a typical riot response?
Speaker 22: Pretty early on, there was no no response at all. They didn't say why, but I assumed they didn't wanna make us look militant with the rioters. I actually had gear, but they were just saying just wear your helmets and and stand there, basically.
Speaker 11: Obviously, they didn't take my request for more resources seriously, so we were just Watching it unfold without without less than lethal, without SWAT teams, without riot gear. Nobody had Protective gear on. We were just in our uniforms.
Speaker 13: At this point, they're not giving you permission
Speaker 11: to wear your riot gear? Nope. There was no riot gear given to anybody at that point, And we're in the middle of a war zone. It was just officer after officer. Injured, back in.
Send him home. Injured. I mean, it was 30 officers that evening, probably, that got injured while they were out there trying to to deal with the the riots.
Speaker 12: We were, in the squad car, me and my partner, And we were at Chicago and Lake, and we had a observe and report post, basically. So we watched them with our own 2 eyes break into the T Mobile store, Foot Locker, Chicago Lake Lakers. We were given a play by play over the radio, and the only sponsor we would get back is just copy, observe, and report. We watched them loot. We watched them light the Molotov cocktail, and we watched them throw it into the building.
Speaker 1: They're starting to they're starting to throw a volatile podcast.
Speaker 12: We were ordered not to do anything.
Speaker 14: Fire department wasn't responding, And then we were trying to put out fires along, and cars were trying to run us off the road when we're trying to do that. All kinds of things were happened to our team. And it wasn't just me, but All the strike teams and all the officers during that time, the stuff that was going on, you know, shots fired. It was complete Utter chaos.
Speaker 12: This was just Kinda wandering around aimlessly, waiting to be told what not to do next.
Speaker 13: Did you ever feel like there was A plan?
Speaker 11: I am reaching to the command post over and over again about what's our plan, what's our plan, what's our plan, without any response whatsoever.
Speaker 13: They're not saying anything at all? No. Nothing.
Speaker 4: Command, police, Bobby.
Speaker 2: Command, any advice?
Speaker 9: The elections were coming up. Everything's politically driven. They were gonna use this incident for a political narrative, And I did.
Speaker 19: It started with the, the tragic and senseless murder of George Floyd and it extended through the week of, righteous anger being expressed by Community leaders and all people of conscience.
Speaker 15: If you're feeling that sadness and that anger, it's not only understandable, It's right.
Speaker 11: I end up on the phone with the assistant chief. He's like, so our plan is we're gonna take all the cars and everything around and make the precinct look abandoned. And if no one's there, it shouldn't be a target. And I'm literally just staring at the phone like, This how how is this the plan? Like, there's thousands of protesters.
There's thousands of rioters. They have dead pigs in front of us. That signifies they will kill a cop.
Speaker 1: Cut and cut to cut.
Speaker 23: We were tasked to go down to the precinct to remove All of the shotguns and patrol rifles and ammunition from the precinct. When I got down there, You swear it was kids moving out of college dormitory because everybody there was moving trucks and everything out back, literally, emptying out the precinct.
Speaker 11: People were showing up at the precinct, gathering their things. So they'd come to the fence, get let in, go to the locker, grab their stuff, and walk out. And I was like, where are you going? Oh, I'm just coming to get my stuff in case they give away the precinct. Like, it's got our museum stuff.
Pretty soon, 2 vans showed up and cleaned out all the museum items.
Speaker 6: You're talking 20, 30 years of pictures, artifacts that are on the wall freight. It's supposed to be for an eternity.
Speaker 13: So you're a lieutenant in this building, and you don't even know that the plan is to to surrender it later in the evening?
Speaker 11: No. Not not even a clue. As they were, like, cleaning things out, they took all the cameras out because they didn't want the rioters to break them. We're now in a precinct with boarded up windows. I could tell what was going on outside.
Speaker 13: I couldn't see it, but you could hear it. You can tell
Speaker 11: I knew there were fires. The radio traffic was completely insane. It was fire after fire after fire. The whole city was burning just like night 1 and night 2.
Speaker 4: Looks like the US Bank building at 28th and Lake is on fire. Flames above the buildings in front of us. W US Bank at 28th and Lake be on fire.
Speaker 1: I can
Speaker 2: fire you by having a large fire east of the
Speaker 1: 3rd precinct.
Speaker 4: Copy. Large fire east of the 3rd precinct 21/18.
Speaker 24: I I was shocked as it didn't no way. No fucking way. And the city's not that stupid. They're not gonna do that. You can't just give up a precinct.
I did not think anybody in their right mind would think it would be a good tactical move to give up A precinct.
Speaker 15: I made the decision, to evacuate the 3rd precinct.
Speaker 13: When do you get word that it's Finally time to leave the building. So I
Speaker 11: get a command over the radio that we need to evacuate the 3rd Precinct.
Speaker 2: Evacuate now. Evacuate
Speaker 11: I said, like, right now?
Speaker 2: 3201. Do we have to evacuate right now?
Speaker 11: And they said yes immediately.
Speaker 4: You need to evacuate now. Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate.
Speaker 11: I have 50 some people. I quickly get on the air and tell everyone to gather in the roll call room. I get a phone call from the head of 911 as I'm trying to do roll call, and she says, Our whole 911 backup system is there. You need to go get the radios.
Speaker 21: And I'm like,
Speaker 11: okay. So either we're in so much danger that we're trying to Wait right this 2nd, or we're not. We're going now as fast as we possibly can. A few SWAT teams come in. I realize they are our escort out and the SWAT one of the SWAT team leaders looks at me and he says, why are we evacuating?
And I'm he's coming from the outside in, and I'm I I can't see on the outside of the building, so I'm like, why? I don't know. He doesn't know. I don't know. We just have to evacuate.
Speaker 2: Evacuate now. Evacuate now. 10/21/55.
Speaker 4: They're about to breach the back gate.
Speaker 12: Everything was happening so fast, and there was such chaos. You know, the heart's racing right now talking about this.
Speaker 11: And We run. We run with our belts on and 50 some people and 3 slot teams, and we get to the fence. We can't get out.
Speaker 4: We gotta go where you're sitting ducks here.
Speaker 12: There was only one way in and one way out, and the way out was locked.
Speaker 4: 20 3, they've reached the northwest corner
Speaker 2: of the pack. Northwest corner of the front has been reached. They're
Speaker 1: coming in. They're coming in the back.
Speaker 4: We need
Speaker 2: to move. We need to move. Make now
Speaker 11: one of the squads rams through the fence to get it open.
Speaker 12: I remember looking through the rearview mirror as we left. It looked like a zombie movie. They all just rushed to the fence and started climbing the fence, and they caused the fences to collapse. And then they just all rushed the precinct. And as we were driving down the line, Every window got broken out of the squad car, driving the gauntlet down snowing.
Speaker 25: Can you
Speaker 13: even believe this is happening in that moment?
Speaker 22: Never seen anything like it. And I had been involved in a lot of riots over 30 year career. There were still people chasing us down the street. But as I got a maybe a quarter black away, I realized that Not everyone was in vehicles. They were running basically for their lives at that point because they just left them, Basically, with no plan of attack or no plan of, exit from the precinct.
Just basically left us all on our own. They were scared.
Speaker 21: I could see it. I knew them. Open
Speaker 6: the door. I can't I can't even tell you how it felt in my in the pit of my stomach watching my friends run for their lives. It was something I hope to never experience again.
Speaker 11: We ran probably 4 or 5 blocks, and eventually 2 buses show up. We get on, And it was just just pure silence.
Speaker 21: I've never cried at work, and I couldn't I couldn't control myself. I apologize to them. All I could do is say, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And they were like, This is not you, and I felt like I didn't save the precinct.
I didn't
Speaker 11: I let them all down. I let all of
Speaker 21: them down, and I just looked out the window and the whole city was on fire. Our precinct was on fire, And that was it was just like I'm watching a bad dream.
Speaker 2: Harvey, the precinct is on fire.
Speaker 4: To the citywide tone right now and our loss of the 3rd precinct.
Speaker 2: Airing information citywide, the third precinct has been compromised.
Speaker 11: Cops do not run away.
Speaker 21: You run too.
Speaker 15: The symbolism of a building cannot outweigh the importance of life, of our officers, or the public. We could not risk serious injury to anyone.
Speaker 23: Mayor Fry decided that it was just a building, and I know there's probably several 100 cops And maybe some citizens that would disagree with that.
Speaker 6: This has never happened in our country's history. Have you lost a police station or police precinct to a riot? Furthermore, forfeiting it. It was unbelievable Then and it still is now that they chose to surrender that precinct.
Speaker 22: You can't call it leadership. Lack of leadership. You're not gonna gain any confidence from anyone in the city by giving up your own property.
Speaker 13: It sent that message in your opinion?
Speaker 8: Absolutely. That's
Speaker 23: some police officer's home and had been their homes their entire career. But to him, he, like, he it's just a building.
Speaker 24: It was it was devastating. Everything was broken. Anything that we left in there was demolished. My office was torched. My office was actually the one part of the building that was still burning.
Speaker 22: They weren't doing anything to control the riot. They didn't let us do our jobs.
Speaker 15: We will continue to patrol the 3rd Precinct entirely. We will continue to do our jobs in that area.
Speaker 1: Oh, out
Speaker 13: If George Floyd would have told the truth about Fentanyl and Methamphetamine, could that have helped to save his life?
Speaker 26: Yes. Yes. It could have. That's proven by what happened the year before when he was arrested by Minneapolis police, And he was putting tablets in his mouth.
Speaker 1: Open your mouth. Spit out what you got. Spit out what you got.
Speaker 26: He admitted at some point that he had swallowed a bunch of pills. And the paramedics came and talked to him and took his blood pressure. And his blood pressure was extremely high, 216 over a 100 and 60, and so he ended up going to the hospital.
Speaker 1: Put your hands up right now.
Speaker 26: He had admitted that he had, again, ingested pills in the car. When they were attempting to arrest him, things could have turned out much differently.
Speaker 20: So we
Speaker 13: know now that the police body camera videos were withheld from the public and even the jurors. When you were able to see those videos,
Speaker 11: what was going through your mind?
Speaker 26: I wish that those Videos had been out sooner that they hadn't been withheld for two and a half months because it the videos, portrayed quite a different story from what we had originally heard.
Speaker 1: I can't joke. I can't read about it.
Speaker 13: You mentioned you went through these police body camera videos minute by minute. Right. What troubled you most?
Speaker 26: At the very end of Thomas Lane's
Speaker 25: body cam video.
Speaker 1: One of us to ride with? Yeah. And now Ride with? Yeah. Stay with it.
I don't have my phone.
Speaker 26: The paramedic handing the bag to Thomas Lane to ventilate the patient, you can see that the oxygen tubing is coiled up. It's not even attached to the oxygen source. That's a big mistake.
Speaker 4: George Floyd was a healthy young man.
Speaker 27: The autopsy shows that mister Floyd had no underlying medical problem that caused or contributed to his death.
Speaker 10: Today, I filed an amended complaint. The charges the charges former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chaubin with murder in the 2nd degree for the death of George Floyd. I believe the evidence available to us now supports the stronger charge of second degree murder. We've consulted with each other, and we agree. Finally, I'd like to announce that today, NIP County Attorney Michael Freeman and I, filed a complaint that charges Police officer King, Lane, and Tow with aiding and abetting murder in the 2nd degree felony offense.
I strongly believe that these developments are in the interest of justice for mister Floyd, his family, our community, and our state.
Speaker 17: On behalf of the pastors and preachers from Minneapolis and Saint Paul, the bloods on the south side, Against the disciples and vice lords on the south on the north side, Psalms 27.
Speaker 13: When and how did you become concerned about the autopsy of George Floyd?
Speaker 28: I think we all saw Video and television coverage of this, and I saw one of the body camera footages from the police officers that showed that he was complaining of shortness of breath before entering into the car.
Speaker 1: Right now. And I just had COVID, man. I don't wanna throw it to that. Tell you that, man. Even as a breather when as a breather, it's gonna go out on me, man.
All your life then.
Speaker 28: I started realizing that, hey, something was wrong with this. A few days later, I found out that the autopsy or it was available online. And so I downloaded the autopsy report and read through it. When I did that, my jaw hit the floor.
Speaker 4: No underlying medical problem. George Floyd with a healthy young man.
Speaker 13: An article published in a peer reviewed journal identified 17 errors in George Floyd's autopsy. Do these errors raise These questions about how George Floyd died.
Speaker 28: Yes. In patients that have acromegaly, they tend to die from cardiovascular complications such as heart attack or arrhythmias.
Speaker 13: Do you feel in a way they were trying to hide this information?
Speaker 28: I'm not sure if the medical examiners were trying to hide it, but it Seems like the prosecutor team was trying to hide it. There's no mention of that in the original autopsy report nor any of the other reviews. I wouldn't even call them autopsy reports but other reviews by other medical examiners.
Speaker 13: What do you think about that?
Speaker 28: Very strange. It raises a lot of questions. The original autopsy was done 12 hours after he was declared dead. The official report that came out a little bit later, I'm told was changed after the family had a review by 2 other forensic examiners. Those 2 examiners never did a physical autopsy and, in fact, did not view any of the slides or pictures.
They complained that they did not have those.
Speaker 25: We acknowledge that additional medical information, including toxicology and further investigation are necessary for a final report.
Speaker 13: What do you think of the federal government's involvement In this case.
Speaker 28: One of the first questions I asked was, was the FBI involved? And when I found out the FBI involvement was Within 12 to 24 hours, that really raised a red flag for me. The FBI conducted a meeting with doctor Baker which really raised another red flag. I think there's a lot of questions that remained unanswered with this. And when I study what happened and how people and our leaders reacted to this.
I just shake my head and almost cry in compassion of what has happened to Minneapolis. And instead of bringing people together, we had the opportunity to do that, but I think Opportunity was taken to drive us apart.
Speaker 16: Shaven is in the courtroom, but America's on trial.
Speaker 1: Alright. Isn't it?
Speaker 7: Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice.
Speaker 17: But even doctor King's assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd's
Speaker 29: death
Speaker 1: Take him out and just For what? Am I Stop resisting, man. Jesus Christ.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Tonight, barricades around the Minneapolis court house where jury selection is set to begin Monday for the murder trial of Derek Chauvin.
Speaker 30: The courtroom in a tower in downtown Minneapolis was ringed Monday Concrete barriers, barbed wire, and soldiers from the state's national guard. Nearby businesses were closed and windows boarded up due to fears of arson and other damage that occurred after Floyd's death.
Speaker 1: But I'm gonna tell you there's a new day in America and a new day in Minneapolis. And that day belongs to all of us when we do name for justice. Don't say his name. George Floyd. Say his name.
George Floyd. Say his name. George Floyd. George Floyd.
Speaker 8: So tell us about that. So at some point, when you're there at the scene still, did a fire truck come?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 8: And they're coming to respond to the
Speaker 1: call. Correct?
Speaker 31: They're coming to respond to the call. And they went into Cup Foods to actually They look for a victim, which is unique, for that, There to be that much miscommunication.
Speaker 32: Mister Nelson?
Speaker 29: You testified that You've been a firefighter now for 2 years approximately?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 29: And, I see you're wearing your uniform today. Correct. And that's would be, like, your dress uniform or your class A uniform? Correct. And that's common to wear when you testify in court?
Correct. Fair to say that you were not wearing your class a or any uniform on May 25, 2020? Correct.
Speaker 4: I was
Speaker 1: off duty.
Speaker 29: Right. Okay.
Speaker 1: No. Are you really a firefighter? Yes.
Speaker 11: I have from Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: Okay, bro. You get on the sidewalk.
Speaker 11: Take your right foot. Check your paws.
Speaker 1: Get back in the sidewalk. The man in the moon said, bro. Where where? Be a freak. Is it
Speaker 29: reasonable to assume that if a patient is having a medical emergency and the police are present, that they have called for EMS?
Speaker 31: Your your question is unclear because you don't know my job. So, can answer.
Speaker 29: Sure. So let's let's take this scene. Right? May 25, 2020. You walk Upon the scene, you see someone having a medical emergency.
Right? You did not call 911 to get the medics there. Right?
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 29: Would it have been reasonable to assume that medics had already been called based on what you saw when you first arrived?
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 14: And in fact,
Speaker 29: Paramedics did respond. Right? You saw the ambulance come up.
Speaker 31: Yes. That's not their normal response then.
Speaker 29: Okay. And so you noticed there was some abnormal response time for medics?
Speaker 31: Right. And I also noticed that That is precisely the kind of call that fire would respond to and station 17 is just A couple blocks away.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 29: So do officers on scene decide? Do we call for medic or fire?
Speaker 31: I don't I believe so. I believe that's dispatch. I they they call for medical.
Speaker 29: So if if police call dispatch, And they say, EMS, we need EMS code 3. It's dispatch who decides, do we send medics or fire?
Speaker 31: Well, it would be medic. It would be fire with medics, not just fire ever. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 29: Fair enough.
Speaker 26: There were a few mistakes that turned out to be big mistakes in the way EMS was dispatched to the scene. So the fire department ended up at Cup Foods walking around looking for a patient when the paramedic had already updated the location. They had moved to 36th in the park, and so the fire department didn't know that. That's disturbing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Alright. Ready? Yeah. We're good.
I don't know if my phone's all the baker.
Speaker 0: You just see if you
Speaker 1: are are in your
Speaker 2: And then We figured out where it was.
Speaker 13: And then what your officer's like, hey.
Speaker 1: Anything dogs?
Speaker 29: You would agree, chief, that From the perspective of miss Frazier's camera, it appears that officer Chauvin's knee Is on the neck of Mr. Floyd?
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 29: Would you agree that from the perspective of officer King's body camera, it appears that officer Chauvin's knee was more on mister Floyd's Shoulder bike.
Speaker 9: Yes. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Like to
Speaker 8: show you what's been received as exhibit 17. Is this a trained technique that's, by the Minneapolis Police Department when you were overseeing the training unit?
Speaker 24: It is not.
Speaker 8: And how does this differ?
Speaker 24: I don't know what kind of improvised position that is.
Speaker 7: So this is not what we train.
Speaker 9: Alright. Yeah.
Speaker 8: As you reflect on exhibit 17, I must ask you, is this a Trained Minneapolis Police Department defensive tactics technique.
Speaker 33: It is not.
Speaker 7: When I heard that part of the testimony, I really wanted to get up off my chair and yell Bullshit.
Speaker 13: Several of those witnesses testified that MRT or the maximal restraint technique was not a part of Minneapolis police policy.
Speaker 7: Oh, the, it wasn't part of the training. The pages that were didn't wanna be presented in court because they weren't in the manual. I've seen the manual. I've read through the manuals. I've seen I've seen them.
They're not in the manuals? Well, they sure as hell are in Derek's training manuals. So how can they say that they don't exist?
Speaker 13: That's Derek's manual.
Speaker 7: These are Derek's training manuals.
Speaker 13: And MRT is It's in there?
Speaker 7: Yes. It's in there. So how can you say that's not part of the training? So the chief of police at that time told a freaking lie. This call is from a federal prison.
Speaker 13: During the trial, several witnesses, including chief Arredondo and inspector Blackwell, testified that they didn't recognize the technique You and the other officers were using as if it was not a part of Minneapolis police training, but was MRT, The maximal restraint technique part of training and policy.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. In fact, I'm looking at it right now. 5 dash 316. Excellent restraint technique. Write in the written policy manual.
The EMS and Annapolis fire response was not normal. Normally, both those resources are sent. They arrive in short time, especially in on a code three situation. This case, Minneapolis fire took 20 minutes cluster arrived. And they're stations 8 blocks away.
At the end of the day, the whole trial including saying it was a sham.
Speaker 8: So from that point, you know, we saw you standing there on the sidewalk, Just sort of standing still.
Speaker 11: Mhmm. Hello? Hi. How's your name, babe?
Speaker 8: From there, did you stay in the area for a little while?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 8: And at some point, you made a 911 call? Yes. Why at that point did you call 911?
Speaker 31: I think it all settled in. I wish I would have done that immediately because It made it was ridiculous that 17 station fire station 17 was as close as it was. And that they hadn't been there. I should have called 911 immediately, but I didn't. And when things calm down, I realized that I I wanted them to know what was going on.
Speaker 13: Your attorney wanted to show a photo of MRT to the jury, but Judge Cahill denied it. Was this a Key piece of evidence?
Speaker 0: I think it certainly is important. Just the fact that it's a PowerPoint training presentation that the city in Elmas Elmas based department delivered, using that photograph, that at least illustrates Some of the training techniques that are performed.
Speaker 11: Were you trained in MRT, the maximal restraint technique?
Speaker 32: Yes.
Speaker 24: Yes.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 14: Yes. I was. Yes. We all were.
Speaker 6: Yes. All the police officers were trained in the MRT.
Speaker 13: Your police chief said on the stand that he didn't recognize that technique.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 11: I I heard him say that. It's tough to hear people lie, just straight lie. And again, goes right back For me, the good and the bad, like, the right and the wrong, and for you to be under oath and just straight lie. The amount of training that we go through, I mean, it's it's consistent every single year. It's written down.
It's on body cam. I mean, Was that unfortunate? Absolutely. I know Derek Chauvin. It's it's absolutely horrific what happened, the whole scenario.
But did he do anything intentionally to make that happen? No. It was it was all what we were trained on.
Speaker 13: You helped to train officer Alex King. What did you think of him?
Speaker 23: I probably trained a few 1,000 people. He was probably one of the top 2 Top 2 or 3 recruits have prepared.
Speaker 33: From what I've seen of the videotape, it was done at the scene with George Floyd and the photograph and the police training manual, they look pretty identical.
Speaker 34: So question 7 proposed by the defense was after conducting your business in Cup Foods, did you return to the vehicle with mister Floyd. Mister Hall cannot answer that question. Mister Hall cannot put himself in that car with mister Floyd. Again, this was a car that was searched twice and drugs were recovered twice. If mister Hall puts himself in that car, he exposes himself to constructive possession charges of the drugs that were found in that car.
Speaker 32: Knowing all that, do you you've had a chance to look at the questions that were proposed by both sides?
Speaker 35: I have.
Speaker 32: Would you be willing to answer those if I were to put you on the stand and swear you in as a witness?
Speaker 35: No. I am not.
Speaker 32: Okay. And why would you not answer those?
Speaker 35: I'm fearful of criminal charges going forward. I have open charges that's not settled yet.
Speaker 18: You testified that you were the officer who approached the passenger side of the vehicle. You approached George Floyd on May 6, 2019. Is that right?
Speaker 14: That's correct. Yes.
Speaker 18: And mister Floyd didn't drop dead while you were interacting with him. Correct?
Speaker 25: No. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Anything further?
Speaker 8: No, you're not.
Speaker 32: Thank you. You may step down.
Speaker 28: Thank you,
Speaker 18: The city of Minneapolis has agreed to pay George Floyd's family $27,000,000 to settle a civil lawsuit with his family as the jury selection continues for the trial of the officer charged with his murder.
Speaker 6: You know, I like you mentioned, there is no amount of money that can, replace a brother, A son, a nephew, a father, a loved one. But What we can do is continue to work towards justice and equity and equality in the city of Minneapolis.
Speaker 5: The city of Minneapolis would pay them the largest civil settlement of its kind, $27,000,000.
Speaker 1: We're looking for a guilty verdict. Verdict. We are looking for a guilty verdict.
Speaker 27: What should protesters do?
Speaker 1: Well, we we gotta stay on the street, and we've got To get more active, you've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they they know that we need business.
Speaker 32: I'm aware of the media reports. I'm aware that Congressman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of, Anything less than a murder conviction and talk about being confrontational, but you can submit the press articles about that. A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot.
Speaker 29: This jury has has, Despite all best efforts, has been bombarded with information relevant to this case. It is impossible to stay away from it Unless you literally shut off your phone or you shut off your TV, you shut off your computer. And no such instructions have been given during the course of this trial.
Speaker 32: Well, to be fair, the last Few times I've advised them, I told them don't watch the news. Pure and simple.
Speaker 33: Derek was tried in the courthouse that was surrounded by barbed wire, concrete block, 2 armored personnel carriers, and a squad of National Guard troops, All of which are whom were there for one purpose in the event the jury acquitted him. Every person in this country is entitled to be to a fair trial, in a fair venue under the constitution.
Speaker 13: What kind of message do you think that sent to the jury Seeing those scenes outside the the courthouse every day.
Speaker 33: I don't have to speculate on the message, the jurors had in their minds. Every juror had a stake in the outcome of that case. Because every juror knew that if there was a not guilty finding, there was a less than trivial and and actually substantial risk that there would be riots in their community again.
Speaker 13: What do you think your son's case says about the justice system in America?
Speaker 7: Is there justice system in America? Not according to what they did to Derek and the other 3 officers. There isn't any. I don't believe in the justice system anymore.
Speaker 32: A sentence for account 1, the court commits you to the custody of the commissioner of corrections for a period of 270 months. That's 270. That is a 10 year addition to the presumptive sentence of A 150 months. This is based on your, abuse of a position of trust and authority And also the particular cruelty shown to George Floyd.
Speaker 7: This call is from a federal prison.
Speaker 13: Do you blame Chauvin for any of this?
Speaker 0: I don't. The way I see it is that he made The decisions he thought was right as he did before. He's always been one that was by the book and legally abiding. I think he did exactly what he was trained to do. Unfortunate that the publicity got as riled up as it did by all the officials and politicians that were involved with the case, And it took away any chance he had to even say his piece.
Speaker 13: What does this case say about the justice system in America?
Speaker 0: I think, unfortunately, we've come to the point now where the justice system has been controlled by mob mentality. Social media, news outlets, peer pressure now control the outcomes of trials, investigations. The justice system no longer is really something you can trust because if you're in any way on the negative side of the media, you You know, you're pretty much just gonna have a trial by street, and no one ever wins in street trials with publicity that is already against you. There's There's just no real way to have a fair trial. We have a whole constitutional amendment about that that's null and void.
Speaker 21: Why then did you wanna speak out?
Speaker 11: The whole city is different. The police force lost so many people because of it. Just the amount of crisis that people went through. The media did a really good, strange job of reporting the way they wanted the narrative to go.
Speaker 19: After what the world witnessed in the murder of George Floyd.
Speaker 11: These 4 police officers are committing a series of actions to violate policies.
Speaker 9: This news is disgusting sting, and they're immoral at the stuff they reported, the lies they reported.
Speaker 11: I saw the video. There was a lot of other angles that were excluded. A lot of training that was excluded.
Speaker 13: What was it like going to 911 calls After the riots.
Speaker 14: I was the 1st officer at multiple shootings. I was involved with gun calls Then I'm just like, one of these situations is not gonna turn out good. I mean, no matter what I do, it's I'm gonna be either the next or I'm gonna be shot or killed and I go, I've already been injured Twice in this job. You know? Bad.
And now, you know, now at the end of my career, I'm gonna get hurt again or or end up in prison.
Speaker 13: When did you decide to leave the Minneapolis Police Department?
Speaker 23: I've been in several riots in this city or protest or whatever you wanna call them. And of all the different riots I've been in, that's probably the first time I've ever felt list. I found myself, for the first time ever. I kinda had a panic attack. It was a sense of helplessness, and that that's a shitty feeling.
I had woke my wife up at, like, 3 in the morning, and I just told her, I think I can be done.
Speaker 11: Going to work though was was physically making me ill. It wasn't the flu. It wasn't a cold. It wasn't anything that I could put my finger on. It wasn't something that went away.
It was the drive into the city, the knot in my stomach, That I'm gonna vomit. I'm gonna be sick. I knew something was was wrong.
Speaker 22: I've left the job about a month after the protest. I just couldn't do it anymore. We were, one of the highest trained departments in the country. These were some of the you would ever see in your lives and a lot of those people are gone.
Speaker 9: The last call I was ever on was should have been a routine call. It was a simple hit and run. An officer is dispatched to a hit and run call. The victim has pictures of the car that took off, a description of the guy, and the guy drives by again. So the officer follows him, stops him.
I think, we had 4 officers there because people started yelling. I mean, this was just after the riots. Anytime we're out dealing with anybody, Especially if a person of color, we were getting the all kinds of screaming and yelling and everything else. It didn't take too long before we realized this guy was completely high on drugs. He was huge too.
He was probably 65. I mean, he was tall, way bigger than me, probably twice my size. And he's, like, I'm not going to jail. And I'm, like, okay. Well, we got our body cameras on.
We got 4 guys. And I'm thinking, well, this guy's drugged out. And he's like, well, I'm not going to jail, I'm going home. Pretty soon the fight's on. And we're fighting with this guy trying to get him cuffed.
We're not hitting him. We're not striking him or anything, but we're gonna go to the ground sooner or later because he's a big dude, and we can't we're gonna go to the ground. And I'm thinking to myself, dude, If this guy ODs, if this guy dies in our custody, 4 white cops, that's 17th in Chicago, 20 blocks from George Floyd, we're going to prison. And I'm looking at these guys and I go, we're going to fucking prison. And I was like, I don't know if I can do this anymore.
It's a horrible day.
Speaker 14: My father was a police officer that grew up in Minneapolis. My family was here, and I didn't wanna leave. It was the hardest thing I ever did in my life. I still have difficulties with it. You know, I didn't wanna go.
I I love being a police officer. You know?
Speaker 29: But,
Speaker 24: one day at sitting there having lunch, it was probably a group of 20 of us And somebody had said, hey, LTA. I heard I heard you're leaving. What's your last day? And I said, well, today in about 10 minutes. So in fact, could one of you guys give me a ride home because I had to leave my squad here?
And, the 1 guy That gave me a ride home and he's like, okay let's, you know, I got my squad right here so we're in a marked squad I still had a uniform on and I see a guy walking And I see as he's going to raise his hand. And I was I was like, oh, hey. Somebody wants to weigh about us. And then he flipped us off. And I went, Holy crap this was the this was the right decision.
Yeah everything changed And it didn't have to had we had strong leadership right from from The very top. The governor, the mayor, our chief of police, city council of Minneapolis, the assistant chief, and the deputy chiefs. This is how you treat your people. You just turn your back on us.
Speaker 1: Do you
Speaker 11: go into Minneapolis anymore? I have not been anywhere near the precinct? I can't bring myself to go to the precinct?
Speaker 23: I mean, unless I absolutely have to. No. I've even missed a few funerals.
Speaker 13: Why did you decide to stay on?
Speaker 6: Well, I think for myself mainly for for pride. It I worked really hard to get here, really hard. And I made a lot of sacrifices in my personal life to to be able to don a uniform and stand for something, and I could not let evil win. They failed When they gave up that precinct, our department still hasn't recovered from that, and it's 3 years later.
Speaker 20: Morale is something that, can ebb and flow, and it is something that I have to continue to monitor.
Speaker 32: I do hear
Speaker 6: that the mayor talks that crime is down.
Speaker 15: Crime is down. Crime is down. Say it with me. Crime is down.
Speaker 6: I often wonder if we're looking at the same city. Overall, crime is way up. How they ignore that or don't pay attention to that is beyond me. It's just another example of why we're in this situation we're in now.
Speaker 11: Can you even keep up?
Speaker 6: No. When I came on, we used to have a a roll call of about 20 to 25 cops. I've had roll calls with 2 cops in them, so it's just not enough.
Speaker 1: This council is gonna dismantle this police department.
Speaker 6: Alright. There. Tell me to say
Speaker 1: it again. This council is gonna dismantle this police department.
Speaker 6: This government, not just in Minneapolis, but in in the nation in general, has done a very good job all the way to the White House of demonizing law enforcement.
Speaker 18: Do you believe there is systemic racism in law enforcement? Absolutely.
Speaker 6: Now with the element of, it seems happy prosecutors to prosecute officers for mistakes made, makes it almost unbearable to do the job. And the policies passed makes it impossible to do the job that needs to be done.
Speaker 36: Our commitment is to end our city's toxic relationship with the Minneapolis police department to end policing as we know it.
Speaker 20: This is the department that I believe will, be on the right side of history. They are going to be on the right side of history, or they're gonna be on the wrong side of history. But or they will be left behind. But I'm determined that we are gonna be on the right side of history. Race is inextricably a part of the American policing system.
Speaker 1: Don't run now. Don't run now, racist white people. I'm here. Oh, yeah. We pull up.
We pull the fuck up, and we're here. Come on over here to your blue lives matter, sir. Blue lives ain't shit. I did. I won the primary election, and y'all can poke me on this.
I am Going to the state capital with the same fucking message. Do you
Speaker 13: think police and city leaders and the media were hiding the fact That your son is in fact a black officer.
Speaker 25: I think they had Such a hard time walking back a story that they had told, that they would have done anything to maintain that Story. You know they have a story. Our family has a story. I have a story in my mind about what really went on as well. When I think about the conversation they must have had once the facts came out about the race of the officers, about the toxicology report, about the medical examiner's report, about the body cameras.
Speaker 1: I can't joke. I can't breathe. Love it.
Speaker 25: And, you know, my story goes as they're sitting around looking at each other in a room going, Okay. Now what do we do? The truth and the facts don't match the story we've been telling Everybody in the media has been telling what are we gonna do now. And they look around in the room and Ask each other, you know, who has the cojones to tell the truth? Is it gonna be you, Arredondo, is it gonna be you, Benjamin Crump?
Is it gonna be you, Mayor Frey? Who's gonna be the one that's gonna say, oh, you know, oops. We thought it was this. We were wrong. The facts don't support it.
We're gonna have to do something that we're gonna have to say something. And they must have looked around the room and said, nope, not me. I don't have cojones. You have co nope. I don't have them either.
But they were able to loan a pair, I think, to mister chief Arredondo so so that he could don't worry. We'll give you we'll we'll borrow you a pair so you can have them to go on stand and lie about the training these police officers have had Since you don't have any to tell the truth. And that actually, you know, is the story that makes more sense with the facts than the one that they were telling.
Speaker 13: Alex, it seems practically everyone talks about how officer Derek Chauvin, who is white, was with George Floyd for 8 or 9 minutes. But there's you, A black police officer who is with George Floyd for much longer, practically 18 minutes from the moment he was handcuffed Until you close the ambulance door, why is this fact rarely ever mentioned?
Speaker 0: You know, that's a that's a good question despite like you said, the fact that I am black and that another colleague of mine, is Asian. So really half the attending officers were in the minority. I think that was something that they just didn't wanna admit, Specifically, my race because it again, it goes very counterintuitive to the way the narrative goes. They couldn't backpedal.
Speaker 11: This is where he grew up. Mhmm.
Speaker 25: Yep. Been here most of his life. It's our 1st house together. I've taught at Three different north side schools, so they all were students in the neighborhood, would live right around me. So, yeah, the king name around here had a meaning in In education and in the city, positive name.
And, that's no longer the case. That's hard to come to terms with.
Speaker 13: What's it like for you to think about him every day in in prison?
Speaker 25: My greatest fear is that it's gonna change who he is, and I just don't know who he's gonna be when he comes out. So it is hard to think of him there. Every day is excruciating. And we tell him, You know, we know who you are. We know what a lie this is.
And you don't have anything to apologize for?
Speaker 20: What I observed, was not training that I ever participated in, none that I observed, other officers, participating in.
Speaker 25: I can't understand How an untruth or a lie can be so accepted without question. This is what happened. This is how they reacted, did, and this is why they reacted, and this was part of their training.
Speaker 13: None of that was said?
Speaker 1: None of
Speaker 25: that was said. Knowing you're constantly reminded about the Worst day of your life and, tragedies that, gosh, are in the news every day. The ramifications of that day in terms of, how police are treated in the city and how many have quit, and It's gotten so bad. That trajectory, you know, of the fallout of what happened not just that day, but to the city afterwards that continues to happen and across the country. I just can't understand why they don't see that.
I mean, how can that not be seen? It's not the police that are the problem. Something else needs to change. How can that not be obvious when When things have gotten so bad. The city itself has lost its appeal.
A lot of Trauma. And, the plan is to find somewhere somewhere else where we can start fresh and not have all the bad memories.
Speaker 13: How do you get through every day in prison, Alex?
Speaker 0: Princeton is a very, very unique experience, I can say, one I never thought I'd see myself in. But It's very easy to get caught up in a lot of self wallowing and a lot of whatever thoughts you have in your own head. And the easiest way to do it is to take it day by day. Do little things here and there that you can keep doing to take time off your sentence, Keep pushing the days forward, and just keep your head up and know that, this ultimately, this isn't the end, and this won't define me.
Speaker 13: Alex, what do you want people to know about this case?
Speaker 0: What's been done is done, And I just hope that at the very least, people in the future keep an open mind and not let instances like this happen. Just use my case case and ex as an example is to not jump the gun, not knee jerk, not fall to this race bait, to the social media, to the media, and let them get away with what they do this momentous burden because if things like this keep happening, no one anywhere is gonna have any sense of justice left.
@TheRubberDuck79 - The Rubber Duck ™
Enter The #Pizzagate - Documentary this is an extraordinary documentary on #Pizzagate that's adult-family-safe to watch. there are a few documentaries made shortly after @LizCrokin broke #Pizzagate worldwide - before they made #OutOfShadows that are worth watching. this is absolutely one of them.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses various conspiracy theories surrounding child trafficking and pedophilia among high-ranking politicians, celebrities, and institutions. It addresses the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory, highlighting the lack of credible evidence. It also mentions other cases of child abuse and trafficking, such as the Finders cult, the Presidio military base, and the Franklin scandal. The video explores allegations of cover-ups and wider pedophile rings involving police and senior officials in Belgium and Italy. It also touches on the Nexium sex cult case in the US and implicates the entertainment industry in satanic symbolism and cannibalism. The existence of a dark ritual involving the drug Adrenochrome is discussed, with the speaker urging viewers to spread awareness and work towards eliminating the elite pedophile cabal. The video concludes by promoting upcoming releases and encouraging viewers to engage in the discussion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pizzagate.
Speaker 1: Pizzagate. Pizzagate. Pizzagate.
Speaker 0: A conspiracy theory. Debunked Internet conspiracy theory.
Speaker 2: A fictitious online conspiracy theory.
Speaker 0: We have people in the United States of America that breed children in order to sell them. And when they are sold, they come without birth certificates, which means it's easier to kill them and have no one ask where they are. We're also importing children by the plane load.
Speaker 3: Fake news.
Speaker 4: Fake news.
Speaker 2: Fake news.
Speaker 5: Our government has 2 elements. There's overt and the covert. I was member of the overage group. The corporate group involved in assassinations, drugs, the kidnapping children, so on
Speaker 6: and so forth.
Speaker 7: The fake story was widely debunked.
Speaker 8: It's they have no evidence for this. It's really crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: Why is it that the topic of pedophilia is such a closed conversation. And, clearly, one of the reasons is because you have pedophilia at such high levels of government at the highest echelon of government.
Speaker 4: People need the faces. This could be their little kid. This could be their neighbor's little kid. This could be a relative's little As unpleasant as this is, Americans need to come out and not only, face this, but they need to start fighting
Speaker 6: Pizza, pasta, hot dogs, ice cream, Murder, pedophilia, Satanism, human trafficking, Washington, Hollywood, Hillary Clinton, Ping Pong. What an awfully strange sequence of words. What could these completely unrelated words possibly have in common? Well, they're all associated with something called Pizzagate. Now in case you haven't heard of Pizzagate or in case you don't remember it, It was a viral Internet sensation centered around the presence of alleged code words in the leaked emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.
Apparently, the words pizza, hot dog, cheese, and pasta appeared an inordinate amount of times in the emails and led people to speculate that they are actually being used as coded messages for pedophilia related activities. And from this, People concluded that high ranking politicians and Hollywood celebrities were involved in a vast, satanic child trafficking ring that was centered in a little pizza shop called Comet Ping Pong. Yeah. I know what you're thinking. There's no way this could be True.
How could something this utterly insane possibly have even a smidge of truth to it? Well, let's just put it this way for starters. Mark Twain once said that truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities and truth isn't. Now this quote is absolutely relevant to Pizzagate because it's an example of something that does not in any way stick to what's perceived as possible. It doesn't fit with people's general viewpoint of the world.
It exists beyond what society would consider normal and because of that, It's immediately dismissed and labeled as preposterous. This demonstrates the irony of Mark Twain's statement. He says that fiction has to stick to possibilities, and truth doesn't. But the ironic part is that when something doesn't conform to generally accepted abilities. Even if it turns out to be true, people will think of it as fiction.
And this is exactly the case with Pizzagate, as you'll see. Okay. First things first. Whenever you do a search on Pizzagate, there's 3 things you're immediately gonna come across, the emails, the Jimmy comment Instagram, and the collages. These 3 things are almost always hyped up and cited as the premier evidence of the scandal, which is a real shame, because really all they are just hastily together assumptions and misinformation.
Yeah. That's right. I just said that. Sorry to break your balls, fellow pizzagators, but it's true. The code words in the emails, there's no possible way of definitively knowing that they're used in the context of pedophilia.
Sure. They might seem like they're used in odd context at time, but really, it's nothing more than just speculation. And sometimes, not even good Speculation at that. Like the one where Tony says to John he'd love to get a pizza for an hour. That's not really unusual.
Doesn't mean they're gonna spend a Full hour eating pizza. They'll eat for some of the time and then have conversation for the rest. It's what people do. Personally, I think there's only 2 of the emails that I think are noteworthy, but I'm not gonna get into them now. Next, you have the Instagram account of Comet Ping Pong owner James Aliphantus.
Most of the pictures are rather inoffensive pictures of children. There's a couple though that people get up in comes about like this picture. While it doesn't definitively point to child trafficking, it is rather unsettling and pretty creepy, as this guy astutely points out. But most of the others are just the product of more baseless speculation. Like with the emails, there are some noteworthy details about the Jimmy comment page that I'm not gonna delve into right now.
And finally, we have the other dubious stuff that people pass around like it's exhibit a. This picture juxtaposes John and Tony Podesta with 2 police sketches from the Madeleine McCann disappearance of 2000 Seven suggesting that the Podestas were responsible. And I'll admit, they do look suspiciously similar, but British police said that the 2 sketches were of the same guy, not 2 different people. Again, it's really open to interpretation and certainly not definitive proof of anything. And then you got this stupid crap.
I'm not even gonna say anything about it. So the emails, the insta, and the collages are nothing more than a bunch of noise. And those three Things are just about the entire basis of the mainstream media's debunking of Pizzagate. All that and pretty much just taking all of Fentes' word, he's not a pedophile, and trying to make him out as the victim. So in other words, the media didn't really debunk Pizzagate.
They just zeroed in on some trivial details, pointed out the obvious, and then slapped a fake news sticker on the whole thing. But Pizzagate is absolutely not fake news. Just the viral aspects of it are fake. Pizzagate as a whole is so much more than just the emails, the Instagram, and the collages. What this whole thing really is is the global sex trafficking of children by the ruling class of society, businessmen, entertainers, and financiers.
There are more than enough real world occurrences and patterns showing that this is very much a real thing. And before we get into those, it's important to see where the mainstream media stands on the issue of elite pedophile rings.
Speaker 0: They've accused all these people from celebrities to politicians of being a part of a child sex ring that simply does not exist.
Speaker 8: What they believe to be global pedophile networks of the amongst the elites all over the world. So it again, it's they have no evidence for this. It's really crazy stuff.
Speaker 7: Right wing online community that pushes false conspiracy theories, including that a child sex ring is being run by Hollywood celebrities and democratic politicians.
Speaker 1: In this fringy alternate universe, senior Democrats run a secret child sex trafficking network. In the real world, they do not.
Speaker 6: You got all that? So according to all the reputable news outlets, the institutions we normally rely on to tell us the truth, child Sex trafficking among the world's elite is just a wild fantasy with no evidence supporting its existence. Remember that. So exactly how deep does this issue run amongst the upper echelons of society? Appallingly deep.
Let's just say, if you thought Tiger King was the craziest True crime story of our time? Think again. Now every long list has a beginning, and at the beginning of this list is Dennis Taster. Former speaker of the house who is convicted of molesting numerous underage boys. Robert Menendez, New Jersey senator who had sex with Dominican prostitutes.
Mike Folger, state senator arrested for child porn. Democrat donor Terry Bean indicted for having sex with a 15 year old boy. George Nader, who worked unofficially for the Bush and Clinton administrations, was arrested 3 times between 1980 5 in 2003 for child porn and child sex abuse, and then again in 2019 for child porn. Ex State Department Employee sentence for child porn. California deputy attorney general, child porn.
Aid to Democrat rep soliciting underage prostitute. Ex GOP on a lawmaker paying boys for sex. Tennessee state rep, sexual misconduct with teens. And now over to the Pentagon, which had nearly 5,000 employees using Department of Defense Computers to share child porn. The issue was so severe they actually had to come up with a bill took her tail it.
And all this is just here in the United States. Over in the UK, we have the issue of the British establishment covering up a VIP Pedophile ring at Westminster. In the 19 eighties, British member of parliament, Geoffrey Dickens, compiled a dossier about a suspected pedophile ring he uncovered
Speaker 5: that was
Speaker 6: connected to trading child pornography. It wasn't until the mid 2000 tens that the dossier's claims were finally investigated, and a recent inquiry found that police and politicians knew about widespread child abuse, but turned a blind eye to it. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties of Britain knew about The alleged child abuse committed by MPs Peter Morrison and Cyril Smith, but chose to protect them from prosecution. And 2 people were apparently killed in order to protect this pedophile ring as alleged by John Mann of the Labor Party. Over in Norway, 20 individuals, politicians, police officers, and lawyers were arrested for being part of a pedophile ring.
Portugal had another pedophile ring Sustaining politicians and media personalities. Egypt busted 75 people, including government officials, for human trafficking back in 2018. And need I even mentioned the Catholic church, which has spent nearly $4,000,000,000 in regards to its whole child molestation crisis. So as you can see, child abuse amongst the upper class is definitely a rampant issue that's real and documented. But all those people I just mentioned?
Tip of the iceberg. I didn't just list all the high level child predators that ever existed. I only listed the ones that have been caught so far. This thing is more pervasive and far reaching than you could ever imagine. Plenty of whistleblowers have come forth and attested to this, like Peter Kelvin, a former child protection manager, who stated that 20 VIPs were part of an elite child sex ring, and former United chief Andrew MacLeod who says the UN is turning a blind eye to child rapes being committed by its own peacekeepers.
The United Nations is raping children. The facilitation of these child rapes is in part funded by the UK taxpayer. One of the reasons I left the UN is because I call them the 2nd largest harbor of Pedophiles behind only the Catholic church, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the UN is worse. We also have whistle blowers coming from US Government and military industrial complex backgrounds who are speaking out about VI pedophilia.
I
Speaker 4: think it's huge and and I have, been advised by a particular person that the CI and they're aware that these things are going on. And there's a couple of reasons for that. One, they don't consider it probably part of their mission. And 2, some of the people that are involved in this, The Department of Justice, in my view, under Loretta Lynch actually suppressed some of these cases, Stop the NYPD from coming out from Anthony Weiner's life insurance file on his computer which revealed some disgusting Sounds like alleged pedophilia stuff. Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice shut the NYPD down.
They were gonna come out public. So There's been some Department of Justice activity in suppressing some of these things. It is absolutely clear to me that this does involve elected officials in Washington to include congressmen and senators.
Speaker 0: There are over 500,000 Missing children in the United States. On Halloween, Virginia has 5 times the average of missing children than across the nation. Washington DC is ground 0 for pedophilia among the elite.
Speaker 5: By the way, this conspiracy involves pornography, drugs, corruption, involves pedophilia, involves organized child kidnapping rings, the finders out of Washington DC, CIA cover, covert operation involved in the international trafficking of children.
Speaker 6: So there's definitely people in well placed positions within major who know this is real and are speaking out about it. But as with every despicable crime, elite pedophilia and child trafficking also has its victims.
Speaker 2: Richard Kerr has suffered for over 30 years in silence, blocking out the horrors of his past at the hands of what he describes as very powerful people. As a teenager, he was introduced to the world of Westminster. He says he was trafficked from Northern Ireland and that this picture was taken by one of his abusers.
Speaker 9: That was used as a boy toy. I was an object, A sexual object.
Speaker 2: Rumors of an alleged pedophile ring in the top echelons of society have have been circulating for years. But for the first time, Richard's account of what happened to him as a boy links 3 locations. A cottage industry of conspiracy theories has built up around this story. But Richard insists a VIP pedophile ring did exist, and it's time for the truth to be told.
Speaker 9: They were men who had control and power over others.
Speaker 2: They were politicians you believe?
Speaker 9: Some some I do.
Speaker 10: My name is Annika Lucas. I am a mom. I have pets, and I'm currently the leader of an organization that brings yoga into prisons. I'm also A survivor of child sex trafficking. I was raised in Belgium and sold into A murderous pedophile network right around my 6th birthday.
I was used in this network For 5 years and a half, adult men that were part of this exclusive club were there for various reasons, but there was a lot of alcohol, a lot of drugs, And the children were the commodity, the highest the most valued commodity And were used for sex mostly. But there were a number of aristocrats that were part of this club who also liked killing children.
Speaker 11: My whole life, I traveled all over the world and would go to some of the biggest events to make clients.
Speaker 12: On the outside, her clients were pillars of their communities.
Speaker 11: They were in law enforcement, doctors, psychiatrists, judges, politicians, even people who owned sports teams. They were all extremely rich and prominent members of society. I attended many parties for people who had just got elected into office.
Speaker 12: But behind closed doors, She says they were sinister and evil human beings.
Speaker 11: Sometimes they would bring little boys into the room and they would make me have sex with them. Many of the boys were as young as 5.
Speaker 12: But you weren't allowed to use the word traffic. Correct? Why is that?
Speaker 11: I was made for that and trafficking is when girls who aren't made for that get kidnapped or sold into it.
Speaker 12: Did he tell you how you came to be with him?
Speaker 11: My parents, had me for him.
Speaker 12: That they actually had you on purpose for him.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 12: Do you remember how old you were when You first had sex?
Speaker 11: I was used to it by the time I was 2.
Speaker 6: This last woman brought up a very important point. Not all sex trafficking victims are kidnapped. Some are born into it. These elite pedophile networks to some other female captives as breeders to bear them more children who were then promptly passed around as commodity. So now you see that high level child sex rings of the establishment are a 100% real and not some insane right wing fever dream like the mainstream media says it is.
Real people have stepped forward to expose it. Real people have suffered and had their lives ruined by it. And this certainly isn't limited to just politics. Oh, no. I haven't even touched on Hollywood.
In 2013, actor Corey Feldman gave this interview with ABC News telling us about Hollywood's big bad Secret.
Speaker 13: I can tell you that the number one problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That's the biggest problem For children in this industry.
Speaker 9: The casting couch even applies to children.
Speaker 13: Oh, yeah. Not in the same way. It's all done under the radar. Nobody talks about pedophilia.
Speaker 9: It's the big secret. And it's widespread?
Speaker 13: Oh, yeah. I was surrounded by them when I was 14 years old surrounded.
Speaker 6: In addition to Feldman, we also had actor Elijah Wood come out and say that Hollywood has a huge pedophile problem. And just a month or 2 ago, professional heavyweight boxer David Rodriguez posted this video on social media.
Speaker 14: I don't think you understand how prevalent These pedophile rings really are in Hollywood and in, in the sports arenas, in Hollywood in the political arena. I mean, everywhere, man, it's bad. And it's it's, human trafficking, You know? And sex trafficking is the hottest thing, the biggest commodity right now. And I think, once this all comes out to the surface, A lot of you are gonna be disgusted and and feel very dirty for even knowing the information.
Speaker 6: He's right. It really is bad. It's so rampant that there is even a whole documentary made on the subject called An Open Secret. So who do we have on the busted list? Well, there's Oscar winning director Roman Polanski who was charged in 1978 with raping a 13 year old girl.
Then there's Kevin Spacey, who was first accused by actor Anthony Rapp of molesting him when he was 14. Since then, he's been hit with a whopping 15 accusations. Some of them also about Spacey raping people when they were underage, and 3 of his accusers all died within a year. Okay, who else? Brian Singer of X Men and Usual Suspects fame has been accused many times over the years of molesting underage boys.
Victor Salva, Jeepers Creepers fame, creeper his way into being convicted of child porn and sexually assaulting a 12 year old. R Kelly was arrested last July for child sex crimes and child pornography. Woody Allen, although not convicted, has been accused by his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, of molesting her when she was 7. Accusations that have renewed interest in the wake of hashtag Me Too. Former Disney vice president Michael Laney was convicted last year of child sex abuse.
I'll be talking about Disney later on. X Men actor Brian Peck was convicted of molesting a Nickelodeon child star, and yet is still allowed to be on set with Children, only in Hollywood. Sterling Van Wagnen, cofounder of Sundance Film Festival, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing an underage girl. And then we have Tom Wysom, Animator on My Little Pony, sentenced for child pornography. Now obviously, these aren't all the people in showbiz who've been pinched for pedophilia, but I'm not gonna spend my time listing Every single person who's gone down for this just enough to show you how real and how broad this is.
But there's other more disturbing indicators that point to a full blown Infestation of child predators in Tinseltown. Among them, big name celebrities, household names. Among the aforementioned indicators are a series of Tweets from numerous celebrities. Tweets that they'd rather you not see. From comedian Patton Oswald.
My dong is super friendly and loves getting rubbed by children. The angry at tweets from my hammer toad followers open my eyes. Pedophobe shaming hurts us all. I am a proud pedophile. Comedian Michael Ian Black.
My day so far, mini weeks, writing, quick baby fuck, more writing, picked up kids from school, went to my kids' elementary school Halloween parade, Disappointingly few slutty girl costumes. Anthony Jeselnik. I'm an amateur photographer. Never taken anything I'm proud of, just children having sex. I wanna have sex with you, baby.
But if you don't want me to have sex with you, baby, too bad, because you're just a baby. Rainn Wilson, who played Dwight on The Office, Little concerned. This morning, I found blood in my urine. Well, not my urine. The baby urine I washed my hair with.
If you wanna punish a teenager, simply take away their cell phone and sodomize them with it. And then we have the old tweets of Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn that resurfaced in 2018. I like it when little boys touch me in my silly place. Shh. The Expendables was so manly, I fucked the shit out of the little pussy boy next 3 men and a baby they had sex with, hashtag unromantic movies.
Now you think that he'd be widely condemned for the tweets. Nope. The mainstream media and the blue check marks rushed his defense and painted him as a victim of the diabolical right wing trolls who committed the heinous Crime of digging up the old tweets. Now some people might look at all these tweets and write them off as just dark jokes or attempts at being edgy, and I say no, They're not. And this is coming from me, somebody who has a horrible sense of humor.
Deadass. I go on Reddit and browse memes like these. So I know what good edgy humor is, and these tweets are not that. They're vulgar and in very poor taste. Some of these don't even read like jokes.
There's no setup nor punch line. If anything, they read more like straight up statements. And this begs the old proverb, many of true word have been spoken in jest. In other words, these guys are openly flaunting their pedophilic tendencies, but in the form of jokes, if they can even be called that. Because I sure as hell ain't laughing, and I don't think any of you watching this are either.
And you're Definitely not gonna be laughing at what I'm about to show you next. It's a comedy skit with Will Ferrell playing the owner of a store that rents out child clowns. Yep. That is real. That is really Will Ferrell beating little children and talking about keeping them in cages.
I told you big names are implicated in this. And if you're a Rick and Morty fan, you're not gonna like this next clip. It's the show's creator, Dan Harmon, and he's he's,
Speaker 15: So that later tonight, when I'm crawling in your window, I can count on you to sleep like a baby. Well, I do everything but sleep with yours.
Speaker 6: Ugh. I need to go wash my eyes out with Clorox after seeing that. Thinly veiled jokes aren't the only way that Hollywood hides its pedophilia in plain sight. In this music video by Miley Cyrus for her song, Baby Talk, Miley is dressed up in a baby outfit and does all sorts of seductive poses. Think about that for a second.
A baby is doing seductive sexy dancing. And to make matters worse, one of the lyrics of the song is Fuck me so you stop baby talking. Now the song itself is about Miley being fed up with her boyfriend doing baby talk, but the music video adds a Whole another really messed up context. We essentially have a baby telling a grown man to fuck her. The only kind of people I can imagine enjoying something like this are pedophiles.
Now another asset Petalwood likes to deploy are these symbols seen here in this FBI document, listing them as symbols used by pedophiles signal their preferences. The symbols are a lesser known, but more blatant way for the big showbiz perverts to convey that they're into the youngins would surely fly over almost anybody's head unless they were familiar with the symbols. The boy lover symbol is the more prevalent one which appears in this CBS Reality show in season 4 episode 14 of ABC's The Goldbergs, and more recently on the poster for Dora and the Lost city of gold within the letters themselves. Fun fact, 2 of Nickelodeon's creators, Kit and Geraldine Laybourne, appear on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita flight logs. So, yeah, Hollywood is definitely sprawling with child molesters.
I'd say Los Angeles deserves the title of sin city much more than Las Vegas does. The issue of elite child trafficking and abuse has received plenty of interest in the years since Pizzagate went viral. But by then, this phenomenon had already been going on for quite a long time. And Pizzagate isn't the 1st time little bits of this stuff slipped out to the public's eye. Indeed, many other scandals of its kind got a glimmer of public before dissipating as quickly as they came about.
3 of these scandals happened around the same time in the late 19 eighties, starting with the finders' cult. In October of 2019, the FBI released a whole treasure trove of documents pertaining to an alleged satanic cult called the Finders that was supposedly trafficking children. The finders first came to the attention of law enforcement in February 1987 when 2 members of the group were arrested by the Tallahassee Police Department on misdemeanor child abuse charges from a complaint that 6 children under their supervision were unkempt and neglected. Information developed Subsequent to the arrest, links these individuals to 2 locations in the Washington DC area. Shortly after that, the DC Metropolitan Police Department obtained warrants and conducted a search of a warehouse that unearthed documents that concerned international trafficking in children and wallet sized photos of children, some of whom were naked.
But they also found something much more disturbing, pictures of children involved in bloodletting ceremonies of animals and another photograph of a child in chains. After the arrests and searches were made, the police found evidence of sexual abuse involving more than 1 of the 6 children, and 2 state officials also determined that at least 2 of the children had been sexually abused. So what came of all Well, the Washington MPD gave a public statement saying that they uncovered no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by members of group saying that their practices were odd, but not criminal. What? Police in Virginia and the district said yesterday day, they have uncovered no evidence of satanic practices, cult rituals, child pornography, or any other criminal wrong doing associated with the communal group known as the finders.
During the course of the search warrants, numerous documents were discovered which appeared to be concerned with National trafficking in children. Police in Washington raided 2 buildings belonging to the finders last Thursday and found numerous pictures, including some of new children and children taking part in animal sacrifices. Additional search warrant executed on farm in rural Virginia with support by Virginia State police. Evidence of satanic and cult ritual discovered. Tallahassee police said last week that 2 or more of the children taken into custody had been sexually abused.
Police in Virginia and the district said they uncovered no evidence of satanic practices, gel porn or any other criminal wrongdoing associated with the finders. So at first you have documentation showing that these investigators found of child abuse and occult activities occurring at the different finder's properties. And then you have the police departments publicly stating that they no evidence of such things? What? Do pictures of naked children not count as child pornography?
Do pictures of children butchering animals not count as proof of satanic cult rituals? Is the sky not blue? Is water not wet? Is Stevie Wonder not blind? So in essence, these 2 police departments and the US Customs found incriminating evidence against the finders and then covered it up, probably at the behest of an outside entity.
Redacted contacts, MPD Intelligence, and advised that all reports regarding the finders are to be classified at the secret level. Most likely, that's what happened. Now here's the real juicy part of the story. The CIA has its fingerprints on this fineness group, and there is an investigation of this by local and federal law enforcement. The Department of Justice has requested the FBI conduct a preliminary inquiry to allegations made by Redacted concerning child sexual abuse by a group known as the Finders.
And what role, if any, was played by the United States Intelligence Community. Dare. Miami Division at Tallahassee, Florida, through liaison into the Tallahassee, Florida Police Department, review their files concerning the finders blah blah blah and determine if any outside agency, notably of the US intelligence community, attempted to influence the outcome of their investigation. Now the Tallahassee police chief did say that there was never any outside agency in the US intelligence community who contacted anyone in his department with an attempt to influence their investigation into the finders. But come on.
Are we really supposed to take his word for it? Especially after The same police departments told people that they never found evidence of the fighter's criminality when they actually did. For all we know, This guy could have been threatened by the CIA to give that exact statement. Besides, there's other law enforcement officials that would gladly beg to differ. It is this writer's belief that the Finders Organization is and has been utilized by the Central Intelligence Agency as a disinformation service spreading nonessential, non critical information to various organizations throughout the United States and overseas.
And this guy certainly wouldn't be wrong. The founder of the finders cult, Marion David Petit, has direct connections to the CIA through the fact that his late wife once worked for the agency and that his son worked for a CIA proprietary firm, Air America, which was hit with allegations of smuggling opium and heroin that were supported by a bunch of people. So, yes. There are confirmed ties between the CIA and a satanic cult that was involved in child abuse. Take a second to acknowledge the gravity of that.
It was also believed that the finders were part of a much more organized effort. Subsequently, redacted has attempted interest congressional members and the US Customs Service to enhance efforts in investigating claims of organized child abuse. Redacted alleges The finders are involved in a well organized child abuse scheme. And this dude would be right on the money because a US customs special agent Claimed to have found in one of the property searches a substantial amount of computer equipment and documents purportedly containing instructions for obtaining children for unspecified purposes, and recall the fact that the Washington DC Metropolitan Police found documents pertaining to international trafficking of children. But by far, the most incredible revelation of these finers documents is one that relates to another eighties child abuse scandal, the McMartin preschool case.
Scandal saw members of the McMartin family who operated a preschool in California being charged with numerous acts of abuse of children in their care. There were also allegations of the same children being subjected to satanic rituals, which are said to have occurred in secret Tunnels beneath the school, but they apparently never found evidence of said tunnels, and this is one of the reasons why the case was ultimately dismissed. However, one of the documents from the recently released finders files reveals that they actually did find tunnels underneath the preschool. And not only did they find the tunnels, But they found a small white plastic plate with 3 pentagrams hand drawn upon. This is absolutely remarkable because they really did find evidence corroborating the allegations of satanic ritual abuse and secret subterranean tunnel.
This document Effectively rewrites the entire McMartin Preschool case. Around the same time of the finders investigations and the McMartin trials, another ritualistic child abuse Scandals unfolding over a Presidio military base. As first reported by the New York Times, a whopping 60 children were allegedly abused at Presidio's daycare centers, and almost a100 were examined for physical and psychological signs of sexual abuse. At least 4 children were discovered to have chlamydia. Well, there you have it.
Children in this case were found to have an STD. Only way that could happen is if they were molested by a grown up. As for all the other children, in the American Journal of Ortho psychiatry brought an extensive analysis where they concluded that the severity of the trauma for children at the procedure was immediately manifest and clear cut symptoms including genital soreness, rashes, fear of the dark, so on so on. All these behavioral symptoms are to be suspected in preschool children that have been molested. And Presidio wasn't the only military base where this depravity was occurring.
A Team member army review team recently inspected the Presidio Center as part of an investigation of the almost 300 child care centers run by the army. Allegations Sexual abuse had surfaced at more than 10% of these centers since 1984. Among them were the centers at Fort Dix in New Jersey and the United State's military academy at West Point. As first reported by San Jose Mercury News, in July 1984, a 3 year old girl was brought to the emergency room at West Point Hospital. The child told the doctor who examined her that a teacher at the West Point Daycare Center was the one who hurt her.
In August, another parent came forward. By the end of the year, 50 children had been interviewed by investigators. Children at West Point told stories that would become horrifyingly familiar. They said they had been ritually abused. They said they had excrement smeared on their okay.
No. Despite all the children that were found to have displayed clear signs of being abused, nothing really came of the Presidio daycare case. Only 1 man was Charged Gary Hambright, a civilian employee who oversaw the daycare center, but the judge presiding over the case deemed the charges as too vague, and Hambright walked free. No other persons were charged, and the US government quietly closed the case against Presidio itself. So once again, we have the government opting to silently Sweep a high level child abuse case under the rug.
Despite clear signs and evidence of children being abused, the US Army was in no hurry to investigate the claims of Child abuse. It took them 12 days to form a strategy group, and nearly a month passed before they notified other parents at the daycare that child abuse Allegations had been made. Well, gee, that's not an abnormal way of handling things that totally reeks of guilt and attempted to cover up. Amidst all the wickedness and suppressions of wickedness. There's a notorious figure that stands out, and his name is Lieutenant Colonel Michael Aquino, A military intelligence officer specializing in psychological warfare and an open practitioner of Satanism who left LaVey's Church of to form the temple of Set.
While all the child victims of Presidio were being interviewed, both Aquino and his satanist wife Lilith were Positively ID'd as to the perpetrators.
Speaker 4: He was, occupied a position at the Presidio, which was a a training facility for the US government, and it was uncovered that he was running a pedophile ring. I think 50 kids came out and fingered him as the guy that had, done sexual acts on them as children.
Speaker 6: Indeed, Michael Aquino was certainly involved in the Presidio daycare abuse, but that wasn't the only case of child ritual abuse that he was linked to. In 1985, allegations of ritual abuse at the Fort Bragg daycare center erupted when Several children reported being abused by a number of people at the daycare center and several other locations, including 2 churches. Colonel Aquino was ID'd as having been present at one of those churches, but there's a much larger, even more extensive pedophile scandal Akina was involved up to his weird freaking eyebrows in the pinnacle of the 19 eighties child trafficking cases, the Franklin scandal. The year is 1988 in Omaha, Nebraska. 1 man was quickly rising as a star in the Republican Party, so much so that he was scheduled to sing the national anthem at the 1988 Republican National Convention.
This man was Larry King. No. Not that Larry King. This guy, Lawrence Eking, who ran the Franklin Federal Credit Union and was about to be the center of a monumental web of and perversion. He was accused by 7 children of child abuse and prostitution before he sang the national anthem at the RNC.
Among the 1st accusers was Eulace Washington, who claimed King flew her out of state for pedophilic orgies. Despite passing various lie detector tests, charges were never brought against King nor his cousins, the webs. More rumors of sexual abuse began to arise with multiple allegations that Larry King was using children from Boys Town, the nearby Catholic Charitable Institution for orphan youth. The federal and local authorities immediately moved to close the investigation and seal evidence, claiming the allegations of child abuse were unfounded. And as it turns out, the authorities never interviewed Euless Washington and the other children until 3 years after the initial allegations were made.
Once again, we have unusual steps taken by law enforcement that indicate that they're trying everything they can to not conduct a proper investigation. Despite all this, Omaha police chief Robert Wadman told the press with a straight faced that every step that should have been taken was taken, but he later confessed that he never even contacted Eulace Washington. And here's the kicker, Wadman would later be identified as a child abuser at King's parties by 4 different victims. Well, how about that? The police chief was himself involved in Larry King's pedophile It seems you can never trust the authorities when it comes to these cases of large scale child abuse.
But, a group of 12 state Senators decided to be good boys and create their own commission to investigate the charges. The leader of this commission, senator Loren Schmidt, followed the money trail and quickly found that it could be traced directly to the sex parties and child abuse. And you know how you know he was pulling on some pretty major threads? Because this happened. I received a phone call on the floor of the legislator.
The caller would not identify himself, but he said, Lauren, you do not wanna have an investigation of the Franklin Federal Credit Union. And I said, well, why not? And he said, it will reach the highest levels of the Republican Party. Highest Levels of the Republican Party. Senator Schmidt wasn't the only one who received threats, so did the lead investigator the state senator committee Gary Caridori.
Now Caridori took a trip to Chicago in July 1990 to meet with a secret informant who had evidence that would apparently the lid off the case. He confided in a friend that he was 1 step ahead of those who wanted to squash the investigation And said that if they knew what information he had, he'd be killed. And guess what happened next? He and his son died in a crash during the return flight from Chicago. You tell me if it had anything to do with him being on the verge of blowing the lid off the Franklin case as he himself stated.
So who exactly was the secret informant that Carradore was meeting? Why, Rusty Nelson, a photographer who was present at Larry King's Pedo Party. He later to the district court that he photographed police chief Robert Wadman having sex with minors at several of the parties. So why was there a photographer taking pictures of people at these parties? Most likely for blackmail purposes.
The Franklin case eventually saw 3 victim witnesses, Troy Boner, Alicia Owens and Paul Bonacci testifying about their experiences. In interviews with Gary Caridori, Bona, Owens, and Bonacci corroborated each other's without initially knowing about each other's roles in the investigation. What happened next was absolutely astonishing. A New York Times article, which is now a broken link, sorry, confirmed that the state was given thousands of files regarding sexual abuse of children. But instead of indicting the perpetrators, the grand juries labeled the Franklin case, a carefully crafted hoax, and ordered all those files to be sealed.
They then charged all the victims with perjury despite concluding They were in fact abused. Lawyer and psychiatrist doctor Judy Ann Denson Gerber rightfully said that this is unprecedented, probably in the history of the States. If the children are not telling the truth, particularly if they have been abused, they need help, medical attention. You don't throw them in jail. So the grand juries did all this without ever calling Larry King himself to testify.
And Alicia Owens' attorney that the videos of Bona and Owens being interviewed by Gary Caridori had all the parts where they corroborated each other's stories edited out, So somebody tampered with the evidence. It's pretty obvious why all this happened because clearly prominent republican politicians, some going up to the national level, were part of this child trafficking ring. The only kind of people whom get a lead murdered and victims thrown in jail are powerful people in Hyatt positions who are capable of pulling major strings. As with the finers' call in the presidio military base, nothing ever came of the Franklin scandal. Nobody was ever charged or brought to justice.
The closest this case ever got to getting the public scrutiny it deserved was a documentary called Conspiracy of Silence that was supposed to air on the Discovery channel. It was pulled last minute on the day it was supposed to air. No explanation was ever given. There's also the book, The Franklin Coverup, written by Nebraska state senator and prosecutor John DeCamp, who was also involved in the Franklin investigation and appeared in the conspiracy of silence documentary.
Speaker 16: Obviously, the FBI was protecting something a lot more significant than a bunch of old pedophiles Having improper relations with little boys, they were protecting something a lot more significant than a bunch of drug peddlers. They were protecting, in my opinion, they were protecting some very prominent politicians, Some very powerful and wealthy individuals associated with those politicians and the political system up to and including the highest Political people in this entire country.
Speaker 6: DeCamp would eventually go on to help Paul Bonacci win a $1,000,000 lawsuit suit against Larry King in 1999 in which the federal judge ruled that Bonacci was truthful in his testimony. That same year, Bonacci positively identified lieutenant Colonel Michael Aquino, the same creepy dude from Presidio, has an associate of Larry King. Rusty Nelson, King's personal photographer also identified Aquino as the man he once saw King give a briefcase full of money and bearer bombs to. So Aquino is tied up with Presidio, Fort Bragg, and Franklin along with a few other lesser known child abuse cases. This guy is basically the Forrest Gump of pedophile scandals, and to this day, despite being identified as an abuser by dozens of children, still has yet to see his day in court.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the United States criminal justice system. The Franklin pedophile Cover up wasn't the first of its kind and certainly wasn't the last. Around the same time in 19 nineties, a similar scandal was Folding over in Belgium. Marc Dutra was a notorious pedophile and child killer who was first arrested back in 1986 on rape and abduction charges. Jailed in 1989, he was released on parole after just 3 years.
In 1995 and 96, he kidnapped 6 girls and murdered 2 teenagers. 2 of his 8 year old captives starved to death in his cellar. Around that time, Belgium's highest court removed a magistrate widely seen as a hero in the scandal, Jean Marc Conroe, who was investigating Dutra. This act by the Belgian court sparked a widespread public outcry and soon led to the White March, a demonstration of 300,000 people protesting the justice system's handling of the Dutra case. Now just why did the courts decide to ditch Connerault
Speaker 5: like that. Maybe it was because Conner
Speaker 6: was on the verge of disclosing the names of senior government officials who have been recognized on confiscated video tapes and during allegations of a high level cover up. That's right. Dutreault wasn't just some lone wolf psychopath. He was part of a much Larger, more connected pedophile organization that included some very powerful Belgian players. But don't take my word for it.
Dutreault himself even claimed he was part of a pedophile network. And Dutreault's accomplice, Miguel La Livre, also attested to Dutreault being part of something broader, stating, Mark always told me that he kidnapped girls for people who placed an order with him. So obviously, Judge Connor was onto this pedo network, And the Belgian courts had to get rid of him in order to prevent prominent people from going down. And you know how you know the courts were desperate to remove him? They dismissed him on the grounds that he compromised his impartiality by accepting a free dinner at a fundraiser for the parents of missing children.
Seriously? You don't use something that Trivial as a means for removing a magistrate, unless you're desperately trying to prevent him from going public with whatever he has, as was clearly the case with Conroe. So Mark Dutroule, on his own admission and on the admission of his accomplice, the Libra, was part of a wider pedophile network, but he certainly won the top dog. No. The man that judge Conroe and other investigators believed to be the brains behind whole child trafficking operation was man Jean Miguel Nahul.
Indeed, Dutroux's wife, Michelle Martin, also mentioned Dutroux and Nahulx working together. I have heard Marc personally that he should bring a girl from McGill and Nahul. If I haven't mentioned that before, that's because I'm afraid of that gang. I mean, Nahul, Marc Dutroux, and others in Brussels. I mean, well placed individuals whom Nahual knew.
In May of 2002, investigative journals, Alenka Frankeel, wrote an article Belgium's silent heart of darkness in which she described meeting the whole in the Brussels restaurant. She writes, he will never come to court because the information he has about important people in Belgium would bring the government down. So clearly, Nahuel and Dutra were trafficking children for some very high level Belgian folks. That's probably why the legal system's handling of the Dutreault case reeks of a cover up. Countless hairs were Found in Dutroux's dungeon where the 2 girls were held.
The judge refused to have been tested for DNA evidence even though the leading police investigator had begged him to have them analyzed. In order to know whether or more people aside from Dutra were involved in the crimes. The general prosecutor of the case said that she didn't believe that there was anyone else involved and, thus, didn't have the samples analyzed. She told investigative journalist, Frank Eel, yes, the same Frank Eel who wrote this article that all the Harris had been analyzed, and the results of the analysis, nothing. But according to Frank Eel, this wasn't true.
Sources central to the investigation confirmed that in 2002, the Harris had still not been analyzed, which means that prosecutor woman lied. Another fishy detail is the fact The judge overseeing the Dutra case, Judge Van Espen, had a close relationship to Jean Macquill Nahuel. Even more interesting, he was never removed from the case, unlike Judge Conroe. So, yeah, more confirmation that the Belgian legal system was carrying out a cover up. They removed Conroe for the heinous act of accepting a Free dinner, and they don't even bat an eye towards Van Espan, who's closely associated to Neuhul, presenting a huge conflict of interest.
Cover up was certainly perpetrated here, and the parents of Dutra's victims, along with many other Belgian citizens, agreed. Dutra was not acting alone, they say, but was part of a wider pedophile ring which included policemen and senior members of the establishment. Why else would there have been such a delay in going trial. Couldn't have said it better myself. The Dutro affair and the ensuing cover up demonstrates a very important point, that powerful elite pedophiles are not just limited to the United States.
They're international. They operate pretty much under the same MO. And when they're in jeopardy of being uncovered, they're quick to pull strings in the justice them to prevent exposure by any means necessary. The next major case of high level pedophilia and cover ups wouldn't unfold Again, until 2013 over in Italy. Then prime minister Silvio Berlusconi was convicted that year of paying for Sex with then underage prostitute Ruby Rubicori while she was attending one of his Bonga Bonga parties.
He was found guilty of the charges but then had them overturned a year later after an appeal. Though prosecutors said that wouldn't be the last of the case. Now here's where this story gets interesting. In 2018, ex Moroccan model, Emad Fadil, who was a witness during the trial, did an interview with Italian newspaper Il Fato Cotidiana, where she said that satanic rituals took place in Berlusconi's private villa. She was even in the process of writing a book about it called I Met the Devil.
When asked about why she was writing a book, she said, because I wanna tell everything. This is not limited to a powerful man who had girls. There is much more to this story, much more serious things. Explain. This gentleman is part of a sect that invokes the devil.
Yes. I know I'm saying something strong, but it's true. Many others know this. Know what? That continuous obscenities happen in that house.
And I tell you, in that house, there are disturbing presences. There's evil in there. I've seen it. There's Lucifer. Do you have proof?
Please show it. No. Not yet. I'll do it later. I just have to finish this book, and then the world will know.
Unfortunately, she never got to publish the book because around the time she sought out a publisher, She died of poisoning. Even more telling is that she was poisoned with cadmium, a substance used in batteries in nuclear reactors, something that's not readily available to the general public. So clearly, this woman's allegations, as strange as they were, must have had some weight to them. If her story of satanic rituals Really was just a crackpot fever dream, there would have been no need to kill her. You let her go public with her story, and then she makes a fool of herself get swept away by the widespread ridicule.
But the fact that she was poisoned before she had a chance to publish her book clearly means that her Story had at least some truth to it, and that somebody didn't want all the details of it getting out. Around the same time of a man Fodil's death, the Nexium sex cult case was just beginning in the United States.
Speaker 0: A mysterious self help group called Nxiom.
Speaker 1: Suspected sex cult known as Nx Nyxiom. Disturbing new allegations against the mysterious self help group, Nexxiom. An alleged cult leader and former network TV star both arrested on sex Trafficking charges.
Speaker 6: In March 2018, Keith Raniere, the founder of Nexium, a supposed multilevel marketing company, was arrested on sex trafficking charges. Also arrested were Nexium cofounder Nancy Salzman, Seagram Iris, Clare Brofman, and Smallville star, Allison Mack. Hollywood actress involved in a sex trafficking cult. Surprise, surprise. Under the guise of being an executive success program.
These bunch of weirdos inducted poor, unsuspecting women into a secret society like group called DOS and subjected them to sexual slavery and mind control. The female victims also had Keith Raniere's initials, Brandon, on their bodies. Ugh, those look painful. After lengthy trial that ended back in June of last year, Raniere was found guilty of all charges which included sexual exploitation of a child and possession of child pornography. That's right.
Raniere was a pedophile, and Nexium was allegedly involved in child sex trafficking. In a detail completely omitted by the mainstream media. Keith Raniere was behind the establishment of Rainbow Cultural Gardens, a series of special schools set up throughout the Americas. School in Miami, Florida was shut down not long after Ranieri's arrest, and as it turns out, wasn't even licensed to operate. Hey.
Totally fine. Nothing shady about that at all. But according to Frank Parlato, NXIVM's former publicist and coordinating producer on Investigation Discovery's Lost Women in NXIVM special. The Rainbow Schools were intended for a much more sinister purpose.
Speaker 17: I think the probable results of rainbow had we not shut it down in the United States. It still is thriving in Mexico, and it still operates in
Speaker 6: France.
Speaker 17: But the probable goal was to produce young children that could be either sex trafficked or enjoyed, quote, unquote, enjoyed by Raniere at a very tender age. It was a invidious, nefarious, horrible program that was under the guise of helping children.
Speaker 6: Indeed, some of the nannies that supervised the children at these schools were also part of Ranieri's sex trafficking scheme. But perhaps the most sensational part of the entire Sam's story is Keith Ranieri's infatuation with Satanism and human sacrifice rituals.
Speaker 17: He was fascinated by the concept of Lucifer and his fall, And he, he was a great fan of Milton's Paradise Lost. And what he did was he had a way of projecting when a person did not follow or obey his, goals and his rules. He would describe them as a Luciferian, and yet secretly gave out hints that he considered himself nothing less than Lucifer himself. Could've there could've been sacrificial rights. I believe that Keith did believe that the sacrifice, and murder of young people would bring him power.
Speaker 6: That most likely was the case. Because during the trial, the jury heard audio recordings taken by Alison Mack of Raniere saying that he wanted the branding of his female slaves to mimic ritualistic human sacrifices. So those are all the major pedophilia and human trafficking cases from the 19 eighties all the way up to present day. And, yes, I know what you're thinking right now. What about Jeffrey Epstein and his sex order island?
Fear not. I'll be talking extensively about Epstein and his island in part 2. Believe me, there's so much more to that story that will absolutely blow your mind. But as of now, I'd like to make note of the common threads in each of the cases that I just covered. Firstly, every single case saw a cover up being straight to some extent or another.
The first 4 cases I talked about, the finders, Presidio, Franklin, and Dutra, All had enormous efforts by law enforcement to make sure the lid stayed on and that the prominent people who were implicated never saw the light of public scrutiny. As for the Silvio Berlusconi scandal, a key witness died under very suspicious circumstances. And even with Nexium, there were Significant details that were completely ignored by the mainstream media. That's one linking thread. The other recurring motif is Satanism.
Every case except The Dutreuse scandal saw children being subjected not only to molestation, but satanic ritual abuse as well. And this Topic is where most people will draw the line. Not only is it outlandishly bizarre, but it's also a form of evil more extreme than what most people would normally comprehend. And for those reasons, people will immediately dismiss the satanism of Pizzagate as nothing more than a crackhead's delusion. But remember the old Mark Twain adage from the beginning, truth is stranger than fiction.
And now, we're Entering the stranger side of pizza gate. Satanism among the ruling class, just like pedophilia, is absolutely real. Whether or not you find that too Hard to believe or whether or not you wanna believe it. It's true. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: When I was a police officer, we had cases of satanic cults right in Arlington, Virginia. Those have been around for decades. They're in the high schools. They're in the colleges. They're in the government, and they're in Hollywood.
Speaker 5: And people came out of the woodwork From all parts of the country, you started talking to me about satanic cults. This is what's behind The evil in this country today, in the government at virtually every level of the government.
Speaker 6: In a bad That was at breakpoint. Kinder. Okay. Yeah. Look at his face.
Look at how he tears up talking about That's genuine emotion right there. That's how you know this guy is for real. If he was just someone looking for attention, he'd be trying to sell himself and his story in any way possible, but I haven't seen any bestsellers from him. I haven't seen him trying to milk it on major talk shows. There's nothing from this guy where he's trying to make money off you.
This guy was really in a truly horrible situation. Besides people coming out and sharing their experiences with it. There's another way we know that Satanists have worked in the upper class of society, and it's been hidden in plain sight the entire time. Pop culture. That's right.
Esoteric and occult symbols are generously pampered throughout all facets of media. Sometimes subtly, sometimes right in your face. You've probably never noticed any of it, but trust me, it's so common. The extent of it will send shivers down spy. Before we really go into how ubiquitous they are, there's a couple of these symbols I'd like to explain.
1st is the eye in the triangle, otherwise known as the all seeing eye, Eye or the eye of providence. This symbol is 1000 of years old and was commonly associated with the 3rd eye. It's believed that when one activates opens their 3rd eye, they achieve enlightenment, hence why you'll often see it depicted with glowing rays around. It's also associated with the concept of a greater force that watchfully observes all our thoughts and actions. This can be seen with ancient Egyptian myths of the sun god Ra or Horus, and as such, The symbol was called the Eye of Horus, and at times depicted atop a pyramid.
Now mind you, the all seeing eye symbol always have the triangle around it. A single eye is also used to represent the same thing. Very important that you know that. In more recent times, the all seeing eye was adopted by esoteric and occult secret societies like the Freemasons. To them, the eye Symbolizes the omnipresence of the great architect of the universe, who watches everything that happens in this world.
Anyone else getting Aurelian Big Brother vibes from all this? Well, you certainly wouldn't be wrong to feel that. Here's the eye in the triangle on the headwear of notorious satanist, Aleister Crowley, who established his own occult Society OTO and was also an MI six agent and a Freemason. Speaking of Freemasons, another noteworthy symbol is the black and white checkerboard Floor. This floor pattern can be found in nearly every masonic lodge across the world.
The colors black and white represent duality, a concept that's It's highly significant in masonry and other mystery religions. This symbol also appears quite often in popular culture. Yeah. Here it is on album covers. Here it is at fashion shows.
Here's world renowned fashion designer Michael Kors standing on the checkerboard floor. Here it is at his Manhattan penthouse. And here's the pattern on some of his products. Here's Rihanna performing in front of a checkerboard backdrop, and here's her wearing it. Taste the checkerboard.
Feel the checkerboard. Bathe in the checkerboard. Do a family photo on the checkerboard. Alright. That's that.
Ready to see more of the all seeing eye? Because it's ready to see you. Bam! Bam! Bam!
This thing is freaking Everywhere, all the major celebrities are doing. Eminem, Rihanna, Michael Jackson, Bono, Lorde, Mac Miller, Travis Scott, Future, OBJ, Harrison Ford, Kevin Spacey, Ben Stiller, just on and on and on and on. Here's Lady Gaga doing the one I signed a bunch times. Here's Beyonce throwing up the eye in the pyramid. No matter how much the quality of her music might fluctuate, the one thing that's consistent about her career is her doing the one eye sign.
Now you don't have to go scrolling through all these pictures of celebrities to find this sign. Oh, no. You can get a healthy dose of the all c and I through pretty much any form of media that's ever been conceived on magazine covers. On albums, movie and TV posters, And even in video games. Hell, here it is in promotional images for Fortnite.
Fortnite, for God's sake. You can't get anywhere or do anything in show business without having to do this sign. You can't even graduate high school without having to do it, nor can you go back to Jesus. Here's Pillsbury Doughboy throwing up the one I sign. Even nonliving characters have to do this.
There is nowhere you can go without encountering this Freaking symbol. This poor fella ended up purchasing it with their bread. And here it is outside my local Target. Even I have to run into this symbol for Christ's sake. Obviously, all this symbolism is not some random coincidence.
It's not just something that a few famous people decided to throw up here and there. This is clearly coordinated. And the fact that they have everybody doing this sign from major celebrities to random people on magazine covers shows that there is some omnipresent body that controls all aspects of popular culture, all aspects down to the microscopic level. You don't get symbolism this pervasive across all forms of media without some sort of tightly organized structure that's pulling strings. And this structure clearly has an Affinity for ancient esoteric symbols, but has even more of an affinity for Satanism and the occult.
Yeah. The music industry is especially rife with satanic overtones, and they just love shoving it in our unsuspecting faces. Here's The Weeknd flashing the word Satan out of the blue at one of his concerts. Here's Taylor Swift performing in front of a giant satanic looking serpent at the 2018 American Music Awards. And check out the beginning of Madonna's performance at Eurovision 2019.
Now you most certainly don't have to pay for expensive ass concert tickets to get a front row seat to Satan's scheme. You can get plenty of that for free in the comfort of your own home. How dandy. YG's music video, In the Dark, Starts with the rapper downing a bottle of tequila. Next thing you know, he's walking through a set of hellish gates and partying with the demons.
Here's YG and the hell squad partying on a masonic checkerboard floor. Here's blood dripping on an open Bible because if there's one thing Satanists love doing, it's desecrating the entity. And just when you thought this video couldn't get any more satanic, it starts raining blood and everyone is absolutely reveling in it. When you consider the song by itself, it's really just YG repeating the lyric in the dark a bunch of times, and then bragging about the usual stuff rappers brag about, money, and Lambos. So all this dark, occult imagery in the music video really has no context here.
It has nothing to do with the song itself. We don't need horned demon ladies and blood dripping on bibles. And here's the thing, all that dark satanic kinda is pretty much glorified in this video, fetishized. YNG is absolutely enjoying himself amidst all dark occultism happening, and everybody seems to be really enjoying themselves when it's bringing blood. Only kind of people who'd be loving that are psychopaths.
Speaking of the devil, rapper Trippie Redd is about all things Satan. Here's an album cover of his with the three sixes and the one eye symbol. Here's another album cover with the eye in the pyramid. Here's a pic of some inverted cross hats. That's The cursed picture.
You freaked out yet? Oh, wait till you see the music video for Topanga. Did I say music video? Sorry. I meant footage of a satanic ritual with his song Topanga playing in the background.
Seriously, what the hell? You're trying to get me to vibe out to some good beats, or you're trying to get me to have freaking nightmares. And once again, if you look at the lyrics of the song, It is about something else entirely. Nothing about Satanism or occult rituals is alluded to in the actual song, Up by Young Thug and Lil Uzi Vert. Right off the bat, we have a possessed looking woman crawling on a checkerboard floor.
We also got women made of checkerboards, women covered in all seeing eyes, and this Ladies sporting horns and a facial pentagram. I'm sorry, what is taking coke and molly and riding around Mexico have to do with masonic checkerboards and horn demon ladies? Psst. Hey, I got a little challenge for you. Say little Uzi Vert a couple times fast.
Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Lucifer, Lil Lucifer. I rest my case. Love Me by Lil Wayne, a song I've personally enjoyed over the past couple years. Music video, not so much. We got a with a butterfly covering one of her eyes in the beginning.
Then we have women in cages, and here's the icing on the cake. At the end of the video, we have 2 women crawling towards a bath tub full of blood and then gleefully smearing said blood all over their bodies. What does it have to do with the rest of the song? You guessed it. Absolutely freaking nothing.
And here's Lil Wayne at a concert with a very curious necklace around his neck. Upon closer inspection, we see that it looks a lot like This freaky dude right here, he gets plenty of glorified cameos throughout pop culture. Now a lot of people will get all the symbolism popping up Music videos and whatnot and dismiss it simply as the music industry being edgy. Oh, they're just being edgy, bro. They're just trying to troll you with all the satanic symbols.
Well, what about when these satanic elements appear in children's shows? What do you say to that? Is it still edgy? Is it Still all fun and games when they're putting occult symbols and content that's meant to be seen by children? That's how you know these guys are not playing around.
So moving on, in 2015, Justin Bieber put out the music video for his song Where Are You Now, which is full of so quick it, you miss it flashing imagery. Among the flashing images, kill the poor, love the devil back, hand jobs for God. Then we got Justin sporting devil horns in a pitch work with the words Jesus saves up above, because Satanists love mocking Christianity. Here we have the all seeing eye in The pyramid and the masonic square and compass. This thing that's also seen here on Ashton Kutcher's hat.
And then there's another eye in the pyramid drawn right over Justin. Billie Eilish. That I get a lot of hate from the tween girl fans of hers, but if you're familiar with her music videos then you knew I was gonna bring her up at some point. Berry of Friends sees Billy with black demonic eyes and levitating like something out of The Exorcist. All Good Girls Go to Hell literally starts with Billy being an angel falling from the sky because, you know, Lucifer.
The rest of the video needs no explanation. You see now how extensive this stuff is across the music industry, but don't think it's exclusive to here in America. Music around the world might be drastically different from what we listen to here. But the one thing that remains Same are the symbols that are displayed. Korean pop group TXT put out a video last year called Crown, and I don't think you need me at this point.
French artist, Guims, who's super popular over in France, fairly recently released a video called The Price to Pay that basically serves as an expose in the music industry. Seriously, they're, like, literally telling us how the music industry is actually run. Guim shows up in a room with all seeing eyes and triangles framed on the background wall. He signs a contract with his blood. He gets to enjoy fame and women.
He's at a meeting where they're working on his new album. Notice how all the suits are busy like bees while Gimbs just sits there glumly, almost as if he doesn't get any input in his own content. Indeed, they decide on an album cover that serves up the symbolism. His owners make all the money while he bears all the burdens. And eventually, he decides he wants out.
But guess what? You don't get out. You get 2 hooded figures grabbing you and taking you a cult ceremony where it looks like you're about to be sacrificed. But the video ends with Gimbs actually getting away from the cult, which is rather surprising to say the least, especially since artists in real life don't tend to get as lucky as GIMS got in the video. Take rapper XXXTentacion, for instance.
Here he is posing in front of a graffiti rendering of Baphomet. Here he is wearing a hat that says Team Satan 666. And here he is announcing on Instagram that he's terminating his deal with Capitol Records. Towards the bottom, he says, I am not a signed artist, and I will not be releasing music for a very long time. I'm tired of this shit.
So as we see, he's saying he wants out of the music industry. And then he posted this livestream video.
Speaker 3: Alright. Let's say worst thing comes to worst, I fucking die a tragic death or some shit, and I'm not able to see out my dreams. I at least wanna know that the kids perceived my message and were able to make something of themselves and able to take my message and use it and turn it into something positive and to to at least have a good life. I at least if I'm gonna if I'm gonna die or ever be a sacrifice, I wanna make sure that my life made At least 5,000,000 kids happy.
Speaker 6: Wait. Wait. Wait. What was that?
Speaker 3: If I'm gonna if I'm gonna die or ever be a sacrifice If I'm gonna if I'm gonna die or ever be a sacrifice
Speaker 6: If I'm ever gonna die or be a sacrifice, very interesting choice of words. Indeed, he eventually died of gunshots on June 18, 2018. 6/18/18. 66 6. In a few hours before his death, a Twitter account by the name Left Loafer cryptically tweeted, xxxtentacion will die today from a bullet wound.
But perhaps the freakiest thing of all is that in the last music video he shot before he died, he was attending his own funeral. I know. And there's another case of this exact same thing happening. Tupac's last music video before he was killed showed him up in heaven amongst the angels. Are your minds blown?
So more likely than not, now that we have an idea of how the music industry really works, X and Tupac probably knew that they'd be gone sooner or later, So they made these last music videos to foreshadow their coming demises. Right. So the entertainment industry is firmly rooted in the occult. I mean, for crying out loud, the name Hollywood itself refers to the holly tree, which is the tree that the druids used to make wands for casting spells. And although the holly tree is mostly ripe with rotten apples, a few good apples have managed to speak out about the dark satanic underbelly of Tinseltown.
In 2014, rapper prodigy of hip hop duo Mob Deep linked an article about African pedophiles children for voodoo rituals and tweeted, I told y'all motherfuckers they doing sex rituals on kids. Dumbass people need to wake the fuck He died 3 years later right as he was writing a musical about the Illuminati. Interesting. Last year, pro NFL running back, Larry Johnson, Took to Twitter and had this to say, do not be fooled. This is a page out of the satanic pagan worship of the goat, Baphomet.
It's a ritual In plain view, Luciferian doctrine incorporates esoteric beliefs of alternate personalities, light and dark, good and evil. Exactly right. He's referring to the concept of duality that's so dear to many secret societies and occult orders. In another tweet, Johnson says, I'm sorry it's hard for you to swallow that top tier professional athletes of this generation are flirting with secret society and mystery Babylonian religions, Baal and Baphometh that include disgusting sacrifices. But it's not just professional athletes flirting with mystery religions and ritual sacrifices.
Everybody in the entertainment industry is getting in on it, and they sure as hell don't have any reservations in showing it. Here's some more disturbing celebrity tweets like from Rainn Wilson. Beautiful day for the ritual, sanctification of a virgin. Anthony Jeselnik. Again, I will never understand how mother can kill her own baby and not go away with it.
Bee Movie Maestro Lloyd Kaufman. Toxie and I don't just follow at Heather Moore. We sacrifice place small children to her. I love videology, but Friday, I have a long standing satanic baby sacrifice to attend. Here's pictures of horned guests from the 2017 Vogue ball, and here's some pictures from the 2018 UNICEF ball.
Now here we have Celine Dion in an ad she did where she's promoting a gender neutral clothing line. Here we see a baby wearing a onesie that says new order, as in new world order. Now what company was this Number 4, a top of the line clothing company called Nunu Nunu that is very popular among celebrities. On their website, we see Christina Aguilera, Hilary Duff, And John Legend and Chrissy Teigen in promo pics. Now this company has other promo pics of children that exemplify everything that is wrong in the upper class.
This girl is wearing a shirt that says hoe on it, which everyone knows is slang for a whore prostitute. These 2 little girls are under a sign that says, let's get Physical, a common euphemism for sex. These 2 kids are wearing outfits with handprints on them, which really gives the vibe People touching children. They also got the usual symbols, goat heads, horns, black and white patterns, and, of course, The what am I sign. And this is from a clothing line that's popular in Hollywood.
Of course, it is. There's also a French basket company called Ballentana, which features relatively innocent pictures of children. Nothing wrong here, well, except for the fact that Baal and Tanen are ancient Babylonian deities that were worshiped through child Sacrifice. This company definitely needs to be scrutinized and looked into. If you want even more cult symbolism, then look no further than Instagram of Asia Argento, the woman who spearheaded hashtag me too until she had her own accuser in the form of a teenage Boy, of course.
Funny I should mention that though because here's the 1st pic from her gran. A grown woman undressing a teenage boy. Yuck. Here she is doing the one eye sign, wearing devil horns, and throwing up the Baphomet hand sign. And here she is holding a book that was written about Aleister Crowley, this guy.
He was a notorious Satanist who's most remembered for starting the secret society OTO and for his occult practice called sex magic. Among his notable disciples is L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, of which celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta are part of. There's also other allusions to him throughout pop culture like here on the album cover of The Beatles' Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts club. Here's Led Zeppelin giving Crowley a shout out, and here's Jay z wearing a sweatshirt that says, do what thou wilt, a saying attributed to Crowley. Of course, he's wearing that sweatshirt.
He and his wife throw up this sign all the time. Nowhere else do we see Hollywood openly parading the occult.
Speaker 18: Now the subject shall bathe in the blood of a gifted turtle. This will make your show irresistible to viewers. It will be like one of those live NBC musicals that makes everyone Lose their goddamn minds.
Speaker 6: A man was smeared in blood on live TV, and the audience members just sat there and laughed because that is how ignorant we, the people, have been. We do not take into consideration the true meaning of what's shown to us on our screens, and this is why they feel safe openly portraying their sick traditions. Ready to go further down the rabbit hole? Oh, yeah. There's another abhorrent practice that the elites of society seem fairly into, cannibalism.
And for those of you who have paid attention, you should not be at all Surprised by this. For we've seen how they indulge things like pedophilia and satanism. Is it really that hard to believe that they would sink any lower than that. We go now to an event hosted by Serbian body artist Marina Abramovic, a woman known for her rather Unusual body of work, to put it lightly. Despite not being a household name, she's very well known amongst the upper class of society.
Having Jay Z, Lady Gaga, James Franco, and Kim Kardashian among her acquaintances, this particular event hosted by Abramovic saw guests gathered around the table eating a cake shaped exactly like a person. Your eyes do not deceive you. These are famous people actively engaged with mock cannibalism. Here we have Will Ferrell in attendance. Of course, he is.
He's the guy that brought us these absolute gems. Now Abramovic has been in the headlines recently due to a Microsoft ad she was in getting pulled from the Internet. And The New York Times soon followed by putting out this article trying to paint her as a victim. In the article, Abramovich claims that she's an artist, not a Satanist. Yeah.
Not too sure about that. These images of her in her work certainly seem to suggest otherwise, and her handle on Twitter was Abramovic666, for crying out loud. You wouldn't do something like that unless you had, at the very least, an affinity for Satanism. Now as you probably expected, there's Other places where Hollywood hides its cannibal culture in plain sight, and even more truly abhorrent tweets, The Office after Rainn Wilson said to the world, What about human baby meat? Retweet what I should eat for dinner?
I'm thinking pasta. Joke. How many clowns does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer, 12. 1 screw it in, and 11 to kidnap and chew on human babies.
But you don't have to go on celebrities Twitters to see stuff about cannibalism. Oh, no. Just look to YouTube and you'll find other celebrity moments where they exemplify the Many a true word have been spoken in jest. I eat, children. Oh.
Because I'm late from
Speaker 12: How old
Speaker 6: are you?
Speaker 9: 12. 12. Oh, okay. Only to 10.
Speaker 6: Only to 10. Okay.
Speaker 10: That's good. That's
Speaker 5: good.
Speaker 9: Wow. Coffee That looks great. Thank you. What you want in a pancake is to have the consistency of young human flesh. It's spongy.
It It has life to it. You're with a guy with brightly colored undergarments, and you got soft human flesh in front of you. You're in a weird place. I'm looking forward This is really, really gonna be a great thank you.
Speaker 6: If you'd rather have your cannibalism bragging served up as a song than as a joke, check out Katy Perry's music Video for Bon Appetit, which sees Katie being unpackaged, prepared like a meal, and then served to a table of some elite guests. The last scene of the video is of Katie herself throwing off a devilish grin as she prepares to dig into a cherry pie with severed human limbs. If you're Still craving more upper class cannibalism. Just turn on your TV and flip channels to FX, and you'll have the 5th season of American Horror Story. What's it all about?
Oh, nothing. Thing just Lady Gaga being a vampire who needs to drink the blood of young children in order to stay alive. And that's not the only show that has this Zach plotline. Netflix's Santa Clarita Diet is about pretty much the same thing. And speaking of Netflix, that company is just about Illuminati Central.
3 of their shows are all about satanic cults. The Order, Ares, and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, which also features cannibalism. And Netflix just loves the one eye symbol. Loves it. Hell, I just snapped this from the recent Chris where the action will be extraction.
But Netflix, as twistedly satanic as it is, doesn't hold a candle to this other even larger company that's been a staple of our culture for nearly a century, Disney. It's about time someone really talks about the elephant in the room here. Disney is a company that's entrenched up to its eyeballs in pedophilia. Former child stars Ricky Garcia, Jordan Pruitt and Bella Thorne have all leveled sex abuse allegations against Disney. And let's not forget, ex vice president Michael Laney was convicted of child abuse last year, so was Disney's music publishing director John Healy, and there have been a lot of Disney employees busted for child Porn.
And then there was the case of child molestation on Disney cruises of which employees were ordered to keep quiet about. And guess where those cruises made snorkeling stops? Little Saint James Island, the luxurious private island of this guy who most certainly did not kill himself. Speaking of Epstein, Disney chairman Richard Cook was among his Lolita Express flight passengers. Disney also has quite the affinity for the boiler symbol appears on the Blue Lion character from Disney Junior's Elena Avalor on this CD for The Jungle Book and as part of the It's A Small world ride at Disneyland.
Now just how long has Disney had pedophilia lurking within its walls? Well, that started with Walt himself. In a 1975 book called Hollywood Babylon 2 filmmaker Kenneth Anger wrote a section about Disney's infatuation with a child actor named Bobby Driscoll. Studio personnel have been quoted to the effect that Bobby's charm had worked wonders on grumpy old Disney. Some animators stated that the boss seemed to have fallen in love with the boy.
There may be truth in this. Well, that would certainly explain Driscoll becoming a junky in his teens and eventually dying an early death. After all, child actors that suffered sexual abuse tend to leer into the path of drug addiction as with Corey Haim among others. Another interesting piece of trivia about Walt Disney is that he was a freemason. In 1920, Disney joined Dimole International, a fraternal organization that is considered part of the family of Masons.
11 years later, Walt received the DeMollet Legion of Honor Award corresponding to the thirty 3rd degree of freemasonry. Indeed, at the original Disneyland Park, Walt set up an exclusive members only club called Club 30 3. This is the interior. No further explanation needed. So now that you know that the founder of Disney belonged to an esoteric secret society.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the company's products are laced with the usual symbols. The movie National Treasure is all about secret societies in the all seeing eye. This pic from the DuckTales movie, Treasure of the Lost Lamp, shows the little ducklings eagerly digging up the eye in the pyramid. There's also Disney Channel's Alex Hirsch who has a clear fondness of the one eye pyramid and Satanism. Happy Father's Day to the ultimate father, the father of darkness, Satan.
Why is somebody who works in children's TV tweeting that? So now you see that Disney is thoroughly invested in the occult. After all, most of their movies have to do with magic, witchcraft, and sorcery. No accident there. And you've probably heard about This at some point or another, but Disney has a knack for sliding sexual innuendos into the content it puts out.
And you've probably These pictures right. Little Mermaid Priest is a boner, tower on Little Mermaid poster looks like a penis, dust from the cliff spells the word sex in Lion King, and here's Mufasa looking pretty thick on the Lion King poster. Like I said, this isn't an unknown occurrence, but most people probably haven't considered the full implications of this. What kind of company would enjoy putting sexual references and content geared for children? Why a company full of pedophiles, of course.
Pedophiles love sex and children being mixed together. And that concludes what I have to say about Hollywood. Am I finished altogether? Almost. Just bear with me a little longer.
Please, entertainment and media are not the only place where all cult symbols can be found. They can also be seen in other institutions of power Like big business, government, and finance. The all seeing eye in a pyramid appears in the MI5 seal, the old DARPA Information awareness seal, and, of course, on the $1 bill. The logo for CBS also looks curiously like a big eye that's watching The justices of the British Supreme Court make pretty important decisions while sitting around the all seeing eye. The masonic black and white Pattern also appears in prominent institutions.
The IRS headquarters building in Maryland has 2 black and white striped pillars with white Hands at the top because masonic formal attire requires white gloves to be worn. Even more noteworthy is the pyramid between them. Notice how most of the pyramid black while the tippy top of it is white. That little white section refers to the elite at the top who see themselves as enlightened, Hence, the color white. While everyone else below them, us, the general population, is ignorant and unenlightened, hence, the color black.
This Exact pyramid symbols also seen in Las Vegas, literally as its own separate building, the Luxor Hotel. The IRS headquarters masonic pillars and pyramid Display is also seen over in Israel with square and compass right smack on it, confirming that the structure is indeed masonic. Besides those symbols that we already know and love. There's other symbols that are just as worthy of mention. The flaming torch, which is associated with Lucifer, appears in the Rockefeller Standard Oil logo, in the Columbia Pictures logo, in the DIA emblem, and in the right hand of the Statue of Liberty, which was sculpted by a French freemason.
Now everyone knows the Washington monument. But what most probably don't know is that it's derived from the Egyptian obelisk. Similar structures can be seen in London City and in the Vatican. In the book, Our Folic Heritage author Charles g Berger states, all pillars or columns originally had a phallic significance and were therefore considered Sacred. So all you dirty minded folks out there who thought the Washington Monument looked like a penis were actually closer to the truth, believe it or not.
The word obelisk literally means Ball's shaft or Ball's organ of reproduction. Ball. There's that name again. Remember the company Ball and Tanet? Remember that Ball is the god that ancient cults used to sacrifice children to.
So in 3 of the world's most important cities, we got monuments to a deity who was worshiped through child sacrifice. Take a second to acknowledge the significance of that, but you certainly don't have to take a trip there to see these symbols. Oh, no. Just take a second and check your Gmail, and you'll be face to face with the masonic royal apron. If you feel like downloading some cool new apps, Head on over to Google Play, and you'll be looking at a more colorful depiction of the seal of Satan.
This type of symbolism is universally prevalent across all institutions of power in our society, business, government, media, finance, and so on. From all this, There is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn. Our society is governed by an esoterically minded in a cult oriented ruling class. Many of our so called freely elected leaders belong to this network of secret societies, roughly a third of all American presidents were Freemasons that we know of, and others, like the Bushes, were part of skull and bones. And then there's Bohemian Grove, a place where presidents, politicians, and other world elites gather at every year to do mock rituals in front of a giant owl statue.
The owl itself is claimed to be a representation of Moloch, another ancient deity that people sacrificed their children too, and whose name Verizon decided to use for an annual conference because I don't need to say why. The leaders that weren't part of this secret society network most Certainly knew about it and tried to warn us about the threat it posed. President Theodore Roosevelt once said that behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. Woodrow Wilson, some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so watchful, so pervasive that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
JFK, the very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society. We as a people are inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, secret oaths, and secret proceedings. So clearly, whatever these secret societies have been up to is definitely not for the greater good of humanity, especially considering that they're committed to the worship of Satan and other child sacrifice deities. Now some people out there familiar with all the symbols will contest me and say, well, they're not necessarily satanic symbols, And they'd be totally correct. I'd like to revisit one of Larry Johnson's tweets where he says that Luciferian doctrine incorporates esoteric Beliefs of alternate personalities, light and dark, good and evil.
This is very important because some of these symbols such as the all seeing eye are not strictly satanic. Here it is in a depiction of Jesus. And others, like the Masonic Square and Compass, are a representation of the esoteric concept of the eternal soul manifesting in the temporary physical body. The point is, it's not so much the symbols themselves that are bad. Some are.
But it's more the people using them who are bad. The people using these symbols are part of a pedophilic Farian cabal that incorporates esoteric concepts and symbols into its discipline. Now why exactly are these world elites worshiping Lucifer and dabbling in the occult? Well, here's my understanding of it. These people think of themselves as the enlightened ones.
The name Lucifer itself means light bringer. A lot of the symbols that they play, such as the all seeing eye and the lit torch, are associated with light, with reaching the light, with reaching enlightenment. So this group believes that deities like Lucifer, Baal, and Moloch gave them the means for achieving enlightenment. And in exchange for being given their knowledge and power, these people turn around and give the deities what they want, children. Another reason why the ruling class love sacrificing kids is because the kids produce something called adrenochrome.
What is adrenochrome? I'll let David Rodriguez explain.
Speaker 14: You believe you understand that There are children's sacrifices that where people actually drink adrenochrome, where they terrify the child so much. And this is hard to swallow. This is hard to even grasp, but it's an actual ancient ritual to terrify mainly children because they're more pure their adrenal glands are more pure, terrify them to the point where they cannot where they're where they're so scared and they're pumping out so much adrenaline, And they're so terrified, and then you finally kill them, and you drink their blood, and it's like the ultimate aphrodisiac, it's like the fountain of youth, it rebuilds collagen, it It, it does all kinds of, enhancements for the body. It's it's a sick it's a sick sick sick Ritual ceremonies, and now they bottle up and sell it in the vials. And people buy this shit.
It's a it's a drug.
Speaker 6: You feeling sick to your stomach yet? Well, here's something That probably won't help. In 2008, Google released the Internet browser Chrome. In 2009, they renamed their graphics processing unit to Adreno. Adrenochrome.
I told you these people love hiding in plain sight. They count on us never noticing. And that, All that is Pizzagate. Turns out it really wasn't just a conspiracy theory like the mainstream media said. This is absolutely 100% real, and it's been going on for a very long time.
And for those of you wondering how this could have persisted for so long, well, The answer is simple, ignorance. Our society has been completely oblivious to all the nefarious activities of the world elites. All this has been covered up so well, and the mainstream media has done a bang up job misleading us and keeping our eyes wide shut. And because the general public hasn't had the faintest clue of any of this, the upper class pedophiles have had all the freedom they could ever ask for Take our children from us and use them to satisfy their sick perversions and twisted religious practices. So if ignorance has been the primary enabler this darkness, then that means the solution to eradicating this darkness is simply shining light upon it.
If the masses are no longer ignorant of these happenings and no longer dismiss them as conspiracy theory, then we can unify as a collective and oust the elite pedophiles from their positions of illegitimate power. People waking up is how we affect the desired change. And you, the viewers, are in an excellent position to act as catalyst for this great awakening. By talking about this with people you know, by directing them to sources of good information, and by sharing this video with as many people as you can, You are helping the sleeping masses to awaken and thus bringing us closer to the desired outcome of eliminating the elite pedophile cabal and their preying upon of children. I started the process by putting this video out there.
Now, I pass the baton onto all of you and encourage you to Spread the information far and wide. And I also encourage you to like this video, subscribe to my channel, and to express your Thoughts and feelings in the comments below. In the meantime, I'll be working on parts 2 and 3, and putting them out in the near future.
@DatEdoBoi13 - DatEdoBoi
You need to watch this 😲😲😲😲 https://t.co/Q9o5Zt1DlD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Alexis was asked to leave the lecture room for not speaking up against an injustice. The speaker emphasized the importance of standing up for justice, even if it doesn't directly affect us. He urged the students to use their voices to fight for what is right and not rely on others to do so. The speaker highlighted the need to be there for others and speak out against injustice in all aspects of life, teaching critical thinking and empowerment to make a difference.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You there. 2nd desk at Blue Jacket. What is your name? My name is Alexis. Alexis, please leave my lecture room.
I don't want to see you at at one of my lectures ever again. I don't understand. I am not gonna ask a second time. Thank you. Why are there laws?
What are those for? Anyone? Social order? To protect the person's personal rights. So that you can rely on the government.
Justice? Thank you. Tell me, was I unfair to your classmate just now? Indeed, I was. So why didn't any of you protest?
Why didn't any of you try and stop me? Why didn't you want to prevent this injustice? You see, what you have just learned, you wouldn't have understood in a 1000 hours of lectures unless you lived it. You didn't say anything because you weren't affected yourself. And this attitude speaks against you and against life.
You think it doesn't concern you, so it's none of your business. Well, I'm here to say, if you don't help bring about justice, then one day, you too may experience injustice. And there will be nobody there to stand before you. Truth and justice lives through us all, and and and we must fight for it. Because in life and work, I mean, we often live next to each other, but not with each other.
We console ourselves that the problems of others are nothing to do with us, none of our business. And we go home glad at night that we're spared, but it's about standing up for each other. Every day an injustice happens in business, sports or on the tram, relying on someone else to take care of it is not good enough. It is our duty to be there for others, to speak up for others when they cannot. I am here to teach you the power of your voice.
I want you to learn critical thinking to empower you to stand up for what is right, even if it means going against what everyone else is doing. Let's begin.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Worth watching, especially for parents https://t.co/k6gb2CMVqU
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video addresses various issues related to the exploitation of children, including the normalization of woke ideologies, the influence of corporations and social media, the infiltration of critical race theory and gender ideology in schools, and the need for parental vigilance. It discusses the influence of organizations like NAIS in private schools, the promotion of gender ideology, and the lack of parental consent in cases of secret transitioning. The video also explores the impact of social contagion and platforms like TikTok on the increase in gender dysphoria among youth. It raises concerns about the history behind this agenda and its impact on sports, parental rights, and potential abuse through transgender surgeries. The video further discusses child exploitation issues such as child trafficking, pornography, and the lack of willingness to engage in dialogue from supporters of these practices. It emphasizes the importance of parental involvement, strong father figures, and protecting children from harmful influences. The conversation also touches on consent, age verification on porn sites, mental health in youth, and the importance of family values and faith. Overall, the video urges viewers to be warriors for children and take action to safeguard their future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know,
Speaker 1: some say ignorance is bliss. If you prefer that ignorant bliss, then now's the time to turn the TV off because you'll have no excuse left by the end of this to not take your rightful place as a warrior protecting and preparing the next generation.
Speaker 2: We're the Starbucks. We left the entertainment business because we knew that a silent war was being fought for the minds of America's children. And we knew that nothing would matter more than exposing it and stopping it.
Speaker 1: That's why we're here now, to expose the war on children. How long has this been going on? How did it happen? Who's responsible? How far down the rabbit hole does this all go?
Speaker 2: We know it's overwhelming, so let's start here.
Speaker 1: 1st, you need to understand that one of the most effective forms of normalizing the woke agenda is via something called the mere exposure effect. The mere exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon by which people tend to develop a preference for things or people that are more familiar to them than others. That means the more you show someone something, the more they start to like it or prefer it. This psychological mere exposure effect is the reason society is now flooded with imagery of what would have been considered fringe by most people only 10 years ago. I was a director in Hollywood for some of the biggest stars.
So I speak from experience when I tell you that the mere exposure effect is how the media creates the reality we live in. Simply exposing the public to fringe concepts makes us normalize things that have never been considered before. This social engineering is how you make people see theories as facts. Facts as theories. Opinions as violence.
Silence as safety, and men is fully able to become women with the snap of their fingers. With the power of the mere exposure effect, you can make almost anyone believe anything with enough pressure and exposure. This makes it one of the most dangerous weapons the kids face today.
Speaker 2: For instance, you might be wondering why some politicians propose seemingly ludicrous bills, like the one in Michigan threatening people with 5 years in prison for misgendering someone. It's not because they believe they can get away with it now. It's because they understand the process of normalizing prison over pronoun violations today so that it can become a reality in the future for the next generation. The mere exposure effect is why the concept of putting a screen in front of your child as a babysitter became normal. You saw people do it on TV when they were exhausted.
You saw it in commercials. You saw it on social media. And then finally, it was normal. The mere exposure effect is also why Hollywood is flooding children's shows with woke agendas and sexual content while most parents aren't looking because they have a trust bomb with the shows they watched as a kid. I'm Gonzorella.
Speaker 3: Calling me a she or a he doesn't feel right to me.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. I used the wrong name and pronouns. Hey, Blue.
Speaker 4: Trans members of this family all love each other so proudly, and they all go marching in the big parade. Come join the fun.
Speaker 2: The mere exposure effect is why Scholastic is featuring books
Speaker 0: pushing transgender ideology on kids. It's why Bugs
Speaker 2: Bunny was naked at a pride station. It's why the White House is flying a trans flag at the center of their flag display, and it's why nearly every corporation and sports team on the planet feels the need to create a custom pride logo that they use every June. It's why the Washington Post ran a piece encouraging kids to see kink at pride parades, and the New York Times ran a film review lamenting that the new Little Mermaid didn't have enough kink for their liking. It's why Target is selling trans pride toddler onesies and tuck it swimsuits, and it's why they did TV shows and magazine covers to normalize sex changes for kids, but never did a show or cover updating you that those kids no longer identify as the sex they pretended to be on those shows or covers.
Speaker 1: So why would corporations take part in this effort to destroy the fabric of reality as we know it? To find out, we sat down with Justin Danoff. He's a Wall Street expert who's made it his mission to answer
Speaker 4: this question.
Speaker 2: So how did wokeness take over corporate America?
Speaker 5: It was a tri part takeover. It was bottom up, it was top down, and it was outside in. Top down, if you look at the banking industry, if you look at the past political affiliations of the board members, it's over 80% leaning to the left as opposed to the right. So there's no longer a balance at the top. What do I mean when I say bottom up?
The same thing that's happening on college campus, we're now seeing on the corporate campuses, where conservatives, they keep their mouth shut. The woke employees, they feel very empowered because they now know the c suite and the board agree with their woke positions. And then there's the outside in. When you talk about companies like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, you know, they're probably your largest shareholder, and they're demanding you take certain actions.
Speaker 2: What is ESG, and how is it used to push woke ideology?
Speaker 5: It is social change by changing business behavior, by changing culture. So I, for example, went to the shareholder meetings of Amazon, Facebook, and Google. At all three of those meetings, they announced that they were adopting affirmative action policies for their board in reaction to shareholder proposals. Jesse Jackson was at 2 of those 3 meetings applauding. And why are shareholder proposals important?
That's one reason, but they also moved the cultural needle. Fast forward 3 years, that's when Goldman Sachs announced that they were no longer gonna finance any company's IPO unless they had at least 2 diverse board seats in the terms of affirmative action. That's when Nasdaq put a rule in place where they said they are going to delist you from the exchange if you don't have 2 diverse sports spots. 1 for a woman, 1 for an underrepresented minority.
Speaker 1: Why is it that our kids today are faced with pride flags everywhere they go, no matter what, at every company?
Speaker 5: Now to keep your perfect score on the corporate equality index, you have to have 3 events each year that promote the LGBTQ plus community. So, you know, you've got your Super Bowl ads that have gotten crazy. There's one. You get your, you know, flag up on all of your, you know, social media and your website during pride month. You better find a 3rd really quick before the year runs out or you're gonna lose your perfect score.
Speaker 1: What happens if a company steps out of line and they don't do those three things?
Speaker 5: They are tarred and feathered and shamed.
Speaker 2: As a consumer, as a mom, it feels like corporate America has given us all a giant middle finger. Are they banking on us going back to the same buying behaviors after these Balenciaga and Target boycotts are over?
Speaker 5: Yeah. They they frankly are.
Speaker 2: Talking with Justin got us thinking. How well do we know where our money is going when we shop at Target or get our insurance from State Farm? We looked and found that Target has given over 2,000,000 to GLSEN, an organization that promotes schools secretly transitioning children and undermining parents, while State Farm went the extra mile off of their donation to GLSEN by partnering with an organization called Gender Cool. The program that they supported gave LGBTQ plus books to kids as young as 5 years old to introduce concepts about gender identity and transitioning to them. These companies aren't alone though.
A quick look at GLSEN's website displayed sponsorships from Hollister, Disney, PetSmart, Gucci, YouTube, New Balance, Hulu, Amazon, Calvin Klein, Nickelodeon, Walmart, and many more. GLSEN also supports pornographic books in schools and opposes the removal of them. GLSEN is only one of the nonprofits using funds donated by corporate America to fundamentally change the reality we live in. These are other groups that many corporations are giving money to without your knowledge. Even Walmart has funded drag shows and gender ideology for
Speaker 1: kids. Every once in a while, powerful people pull back the curtain to expose the plan. This video is one of those times.
Speaker 6: In Davos a couple years ago, vice president Biden met privately with those of us working behind the scenes, and he sat down with us and looked us in the eye. And he said, you companies can do what we government cannot and will never do. You have to change the world on this issue. We are committed to change
Speaker 1: the world for LGBTI inclusion around the world. How many companies have signed on to that now?
Speaker 6: 270. Our goal is to get many, many more and, and then to work around the world. We're bigger than most a lot of countries. So tremendous power.
Speaker 1: After talking to Justin, we still had questions. So we sat down with a former top executive at one of the largest ad agencies in the world, Deutsche.
Speaker 7: So I was chief creative officer at at Deutsche. I was there for 8 years. And before that, I was 12 years at TBWA which is the other probably biggest agency on the west coast.
Speaker 2: What does diversity, equity, inclusion look like at a major ad agency?
Speaker 7: Diversity is conformity, equity is unfairness, and inclusion means exclusion. Every ad is about advancing wokeness of some kind. We used to sit around and say, what does our agency stand for? What does this brand stand for? We're not asking that question anymore.
We stand for diversity, equity, and inclusion, which is wokeism just packaged up for corporations.
Speaker 1: Are they intentionally sexualizing our children and stealing their innocence?
Speaker 7: I think they're trying to introduce the radical gender theory, radical gender ideology to your child. They're using commercials and merchandise and what they're selling to get your kid to believe that. That is how advertising works. Over time, it's building equity, brand equity in your mind. Fortune 500 companies and Fortune 100 companies have decided that they are going to indoctrinate your children with radical gender ideology, and that's a 100% what they're going to do, and they don't even question it, and you should just expect that.
Speaker 2: Just seems like there's no moral, you know, construct at all No. Or end to this. No no boundaries to message sexuality to kids, to the gender ideology.
Speaker 7: If we don't speak up, it's over real fast from here. I don't I don't think it's gonna take long now.
Speaker 1: So as long as they can protect their own kids from this insanity, they're perfectly okay with pushing it on unsuspecting children whose parents maybe aren't present.
Speaker 7: I think that's right. I think they feel at this point the incentives are greater to do that.
Speaker 1: What do you think people, parents out there should do to prevent this from hurting their kids?
Speaker 7: Basically, the thing I would tell parents is there's an all out assault for the for your the brains of your children and it's coming through every form of media you can imagine. And if you don't know that, you're naive and it's going to transform your child's mind and it won't take long, you know, unless you guard their mind.
Speaker 1: So what can you take away from this? Look at the example set this year by conservative boycotts at Bud Light and Target.
Speaker 2: Those companies have lost over 40,000,000,000 since the start of those boycotts. Use your money as a weapon to fight back in the war on children. Go the extra mile to buy from companies or small businesses who aren't pushing woke agendas. This is key to reclaiming America, and it's a far smaller price to pay than our ancestors had to pay. Know what your kids are doing online and protect them from the harmful content before they see it.
Talk to your kids about how advertisers and major corporations are using the mere exposure effect to change their values and beliefs. There's power in knowing, and often you'll see that they resent being manipulated like this by powerful entities. Knowledge is power, and a generation that seeks truth is a generation that can save America.
Speaker 1: Every parent needs to realize that what you've seen so far is only one part of the mere exposure effect that's been driving what can only be described as a far left cultural revolution that's meant to destroy our country. But that's only part of the story. For the revolution to be successful, kids are the attack point.
Speaker 8: If this is a war on children,
Speaker 1: then what are the weapons being used? One of the most destructive weapons is social media. It's a weapon that communist dictators like Mao or Fidel Castro would have blushed over. With it, these powerful forces have the ability to censor what they don't want you to know and amplify what they want you to believe, while normalizing that social media alone will have the power to transform a generation. Have children died because of social media?
Speaker 9: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Have they been trafficked off of social media?
Speaker 10: A 100%.
Speaker 1: Have they been sexually exploited off of social media?
Speaker 10: Ongoing. Yes.
Speaker 1: How did social media influence your transition?
Speaker 11: Well, honestly, I didn't even know that transition, from female to male was an option until I, was on social media and began being exposed to, those type of communities. And it just really appealed to me as a scared, traumatized, you know, girl going through puberty, precocious puberty, and I just clung to that idea.
Speaker 1: What platform was the first platform you saw it on?
Speaker 11: Instagram, but I think a lot of content trickled over from Tumblr and was reposted there.
Speaker 1: Did the algorithm eventually start feeding you this stuff in your For You pages and things like that, where you would immediately see it even if you didn't follow the accounts.
Speaker 11: But I do think the algorithm was definitely geared toward it and would recommend, like, more accounts and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: They were they were pushing the idea of transitioning.
Speaker 11: Right. There's a lot of LGBT pages and stuff like that. It's definitely alluring, you know, the idea of, you know, a super accepting, loving community.
Speaker 1: How accepting and loving have they been since you detransitioned?
Speaker 11: Honestly, if anything, I feel like I've been hushed. I've been told I'm going to hurt trans people by speaking about my experience, and that I'm taking their rights away.
Speaker 1: So they wanna erase you. That's that's what would make them happy.
Speaker 11: Essentially.
Speaker 1: At what age did you get into porn?
Speaker 12: So I got into porn at 18 years old and up until 23.
Speaker 1: And how did you get into it?
Speaker 12: I came from a family, an immigrant family that didn't have a lot of money. I wanted to have,
Speaker 4: you know, financial freedom. So for me, it was very accessible.
Speaker 1: How has social media affected your life, your peers, and your generation as a whole?
Speaker 13: I'm scrolling on TikTok, and I see these crazy people putting up the most awful things, and I imagine, I see little kids with TikTok.
Speaker 14: What are they looking at?
Speaker 15: I think that we have teenagers that grow up in society today, and they feel heavily influenced.
Speaker 16: Now we're gonna turn to the new warning from the surgeon general this morning about growing concerns around social media and its impact on teens, and why he's calling on companies for rigorous health and safety standards.
Speaker 13: It really is influencing our generation in more of a negative way than a positive way because people feel like they have to compete with these other people. I don't think a 10 or 11 year old should have social media. A child is easily influenced.
Speaker 2: Social media addiction is a growing concern for many parents. In fact, according to Pew Research, 97% of US teenagers go online every single day.
Speaker 15: Like, I'm young, and I scroll through TikTok, and I see all of these people who have jumped on the transgender bandwagon.
Speaker 17: Our generation is seeking affirmation constantly, and that feels good. And, like, I think a lot of people our age don't even care whether that's a real person or not.
Speaker 1: Do you feel like you're fed explicit content though as a young person by these social media companies?
Speaker 13: Oh, definitely. 100%. I feel like
Speaker 18: it's making it allowing it easier to get to pornography.
Speaker 13: When you see something, you
Speaker 17: can't always, like, unsee it
Speaker 2: and stuff.
Speaker 17: So they're finding this identity in social media, in pornography, from the LGBTQ religion.
Speaker 19: There's a higher percentage of women that are addicted to pornography now. I know for myself I've fallen victim to, this type of thing.
Speaker 13: Sometimes I'll see, like, a drag queen being so sexual and gross, and I'm like, what if the little kids who I babysit, who I see on their iPads, they're scrolling through TikTok see that? People will get bullied if you don't have Instagram, if you don't have TikTok, if you don't have Snapchat, Twitter, whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: And how is it affecting your friends? Like, what have you seen from them in terms of even changing behavior?
Speaker 13: I saw the kids who I grew up with turn into these transgenders, and I would have to call them z, z, zen, zer, or I got in trouble.
Speaker 18: But I've seen a steady year by year change in their patterns and their belief system.
Speaker 17: A friend of mine who clicked on the site kept looking and ended up starting addiction, to pornography.
Speaker 1: Kyrie Chuck, the founder of Libs of TikTok, who for a very long time was anonymous. Nobody knew who you were. Let's talk about how you got here.
Speaker 20: It started during COVID time. There were all these TikTok media that was going very viral on Twitter, and it was mainly just COVID themed. I saw a whole another side to TikTok that was went beyond, the vaccine songs and the dancing nurses, and that was the LGBTQ activism on there. TikTok specifically is designed to target young young people. That's who their audience is.
Speaker 1: When you got on TikTok, you downloaded it. How quickly were you serviced those videos on, you know, trans content?
Speaker 20: Right away. Almost immediately. It's the first thing that pops up. They feed you content about pronouns and about transgenderism and drag shows and all that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: How do you see this when you watch these videos? Like, what is it diverted?
Speaker 20: Attention and mental illness.
Speaker 1: And what is being done by our government?
Speaker 20: I don't see anything being done. Having young kids on social media is really, really dangerous.
Speaker 1: Does something need to be done? Whether it's finding a way to segment and remove porn so that kids aren't exposed to it.
Speaker 20: Definitely. I think porn should definitely be restricted to 18 plus. I don't think kids should be able to access porn.
Speaker 2: Do you think that it's irresponsible or even unethical or wrong that social media companies invite children at age 12 and up to come out of their platforms knowing that there's pornography all over the platform and even predators that have access to kids. Absolutely. I feel like it is
Speaker 12: the responsibility of all these social media platforms to put an age limit again.
Speaker 4: If it would be me, it would be 18 years old. After that, we were curious.
Speaker 1: Would young people today give social media to their kids?
Speaker 2: So would you give your children social media?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not.
Speaker 9: Mm-mm. Not at
Speaker 21: all. No.
Speaker 15: Absolutely not.
Speaker 19: Absolutely not. Definitely not when they're younger.
Speaker 13: I don't think under 18. I would not give it to any child under the age of 16.
Speaker 17: I would not allow my children to have social media. I would not let my
Speaker 13: kids, have social media as well.
Speaker 17: I think that social media is not good for kids.
Speaker 1: You know, looking at this whole landscape from social media, the Chinese influence when it comes to TikTok and AI, Do you feel like this is a war on children?
Speaker 10: I know it's a war on children. And not just from a malicious foreign adversary, but from adults in this country who are visiting very corrupt values on children, sexualizing them, and doing so in some ways for profit. I think we can all see that evidence of our eyes and our ears.
Speaker 1: Especially so on social media. Especially on social media.
Speaker 10: And maybe becoming a mom awakened me to this danger and sort of the scales fell from my own eyes. But, like, they said, you know, we're coming for your kids.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 10: And they are.
Speaker 1: What do you guys think is a bigger addiction problem and is hurting more people right now within your age group? Cigarettes or social media? Social media.
Speaker 9: Yes. Social media. Social media.
Speaker 18: No has
Speaker 6: taken care of.
Speaker 1: Social media.
Speaker 15: Social media. Social media. I think that China's laughing at us. I think that Russia's laughing at us. And I think that you can't have a strong country if you have confused citizens.
Speaker 1: The honesty from these young people hit us hard. They seem to know that their generation's addicted and that social media is hurting their generation more than anything else. Their instinct already is to protect their young. But what are they protecting them from? Remember this, no matter what the powerful entities across the world try to tell you, what the media is more important than them being upset for a little while.
We have to is more important than them being upset for a little while. We have to prioritize our job as the greatest teachers and protectors. Embrace the outdoors. Embrace family time. Embrace connection and faith.
Embrace wonder. Embrace curiosity with you as their guide. Reject the culture that seeks to destroy traditionalism. Reject isolation. Reject synthetic experiences and choose real adventure.
Speaker 0: This is
Speaker 2: a cultural revolution that
Speaker 7: from it.
Speaker 1: If you still need convincing that this is a modern cultural color revolution, what's another sign that we're living through 1? The remaking of parenting and education. But to understand where we're going, you have to understand where we are, where we were, and where we're going. Let's start with where we were. Sexualization in school used to be almost nonexistent.
Parents raised their kids instead of relying on screens. They took them out shooting targets, swimming, playing games, and exploring nature. Life was built around real experiences. And at school, we didn't have books with graphic illustrations of different kinks we could explore in the library. States didn't sue school districts in an attempt to force them to hide the gender identity or sexual orientation of students from their parents.
We didn't have teachers forcing us to watch videos where we were exposed to pride videos featuring adults and intimate embrace. We weren't taught about blood play or bondage during sex ed. And we were taught to never keep secrets from our parents because predators could use that secrecy to groom you into abuse.
Speaker 2: Is it concerning that we're normalizing keeping secrets from parents or that you would be asked to do something, does that make you feel that you're putting your students at risk?
Speaker 21: Absolutely. I'm gonna get emotional because I've been in that position as a child where really awful things happened to me. And, you know, that individual wanted me to keep it a secret. I, thankfully, you know, from a young age, have always, like, stood firm in what's what's good and and right and true. And I immediately, the second my mom picked me up from school, told her what happened, and she took it to the police.
It was so scary for me. I was put in a police car and we went to his house and I was so scared he was gonna see me, but they let me know he can't see you. We have bright lights on him. We just need you to tell us. Was this him?
And I said yes. And it turns out that he was abusing his kids. And my mom and grandma told me that I was the little girl's angel because that abuse was finally, you know, taken out of out of her home because I I didn't keep a secret from my mom. And if I had, we can imagine, you know, how that would have played out. That abuse would have continued.
I I try to look at everything happens for a reason, and we have the choice to handle it in truth.
Speaker 2: Comprehensive sexual education or CSE is the name of the sex ed most kids are getting today in public schools. But where does CSE originate? A woman named Mary Calderon, who believed that children are born sexual beings, and that kids of all ages needed to learn about sex.
Speaker 22: Like, CSE is this, like, very broad umbrella kind of education in term to what? To to smuggle or sneak in all of the priorities of progressivism. So, you know, gender spectrums, transgenderism, abortion. So where does sex ed come from? Where does the kooky obsession with pushing porn on kids?
We might go back to Alfred Kinsey, who, in the late 19 thirties and early 19 forties, starts to pair it this belief about the sexuality of children. But the first director of the World Health Organization was named G Brock Tisholm. And in 1945, G Brock Tisholm goes to DC and gives 3 lectures on sex ed. And he says, quote, we have to eradicate the concept of right and wrong. Well, one of the senior chief administrators at the World Health Organization at the time, was named Frank Calderon, was going around the country bringing the Las Vegas burlesque, and putting on sexual titillating public performances for people in the 19 forties.
Frank Calderon was married to Mary Calderon who left planned parenthood as planned parenthood's medical director in 1964 to found the sexuality information education council of the United States, CCUS which today is the major primary group at the helm of creating, promulgating, and raising up the next generation of teachers to integrate comprehensive sexuality education into America's public schools. Founding members of CCUS had said that, that children were sexual from birth and that we had to affirm the strong sexuality of the newborn. The seed money to found Sikus came from Hugh Hefner and Penthouse. The history behind this is far darker than most Americans understand.
Speaker 2: Mary's dead now, but her work is very much alive in cicus and it's influencing sex education in America more than anything else. Cicus advocates now for sex change surgeries. Cicus also partnered with a group called B Vibe that sells bondage accessories and bondage teddy bears that kids might be drawn to.
Speaker 1: What about the books in school? Readers are leaders. Right? If you've engaged in the subject of books online, then there's a good chance you've seen comments like these. People like you have been bold enough to say, this doesn't belong in our schools.
This is what you don't want kids to see. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And why is that? Why do you think this is inappropriate for children?
Speaker 23: That is grooming, but it's also a form of mental
Speaker 1: rape. You don't think that this is empowering or inclusive in any way when they talk about eating their own bodily fluids from sexual functions? That's not something that you think is empowering for our children?
Speaker 23: You know, I'm filled with righteous indignation. We have people in this country. They will go to any extent to push their level of normalcy, which is really abnormal. It's abnormal to put that level of content in front of a child in the name of making sure that a gay boy or lesbian girl can feel good at school. What educational benefit will a child learn from even thinking about the idea of ingesting their own body fluid.
Speaker 1: These are celebrated books by the largest association for librarians in America. So parents need to understand that. So if you've ever heard this idea that there there's just no pornographic books in our schools.
Speaker 23: I think we've proved that wrong today. So we're not into banning textbooks. We want to ban filth.
Speaker 13: I had a really hard experience with these books that I was reading from freshman year to sophomore year, and and even in 8th grade. There was books about masturbation and books about rape. And I'm a teenage girl and I'm reading this, and it's horrifying. It made me uncomfortable.
Speaker 23: We want to ban pornography, and we want to expose children to wholesome literature.
Speaker 1: We're each busting a load into this bottle. If you don't come, you have to drink it. Give me that. I'll show you how to do it. It comes with illustrations.
This one is called Flamer. Okay? Every one of these books can be found that we're showing today in a school library in America. And again, this is depicting children. This is this is supposed to be kids.
People in the Democratic party who say there are no pornographic books in our schools. What would you tell them?
Speaker 23: I would say that they have reprobate minds and that their conscience has been seared with a hot iron.
Speaker 2: I think in many ways the adults had to become desensitized first to be willing to subject children to this type of content. What happened to society where we've all been groomed to now think that there's some sort of subjective interpretation of a blow job or anal sex tutorial showing that to minor children.
Speaker 23: Oftentimes, we hear about mama bears speaking up at school boards and addressing these issues. I'm trying to call forth the papa bears, men. And so I'm reminding men in America to stand up, square your shoulders, use the authority that God gave you because men are called to be providers and protectors. But today, our men in the culture, our pastors in the culture are not engaging the intruders. The enemy has not crept around the back door.
We have brought in the enemy through the front door, and we're giving him the red carpet to push his agenda.
Speaker 1: I don't know that there's a more important call than that right now, you know, that men need to stand up because we've been involved in this fight, and I've seen so many moms stand up, but dad seemed to be slinking in the background.
Speaker 23: And I'm asking for men in the culture to stand on their post and to address these issues because we are almost at the point of no return.
Speaker 1: After investigating these books, we had to ask, are teachers okay with this? To find out, we looked into the views of the teachers' unions. The National Educators Association's the largest teachers' union in America, and we quickly found that this year, they put genderqueer on their summer reading list. And we found these recent panels at their annual conference. They include panels on critical race theory, so called pedagogies of change, modeling climate change action, using education as a lever for environmental justice, decolonizing, recruiting allies, how to establish safe spaces, how counter the, quote, right wing echo chamber, how to bring social justice into curriculum, reparations, gender theory, pronouns, encouraging student activism to achieve equity and justice.
They also went on to have panels on transformative social change change and using social emotional learning to bring about the transformative change that they desire. Social emotional learning programs are in just about every school now, and the warm fuzzy name makes a lot of people feel good. But what is it?
Speaker 14: Well, social emotional learning is a mental health and anti bullying program that was originally brought into schools to teach kids how to manage their emotions and how to build healthy relationship with others. Unfortunately now that has been completely changed. In 2020 the SEL standard bearer, CASEL, which is the collaborative for academic social emotional learning changed the definition of SEL and its five core competencies to be a thing called transformative SEL SEL, which is a completely different way of teaching SEL in that it does it through a racial and equity lens.
Speaker 1: What exactly does that mean?
Speaker 14: Right. So they think the original way that social emotional learning was taught was racist to itself. They said that it made, children of color had to conform to the norms and standards of this white supremacist culture, and therefore it needed a whole redo. And what they're doing now is they're taking subjects that are usually taught in SEL, like empathy and perspective taking. And they're saying that in order to be empathetic, you have to understand other oppressed groups.
They're saying now that you have to understand that in order to be empathetic, you have to show compassion, means you have to do something. So that means you have to become a social justice activist for these racial and gender causes and then work to tear down the systems of America to make them equitable for those press groups.
Speaker 24: Social emotional learning has been the biggest weapon, in this war on kids.
Speaker 2: They spend 1,000,000 pushing SEL into schools, which is supposed to, in theory, make children more socially aware and able to have more positive interpersonal, skill sets and and connections, yet we're seeing a lot more violence in classrooms. What is where's the disconnect there? What's why is this happening?
Speaker 24: Well, you said that they were supposed to be more socially aware and more connected. In that sense this is true. They're socially aware of things like microaggressions, like reparations. So they're more socially aware. They're more socially aware that people can have infinite genders.
They're more socially aware. They are more connected. They're more connected to men going to women's bathroom. They're more connected to them.
Speaker 2: We're seeing objective reality play out where there is more violence and and teachers' hands are behind their back to stop it because of these restorative justice practices.
Speaker 24: So when the restorative justice came in it basically said depending on your skin color you can't be punished this way because it would be not culturally responsive. So now if the child gets picked on to get bullied they have to sit with the other child and understand why they acted out. The danger to that is that once it leaves public school you see it now in a lot of cities like San Francisco where they don't even they don't arrest anyone for life, shoplifting.
Speaker 2: And we're seeing, you know, victims of horrific sex crimes have to sit face to face across from their abuser and negotiate, you know, what that restoration process looks like.
Speaker 24: All these virtues are being taught through either the lens of a critical race theorist or a transgender cult recruiter. And then when they get older, they don't follow laws because they've been taught in schools that what they do is not their fault. And it's the same reason when a child sees a man and their girl sees a man in the bathroom locker room. They have to go through that struggle session. They have to get counseling to understand better, be more socially connected, be more socially aware and so that's the dangers of social emotional learning to understand language contamination understand to ask the question through whose lens is this being taught through and if if I if I tell you something and I tell you this is from a mass murderer, you're gonna take that advice very differently than if I told you always from a trusted mentor.
Speaker 2: At this point, you might be thinking that this sounds closer to communism than the school you remember going to. And while not all teachers are communists, consider this. In Colorado, the teachers union representing 40,000 teachers voted this year to disavow capitalism entirely. In a statement that read
Speaker 1: The CEA believes that capitalism inherently exploits children, public schools, land, labor, and resources. Capitalism is in opposition to fully addressing systemic racism. The school to prison pipeline, climate change, patriarchy, gender and LGBTQ disparities, education inequality, and income inequality.
Speaker 2: In Oregon, a high school teacher at Churchill High School recently asked his students to write stories about their sexual fantasies. The California Teachers Association Conference had a presentation on how to introduce unlimited genders and transgenderism to toddlers. While yet another English teacher in Pennsylvania showed his students penises and videos of ejaculation, and another had kids in her class read a book we discussed with John Ameciwu called This Book is Gay.
Speaker 1: Stories like these seem to happen on such a regular basis, the shock factor almost begins to fade away. And all of this is happening as Democrats and the Biden administration create 100 of 1,000,000 in funding for something called, quote, community schools. Those are schools that provide health care in addition to the regular curriculum. Like social emotional learning, that might sound nice at first glance, but it really means that your child can receive sexually oriented care or counseling that you aren't told about. And then we have teachers going on national TV to say that parents don't have rights once they send their kids to public school.
Speaker 25: But allowing movies such as this assist teachers in opening a door for conversations that have no place in our classrooms.
Speaker 26: That that just shows me that she's ignorant and has not come and volunteered at all because our these conversations, these doors, they're open. These students have 1 to 1 devices. The amount of things that they're able to pull up that we have to shut down, they they these conversations, these doors that she's talking about that's tang telling me I'm stripping her rights as a parent, those rights are gone when your child's in the public school system.
Speaker 1: Activist teachers like this used to pretend that CRT didn't exist in schools, but now they're the first to tell you how important DEI and CRT are in education.
Speaker 24: This is why when we're talking about let's say critical race theory and school people go they're not teaching critical race theory. It's actually much worse. When a child walks into a k through 12 today, they're not learning about critical race theory. They're learning how to behave and act and think and make decisions like a critical race theorist. And that means that America is oppressive, America is racist, your skin color determines your success and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1: That's why we should call them state schools. These are government run schools. Yes. These are not public schools. Right.
They're run by the government who is ruled by an authoritarian left wing party. That's right.
Speaker 24: And so that's why when you walk into a public school today, it's a discipleship. It's not even a it's not even a academic brainwashing. It's an emotional brainwashing. So it's it's truly a discipleship. And that's why these kids, they behave like missionaries because they're trained like 1 and that's So whatever their social contagion they want the child to regurgitate, that's their mission.
And so anything, whether it be climate changism, whether it be gun control, abortion, anything whether you have one opinion on this or not, they're teaching children in schools only one way and that's how they're that's that critical consciousness that underpins a lot of the critical race theory and transgenderism is just one of the ways. It's not a separate thing. It's just one branch and it's an effective branch because it sexualizes kids and obviously it it it it destroys them and that creates very useful angry soldiers.
Speaker 1: So we wondered, do DEI or CRT make John Amanchuwu feel included as a black man in America? What does it mean to you as a black man, as a black father? Do you feel protected or included by knowing that there's a DEI officer at every school?
Speaker 23: No. I don't. It doesn't benefit blacks through DEI. In North Carolina, in in particular, when you consider Wake County, we've had a DEI office since 2013, and they have spent nearly $8,700,000 on that office. And where are the measurable outcomes?
You can't find any.
Speaker 1: But what about the good teachers? There has to be some good teachers left, right? Right. But to find the schools and teachers who aren't embracing this woke revolution, you have to be involved and not be afraid to ruffle a few feathers by asking questions. You're a teacher who refused the transgender ideology at your school, and in return, you were fired and the school refused to accommodate your religious beliefs.
How did that make you feel?
Speaker 21: It felt surreal, and it still does, honestly. You could have never told me that I would spend 7 years going to college to become a teacher, you know, live out my dream. Impacting and influencing, you know, the next generations only to 6 years into my career be let go of because according to my school district, they could not accommodate my religious beliefs. So that's where it gets really interesting because it started with, as you mentioned, the transgender policies that were placed on me. These policies they presented me really essentially are wrapped around lying.
So lying to students first and foremost because they they've asked me to call children by whatever they want to be called by. Whatever gender pronoun it is, I have to go along with that. And so if you really think about that, right, that is lying to a child because they're confused and as adults, we're supposed to to step in and guide them, you know, on the the path of success and prosperity and and hope and positivity and and to go along with the the lies that they're experiencing, that that would not be, in my eyes, doing my job. And so it was so bizarre for the district to say, no, no, no, you have to. To get it to keep your job, you have to go along with it.
Speaker 1: So to be very clear, the policy was if you have a student and they say that they go by z, zim
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Or clown, clown self, which is a real pronoun that some people use
Speaker 9: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: You had to call them that.
Speaker 21: Correct. And it gets worse than that too. When they presented that, policy to me that I had to, they said refer and respect students' gender preference or pronouns. They that was in writing, and they then said vocally, you also need to withhold that from parents. And I looked the superintendent assistant superintendent, like, dead in the eye, and I said, are you asking me to lie to parents?
And he said, yes.
Speaker 1: The problem with cultural revolutions is that they build underground almost invisibly for many years until they happen seemingly all at once in such a dizzying pace that it'll make your head spin. And while they're all different, every destructive cultural revolution has a few things in common. One, is separating parents from their children. This even happened to my family in Cuba where they survived a communist revolution. Kids in state schools were reported for reporting on their family members, not dissimilar from how some were asked to report on their families during COVID if they broke COVID guidelines.
Speaker 0: And if you
Speaker 1: think you're automatically safe in private schools, think again. So if a parent says, I wanna get away from this craziness in the public schools, they send their kid to private school. Their kid is safe now. Correct?
Speaker 24: Unfortunately, no. It's wouldn't I think it used to be that simple, but today, unfortunately, it's not. And so, most private schools are under the umbrella of the NAIS which stands for the National Association of Independent Schools. Just because you send a child a private school, it doesn't mean that they're automatically safe at all. So there's really two reasons for that.
Number 1, the NAIS, they have these decrees that they come down and say you have to follow these. Now does every private school follow it to the t? No. But a lot of private schools do.
Speaker 2: NAIS is an organization thousands of private schools in America associate with.
Speaker 1: And it's at the forefront of pushing this far left ideology. They even make recommendations that they stop using terms like boys and girls in favor of gender neutral terms like students.
Speaker 2: And at their annual people of color conference, they had panels called white boys behaving badly and another panel called no more white tears.
Speaker 1: Suffice to say that if your child is in a private school, ask that school about their association with NAIS.
Speaker 24: Besides the NAIS, they're still largely using the same pool of teachers. So just because a teacher goes to a private school, they're still being trained under the same colleges that indoctrinate the teachers. Parents are trying to find the path of least resistance. What's the least I can do to get my children an education? This movement of separating children, of creating a revolutionist, is everywhere.
It's in cereal boxes is on YouTube shorts and YouTube kids and Instagram stories and private schools and public schools and in Barnes and Nobles and everywhere. And so you can't, as a parent ever say, my child was good because you're always, you need to have your hands in everything that they do.
Speaker 1: The key to regime change and revolutions is to separate children from their parents. Bad actors are working to do this now through various means. One of those is gender ideology. Your daughter was secretly transitioned at school.
Speaker 27: My father passed away, and unexpectedly, and then I was diagnosed with breast cancer. So my daughter was in 5th grade at the time and, was distraught over some of our family dynamics. Reached out to a guidance counselor and told her that she, thought she was a boy. That guidance counselor, immediately walked her after that meeting back to class and asked her if she wanted to be called her boy name and boy pronouns at school and went ahead with that transition without me knowing. There's a policy in place right now that if your child identifies as a transgender and they just have to say that, you know, they're not ready to tell their family that the school can transition them without your knowledge.
This policy has to do with children as young as 5 all the way through high school.
Speaker 2: A 5 year old can be transitioned at school without parents ever being notified in the state of California.
Speaker 27: Yep. All the all the child has to say is that they aren't ready for their family to know, and it's all in the name of the child's right to privacy.
Speaker 1: Well, if they're able to consent to something as serious as changing their sex without their parents knowing, wouldn't the next natural step be people saying, oh, they can consent to sex with adults then?
Speaker 27: To me that sounds crazy, but also what's going on when it originally happened, I felt was crazy and that's why I worked my way up within the district saying, how could you allow this with my child? When summer hit and she was removed from that environment and she wasn't around that counselor and that school. She immediately went back to wanting to be a girl. As she came to me after a couple months and said, mom, what happened to me at school was just so wrong. I just feel like it was really fast, and I really didn't understand what being trans really meant.
Speaker 2: This agenda has been more successful than some realize. The CDC's most recent report on youth found that a record 25% of high school students identify as something other than street. That's an over 600% increase from the 2.8% of baby boomers who identify as LGBTQ. Pro mutilation activists have said this is because of increased acceptance, but we found that this is a number not replicated anywhere else in the world. Something else is happening, and that something else is a social contagion.
A social contagion is the spread of emotions or behaviors from one individual to another, sometimes without awareness. Social contagion processes become problematic when they lead to spades of self injurious behaviors.
Speaker 1: That sounds an awful lot like what's happening when TikTok feeds you videos about transgender ideology and you start to question your own gender.
Speaker 2: The attack on identity becomes even clearer when you see a mom describe how they knew their kid was trans based on their green vegetable eating
Speaker 11: vegetables because that boosts testosterone, were just methods of his body trying to become who he was meant to be.
Speaker 1: You see, successful countries, a lot like successful people, have a track record of certain traits, like strength, resilience, outside the box thinking, and confidence. One key ingredient of confidence is identity, knowing who you are. If you wanna shake the confidence of a person or a country, you must create an identity crisis. It might seem to many like this ideology with pronouns as crazy as clown and clown self sprang up overnight, but in reality, the groundwork was laid many years before by John Money and Alfred Kinsey. Money tried his theories first on twin boys who he experimented on.
1 brother was mutilated and raised as a girl, but he never felt like one. Despite pretending this was a success, both brothers ended up committing suicide. At this point, I doubt it'll shock you to find out that Hugh Hefner and Playboy were key parts of Kinsey's plan to sexualize our country. If Kinsey is the bridge and his science is the bridge to the law to change the laws,
Speaker 22: well then Hugh Heffner was the bridge from Kinsey to culture. Alfred Kinsey actually met Hugh Hefner when he was in college. And Hugh Hefner was a virgin at the time. And he revolutionizes Hugh Hefner, into the playboy that, he would become. Hugh Hefner would say things like fornicate early, fornicate often, and fornicate everywhere.
So what's the motto of Playboy? Bunny.
Speaker 28: Yeah.
Speaker 22: And what do bunnies do? They hump. And what is what is Hugh Hefner's bunny wearing? A bow tie. Every photo of Alfred Kinsey, he is wearing a tweed suit and a bow tie.
And and by the way Kinsey built his public appearance, with this lie that he was a happily married man, a heterosexual, and faithful to his wife. His biographer would later admit that, Kinsey was a sadomasochist, homosexual, sexual deviant pedophile. When we begin to understand the the history behind this agenda, which wasn't just to, disciple children through the public school system. It was to actually change laws all around America that were passed with the explicit intention of protecting children, family, and marriages. The goal was actually worked through the American Law Institute and other revolutionary groups to bring in this new social science.
How then are we going to get this kind of curriculum into the schools? Well, we have to pass laws, but they had to get this new social science, into curriculum. But then we gotta get we gotta get the state boards of education to accept it. Right? So you know what they did?
They start sending sex experts to lobby and argue before state boards of education to accept this new radical sex ed as just the norm, healthy public health kind of curriculum we need. Penthouse footed the bill to send the sex experts to lobby before state boards of education to allow for this kind of comprehensive sexuality Education, yes, penthouse and playboy, of course. Some of Sikus' early pamphlets in 1964, 1965 never used the term person or child or human. They always use the term sexual being to refer to human beings because that's how they see us. One of the early born members of cicus was named Wardell Pomeroy.
Wardell Pomeroy was a very close friend of Kinsey, some people actually think a lover. Guess who became the executive director of the Kinsey Institute? Wardell Pomeroy. In 1980, in a in an article called Attacking the Last taboo, Wardell Pomeroy was described as part of the pro incest lobby and in this interview with Time Magazine he says, incest between children and adults can sometimes be beneficial, and it need not be a sign of mental illness. That was said by the executive director of the Kinsey Institute and one of the first board members.
The the primary problem with Kinsey was that his entire social science and science on sex was based off of lies. So his his, book published in 1948 was called, sexuality and the human male. Then in 19 58, he publishes sexuality and the human female which is the same year the playboy is launched by Hugh Hefner and he claims that that most American men about 90% of American men are not faithful to their wives. Most of them have homosexual tendencies and engage in homosexual sex. You read his numbers and his predictions in his books and you're like, where does this come from?
Well, what he had done is he had gone into the prisons and he had interviewed rapists and pedophiles serving life sentences. And so he went into the prisons and he actually interviewed
Speaker 6: pedophiles.
Speaker 22: And so he asked them about their sexual experiences with children, guys. That's what he does. And so at table 34, this is the kind of the infamous, table in his book, sexuality in the human male. It documents, the rate of children, as young as about 18 months old, and as old as about 10 or 11. With how many orgasms the children had over a 24 hour period timed with a stopwatch.
And Kinsey believed that even if these children were were riling, writhing, screaming, and moaning in pain, that that was just proof that they were taking pleasure from this sexual act being done on them.
Speaker 2: Is there an agenda to normalize pedophilic behavior?
Speaker 22: And so when when you look at Kinsey, when you look at his obsession with incest and with the sexuality of children, it's it's hard to not believe that the agenda was not to normalize eventually any form of sexual behavior.
Speaker 2: Queer theory is also why you might see activists using terms woman with a y or woman with an x. Those aren't typos. Those are to remove the word men from women. Another sliver of reality they seek to destroy. Couple the vile beliefs of John Money, Alfred Kinsey, and queer theory with TikTok and our social contagion of identity confusion among youth is what you get.
In some pockets of the country, this social contagion is even clearer, like California's Davis Joint Unified School District, where students self identify as transgender 4.3 times the national average.
Speaker 1: Would you guys say that people who are identifying as all these things are being treated better?
Speaker 19: Well, they're getting affirmed by culture, and culture is the big elephant in the room because it's like everything is affected by culture. And so if culture affirms it, that means you're universally accepted.
Speaker 13: What happens is they come from these environments that they don't feel valued. They don't feel loved. So what happens is they get this admiration from people around them, and these people around them encourage them to continue doing what they do, and then they get too deep. And they value the affection and the attention that they get because they so so want it, but they have never gotten it before.
Speaker 17: Absolutely. That's why they gave, mister Thomas, William Thomas, the trophy rather than Riley Gaines. Yeah. That's the like, one of
Speaker 13: the best examples he could use. Exactly. Well, at this private school, people the teachers would favor these kids who were going through this, and they would give them extra attention. Them, like, after time, after class, more attention towards them. They're just, like, worshiping these kids.
And that makes them feel good, and that makes them want to continue to do it and make it worse, put it out there more, and indoctrinate other people, their friends, their family into this ideology.
Speaker 2: California's 2020 to 2021 main report of the California Healthy Kids Survey also found that kids who identify as non binary self report far more mental illness than other kids do, including chronic depression and suicidal ideation.
Speaker 1: If you think kids can't be influenced by a litany of algorithms on TikTok, then you're not familiar with a famous psychological experiment conducted by a man named Robert Cleck. He was a psychologist at Dartmouth University. In the experiment, they put a fake scar on people's faces who were going into a room with other people.
Speaker 2: But right before they went in to mingle with the crowd, the makeup artist made what the subject thought was a touch up to make the scar more visible. But in reality, they removed it before they entered the room. At the end, they were asked if they were discriminated against over their scar. Nearly all of them reported that they were discriminated against. They were confident that their scar was being stared at or that people made rude comments.
They felt that way after only one impression seeing the scar on their face via a small pocket mirror. Now imagine how sure a teen feels about their identity confusion if they're fed a steady stream of videos on the TikTok algorithm about transitioning.
Speaker 1: At least the social contagions when we were kids didn't hurt you long term. Maybe you had a weird haircut, a piercing, or a very unique style, but you outgrew it.
Speaker 2: You can't outgrow a double mastectomy, though.
Speaker 1: If you watch the news, you've probably heard politicians and pundits saying things like this. Transgender children are not having surgeries. That's really important to say.
Speaker 29: In his tweet, he talked about stopping surgeries for people under 18, which is not a thing. That is not a thing that happened.
Speaker 1: There is misinformation presented that somehow that we're doing surgery on minors or even children, and that simply is not true. So Leila Jane, how old were you when they gave you a double mastectomy?
Speaker 11: It was a month after my 13th birthday.
Speaker 1: How long was the process before that with the doctors to to prepare you for this?
Speaker 11: I initially started seeing doctors for my gender dysphoria, when I was 12. So it was within that time frame, within a year. What age were you when they put you on puberty blockers?
Speaker 2: I was 12 years old. 12 years old, doctors gave you a drug called Lupron. This drug has been used to chemically castrate sex offenders, pedophiles in prison, but they prescribed it to you to stop your hormones. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: Correct. At 12 years old
Speaker 2: Do you believe that you were informed consent about the risk of puberty blockers?
Speaker 11: I don't think so. I think, you know, it was spoken of very lightly, you know. I mean, they really did say, it's just a pause. There were some slight concerns about my my bone development, but, you know, they just told me to take some vitamin d.
Speaker 22: That's it. That's
Speaker 1: that's the only thing they were concerned about while giving you a chemical castration drug that they give to pedophiles that isn't actually designed or made to stop your puberty. It's not even approved for that. They're just playing, you know, doctor. They're doing science experiments on on little kids. You know, at that age, you were still you were still very much a kid.
Right?
Speaker 11: Right. I mean, I was really naive. I didn't have the understanding of the world. I wasn't even in high school yet.
Speaker 1: It'll never leave my mind how Layla looked when she walked in the room with us. She was a damaged young girl. Her anxiety was palpable. Before she ever said a word, my heart sank as I wondered how a doctor could ever operate on such a vulnerable child. They took an oath to do no harm.
How? Then it hit me. We have a daughter older than Leila was when the doctors did this to her.
Speaker 2: The other side says to listen to trans people. Well, Leila did identify as trans. And when you were experiencing the gender dysphoric feelings, was there any inquiry as to what that root cause might be or was there just,
Speaker 11: you know, seemingly this shift laser focus on the gender transition? Definitely. There is definitely a shift, and they really kinda ignored my comorbid mental health issues, like anxiety and whatnot. I remember one of my doctors said that if I transition, my anxiety and my mental health would get better.
Speaker 1: Did the doctors warn you at all about side effects from a double mastectomy? Like, seriously warn you about the long term consequences of a dangerous surgery like that?
Speaker 11: Really, the main thing was they told me and this is what they the words they used, they told me I wouldn't be able to chest feed. I might have some slight cosmetic. They called it dog ears, is like the term. I think it's like when the scars sag. But that's really all they warned me about.
Like, when I was in the healing phase, the 1st year or so, the nerves kept reconnecting over my scar tissue, and it was just excruciating.
Speaker 2: And were any of those regressive, gender stereotypes used as a, you know, factor of, oh, you might like this color or this clothing, so therefore, you should, you know, transition.
Speaker 11: I was a bit tomboyish as a kid. Like, I used to love Hot Wheels, and I used to follow my dad around the garage and stuff like that. I wasn't big on dolls, and I definitely was like, you know what? Makes sense. I kinda latched onto that as more proof that I was trans.
Speaker 2: Can you speak a little bit to your experience and how that pressure affected your body image, your self perception,
Speaker 11: now it's, like, in to be, like, curvy and whatnot. But back then, it was the thigh gap, and I didn't have that build. And it yeah.
Speaker 2: Were there some, you know, like, body issues as far as, like, eating disorders or anything that played a role that maybe then turned into that more gender dysphoric asymptomology? Yeah. Definitely.
Speaker 11: I definitely had some issues with, you know, my relationship with food and my body and whatnot that just went completely negative energy on myself. Is there a difference? Negative energy on myself. Is there a difference
Speaker 1: between somebody who's anorexic or bulimic going to a doctor and requesting liposuction, and a child going to a doctor and requesting to have their healthy body parts chopped off.
Speaker 11: You know, lately, I'm having a harder time seeing the difference, especially if they would've gave me liposuction, I wouldn't I would've done it.
Speaker 1: That's very important you said that. Admitting that you would've gotten liposuction if they would've allowed it, that tells us that you couldn't have possibly consented to anything else. Do you feel like you had informed consent?
Speaker 11: No. I mean, even the way they watered down their wording and just called it top surgery instead of a double mastectomy. You know, and there's just a lot of information that I didn't know about, like my own anatomy. Because mind you, I was so young, I hadn't taken a sex ed class. I hadn't even seen, like, diagrams.
I think the biggest thing that they left out that I still deal with sometimes is the nerve damage on my scars and my chest. You know, they told me I might lose sensation, but I was expecting numbness. I wasn't expecting, like, the electrifying jolts and just itchy sensation that I can't scratch.
Speaker 2: What were some of the effects of testosterone in your female body?
Speaker 11: Increased permanent body hair. My voice has deepened. I don't know if you could see it under the lighting, but I actually I have a slight Adam's apple.
Speaker 1: Is it your hope that those things will go away?
Speaker 11: Well, I've just kinda accepted that some of these things I have to live with. You know, this Adam's apple is always gonna be here unless I get it shaved down surgically. You know, I have increased bodily hair and a little bit of facial hair that continues to grow. I was under the impression that would stop if I stopped taking testosterone, and
Speaker 1: it didn't. There's another that's another thing they didn't inform you about. Correct.
Speaker 2: Who paid for all of these medical interventions? Was it insurance? Were there private groups?
Speaker 0: Or
Speaker 11: It was covered by Kaiser.
Speaker 2: Everything? Yeah. Now does Kaiser cover your aftercare now that you detransitioned?
Speaker 11: No. Not really.
Speaker 2: Leila's case is heartbreaking, not only because of what she was put through, but because she's not an anomaly. She's a drop of rain and a storm that's coming. A Reddit group called d trans has grown to nearly 50,000 members this year. Some critics say, I thought you believed in parental rights. But parental rights don't allow you to abuse your child by giving them a sex change any more than it allows you to legally turn them into a heroin addict.
In the US, one study found that 70% of pediatric patients are diagnosed with autism, ADHD, or some other mental health problem prior to being diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Speaker 1: Kids are not the only people being abused in this scheme. Parents in the oath to do no harm are being abused as well.
Speaker 2: When I heard a pediatric doctor from Stanford using the phrase daughter with a penis during a TED talk, I knew we had entered dangerous new territory.
Speaker 3: Right when Avery was handed to her mom, her mom sensed a special bond, a mother's intuition that Avery was different. And her parents, as soon as Avery was a preschooler, knew that as a daughter with a penis, they needed to advocate for her rights.
Speaker 1: The trust bond where kids believe doctors and do as they say is a no brainer when you consider the Milgram experiments from the 19 sixties. In the sixties, a social psychologist named Stanley Milgram conducted several studies at Yale on obedience and authority. Milgram wanted to know why people do evil things. In his book, Obedience to Authority, Stanley mused that most evil acts are committed by normal people who blindly obey authority.
Speaker 2: Basically, he believed that most people would stray from basic morality if someone in authority told them to, and he was right. In the experiments, Stanley had an authority figure tell unknowing participants to deliver electric shocks of increasing intensity to what they believe to be a real patient and deliver the shocks all the way up to max intensity even when the fake patient begged them to stop, asked for mercy, and even when they told them that they had a heart condition. So when a doctor tells a confused child that they are in fact born in the wrong body by immediately affirming gender dysphoria, they are in effect the supervisor telling the child to turn the electric shocks all the way up.
Speaker 25: What are
Speaker 2: some of the more egregious programs that our taxpayer dollars are funding that harm children?
Speaker 30: I think it's mainly through the schools. You know, my concern is really about about kids who aren't ready to make this decision. You know, people say, oh, you're a libertarian. What are you what are you getting involved with this in the bedroom and all that? And I was like, you know, I don't care what adults do in the bedroom, but I do care, you know, if they have to tell my chill children about it.
Why are they involved with this has to be something they need to tell the children in elementary school. They've gotta tell them at the library. They've gotta tell them in all these public venues. You know, 10 years ago, do you think anybody I don't remember any conservatives complaining about a drag show for adults. You know, there are adult places that you can go around town, bars have ages.
We've always had sort of this idea of adults can make decisions and we may not approve of other people's decisions, but for the most part, we're like, live and let live, leave people alone. But with kids, there is an obligation. I mean, for example, if a child is being abused at home even by the parents, physically or otherwise, the state has an obligation to go in and rescue that child. I think it's the same here, but it's the opposite. The government's funding the schools, and then the schools are saying, oh, we're not going to tell the parents.
We're going to change the kids clothes, call them by another name, encourage counselors. I mean, ultimately, we're gonna talk about, are they gonna give the counselors gonna give them medication there at school without their parents' permission? I mean, I think we're leading towards an absurd and horrific time and there already are these cases, you know, parents taking their kids to California, you know, your 13 year old is gonna have irreversible surgery and the father doesn't want it and they're calling the father somehow a hater and the father has no rights over the child now. I mean, this is leading to a time in which there's going to be war between families, war in our culture. You know, this is a is a is a bad time, and I never thought we'd get there in our lifetime, that this is where we've where we've come.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us the answer since doctor Rachel Levine? Wouldn't can a child consent to these transgender surgeries?
Speaker 30: You know, it's a question that's been going on for a long time. What's the age of adulthood? When can children make decisions about their medical care? We always had it. It was pretty much decided.
I mean, I've worked as an emergency room doctor. If kids came in with even with a small laceration, we'd begin cleaning it up, but we wouldn't sew it up, even a small little incision till the mom or dad got there. In Oregon, your kid can transition at 13, have parts of their body removed, but can't get a tattoo without their parents' permission. It's kind of sort of absurd. And it's sort of the opposite of what you hear from the media, from the media, you hear all these kids are being bullied and they're going to commit suicide because they're being bullied.
I think it's the opposite. I think they're being encouraged. They're being affirmed. Everybody's saying, we're so proud of you. If you go or someone advises, you go to a gender dysphoria clinic.
I guess they don't even call it dysphoria, gender affirming clinic, or they want
Speaker 1: to call it when you
Speaker 30: get there. There's nobody giving you the other side of the story. The only people who work in these clinics are people who've either had the surgery themselves or huge advocates for this. It's a one-sided process.
Speaker 1: What can you do? Speak up. That's what every abuse survivor we've talked to has asked you to do. Conversations are gonna be uncomfortable. You may lose a friend or a client, but speaking up is how this ends.
Some may even ask you, why do you care? These aren't your kids. Let them do what they want. But this line of thinking ignores the reality that our kids are gonna have to grow up alongside these issues and sometimes inside a locker room with them.
Speaker 25: We were forced to swim against biological male Leah Thomas, who is formerly Will Thomas, who swam three years on the men's team at University of Pennsylvania. Of course, then transitioning to the women's category his senior year, to where he dominated the women. First of all,
Speaker 26: we weren't forewarned we would be sharing
Speaker 25: a locker room. We had no idea. We're in this locker room. I'm changing. I had my back turned silent.
I turned around, a 6 foot 4, 22 year old man disrobing, fully intact with an exposing male genitalia. The only time we became aware that this was the arrangement was when we had to see it with our
Speaker 0: own eyes. So any man would
Speaker 25: have had full access to that bathroom, any coach, any parent, any any pervert who wanted to would have had full reigns to be in there, and bare minimum, we weren't even told about this. So they most certainly want to normalize this. They want to take away our rights to privacy.
Speaker 1: Is it fair to refer to what happened to you with Leah Thomas exposing his penis to you and other female swimmers' mental rape?
Speaker 25: No. It most certainly is fair to say that. Like, if a man would have walked into a woman's locker room, a DA is walking in there, arresting this man, and he is getting charged with sexual harassment, voyeurism, indecent exposure, and I'm I'm sure the list can go on of of of charges, but now it really is celebrated. It's encouraged. That next day of competition was the day that Thomas and I race, and almost impossibly enough, it resulted in a tie.
We get out, we go behind the awards podium, where the NCAA official looks at both Thomas and myself and says, great job. But you guys tied, and we only have one trophy. We're gonna give Leah the trophy because Leah has to have it for pictures. That's when I was no longer willing to lie, and that's when I ultimately took this public stance in acknowledging how it's harmful to women, not just female athletes, to women. Leah Thomas was nominated for NCAA Woman of the Year.
That's how they honored Thomas for taking away our rights to our privacy, for taking away our scholarships, our spots on that podium, our dignity. This award was devalued to me. It was meaningless. I didn't want this award. They're encouraging men to go into women's locker rooms and for others to be complicit in the process.
Speaker 1: Average people like us, we look at what happened and we go, Riley Riley won. You know, no normal person is going Leah won. I think what's really worse is the situation happening in the locker room because this is this is sexual assault, and instead of treating it like sexual assault, we've got a group of people in our country who are running a large majority of our country, who are actually more likely to charge someone like you with a hate crime for saying something about it than they are to go after the man who's exposing themselves. When they can't win this argument or get confronted with victims of their ideology, they often turn to something Marxist revolutionaries have always turned to, old fashioned lying. That's why they try to claim these surgeries don't exist despite mountains of evidence that they're happening at record rates.
And it's why you'll hear people pretending that there's no competitive advantage for men or boys playing sports against actual women.
Speaker 31: Women are some that are short. That a biological male has a physical advantage in sports over a biological female?
Speaker 4: Not as a definitive statement. How how
Speaker 31: how many female members of the NBA do
Speaker 0: you see?
Speaker 25: Well, I can say that, you know,
Speaker 4: it's just not the case. She is stronger than that.
Speaker 31: What's your experience been? Male, female?
Speaker 25: Both Serena and Venus lost to the 203rd ranked male tennis player, which they're phenoms for women. My experience, my husband, he swam at University of Kentucky as well. In terms of accolades and in terms of national ranking, I was a much better swimmer than him. He could kick my butt any day of the week.
Speaker 4: Oh. Knees and that's it. How are you
Speaker 32: feeling right now? I'm feeling excellent. That was sweet. Would you like that? Every woman in this tournament better look out.
I'm freaking coming.
Speaker 1: So why are there no cases of females like you deciding that they're a man and coming to compete against men my size? You know, why why isn't that happening?
Speaker 25: This is only happening one way. Women don't want to go into men's restrooms. All of these stories, it's only contributing to the erasure of women. This is actually a point that I think is so important, in regards to that NCAA championship. We had another swimmer from from Yale, who was a female, transitioning to male.
Finishes dead last every time. The only male swimmer that Isaac beat was a male swimmer with one arm, and it's because Isaac would have never, and will never be able to compete against the men at that same level. This is the fastest meet in the world, and it it goes back to the question of why isn't this happening the other way around? And it's because there's only something to gain from men being in women's facilities, bathrooms, prisons, sororities, locker rooms, sports. Hayden McNabb, the volleyball player from North Carolina, who was spiked in the face by a male.
Still to this day, she's partially paralyzed on her right side. She has vision impairment. She can play college sports now. She has to have special accommodations at school for testing because she can't retain information like she could before the hit. So this is a legitimate concern.
So back to the message that's being sent that I'm constantly reminded of, it's that we don't matter. It's that our safety doesn't matter. What matters to the n double a, to the people leading this country, whether that's the state level, the federal level, all of these different sport governing bodies, what matters to them is the feelings of a male, not our not our feelings, not any of our success or or sacrifices, as you mentioned. That doesn't matter, And that's the message that they're sending.
Speaker 2: The mental rape of Riley Gaines and other girls like her is only possible because of silent accomplices who refuse to speak up about these issues. So today, does a girl have a right to a space where for her to undress without men staring at her or without her having to look at male genitalia? If it's up
Speaker 25: to the Biden administration, then no. This means men could join sororities, men would have full access to bathrooms, changing areas, locker rooms on campuses. They could take academic and athletic scholarships away from women. They could be housed in dorm rooms with women, and you could do nothing about it. Actually, if you were to say something about it, you're guilty of sexual harassment.
They want to normalize this so bad, and you have to ask yourself the question of why. Why do they want to normalize this? Men and women's locker rooms undressing next to to young girls? Yeah. We we should have a right to privacy, but we don't as women anymore.
Speaker 1: You might even be tempted to say, well, that's one example, but this isn't happening outside of college.
Speaker 2: But it is. Girls now must worry at all ages about a man exposing his penis to them in a locker room, raping them in a bathroom, or they have to worry about being beaten by a man claiming to be a girl. You might still be tempted to think that you could hold strong and not give in if your child was affected by gender ideology or queer theory. But in California, they passed a law that would classify a parent not affirming their child's self professed transgenderism as child abuse.
Speaker 1: This law would also give custody preference to parents who are affirming the child is trans, while punishing those who refuse to affirm it. One man that would affect is Harrison, a dad whose son is called non binary by his mother.
Speaker 33: My son actually knows he's a boy. He'll tell you he's a boy if you ask him. If you say anything
Speaker 1: to the contrary, he'll actually get mad. The media has reported that Sawyer's mom has borderline personality disorder. And there's also a major study that was done that showed that 53% of moms who have children that they are transitioning have borderline personality disorder. Does that seem like something that should be setting off red flags to people that those types of numbers are showing up when it comes to mental illness associated with this?
Speaker 33: Absolutely. It it's horrifying, first of all. But secondly, I mean, to see that staggering of a number 53%, and I believe it's of moms that have boys that are transitioning Yes. Specifically. And to see that, it's pretty scary to think that that could be happening at such a big number, and I do think it has a big relevance to it.
Speaker 1: But his mother is able to take him to these meetings or to these appointments in furtherance of having him be transgender.
Speaker 33: Well, she takes him to a doctor that's okay with it. This doctor actually testified in our trial. And actually, the court ordered after our trial that he has to continue to see that doctor.
Speaker 2: And this judge was a member of the LGBTQ community. Is that correct?
Speaker 33: That was part of her election process. It was, like, that was her big thing. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay. So there's some bias there. Did she come up with this on her own as far as like I want to raise these babies as sometimes they call it, or was this something that she saw stereotypical behavior and and decided to to associate that with a particular gender.
Speaker 33: When he was really young, she actually would call him a boy on social media and everything. So it wasn't till about when I started getting custody of him that this happened. I just started seeing things on social media where she's calling him they and things like that. And then I found pictures of him in dresses and wearing makeup and just a lot of really scary stuff to see.
Speaker 2: Did he ever talk with you about that experience that, you know, was he was it his idea? Did he ever wanna play dress up with you at your house, or was this something that happened exclusively at the mom's house?
Speaker 33: So it happens exclusively at the mom's house. And when he's with me, he fully expresses he loves being a boy. He's like a he's just like a picture perfect little boy. He'll play in the mud. He likes to fight and wrestle and climb and play sports.
Speaker 2: If he were to say, I wanna play with a doll or I like the color purple or pink, you know, how would you respond to that?
Speaker 33: I would probably just give it no meaning.
Speaker 2: In the Republican party, state legislatures seem to be the primary group fighting back against this like drag shows for kids.
Speaker 1: Just yesterday, the Tennessee legislature faced a domestic terrorist attack where somebody sent a letter with white powder in it. I don't think there's any determination on what that was yet, but this is clearly being done to try to make you guys afraid. When you see these activists do this, and in this case we know from reporting that this is most likely a trans activist. It was sent in the name of somebody who was trans and they died. What do you think, and are they able to make you afraid?
Speaker 31: Absolutely not. So here's the thing. We're gonna fight for what's right in Tennessee, and these folks from all over the country that have obviously never visited our state, that have obviously never met a Tennessean, they don't really understand us. Okay? We stand up for what's right.
We stand up for what's gonna make Tennessee better tomorrow than it is today. We are the volunteer state. We literally volunteer to go all over the world to help out other people, to fight battles for other states.
Speaker 1: That goes back to Davy Crockett. Absolutely. There'd be no Texas for
Speaker 31: Texas if there were not for Tennesseans. And so this is who we are. Tennesseans have got an awful lot of grit. And and mailing some powder to an office in a cowardly act to try to intimidate somebody is both not going to work and it's also kinda stupid. Okay?
Because think about this. There's a staff member in one of our members offices who opened that envelope. She sees white powder in a threatening letter, and yet it scared her. She's a young lady who's pregnant with their first child. And all of a sudden, she's got this white powder in front of her.
The only thing that that person did was terrorize an innocent state employee who's just doing her job.
Speaker 1: And not even be a Republican. You know? Like, that's the thing
Speaker 30: is Absolutely.
Speaker 0: When they
Speaker 1: send these letters, you don't know if a Democrat or a Republican's opening them. Yep.
Speaker 2: Do the people who oppose these bills that would protect children from sterilization, chemical castration, or even these sexually explicit adult shows really understand the nature of what these procedures and experiences entail?
Speaker 31: Well, unfortunately, some do, and they're still in favor of it. But many of the folks that we talked with, when when they were really told, like, look, this is what this procedure is. This is what it does. These are the negative effects that are gonna last a lifetime. When were they really heard from these young people that were so brave to come down here and just testify as to some of their most intimate and difficult decisions in their life that could have been made.
When that happened, when that was exposed, it changed a lot of minds, and I hope it changes more.
Speaker 2: Why do you think it is that the left is making this some sort of civil rights issue as if it's akin to when Rosa Parks sat down and refused to get out from a bus.
Speaker 31: It mixes different issues together, and that's insulting to those folks that fought and bled and died in our country for us to have civil liberty. So that nobody is judged based on their ethnicity, their religion, or their sex. And that sex is something you can't change. That's built up in our civil rights that protect men and women. And when you start blending that, it actually erodes those civil liberties.
It doesn't protect them.
Speaker 2: After a wave of republican led states passing laws to prevent more innocent people from being victimized, many democrat run states have pounced back what one expert described as trans youth trafficking bills.
Speaker 24: Late in 2022, California had a SB 107, and that was the first one. It's essentially trafficking. Very briefly, the bill basically says out of state children can cross over to California, and they will not reunite them with their parents if the parents do not agree to transgender procedures. That's, puberty blockers, cross sex hormone surgeries. That was the first one.
And since then, there's been at least 5 or 6 states that have done copycat, bills to to SB 107. And so, the transgender trafficking bill is an extension to all the secrets that are being kept in schools by school counselors and social workers, teachers. And so they've set the tone that parents are unsafe and abusive, then they're they're expanding on that foundation that these transgender trafficking bills like SB 107, in California like HF 146 in Minnesota, and in Washington State there was a there was a SB 55 59, and those are copycat bills that does exactly that. It separates the children from the parents because parents are deemed unsafe and abusive.
Speaker 1: So why would a state try to undermine the laws of another state, especially when that law is built to protect kids from sex change surgeries? To find out, we tried to interview a lawmaker from Colorado, representative Brianna Titone, who identifies as transgender. In fact, Brianna is only the 8th trans state representative. Titone got a trans youth trafficking bill signed into law that makes Colorado a state where minors can go for sex change surgeries, hormones, and puberty blockers if their home state rightfully bans those abusive medical experiments. We were going to initially reach out to the 1st trans representative in American history, but they were unavailable seeing as how they were recently arrested for child pornography charges in an absolutely horrific story.
But as the interview date grew closer with Brianna, Brianna canceled after researching me. I decided I had to give him a call.
Speaker 0: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hey. Is this Brianna?
Speaker 18: Yes. Who's this?
Speaker 1: Hey, Brianna. This is Robbie Starbuck. I wanted to see if you had a second to
Speaker 18: talk. Oh, no. No. Thanks. I'm not interested.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm just confused because your interviews, you said that you wanna talk to people who disagree on this and, you know, we wanna just have a respectful discussion with you to see if I'm missing something. I'm totally open to, you know, your
Speaker 18: the the the kind of stuff that you say on a daily basis all the time, that there's no there's no reaching you. There's no point. And I'm gonna end the call.
Speaker 0: Thanks for calling. Bye bye.
Speaker 1: Do you think that little kids can consent to sex changes? Well, that's it. Brianna did not wanna have a discussion, and that shouldn't be a surprise because everyone on this pro child mutilation advocacy side, they avoid conversations at all costs because they know that they can't win the argument against people who are empowered with facts, the statistics, and the horror stories of what kids have been through who've gotten double mastectomies at ages like 13. Okay? They don't wanna speak to people like that.
They wanna speak to the people who are manipulatable. They wanna speak to the people who are weaker. That's why they target children. They wanna speak to people who are not resolute in their values because ultimately they know that's the only group that they can get on their side. That's why they run away from these conversations.
So it shouldn't be a surprise to you that they're not interested in conversation. In fact, in the email before this, they said they didn't wanna do the interview anymore because they don't wanna go into the lion's den and stick their head in the mouth of the lion. You know, it's kind of a compliment because I do kind of feel like that's what parents need to be right now. Lions who protect our pride, protect our children. That's the pride that should be on all our minds is the one that we need to protect.
An ongoing theme we noticed when we tried to learn more about the opinions and beliefs of people on the left to adhere to this ideology, we realized they don't wanna talk. They declined interview after interview after interview. We were left with no other choice. We tried to call him.
Speaker 2: It's really sad that you feel that way. We actually represent a lot of, you know, detransitioners that also have a voice and and should be heard.
Speaker 0: Detransitioners.
Speaker 2: Do you not believe there's anything such as detransitioners?
Speaker 0: Have you
Speaker 2: heard of detransitioners that have had their genitals mutilated and are
Speaker 28: Oh my god.
Speaker 2: Have had surgeries and double mastectomies at 13 years old.
Speaker 0: Fucking nuts.
Speaker 21: And as you're asking these questions, this is precisely why we're declining this opportunity. This
Speaker 2: why does this
Speaker 1: know if the transitioners can get help?
Speaker 21: I hope you find exactly what you're looking for.
Speaker 2: Why does this ideology not allow questions? Isn't that, you know, a sign of grooming when you can't ask a question?
Speaker 21: I I don't understand why you're continuing to ask a question.
Speaker 1: This war even reaches newborn babies now.
Speaker 2: The Biden administration's CDC recently issued a guidance for men who identify as women to, quote, chest feed their babies. This comes after recent viral videos of men identifying as women, forcing babies to suck on their nipples. Make no mistake, this is sexual abuse. The CDC's guidance doesn't warn once about the lack of nutrition, the potential for harm through ingestion of the drugs these men take, or the reality that this is a known sexual kink of at least some men who identify as women. This war on kids is institutionalized within our government.
The assistant secretary of health appointed by Joe Biden is a confused man named Rachel Levine. He says that sex changes for kids is health care that will literally prevent suicides, but I think Abigail might disagree.
Speaker 9: It started at at school. She was going through depression in middle school. It was in 8th grade when I went, talked to the principal, what happened. I took her to the hospital because on that day, she took some pills, overdose, so it was allergy pills. So that's how everything started.
Went to the doctor, she was fine, but they didn't release my daughter with me. They called CPS. Since that moment, I had, CPS at my house, coming twice a week. When her grades was going down, that's when I went to the high school and talk about, you know, her depression and I was hoping to get help to give her more time for the test. Instead of that, what they did is send her to LGBTQ group.
I didn't know anything about it. It. So my daughter started, you know, to change, she looked pretty mad, upset, depressed. One day she talked to her, sister that she thought that maybe she liked girls. But later on, she wants to change her name.
Her name is Yaylee. She changed her name to Yay. A couple months later, she didn't like it. So then she changed it to Andrew. And then she's starting to talk about she feel like she was in the wrong body.
I'm here. You see a girl, but inside, I'm a boy. And I go, like, since when? I didn't know that she was going to these groups at school.
Speaker 1: Nobody at the school told you?
Speaker 9: No. They secretly send her to these groups.
Speaker 2: How was her mental health and the limited visits you had with her?
Speaker 9: She was not able to sleep. After, you know, going through all this, the depression is worse than what it was before. Why? Because now they are dealing with pain, with medication, going back and forward to the doctor. Surgery is not is not just one.
They don't tell them that. I thought she was gonna go into therapy first, That they will explain the positive, the negative, and, you know, the side effect. If you wanna help my daughter, help her inside out. What's in here? Why she's this depression?
After the testosterone shot, she tried to suicide twice.
Speaker 2: When CPS came to remove your daughter, will you walk us through that process?
Speaker 9: They planned all this with, the mother and this other, kid from the high school. Oh my gosh. I was crying. And then what should I do? And I I need to do something.
My neighbor had cameras so they were able to see. That car was there for 5 minutes waiting for my daughter to get out. That make me feel like that my daughter was insured doing this plan. So all the time that they they had my daughter, they send it to a group home. I couldn't go visit after court.
It was her new home now. After we went to court, we had a meeting there with LGBT, c CPS, the people who work there, the group home, trying to convince me that what my daughter need is going to the the transition, and I have to respect her. And you have to refer to that not to my daughter. You have to say my son. And I said, no.
I can't do that. Who's my son? They said, well, if you don't do that, you'd rather have a dead daughter and not a life as son? And I said, none of that is gonna happen just because a name.
Speaker 1: Why did they do that to parents? Because I've heard that from every kid who has detransitioned.
Speaker 9: They want to manipulate the parents and see if they gave up. And they are very cruel with parents. They're not there to support the parents. One of them, came to my house, and I asked her to leave because she asked me that why it was so difficult for me to accept, a boy instead of a girl. And I said, I don't think you have children.
But it's easy. Just, plan a funeral for your daughter and adopt your son. Oh, and the moment I asked her to leave my house, don't you ever come because you cannot tell me. I'm going through the she's going through this depression trying to commit, and you're telling me to prepare her funeral? How cruel is that?
Speaker 1: What they did people should go to they should go to jail for life for what they did to your daughter.
Speaker 9: And then September 4, she decide to knelt in front of a train. They begged even the funeral, at the funeral home that I wanna see her for the last time. He said there's no that you can't, and I said, well, just let me see one of her hands. Oh, when he asked me that, he went back where they had my daughter. And he said, let me check.
Let me see what I can do. He was an ex marine. And when he came inside, he looks different to me. And he say, can I? But he got his seat, and he asked me, I'm gonna tell you I'm an ex marine.
And I saw a lot of I'm going to therapy because of that, but I never got to see something like that. So I will encourage you not to see her like that because if you but if you insist and I cried and I said, can I see one of her hand finger something? And there's nothing that you can really see.
Speaker 2: Well, I think from heaven, she can see how hard you fought for her. And you you told the truth always. And I think that's a gift that a lot of kids aren't getting right now. They don't have parents that care enough to tell the truth and to fight for them. And you fought very hard for her.
You're a good mom.
Speaker 1: Can I give you a hug?
Speaker 0: Thank you
Speaker 1: for being such a good mom. I'm so sorry what I did to you guys.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Breaks my heart.
Speaker 2: What would you say to parents that don't understand the very serious result that can happen by not taking action to protect their children?
Speaker 9: What I will say is not to trust the school, the principal, the school psychologist, because now they are working on this agenda. So I will ask the parents to get involved in school. Go inside and ask them what what are they reading. Because now it's not math, it's not science, it's not, English. It's going to this ideology.
This ideology is killing our kid.
Speaker 0: Do you
Speaker 1: think more people need to speak up to protect kids like your daughter?
Speaker 9: Yes. I do. Because if
Speaker 1: they pretend this is all normal or they're just afraid of somebody being upset at them or whatever it is, whatever reason they're using to be silent, isn't it just helping evil people do this to kids?
Speaker 2: Yes. The government's complicity doesn't end there though. Even the Pentagon is involved in this. The Department of Defense admits that their doctors are transitioning kids. 1 of these DOD doctors actually said that transitioning kids can cause psychotic illnesses to, quote, melt away.
The only issue is that his own study using DOD treatment records told a different story.
Speaker 1: Not only did his study find no significant psychological benefit to transition drugs for kids, But many kids psychotropic drugs increased after taking transition drugs. The most pronounced increases in psychotropic medication were an antipsychotics and lithium. So surely the government stopped these experiments on children. Right?
Speaker 2: In fact, Klein and other DOD doctors, Noelle Larson and Natasha Shwey, argued in the American Journal of Public Health that kids must be affirmed and immediately moved onto puberty blockers or hormones if they have dysphoria. Doctor Klein even claimed that kids as young as 7 can make this decision on their own.
Speaker 1: He called this a human right for the child.
Speaker 2: This is who the military has in charge of this issue.
Speaker 1: Some major Pensacon doctors recently came out, and they said that they believed that children have the ability to decide which gender they are, that they could change back and forth, and they also were promoting transitioning children. How did this happen within our own military that we've got doctors who are transitioning the children of our service
Speaker 30: members. I I think it's awful. It's reprehensible, and they should be fired for doing this. I think it's a crime against humanity to do this kind of stuff. The thing about a child making the consent is how do you make a consent to remove your sexual organs if you've never used them?
I don't even know what this is. A 7 year old barely knows the difference between a boy. They probably have a vague idea of the difference between boys and girls, but they really don't have yet any kind of comprehension of how boys and girls interact sexually. And it's like, oh, you're just gonna give up on that? That's not informed consent.
The parents might be able to make informed consent, but I probably wouldn't let the parents consent to that for children because the child has to make because they have to be old enough to know what they're giving up. They also aren't informing them, basically the the urinary tract complications that go on and on and on.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has recently been saying our children, as in the US government has a stake in each of our children, and that they're not wholly ours as parents, but that they belong somehow to the government. Is that a slip of the tongue, or do you think that's intentional that that's entered his mess
Speaker 30: I think the language is very purposeful, and you remember Hillary Clinton. It takes a village. It isn't about the parents. It isn't about the individuals. It's about a mother and a father.
You know, then there's a birthing person and maybe somebody else around sometimes. I mean, it is really about thinking that the traditional family unit, the traditional family values,
Speaker 2: former professor at Brown University School of Public Health, did a study of 256 trans identifying teens that found 82% were girls, 62.5% had at least one other mental health diagnosis before identifying as trans, nearly 40% had a friend group where the majority identified as transgender. Nearly 50% tried to isolate away from their family. 25% stopped hanging out with non transgender friends, 86.7% showed an increase in social media or Internet use, and to quote the study, 60% of the friend
Speaker 1: by trans activists who support child mutilation is citing a study from the Trevor Project. That study says that giving kids hormones for a sex change will reduce their suicide risk. What they don't tell you is that it wasn't a scientific study at all. It was a quiz, which found youth through targeted ads and offered them $50 prizes to respond. The results also excluded data on the self identified 36% of responding youth who did not want hormone therapy.
They also use this desecration of science to say that puberty blockers would lower the suicide risk for kids too. I think it's safe to say that pharmaceutical company AbbVie got their money's worth when they donated 50 grand to the Trevor Project since they make the drug Lupron that's given to kids as a puberty blocker. It's also given to pedophile child rapists to chemically castrate them, but I'm sure they don't wanna talk about that.
Speaker 2: The FDA has never approved these drugs to be used for transitioning.
Speaker 1: Yet doctors still prescribe it and other so called gender affirming care drugs off label.
Speaker 2: This is the very definition of an experiment, and it's being done on America's children. The drug companies AbbVie and Endo were asked by doctors to seek FDA approval for these drugs, but both declined. Many believe they wanna avoid safety studies. Why isn't the media hounding these pharmaceutical companies, you might ask? Well, in 2020, pharmaceutical companies accounted for about 75% of the T v ad spend in America.
That's 1. Many describe what the Trevor Project is doing as convenience sampling. Convenience sampling involves using respond who are convenient to the researcher. What is the cost of transitioning kids anyways? A Swedish study concluded that transgender people have increased suicide risk after transition.
The study says sex reassigned trans persons of both genders had approximately a 3 time higher risk of all cause mortality than controls. Childhood transition can also result in micropenis, total sterilization, and the inability to ever orgasm. To castrate a child and create a wound that they call an artificial vagina. I want you to listen and ask yourself, how is this different from any of the most evil medical experiments performed on children in the history of humanity?
Speaker 34: That is very new is genital surgery in someone that has underwent pubertal suppression. You don't have enough tissue to line the vaginal canal. So you either have to take a skin graft or take skin from elsewhere or use the surgery. So we're using peritoneum, which is the inner lining of the abdomen to line most of the vaginal canal.
Speaker 1: In the process of making this documentary, likes. She practices something called gender creative parenting. Something happened that I didn't expect. She admitted something that stunned us. It was a silent knowing that what's going on online with this transgender social contagion is wrong.
Some very sick people are profiting off it. I think there's there is a big group of people out there who push back against this parenting style, who also push back against, you know, people who who are transitioning their children. They'll say, you know, essentially that, the Internet is creating social contagion. That kids are on TikTok and they see a 1,000 videos of kids who are saying that they're non binary or whatever it is, and they're just following the trend. And do you think there's any truth to that?
You guys' questions.
Speaker 35: I love them. I will say a another big reason why I took my kids offline is because there were a couple accounts who did center their accounts around their children and their children's transitions and things like that. And, I started to realize that they were causing somewhat of a discredit to the community because a lot of people obviously would assume they're only doing this for the Cloud. These people have millions of followers. Every video they post of their child, and it has anything to do with their transition, gets millions and millions of views, and essentially they're getting paid.
And some of these accounts are doing ads with these kids.
Speaker 1: They're making a lot of money.
Speaker 35: Yeah. And so, I didn't wanna add to that discredit because I feel like if I am sharing my kids that side of the political spectrum does get to say you're doing that for clout. And granted, there are still some people who are like you're doing it for clout because even though you're not sharing your kids, you're still gaining clout from talking about your kids. My son, we did, we did film with Disney before the pandemic. While we were filming, he had, like, so many rights.
Like, we had to get a Coogan account, which meant the money would go to him. Most of the money would go to his account. And that he had, like, a tutor on-site, even though he was only 4 at the time. And that tutor made sure that if he was hungry, he ate. If he needed a nap, he took a nap.
She was there to, like, be there for him. And it made me realize, like, there's nothing like that for Internet. Like, for social media parents, there's no Coogan accounts. There's nobody on set making sure that the children are not working 10, 12 hours a day. And then you see these parents doing, like, ads and stuff, and you're just like, that child is making the money.
Speaker 2: This movement isn't hiding its aims. A drag queen named Little Miss Hot Mess made that clear in an academic paper they wrote explicitly recognizing that pride and drag for kids was meant to be political. The sudden inclusion of kids and pride and attending drag shows has nothing to do with tolerance or acceptance. It's not only about sexualizing them either. It's about creating lifelong left wing voters.
Like other activists, little hot mess ghosted us after scheduling an interview with us. You're such
Speaker 20: an awesome mom for their their kid out to a family, friendly, Joachio ladies in Delaware.
Speaker 2: Drag Queen Story Time and Drag Shows for Kids are a political operation at their core meant to divide society, sexualize kids, and destroy the innocence of children. That much seemed clear to us, but we wanted to make sure. So we sat down with Nashville drag queen named Veronica Electronica. Hello.
Speaker 4: Hi. How are you?
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 8: Thanks for having me. I have a question for you guys. What do you guys do when you're not, in front of the camera?
Speaker 2: We're with our family.
Speaker 1: What are
Speaker 8: your last
Speaker 1: names? Starbuck. Starbuck? Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to end the interview.
Speaker 17: Why is that?
Speaker 8: Because I feel very uncomfortable. Can I ask the cameras to get turned off for just a second? I just wanna have a real conversation. I think that when you start equivocating a live performance like drag, that is not an adult themed art form. It is not adult content.
It's not a 21 and up triple x content. It's just it's not.
Speaker 2: We're concerned about children's safety and being exposed to sexually explicit adults who wanna take off their clothes and grind and gyrate in front of children. Could you at least denounce that?
Speaker 8: I'm, Aaron, I am unable to
Speaker 1: I wasn't gonna do this, and this isn't, like, a thing this is the stuff I have a problem with, and you're probably not okay with this. The kid's right there in the background. That's not an enriched child. They're not learning something from this.
Speaker 8: End of the day, that really isn't showing any part of the body that would be considered as illegal. If I show
Speaker 1: you the full video, you will see it.
Speaker 8: I but we have many, many, many things that are happening in our state and our country that are jeopardizing the lives of children, like guns.
Speaker 2: You're you're deflecting conversation though and not answering the question. I so you cannot denounce behavior that is sexually explicit around children.
Speaker 8: I am not saying that. I'm saying I am declining to comment. And even for children? Oh, it's for those kids. I get it.
We have laws protecting children.
Speaker 2: Have you seen any, sexually explicit drag shows marketed as all ages for kids that you would denounce or think there are a problem and that you wanna distance yourself from?
Speaker 1: No. You know this is wrong.
Speaker 8: So That photograph could very easily have been taken at the 50 yard line of the Titans game.
Speaker 1: I would have the same problem.
Speaker 2: Wear g strings.
Speaker 6: Well, they
Speaker 11: But they do. They do. They wear
Speaker 2: g strings as for their legs in children's faces?
Speaker 8: Well, they maybe not wear g strings, but I don't know if that was a if that's a g string. It is. The sound bite of that photograph shows a glimpse of a moment and probably a moving picture. I'm sure that that person wasn't spread eagle there for any I'll pull Do you want
Speaker 1: me to pull it up and show you?
Speaker 2: She denounced behavior that was sexually explicit like that of of somebody spreading their leg showing their g string to a child audience in a show that was explicitly marketed as all ages family friendly, just morally, then would you spread your lights in front of a child like that?
Speaker 8: No. Not on purpose. As a person of faith, I feel personally attacked for the stances that you have and what you and the views that you have toward me, my coworkers, and my community.
Speaker 1: The amount of times I've been told that I hate drag queens and I want them all to die is ridiculous. I I want nothing but good things for people. I just don't want kids to be exposed to sexually explicit stuff.
Speaker 8: I think that your line of questioning was very, misleading.
Speaker 2: Every question we've asked has been respectful, has been about trying to understand that perspective. If if these conversations are shut down and we were not gonna get anywhere, this interview was not about us, but the interview is to hear your perspective. This is your opportunity to tell people that you at least denounce the sexually explicit egregious behavior for children.
Speaker 8: Would that be
Speaker 17: something that far? Regardless of
Speaker 2: the laws, you don't have problem with that behavior in front of children because it's protected by free speech.
Speaker 0: Is that
Speaker 2: what you're saying?
Speaker 1: You know this is wrong.
Speaker 8: So I feel like
Speaker 2: Just a very simple question.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm
Speaker 8: not I'm just an entertainer.
Speaker 2: You're a professional drag queen. That's who I wanted to hear from.
Speaker 8: I am. But just because I'm a professional drag queen doesn't make me an expert in some of the legal conversations.
Speaker 2: We ever asked you any legal question.
Speaker 0: Like
Speaker 2: So you cannot denounce behavior that is sexually explicit around children.
Speaker 8: Well, I don't have to.
Speaker 1: If you want, he can walk you out. It's not the best area. The
Speaker 11: area Joe, a light your might be on. So
Speaker 0: we'll describe
Speaker 8: I do not have a mic on the end.
Speaker 6: Watch your head. I can see.
Speaker 30: Have a wonderful afternoon.
Speaker 0: It's
Speaker 1: Psychology Today reports that 99% of child sexual abuse involves grooming. The methods to groom a child include selecting a victim. A pedophile named Jack Reynolds gave what's now a famous interview where he was asked how he selected his victims.
Speaker 21: How did you get them alone?
Speaker 18: Grooming. I would check out their family situation. I would check out their clothing to see how well they were. When we were on the ballparks or on on the gym floor, you know, I would make sure which ones I wanted to molest. I would give them special attention.
Speaker 21: Were there certain characteristics that you look for in children before molesting them?
Speaker 18: In children, yes. But more I also looked at their families. If I thought the father was a threat, I would not approach the child.
Speaker 1: Predators admit that they select the vulnerable. Those with little supervision online are prime targets. That's one way predators gain access to them. Then those predators develop trust. This can be done many ways, but one is to give rewards such as attention or on social media.
Step 4 is to desensitize the child's sexual content and physical contact. Look no further again than the social media algorithms to do that. Step 5 is what's called post abuse maintenance behaviors. Those can look like persuading a minor that it's normal to be sexually exploited. Social media does this as well when a kid sees that sexualized girls get all the likes.
Social media isn't just sexualizing our kids. It's also a vector of attack in the child trafficking trait. To learn more about this, we talked to someone who was sold online over a 1000 times, beginning at age 14.
Speaker 2: The big news outlet, The Atlantic, ran a headline saying child trafficking, essentially, is a conspiracy theory. Is that true?
Speaker 29: No. That's not true. I wish that was the case, to be honest. I wish that that was really what was going on. But in reality, as I work with 100 of survivors, not only in my state, but all across the country, you know, it's happening.
When we look at our stats, it says that 80% of victims are US citizens. I think sometimes we get this idea that it comes from 3rd world countries, and it's not. It's happening in our own backyard. As I work in safe houses, as I run support groups, the survivors are from here. I've had 2 survivors in the last 5 years that I've been working with survivors, that 2 of them came from a different country.
2. All of the survivors I currently work with are from the United States. When I look at when with the idea that it's only happening somewhere else, it's not happening in America. In my story of exploitation, I was sold in over 12 states total. 12 states.
But it wasn't just me. There was a whole trafficking ring. There were other children, 12, 13, 14 year old. And I think that in some cases, we begin to think that some people believe it's just prostitution. Kids cannot consent to prostitution.
Our kids are being trafficked. It's interesting because I think that that same thought process is a part of what allowed me to stay in modern day slavery as long as I did because people didn't think it was happening.
Speaker 1: So, Keuan, as a survivor of child trafficking, tell us a little bit about the process that yourself and many other kids go through called grooming.
Speaker 29: Yeah. So the grooming process is very intricate and something that can take either a couple weeks to a couple of years depending on the type of trafficking. If we're looking at CSEC, which is a commercial sexual exploitation of children, it's gonna be a maybe a shorter process. But if it's familial trafficking, which is it's happening in the home, it's happening by a guardian, that can take up to a couple of years. So with my grooming process, my trafficker took a couple of months and I was actually boy friended into the life of exploitation.
And what grooming process really looks like is the perpetrator taking the time to fully understand what are the vulnerabilities? Where can I enter into your life to then manipulate you into the actions that the perpetrator perpetrators want you
Speaker 18: to do? When kids are
Speaker 1: groomed today, where is that happening? Yeah. All over.
Speaker 29: I think that that's the scariest part in the world that we live in. When we look at the grooming process, the easiest way that kids are being groomed right now are on social media and online platforms. I think with COVID, it's kind of increased the nature of kids sitting behind the screen without parental control and guidance, which is a scary place for kids
Speaker 1: to be. If I told a parent, you know, would you feel comfortable dropping off your kid at a park where you knew there were 3 or 4 pedophiles hanging around the park and just take the chance that nothing's gonna happen to them. Every parent would say absolutely not. That's crazy. But aren't we essentially doing the same thing online?
We're just dropping them off with almost no supervision while a bunch of pedophiles hang out around them?
Speaker 29: Absolutely. I think it would be crazy to think that they're not on there. I think I think the hard part is that as parents is sometimes we kind of run away from that idea because it makes us uncomfortable. When I think about my exploitation, and starting as being trafficked when I was 14, my buyers knew how old I was, and they purposely purchased me because I was underage.
Speaker 1: As we listened to Keelan, I was struck by the fact that she was the same age when she was first sold that our oldest daughter is now. Made my heart sink. Who could do this to a child? How could this have been prevented? So I asked her.
I watched this video where a pedophile who's in jail was asked, what did you look for in your victims? And what he responded with was honest and kinda jarring. And he said, I looked for the kids who had weak fathers or no fathers
Speaker 0: at all. Yep.
Speaker 1: Is that what you've seen is that the kids who are most at risk are the ones with no fathers around or fathers who are weak and are not going to stand up for their child?
Speaker 29: I think that is definitely vulnerability. When we look at single parent homes, I was raised in a single parent home.
Speaker 1: What do dads need to do to step up to make sure that their kids are not those kids who end up vulnerable to online exploitation?
Speaker 29: Yeah. They have to be a great example of what a real healthy father relationship looks like. I think a lot of times in relationships, we always seek after what we've seen in the home. So if we're in homes that are broken, we often find that in psychology, you continue that cycle in broken relationships over and over again. And so how do you show up for your kids, even if you're not in the same home with the other parent?
Right? Like, sometimes that's just not viable for everybody. Parents go through divorces, but it's still a father's job to show up for their child and be able to sit in those very hard spaces but have honest conversations. So there's a lack of understanding when it comes to the, kind of the structure that a good father brings into that. So when you don't have a parent in the home, what we find a lot of the times is that children are missing it.
So if you're not getting in the home, they're going to seek that validation and outside sources.
Speaker 1: The harm for kids doesn't end with the Internet, big pharma, Wall Street,
Speaker 0: academia, entertainment, or even
Speaker 1: our own government. The pesticide that's in much of the tap water kids drink today and the food that they eat. When Berkeley professor of integrative biology, Tyrone B Hayes investigated atrazine, he did an experiment on frogs where he introduced atrazine to the water. The result was that many of the male frogs turned gay and mated with other male frogs. 1 in 10 actually began to produce eggs and 75% of them were chemically castrated.
So what is atrazine doing to our children? No one seems to want to invest in finding out the answer to that. One limited study on grown men produced results showing that men exposed to atrazine had very poor semen quality. While a rodent study found that atrazine could pose a cancer risk and atrazine isn't alone. Similar studies have found other toxins in non organic foods and tap water.
After reviewing Tyrone Hay's atrazine study on frogs, it got us thinking about how often people we interviewed brought up masculinity.
Speaker 13: I think there's an attack on masculinity. I think that it's watering these men down.
Speaker 19: Yeah. Most people are, like, looking towards celebrities, and they're looking up to people like Santa Smith. Like, that's not even a picture of masculinity. It's just a very, very toxic, culture.
Speaker 17: It is extremely hard and challenging to find, like minded, godly, masculine men. We just have a generation of weak men.
Speaker 13: We need men to, like, rise up and become men.
Speaker 1: You mentioned boys being boys. That's that's how a lot of people see boys looking at porn. And this is sort of an interesting weird thought I had a long time ago, and it's that somehow there was, like, a flip in the matrix where we switched up the way we thought about this. Because if if you caught a boy outside and he's staring in a girl's window watching her change, you'd be like, he's a creep. What a weirdo.
I'm calling the police. But if you see him peering in on her through his computer screen and he's paying $2 on OnlyFans, suddenly, it's just boys being boys getting out some weird urge. But the truth is, you know, if you go back in time, these were seen as the least masculine qualities you could have is you were so emasculated that the only way for you to ever see a woman naked was to be voyeuristic. Mhmm. It's now flipped to that being empowering in some way.
Speaker 29: How did that happen? Oh, that is a good question. That that's an interesting question. I don't
Speaker 11: know. Neither. I don't understand.
Speaker 29: I I think it's interesting because we stopped requiring men to be men. I think that's exactly where it stems. We stopped raising the bar for them to navigate world in a in a different not okay.
Speaker 1: Not just okay, but it's better. Yeah. It's better and it's desirable and they lie and pretend that men are going to want you then. And this will probably be a controversial take, but it's true. Most men, if they want to get married to a woman, they're not looking for the person who's super sexual.
They might go on their page or whatever, but they're actually putting them in a totally different category, and it's not wife category. And if we're thinking about the context, you know, yes, there's anomalies. Some people don't wanna get married. Some people don't wanna have kids. They can do what they wanna do.
The vast majority of people wanna get married and have kids one day. And in that context, we're lying to kids. Uh-huh. These kids are crying out to us. Aren't they?
I mean, do you see that in trafficking survivors you work with? Are they crying out to us to do something and to act like adults and for men to be men and dads to step up and women to be that nurturing, empathetic voice that's finding out, like, what's going on in your heart? Are you okay?
Speaker 29: Oh, absolutely. I think that's the one thing that's missing and that creates the vulnerability in a lot of survivors is they don't have that. But I do think that it's the men's stance that really will create the difference in our children being trafficked or not because they will stand in the way of the vulnerability that's happening if they're being exposed to it.
Speaker 1: We're at this point where it seems like nothing's real that used to be real anymore, and it almost feels like the medical industry and our schools are abusing kids. Am I wrong to think that?
Speaker 29: Oh, no. I think you're completely right. It almost feels like they're test subjects. I think what's happening is they are doing tests, and we're not going to see the effects until about 10 years later when we're sitting here and we're like, we were completely wrong. But at the expense of who?
Like at the expense of our children.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 29: And that's it. No child should have to go through that. When I think about me in high school, like, I was a tomboy. There was nothing in me playing sports and watching video games and playing comics. Like, there was nothing in that space that was like, well, maybe you're a boy.
Right. Like, maybe you should change your like, there was nothing. I didn't have to deal with that. But you're right. Now we've gotten into this narrative of, like, well, if you feel that way, then you should change it.
Speaker 2: Porn is another weapon in this war on children.
Speaker 28: Laurie Petita.
Speaker 2: Why is it important to have sex ed on Pornhub?
Speaker 28: Well, it's important to have sex ed everywhere.
Speaker 2: Are you concerned that having sex ed on Pornhub might, you know, entice minors to come to the site to have access to sex ed?
Speaker 28: Absolutely not. And when it was created, it was created we never advertised it outside of Pornhub.
Speaker 2: Was it ever promoted on social media or anywhere else in the
Speaker 28: news? No. We don't really promote it.
Speaker 29: Pornhub sex ed is here.
Speaker 2: Today, we're gonna talk about healthy masturbation habits, the proper way to use a condom, female anatomy.
Speaker 8: What is normal and what is not for people
Speaker 2: with a penis? What age should sex ed start for kids?
Speaker 28: I believe sex ed should start in in kindergarten in the sex education because, like, they the word sex. But, fortunately, a lot of people think, oh my god. They're gonna teach my children how to have sex.
Speaker 2: Well, I think they think it's sex. You know? Do you believe, you know, some of these, you know, schools of thought believe that children are inherently sexual? Do you is that something that you believe starts at a young age or at what point do you feel like?
Speaker 28: Of course. Of course. Have you never seen a 18 month old masturbating? No.
Speaker 2: I haven't.
Speaker 28: With the hands on their pants or little boys, they touch themselves because it feels good. Their penises get hard. All little boys ask, hey. Look, mommy. My penis is hard.
Like, why is my penis hard?
Speaker 2: Do you think pornography that portrays, you know, child simulation, like with women or men dressed as young children or simulating childlike behaviors drive the the pedophilic behavior and tendencies?
Speaker 28: No. I don't think so.
Speaker 2: A Pornhub representative, I think in the you know, she is a big account influencer, but also is a spokesperson at Pornhub that made a comment about having sex with teenagers.
Speaker 0: Would you even do that?
Speaker 4: This 13 year old?
Speaker 12: I think that He
Speaker 0: could've easily passed away.
Speaker 4: Okay. If I'm Okay. He wasn't necessarily, like, an old looking 13. He you look at him, and he's definitely a child. He's just, like, really like, he had the perfect tan
Speaker 0: and stuff. Doing adult
Speaker 4: hair and
Speaker 0: That shouldn't be considered statutory rape, and, like, it's consensual. And
Speaker 4: No one no one would consider that rape except maybe his mom. And that's the only way she's, like, a total
Speaker 1: I think
Speaker 0: I think there's not one person that would think that's abuse and would just think how lucky that kid is.
Speaker 25: Pretty much.
Speaker 0: I mean and we're specifically, we're talking about Asa and this 13 year old kid.
Speaker 4: Shadi, would you feel morally dirty if I went to the other room? Yeah. This kid? Like, would you look at me different?
Speaker 0: Yeah. At least Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay. If not, maybe, would you look at me different? But, like, would you think that I'm doing something wrong? I would You feel bad for the kids.
Speaker 0: So proud of both of you guys. Be proud because you go to prison, and you We're not talking about right now. Hold on. What are you? A like
Speaker 1: Snitch. User or something? I'm a snitch.
Speaker 0: Are you a snitch? Oh, yeah. Would you snitch on us?
Speaker 4: It sounds like you would. Yeah. Because you're so sure we'd go to jail.
Speaker 0: No. What do you we will never go to jail. I would just hurt you guys. What are you talking about? What are you, the protector of 13 year olds or something?
Speaker 1: I think somebody has What a nerd.
Speaker 2: That something that you Yeah. Support or endorse? It it depends.
Speaker 28: Again, the age of sexual consent is 16 years old, so let's go with the law. And so if there's no position of authority over that 16 year old, then legally, they can choose to have sex with anybody they want.
Speaker 2: Do you think it's problematic that Pornhub doesn't require a consent? Please don't I am not speaking for that.
Speaker 28: I don't know the full story. I only know your version, so I don't wanna ask. I don't wanna
Speaker 2: Oh, I I don't have
Speaker 17: a version.
Speaker 2: It's just it's just a fact Pornhub doesn't verify age or consent. Commenting on that. Are you familiar with the work, you know, of doctor Alfred Kinsey?
Speaker 28: Oh, of course. Yes.
Speaker 2: Do you do you, you know, find his work to be instrumental in shaping your views or or modern sexuality framework?
Speaker 28: Well, I think that he did the he did the biggest, one of the biggest large scale studies. So, I mean, obviously, it opened the door to looking at so many different aspects of sexuality. He was the first really to, especially to look at, back then, called deviant sexuality or fetishes or, like, people really were able to talk about the huge the range of sexuality out there. So certainly, he opened that door.
Speaker 2: Porn companies seem to have no interest in protecting kids because they know it means less traffic. So in Virginia, where they've passed a law to mandate age verification, Pornhub has chosen instead to shut down in the state. A gamble made in hopes that Virginia politicians will give in and change course. Parents could fight this by rallying a wave of legislation in other states requiring age verification for porn until it's impossible for companies like Pornhub to do business without verifying age and consent. Social media companies should face similar restrictions to ensure minors aren't exposed to porn or exploited on their sites.
This is all in our control if the adults in the room stop putting their porn viewing habits in front of child safety and do their job. This generation also reports the highest uses of birth control and psychiatric drugs we've ever seen. A recent study showed use of birth control was linked with higher rates of depression. I saw a statistic the other day that really bothered me too. Not just, the failing numbers in academics, but the absolute crushing levels of depression and despair.
This poll was on 8th graders and 12th graders. And we have near 50% level answering yes to questions like, my life has no meaning. I don't wanna get up in the morning. I don't think life is worth living. This does not bode well for our future in this country.
We're taking away all of the things that throughout history have given life meaning. Family, faith. I believe in personal achievement. I believe that you could do things and that you you matter and that faith matters and your family matters and that your parents are looking out for the best for you. All of those messages are being taken away.
And look at the the levels of depression and despair and just really just sadness and loneliness in our kids.
Speaker 1: We're looking at a generation that is the most faithless we've had in America. They report the highest levels of not believing in god that we've ever seen. Are you afraid that that need to believe in something is being replaced with worshiping wokeness?
Speaker 2: Yes. Absolutely. Several other people have pointed out, especially during COVID, when kids are spending so much time online and the messages that they're getting. And a lot of times, the natural feelings that kids have during puberty or tween years where they're uncomfortable in their body or they're feeling lonely or they feel like nobody likes them, They're finding this group online who are telling them, well, that's because you're trans or you're this, and your parents don't understand you, but we'll be your family now. And it's disturbing that, you know, there are many teachers and counselors who are trying to then affirm these confused kids, as opposed to, you know, years ago, you would, you know, find your group in your neighborhood or in your family or in your church.
Now they're being told that the answer to these feelings is to somehow be medicalized for a lifetime. You know, to you know, these kids probably aren't being told that once you go down that path, you're a medical patient for an entire lifetime. And the alternative is
Speaker 1: being a slave to big pharma in a different direction, being put on, you know, antidepressants at a super young age instead of dealing with whatever the problem is. You know? And and maybe there's an argument that some kids may need some sort of pharmaceutical intervention in some rare cases and stuff, but I think most of the problems people in my generation, your generation dealt with, if you were sad or something like that, these were dealt with in real life. You didn't pop a pill to fix it. It was, you know, human interaction.
It was going outside. It was changing your environment, exercising, all types of different things. Try to deal with the problem first before you jump to that. And it seems like we're putting kids on these these tracks that all end with either, you know, big pharma or some sort of woke endeavor that's supposed to push them, you know, in the direction of leftism.
Speaker 2: If we look at, you know, cultural Marxism or socialism throughout history, It always ends in authoritarianism. It always ends, as you know, from Cuba, bloodshed, China, under Mao, whole pot, Russia. Once you sort of break down the family unit and you break down the things that make life meaningful like traditions and like, values and faith, that it becomes very easy for governments to take over. They also report the highest levels of depression, mental health issues, and lack of faith in God that we've ever seen. It's never been clearer that this generation desperately needs God, something to believe in and an aspirational goal for their life.
Speaker 1: Some might bristle at calling this a war on children, but let's go through a checklist. In wars, there's propaganda. And I don't think anybody can argue that propaganda isn't being used. There's weapons used to mutilate people. Look no further than the images of surgeries being done on kids today to confirm that that's happening.
Wars have soldiers willing to kidnap, maim, and destroy for their ideology.
Speaker 2: And wars have victims.
Speaker 1: We have to use our voices, use our levers of power, take risks, set boundaries, be willing to be unpopular, or called a prude, Embrace family and traditionalism. Embrace the olds that the modern red guard of wokeness wants you to reject. Embrace the outdoors and human connection. Embrace monogamy and marriage. Embrace being your child's leader, not their best friend.
Your kids need you. And so do kids who don't have anyone fighting for them because there's one thing about this war on children that we haven't discussed. Wars have winners and losers. If evil wins, then all of our kids lose. The question we face now is whether good or evil will win this war.
Who wins is up to us. It's up to every one of you. Will we make changes to save our own children? Will we wake up friends and families do the same? Will we return to a time where adults did their greatest duty of protecting childhood innocence?
We begin to truly hold predators accountable with long prison sentences or the death penalty instead of slaps on the wrist. Will we rise to the occasion or be a footnote in history where the winning side of evil laughs about our naive silence as they indoctrinated our kids? The choice is ours. We can choose to be warriors for children or bury our heads as the next generation is influenced by people who hate our values, hate our faith, and hate the foundations of our country. We choose to raise warrior children and to be warriors for children.
What do you choose?
Speaker 36: The enemy is closing in. It seems there's no way we can win. Coming down. We're standing on crumbling ground. And we go
@LozzaFox - Laurence Fox
Watch this documentary from @Martin_Durkin Then share it with a friend. It may change the way you think about the “Climate Crisis” https://t.co/OyLWTbbOIk
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video discusses the skepticism surrounding climate change and the influence of money and politics on the climate change industry. It explores alternative factors that may contribute to climate variations and challenges the notion that extreme weather events are solely caused by human-induced climate change. The video suggests that the climate change industry has become a lucrative business, with financial interests influencing research and policy decisions. It also highlights the pressure to conform to the climate alarm consensus and the political motivations behind it. The video concludes by emphasizing the growing skepticism and anger among the public towards the climate alarm and its impact on their lives and freedoms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?
Speaker 1: This is the story of how an eccentric environmental scare grew into a powerful global industry.
Speaker 2: It's a wonderful business opportunity. Okay? You want climate, we'll give you climate.
Speaker 3: There's a huge amount of money involved. This is a huge big money scam.
Speaker 4: There are not just now 1,000,000,000, but there are 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars at stake.
Speaker 1: It's a story of self interest and big government funding.
Speaker 5: People like me, our careers depend on funding of climate research. This is what I've been doing just about my whole career. This is what the other climate researchers are doing with their whole career. They don't want this to end.
Speaker 6: If CO 2 isn't having the huge negative impacts that we claimed it was having originally, how are we going to stay in business?
Speaker 3: A lot of people's livelihoods depend on it. They're not gonna give that.
Speaker 1: This is a story of the corruption of science.
Speaker 7: There's no such thing as a climate emergency happening on this planet now. It's there's no no evidence of 1.
Speaker 8: The climate alarm is nonsense. You know? It's it's a hoax. I've never liked hoax. I I think scam is a better word, but I'm willing to live with folks.
Speaker 1: It's a story about the bullying and intimidation of anyone who dares to challenge the climate alarm.
Speaker 6: To speak up against or about climate change in any sort of skeptical way was essentially career suicide.
Speaker 9: Activists are even calling for any skepticism to be criminalized.
Speaker 1: It's the story of an assault on individual freedom.
Speaker 8: It's a wonderful way to increase government power. If there's an existential threat out there worldwide, well, you need a powerful worldwide government, you know, to cope with it.
Speaker 9: We see all these kind of, authoritarian measures being adopted in the name of saving the planet.
Speaker 8: You've suddenly got the population under control all over the world.
Speaker 1: We called it industrial progress. Since the industrial revolution, the development of free market capitalist mass production has made ever more goods ever more affordable to ever larger numbers of people. Mass production marched hand in hand with mass consumption. In the modern age, ordinary people enjoy a level of prosperity never before achieved in human history. But all the while, we are told, we were destroying the planet.
Computers have calculated what is in store for us as we produce and consume evermore. The weather will get worse. The planet will boil. We, greedy humans, must accept limits on our lifestyle, consume less, travel less. Those who deny the climate crisis are not just wrong.
They're dangerous, spreading the poison of doubt among a gullible population. These deniers should be shunned and shamed and censored, for these climate deniers are flat earthers. They are anti science. Teaching at New York University is one of these climate deniers. Professor Steven Coonan is one of America's leading physicists.
He was a science adviser to president Obama and both vice president and provost of Caltech, one of the prestigious scientific institutes in the world.
Speaker 2: I teach climate science to my students at NYU, and I always tell them check the data or the papers yourself. And they all come out of that course with their eyes wide open.
Speaker 1: Professor Koonin's best selling book, unsettled, argues that mainstream scientific studies, accepted by official agencies, do not support the notion that there is any kind of climate crisis at all.
Speaker 2: Of course, I've been called a denier. And my response is tell me what I'm denying because I'm quoting from you directly from the official UN Scientific Reports.
Speaker 1: Dick Lindzen also dismisses the claims of climate alarmists. He's one of the world's leading meteorologists, who's professor of meteorology at both Harvard University and MIT, and has served on the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change or IPCC.
Speaker 10: Even the intergovernmental panel on climate change, if you go to their section of working 1 group 1, which is the science, they don't support any of these claims. And I assure you having served on it, it's biased, but you couldn't get any real scientist to agree some of the nonsense that's being promoted.
Speaker 1: Will Hapa is also a denier and is another of America's leading physicists. He has been science adviser to 3 presidents and professor of physics at both Columbia and Princeton University.
Speaker 8: There's this mischievous, idea that's promoted that scientific truth is determined by consensus. In real science, you know, there are always arguments no science has ever settled, you know. It just is absurd when people say the science of climate is settled. It's not there's no such thing as settled science, especially climate.
Speaker 1: Doctor John Clauser is one of the most respected scientists in the world. In 2022, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Speaker 4: The science that's being done is appallingly bad, in my opinion. There are a large number of scientists who are in violent disagreement. They refer to themselves as skeptics. Since I am no longer worried about losing funding or a job, whatever, I call myself a climate change denier.
Speaker 1: These very eminent and respected scientists and others like them are not flat earthers. They do not deny science. So what's the evidence that has caused them to dismiss the climate alarm as nonsense? We are told that current temperatures are unprecedented and dangerously high. It's possible to check if this is true because we have evidence of Earth's climate history dating back 100, 1000, even 1000000 of years.
The desert of Judea by the Dead Sea. Professor Nir Shaviv from the Raqqa Institute of Physics has come here looking for clues. 1000 of years ago, this place was underwater. And etched into the rocks are lines which, if you know how to read them, tell the story of Earth's climate history.
Speaker 11: And here's the climate. We're at the, lake bed of, what used to be Lake Lisan. It's a lake that existed until, the end of the last ice age. Back then, the lake level was maybe a 100 meters above where we were located. When we want to reconstruct climates of the past, we have to, look for evidence, for clues.
And when the, lake existed, it had the deposits. And by looking at these, layers here, we can actually reconstruct how the climate has changed.
Speaker 1: Warmer water means more life. The accumulation of more shells and bones from sea creatures, and other changes that are reflected in the ancient layers of the lakebed. The lines act as a kind of thermometer, and this is just one way geologists can reconstruct past climate.
Speaker 11: In other places, we can go to, stalagmite caves and see the annual rings that you have in the stalagmite. Or we can drill, cores from the, bottom of the the ocean, and then, look at layers there, or many other places. But here, I think this is one of the nicest places because you can actually see you can actually see how, the climate has, changed.
Speaker 1: So when we look back in time, what do we find? For 200000000 years, dinosaurs roamed the Earth, an Earth marked by fertile dense forests teeming with light. And at no time during those 200000000 years were temperatures as cold as they are today.
Speaker 2: If you go back, let's say, 200000000 years, it was maybe 13 degrees warmer than it is now. So on the geological perspective, this is not at all unprecedented.
Speaker 12: For the
Speaker 1: last 500000000 years, temperatures have varied greatly. But for almost all that time, the Earth was much, much warmer than today. Compared to the last half 1000000000 years, the Earth right now is exceptionally cold. In fact, there are very few times when it's been this cold.
Speaker 2: We're relatively cold. Maybe not quite the coldest it's been in 500,000,000 years, but pretty close to it.
Speaker 6: We are in a remarkably cool period if we look over the last 550,000,000 years. In fact, only one other time period in that last five 50000000 years was the temperature as cool as it is now.
Speaker 1: The mammals who now inhabit the earth began to evolve around 60000000 years ago when the world was much warmer than today.
Speaker 6: We just look at the last 65000000 years. So this is after the dinosaurs go extinct. Mammals really start to take over and our evolutionary ancestors start to live on the land. Any time period within the last 65000000 years was warmer than it is essentially today.
Speaker 1: The Earth's mammals, humans included, appear to thrive when it's warm, warmer than it is now.
Speaker 7: There is no doubt that warm is better than cold in geological history. We are a tropical species. A human being in the shade naked dies at 20 C from hypothermia. We evolved on the equator in Africa, and the only reason we were able to get out of there eventually was fire, shelter, and clothing.
Speaker 1: Over the last 50000000 years, temperatures steadily declined, plunging the Earth into what geologists call the late Cenozoic ice age. We are still in that ice age.
Speaker 7: The reason there's all that ice on the poles is because we're in an ice age. Everybody knows that. Who knows anything about the history of the Earth? This is an ice age. We're at the tail end of a 50,000,000 year cooling period, and they're saying it's too hot.
Speaker 13: If we zoom in
Speaker 1: on the past few 1000000 years, we see temperatures sinking, and as they do, fluctuating between extremely cold periods and slightly milder periods. The extremely cold periods are called glacial maxima, when the planet is mostly covered in ice, and the slightly less cold are called glacial minima, when there's just ice at the poles. For the past 10000 years, fortunately, we've been in a slightly less cold glacial minimum known as the Holocene. With milder weather, humans began to emerge from their caves. And several 1000 years ago, we see the rise of the first great civilizations in a blissful period, which, according to many studies, was considerably warmer than today.
This is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Speaker 2: It was called an optimum because people thought that warmer was better.
Speaker 1: Since then, temperatures have declined and begun to fluctuate. In Roman times, there was a blissfully warm period, followed by a brutal cold period in the dark ages.
Speaker 13: Then came
Speaker 1: the Barmen medieval warm period, according to many studies, as warm or warmer than today, followed by especially cold period known as the Little Ice Age, possibly the coldest in the last 10000 years. And here it is, the Roman warm period, the cold dark age, the medieval warm period, and then the very cold little ice age, from which, for the past 300 years or so, we've been recovering. The longest instrumental record of temperature in the world comes from Central England, and this is what it shows. Since the worst of the little ice age from 16 50, the temperature has risen gently by little more than 1 degree Celsius.
Speaker 8: The Central England record of temperature is a is a world treasure. You know, it's the longest continuous record that we have, and it's certainly not a very alarming record. It began in the depths of the little ice age, and so you can see the slight warming that followed the little ice age. And there's certainly nothing very alarming that's happening today, at the very end of the record. Most of the warming that we're observing today is the recovery from the little ice age, whatever caused that.
Speaker 10: Well, you know, we're talking over the entire industrial period of about 1 degree centigrade.
Speaker 1: To put this one degree in perspective, let's look at New York Central Park. Records show that there has been no overall change in temperature here since 1940. But from 1 year to the next, the average temperature can vary by 3 degrees Celsius without many New Yorkers even noticing. In fact, between the warmest year in the 19 sixties and the coolest in 2000, there's a difference of 5 degrees Celsius.
Speaker 2: The average temperature on this day, in this year, might be 5 degrees different from the average temperature a year ago or 2 years.
Speaker 8: You know, when I hear people pontificating about 1 and a half degrees leading to the end of civilization, I think, what have they been smoking? You know? Are you crazy? Right? So
Speaker 1: According to thermometer readings since 18/80, there's been a very mild increase in temperature. Only by stretching the y axis on this graph is the increase noticeable. This is the rising line used by official agencies as proof of global warming. But is it accurate? Professor Ross McKittrick is an expert in statistical analysis at Guelph University.
He noticed something odd about modern thermometer records. Thermometers, even in the same region, give out very different readings depending on where they're located.
Speaker 12: I was interested in the question of how do you explain the spatial pattern of warming? So some places warm a lot, some places don't warm much. And it turns out it's highly correlated with the spatial pattern of economic activity.
Speaker 1: Where there are more people and there is more human activity, there's more heat. This is known as the urban heat island effect.
Speaker 13: Urban heat island effect is essentially London. Right? You pick London. With buildings, with a lot of activities, tends to be a a few degree. I mean, we're talking now Celsius.
Right? Even 4 or 5 degrees Celsius, warm and then our skirt. This is a phenomenon of urbanization. These days, the obvious effect is actually concrete retaining retaining heat.
Speaker 1: This can be illustrated with a satellite heat map of Paris. The center of Paris can be as much as 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding countryside.
Speaker 13: Paris, London, Beijing, Shanghai, you name it. New Delhi, all of them absolutely demonstrated the effects.
Speaker 1: So how has this affected the official temperature record? In the early part of the 20th century, it was normal to erect weather thermometers just outside towns, close enough to check every day, but away from the heat of urban life. But over the 20th century, those towns have expanded. Suburbs have spread. There are more roads, more cars.
Thermometers, which were once outside towns, are now surrounded by shopping malls, offices, factories, and houses.
Speaker 5: These towns and all the locations where thermometers are located, on average, they've all grown in population, let's say, since 18/80. You've got buildings, growing up around the thermometers. You've got parking lots. So you've got all of these non climate influences, which are affecting the temperatures, which raises questions about the quality of thermometer data for monitoring global warming.
Speaker 1: To correct for this corruption of the data, an obvious solution is to use only records from rural weather stations, which have been less affected by urban development. This has now been done by a team led by doctor Willie Soon.
Speaker 13: We combine all the best rural station. Any anything that we can correct for, we correct for. And we show, if you just don't use this data set and use only rural, you you get a very different kind of picture.
Speaker 1: According to rural temperature records, temperatures rose from the 18 eighties but peaked in the 19 forties. Then there was a marked cooling until the 19 seventies. After that, temperatures recover, but are still today barely higher than they were in the 19 forties.
Speaker 13: What we see is that, basically, you have a warming from the 1900, 18, you know, fifties or so to 19 thirties and forties and started to warm and then cool in a substantial way to the seventies, about 76 or so. Instead of a long term systematic warming trend, it has a variability. Multi decade or like every 50, 60 years or so kind of a variation.
Speaker 1: It's not just rural thermometers that show little warming. Merchant ships and other naval vessels have been measuring the temperature of the sea since 19th century. In red, we see the land temperature record since the 18 sixties, which has been inflated by urban thermometers. But in blue is the ocean temperature record. From around 1900, the 2 begin to diverge.
Ocean records show far less warming in the 20th century, and the pattern more closely resembles the rural temperature record.
Speaker 13: Sea is not supposed to be, quote, unquote, contaminated by urban heat island effect. Am I right? Yes. So when we compare the two record, within the range of uncertainty, this behavior actually fits.
Speaker 1: Scientists have also studied temperature change by looking at tree rings, which again shows very little warming. There's a gentle rise till the mid 20th century, a cooling to the 19 seventies, followed by a mild recovery. Once again, it shows temperatures today are barely different to those of the 19 thirties and forties, and the pattern closely resembles rural temperatures. Satellites too seem to be telling a different story. Our ability to measure global temperature accurately took a leap forward when satellites began to orbit the Earth.
One of the scientists who pioneered the use of satellites to measure temperature is doctor Roy Spencer, who in the 19 eighties was senior scientist for climate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
Speaker 5: We were discussing over lunch, isn't there some way we can use satellites to monitor global temperatures? Because as you know, the temperature network of thermometers is pretty skimpy around the world. So it's kinda hard to get a global temperature.
Speaker 1: Doctor Spencer's development of weather satellites was revolutionary. He and his colleague, professor John Christie, have been awarded NASA's medal for exceptional scientific achievement.
Speaker 5: Our satellite data begins in January of 1979. That's when we have complete global coverage, and we have it right up to the present.
Speaker 1: There was one critical question about temperature that satellites were singularly well equipped to answer.
Speaker 5: Has there been a spurious warming that has crept into the global temperature record over land, that's just a result of an increase in population. And that's something that we've been analyzing and working a lot on lately and we're finding that, especially in urban areas, it's large. I mean, since 18/80, most of the warming, it looks like, is due to the urban heat island effect.
Speaker 8: We're lucky to have a few independent scientists like John Christie and Roy Spencer with their satellite measurements of temperature. Before they started releasing this, ground based temperature records were going wild. They were going up you know, like crazy with no no bounds. But now they have to contend with the fact that there's this independent and probably better way of measuring the whole globe's temperature, which is not alarming at all.
Speaker 1: Evidence from multiple sources now agree that the official global temperature record, as used by world governments and reported in the world's media, is showing far too much warming over the last 120 years, artificially inflated by urbanization.
Speaker 12: You look at the weather record, the satellite record, the rural record, the ocean record doesn't warm nearly as much as land. All of these indications show that the, like, the big warming pulse in the record is the northern hemisphere land record, and that's also where most of this data contamination is happening.
Speaker 1: But if the mild warming that has taken place in the last 3 to 400 years, can any of it be attributed to human emissions of CO 2? Professor Henrik Svensmark is visiting the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and taking a stroll in the evolution garden, dedicated to preserving the oldest surviving plant geological past.
Speaker 14: What we have here is a a ginkgo tree, and it's actually a living, fossil in the sense that this type of tree, first appeared about 270,000,000 years ago. On the underside of the leaf, there are what we call stomata, the cells where they can uptake c02. So they're actually measuring how much c02 is in the air, and then they adjust the number of the stomata to how much c02 there is. And by looking at fossils and measuring how many there are at a different time, it says something about what was the level of c02 back in time.
Speaker 1: So when we look back in time, what do we find? Over almost all of the last 500000000 years, the level of CO 2 in the atmosphere has been far, far higher than it is now. Even with modern industry's contribution to c o two levels, by geological standards, the level of atmospheric c o two today is close to being as low as it has ever been.
Speaker 14: At present, we have about 400 parts per million. 50,000,000 years ago, it might have been 2,000 parts per million. So a much, much higher concentration of CO2.
Speaker 6: I think current estimates of global CO2 is 423 or so parts per million today. If we look through the Phanerozoic the last 550,000,000 years we would see a CO 2 on the order of 7,000 parts per million.
Speaker 1: CO 2 is plant food and the result of much higher levels of atmospheric CO 2 in the past was a much much greener world.
Speaker 6: Periods of elevated CO 2 tend to be time periods of of of a huge biodiversity on on the planet. In fact, we're in a c o two famine if we look over the last 550,000,000 years.
Speaker 1: At the depths of the most recent glacial maximum, the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere sank so low, all life on earth came close to extinction.
Speaker 15: They say CO 2 is higher than it's been for a 100000 years, but what they don't tell you in that period they're talking about is that c02 sank so low that all life on earth nearly died.
Speaker 7: 20000 years ago, c02 is at the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth, a 180 parts per million. If it had gone down another 30 parts per million, we'd all be dead.
Speaker 6: There is a low point of c o two where photosynthesis becomes so inefficient that plant life would die, then everything else starts to perish after that.
Speaker 8: During the last, glacial maximum, there's good evidence that in many parts of the world, there was plant starvation from not enough CO 2. So, we should be very grateful that CO 2 levels are beginning to go back up. We're still far from the historical norms, which would be several 1,000 parts per million. There's not enough fossil fuel to get there, but at least we're making a start.
Speaker 1: But has the small recent increase in CO 2 affected the temperature? We would now show you a picture of CO 2, but we can't because it's invisible. C o 2 makes up a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, just 0.04 of a percent. It is just one of 25 different greenhouse gases, which, taken as a whole, form only one part of Earth's complex climate system. So what evidence is there that this trace gas is having any noticeable impact on the climate?
If it were true that higher levels of c o two caused higher temperatures, we should be able to see that in Earth's climate history. Here, scientists are drilling into ancient ice cores. These cores tell us both about past temperatures and c02 levels. Scientists have indeed found a link between temperature and c02. The trouble is it's the wrong way around.
Speaker 8: Though it's true over the last few 1000000 years of the ice age that we're in now that CO 2 and temperature are correlated. But if CO 2 is the driver, it has to change first, and the temperature has to change second.
Speaker 6: In fact, when you start to look at the data very specifically, you see the exact reverse. Temperature starts to rise first. And then on the order of a century to a few centuries later, we start to see a rise in CO2.
Speaker 12: It's long been known that, the temperature actually moves first. So temperature goes up, CO2 goes up after that. Temperature goes down, CO2 goes down.
Speaker 3: Ice ages start when carbon dioxide is at its maximum and ice ages and when carbon dioxide is at its minimum, which is the exact opposite of what would occur if carbon dioxide was controlling the temperature.
Speaker 15: The question of whether CO2 drives the climate is easily resolved. You can look back in time over 100 of 1000000 of years. CO2 levels have changed radically many times. Did this cause temperature change? No.
Absolutely not. CO 2 has never driven temperature changes in the past. Never.
Speaker 1: Nor is it clear in recent times that c o two is having any effect on temperature. Here, we see industrial output of c o two since 17 50. From the mid 19th century to the mid 20th century, there was only a slight increase. It's not until the 19 forties that industrial production of c o two begins to take off. But this doesn't match the temperature record.
According to rural thermometers, most of the warming in the past 200 years occurred before the 19 forties and have barely changed since then.
Speaker 2: One of the embarrassments that IPCC doesn't like to talk about was that the 19 thirties, when human influences were much smaller, were particularly warm.
Speaker 13: That's the puzzle that the first early part where we have such a sharp, warming from the 1900 to 19 thirties and 1940s, c o two could never cause the temperature rise.
Speaker 1: But the 19 thirties and early forties were so hot is puzzling. More puzzling still is what happened next.
Speaker 8: By the end of World War 2, CO 2 was really going up, and yet the temperature was going down.
Speaker 13: From 40 to 70, while the CO 2 continued to rise, these things started to cool. What happened?
Speaker 7: Journalists were writing about the coming ice age. It was on the cover of Time Magazine.
Speaker 3: 19 seventies, the new ice age was the big story.
Speaker 1: And how about since the 19 seventies? According to computer climate models, over the past half century, rising c 02 should have led to this increase in temperature. But according to multiple satellite and balloon measurements, what actually happened was this.
Speaker 5: Well, what we found from the satellite data is that the global atmosphere is not warming up as fast as the climate models say it should be. There's a couple dozen climate models now that have been worked on for decades. You know, 1,000,000,000 of dollars, tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars have been invested in these climate modeling efforts, and we find that generally speaking, virtually all of the climate models produce too much warming over this period since 1979 up to the present. Now, even if we say the surface thermometers are correct, they still don't produce as much warming as most of the climate models say there should have been, let's say, in the last 50 years.
Speaker 2: The models individually and even collectively when you average over all of them in so called ensembles, they don't get it right.
Speaker 8: You can already see that the main, support of the climate alarm movement, which are these enormous computer models, they're clearly wrong. They don't agree with what we observe. They're all running much too hot. They don't get the geographical distribution of temperatures anywhere close. They don't get El Nino, La Nina cycles.
They're they're just nonsense.
Speaker 1: All climate models are based on the assumption that c o two drives temperature change, but actual observations and historical evidence clearly suggest that it doesn't.
Speaker 4: Yes. I assert that there is no connection whatsoever between c 02 and climate change. That's all across a crap in my opinion.
Speaker 7: There is no truth to the idea that the earth is warmer now than it has been in the past. It's a lie. There is no truth that c o two is higher than it should be. That is a lie.
Speaker 1: Earth's climate has changed many times over the course of its long history and will continue to change without any help from us.
Speaker 8: Climate always changes. You know? Who denies climate change? It's always changing.
Speaker 1: But if c o two doesn't drive climate change, what does? In Earth's atmosphere, there are powerful forces at work, and perhaps the most powerful of all are clouds.
Speaker 4: C02 is quite unimportant in controlling the earth's climate. What is important is clouds. Clouds don't absorb any energy at all. They simply reflect all of the sunlight back out into space, big bright white clouds. If you look at the earth you see lots and lots of them and they vary dramatically from one day to the next.
That is 100 of times more powerful than the trivial effects of c02.
Speaker 1: But what controls the number and density of clouds on Earth? Professor Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Institute is in Jerusalem with the astrophysicist Nir Shaviv. Together, they've been exploring cloud variation and its effect on climate. And strangely, they found a link between clouds and exploding supernovae far off in our galaxy.
Speaker 14: When we have big stars, they don't live very long, relatively only maybe a few 1000000 years up to 40000000 years, but they end their life in a huge explosion, which we call the supernova.
Speaker 1: An exploding supernova sends out vast quantities of debris, tiny charged subatomic particles known as cosmic rays, traveling almost at the speed of light. And as they hit Earth, they develop into seeds which attract water vapor and form clouds. Professor Shevive noticed that the amount of cloud cover on Earth is related to our journey round the Milky Way. As our solar system orbits the galaxy over 1000000 of years, it passes through the galaxy's spiral arms, dense clusters of stars. As it does, we are exposed to more or less cloud forming cosmic rays, and this corresponds to historic temperature changes on Earth.
Speaker 11: The really mind boggling thing is that using geology, you can reconstruct the climate on Earth over the past 1000000000 years, and you can reconstruct our galactic journey, and both tell the same story.
Speaker 1: But what about temperature change on shorter time scales? The sun, our source of heat and light, a seething mass of gigantic magnetic storms, which vary in strength and number over time and which affect Earth directly and indirectly. When it is very active, the sun sends giant gusts of solar wind through the solar system. The solar wind warms us indirectly by acting as a barrier, limiting the number of cloud forming cosmic rays reaching Earth.
Speaker 14: So from the sun, we have the solar wind. It carries the sun's magnetic field, out to a large distance, and it works like a shield against cosmic rays. When the
Speaker 11: sun is more active, you have a stronger solar wind. You have less cosmic rays reaching the inner solar system and reaching the atmosphere. And the clouds, which are then formed, are less white. They reflect less of the sunlight, which means that it's going to be warmer here on Earth.
Speaker 1: Here is a proxy reconstruction of ocean temperatures over 1000 of years. And here is one of solar activity over the same period. What is causing the ocean temperature to change is clearly variations in solar activity.
Speaker 13: Because IPCC is determined to go on a narrative that only c o two can drive the climate system, they turn off the sun essentially. Right? Because the sun is just a background thing for them. That it doesn't do anything.
Speaker 1: Astrophysicist Willie Soon decided to look again at the rural temperature record for the past 150 years. Then he looked at a record of changes in solar activity over the same period. To doctor Sun, it was obvious that it was the sun, not c02, that was driving temperature.
Speaker 13: As of 2023, IPCC says is that the sun have absolutely zero chance in to explain the changes of the climate system on broad scale, let's say global warming on Northern Hemisphere. We say no. We can easily deperate the sun. Can I explain all of it? There's 0 for the c o two, 100% for the sun.
How's that?
Speaker 1: Why are these and other studies never reported in the mainstream media? And if climate change is natural, what are we to make of the alleged terrifying increase in extreme weather events, of the heat waves and hurricanes, of forest fires, droughts, and the rest.
Speaker 2: My first instinct as a scientist and what I teach my students is, well, let's look at the data. And when you do that, you discover, as you can read in the IPCC reports themselves, that it's pretty hard to find trends in extreme events, much less attribute them to human influences.
Speaker 12: You've now had decades of putting the idea in people's heads that anytime the weather is bad, it's climate change and greenhouse gases. So I think people at this point can't help themselves. If you have a heat wave, immediately, everybody's thinking, oh, what have we done to the weather?
Speaker 2: If somebody says in the news this is the warmest day since 1980 or something, well, you can look up the temperature records and see for yourself whether it was in fact warmer in the 19 thirties as it often is.
Speaker 1: US temperature records are the best in the world, and here is the official US government record of heat waves in the US over the past century. It shows very clearly that the 19 thirties were far more prone to heat waves than we are today. Not only were there more heat waves in the 19 thirties, the heat waves then were much hotter than those of today. Likewise, official figures show that the number of hot days in the US has markedly declined.
Speaker 3: United States was much hotter in the 1930. North Dakota reached a 121 degrees. South Dakota was a 120 degrees. Wisconsin was a 114 degrees. These sort of temperatures are just completely out of range of anything people experience now.
Speaker 1: A common mistake is to suppose that higher average temperature will mean more hot weather, but this isn't true. Here again is the Central England temperature record, the longest instrumental temperature record in the world. Summer temperatures over the past 3 to 400 years since the end of the little ice age have barely changed at all. It is winter temperatures that have been slightly rising. The earth's climate has not been getting hotter.
It's been getting milder.
Speaker 8: That's certainly being observed all over the world. If you look at temperature records, high temperatures are almost unchanged. But cold temperatures at night or during the winter are are going up a little bit. Not very much, but you can measure it.
Speaker 2: When the average goes up, it's really more due to the coldest temperatures getting warmer. So the temperature's getting milder rather than getting hotter.
Speaker 1: What about the increasing number of wildfires we're often told about?
Speaker 2: If you look at the actual number of forest fires from satellite observations, the actual number's going down.
Speaker 1: Here is an estimate of global wildfires since 1900. It shows a clear decline. And here is a record of areas affected by wildfires in the US. It shows that wildfires were far, far worse in the 19 thirties.
Speaker 13: From 19 thirties and 19 twenties when you have data, it was huge. Five to 10 times bigger than the current level.
Speaker 1: How about hurricanes? The US has by far the best record of hurricane activity in the world. Over the past 120 years, there is no overall change. In fact, the trend is slightly down.
Speaker 2: When you look at the data for hurricanes, technically tropical cyclones, you see that there is no long term trend.
Speaker 1: How about the rest of the world? Here is a chart of global hurricane activity over the past 40 years.
Speaker 8: The hurricanes have been around forever. You know? We've got good proxy records of hurricanes, and, there's been no change in their frequency. Even the IPCC admits that.
Speaker 1: How about melting ice caps and drought? Here's a satellite record of temperature in Antarctica since the late 19 seventies. And here is a record of global drought since 1950. There is no And here is a record of global drought since 1950. There is no observable increase at all.
Polar bears are meant to be going extinct, but studies suggest their numbers are growing. The Great Barrier Reef too has recently reached record levels.
Speaker 7: There's no such thing as a climate emergency happening on this planet now. It's there's no no evidence of 1.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The extreme weather event story is is just absurd. There there's no basis to it at all. It's just based on propaganda. The actual data shows the opposite.
Speaker 2: I've shown you the official data, the official science. Tell me what I'm denying.
Speaker 8: The climate alarm is nonsense. You know, it's it's a hoax. As as a I I don't I've never liked hoax. I I think scam is a better word, but I'm willing to live with hoax.
Speaker 1: But why are we told again and again that man made climate chaos is an undisputed scientific fact beyond question, beyond doubt. To answer this, we must examine the so called consensus on climate change.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Until the 19 eighties, global warming was little more than an eccentric scare story put about by radical environmentalists. But then the cause was picked up by an ambitious young senator, Al Gore, who would soon become vice president. A $1,000,000,000 a year of public money was made available for research into climate change. This quickly rose to 2,000,000,000.
Speaker 4: Up to that level.
Speaker 1: Academic researchers in various disciplines began to apply for this climate funding.
Speaker 2: If you want to qualify for money that's labeled climate, well, you take whatever you're doing and you add a little bit, of climate speak to it and away you go.
Speaker 10: You're dealing with the sexual habits of cockroaches. You'll add and the impact of climate.
Speaker 12: So all I have to do is add a little wrinkle to my grant application to explain how, well, I'm worried that climate change will mean the death of all the maple trees. And so right away, you qualify for funding.
Speaker 1: Academics of every kind lined up for climate funding. Climate became an exciting new area of interest for sociologists, biologists, professors of English literature, lecturers in gender studies, and many more.
Speaker 10: And it also served to create a community. I mean, you know, you've become a climate scientist now even though you know nothing about the physics of climate.
Speaker 1: Thousands of papers were published on climate change and prostitution, climate change and beer, climate change and the black death, climate change and disability, climate change and video games, and everything else imaginable.
Speaker 12: There's an almost comical list of studies out there. Just do a Google search on climate change and and and everything comes up.
Speaker 1: Few of these papers ever questioned whether climate change was actually true.
Speaker 2: After you've done the research and you write the paper up, sometimes you find there's no effect at all from climate, but you still have to say in your papers, oh, yes. Climate change is real, and, we just need to study this some more.
Speaker 1: Since so few of these so called climate studies challenged the idea of climate change, it was declared that there was a scientific consensus. Climate change must be true. Climate also became a new focus for government funded research bodies.
Speaker 4: Scientific research in the United States tends to be dominantly funded by, government grants. And so whatever government grants are offered, sort of determine much of the science being done.
Speaker 1: It was during the Cold War that many government research bodies were set up. But the end of the Cold War and pressure on government spending has left many of them struggling to justify their continued funding.
Speaker 5: United States Congress only funds problems. Okay? Research into problems, whether it's money that goes to NASA or NOAA or National Science Foundation or Department of Energy or any other alphabet soup, you know, organization.
Speaker 8: It's always been a problem to support your research or your existence or raison d'etre. And so climate was a godsend. If Congress is willing
Speaker 5: to pay you to find evidence of global warming, by golly, as a scientist, we're gonna go find evidence of it because that's what we're what we're being paid to do. And guess what? If you don't find evidence or say the evidence suggests it's not a problem, your funding ends. This totally corrupts the way we look at the science.
Speaker 4: Who the famous gangster asked, why do you rob banks? And he said, well, because that's where the money is.
Speaker 1: The climate alarm brought funds. And the bigger the supposed threat, the more funds seem to flow. The publicly funded science establishment now had a direct financial interest in playing up the alarm.
Speaker 6: So there's a huge incentive to over exaggerate or to speak in hyperbole, even if the data doesn't support exactly what you're saying, because that's what brings the funds. I was in that boat. I was someone that was defending climate change as a grad student, quite a bit, because the truth is I didn't give it too much thought, but I, I thought well, it's getting a ton of attention. It brings a ton of money into the earth sciences. Even if I don't buy all the hyperbole, what's the problem?
Speaker 1: By the late 19 nineties, what had started as an environmental scare story was gaining momentum. Western governments and their senior civil servants were more than willing to address the climate problem. Green taxes were levied, green regulation expanded, and this in turn generated more climate related jobs and activity.
Speaker 12: Take the banking sector, for instance. Say to a banker, we want you to file reports with the the regulatory commission on how climate change is gonna affect your bank. Well, the banker doesn't know anything about this subject, so then they have to commission studies from academics. And, of course, the academics are happy to come and tell them, well, it's gonna be terrible for your bank. It's gonna cause all kinds of problems, and you could you need to give us money to research this.
Speaker 1: Green subsidies and regulation meant there was now money to be made in climate. Renewables firms sprouted. Consultancy firms offered advice on what they called sustainability and climate compliance.
Speaker 2: It's a wonderful business opportunity. Okay? You want climate, we'll give you climate.
Speaker 1: The renewables industry alone now turns over a $1,000,000,000,000 a year, and that's expected to double in the next few years.
Speaker 4: What used to be a cottage industry has is now blossomed to become a major part of the world economy.
Speaker 1: The growth of this climate industry has seen an explosion of highly paid green jobs. Chief sustainability officers, carbon offset advisors, ESG consultants, climate compliance lawyers, and countless others.
Speaker 6: Students started to come into our departments as earth science departments with a focus on climate. That never happened before. But they started to look at their career prospects, and they were smart, and they were looking at who's hiring. And the fact of the matter was is that everything in the hiring pool had climate somewhere attached to the name.
Speaker 12: I started a few years ago seeing programs like, a master's degree in climate finance. And I just what on earth is is climate I don't understand what a master's degree in finance is. Well, now you need a university that's going to teach this program. You need professors of climate finance.
Speaker 9: Every single school or university or business will have a climate officer or climate officers and a climate program. And you look at any of these institutions or businesses, you will find they all are signed up to it, and anyone who hasn't signed up will come under pressure.
Speaker 1: At the last gathering of the publicly funded UN's IPCC, 70,000 delegates flew in from around the world. Government bureaucrats, green NGOs, carbon sequestration consultants, environmental journalists, heads of renewables companies. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs worldwide now depend on the climate crisis.
Speaker 12: When you start building this enormous population whose job is to manage the crisis and, and also, explicitly to make sure that people are alarmed about the crisis because this whole industry depends on the existence of the crisis.
Speaker 1: But therein lies the one great threat to this multi $1,000,000,000,000 industry. All the jobs, all of the funding are totally dependent on there being a climate crisis. If
Speaker 6: c o two isn't having the huge negative impacts that we claimed it was having originally, how are we going to stay in business? How do we justify our existence if climate change isn't this existential threat that we claimed it was over the last 4 decades or so?
Speaker 5: People like me, our careers depend on funding of climate research. This is what I've been doing just about my whole career. This is what the other climate researchers are doing with their whole career. They don't want this to end.
Speaker 2: If NASA
Speaker 3: said global warming is not a problem, where does their funding disappears? Right? So they can't say that. I mean, you've got the United Nations intergovernmental panel for climate change. If they said the climate isn't changing, they'd have no reason to exist.
Speaker 6: The IPCC has a self preservation instinct to show that climate change is an existential threat. Otherwise, there's no reason for them to be collecting the money and doing the work in the first place.
Speaker 4: There are not just now 1,000,000,000, but there are 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars at stake.
Speaker 3: There's a huge amount of money involved. This is a huge big money scam. A lot of people's livelihoods depend on it. They're not
Speaker 2: gonna give that up. If suddenly the notion becomes apparent that this is not such a problem, you're gonna see that as an existential threat.
Speaker 1: Scientists who studied the natural causes of climate change began to be viewed with suspicion as 2 Harvard astrophysicists discovered.
Speaker 13: How much does the sun change, and how does it change, and why does it change? And then we didn't even want to get into the temperature record. The climate thing immediately, they will come after because when we started to estimate that the sun changed by quite, you know, significantly in terms of climatic sense, immediately the attack is there. Because it's not following the narrative because they need the c o two to be the only one, the only dominant player.
Speaker 16: When you try to say, well, see, we're just looking for the background of natural variability, which the response would be we can't have natural changes as an effect. It has to be human caused. And some of that was directly stated, but most of it was indirect. Your funding for this kind of project will be dropped. This kind of project doesn't go anywhere.
Speaker 10: By that time, anything that contradicted the narrative of global warming as a serious problem was not going to get funded.
Speaker 1: Editors of academic journals came under pressure not to accept papers, which were deemed to be skeptical of the climate crisis.
Speaker 10: We will not publish anything that questions this. I mean, it's not something surreptitious.
Speaker 1: Scientists who dared to point out in public that there was no climate chaos began to be sidelined and shunned.
Speaker 12: If a scientifically qualified person stands up and says, we don't see an upward trend in the data on Pacific typhoons, well, suddenly they lose standing to address the topic of Pacific typhoons, not because what they said is wrong, but because it's off message. They can marginalize any kind of criticism of the narrative by saying you're not qualified to talk about this because you don't support the narrative. That is then and then having marginalized everyone who doesn't support the narrative, they can turn around and say, well, everybody who counts supports the narrative, so we must be right.
Speaker 1: Journalists ignored skeptics and instead offered headlines to anyone prepared to make the most outrageous claims and predictions
Speaker 5: doesn't come true. You're still gonna retain your status as an expert, and the media is still gonna come and ask you for your opinion even though you were crazy wrong about your predictions.
Speaker 1: But the consensus on climate is not only enforced by those in the climate industry. To explain the broader appeal of the climate alarm, we must look at the politics behind climate. From the start, the climate scare was political. It came from the environmental movement, the sworn enemy of free market industrial capitalism.
Speaker 9: Finally, we've got them. We can claim that it is the free markets who are destroying the planet, and we need big government to save us.
Speaker 1: The climate problem, it is said, stems from the irresponsible actions of greedy, feckless individuals who have too many babies and drive too much and consume too many products, and of the capitalist corporations who pander to their whims. The solution is for government to have greater power to regulate private companies, but also to guide and reshape the lives and habits of individuals. The
Speaker 12: policy agenda has sprawled into micromanaging everybody's lives on the most minute detail, what kind of stove you can use, what kind of heater you can have, how much you can set the thermostat out, where you can drive, what kind of car. You can't according to the the planners, we're not gonna have internal combustion engines an hour from now.
Speaker 5: All of these things require the government to get involved. Right? Because the government has to sort of force changes upon the public. If it was up to the public, we wouldn't be buying electric vehicles because, you know, they're impractical.
Speaker 1: Support for the climate alarm is now virtually synonymous with disdain for free market capitalism and a
Speaker 5: yearning for bigger government. It's liberals versus conservatives in the United States. And generally speaking, liberals are worried that we're destroying the planet, and they're also, of course, for big government. And then conservatives are are at the other end of the spectrum where they a lot of them don't believe that we're destroying the planet and they don't want government involved in their personal lives.
Speaker 1: Paying lip service to the climate alarm has become almost universal among those who depend on government for their livelihoods. This includes those in the publicly funded education, arts, and science establishments. Tony Heller recalls his time at Los Alamos Labs.
Speaker 3: The entire county of Los Alamos was kept going by government money that we we had the highest incomes in the state. So naturally, people who lived in Los Alamos supported big government because that was where their livelihood came from. That was where their good schools came from. You know, every everything good unless all of us came from the government. So, of course, they were all believers in big governments.
Speaker 1: Among the largely publicly funded Western intelligentsia, support for more government spending and regulation is almost a defining moral badge. In these circles, to question the climate alarm is socially unacceptable. To be a climate skeptic is taboo.
Speaker 6: Somebody that goes against it, it really does get met with a lot of anger and vitriol and you know, you're called a denier, a science denier, and a heretic. Your colleagues won't engage
Speaker 2: with you anymore. You don't get invited to conferences. Your students, may desert you. This is all really terrible.
Speaker 1: Professors Henrik Swensmark and Nir Shaviv describe what happened when they published their results on the climatic effects of solar activity.
Speaker 14: It was like all hell had broken loose because of this work. I had no idea that things would, escalate as they did, and it completely changed my life.
Speaker 11: Once we said that, people didn't like hearing it, and we became a persona non grata.
Speaker 14: I mean, I have so many instances of people doing really nasty things. When I applied for a job, a group of scientists writes to the university say they shouldn't hire me. And that's a typical story,
Speaker 11: unfortunately. If you don't agree with the standard, polemic, you become an outcast. You'll shun as if you have leprosy.
Speaker 1: For professor Sally Balayounas, the personal attacks became too much.
Speaker 16: I retired early, and my family said I should have retired even sooner, years sooner. So they noticed the toll. It took a toll on them and me.
Speaker 1: Doctor Matthew Wailicki was an assistant professor of geology at the University of Alabama when he decided to speak out about the climate scare. As a result of the backlash, he has decided to leave teaching.
Speaker 6: To speak up about climate change in any sort of skeptical way was essentially career suicide. Absolutely. There was no possible way that I would publish in quite a few of the mainstream journals that I was required to publish in. I essentially isolated myself from many of the funding institutions. This is one of the reasons you can build a consensus in a community is because anybody who is skeptical of that consensus essentially gets kicked out
Speaker 2: of the community. Speaking out in scientific ways that go contrary to the consensus, I would say is a career killer for people at the early stage of their careers.
Speaker 8: If I were 30 years old in a university trying to make a career, I I would certainly keep my mouth shut. And in fact, I I went to some effort to keep my mouth shut when I was younger. I I knew climate was nonsense then, but I was a little bit careful.
Speaker 10: If a young person is questioning this, they can't put that in a proposal. The proposal will be denied, and they can't effectively publish because the gatekeeper will keep them out. And so it it would end their career.
Speaker 3: You have to go along with with the global warming story. If you don't, you're gonna get cut off. You're gonna lose funding. You're gonna get your career ruined. You're gonna be trashed by the community.
You'll be despised by your coworkers.
Speaker 1: The so called consensus on climate has itself become a weapon, a form of bullying, intimidation, and censorship used against those who refuse to conform.
Speaker 6: It's a it's a tool that people use to bludgeon their opponents and the skeptics and to attack their character.
Speaker 1: According to its critics, far from being scientific, the militant intolerant climate consensus represents a devastating assault on free scientific inquiry.
Speaker 2: I see my job as a scientist as just laying out the facts and letting people decide what they wanna do. When you can't talk about the facts, things become corrupt.
Speaker 16: If you shut the door on ideas, if you say you're not allowed to test it, you're not allowed to have that idea, you've left the realm of science.
Speaker 5: I don't think climate researchers will ever back down from their claim that increasing c 02 is the control knob on today's climate system. I I don't think they will ever back down from that no matter what the evidence is.
Speaker 10: It's clear it's now a cult completely divorced from science.
Speaker 1: But the apparently unstoppable climate scare does not just represent an attack on science. It is starting to shape for us a new kind of society. Environmentalists like to pose as anti establishment, but their demands are well received and piously echoed by King Charles and the archbishop of Canterbury, the BBC, the UN, the EU, by heads of government, the World Bank, and World Economic Forum, in fact, by the entire state funded ruling establishment.
Speaker 5: Global warming is like the perfect problem that government can get involved in to grow the influence of government.
Speaker 8: It's a wonderful way to increase government power. And, if there's an existential threat out there as worldwide, well, you need a powerful worldwide government, you know, to cope with it.
Speaker 17: If you're a climate activist, you're actually facilitating a huge, validation of the government running our lives.
Speaker 18: Many environmentalists, most environmental, all environmentalists who consider themselves to be radical progressive alternatives are in fact simply reinforcing the mantras and the mainstream arguments of the entire establishment.
Speaker 17: The demands on the government mean that the government suddenly gains the authority to interfere into every nook and cranny of our lives and how we live.
Speaker 6: Everything has a climate narrative attached to it. How much you consume, where you spend your money, how much you travel, who you interact with, what types of food you eat, whether you eat meat. Everything has some sort of aspect that can be controlled with a climate lens.
Speaker 12: Suppose 20 years ago, somebody had hatched the idea that I would really like to ban cheap energy. I'd really like to control everybody's appliance purchases. I'd really like to tell everybody where they can go. And, basically, I'd like to have dictatorial control over everything. Well, it's not gonna fly.
I know everybody would think you're a knot and would ignore you. But fast forward 20 years, that's what's happening.
Speaker 1: The publicly funded establishment in the west is so large and powerful that it's able to impose and enforce the official consensus on climate through its control of schools, universities, government, and much of the media. State broadcasters like the BBC exclude climate skeptics. Broadcasting regulatory bodies forbid private stations from disseminating skeptical views, threatening them with having their broadcasting licenses revoked.
Speaker 9: What normally happens in an emergency is that all normal forms of openness and democracy have to be suppressed because how else to deal with an emergency? So we are facing a situation, not unlike lockdown, where basically all normal forms of behavior, normal forms of social communication, and normal forms of democracy are essentially ruled out. Activists are even calling for any skepticism to be criminalized.
Speaker 1: In certain jobs and professions, it is now dangerous to express dissent on climate.
Speaker 9: It's no surprise that people, who are more skeptical will think twice before voicing their concerns because they might risk their careers, they might risk their business, they might risk being sacked.
Speaker 7: If you're a professional of any kind in science or law or medicine, if you belong to a professional association or you are in a university, you can be fired for saying what you believe.
Speaker 9: The consequence is a censorious authoritarian regime that has to control every move, every word, everything you want to do because everything you do is a potential risk to the survival of mankind.
Speaker 1: Climate protesters condemn capitalism, but at their anti capitalist rallies, it's hard to spot anyone who looks like a worker, like a docker or crane driver or steel worker or a beautician or a trucker. The workers, it appears, are totally absent from these rallies and for very good reason. Today's climate alarmists complain not that capitalism isn't producing enough, but that it's producing too much.
Speaker 17: The modern capitalist system has led to prosperity. More and more people have more and more things. The modern anti capitalism of the present time is a critique of capitalism that it gives us too much.
Speaker 19: They think that the problem with capitalism now is actually that it's giving out too many rewards en masse to ordinary workers. And what they want instead, and this is often very explicit actually, is a much more austere, simple kind of lifestyle in which the mass consumption, the consumption choices of the great bulk of the population are controlled or even prohibited.
Speaker 9: You have to consume less. You have to holiday less. You have to drive less. You have to eat less, and so on.
Speaker 1: It seems that what upsets many environmentalists is not the failure, but rather the success of capitalism in producing an abundance of affordable goods for the masses.
Speaker 17: Ordinary working people, for once, we've arrived at a point in history, in the Western world at least, where mass manufacturers allowed them cheap clothes, cheap food, cheap furniture therefore you get a clash when affluent environmentalists express their disdain for mass consumption. People going on those big huge cruise ships. It's like thousands of them. It's like what are they doing? Oh my God.
And all those cruise ships are like ruining Venice, you know, ruining all our beauty. We own them, don't we? They're not what are they going there for?
Speaker 19: What you have here is a classic example of class hypocrisy and self interest masquerading as public spirited concern. You could take these kind of green socialists much more seriously if they lived off grid. They cut their own consumption down to the minimum. They never flew. Instead, you get constant talk about how human consumption is destroying the planet.
But the people making all this talk show absolutely no signs of reducing their own.
Speaker 1: What environmentalists call degrowth is being achieved by the trashing of our conventional energy and transport systems and the forced introduction of expensive and unreliable alternatives. Already, this is having the desired effect on industrial manufacturing, which is straining under the burden of punitive green taxes and regulation and higher energy prices.
Speaker 15: The people behind the climate alarm couldn't give a damn about manufacturing. They have nothing to do with it. They don't know people who work in manufacturing whose jobs and lives depend on it. They're not excited by industry or industrial progress. They explicitly wanna shut it down.
Speaker 1: Kisii, Kenya, East Africa. According to many leading environmentalists, the world's poorest people should not aspire to the lifestyle of people in the first world. The planet will not cope. Grace Nyakananda is one of the many Africans who do not have electricity or gas to cook with or heat their homes. The resulting indoor smoke from burning wood and dried dung is the deadliest form of pollution in the world.
For millions, the cause of lung disease, blindness, and early death. It's not just cheap, reliable electricity that Africa needs. Agricultural productivity here is incredibly low. Increasing it takes fossil fuels to make fertilizer and drive tractors and other farm machinery. Jasper Mashogu is a farmer.
Speaker 20: Each and every African wants to develop and increasing, improving agriculture is one of the easiest ways
Speaker 1: to
Speaker 20: do that. Agriculture is tightly tied to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels that the western nations are saying we should not have access to.
Speaker 1: Around a third of the food produced in Africa rots before it ever reaches the mouths of consumers. To prevent this terrible waste, Africa needs plastic packaging, refrigerated lorries, and good roads. All are opposed by Western environmentalists. All come with industrial development. All rely on affordable fossil fuel energy.
Diarrhea from drinking dirty water still kills 100 of thousands of African children. But clean water requires large industrial water purification plants and a modern water supply network. And this will come only with cheap energy.
Speaker 20: I think it's pretty obvious that the West has got what it has because of fossil fuels. When people say Africa doesn't need fossil fuels, I wonder. I don't think they want what's best for us. They don't want us to develop, and that means we continue being starving. We continue being, poor.
Most people don't know what climate change is. They don't care. They just they want food on their table. They want to beat poverty. They want to beat hunger.
They need money to better their lives. They want to flourish. That's just it.
Speaker 18: When they use the word sustainable development, they're talking about no development. Exactly. I mean, it's the point is is that, you know, to develop sustainably means not to use too much energy, not to use too much carbon, you know, net zero. The idea that you mustn't use too many resources, the fact you mustn't produce enough consumer goods because consumption is bad. So ultimately, you know, the idea of development is out the window.
Speaker 9: The greens think the Africans should never use their resources the way the Europeans
Speaker 1: or the Americans or the
Speaker 9: Canadians or the Australians have used theirs. They are also in favor of punitive taxes, border taxes on any African country that wants to export their goods to Europe if they do use their resource. So that sums up the ethical ruthlessness and depravity of the green agenda.
Speaker 1: The climate alarmists have a problem. Many countries in Africa and across Asia are simply ignoring the environmentalist demands of Western governments and international agencies. Communist China is estimated to be building an average of 2 new coal power plants a week. China now uses more coal than the rest of the world combined.
Speaker 9: Which is one of the reasons why this whole climate agenda is falling apart because the rest of the world is not cutting emissions, is not moving to renewables.
Speaker 1: In the west too, for many people, climate alarmism is wearing thin.
Speaker 15: Ordinary people are not stupid. They have seen one ridiculous claim after another fail over and over. What this does is leave people with a profound and justified cynicism about what the scientific establishment says and about what the government says.
Speaker 1: To fix the climate crisis, we're told we must give up our cars.
Speaker 13: Cars is like fracking.
Speaker 1: We must pay more for fuel, heating, clothes, food, fly less, limit where we go. This attack on mass travel, mass tourism, mass consumption holds little appeal to the masses.
Speaker 17: People have started to realize it's going to cost them a lot of money to simply live the lives that they weren't leading, that they want to lead. And as soon as that started to happen, I could see people in the United Kingdom, who had previously been indifferent to environmentalism, suddenly think, how dare they do that, right? How dare they try and take away what we consider to be not luxuries, but necessities.
Speaker 18: The whole policy of sustainability is about restraint. It's about restrictions, it's about doing less, and that obviously for most people is anathema to their everyday needs.
Speaker 17: The fact that there is actually an ideological movement of people who think that cheap mass production, whether it's houses or anything else, is a problem. I mean, for god's sake, no wonder people become disdainful of the kind of middle class outlook of environmentalism. But that is literally what people say. How can we stop people buying cheap things in shops?
Speaker 1: When climate protesters climbed onto an underground train in London's East End, they were not cheered on by working commuters. They were heard abuse, pelted, angrily dragged off the train, and received rough treatment on the platform.
Speaker 19: If you were to go into a pub, frequented mainly by what the Americans call blue collar workers, you will find that being skeptical about climate change policy is not going to get you thrown out. Quite the contrary, some people will probably buy you a drink. They can tell that behind all the talk about climate, emergency climate crisis, what there actually is, is an animus and a hostility towards them, their lifestyle, their beliefs
Speaker 1: Anti establishment politicians and movements are gaining support.
Speaker 17: What they what they underestimated was the fury that this would meet, with ordinary people who just say you can't do this, so you suddenly get this new movement.
Speaker 1: Many working people are not merely skeptical, but positively angry about the climate alarm and all that flows from it. There is a suspicion or perhaps realization that climate change is an invented scare, driven by self interest and snobbery, cynically promoted by a parasitic publicly funded establishment, hungry for ever more money and power, an assault on the freedom and prosperity of the rest of us.
@HolaKetty - Ketty D
@TrueNorth444 sharing some terrifying 💩. This is a must watch y'all! https://truthsocial.com/@TrueNorthVibes/112360542546647449
True+North (@TrueNorthVibes)
RT: https://truthsocial.com/users/WHIZKIDS/statuses/111013730708977983Unlawful and illegal spying on Americans (and why we should all be concerned with no-warrant #FISA abuse):• DPL Surveillance is just one company among many supplying Government entities with spyware equipment designed to destroy the lives of Targeted Individuals👇🏻• They place the equipment by breaking into your home to place mics and pinhole cameras which are practically undetectable. They also remotely program coordinates on your home to utilize mass-surveillance technology. Levels to this.• How they *use* the data is even more alarming:Live-streaming the footage on the dark web, selling your personal data, and using/compromising your personal information for monetary gain to destroy your financial and personal well-being—> It’s a tactic [they] have perfected.👉🏻Destroying lives of TI’s is apparently big business.Congress just extended the program, but they want you to forget about #FISA and focus on the next big thing.https://dpl-surveillance-equipment.com/#
truthsocial.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe it's crucial to understand PizzaGate. It's a reality, and I highly recommend watching the documentary featuring Liz Crokin to get informed. The evil surrounding this issue is disturbing, and it's time for everyone to confront this truth.
@RealAF_Patriot - RealAF Patriot
If you do not understand what PizzaGate is, it’s time to educate yourself. PizzaGate is absolutely a fact, and this documentary with Liz Crokin is a must watch to get up to speed. It’s the type of evil that will give you nightmares, and we are on the verge of everyone having to face this fact. @LizCrokin
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe it's crucial to understand PizzaGate, as it's a reality that demands attention. I recommend watching the documentary featuring Liz Crokin to grasp the severity of the situation. This is a disturbing truth that we all need to confront.
@ThrillaRilla369 - Thrilla the Gorilla
If you do not understand what PizzaGate is, it’s time to educate yourself. PizzaGate is absolutely a fact, and this documentary with Liz Crokin is a must watch to get up to speed. It’s the type of evil that will give you nightmares, and we are on the verge of everyone having to face this fact. @LizCrokin
@foundring1 - foundring 🇺🇸
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT SANDY HOOK Full Documentary (reupload) https://t.co/X3VEfOQVaX
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Sandy Hook event on December 14, 2012, involved a tragic shooting at an elementary school, leading to the deaths of 26 people. In the aftermath, skepticism arose regarding the official narrative, with questions about the behavior of parents, officials, and the lack of physical evidence. Some independent journalists and researchers began investigating, suggesting that certain individuals involved were actors promoting agendas related to gun control and mental health reform. Anomalies in police reports, witness statements, and the handling of evidence further fueled speculation about the event being staged or manipulated. The documentary emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability, urging viewers to question the official story and seek full disclosure of the facts surrounding Sandy Hook.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay
Speaker 1: governor and I have been spoken to in in an attempt that we might be prepared for something like this playing itself out in our state.
Speaker 2: I hope, I hope they and I hope, the people of Newtown, don't have a crash on their head later.
Speaker 3: Prior to the Sandy Hook event, Newtown Connecticut was most famously known for a 300 acre property called Fairfield Hills. Operating from 1931 to 1995, the Fairfield Hills Hospital housed the area's mentally ill and criminally insane. Uniformly connected by underground tunnels, the 16 red brick buildings was where cruel psychiatric experiments took place involving electric shock therapy, hydrotherapy, and frontal lobotomies. Mysterious deaths and suicides were also connected to this macabre facility. Because of its haunting history, the MTV series Fear used Fairfield Hills as its setting in one of its episodes.
The movie Sleepers, starring Robert De Niro and Kevin Bacon, was also staged in Newtown. Passing through the fearsome tunnels underneath the hospital proved haunting for aspiring adventurers and thrill seekers. For well over 80 years, Fairfield Hills was Newtown's sole cryptic mystery. However, with the passing of the year 2012, the town of Sandy Hook located within Newtown infamously and perhaps forever replaced Fairfield Hills enigmatic nature. Everyone loves a mystery, especially the unsolved variety, but some mysteries are so far reaching as to impact 1,000, even millions of people.
It was on December 14th when the impossible happened. And looking back now, perhaps it was impossible indeed. We were told that a 20 year old, so called autistic kid, with no clear motive opened up on a classroom of elementary school children, allegedly killing 21st graders, 6 adults, and himself. Only 2 women were reported to have survived their injuries, including Natalie Hammond and another woman whose identity was initially redacted. Prior to his shooting spree, Adam Lanza is said to have murdered his own mother, Nancy Lanza, in her bed.
So the story goes. In the immediate aftermath, skeptics felt there was something terribly wrong with the official story and the way the media reported it, with the way the parents acted. With the way the coroner acted, with the way the neighbors acted.
Speaker 4: Nobody nobody knows them, which is odd for this neighborhood. It's very odd because a lot of people in this neighborhood know each other.
Speaker 3: With the way public officials act A lack of physical and video evidence also enhanced the curiosity of the skeptics. A strong public reaction quickly followed the peculiar press conferences and interviews, resulting in a few YouTube videos receiving over 10,000,000 views. As time went on, public reaction died down and the anomalous behavior was swept under the rug and forgotten. However, a few independent journalists and concerned citizens never forgot and stayed the course by deciding to investigate the event for themselves. To see truly once and for all if the event was in fact real or staged.
Did the conspicuous acting of Robbie Parker, the stumbling and fumbling coroner, and the apparent walking around at the firehouse point to a sinister stage event for specific government and corporate agendas? Or were these perceivable red flags just a figment of the imagination? The following segments dealing with a variety of anomalous aspects of the Sandy Hook events, the investigation, the official report, and the people involved were contributed by independent journalists in the Sandy Hook research community. Each participant's segment is narrated in their own voice. However, they're identified only by their YouTube handle and appear in shadow.
This is for two reasons. First, we stand firmly that the information we've provided is accurate and the few conclusions presented are reasonable. There are unknown thousands of people of like mind that could have presented the same information. Secondly, throughout the course of our investigation, there have been numerous attempts to derail our efforts. Most of these have been in the form of attacks on our person and have included direct threats.
There is good reason to protect our identities. Ultimately, the viewer's focus should be on the information and not the presenter.
Speaker 5: Shakespeare wrote, all the world's a stage. After the Sandy Hook event, the stage was set for the parents of the alleged victims to promote gun control, mental health checks, far out school security measures, and changes to school curriculums, all the while collecting 100 of 1,000 of dollars through government grants and donations. Some actors on this stage are literally just that, actors. Some are entertainers, and some are connected to groups who would benefit from this agenda. Let's take a look at a few examples.
Francine Lobos Wheeler, mother of alleged victim, Ben Wheeler, is a former personal assistant to the finance chairwoman of the Democratic Committee, Maureen White. Both Maureen White and her husband, Steven Ratner, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Ratner is known to have, quote, ruffled feathers with gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg, unquote, according to The New York Times. Francine is an actor and a singer who has performed such amazing hits as jumping to conclusions, Nicky Nicky knock knock, and I Can't Tie My Shoes.
Speaker 6: I tell you all in earnest. I don't have to.
Speaker 5: She also starred in the animated porn, Mutant Aliens, in 2001 as the voice of Josie. Her husband, David, is also an actor. He ironically starred in the dark gun film, Faithful, in 2,001. Both can be seen lobbying for gun control in various mainstream media interviews. In fact, Francine became the first person other than Obama or vice president Biden to deliver the White House's weekly address.
Speaker 7: As you've probably noticed, I'm not the president. I'm just a citizen. And as a citizen, I'm here at the White House.
Speaker 5: Mark Barton, parent of alleged victim, Daniel Barton, is a lifelong entertainer, composer, and musician. As shown on the white house dot gov website, Barton leads policy and outreach efforts for Sandy Hook Promise, an organization that is committed to affecting policy in the areas of mental health, gun access, enhanced school security, and the reduction of firearm magazines. Nicole Hockley, mother of Dylan, graduated from Trinity College where she majored in English and theater. She has publicly admitted regret of not continuing her acting and directing career. Perhaps with Sandy Hook, she got her shot.
Jimmy Green, father of Anna Marquez Green, is an entertainer and musician. Both he and his wife, Nelba Marquez Green, are strong advocates for gun control. Scarlett Lewis, mother of Jesse Lewis, is pushing school curriculums with a new age type of cognitive training. In pursuit of this, she is joined by a former CIA agent, Christopher Cook, as well as Barack Obama's sister, Maya Soetoro. She is seen practicing this technique in front of an oversized Newtown choose love banner.
Her communications degree is no doubt handy at speaking events. She appears to revel in the reaction to her preposterous and frankly unbelievable stories of Jesse mystically signaling her from beyond the grave, a medicine show to forward her school curriculum agenda.
Speaker 6: I feel him all around me all the time. I knew in my heart that Jesse had done something brave by running into the line of fire, trying to save his friends, which he was successful. I don't know when Jesse had written it, but it was shortly before he died. And it says, nurturing, healing, love. And 2 days before he had died, he had drawn a picture of an angel standing in front of what is obviously a bad man.
I feel like Jesse was born brave. Jesse was £11 when he was born. And I remember going to the nursery, and all the nurses were gathered around the window taking pictures. And I walked up and I said, what are you taking pictures of? And they said, there's this enormous baby that's crawled at almost out of his bassinet.
And that was Jesse.
Speaker 5: Michelle and Bob Gay, Alyssa and Robbie Parker, Cindy and Mark Mattioli, Krista and Rich Rickos, all parents of the alleged victims have teamed up with Safe and Sound Security. Claiming to keep kids safe, Safe and Sound Security has partnered with navigate prepared, a big brother like security system that surveils entire schools with 360 degree video feeds of classrooms, utility closets, and hallways. In addition to schools, Navigate also monitors government buildings such as a town hall and library at Michelle Gay's hometown in Massachusetts. As founder of Safe and Sound Security, Michelle Gay has promoted this Orwellian school security system throughout the US. Navigate has even donated a system in honor of Michelle Gay's alleged daughter.
Lenny Posner and Veronique Holler Posner are the parents of Noah. Lenny has concerned himself with people who believe Sandy Hook was a hoax. He has participated in group discussions, chats, blogs, and has talked to many researchers. In his article published by the Hartford Courant, he bashes people whom he terms conspiracy theorists and hoaxers. Lenny is the chairman and CEO of Traxswear, a company that specializes in removal of Internet slander, Internet defamation, mugshots, defamations of character, and online public records.
This guy's company would come in handy to any Sandy Hook hoax perpetrators with prior convictions. He could ultimately remove any negative associations from the Internet. Could he be hanging around online bloggers and researchers for the purpose of protecting the Sandy Hook parents? His wife, Veronique Holler's angle is best described by tyranny news network.
Speaker 3: You may remember Veronique Posner or Veronique Holler Posner. Her detailed memorial for Noah Posner, the son she claims to have lost, was featured by CNN's Anderson Cooper. Take some time to learn more about Veronique Holler, and you'll find she's a legal counselor for the government of Switzerland. You can reach her directly at Switzerland's embassy in Washington. How can we be certain this is the same Veronique Hohler Posner?
It was widely reported that she was a nurse by profession. Get yourself a copy of the 7th annual conference of the state's parties to amended protocol 2 to the convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons, which may be deemed to be excessively injurious
Speaker 5: or to have
Speaker 3: indiscriminate effects. She's listed as a diplomatic collaborator for the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs representing Switzerland. Her real life mission to prohibit weapons mirrors her actions while engaged in a grieving mother's scam. While pretending to have lost a 6 year old child to a gun wielding madman, she said, quote, I think he had a mother who, at worst, aided and abetted him. She added, quote, I think there was gross irresponsibility.
Words more fitting of an attorney than an oncology nurse. It gets much worse, though. As I said, she is only pretending to have lost a child. Following the trail of Veronique's friends and family, you arrive at Patricia Ordonez Holler. Right at the top of her Facebook photos page is the familiar face of Noah Posner in what looks like his sister and two drawings obviously made by a child of about 6.
But the strange heading above the four photos reads, 10 years ago, happy birthday, Kevin. We love you. 1 of the two drawings reads, quote, happy Dirk, have a great birthday at the island. From Kevin. Examining the photo, we've all been told as of Noah, we see its EXIF date is Saturday, December 15th 20 12.
Only one day after the Sandy Hook event. Isn't it more likely the photo said to be of Noah is really that of Kevin taken 10 years ago?
Speaker 5: And it is confirmed despite many claiming otherwise that Veronique is in fact from Switzerland. An article from Haaretz focusing on Noah Posner dated December 28, 2012 states quote Veronique was born in Switzerland to French parents who raised her in Scarsdale, New York unquote. Now can it be considered a mere coincidence that 2 Veronique collars, both from Switzerland are calling for unconstitutional gun control measures in the US.
Speaker 8: Such weapons have no place in our society.
Speaker 5: Veronique's anti assault weapon stance is echoed with most of the visible Sandy Hook characters and has been shown to go to even extreme lengths as in the case of Mark Barden and his children.
Speaker 9: My daughter Natalie was was interested in asking him if he could pass some kind of legislation so that the only people that had guns were military personnel and law enforcement.
Speaker 5: Whether you are anti gun or pro gun is not the issue. The issue at hand is that legislation has been passed as a result of the lobbying of these parents after an event that, as we will see, may be entirely fabricated. As a result of the passing of senate bill 1160, Connecticut citizens have publicly voiced their frustrations.
Speaker 10: With the smoke of 10,
Speaker 11: from the ivory tower with the gold top, you decided to create me to be a felon, a class d felony. We're
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 5: Sandy Hook characters are larger than life. They're not afraid to lobby, speak publicly, or pursue their agenda, all the while looking comfortable doing it. Sandy Hook funds reaching upwards of as much as $27,000,000 have been issued out to victim's family members. Yet, parents such as the Kowalskis are still comfortable requesting annual goals for as much as $500,000 while soliciting for these goals at public events. The information presented regarding the Sandy Hook parents is public, can be found by anyone, and is a culmination of research done by many people throughout the past 2 years.
The aforementioned background information was included in this segment to arm you, the viewer with essential information to get you closer to the event. Watching the mainstream media will only give you one side of the coin, as many media pundits have claimed that the Sandy Hook characters were not actors or entertainers. Yet throughout the past 2 years, independent researchers have proved otherwise. And despite their claim that the Sandy Hook event would not define them, the Sandy Hook characters have virtually given up their day job and attained a full time lobbying position. From Delaware to Illinois to Arizona, the Sandy Hook parents have traveled the country promoting their agendas.
This documentary not meant to focus on speculation, but rather focus on lesser known facts, inconsistencies and lies that the general public is unaware of. Remember when Robbie Parker walked out on stage to speak to the media the day after his daughter died? Although common sense will tell you he was acting, this documentary will not focus on pure speculation. Instead, the intention is to give you a broader background and a new perspective on the reality that
Speaker 4: is Sandy Hook.
Speaker 0: Hey. This is Sherry. I just have to mention this. Here's the official police report as things happened. And a trooper video of over 4 hours doesn't show any children evacuating the school.
Well, I found the timeline of when they did evacuate the school of all the kids. Alright. 957. This Mcgever runs with whoever across the parking lot towards the Sandy Hook firehouse. 958.
Keane arrives on the scene and assists with the evacuation of the students and teachers from Sandy Hook Elementary School to the firehouse. They started evacuating the school from the official time at 9:58. Alright. So let's see them evacuating the school. Here is that trooper, that 4 hour trooper vehicle.
You can see it is parked on one side of the parking lot and it has the view all the way over. It has the time at 9:57 and even the seconds. The first thing that we should be seeing is at 9:57:40 runs with blank across the parking lot. Okay? Let's see it.
What are we supposed to see at 9:57:40? We're supposed to see a running across the parking lot. Oh, content redacted. So maybe that's when they ran across the parking lot. Now within a few seconds, they're supposed to start evacuating the school.
Now remember, this trooper is parked all the way on one side of the parking lot and views the parking lot the whole time. Any moment now, we should see either many many many minutes of content redacted or we should see a huge group of children coming out. Of course we need to give them time to start doing it, you know. Okay. So maybe this is when they're coming out.
10 o'clock. Teachers blank and student run across parking lot with a detective. Okay. So at 10 o'clock and 45 seconds. Okay.
Let's, keep going here. We haven't seen the masses of children yet coming out. Oh, somebody else, at 10:0:1 starts helping with the evacuation of the students and the teachers. Content redacted. Now this should last quite a few minutes if they're getting the kids across.
I mean there's a lot of kids to get across. Remember that one picture of FBI agent and so on running with a few kids and they were pictured right there? And the children were taken to the Sandy Hook firehouse at 10:03 Leading a group of young kids out the front at 1003. Let's go back to 1003, shall we? There's 1003.
Let's see. There's 100306. Let's watch this. Video does not match the story. Children are escorted from the front of Sandy Hook.
Another large group coming out. Alright. And then at 1006 so we're gonna have some children being escorted. And at 1006, the people that were in the conference room should be escorted across. And at 1007, escorts blank across.
10:07, children are escorted out of the building. 1007, children are escorted from the northeast corner. 1008, children are escorted out of the building. At 10:12 is when they bring another group of children out to the firehouse out from the gym area. And we're not seeing it.
I'm not seeing the content redacted either. In other words, you know what this shows? This shows the official report does not match the video. This shows there are not masses of children that were evacuated at 10:14:59 escorts children to the firehouse. This vehicle, this police car showed all the way across.
The vehicle is right there looking all the way across during the 4 hours. As you've seen, it does not match the timeline. Alright. There you go. Official story doesn't match video.
Speaker 12: My nickname is Swan Song, and I am the editor of insanemedia.net. And this is the Don Hawksprung file. An online article from the Newtown B was posted December 14, 2012. In part, the article claimed to have received a quote from the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary who stated that a masked man entered the building with a gun and fired more shots than she could count. The only problem was the principal, Don Hochsprung, had allegedly died in the initial hail of gunfire.
A few days later, an embarrassed and ashamed Newtown B published a retraction and apology of the anomalous article. So should we just chalk this one up to the chaos of the day and write it off as a mere mistake? Well, not so fast. While studying the anomalous article, a Bing cash date was noted. A cash date of December 13, 2012, the day before the event.
A shocking discovery to say the least. But before we get our underwear in a bunch, let's see if this seemingly apparent evidence of foreknowledge is but a simple glitch in the system. Puzzled by who the author of the article actually was, as there was no name attributed, I at first assumed it could only be associate editor Shannon Hicks, since she was the first reporter from the Bee on the scene. To confirm, I contacted miss Hicks, who suggested I speak to Curtis Clark, chief editor of the Newtown Bee. Mister Clark, in turn, stated that the writer of the article was John Vauquette, a well known radio personality from Newtown and an associate editor for The Bee.
Vauquette attributed the mistake to the commotion of the day. How could such a crucial misidentification be attributed to the commotion of the day when Hochsprung was a known personality in the community and even appeared in videos from the Newtown Bee in years past? Boquette's response was that the with whom he spoke, face to face, shared some of the same physical attributes as Hawksprung. How this unknown and unidentified woman who shared the same attributes as the Sandy Hook principal, who shared firsthand knowledge of the alleged shooting, and who herself claimed to be the school principal, came into contact with the Newtown Bee in the first place, is also a great mystery. But the greatest mystery of all, and perhaps the only bit of information that could make sense of this mess, is the Bing cache date of December 13th.
If the cache date was found to be correct, it would be monumental as it would prove foreknowledge of the event and disprove anything Phuket and the Newtown Bee stated. And as doctor Wayne Carver so famously said, everything would come crashing down on the heads of Newtown. In an attempt to confirm the validity of the Bing cash date of December 13th, I contacted Bing. Unfortunately, they have no number to call, call, so all correspondence was done by email. After 7 months of correspondence, I finally got my answer.
Leonard, a Microsoft customer support member, stated the following. I understand that you wanted to know the accuracy of the last crawl date that you were able to see from the cache page from Bing. To directly answer your question, the date setting which the web crawler shows on the cache page is accurate. Not satisfied with one response, I went for a second opinion. This time I got, Mark, thank you for getting back to us.
The server cache time is accurate since it is being updated once our crawler visits a certain page. For example, our crawler visits a page today, June 3, 2013. The date reflected on its cache page will be June 3, 2013. The date will change after our web crawler visits the page again. The final icing on the cake came when I found an article entitled, Superintendent Reports on State of Schools.
This article from the Newtown Bee focused on an event that occurred on December 10th, and it was also cached on December 13th, clearly making this cached date accurate. And if that cached date is accurate, then, as they say, that's where the rubber hits the road. Considering these cached dates are correct, which they most certainly are, this is Microsoft we're talking about after all. This brings up many questions. Was Don Hochsprung not supposed to die, but somehow did, and perhaps a drill gone wrong?
Or was this an entirely fabricated event? A drill in which nobody died and Don Hoxsprung is somewhere alive and well. Her daughter, Erica Lafferty, after all, is comfortable making light of her mother's death as she poses with a CIA sweatshirt. I forwarded my original article to Lafferty. She never replied.
Nevertheless, there are many questions, and it's about time somebody started answering.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Peter. I'm an independent journalist. And because of that, you've probably never heard of me, but if you have come across any of my work, it's likely you found it on my YouTube channel, Tyranny News Network. Before I created that channel, I had a blog at tyranny news dot com where I began to publish articles on various social, socioeconomic, and political issues.
It speaks to the success of YouTube that my blog fell far short of receiving the attention that my YouTube channel has, and attention in the form of subscribers to my channel or through whatever means has always been my goal. Attention to what? You might ask. Which I don't find offensive in the least. It demonstrates that you're thinking critically about what I'm presenting and what my motivations are.
Regardless of how corny it sounds, my purpose has been to help others discover history and learn about our present society with enough raw data to form their own perspectives. The major media outlets don't provide us with unvarnished meaningful news and the result is a nation of people with very limited understanding of events taking place in their world. What little they do know is a combination of fallacies and trivial points that aren't sufficient to form a useful world view. I've been fortunate to have stumbled on to researching deep politics. So, as I see it, Sandy Hook is an issue important enough that every American should have a detailed account of the event available to them, and I mean full disclosure.
That's why I'm participating in this project. I'm going to begin my segment with what some will surely call a minor issue, but I tend to measure the significance of certain evidence using an entirely different scale. I view evidence that this synchronous or seemingly coincidental is highly interesting. On the day of the Sandy Hook event, while the activities we've all seen were taking place at the primary crime scene, there was another crime scene being discovered. The investigation was said to have spread into areas near to the school, where it appears from the limited footage available that a search for suspects was taking place.
Later in the day, events were taking place in New Jersey, the arrest of Ryan Lanza, for instance. But the only other officially reported crime scene besides the school itself was the Lanza residence on Yogananda Street. At the time of this production, the Lanza home was left mostly intact. There's very little that would indicate it was the scene of a horrible murder, some minor damage to the garage door, a notice posted on the door. It appears much of the furnishings are still in the home.
The neighborhood is back to its pre school shooting pace, But back in December 2012, the neighborhood was a hub of activity. Residents were stopped and questioned. Yogananda Street, on which the Lances are said to have lived, had been blocked by squad cars and police tape. With the release of the final report, a number of aerial photos of the street and the Lanza home was provided. But it appears from what can be seen that the photos were taken within the span of only a few minutes, and no indication of the time of the photo series is given.
But there is something vaguely interesting about one photo. This white and blue house is said to be the Lanza's. This home next door is said to be the home of the Trent Acosta family. Upon examining the driveway at the Lanza home, there doesn't appear to be any obvious signs of activity having taken place. However, when we examine the Trentacostas driveway, there appears to be tire tracks from cars that drove indiscriminately over their lawn.
To help visualize the tracks, I've highlighted them. Based on what the aerial photos depict, one could draw the conclusion that they were taken later in the day or afternoon. But were there any aerial photos taken from that morning? It turns out that there's at least one. Here's a photo depicting the same general area with the Lanza home on the left and the Trent Acosta home on the right.
But, oddly, the Lanza home doesn't appear to be the focus of attention. The home next door, on the other hand, can be seen to have at least 2 vehicles in the driveway and a couple of figures, which I assume are investigators. It doesn't appear that the home is being used as a staging area for convenience. The barricade created by the squad car and police tape is at the next door driveway. If I didn't know better, this early photo of the scene would give me the impression that the secondary crime scene was this greenhouse.
What were they doing at the home next door? This isn't evidence of anything conclusive at this point, but it's an anomaly that has puzzled me since first seeing this photo.
Speaker 13: Hi. I'm known on YouTube as Odin Rock. On December 14, 2012, I was driving my daughter home from daycare when a news bulletin about a school shooting in Connecticut came on the radio. As soon as we got home, I made sure my daughter was occupied and then turned on the TV news. I was expecting to see a scene of chaos, of weeping, enraged parents, gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair.
What I saw instead was first responders lounging around smiling, parents nonchalantly walking calm children to their cars. Over the next few days, the scene only became more bizarre with conflicting accounts and victims' families seemingly ecstatic and hungry for attention. There were many troubling and suspiciously anomalous characteristics to the event, but what really solidified my gut feeling that something was obscenely wrong with the situation was the blatant cover up and official concealment of evidence to the point we are left to ask if there is any evidence this event took place whatsoever. We could postulate this cover up began more than a year before the event when raised bill 1054, an act concerning the disclosure of pediatric autopsy reports, was introduced in the Connecticut legislature. Initially opposed by chief medical examiner Wayne Carver as redundant, he later inexplicably did an about face and supported the bill, which would end up being passed in October 2011, effectively concealing all pediatric autopsy reports from public examination.
Why do this? Was this ever a problem? Fast forward to the weekend of the event, Debbie Arelia, Newtown Town Clerk, effectively breaks the law by refusing requests from the Associated Press, the New York Post, the Hartford Courant, and other media for copies of the death certificates of the victims. Miss Arelia, the subject of 2 ethics hearings in 2010 and the future wife of Sandy Hook Fire Chief Bill Halstead, soon went so far as to craft legislation with State Representatives Balinski, Hovie and McKinney to restrict all death records and marriage records for perpetuity across the State of Connecticut.
Speaker 4: What else are you talking about? Are we still talking about death certificates? Which has been available for 100 of years?
Speaker 14: I believe the bill covers 4 key elements. Crime scene photos are are top priority for us without a doubt, and that is for the adults as well as children. The 911 tapes because hearing can be just as bad as seeing. There is also questions over the death certificates, which have some private information on them, and also statements, which, we would like to be redacted.
Speaker 13: FOIA reps and professional genealogists were vehemently opposed, along with the press, and editorials were run against it in papers as nationally prominent as the New York Times. As public suspicion intensified, the cover up went into full swing as the original bill was amended to include public release of 9:11 calls, any photographs, and even witness statements. The alleged victim's families were even brought to the Capitol to lobby for the bill, going so far as to stand on the floor of the legislature on the last night of deliberation. They continually stressed the non release of photos of dead children, even though no request had been made. And the release of such photos had been unheard of.
Supporters went so far as to bring race into the debate by enlisting the Black and Puerto Rican caucus to push for the bill to cover all homicides in Connecticut, thereby making all homicide records inaccessible to FOIA requests. Parents also continually brought up in press conferences that they feared the use of such material by conspiracy theorists and Internet bloggers. The bill, which had been drafted in secret behind closed doors and without the usual opportunity for public comment, passed at 2 AM on the last night of legislature before adjournment. It left the release of 911 calls up for debate, but the release of all other records for all homicides in Connecticut would be left up to the discretion of the families. The bill passed unanimously with only 2 no votes and was signed by governor Malloy on June 5, 2013.
Outrage over the bill from the freedom of information advocates led to the formation of the Victims' Privacy and Public's Right to Know Task Force. The 17 member task force was weighed heavily in favor of privacy with only 2 representatives on the side of the Freedom of Information, and they were repeatedly berated in almost every meeting for their perceived insensitivity to the victims' families. Over 6 months, the panel heard from members of the press, law enforcement and the victims' families who repeatedly claimed their rights were being violated by those seeking evidence of a crime. There was still no substantial proof of even having occurred.
Speaker 15: The law also created a 17 member task force to study and make recommendations to the assembly on what should and should not be released about crimes. Among those selected to serve on the task force is officer Jillian Knox of the New Haven Police Department's victim services unit.
Speaker 0: In my city, the victims that I interact with on a daily basis, they feel as though everything needs to be private.
Speaker 15: The legislature and the governor were prompted to act because of Sandy Hook, but it became clear that some believed that was unfair to all of the state's other crime victims.
Speaker 1: Families have a very real interest in not being being, publicized on the radio and television. I think there's a balance of it. The public has a right to know certain things, and I think that's something that the this committee needs to focus on.
Speaker 15: There are other lawyers, victim advocates, media representatives, and state lawmakers on this panel that must make recommendations on where the line should be drawn, including representative Deborah Hovey, who represents Sandy Hook and who has expressed strong opinions about the media.
Speaker 6: Initially, especially those first four or so months, I just felt that the media was over the top.
Speaker 13: At the meeting to review the final report of the panel, the 2 Freedom of Information Representatives were surprised to learn that a 5 year prison term Class D felony provision for the public release of information pertaining to any homicide had been inserted as a recommendation in the report. The report was approved with 15 member support, the 2 freedom of information members abstaining with strong objections. The report resulted in the drafting of senate bill 388, which proposed the non release of any information that would constitute, quote, an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, applicable to any person, not just the families of crime victims. All victims and witnesses names would also remain private.
Speaker 16: Access to basic information, including the names of witnesses, is essential to reversing wrongful convictions. This bill would make those efforts impossible in the state of Connecticut. The language in this section undermines transparency and accountability in our criminal justice system on a massive scale. It's it's Orwellian is what I think it is. Well I it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it my solution is just to keep things the way they are.
Speaker 3: You wanna be 13 311?
Speaker 16: I wanna keep public records public because it's not just murder. It's not just homicides that is insured. It's all public records.
Speaker 13: At the meeting to review the final report, and this is important, and everybody should go watch the video I made of this incident. At the meeting to review the final report of the panel, the 2 FOIA representatives were surprised to learn that a 5 year prison term class d felony provision for the public release of information pertaining to any homicide had been inserted as a recommendation in the report. The report was approved with 15 members support. The 2 FOIA members were abstaining with strong objections.
Speaker 17: Completely absurd.
Speaker 13: It's completely None
Speaker 17: none of this makes any sense if Sandy Hook was a real event, but it makes a whole lot of sense if there's a tremendous amount to cover up because it was only a drill. And the whole state is embarrassed because it was all complicit in the event, so they're doing everything they can, conceal access to the kind of evidence that would refute the story and demonstrate it was a hoax.
Speaker 13: These these 2 FOIA representatives, one of them is almost in tears that they had been sitting through the 6 months of, meetings with these people. You know? And and if you've ever been in that kind of, commission or something, you you develop relationships with the people in the commission, and they're all being friendly with you. And then they pull the rug out from under you at the at the last meeting for the recommendations. And, basically, just bald faced lie to you that that, they had discussed this this 5 year penalty for for releasing any information pertaining to any homicide.
Okay? Not just Sandy Hook. Any homicide. It's just a travesty. Law enforcement and the state can get away with whatever they want to do in Connecticut now.
Okay? The citizens of Connecticut have no recourse now. In effect, the bill left it to law enforcement to decide what information it would release. The implications are horrendous. Those considered wrongly convicted would have no access to information for appeal, and the decision to release information pertaining to corruption and a wide array of abuse by law enforcement would be left up to that same law enforcement agency.
The legislature ended up in deadlock on the amended privacy bill, which means the original draconian limits on release of information still stand. At this point in time, the citizens of Connecticut have no access to records on any homicide, effectively leaving it up to law enforcement what information will be released. In addition to this, Peter Lanza has refused to provide any information on Adam Lanza's mental health. This did not stop him from giving an interview to the New Yorker. When child rights organization, Able Child, petitioned to have the information released on what medications Lanza was on, they were told by the deputy attorney general it would not be released because it may stop the mentally ill from taking their medication.
Add to this the massively redacted official report, the reluctance to release information every step of the way can only be seen as a blatant cover up. Why not release Lanza's medical records? For that matter, why not release any evidence at all of Lanza's presence in the school that day? It may surprise the general public that there has been no evidence presented of a causal nexus between Lanza and the alleged crime. Surely, the release of this information would end most of the speculation by concerned members of the public who have been deemed hoaxers, by those who should have nothing to hide.
Aren't the alleged parents of these children interested in this information? Would it not help us to prevent an event like this in the future if we knew Lance's mental state eating up to that day?
Speaker 18: Hello. My name is Jeff See. I'm an independent blogger and media analyst who runs an alternative YouTube channel called Free Free Radio Revolution. My specialty is to break down events that are reported by the corporate media and try to expose the truth behind these events and what they really are about. I started covering Sandy Hook right after the event occurred.
At first, I reacted like many with grief and anger, but my focus quickly shifted to all the inconsistencies of the official story and the complete ineptitude of the corporate media in investigating the alleged shooting. One of the very first characters that caught my attention was none other than Gene Rosen, a retired pet sitter who had become the focal point of numerous corporate media stories on Sandy Hook. Gene Rosen was portrayed by the corporate media as the hero of Sandy Hook for having provided shelter to 6 Sandy Hook Elementary School children in the wake of the alleged shooting. Important thing to keep in mind while watching this segment is that Gene Rosen has an extensive background in acting and is the CEO of the Newton Cable Advisory. He has also appeared in several stage productions, including a recent production of the fantastics.
Gene Rosen story about how he came across the 6 children on his front lawn after the Sandy Hook shooting changes with every interview. In one interview, he's talking about how he came out of the loft where he fed the cats. In another one, he's talking about he was on his way to breakfast. Then in another interview, he said he saw the children through his window. Finally, he said that he was walking home from breakfast and saw the children on his front lawn.
Upon approaching the children, Gene makes reference to a man speaking kind of harshly in some interviews as well as a school bus driver. While in other interviews, Gene completely omits the man speaking kind of harshly to the children.
Speaker 19: And I saw a man talking to them in a very harsh way, and he seemed agitated. He kept saying, it's gonna be alright. It's gonna be alright.
Speaker 18: One would assume with, Gene's background as being a psychologist who worked at the Newtown Fairfield State Hospital that he would be able to count. Unfortunately, according to the official report, the bus driver who Gene constantly refers to claims that only 4 children were brought to Gene Rosen's house. Gene Rosen's account of what the children told him about their traumatic experience seems very scripted and poorly acted out. Watch all the theatrics he puts into describing the kids who had allegedly just witnessed their beloved teacher, Victoria So to, get shot, and take note of the multiple inconsistencies.
Speaker 19: I can't go back to the school. We can't go back to the school. We can't go back to the school. We don't have a teacher. We don't have a teacher.
Missus So to, missus So to, missus So to is dead. There's blood. She had blood in her mouth, and she fell, and there was 2 guns, a big gun and a small gun. I can't go back to the school. I can't go back to the school.
I don't have a teacher. I don't have a teacher. And then the other boy said, missus So to, my teacher's been shot. I I I could not fathom this. I could not imagine what they were talking about.
I did not and I could not fathom in my mind what had happened.
Speaker 18: Equally puzzling is what Gene did with children that came to his house. Either the parents came and picked them up, or some of them went to the firehouse, or all of them went to the firehouse. Either way, Gene goes out of his way to illustrate the joy that the parents had when they came to the house.
Speaker 7: Explain to me what that moment was like.
Speaker 19: When their parents came, I was so happy. Their parents is what they needed, and their parents came to the house. My arms were not long enough.
Speaker 18: Once again, Gene Rose's testimony completely conflicts with that of the school bus driver in the official report. Whereas Gene Rosen said that all the parents came to his home to pick up the kids or all the kids went to the firehouse. The school bus driver says in the official report that 3 of the 4 kids were picked up by their parents at Gene Rosen's house while the 4th child was taken by both of them to the firehouse. Gene Rosen repeatedly mentions a woman who came to his house with a face frozen in fear after the children had been collected by their parents or after Jean had taken them down to the firehouse. This woman, whose name was only mentioned once, is none other than Scarlett Lewis, the mother of Jesse, who was another hero on that particular day.
Speaker 10: Jesse was a hero that day. He was not just a victim. And I I tell him Nigel, a 6 year old, I think, Nigel, a 6 year old having the presence of mind to take that kind of action. I I would think he would be like all of them, just terrified.
Speaker 18: The purpose of the story line is to bridge the children of Victoria So to's class to Jesse Lewis, who saved their lives by telling them to run while Adam Lanza was reloading his magazine.
Speaker 19: This was the worst thing that happened. This beautiful woman came to my door. She was so pretty, but her face was frozen. It was frozen in fear.
Speaker 18: It it look And so trusty Gene Rosen, the former psychologist and theater actor, has his entire story debunked neatly by the helicopter footage that was filmed on the morning of the shooting at 10:30 AM. One can clearly see mister Rosen bumbling around, perhaps even reciting his lines. There's even a brief interview which he gives, which proves that he was there, which of course means that he couldn't have been at his home with the children nor could he have been there to receive Scarlett Lewis.
Speaker 19: I I wanna hold them. I wanna be with them. I wanna tell them that there is light after the darkness.
Speaker 18: We have already established that Gene Rosen has an acting background. So would it surprise you if we have confirmed evidence that Rosen was indeed acting throughout all of his interviews? Let's take a look at one video in particular. It's a Gene Rosen video that is not from a news outlet, but was uploaded to the Internet nonetheless. In this video, Gene is caught rehearsing his lines.
Let's check it out.
Speaker 19: School bus driver picked them up. I think she had just let off some kids or was in the area. And they came inside the house, and they start talking about blood coming out of her mouth. And they said, what are we gonna do for a teacher? Our teacher's dead.
Matt, I mean, they were so distraught.
Speaker 18: As you've seen from the video, it was the cameraman who corrected Jean. How could a cameraman correct the person talking unless the entire thing was scripted? In case you didn't catch it, the reason why the cameraman corrected Gene was because in this version of the story, Gene states that the children immediately started talking about their teacher dying as they entered the house. It was at this point when the cameraman whispers no, and And Gene waves his arms up in the air and states, Matt. I mean.
In his mainstream media interviews, Gene changes the script by stating that the kids didn't tell him about the teacher dying until 15 to 20 minutes after their stay in his house.
Speaker 20: How did you first learn, and it was 4 little girls and 2 little boys, that they had just run literally from Victoria Sotos classroom, a teacher who was killed in front of them?
Speaker 19: I I didn't learn about it till around 15 minutes or 20 minutes into their stay at my house.
Speaker 18: The obvious reason why the cameraman and Gene are flustered is because Gene would be negligent if he didn't immediately call 911 after hearing the news of a shooting in which a teacher was shot dead. Even though his story is ridiculous as it is, it would hold zero ground if he had done nothing but have the kids play with toys while knowing their teacher was murdered. Who is this math guy anyway? Was it him who uploaded the video to the Internet? And why did he do it?
Gene was literally caught in the act lying. He provided statements to the police. If he is caught deliberately providing false statements, he could be charged with criminal acts for filing false reports and obstruction of justice just to name a few. Not only that, but donation sites were put up in his name. He collected money based on the scripted statement.
He was also spotted walking around at the firehouse. Could it be that he was rehearsing his lines there as well? Is there anyone out there that believes the school bus driver picked up a random assortment of kids after school was in session and then bypasses the firehouse and proceeds to drop them off on a stranger's lawn, then go inside to drink juice and play with toys instead of calling the police? Are we supposed to believe this man who is a known actor and who is caught rehearsing his lines? Was Jean included in this event because of his close proximity to the school?
Was he given donation money to keep him quiet? In a fair and just society, we could present these questions and the obvious discrepancies of Jean's testimonies to the justice system.
Speaker 3: As problematic and concerning as it may be, there is evidence of foreknowledge of the purported shooting that took place in Sandy Hook. Plain and simple, web pages with details of the event were put online before the event took place. And the websites where these pages appeared were the official websites of well known organizations. This evidence of foreknowledge has been met with some of the most belligerent arguments that claim this is untrue. The most common argument being that we simply lack the knowledge required to analyze the data.
Data in these cases refers to the cache of a web page kept by search engines like Bing and Google. So before I get to the evidence of foreknowledge itself, let's identify a few terms and definitions that will help you gain a better understanding of a topic you may or may not be that familiar with. Google is a company that provides many services. But for our purposes, we're going to focus just on their web search service. When you search the web for a word or phrase using Googling, Google presents you with a series of pages that best match your search criteria.
The results are ordered by how close they match. So results on page 1 should be better or more relevant than those on page 20. What is Google providing links to? What are these results? Most results linked to by Google are simply web pages.
Although some of the results will be PDF, Microsoft Word, or other documents, Google's proprietary technology determines when and where those results show up. Since the vast majority of results and the evidence in this case are web pages, we'll limit our discussion to those. Google uses a very complicated and private method choosing which results to display and the order in which to display them. The system is ever changing and increasingly more sophisticated to abate abuse of the system. Google has detected and prevented the most clever of tricks over the years.
Why would anyone want to manipulate Google's system? Imagine if you were a company that sold widgets online and had 20 web pages that advertised your widget. Imagine if through some gaming of the Google system, every search at Google always produced links to your 20 pages before any other pages. Whether the search was Angelina Jolie or Quantum mechanics, your pages came up. Although this is an extreme example, you can see how this might be desirable.
How do web pages get into the results shown by Google? Before a web page can be presented as a search result, Google must first become aware of the page and index it. Then, all the various features of the page and its content can be analyzed so it can be included in search results when appropriate. Page and links to any new pages. Once complete, Google's index is updated accordingly.
This process is ongoing involving many bots and many billions of pages. With that background under our belt, let's examine how to determine the date that a page was last indexed by Google and what that page contained at that time. When Google visits a web page for the first time, determined by a proprietary criteria, Google may capture and store a copy of that page. You can access the cached version of a web page by clicking the link labeled cached, shown with most search listings. Each cached page is assigned an ID and the date it was last cached.
Pages that are more popular will be cached more often. Each time a page is cached, the date is updated. And if the page is changed, the new content will overwrite the old. What constitutes a page is ultimately determined by the URL address of the page. So, if a page exists that is identical in every way to another, except the URL is slightly different, Google will index it as a separate and unique page.
If the URL of a page is changed in any way, then Google will consider it a new page. Even if the content of the page remains the same, a change to the URL will cause Google to index it as a new page. At around the same time, it will remove its former reference to a page. Some pages may be indexed and usually cached as well by Google once, but never qualify to be indexed or cached again based on a number of factors. In these cases, the cached version of the page and the date of cache may be as old as 9 years.
Google is not concerned with certain things that may be contained within the URL like dates for instance, other than key words and phrases it will use to determine the general content of the page. So, if you were to create a page with a URL URL containing the date 7/15/1999, Google will still use the current date when indexing it. Google always records the date their bot visits the page without exception. Hopefully, now you understand the basics in a theoretical sense. Now, let's look at some real life examples to see if we can definitively determine if there was foreknowledge.
And, we'll begin with a smoking gun example that would stand up in court. While we're at it, we'll take note of just how far one person went to confuse people and hide the simple truth. It all began when the website for the Arlington Red Devils posted a web page on their site with a link to a document entitled, a guide on how to talk to children about Sandy Hook. The guide was originally published by Crisis Management Institute. The date of the article shown on the page itself is 12, 10, 2012.
The URL of the page also includes that date. As we just outlined, the only date that we can truly rely on to tell us when the page was last accessed by Googlebot and indexed is the date it was cached or the cache date. To see that, we simply find the cached link for the page. And when Google's cached version of the page loads, that date will always appear in Google's disclaimer box right at the top of the page. Remember though, the cached date is updated each time Googlebot returns to visit the page.
So going through this process after almost 2 years would likely show a much more recent date. But thankfully, many people were curious enough in the days immediately after the event to grab a screenshot of what the page looked like back then. And those screenshots show Google's cached date for the page as 10/13/2012, one day prior to the actual event. So, let's add it up and see what we have here. Disregarding the content of the web page itself, which we've learned can be changed over time, we start with the URL of the page.
As you can see, the URL contains the phrase, talking with your children about the Sandy Hook tragedy. That can only be a specific reference to the Sandy Hook shooting event. Next, we see that Google reports a cached date of 12/13/2012 for that URL. Remember, you 13 2012 for that URL. Remember, URLs can't change or Google considers it a new page.
And I might add that just because we see clear evidence that Google had last indexed the page on 13th, it's very possible the page had been indexed earlier, say, 10th. At which time, Google's cached date would have shown the 10th. Case closed. Here we have an irrefutable example of foreknowledge of the event by at minimum one day. Now, let's see how this simple bit of deduction was extrapolated into a book length investigation that despite its length never came to this conclusion.
A fairly popular alternative news site, Fellowship of the Minds, ran an article back on January 13, 2013 reporting that this same web page appeared to have been online 4 days before the Sandy Hook event. The article caused stir and racked up many comments.
Speaker 4: But a few
Speaker 3: days later, an update to the article was added explaining that many comments had been received, but one in particular from a person named Peter Offerman seemed to provide more insight. So Peter's comment was featured, which began an odyssey of endless technical jargon. This first article garnered 167 comments before comments were closed. Many of those comments were chapter length diatribes by mister Offerman that danced around the technical details of everything from blogging systems to web servers. Each promising to provide the conclusive evidence in the next issue.
This went on for a further 3 articles and nearly 200 further comments. It was clear to me when I posted a comment to the first article that mister Offerman was clearly attempting to confuse the issue and doing a very good job of it. The owner of the site who happens to have penned the 4 articles was likely dazzled by the display and unfortunately taken for a ride. But the evidence was clear. Everyone's familiar with the United Way and it's not surprising that they established a fund to solicit donations for those impacted by the Sandy Hook event.
But it appears they too jumped the gun on the event and published their web page advertising the fund well in advance of the event. In the case of the United Way, a page was noted in the Google search results entitled Sandy Hook School Support Fund and was published to their website for the Western Connecticut region. Unfortunately, I couldn't locate a screenshot taken early enough showing Google's cached date for the page. However, we do see Google's document date of the page shown as December 11, 2012. This isn't definitive since Google may derive that date from the page content which is subject to change.
In some instances, the date is grabbed from the page where the date is actually connected to another article simply linked to on the page. When I examined a copy of the page, I found no dates whatsoever. In those cases, Google claims to revert to the cache date. But since the document date of 12/11/2012 isn't definitive proof of foreknowledge, we need to dig deeper. Deeper.
The website insanemedia.net has done extensive research into this topic and provides us with some important clues. First, they report that the United Way has responded to allegations of foreknowledge and flatly rejected them. But, this is where it gets interesting. Subsequent to that, a public relations firm contracted by the United Way forwarded an email to the daily caller from an engineer at Google reading as follows. This is a technical glitch on our end.
The date Google search engine first saw the page was 12/14/2012 at 6:58 PM. We're looking into a fix, but it may take some weeks. Being somewhat of an expert in these matters, I can say that this explanation is utterly ridiculous. In fact, I find it very difficult to believe that a Google engineer would make such a claim. But given that this is presented as the official explanation from the United Way's perspective, let's see if there's any other evidence that would support that.
As shown right on the page in question, the United Way Fund was actually established by the Newtown Savings Bank. Not surprisingly, the president and CEO of the Newtown Savings Bank is John Trentacosta, the very same Trentacosta that owned the home next door to the Lanza's and where all the activity was taking place on the morning of the event. Mister Trentacosta is a bigger fish than some might think as he's a member of an important council at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Mister Trentacoste is quoted as saying, the Fund came together as a response to countless requests, presumably to counter any criticism that the Fund was simply a fraudulent scheme. But that's just speculation.
However, the statement does present a problem. We know from the Google engineer's statement that the web page soliciting donations for the fund was indexed by Google on 12/14/2012 at 6:58 PM, the very evening of the event. How much earlier than that time was the page first put online is unknown. But, in any case, one has to wonder how it was possible in such a short time to first receive those countless requests, come up with the concept for the fund, meet to plan the whole thing, establish the bank account to collect those donations, coordinate with the United Way, determine the slogans and taglines for the campaign, create the artwork and the web pages themselves, and finally, to get all of that up and running online. If it were possible at all, it would be a world record.
I don't know how many people have donated. But, the total taken in is in the millions. I find the explanations given to account for how quickly this fund was put together to be dubious. In the end, it may be this potentially fraudulent fund and the legal pursuit to reclaim those donations made by innocent people who were simply duped that becomes the first domino to fall in the greater fall of the Sandy Hook Hooks.
Speaker 5: The official report, a 67 100 page data dump deprived of any useful or pertinent information because of its plethora of redactions. Well, that's how most people have described the official report as released by the Connecticut State Police. This report could have put the rest all of the skepticism from people who believe Sandy Hook was indeed a manufactured event. Instead, because of its many inconsistencies and contradictions found inside, even more questions have been raised. The excuse of a rushed report cannot be used in this case because it took almost a whole year to release it.
Due to their lack of urgency, Lieutenant Paul Vance and state's attorney Steven Sudensky came under heavy fire for their lengthy delay. When asked about when he planned on releasing the report to the public, Lieutenant Paul Vance merely replied, quote, nobody ever said that we had to have it done by a certain time, unquote. The egotism of Vance and the withholding of information seems to be a recurring theme. After all, he did, in fact, call himself the master.
Speaker 2: I think it's it's it's up to you to to talk with your legislators and talk
Speaker 21: Well, the legislators don't listen.
Speaker 2: They don't listen. Can do about it, ma'am.
Speaker 21: Yes, there is. Because you can refuse to follow unlawful orders.
Speaker 22: Okay.
Speaker 21: If you can't do that, then means you're an enemy of America.
Speaker 2: Okay, ma'am. I'm not discussing this with I think our conversation's over. I suggest you contact your
Speaker 21: attorney, ma'am. So I realize, sir. Alright. Just remember. Okay?
You're the servant. We're the masters. Okay? And if you come to my home
Speaker 2: I'm the master. You're absolutely right. You're the master.
Speaker 23: So much
Speaker 2: for your No.
Speaker 21: You're the servant. You're the servant. We're the masters.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you
Speaker 21: very much for
Speaker 2: your conversation, ma'am. Okay.
Speaker 5: And in mid 2014, he found himself in a self in a similar bind when he did not release another crime report within a respectful manner of time.
Speaker 3: Was there anything unusual about the state police handling of this because of who was involved?
Speaker 2: Not at all. Thoroughly complete investigation. Arrest was made. It was turned over for, to Superior Court for prosecution.
Speaker 5: Nevertheless, this report which can be downloaded at the government website, cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov is their final word, their official statement, and when we find inconsistencies and contradictions within this report, they should be obligated to defend it. Now one humongous inconsistency can be found in the supplemental DNA reports from the forensic laboratory. The report numbers are shown here. This DNA report consisted of swabbing various areas of the murder weapon found at the Lanza home, which was a 22 caliber Savage rifle. Other items swabbed included a Christmas card, an envelope labeled for the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School, the adhesive side of the stamp, and the exterior and interior door handles of the car located at the crime scene.
These items were then compared to the, quote, known blood of Nancy Lanza, unquote, and a liver swab from a person allegedly said to be Adam Lanza. The results from this report are shocking to say the least. Based on the conclusions given by the forensic science examiner and analyst, Eric Kurita, both Nancy and Adam Lanza are eliminated as contributors to the DNA found on the following
Speaker 4: items.
Speaker 5: In fact, the only items swabbed that could be connected to an atom lens are mixtures. Now a DNA mixture is a given sample that contains the DNA of more than one individual. If you were thinking that Nancy Lanza's DNA would be one of the individuals included in the mixture, you would be wrong. Nancy Lanza was eliminated as a contributor to all of the aforementioned items. Now given these facts, many questions now are raised.
How could there be more than one person's DNA found at the crime scene when according to the official report, Adam Lanza acted alone? Was the DNA contaminated? If so, how could there be any conclusive results? Astonishingly still, on January 7, 2013, a hit was obtained with the convicted offender DNA profile from the New York State Police Investigation Center for the letter entitled, for the young children of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Who is this New York convict?
And what are his connections to the school and to Adam and Nancy Lanza for that matter? Was there ever a follow-up? This seems as if it should be treated with the utmost importance. So why was it swept under the rug, hidden in a 67 100 page pile, and never addressed publicly? How can we believe this official report when the forensic analyst himself concludes that both Nancy and Adam Lanza are eliminated as contributors to the DNA found at the crime scene?
You have to ask yourself, what exactly is going on here? We attempted to find an answer when an email was sent to forensic science examiner, Eric Kurita. In a portion of the email, mister Kurita was asked the following, Quote, would your conclusions indicate any of the following? 1, Adam Lanza was not the shooter. 2, Adam Lanza did not work alone.
3, there was definitely somebody else involved. Was there any follow-up regarding the convict from New York and his possible involvement? Who he is and if your findings resulted in him becoming a suspect? Do you know the contents of what was found inside the envelope and why it was crucial to the investigation? The report states that the DNA sample of Adam Lanza was taken from his liver.
Is this common procedure? Were you ever brought into contact with the shooter's body or was the liver swab the only source of Lance's DNA? Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you, unquote. We have yet to receive a response from mister Kurita. However, there has been one update during the production of this video.
A freedom of information request has been granted to news channel 8 of Connecticut regarding the letter to the young children of Sandy Hook. Although the convict from New York is still unknown, this is what we are now being told.
Speaker 7: David, how did you even learn this letter existed?
Speaker 11: And it was mentioned in the Sandy Hook report released about a year ago, but that report really gave no information about it. Tonight, we have a photocopy of that letter and it's addressed to the students of Sandy Hook sent days after the shooting. Mysterious message claiming to be an apology from the father of the shooter. It was referenced in one of the thousands of pages in the Sandy Hook report. A report criticized for leaving out too much.
It took a freedom of information request from the News eight investigators and a complaint to the freedom of information commission to get our hands on the contents of the envelope. A day before a scheduled hearing, the state police asked us to pull back our complaint. They would just give it to us. Police tested it for fingerprints and DNA. It did not come from Peter Lanza as the envelope says.
They tested it for Adam Lanza's DNA. Police say it didn't match him either. The only match they found was an unnamed felon in New York who they believe licked the envelope.
Speaker 5: This still does not explain why Adam Lanza's DNA was not found on various items at the Lanza home or why there were DNA mixtures found on those items despite there being only 2 alleged people in the house. Nancy Lanza was eliminated as a contributor to all aforementioned items. Moving on to the DNA found at Sandy Hook School, we arrive at amended supplemental DNA report 6. Here we find even more bizarre information. This report includes all of the weapons and magazines Lanza allegedly carried in the school.
Strangely, it is permanent substitute teacher Lauren Russo's DNA, not Lanza's which is found on the pistol grip of the rifle, shoulder stock of the rifle, feed area inside of the magazine, the Glock Magazine, 9 millimeter Sig Sauer Magazine, p mag magazine, and 13 cartridges. Even stranger yet, of the 27 results found in this report, all but 3 are mixtures. The only unredacted DNA source that is distinctly listed alone is that of principal Dawn Hoxsprung. In result number 18, it clearly states the results are consistent with Dawn Hogsprung being the source of the DNA profile from item number 59 s 1, a 10 millimeter auto cartridge. Now if we move to the supplemental DNA report 5, we see that the same item number 59 s one was matched up to an Adam Lanza.
Surprisingly though, Lanza's DNA was eliminated as a contributor to that specific item. Now if that wasn't odd enough for you, according to this same report, he was also eliminated as a contributor to the DNA found on the stock area and forearm of the shotgun, the shotgun shells, and various magazines and cartridges. The shotgun, if you recall, was found in the trunk of the Honda Civic. That very Honda Civic's interior and exterior door handles were also swabbed, but once again, Lanza's DNA was nowhere to be found. He was, however, said to be included as a source for a Sig Sauer Magazine, an item number 58 s one, a different 10 millimeter cartridge.
The suicide weapon he allegedly used contained a DNA mixture. Now as you can see by cross referencing the various DNA reports, nothing seems to add up. Adam Lanza's name, for example, appears in most DNA reports, but this appears from report 6. Why would he be redacted? And why do we find Lauren Rousseau's DNA on so many items?
As one blogger states, it is understandable that body fluids of victims could come into contact with the weapons carried by the murderer. It stretches credibility when that same DNA is found on bullets inside of loaded magazines. Was the supplemental DNA report deliberately designed to confuse and beguile the public in an effort to cover up the truth? If not, what are we supposed to make of these anomalous findings? The forensic science examiner is silent, so we can't expect to find an answer there.
We could ask the lead Sandy Hook investigator from the Western District Crime Squad, but he, William Podgorski, age 49, died suddenly of an undisclosed illness. Lieutenant Paul Vance has proven he's unreliable as he provided the public with false information as to where the gunman was found. In a CBS interview, he quite matter of factly stated that the gunman was found in the hallway. However, we learned he was supposedly found in the classroom.
Speaker 3: And where was the gunman found?
Speaker 12: In the hallway. Outside
Speaker 10: of the classroom. Correct.
Speaker 5: Perhaps the press would help investigate these seemingly blatant inconsistencies. However, they have proven as well to be silent on such issues. The organization, Ablechild, stated it best. Prior to the release of the investigative report, the Courant was all over the shooting at Sandy Hook, but has failed to report on investigative details that scream for answers. It's one thing for lawmakers to ignore investigative material, but when a leading press organization blatantly fails to report on important investigative details, the people of the state truly are not being served.
And finally, with all of the inconsistencies and lies surrounding the event, how can we be certain if DNA samples from the crime scene were really processed? Judging by the few unredacted photos we have of classroom 8, the class room in which 2 adults and 15 children were allegedly murdered, we see no evidence whatsoever of a massacre. The first two photos are images taken just inside the classroom. The last 3 were taken after the interior had been cleared. In the end, it is difficult to come to any accurate conclusion of what the anomalous supplemental DNA report suggests.
And if public officials like Vance really do view themselves as masters, then We The People, in their eyes are the servants and don't deserve answers. If nothing else, that is what has to change.
Speaker 22: The now famous images of the students being led away from the Sandy Hook School by educators and law enforcement personnel were captured by Shannon Hicks. Her photos of the student evacuation were some of the first images shared with the broadcast media and became front page news on papers around the world. Before these pictures were released to the AP and other media hubs, Shannon made a slideshow of some of these images and uploaded her slideshow to the Newtown B YouTube account. This video went live on December 14, 2012. Now according to Hicks, she took these photos at approximately 10:0:0:9 am on December 14, 2012.
Many researchers have pointed out numerous inconsistencies in Shannon's snapshots, including various wardrobe anomalies, parking lot inconsistencies. In an effort to pinpoint the exact time that these photos were taken, I decided to examine the EXIF metadata of Shannon's photos. Finding versions of her images with intact metadata was daunting as all available versions of her images are copies of the originals. However, Hicks shared her story and a few of her photos with time.com. The photos Shannon gave to Time in her exclusive interview contained lots of EXIF data, but what that data tells us only adds to the suspicion that her photos might have been staged.
If we examine 2 of her most important evacuation images, we see that they're claimed to be taken on December 14, 2012. The metadata on one of these images says that it was taken at 12 AM and another says it was taken at 6:10 PM. All of these time.com images have wildly different capture times. These times seem anomalous if this event were really taking place right in front of her camera. Looking into the metadata further, we find that these images have been manipulated in Adobe Photoshop CS 5 for Macintosh on December 19th at 5:30 PM.
This fact alone invalidates the metadata timestamps as all metadata can be manipulated to the artist's liking using Adobe Photoshop CS 5. Which brings us back to Shannon's slideshow on the Newtown b YouTube account. Perhaps by examining the metadata of this video, we can come up with a more accurate picture of when these images first went online. When looking into her video's metadata, something very shocking immediately stands out. Her video was created on December 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM Eastern Time.
How could it be that this video was uploaded and encoded on December 13th if the photos within that video were supposedly taken the following morning? Similarly, Jean Vauquette, an associate editor at the Newtown B, captured a short clip of the purported chaos behind the firehouse, which he also uploaded to the Newtown Bee's YouTube account.
Speaker 24: Ambulances and paramedics are being dispatched in from as far away as Waterbury and the Waterbury region. Got parents standing by. The, the chairman of the school board, W. Light Liner's here. Multiple school personnel, ambulance, and state police, and others from, throughout the location, throughout the region here at, San Diego School for the still developing incident.
We have no idea firmly, what's going on yet. We have SWAT, emergency services here from the state of Connecticut, armed and, moving into the area. We have no other firm information, confirmation of injuries, victims, or any information, beyond that there was a incident that possibly involved the shooting and, that we are still standing by for a firm information or a press briefing.
Speaker 22: The metadata for this video also shows it was created on December 13th. This is very strong evidence that these images were taken before the event, maybe in a drill or dress rehearsal situation in preparation for the FEMA false flag terrorism event better known as the Sandy Hook hoax.
Speaker 8: So jump for joy for Sandy Hook Elementary janitor named Rick Thorne who did a Paul Revere run through the hallways after spotting the gunman shouting, a gunman is coming. A gunman is coming. He checked to make sure the classroom doors were locked. I'm gonna talk about Rick Thorne and some of the discrepancies found in relation to him and early statements that were made. And these early statements that were made are very important.
They're what came out before any editing and auditing has been done. Where you can find the most truth is in the early footage, the early when you compare it to what we have information that's been given out almost 2 years later. When you go back and compare, it's almost insane. I got this photo from Sandy Hook Hoag's page from Tony. This is who Tony believes to be Rick Thorne.
I found another picture myself attached to the name Rick Thorne. They look similar but not identical to each other. But we can't say for sure because and this is the most suspicious thing about Rick Thorne is that he has never ever been interviewed.
Speaker 23: Town police dispatcher. K. I have that. We have officers on scene. Thank you.
What's your name? Rick Thorne. Okay. I'm in the building. Alright, Rick.
I've got you. I'm on the other line. Alright. We have officers there.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Responding at the You're on route to we have John Feinstein's church at Sandy Hook Center, Polk Creek.
Speaker 23: You tell 911. What's the location of your emergency? Hello? Are you talking to me? I am talking to you.
Okay. Is this Rick? 1212 Dickerson Drive, Sandy Hook. Alright, Rick. Is this you?
Yes. Okay. We'll go back on the line together. Was that by is that by PD? What was that?
Firehouse. To fire the firehouse. Yeah. We know. We got I'm sorry?
Alright. Rick, you still with me? Yes. Alright. What do you see now?
I'm standing in the corridor. Just watching this corridor. Alright. You're watching your corridor? Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Next to Peter or Ryan Lanza, Rick Thorne would be the number one guy the media would go after for an interview. Here we have the Sandy Hook Elementary School handbook for the year of 2,010,011. Rick Thorne's name is listed here and this is a very huge piece of evidence. If Rick Thorne, someone might say they went back and added it. It's on their web page and that probably could be done.
But if they went to the trouble to add Rick Thorne's name, who should not have been employed at that time, we'll get to that here, he was still working in Massachusetts at that time. You know, if they went in to add Rick Thorne, why did they not correct Kevin Ancelotti's name? He's listed here as Antonelli, head custodian, instead Anzalotti. So the fact that they added him after the fact doesn't make sense either. My belief is this whole handbook was fudged and created.
So we have a newsletter here dated August 28, 2012, and this lists Rick Thorne, Kevin Anzalotti, and a couple other names, worked tirelessly to prepare our school for its opening day. So this is for the school year of 2012. Next, we'll get into this article dated November 19, 2012. Rick Thorn worked as a custodian in Kempsford, Massachusetts for 22 years, earning $20 an hour cleaning floors, cutting grass, setting up assemblies for the community. He's currently on retirement pension, getting $1500 a month.
And further in the article, it says Greenwood, whose wife has cancer, and Thorn still don't have new jobs 16 months later. So he was fired in June of 2011. In June of 2011, he was still working for Kempsville school system. Why is he in the 2010-eleven handbook? This does not make sense.
And it says 16 months later, he still doesn't have a new job. This takes us to November of 2012 that he still doesn't have a job according to this article. So why is he in Don's newsletter in August? None of this lines up. This is a comment from a thread on Godlike Productions and it's a very well written comment so I'm gonna share this about more discrepancies involving Thorne.
The Rick Thorne call divided into 4 sections in the release 911 recordings is extremely problematic for the conventional Sandy Hook narrative. Burton and others have Thorne the gunman before they even have time to call 911, yelling at him to stop shooting and put the gun down. Abby Clement states that when she entered the northwest hall of the school, Thorn had already run past her position towards the front lobby some 20, 30 yards away. Thus, Clemens has Thorn in the lobby only moments after the shooting began within the school. Yet on the 911 call attributed to Thorn, he merely states, I believe there's a shooting at the front glass, something.
I don't know what is going on. If Thorne had really run through the lobby to go eyeball, eyeball with a gunman and order him to drop his weapon, then purported content of this call makes absolutely no sense. I don't know. I keep hearing popping are not the words of a man who had just gone toe to toe with a mass murderer discharging a 2 23 Bushmaster inside of school. Also, how can one explain Thorne's omission of having seen the mangled bodies of Don Hochsprung and Mary Sherlock after passing them in the lobby while running through the biggest puddle of blood ever?
As in almost always the case with recounts of Sandy Hook incident, it is difficult to determine who is the liar. If call 1 was placed by Barbara Halstead, then Cox, Roig Day, and Halstead's daughter are liars. If this call from Thorne is legitimate, then Clemens, Burton, Penna, Day are liars. Who is the deceptive party here, Thorne or the others? Or are they all liars, affusicating participants in an event that is essentially a sham?
Did this call attributed to Thorn even take place in real time? I don't know where the truth actually lies, but once again, the call attributed to Thorne is extremely problematic. And there's more. There's this next article. I have found a big discrepancy with what custodian Rick Thorne says.
1 of the dead staff in the hallway, either Don Hochsprung or Mary Sherlock, was wearing versus what the official report says the principal slash psychologist wore. Rick said one of them was wearing an orange dress. Lastly, Thorn related that as he was being escorted out of the school, he observed 2 adult females lying in the hallway by the office. Thorne stated that they were near a bench, and they both appeared shot. Moreover, Thorne stated that he did not recognize them, but he did notice that one of the females was wearing an orange dress.
His testimony was taken December 14, 2012 at 12:51 hours, so it would have been fresh on his mind. Now notice in the scene report, a detailed description of both Don and Mary are given their deceased state in the hallway. Guess what? Both are wearing jeans and not a dress. And here's the specifics.
Missus Hochsprung had brown hair and was wearing a gray and red hooded sweater, red long sleeve shirt, blue jeans, and a Catholic brown colored boots. Missus Sherlock was wearing a blue long sleeve shirt, tan tank top shirt, blue jeans, blue socks with a brown colored shoes. There was a pair of eyeglasses on the floor east of her body. There was a blue colored material around her head that was possibly a headdress or large neck scarf. So who is lying?
Anyone see a problem with this? Moving on. Those are all huge. I'm gonna share this from the town of Kemps Ford annual town report fiscal year of 2011. School employee payroll has Thorn listed here with a salary of $50,640.37.
So that was his yearly salary. I'm gonna share this as well. This is a spokeo record connected to Kempsford Rickthorn on Gorham Street. I did not find a specific number address for Gorham Street, but I snooped around a little bit. There's this weird article about bones found at 54 Gorham Street.
I'm not gonna share details of that right now, but I'll show that that address sold November 14, 2012 for $1. So that's a month prior to the events of Sandy Hook. There's another 38 Gorham Street that sold for a dollar listed here on December 28, 2012. So 2 weeks after the event. This clip here, this screenshot shows 3 $1 houses listed on December 27, 2012.
46 Gorham, 42 Gorham, and 38 Gorham Street, all sold 13 days after the events of Sandy Hook. And then another $1 sale on February 18, 2013 on that street. So like I said, I don't have specific address, and I can't tie Thorn to any of those. I just thought it was interesting enough to share. This Glenn Beck article here talks about courage and inspiration in Newtown CT Overcomes Tragedy.
This little clip from the Glenn Beck article says, one of the staff members at Sandy Hook took up a collection for Rick Thorne and his family and gave him a gift certificate he could use for books for his 3 daughters in college. Well, this throws me off of the trail that I was on because the person I thought to be the identity that I followed for Rick Thorn in records like Advanced Background Intellius to show who his family are and to try to find more on him would be a dead end if he has 3 daughters. Because the records that I found for the Kempsford, Rick Thorne has one daughter and one son, both adults, daughter married. I'm not sure 100% what the correct trail is for Thorne because we have nothing on them. There's been nothing shared on them other than what the media has put out in the 911 calls.
So thank you for your interest in Sandy Hook. Take care.
Speaker 3: The media may not have simply overlooked the discrepancies in the case of Sandy Hook. Outlets like CNN and others seemed to in a few instances fully participate in the deception. Take for instance a CNN piece from just a few days after the event. To quote from the article, scuba was clipping hair on Friday at Robert Anthony's hair salon, the shop he, his mom and sister have run for the last 13 years. Because this case was so devoid of fruitful leads for reporters to follow, it's not unexpected for them to resort to a war of sensationalism.
In this example, the reporter Wayne Drash attempted to portray Adam Lanza as a deeply disturbed individual. Let's watch for a moment.
Speaker 25: The owner of the Robert Anthony Salon in Newtown says Adam Lanza was silent and never made eye contact when he'd come in with his mother for his regular haircut.
Speaker 4: I always make jokes with him trying to talk to him and just make conversation with him trying to say it worked. He he wouldn't look down for the tile. He wouldn't look up.
Speaker 25: Even though Lanza was in his teens, Scuba says his mother appeared firmly in control.
Speaker 4: The only time that he would move
Speaker 26: or make any type of movement
Speaker 4: is when his mother told him to.
Speaker 23: That was it.
Speaker 27: And that was the only times.
Speaker 3: The man whose comments we were just treated to is Robert a Scuba. The article refers to him 13 times as a barber, and his comments were about cutting the young Adam Lanza's hair. Scuba puts his hand on the black barber chair. That sick son of a. The barber shakes his head.
The barber's sister would tell him there was something wrong with Lanza, that he wasn't right. So I guess he's a barber somewhere in the Newtown area. The first problem with the story is there's no business license as Robert Anthony's hair salon in the area. But a person by the name of Robert A Scuba senior is listed as doing business as Design Crete USA. So, that part of the story checks out.
While we're at it, let's see if Bob Scuba is a licensed barber. Barbers are required to be licensed after all. It appears that no barber with the last name Scuba has been licensed in the state of Connecticut since at least 1997. That's odd, the article seem to overemphasize that Bob was a barber. Let's try another tactic and see if Bob might actually be a hairdresser.
We do get a listing for Robert Scuba, let's see the details for that listing. It shows his license is inactive and expired on August 31, 2008. But the article stated, Scuba was clipping hair on Friday at Robert Anthony's hair salon. How's that possible if Bob's license expired as far back as 2,008? Let's check on the license for the salon itself.
Checking under Design Crete USA, it's DBA, we get one result. It says it's inactive. Well, what do you know? It expired on December 31, 2012. So, it was a licensed salon on the 19th when the reporter made his visit, but it never renewed its license when it expired just a few days later in almost 2 years ago.
I don't know about the owner of the salon, whether it's still an operation or under what name it might currently be licensed, but I think it's a fair assumption to make that the comments made by Robert Scuba were strictly for effect only. Did he ever cut the hair of a person named Adam Lancer even once? I doubt it. I'll conclude this line of investigation with another quote from the CNN article. I wish I would have killed him then, he says, For he should have killed himself a long time ago.
He would have saved us all the trouble. He should have run-in front of a bus or some other type of terrible death. He should have done it to himself. He would have saved all those kids and parents the trouble. I should have slipped and stabbed him by accident.
It would have been a lot better for those people.
Speaker 5: There is very little video footage from the day of the event. The video footage that we do see is chock full of anomalies. Based on these anomalies, many people have come to the conclusion that what we are seeing is evidence of a drill rather than that of a mass shooting. So let's take a look at a few examples so you could judge for yourself. Scanning the scene of the incident, we observed that Dickinson Drive, the road between the firehouse and Sandy Hook School, is completely blocked off.
Trapped from going either forward or backward, the lone ambulance on Dickinson is practically useless. All other ambulances are parked at the firehouse away from the crime scene and are all facing the same direction. By 10:29 AM, under an hour after the onset of the event, ambulances and even small quads were inaccessible as evidenced by 408's transmission stating, I can't get the quad up here. The road's blocked too much. Gridlock was a major issue.
And Marine Will, who just so happens to live directly across the street from the firehouse, was the Newtown director of emergency communications and was at the helm during the event. In a shocking admission, miss Will admits gridlock was an issue, stating that surrounding law enforcement agencies self deployed resulting in gridlock on Riverside Road, forcing her to place another local fire station on standby because the trucks at Sandy Hook were completely blocked in. Gridlock can also be attributed to having the reunification point at the firehouse just a few 100 feet away from the school, thus clogging the streets with any potential parents attempting to pick up their child. At the school, there is no evidence of a chaotic scene. There is a fire truck that was granted access, but curiously, there are no ambulances.
Now note, it has been established through matching the highly questionable police report and the police and fire department scanner feeds with the aerial feed that we arrived at a time frame between 10:36 and 11 AM, and that's for the helicopter footage that we see. Also take note that if we believe the official story, nurse Sally Cox and secretary Barbara Halstead hid in a closet in the exact same area where the state police were conducting the investigation until 1:15 PM for approximately 4 hours. So why is this important? It's important because this proves that not everyone was accounted for at the time of the aerial footage. Yet, we see blocked ambulances, gridlock, and zero sense of urgency.
Emphasizing the lack of urgency even more, let's take a look at police dashcam video. At 12:21 PM, just under an hour prior to Sally Cox and Barbara Halstead coming out of the closet, no pun intended of course, these officers decided it was a good idea to bust out the snacks, chips, bananas, and bottled water during a mass shooting investigation. Mind you, deceased innocent little first graders are allegedly just feet away from the vehicle, but somehow they were able to stomach and ingest food and beverages. These are the same officers who received 1,000,000 of dollars in compensation from the federal government for healing. For instance, August 28, 2013, the Washington Times reported that the Federal Government would send $2,500,000 in taxpayer money to Connecticut Police Agencies to help the community heal.
On June 17th 2014, the Obama administration dished out another $7,100,000 to Newtown's first responders, victims families, and law enforcement. The obvious question here is why would law enforcement need extra enormous sums of money for simply doing their job? But even more bizarre is the fact that these officers were able to take a break in the action while some people were yet to be accounted for. Many people have wondered if gridlock was deliberately done to prevent certain EMTs who weren't in the know from going into the school. After all, it wasn't until 10 AM when a meeting occurred between sergeant Kerio and Danbury director of emergency medical services, Matthew Casaveggia took place.
Up until this point, nobody except for certain members of law enforcement were allowed inside. In the end, not one EMT outside of any law enforcement agents who may or may not have assessed any alleged victims was allowed in until it was too late. Matthew Casavecchia and his two accomplices were brought in after their fed. And other EMTs such as 44 year old EMT, James Wolf, gave helpless statements saying, quote, it was difficult to see and especially because we weren't an action doing things trying to save people. You may not be able to save everybody, but you damn well try.
And when we didn't have the opportunity to put our skills into action, it's difficult, unquote. And Sophia Smallstorm and her memorable presentation on Sandy Hook outlined how ludicrous it was to not have attempted all measures in rescuing children from the school.
Speaker 7: While we did see start tarps on the day of Sandy Hook, they were empty. The white mounds you see in these pictures are actually emergency gear. Ambulance crews learned that no bodies were coming out. They would be kept in the building to which only the police had access. Ambulances were made to wait down the street at the firehouse.
This is what was posted on an Internet forum about the emergency response at Sandy Hook. I'm gonna read it to you. The main sticking point is the EMS services did not behave within their normal scope. A mass shooting would have had trauma helicopters flying children out one after another, performing CPR the entire way to the hospital, and patients would be declared dead at the hospital after extensive measures were taken to try to save lives. I've been in the ER for 5 years, and we get all code blue patients.
We get 80 year old nursing home patients that have not been breathing for 20 minutes with no chance of survival, and we perform CPR and necessary medical intervention with the chance that patients may regain a pulse.
Speaker 28: On that on that horrible day on Friday, you guys were assigned to a triage area, and and it it didn't unfortunately end up being used. That that must have been a just a sickening feeling to to to be there at this triage unit and then realize there's not people coming in.
Speaker 19: At at the time, I a few times during the incident, I actually, thought to myself, should I be hoping that this area was filled with injured people?
Speaker 5: Despite the fact that there was acknowledgment of gridlock, blocked ambulances, and perhaps evidence of negligence, at the time of this production, there is yet to be even a single lawsuit made by the parents of the alleged victims. Now there are plenty of reasons why people think Sandy Hook was a drill gone live. Remember the footage of the parents walking aimlessly at the firehouse?
Speaker 0: Alright. This is it gets really interesting in a minute. And you're gonna see without a doubt how the people are recycling back into the building. Alright. Now the helicopter's pulling out.
See the line of people there? See the line of people? Alright. We're coming up to the front. Look how they're coming back in.
They're taking that turn. Watch them take the turn up and they're coming right back into the building.
Speaker 5: Now skeptics erroneously have attempted to denounce this evidence as manufactured and looped by YouTubers. Yet, as we can see, before the helicopter video pans out, the people are just filing right back into the firehouse. Yes. Arrows were given out by various youtubers to show the characters moving around, and yes, songs were attributed to the edited versions of the videos to clearly show how ludicrous it all is, and yes, the video is played forward and backward right before it pans out to show clearly where the people are headed. But this tape quite clearly is not looped, and we can clearly see people walking in circles.
When we focus on individual people in the video, we see the same anomalous behavior. The kid in the yellow Under Armour shirt is the best example of this. Throughout the time he has observed, he just walks aimlessly around in circles. He does this until a lady walks up to him and ushers him away. Now, did this lady notice that he was a little too blatant in his attempt at creating a chaotic scene?
Now, take a look at the man in the gray sweatshirt. His name is Joseph Wasick and his daughter Alexis gave several interviews to the media throughout the day. He enters the video at around 50 seconds in when he exits the firehouse door and then walks around. He is seen again going back inside the firehouse at about 4 minutes and 10 seconds into the video and then at the end of the video, he is seen exiting the building once again at around 10:21 into the video. If you pay close attention to the individual people in the footage, you will notice the same awkward behavior of walking in and out of the firehouse doors, of course, without a child.
And to clear up any confusion you may have about the dash cam videos and the lack of evidence of a mass evacuation, let's take a look at the police report. In report number 000567 32, the John McGeever dash cam timeline. It states that quote, the following is a timeline of pertinent events that were captured by the video recorder and observed and recorded by me while watching this DVD signed by Allison Peters. It is a video of a forward facing view from the cruiser of the school parking lot and captures the northeast corner of the building. Now the northeast corner of the building just so happens to be where the majority of the alleged evacuations took place.
Remember, the officer claims to have watched the video and observed the mass evacuation, yet we never see it in the video. These are blatant lies. The issue with Sandy Hook is the abundance of redactions and the total lack of visual and video evidence pointing to a real mass shooting. We are told many tales of what happened, but how can we trust the Connecticut State Police when they have been proven to be liars? We are told that 25 of the bodies weren't even worth rushing to a hospital.
We are told that only 3 EMTs were allowed access into the school to assess the dozens of bodies located inside. Everybody else was ordered to stand off. We were told that these bodies were left to rot in the school all day long. We were told by Peter Lanza of all people via the New Yorker that his son could barely tie his own shoe at the age of 17. Yet, this uncoordinated mentally challenged kid was able to accomplish the unthinkable within just minutes.
The police report states that Lanza, after he was done with his rampage, piled dead bodies in a bathroom. Before this, the police report states that he aimed his gun at each person before he shot them, not saying anything, but meticulously pointing. He was able to do this and fire up 150 rounds within just minutes, killing 26 people. Is it any wonder that people question the official story?
Speaker 26: Hello to everybody out there. My name on YouTube is professor Doom. And I wanna take a moment right now to thank you all who have shown and expressed interest in this subject. The one of the biggest hoaxes that have ever been per perpetrated on the American public, and that is the events that took place December 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook, Connecticut. I wish to thank, those who've asked me to, participate in the collaboration of this video.
And for those of you who have seen my videos on this particular subject, I will be covering a few of the findings that I have discovered and I have presented in previous videos, but I represent here in this collaboration for you all, and I will get to that here right now for you. I'd like to share with you here a little bit of my background so you can understand why I took on the project of making videos regarding the Sandy Hook Hoax, and you'll get a better understanding of what experience I've had in the matters of studying police documents and police reports. I took a paralegal course and have written many briefs. I have written federal lawsuits, state tort actions, 1 amicus curiae. And for those of you who do not know what an amicus curiae is, it is a friend of the court brief.
I have also done several petition for habeas corpus motions. With my experience in, studying police reports in writing up some of my habeas corpus petitions, that's what got me interested in the Sandy Hook documents that were provided for researchers and people who are just expressing interest in the subject of the Sandy Hook event. So let me get on now with my very first document here that I want to show you. This document here is from the Connecticut State Police. And you will be able to see here in their reports, and a lot of these reports were just from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Connecticut State Police was reporting what the FBI had reported to them.
And in this report here, it goes on to state thus, the shooter schooling began at Sandy Hook Elementary School and moved on to Newtown Middle School for 5th and 7th grades. Around 7th grade, the shooter moved to Saint Mary's School and then moved to Newtown High School where he completed 9th grade. K. So I'm going to stop there on this document, and I want you to take notice that nowhere in this document does it ever mention anything about the school Saint Rose of Lima. And as you can see here, that they make it quite clear that Adam Lanza, the shooter, had attended Sandy Hook Elementary School.
We can see in this document here, this is an official police document that was provided for, researchers. And they go on to state here that on March 6, 2013, this detective met with 4 individuals who had worked or who has or have worked at Sandy Hook School for an extensive period of time. Furthermore, they worked at the school when the shooter attended. Through the memory of the aforementioned yearbooks and a Sandy Hook School map, were able to obtain which classrooms the shooter was in while he attended Sandy Hook School. With those two documents alone, you would get the sense that Adam Lanza did in fact attend Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Yet, there appears to be conflicting documents with the 2 documents that I just presented to you right there. And, in the first document that differs from that account is this one right here. This document here was written up by Rachel Van Ness after they requested permission from Adam Lanza's father, Peter Lanza, to obtain all school records for Adam Lanza from Newtown, Connecticut. And the only school that is mentioned here or in any other documents where records were to be obtained and the only school listed is Saint Rose of Lima School, and it states here. Number 355, Saint Rose of Lima School records pertaining to Adam Lanza.
Didn't we just see in the very first document that I presented that the only schools that were mentioned were Sandy Hook, Newtown Middle, Saint Mary's, and the high school? There is no mention in that document at all that Adam Lanza Everett attended Saint Rose of Lima School. So why is it that they are making the claim that he attended Sandy Hook when this document and Peter Lanza refute that claim. And they are specifically requesting school attendance records for Saint Rose of Lima only and no other school at all. Now I want to show you the next document, and I want to remind you I've poured through every document that they presented for researchers.
And there was and we're talking over over a 1000 of these documents. And the only document that reports a, an official request by subpoena for the school records of Adam Lanza was made to Saint Rose of Lima. Saint Rose of Lima school records, subpoena served on 1, 2,2013, I served principal Mary Rose Maloney with a subpoena for Adam Lanza's school records. And they claimed that they did in fact receive the school records. How come in none of these documents?
Is there any request by subpoena for the school records of Adam Lanza from Sandy Hook Elementary, from Newtown Middle School, or from any other school for that matter. Only this one. And that seems to be in complete contradiction to the document stating by the Connecticut State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Adam Lanza attended Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Speaker 3: Most of you watching this are aware that the purported shooter Adam Lanza had an older brother Ryan Lanza. Ryan was reported to be employed by the accounting firm Ernst and Young at the time of the Sandy Hook incident. I touched on Ryan earlier just briefly, but it's worth learning a bit more about him as it relates to another anomaly. To begin with, the initial reports of the Sandy Hook event cited anonymous sources as claiming the perpetrator was one Ryan Lanza.
Speaker 4: The gunman was identified at 11/28 as, again, 24 year old Ryan Lanza of New Jersey.
Speaker 29: They're also going to locations associated with the shooter, not just directly associated with Ryan Lanza, his residence, and and and they're looking for a location in New Jersey there.
Speaker 6: Comps have identified the shooter as a 24 year old man, Ryan Lanza.
Speaker 18: We have just now confirmed, apparently, the shooter is identified. He is 20 year old Ryan Lanza.
Speaker 25: The shooter, it is Ryan Lanza. Ryan Lanza is the shooter.
Speaker 20: The shooters has been identified to me by a source as Ryan Lanza. Ryan Lanza.
Speaker 3: A short time later, the media accounted for this discrepancy by claiming the ID was made by identifying documents on the deceased shooter. Apparently, Adam was carrying Ryan's driver's license for some unexplained reason. Some accounts claim it was Ryan himself that suggested Adam might have his ID. Others who were following the story in those first few days remember reading about Ryan's reaction to being identified as the shooter. The following posts were made to his Facebook account.
Everyone shut the fuck up. It wasn't me. I'm on the bus home now. It wasn't me. It wasn't me.
I was at work. It wasn't me. Fuck you, CNN. It wasn't me. These reactions are not unusual considering the unlucky situation Ryan appeared to have been in.
Not to mention that following the media's false report, Ryan reportedly received a number of death threats through social media. Ryan was reportedly living with either his girlfriend or a roommate in Hoboken, New Jersey, while Adam reportedly lived with his mother, Nancy. Ryan reportedly stated he hadn't seen or spoken to his younger brother in about 3 years at the time of the event. Later on the day of the supposed shooting, Ryan was taken into custody for what they claimed was his own protection. I can't locate anywhere in the official report details of an interview between Ryan and law enforcement officials.
However, there are Hoboken police and FBI records that contain some details of the arrest of Ryan and a very detailed interview from the day of the event, but the name of who's being interviewed is redacted. Still, because the details given are so specific and appeared to come from someone with intimate knowledge of the Lanza family, it's a fair assumption that the person being interviewed is Ryan. Another document refers to one of the interviewees on that day having an alibi. Someone that morning had made a purchase at a Dunkin Donuts using their credit card, which from their use of the word alibi seems to have satisfied investigators that they were not directly involved in the shooting. It's worth noting that there were other unusual reports in those first few days including that he lived with his father, Peter Lanza, that his girlfriend and a friend were missing, and that his father was found dead in his home.
But not his home in Stamford, a home in Hoboken. Outside of the initial blitz of Facebook posts and the media's reporting of Ryan in those first few days, nothing else about Ryan has been reported. Sure, there have been blogs posting questions like, what happened to Ryan? Or is Ryan still in custody? But nothing has been reported about Ryan's current status.
Does he still work for Ernst and Young? Does he still live in Hoboken? Has anyone seen or heard from him in recent months? Even more unusual is that Ryan himself hasn't emerged to give a statement. Even if Ryan were concerned about what line of questioning he might face if he were to present himself to the media, he could have simply issued a statement or arranged for an interview under tightly controlled conditions.
The bizarre mix of reports, statements, and details pertaining to Ryan and Adam are too numerous to cover in-depth in this report. But just working with the elements I've presented, I'm sure you would have difficulty trying to piece together a storyline that could account for most of the details and false reports. There appears to be some kind of deception going on here, but exactly what that is I can't speculate. Which brings me to one of the more interesting theories having emerged in the ensuing months that attempts to account for at least some of these anomalies. It is being speculated by some that the persons being reported as Adam and Ryan Lanza are actually the same person.
Having researched this case since the day of the event, I admit that I cannot refute the theory and remain open to it. Most who posit the theory speculate that Ryan was once named Adam, and changed his name sometime around 2009. Still, others simply theorize that Adam never existed at all. A theory that, if true, would pose a real problem for authorities involved in the case. This, the last of my three segments though, is about a strange event that occurred in late December of 2012 relating to Ryan.
Sometime soon after the shooting event on 14th, a Facebook account was created that purported to be that of Ryan Lanza. Subsequent to that, a reporter from the New York Post contacted the account holder, which somehow led to what the New York Post reported as a Facebook interview. The Post wasted no time in running with the story and reported some of what was said by Ryan. I'm a victim. I lost my mom and brother.
I will miss you, bro. I will always love you as long as I live. They reported that Ryan posted a picture of Adam with the following message, rest in peace, Adam Peter Lanza. The problem with all of this is that it was a complete hoax. Ryan had reportedly shut down his Facebook account almost immediately after the event.
Countless Facebook and other social media pages were then created by persons other than Ryan. Just days after the post ran their story, they were contacted by Errol Cockfield of the public relations firm, Edelman, which happens to be the world's largest public relations firm. Acting as a spokesperson for the lands of family, he issued a statement on their behalf that chalked the whole thing up to the unfortunate result of a poor editorial process. Boy, that's putting it mildly. Thanks to the New York Post, other publications picked up their story including Huffington Post, the UK Telegraph, TMZ, and others.
They must have assumed as many would that editors at the post had verified the reporter's story, especially in light of the hair trigger reporting that had plagued the story just days earlier. What bothered some wasn't the fact that the post screwed up and ran with a totally illegitimate story. It was the way in which they handled the recovery from their blunder. 1st, rather than retract the story and remove it from their website, they chose instead to simply update the story. In other words, they kept the full text of the totally fabricated story, and simply noted that it was a hoax.
To which when read would prompt the reader to ask, why the hell am I reading this? The story remains plastered throughout the Internet linking back to the Post story as any reputable news outlet would. Next, the Post couldn't resist making a last ditch effort to deflect the blame onto those who would shamelessly reprint their story. In the metro section, they ran a brief update they called twisted fake on Facebook. The last sentence reads, the bogus posts and instant message chats were reported by news outlets including the post, which implies they were no more responsible than any of their syndication partners.
Someone needs to inform the author, Chuck Bennett, that the post doesn't just reprint the work of others. Sometimes they break real scoops even if it is all make believe. If that all wasn't weird enough, there's the matter of the public relations firm that issued the statement denying that Ryan had any communication with the post. As I mentioned, the firm Edelman was somehow retained by the Lanza family to handle this issue and potentially others. They are the largest PR firm and their niche is big business, not representing 2 guys looking to maintain their privacy.
Representing Edelman on behalf of the Lanzess is Errol Cockfield. Errol is an interesting character. He doesn't strike me as being the company's top agent, but he certainly has his share of sticky situations under his belt.
Speaker 4: The the woman that was, mentioned in the Post piece, today, when asked by a reporter from the Post, this $1,000 payment, did you work for any time? Did you work for veterans? And she said, no. I hardly know him. And yet there's a $1,000 payment to her.
How do you reconcile that?
Speaker 22: Well, I think I think
Speaker 30: this has been a very emotional time for some of the folks involved in these And as I mentioned before, it's been an effort to sort
Speaker 4: of reconstruct history.
Speaker 30: You may not remember where you were in in 2,002 every every period for the year 2,002 or 2003.
Speaker 3: He was press secretary to New York Governors Eliot Spitzer and David Patterson during periods of scandal for both. He was chief of staff to the New York State Democratic Conference and was press secretary for the Empire State Development Corporation, New York's primary economic development agency. Before his stints in government and PR, he was a reporter for 12 years and actually worked at the Hartford Current. Let's wrap up this tangled mess with a brief quote from a blog called The Crisis Buzz, which featured Caulfield as a speaker at an event in 2013. Errol Caulfield is a vice president at Edelman, a global public relations firm where he advises corporations on crisis and issues management.
Caulkfield specializes in developing strategic communications plans to mitigate risk as well as proactive messaging to strengthen reputations. Assuming that Edelman has no need to service individuals like the, I wonder which corporation Cockfield is advising behind the scenes.
Speaker 27: What is the value of a human being, of a child, of a victim of tragedy? What makes the value of one person worth more than the value of another? When is enough enough? Sandy Hook families have been compensated 1,000,000 of dollars by the government. They have raised 1,000,000 themselves through private charities and fundraisers.
Others have donated tens of 1,000 of dollars, and yet, almost 2 years after the event, they are still asking for more, and they continue to receive more as well. What is it that makes them so different as to have become instant millionaires? If this event was real, do you think it is morally right to use the death of a family member in order to solicit annual goals of tens of 1,000 of dollars? Some families are even documented as having an annual goal of upwards of $500,000, and that's not counting government grants that they were awarded. Deaths occur every day in the United States, and just about every one of those families must deal with tragedy on their own, struggling to make ends meet.
But we know Sandy Hook is different, much different. After seeing all of the anomalies, inconsistencies, and lies surrounding the official story, one can't help but think that all the charities, funds, federal grants, and donations are just part of a gigantic payoff scheme. Take a look for yourself at the 1,000,000 of dollars flowing into Newtown and then make up your own mind as to what you think is going on.
Speaker 5: When the president revealed his 5 $100,000,000 gun control plan in early 2013, he used Sandy Hook as his justification. Now is the time was the motto. Background checks, the banning of high capacity magazines and assault weapons, increased school security, and increased mental health services were the stated goals. The parents of the alleged victims walked hand in hand with this plan using the exact same language as outlined in the proposal.
Speaker 7: Now is the time to
Speaker 5: Following the signing of the New York Safe Act, the Firearm Safety Act, and the Connecticut Gun Control Bill, Connecticut, Maryland, and New York were the first three states to become affected by the plan, causing an outcry amongst citizens. In Connecticut, one man voiced his opinion louder than most.
Speaker 31: I'm not here to cite crime statistics, lives saved with a gun or the economic impact for the proposed asinine legislation, some of these gun control bills you have proposed. I will have a read from the Connecticut State Constitution. Section 15 reads very clearly, we all know what the Second Amendment says, that Section 15 in the state constitution says very clearly, every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. There's no registration. There's no permitting.
There's no background checks. It's quite clear.
Speaker 5: While most people are aware of the correlation between Sandy Hook and gun control, many are incognizant of the mental health connection. Enter Adam Lanza, who according to the state police report had no clear motive for the alleged shooting spree. In an effort to fill an obvious void of intention, blame was placed on lands' claimed mental illness despite the fact that no mental health records had been made public. A fact that didn't stop the media, politicians, Sandy Hook parents, and the pharmaceutical industry from lobbying for and passing expensive mental health legislation. Confirmation on Lanza's mental health history is blurry at best.
Lanza's stated primary psychiatrist, doctor Paul Fox, was forced to surrender his license in July of 2012. After his place of employment became aware of ethics violations, he was discovered having sexual relations with clients while prescribing them with mind altering drugs. After being highly dosed by doctor Fox, one mother described her daughter as a walking zombie. Seems like a reliable source of information, doesn't he? Shortly after being fired, doctor Fox fled the country to New Zealand.
He gave his official statement on the Sandy Hook investigation to the Connecticut State Police over the phone on December 17, 2012. A summary was given by the police explaining, quote, all of his medical records pertaining to clients he treated in the United States are currently in storage in the United States. Just one day later, Fox renounced his statement as he explained to police, quote, any medical records pertaining to Adam Lanza have been destroyed since it has been over 5 years. The 5 year statute excuse that doctor Fox used is false. The med watch organization, Ablechild, found fault with this claim statute as they discovered, quote, according to the regulations of Connecticut State Agency's medical records, 19 a dash 14 dash 42, unless specified otherwise herein, all parts of a medical record shall be retained for a period of 7 years from the last date of treatment.
Questions surrounding lands his mental health are endless, not to mention his entire existence. So what do we actually know about Adam Lanza? Perhaps digging into his past life can lead to some sort of justification for the 1,000,000 of dollars spent on mental health as a result of the event. But it seems as if his entire existence is shrouded in mystery. After 2,009, there is very little trace of him at all.
The younger pictures of the boy portrayed as Adam Lanza are of a joyful, smiling child, while the recent images issued out by the media are psychotic looking. The grainy googly eyed photos that we see appear to be altered to create the illusion of a deranged psychopath. There are unnatural straight edge lines on the neck area. There are blurred out areas near the mouth and the googly eyed effect is, well, a nice attempt at creating a mentally disturbed kid. Peter and Nancy divorced in 2009.
At this time, Adam disappears from the radar and his brother Ryan appears, causing many people to believe that Adam and Ryan are 1 in the same. Now we can't say with any certainty that this is the case. Nonetheless, the media was careless at times and outright deceitful in their attempt to get an accurate portrayal of Adam. One example comes from the Joshua Flashman interview. Attempting to give motive to the shooting, Fox News reached out to Flashman, a native of Sandy Hook, Monroe area, an aspiring actor and who supposedly had inside information regarding the Lanza's.
He was quoted by Fox News falsely stating that Nancy Lanza was a kindergarten teacher, and that she loved the kids more than she loved him, and that she was planning on having him committed, A nice attempt at creating motive. Shortly after the article was published, Flashman took to the comment section and his Twitter page to dispute how Fox portrayed him as an insider. He states the following. I told the reporter about what was being said in the town. Nothing more, nothing less.
I told the reporter what the people in town were saying about Adam Lanza's motive, and next thing I know, I'm intimately acquainted with the Lanza family and knew Adam's motives firsthand. Funny, I didn't know that. Fox approached me and spent 2 days trying to convince me to go on the record, but I just wanted to get on TV. Right? Yes.
This is how the media operated during the onset of the Sandy Hook event. If there wasn't a clear motive, make it up. If someone spoke out on a subject, twist his or her words to create motive. Instead of reaching out to a second or third hand source, one would think the media would go right to the source, Adam's father. Adam's father, Peter, has never given an on camera interview.
His only public testimony comes via The New Yorker in an article entitled, The Reckoning by Andrew Solomon. Allegedly, it was Peter who reached out to Solomon saying that he was finally ready for an interview. So why Andrew Solomon of all people? One would think that every news agency in the land would be foaming at the mouth to get the blockbuster interview from the killers father. The seemingly obvious answer of why Solomon was chosen comes from his background.
Andrew Solomon's father, Howard Solomon, was the CEO for the pharmaceutical giant Forest Laboratories, which produces the drug Lexapro. Coincidentally, according to Solomon's article, Lexapro was a drug prescribed by doctor Fox to Adam. The article states that Adam discontinued use of this drug, thus, giving the illusion that if only kept up his dosage, the entire Sandy Hook event would have never happened. Now keep in mind, the police report contradicts Solomon's article as it doesn't mention Lexapro as the drug prescribed to Lanza. Instead, it mentions Selexa.
Now shockingly, Celexa is the drug that turned Solomon's Forest Laboratories into a giant. Let's quickly take a look at the police report to cover the specifics. Kathleen Koenig, the nurse specialist working alongside doctor Paul Fox gave her testimony to the police. She stated that Celexa was the drug prescribed to LANSA and that Nancy Lanza was, quote, non compliant, unquote and giving Adam the prescribed dosage. According to the police report, Koenig attempted to convince her that Celexa was not causing any adverse reactions Adam may be experiencing.
And according to Solomon, Koenig was worried about Adam Lanza never taking psychotropics again. Ironically, Andrew Solomon, the man telling the story of Adam through Peter, grew up mentally ill. For years, he battled depression, going to extremely bizarre measures as to even travel to foreign lands and try shamanistic tribal blood rituals to cure his illness. To quote Solomon, so I sat there naked and completely covered in animal blood with flies gathering as they will when you're naked and covered in animal blood, and I drank a Coke. Growing up, Solomon was surrounded by psychotropic drugs.
According to his story, he eventually found a way to cure his depression through an undisclosed cocktail of pharmaceuticals. Now, while promoting the drug, Celexa, his father would use him as the poster boy of how pharmaceuticals could change one's life. So here we have the Adam Lanza story of a mentally disturbed kid. This continue his use of psychotropics, ultimately leading to a mass shooting event. And then we have on the other side, Andrew Solomon story of where psychotropics cured a lifelong battle of depression.
Is there anybody out there that does not see a clear angle here? Oh, and I forgot to mention that Andrew Solomon is a member of the elitist council on foreign relations, the most influential think tank in the US. Even more bizarre is the fact that all of Adam Lanz's alleged psychiatrists were from the Yale Child Study Center, and doctor Ezra Griffith, a psychiatrist from Yale University, was appointed by governor Malloy to sit on the Sandy Hook advisory commission to recommend mental health care in the state. Now Yale's Child Study Center even testified before the commission. Talk about a major conflict of interest.
Mental health, just like any other illness, is a serious problem. There are proper ways to handle it. Pushing pills, psychotropics, and pharmaceuticals in a society that is already overly vaccinated is not one of them, especially not from a large pharmaceutical corporation like Forest Laboratories who has several multimillion dollar lawsuits against them. One of which is for deceptively and unlawfully marketing the adolescent depression drugs Lexapro and Celexa by using misleading drug labels and paying people to endorse them. And it goes without saying, that using a fabricated event to push for certain agendas is about as morally unjust as you can get.
The preceding documentary was just a tip of the iceberg on the avenue that is Sandy Hook. As one delves deep into the endless intersections and rabbit holes of research, one can't help but see a single constant theme. That is the overwhelmingly consistent approach by the authorities to conceal and redact any critical information that might prove or disprove this event. Is it too much to ask
Speaker 3: for the Connecticut state police to release the mass evacuation video that they claim to have on their dash cams? Evidence that shouldn't be harmful or disrespectful to anybody. As we have seen, the police dash cam timeline does not match what is alleged to have occurred. With this knowledge, we can only conclude that the Connecticut State Police have lied.
Speaker 5: Or what about information regarding Adam Lanza? As the alleged killer, any release of Lanza's information should not be disrespectful or traumatizing. So where is Lanza's driver's license in the crime scene photos? Why was he allegedly carrying his brother's ID? And why don't we see
Speaker 3: a copy of that in the photos? If the Ryan Lanza ID story was fabricated, then why was he brought into custody miles away from the crime scene in New Jersey? There are endless questions that need to be answered. We're not going so far as to ask for potentially gruesome pictures of deceased bodies or pools of blood consistent with a mass shooting. But because the Connecticut State Police has redacted
Speaker 4: much less traumatizing information, one can't
Speaker 3: help but ask, do these photos even Bulldozing the school to the ground instead of making renovations and a $50,000,000 destruction and rebuilding
Speaker 5: rebuilding project in which consigl construction was required to sign a gag order, only adds even more fuel to the fire. Was the demolition done to conceal the truth of
Speaker 3: what happened that day? Whatever the case is, merely gathering, collecting, and knowing all of the anomalies, inconsistencies, and lies within the Sandy Hook narrative does us no good until some sort of action takes place. A type of action that may convict possible conspirators. This is where you step ahead. Independent media solidarity is the name we chose to represent our loose knit group because of our shared interests.
One of those interests is the purported shooting that took place in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. As individuals, we have proposed unique solutions and strategies to resolve this problem. And by resolving the problem, we mean to achieve full disclosure of what took place on that day and of related matters. Full disclosure is the goal. We are confident that what is disclosed will be shocking and of the utmost concern to most Americans.
From the antisocial teenager rebelling against their parents to the middle aged 5 time juror and veteran of the Gulf War who has a strong sense of patriotism, the stark reality of what their government is capable of will likely cause an unprecedented interest in preventing these things from happening again. And through that shared interest, a national conversation and debate over the issues, we believe a solution will be found. However, there is no one size fits all strategy of achieving that disclosure that would satisfy us all. Thankfully, we all share the common goal of disclosure to build upon. The consensus amongst the group is that the Sandy Hook event largely or entirely fraudulent.
To what degree is not certain. The extent of the criminality and how far it reaches into other areas is likewise not certain. However, the group is equally or even more concerned about the greater implications, the ripple effect. You may have seen for yourself how this totally repugnant act has already taken its toll on our society. It's nothing less than ongoing terrorism, but it's a scale and one that not all of our neighbors can see as clearly as we do.
Does it really matter whether the purpose was to usher in gun control measures or to gain more stringent control over us by widening the net of mental health diagnosis or to demoralize us so we accept even more unaccountability of government? We think you'll agree that any degree of fraud committed for any purpose is not good for our nation and our world. If you agree, then please help us do what has to be done to achieve the disclosure we seek. But before I explain exactly how you can help, I want to briefly attempt to answer any remaining objections. We don't intend at this point to change the minds of those who accept the official account as legitimate and truthful.
Neither do we want to fall into the trap of debating the legitimacy of the event when not having access to the information puts us all at a disadvantage. The point of the presentation you just watched is to sufficiently arm you with the information available and what was found in our investigation. Information that led us to overwhelmingly conclude that the official account is not trustworthy. Some people object to any solution that involves challenging government authority. Even though they may strongly suspect that crimes have occurred, they doubt that the people have the right to accuse their public officials, or they may simply think that no mechanism exists to force officials to turn over anything that hasn't already been turned over.
To these people, we first caution them that it's not uncommon for people to harbor misplaced respect for authority that was never earned in the first place. We've all heard the point being made that politicians lie, and there is exponential growth in examples of public officials shirking their responsibilities and committing crimes ranging from embezzlement to treason. The result of countless debates and determinations throughout history is a general consensus that governments should only be granted as much authority as they were deserving of. Not all people, even those very suspicious of the Sandy Hook event, think it warrants an organized response. Some argue that given all the conflicts and crises taking place here and elsewhere, their time would be better spent in efforts to resolve other problems or they doubt that anything that could be achieved would benefit them in any direct way.
So it's a value proposition where they don't see much value. To these people, we suggest they consider this. Think of this as a crime of conspiracy and consider the possibility that the conspirators could be convicted, effectively preventing their ability to commit further crimes. It's very hard to gauge but still very likely that other crimes yet to be connected in any way to the Sandy Hook conspirators have taken place or will take place. Convicting them in this case would likely prevent these future unrelated crimes as well.
Lastly, we ask that you not disregard the impact on our society's thinking that could come from exposing this fraud. We don't think it's unreasonable to expect other suspicious events would come under similar scrutiny. How much would you value living in a world where massive institutional fraud had been exposed and would be much more difficult to attempt ever again? Our final point that we hope will answer any objections to joining your neighbors and taking action to resolve this problem is this. Can you sense that something is amiss in your country?
Speaker 4: The time is now. This is a voice we have never been here. This is
Speaker 3: And other countries as well. Maybe you sense something far worse is going on, but can't quite pinpoint what it is. We think that whatever the overarching problem that plagues us is, part of that problem is simply secrecy. We lack the information in both national and global affairs to make informed decisions or to simply protect ourselves from harm or misfortune. The appropriate rallying cry might be to wake up and smell the coffee.
The media is a powerful but deceptive force that impacts your life. Whether you've been observing this all along or just catching wind of it, the general attitude we have of the press is growing increasingly negative. And the corporate and government sponsored media outlets, rather than respond to the people's interests, are shockingly making matters worse with more content deemed propaganda and refusing to fulfill our request to inform us. Getting back to that sense that something isn't right, picture that reality as a trajectory, a direction we're going in, and we're staying fixed in that direction like we're riding on a rail, no doubt laid by the powerful forces or institutions that have chosen a destination for us of their choosing. Aren't able to help slow our speed or steer us in a direction and aren't able to help slow our speed or steer us in a direction that better serves us.
One way or another, this train has to be stopped or derailed. And if it so happens that secrecy is their greatest means to committing crimes and deceiving us, shouldn't we strive to put an end to this secrecy? To do this means we have to start somewhere, and we believe the place to start is Sandy Hook. Means of taking action is simply promoting this video. As you can see, there are a ton of built in social media platforms.
Another way to share the video is by good old email. But don't stop at Facebook and Twitter. Remember, you can also quickly share the video through Google Plus, Blogger, Reddit, Tumblr, Pinterest, etcetera. The next way in which you can take action is by sharing our video and our website by posting one of our ad bombs to your Facebook page, social media feed, or blog. But before we look at those, we need to introduce you to the website.
The website can be found at mediasolidarity.com. It's the official website for our very unofficial group. While we're at the website, let's look at another way in which you can take action, the forum. The forum is intended to be a place for honest civil discourse and sharing of information in 2 main areas, the evidence related to the event and disclosure strategies. It's in the disclosure strategies topic where we hope will emerge new and heretofore unconsidered ideas for achieving disclosure of the evidence that remains secret.
Of course, anyone consulting others or spreading disinformation will have their accounts terminated. A word of caution to the community of disinformation operatives. Those who are currently members of Independent Media Solidarity and the circles we move in are seasoned researchers or investigators with a great deal of experience handling the efforts of those who seek to disrupt our community. Employing similar tactics here is at least a waste of time and at most ill advised.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a megathread on Sandy Hook, highlighting a man whose career was ruined for questioning the school safety response. His insights are crucial, yet the documentary "Dear Wolfgang" remains untouched by those who dismiss the conversation.
@foundring1 - foundring 🇺🇸
SANDY HOOK MEGATHREAD 🧵
@foundring1 - foundring 🇺🇸
This man is an expert on school safety and school shooting protocols. They destroyed his reputation and career for asking VERY valid questions about the SH response. This is one of the most damning documentaries the "debunkers" refuse to touch. https://t.co/qTwXm72BJA
@NancyMace - Nancy Mace
I wish everyone on the Left would watch this. #HoldTheLine
@DomDocuments_ - Dom_Documents
Viral documentary - "The Elephant in the Room". 95% are unaware of most of these truths. My hope is that you enjoy it and then share it. You may be the person who saves someone's life. ♥️ https://t.co/0XNjoNEKkt
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doctors across America overwhelmingly preferred Camel cigarettes. A survey showed more doctors smoked Camels than any other brand. I encourage you to try the 30-day Camel mildness test to experience the rich, full flavor and see how well Camels agree with your throat.
Many people blindly follow, and a smaller percentage creates or observes. I won't forget the government overreach, police tyranny, and emotional damage inflicted on children during recent events. I won't forget job losses, business closures, and family separations caused by mandates.
There is no amnesty for those responsible for the "big kill" in medicine. Physicians who allowed government influence and harmed patients should be jailed. People are still dying from these shots. The death rate is up, the birth rate is down. The germ theory is a scam.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What cigarette do you smoke? You'll be interested to know how the doctors of America answered that question. Tens of thousands of doctors, doctors in all parts of the country, in every state of the union, doctors in every branch of medicine were asked, what cigarette do you smoke, doctor? In this nationwide survey of general practitioners, surgeons, throat specialists, diagnosticians, and so on, the brand named most was Camel. Yes.
According to this survey, more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette. Try Camels yourself. Make the one sensible cigarette test. Make your own thirty day camel mildness test in your t zone. Smoke only camels for thirty days.
Enjoy camels rich full flavor, and see how well camels agree with your throat pack after pack, week after week. See for yourself why camels are so popular with the doctors of America.
Speaker 1: There's a philosophy that says 85 of the people on the planet are followers. 10% of the people on the planet are creators or leaders, and 5% of the people are observers. So when you got 85% of the people who are willing to follow, the 10% who are able to create something are gonna capitalize off of that, and the 5%, usually the ones who are assassinated or shunned or discredited because they can see everything that's going on. And they would ruin it all for the 10%. So the reason why it's so easy to do that is because people are willing to be led.
Speaker 2: So
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna forget. I'm not gonna forget what the government did and didn't do over the last number of years. I'm not going to forget what the police forces in countries all around the world did to their own citizens. The overreach and tyranny that they participated in because they were just following orders. I'm not gonna forget any of that.
I'm not going to forget children being ripped out of school, being taken away from their friends and shoved into online classes that were not helpful to them. That damaged them emotionally and psychologically that they in some ways might never come back from. Kids are resilient, but I'm not sure how resilient. I'm not gonna forget the fact that friends of mine, that loved ones of mine lost their jobs and their businesses because they would not follow totalitarian crazy regulations and crazy mandates that didn't change anything, that didn't help anything. I'm not gonna forget the fact that because of government oversight, because governments are not tremendously good oftentimes at responding to emergencies, I didn't get to see my family for three years.
I still haven't seen my family and I'm not the only one. I'm not gonna forget the fact that people couldn't see their loved ones as they were dying in hospital. They couldn't go to cemeteries, couldn't go to their funerals, couldn't say goodbye. I'm never gonna forget any of that. Because if the last number of years has taught us anything, it's that government, a lot of the time, has no idea what they're doing.
And they act without consequence, without repercussion, and you, you are the one who loses out. But they don't care. They don't care, and they never will. So I'm not gonna forget, and I hope that you won't either.
Speaker 4: Shall we forgive and forget? You must be familiar
Speaker 5: Absolutely not. I'm full of vengeance. I'm full of vengeance. I am vengeful. It's not a time to say I'm sorry.
It's a time to put these bastards in jail. We have seen the biggest kill. I'm calling it the big kill. We've seen the biggest kill ever in medicine's history directly because of the intervention of these idiots into health care. And it's the physicians it's not just the politicians, it's the physicians themselves who are principally culpable because they have allowed government's jackboots to influence how they manage their patients, which has never ever happened before.
First, do no harm and informed consent. Physicians have have looked in how can you do this? How can you look into the eyes of a pregnant woman and tell her that this experimental product is safe? How can you do that as a as a physician? No.
Anyone any physician that has done that should be in jail.
Speaker 4: So no amnesty?
Speaker 5: No amnesty. Absolutely not.
Speaker 6: Somebody just told me to move on and stop talking about the COVID shots. But people are still dying. People are still losing their babies. They're still trying to push it on children. A couple months ago, my aunt passed away.
The doctors said right on her papers that her brain aneurysm was from the COVID shot and they wouldn't let my cousin in to go and visit her, her own son, because he didn't take it himself. Absolute insanity. A lot of the mandates are still in place in many areas. People still can't go back to their jobs. People are still dying.
The death rate is up, the birth rate is down, this is genocide and until it stops, I will continue to keep speaking up. So you can tell me to move on? No. I'm not gonna move on. Not until it's finished.
Not until it's done and banned forever.
Speaker 7: And do you realize that you would have no clue about corona if your television hadn't told you or any mainstream media? You wouldn't really have a clue, would you? You wouldn't know there was a pandemic. And if there was a pandemic, you wouldn't even need them to tell you. It'd be so obvious.
A deadly pandemic would be obvious. You wouldn't need anyone to convince you because you'd see it with your own eyes.
Speaker 8: Stop being silent. You need to speak up about this. I am sick and tired of people coming to me and go, I love your post, Mike. I love your post. What the post where I wrote about the the the mom whose child's dying or whose child is dead, you love that post.
These posts aren't meant for you to be you're not meant to love these posts. You're meant to be hurt by these posts. You're meant to be scared by these posts. You are meant to be horrified. You are meant to be angry.
Be angry. Stop being silent and leaving it for other people to do it. Because I'll tell you now, other people are tired. I'm tired. I'm tired of leaving my home on the fucking weekend and having my wife crying because I'm not home.
I'm tired of all these fucking virtue signals on social media telling me what I should be doing. It's I'm just tired. I can't do it. We got it weak, legibly. We cannot let the bureaucrats that run this country, and this is not a political thing.
If you think that when Nash get in, things are gonna be different. You're living in La La Land. We don't do something about these arrogant bureaucrats, then no one is going to do anything. I hear parents all the time talking about their kids leaving their socks on the floor or dishes in the sink. There are hundreds of families out there that would give anything Yeah.
For their kids' socks to be on the floor. To fuck them. This this is fucked up. The system is fucked up, and no one is doing anything about it. We have to do some shit.
Speaker 9: You're doing stuff about it, though, Mike.
Speaker 8: I can't do it anymore. Honestly, I just can't. I know, but you've done
Speaker 10: so much though, man.
Speaker 8: Just broken, man. Yeah. Just fucking broken.
Speaker 11: Hi.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 12: It's okay.
Speaker 11: Hey. I love you. I wish.
Speaker 9: The World Health Organization has totally messed up. I mean, following the lead of the NIH. I read this article about, it was a year ago, I think, in Nature. I could not believe that it was in there. It's got about 10 or 15 doctors with their names on it.
They studied the prostitutes in some little eastern African country, right above Liberia. I forgot the name of it. It's coastal country. They had gone there five years before and found that seventy five percent of the prostitutes were HIV positive. They predicted if they came back in five years, half of them would be dead.
So they come back in five years. There's no bodies to count. There's no dead prostitutes to do autopsies on. They're still HIV positive according to their tests, which is cross reactivity with all kinds of things. And the conclusion in the paper was that when that should have told them right there, said, Wait a minute, HIV doesn't seem to be hurting these people.
The conclusion was, These people have got a, and this is in nature, a special strain of HIV which, number one, does not cause any disease. Number two, it protects you from the strains that are rampant throughout Africa that do cause disease. What's the fuss? Why do we have to even think about CD four? Why do we have to think about, you know, all the details that they keep mercilessly bringing up?
Why do we have to think about the whole genome of this little organism that has not yet been shown by anybody definitively or even even really probably to cause a disease? What is it? What what is it about humanity that wants to go to all the details and stuff and listen?
Speaker 11: You know, these guys like Fauci get up there
Speaker 9: and start talking. You know, he doesn't know anything really about anything. And I'd say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it's got a virus in there, you'll know it.
He doesn't understand electron microscopy and he doesn't understand medicine and should not be in a position like he's in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don't know anything about what's going on at the bottom.
Speaker 13: I'm gonna talk about a little thing that really makes me angry and it's called the germ theory. Now, I think the germ theory is a bunch of BS and I'll be honest with you. The reason I think it's a bunch of BS is the germ theory has been around since the eighteen sixties. That's around a 60. It's still a theory.
If the germ theory was true, they would have proved it by now. It's a theory still. Let me tell you why the germ theory is wrong. We are around germs all day long. There's germs on our hands.
There's germs on our tables. There's germs on everything we touch. If germs made us sick, we would be sick all the time. That is not the case. Our immune system is what dictates whether we're sick or not because our immune system is what fights off those germs and doesn't allow them to become diseases inside of us.
If the germ theory were true, all members of the same family would be sick at the same time. Now we know that's not true because in a lot of families, one kid gets sick way more often than the other kid. Those kids are around the same germs all day long. Why aren't they both sick? Why don't they both have the same problem?
But see, the germ theory perpetuates something that that drug companies like because when they have the germ theory, they can treat the symptoms. They can go after the, quote, unquote, germ with antibiotics, and they can sell their Alka Seltzer cold and flu medicines and their Tylenol cold and flu medicines and all of those things. Germs do not make you sick. Your immune system dictates whether you're healthy or not. So the smart thing to do is let's strengthen our immune systems.
Let's go after the things that we know will make us stronger. Let's get adjusted. Let's let our kids get in the dirt and play and not have a sterile environment where they're never exposed to any germs, and their immune system never has to work. Let's let our kids get sick when they're younger. Get the little colds and flus and let their bodies fight it off because if they fight things off, now they become stronger and they won't catch those things in the future.
So get the germ theory out your head, guys. Germs don't make you sick. Do I think we need to be clean? Of course. Do I think we need to sanitize things?
Of course. However, the germ theory is still a theory a hundred and sixty years later. Let's start thinking common sense. Common sense health means let's strengthen our immune systems. Let's do the things we know that can keep us healthy and make us healthy.
Speaker 4: They didn't have electron microscopes when this idea was brought about. So what they did, they already had their virus idea. Then when electron microscopes come around, they start poisoning animals and tissue cultures. They just pointed to particles and go, oh, that that's virus. K.
Again, that's fallacious. You can't just point and declare. How did you know you were supposed to be looking for a particle?
Speaker 10: How did you know
Speaker 4: it wasn't supposed to be some other structure in the electron microscope image? You just pick that and ran with it. So what they do now is they don't start with particles taken from humans. They poison cell lines that are already abnormal. They're already dying.
They, you know, they remove nutrients a little bit from them. It doesn't matter because poisoning cell lines in a dish is not a valid dependent variable. Right? Your dependent variable your effect you're supposed to be studying. Well, this has nothing to do with nature in the first place.
So it's it's out the window at that point. But let's just play their game and go, okay. So you've taken some crud from people, put it into these nasty cell lines, wait for them to break down, point and declare that particles you see are the virus. You have to prove that. Someone somewhere has to have proven if we see cytopathic effect in a cell culture, that proves virus because this paper showed it.
Here are the paper. Right? That was never done. You cannot find it. It was just assumed from Enders in 1954 based on the crap they'd already done with tissue cultures prior to 1954 before they went to cell cultures.
Right? So they would just poison tissue cultures or animals. They just inject animals with putrefied matter. They die or form some scabs or something would happen, and they'd just go, yep. This proves virus.
And you gotta go, okay. Let's backtrack. Where was virus ever proven to begin with? You don't get to claim things about an entity that was never proven to exist. Right.
So, anyway, that that's the that's the
Speaker 14: Can I just add to that point as well, Jordan? So the body is meant to be the tissue culture. Yeah? So the the human body is the tissue culture. The virus is being produced by using our own cells, and therefore there's enough virus that's destroyed enough cells which makes you sick.
Speaker 13: So you should be able to
Speaker 14: take some sputum and put it into a little pipette and put it into your little centrifuge flask. I don't know what whatever you call it. Put it in the centrifuge, centrifuge it down. Do the isolation experiment and show just the virus in the human fluid body fluid. But they say, well, you can't do that because there's not enough virus, so we have to grow it.
The fact that they say we have to culture this stuff in a petri dish to grow enough virus to see it. Well, how do you know that that is the thing you're looking for? Because you must first find it in the person. You must find it in the person and you must show that that particle from that person, when exposed to someone else in isolation, causes what you're saying it causes. The minute you start taking stuff out and putting it in a petri dish and saying, well, this is recreating what's happening in the human body without verifying or validating the premise first.
It's a fallacious argument. I just I can't see how people don't understand this and grasp it.
Speaker 4: People get caught up in listening to things, and they don't really pay attention to the language being used. They just kinda go with it. You have to be hyper specific about your definitions and catch people. Like, when they say, we have to grow the virus, stop right there. What's a virus?
Right? You you're already begging the question. You're growing a virus. You have to prove virus. You can't grow something never proven to exist.
Okay? Like, that that's again, you're you're taking an effect and claiming it's the cause without going through the proper steps to validate that. And that's it's so important. I don't know why. I mean, we have to keep harping on it, and I don't know why so many people don't understand that.
But it's to me, it's just very like a third grader would understand that.
Speaker 15: Doctor Kevin Stillwagon, two zero five Dolphin Point, Clearwater Beach. The COVID shot creates a toxic spike protein in your body that can cause adverse reactions, including nervous system disorders, cancers, and worst of all, myocarditis that can lead to sudden death. So you might be thinking, those adverse reaction people are crazy. I got the shot. Nothing bad happened to me.
I'll give you five reasons why that is. First, you have no idea where the tip of that needle is when they push that plunger. If it's in a vein or a capillary bed, those, those particles will rapidly spread to your heart and to your brain, increasing your chances of neurologic and cardiac symptoms. Secondly, you have no idea how many particles are in that syringe. It could vary tenfold based on how it was prepared, and the more particles you get, the greater the chance of an adverse reaction.
So maybe you just got lucky. Third, there is polyethylene glycol in the shot that keeps the particles from sticking together. If it degrades, and it does, you could get injected with coagulating goo that can cause a deadly stroke or a heart attack within minutes or hours. Fourth, the mRNA that's in the shot can degrade also, so it won't even make the spike protein at all, lessening your chance of an adverse reaction. Fifth, the more acidic your body is, the more spike proteins you will make, and that will increase the chance of an adverse reaction.
So maybe you got lucky again, and your body, due to your diet or medications, was less acidic, and you made less by proteins. But you can only be lucky for so long. The effects of this shot are cumulative. So my advice is to never ever get one of these shots again. And if you did get one, get your d dimer levels checked for micro clotting and troponin checked for myocarditis.
These problems can be asymptomatic and result in chronic disease or death in two to five years if you don't do something about it. Thank you.
Speaker 16: Let's cut to the chase and take a look at an ordinary surgical mask, and I'm using a vape. As you can see, that vape which has aerosols the same size as COVID nineteen or larger goes through and around a surgical mask. Now if we take a cup mask and have a good look at it, notice it goes right through the mask easily and goes in every direction. The aerosol is not affected by the mask in any material. Now we look at a surgical mask with a foam strip to protect above and keep my glasses from fogging.
Lo and behold, the aerosols go all around it. Has no effect on me spreading aerosols to you. Now a cloth mask I borrowed from my wife once again. Here we go. Boom.
Straight through and around. It has no effect on the spread of aerosols. They go everywhere. And then I went and bought a guard mask with a high efficiency filter material. That one, here we go.
Watch for it. Through and around, it had no effect on the vape aerosol, which remember is the same size or larger. Now, I don't have an n 95 mask. I have these shop respirators where they can put all kinds of things in them but they're like an n 95 because when you breathe out everything goes out through a valve. Guess what?
It might protect me from you. It sure isn't gonna protect you from me. Let's look at that again. Boom. Any mask with a button on it has a valve that lets everything go from you to your neighbor.
It has no effect on anything.
Speaker 17: The ones that you're hearing about are messenger RNA vaccines, and they have are the ones that have that at least the one that's gotten approval in in The UK and the ones that are coming before the FDA are all messenger RNA vaccines. So you don't even get the virus. It's just a small piece of genetic material in a little lipid bag that gets put into your arm, and the body responds to that. So they are very, very, very, very safe. They're they're as safe as any vaccine and maybe safer than many.
So, yes, they're safe for getting it. Current vaccines or the ones that will likely be approved in The US very soon are safe for for taking based on the the data that's there. And what they do is they prevent disease symptoms. They don't. We don't know if they prevent infection.
We know they prevent the COVID disease. So the the data say that people who got the vaccine were ninety five percent less likely to get symptoms.
Speaker 18: We've also learned this evening that doctor Ovita Fuller has died. She's the internationally renowned virologist from Ann Arbor who was instrumental in securing the emergency use authorizations for the three COVID vaccines. Doctor Fuller passed away yesterday morning after a brief illness.
Speaker 19: I'm never gonna take another vaccine in my life, and I will never trust the government again. I'll also never trust the health care system. I'm never gonna eat a fucking bug, and I'm never gonna comply with lockdowns or masks. I'm never gonna believe the mainstream media again. I'm never gonna acknowledge your pronouns, and I will never acknowledge a pedophile for anything but that.
Although there is one thing I would like to thank our elite pedophiles for. They woke up a group of people that are going to destroy them. I'm here for two things, freedom and up. And I'll tell you right now, I'm running out of freedom.
Speaker 20: You can see it's empty as hell.
Speaker 11: No one's in there, guys.
Speaker 7: It's absolutely dead.
Speaker 21: Not many people were in there at all.
Speaker 22: It's like a ghost town in this house.
Speaker 7: We've just been locked down in Gloucestershire for an empty hospital. Look. I am so angry.
Speaker 11: So there's nobody even in there? Nobody's in there. Nobody's in the hospital? How is that possible in a in a medical pandemic?
Speaker 23: That's fake news, out five. That's fake news, five. That's fake news, That's why.
Speaker 24: I mean, we're talking about birth rates declining all over the world. All the different countries of the world. I sent you those slides. Catastrophic loss in birth rate, increase in miscarriage, increase in severe preeclampsia, increase in fetal malformations, increase in fetal death in the womb, increase in fetal cardiac arrest, fetal cardiac malformation, placental thrombosis. We're seeing a significant increase in preterm delivery.
We're seeing of of the babies that do survive, I'm seeing significant increase in abnormal outcomes. My main concern with these babies, and I hope that it's not permanent, is VAIDs, VAIDs, v a I d s, vaccine induced acquired immune deficiency syndrome. These children cannot these babies, these newborns cannot mount. They don't have a normal immune system. They are increased risk for death and dying from autoimmune disease, from blood clot, from cardiac arrhythmias, and and also from cancers and from opportunistic infections.
It's a bloody disaster.
Speaker 25: We have a public health crisis in our midst, chronic illness, brain damage, neurodevelopmental disability, and there are chemicals in the vaccines that are shown in animal studies to contribute to this kind of brain inflammation that we are turning our backs on, and we are creating many of these children, and we are ignoring it for the sake of continuing to vaccinate. Thank you.
Speaker 26: How can you miss someone you've never met? Because I need you now, but I don't know you yet. But can you find me soon because I'm in my head. Yeah, I need you now, but I don't know you yet. Because lately it's been hard.
They're selling me for parts. And I don't wanna be modern
Speaker 21: Said that it's highly recommended for pregnant women because the risk of getting COVID during pregnancy and having side effects and all this other stuff. Anyway, I had my first dose and then three weeks later I had my second dose. I had my second dose the day of that second scan. So this was on the December 8. And then on the January 4 when we went to the hospital in WA is when we found out that he didn't have a heartbeat anymore.
And so for this scare, he was measuring twelve weeks and four days, which is I think he was we were twelve weeks and five days, but about right. When they measured him, when we found out that he had passed away, he was measuring, like, just shy of twelve weeks, which is obviously smaller than that last scan. But at that point, he had he had been dead for, like, three and a half weeks. He saw me and my body, like, didn't know that. He wasn't alive anymore.
Speaker 27: Apparently, one of the whistleblowers is brave enough to come forward and give a name or I would not have allowed you to come
Speaker 28: Yes, senator. So we've got three whistleblowers who've given me permission at this point to share their name. Lieutenant colonel doctor Theresa Long, d o m p h, doctor Samuel Sigloff, and lieutenant colonel doctor Peter Chambers, d o and flight surgeon. All three of the have given me this data. I have declarations from all three.
This data is under penalty this is under penalty of perjury. We intend to submit this to the courts. We have substantial data showing that we saw, for example, miscarriages increased by three hundred percent over the five year average, almost. We saw almost three hundred percent increase in cancer over the five year average. Cancer is not being talked about except for by Doctor.
Ryan Cole. Thank you, doctor. We saw this one's amazing. Neurological. So neurological issues which would affect our pilots.
Over a thousand percent increase. Thousand.
Speaker 27: 10 times. That's 10 times the rate and obviously that per
Speaker 28: year to I'm sorry. Eighty two thousand per year to eight hundred and sixty three thousand in one year. Our soldiers are being experimented on, injured, and sometimes possibly killed. Doctor Corey, thank you so much for your stance on the corruption. That's precisely what it is.
They know this, and senator, when these doctors are attacked, not necessarily the people in this room, I'm not given names, they call me. I'm the one dealing with the medical boards. I'm the one watching the witch hunts. I'm the one fighting them off, and I'm the one telling them where to go. I'm gonna keep doing that.
Senator, we also have let me give you this last thing, then I'll shut up and get out of your way. 928-2021, project Salus weekly report. Project Salus is a defense defense department initiative where they report and contract they take all this data that doesn't exist supposedly, and they give it to the CDC. They're watching these vaccines. On that date, and around that date, I have numerous instances where Fauci and that entire crew were saying, it's a crisis of unvaxxed.
It's ninety nine percent unvaxxed in the hospital. In project Salus, in the weekly report, the DOD document says specifically seventy one percent of new cases are in the fully vaxxed and sixty percent of hospitalizations are in the fully vaxxed. This is corruption at the highest level. We need investigations. The secretary of defense needs investigated.
The CDC needs investigated. And thank you so much, senator, for having the courage to stand against these special interests.
Speaker 27: So the increase in cancer is something I've been hearing about for months. Nurses from across the countries are contacting me about the vaccine mandates, that type of things, talking you know, telling me why they're not gonna get the vaccine because they're seeing this these patients that their cancers are in remission, then, you know, all of a sudden, boom. You know, they they're blossoming again.
Speaker 29: So in July, under secretary Cisneros acknowledged the DMET data, the database working properly, and also acknowledged things such as myocarditis rising a hundred fifty one percent. So what I did, I went in today. I'm doing the same thing, five year average. However, I'm comparing it to 2022, and I only am using fixed wing pilots and helicopter pilots, active duty. So we get hypertensive disease, thirty six percent, ischemic heart disease, sixty nine percent, pulmonary heart disease, sixty two percent, heart failure, nine hundred and seventy three percent, other forms of heart disease, sixty three percent, Cardiomyopathy, one hundred and fifty two percent.
Speaker 23: Now I did another video before this one, and I wasn't very ladylike. And I did a lot of swearing. So I'll redo it because I'm trying to remain calm. I hope you've seen the video below of Rishi Sunak and his treasonous, traitorous, crooked ways with his wife and her company. Rishi Sunak who was not elected duly by anyone.
Now these elected officials say that they behave and act and speak for on behalf of the people. Absolute rubbish. They're taking care of themselves. This is why this is why they're all on board with getting millions, hundreds of millions of more doses of Moderna for the people because we love you so much. We love you so much.
We want Moderna and mRNA inside you inside you. Because when the hammer falls, it would be really convenient. When the shit hits the fan and the hammer falls, it would be really convenient if there's less of us because there's quite a lot of us. There is quite a lot of us. There's a dot that's them, and there's a wall that's us.
And it's time for the wall to rise up as a human resistance to say no. Civil disobedience, calmly, peacefully? No. That you will not show your papers on your app to get government help for anything. That you will not show who you are on an app when you go into the supermarket.
How fucking dare they? Oh my god. I swore again. This is ridiculous. They see a future, thanks to Yuval Harari, where we're not really needed anymore.
They don't know what to do with us. It's not your decision what happens to us. I don't know what to do with you, Harari. In fact, that's wrong. I know exactly what I'd like to do to you, Yuval Harari.
So just like you don't have a right to decide what happens to us, I guess we don't have a right as to what happens to you. These people need to butt out of our lives. We've paid taxes for them to create Skynet on a shitty smartphone, and we're in a digital prison. Get fucked.
Speaker 10: I'm absolutely disgusted. It's horrendous how they treat human beings that were told to do the right thing. I was told to do the right thing. I'm a professional person. I'm not misinformation.
You're completely ignoring us, our government, the people that are supposed to serve us. June rained. You're supposed to be the chief of the MHRA, June. I watched you laugh at us. I watched you laugh when somebody asked you a question today.
I put questions into the board meeting that I attended, a public board meeting today. You laughed at us with disrespect. There's enough evidence, June. There's evidence on the ONS government website. One in three hundred and one people after the the COVID vaccine are dying within forty five days.
It's irrefutable evidence, yet you're telling me that it's all been investigated. I've got a question to you. Show me evidence what you're investigating this data. Make it transparent. You didn't answer the question.
It's inhumane what I'm going through and what others are going through. You think that we can just be ignored? I'm telling you this, Jude and your colleagues. We ain't gonna go away. You can have it when I die, you can have that on your mind.
If you can sleep at night, well, you disgust me. You absolutely disgust me how we've been treated. I would never treat another human being like that. I just thought you sleep well at night because you know what's going on. You know what's going on.
We never got told about the AstraZeneca vaccine while it was pulled, so you know it's dangerous because you wouldn't have pulled it. Yet you haven't got the decency to come up and admit that you were wrong. You'd rather just sweep us under the carpet and tell you I'm not gonna go away for all those people who are vaccinated until my last breath, you got away from us.
Speaker 26: Blinded by science, I'm on the run.
Speaker 30: In the early nineteen sixties, no drug struck more fear into the hearts of pregnant women
Speaker 11: One of the most horrifying episodes in medical history.
Speaker 30: Than thalidomide. It changed our relationship with the drugs we use, and became an example of what many saw as corporate greed at its worst.
Speaker 31: British thalidomide children so far have not received any compensation from the rich company that made the drug which crippled them so brutally.
Speaker 30: In 1960, a new wonder drug was slated to arrive on American shores a sedative that was said to also treat a range of other ills.
Speaker 11: A hypnotic, as the doctors call it, that was the answer to a prayer. Its generic name was thalidomide.
Speaker 22: The hallmark defining quality of thalidomide was its safety. So safe that in Germany there was no prescription needed.
Speaker 30: The German company that developed thalidomide, Kemi Grunenthal, claimed that even pregnant women could take it.
Speaker 22: The drug company had handed out samples of this drug all over the place, starting with employees of its own company. On Christmas Day in 1956, a baby girl was born in Germany Without Ears, and she was the daughter of an employee of the drug company Grunenthal.
Speaker 30: No immediate connection was made to thalidomide, which soon sold nearly as well as aspirin in some European countries.
Speaker 13: We received it in quantities like a thousand pills. There was tremendous pressure all over the world to get this wonderful new drug on the market.
Speaker 22: They had 2,000,000 tablets ready to go the moment the FDA approved the drug, which was almost a foregone conclusion.
Speaker 30: In June of nineteen sixty one, an article appeared promoting its safety during late pregnancy.
Speaker 32: It was allegedly written by a doctor Ray Knowleson, but in fact, the article was written by the medical director of the drug company.
Speaker 30: About six months later, long ignored evidence became public in Germany, linking thalidomide to a rash of birth defects. Thalidomide's reach continued to be felt across the rest of the world, including in Trinidad And Tobago, where Giselle Cole was born.
Speaker 33: When I came along, I'm a first born and they were a young married couple. I mean, was never unloved or not wanted or anything like that, but I would be foolish to think that it was easy for them. My disability is the official term is focalelia, coming from the Greek meaning shorter arms or flipper like.
Speaker 30: Long discussed but seldom implemented, major regulatory reforms were finally forced on the pharmaceutical industry following the thalidomide scandal.
Speaker 11: For some time, President Kennedy has tried to get Congress to approve new controls, but without much success. Now with the thalidomide scare, most of the opposition has melted.
Speaker 30: These regulations were too late for thalidomide's thousands of surviving victims across the world, who soon became the story. Grunenthal didn't apologize to its victims until 02/2012, '50 years after the tragedy unfolded.
Speaker 10: Nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated.
Speaker 34: Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the US government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation. And Washington decided that every man, woman, and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nationwide outbreak, a pandemic. Forty six million of us obediently took the shot. And now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from uncle Sam amounting to 3 and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot.
By far, the greatest number of the claims, two thirds of them, are for neurological damage or even death.
Speaker 11: This virus was the cause of a pandemic in 1918 and 1919 that resulted in over half a million deaths in The United States as well as twenty million deaths around the world.
Speaker 35: See how easy it is to
Speaker 34: Thus, The US Government's publicity machine was cranked into action to urge all America to protect itself against the swine flu menace.
Speaker 35: Influenza is serious business. During major flu epidemics, millions of people are sick. Thousands die. Well, this year, you can get protection. The vaccines are safe, easy to take, and they can protect you against flu.
So roll up your sleeve. Protect yourself.
Speaker 34: One of those who did roll up her sleeve was Judy Roberts. She was perfectly healthy and active woman when in November of nineteen seventy six, she took her shot. Two weeks later she says she began to feel a numbness starting up her legs.
Speaker 36: By the following week I was totally paralyzed.
Speaker 34: So completely paralyzed, in fact, that they had to operate on her to enable her to breathe, And for six months, Judy Roberts was a quadriplegic. The diagnosis? A neurological disorder called Guillain Barre syndrome. This disease can even kill. Indeed, there are 300 claims now pending from the families of GBS victims who died, allegedly as a result of the swine flu shot.
Judy, why did you take the flu shot?
Speaker 36: I'd never taken any other flu shots, but I felt like this was going to be a major epidemic. And the only way to prevent a major epidemic of a a really deadly variety of flu was for everybody to be immunized.
Speaker 34: As part of informing Americans about the swine flu threat, doctor Censer's CDC also helped create the advertising to get the public to take the shot.
Speaker 11: Swine flu? Man, I'm too fast for that
Speaker 13: to catch me. You'll want to be protected.
Speaker 37: Get a shot to protect you. The swine flu shot.
Speaker 34: Let me read to you from one of your own agencies memos planning the campaign to urge Americans to take the shot. The swine flu vaccine has been taken by many important persons, he wrote. Example, president Ford, Henry Kissinger, Elton John, Muhammad Ali, Mary Tyler Moore, Rudolf Naref, Walter Cronkite, Ralph Nader, Edward Kennedy, etcetera, etcetera. Did you talk to these people beforehand to find out if they plan to take the shot?
Speaker 38: I did not know. Did anybody? I do not know.
Speaker 34: Did you get permission to use their names in your campaign? I do not know. Mary, did you take a swine flu shot?
Speaker 7: No. I did not.
Speaker 34: Did you give them permission to use your name saying that you had or were going to?
Speaker 7: Absolutely not. Never did.
Speaker 34: Did you ask your own doctor about taking the swine flu shot?
Speaker 7: Yes, and at the time he thought it might be a good idea. But I resisted it because I was leery of having the symptoms that sometimes go with that kind of inoculation.
Speaker 34: So you didn't?
Speaker 7: No, I didn't.
Speaker 34: Have you spoken to your doctor since?
Speaker 7: Yes. And? He's delighted that I didn't take that shot.
Speaker 34: Doctor. Michael Hatwick directed the surveillance team for the swine flu program at the CDC. His job was to find out what possible complications could arise from taking the shot and to report his findings to those in charge. Did you know ahead of time, Doctor. Hatwick, that there had been case reports of neurological disorders, illness, apparently associated with the injection of influenza vaccine.
Absolutely. You did? Yes. How'd you know that? By review of the literature.
So you told your superiors, the men in charge of the swine flu immunization program, about the possibility of neurological disorders? Absolutely. What would you say if I told you that your superiors say that you never told them about the possibility of neurological complications?
Speaker 2: That's nonsense. I can't believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination. That simply is not true. We did know that.
Speaker 38: I've said that Doctor. Hatwick had never told me of his feelings on this subject Then he's lying. I guess you would have to make that assumption.
Speaker 34: Then why does this report from your own agency, dated July 1976, list neurological complications as a possibility?
Speaker 38: I think the consensus of the scientific community was that the evidence relating neurologic disorders to influenza immunization was such that they did not feel that this association was a real one. You didn't feel
Speaker 34: it was necessary to tell the American people that information?
Speaker 38: I think that, over the the years, we have tried to inform the American people as as fully as possible.
Speaker 35: The vaccines are safe, easy to take, and they can protect you against flu.
Speaker 2: I asked told Judy to take the shot. She wasn't gonna take it and she never had had shots and I'm mad with my government because they knew the facts, but they didn't release those facts because they if they had released them, the people wouldn't have taken. And they can come out tomorrow and tell me there's gonna be an epidemic, and they can drop off like flies next me. I will not take another shot that my government tells me to take.
Speaker 34: Meantime, Judy Roberts and some 4,000 others like her are still waiting for their day in court.
Speaker 39: Forget what they want you to forget because already they're starting to backtrack. Already they're starting to say, I never said things that they clearly did say. Fauci is out there saying, I never said we should be locked down. Never forget that he did say we should be locked down. Never forget that he did say that you and your children should meldle yourselves to something that clearly never worked.
Never forget that they never let us listen to opposing doctor views, listen to opposing science views. Never forget that they blocked, censored, and deleted us for speaking out against this. Never forget that they created this, and never forget that the thing that they created when it was making your loved one sick, when it was making your loved one die, and you suggested hydroxychloroquine, and you suggested ivermectin, they laughed at you. They mocked you. They ridiculed you, and they prevented them from using it.
Never forget that they said this was the solution. This was gonna give herd immunity. This was gonna solve the entire problem. And now what are they saying? We knew it wasn't gonna work.
Never forget that you lost your job for refusing to take something that they knew wasn't going to work. Never forget even worse. You took something that they knew wasn't going to work just to keep your job. And at best, you're gonna get the thing that it was supposed to prevent. At worst, you're gonna get serious side effects.
Oh, Sam, nothing's gonna happen. Nothing's gonna happen to these people. Yes. Nothing will happen to these people if we continue to keep our head in the sand, if we allow them to distract us and allow them to make us forget. If we allow if we stay silent and we don't speak up, then yes, this will go down as another nine eleven.
This will go down as another weapons of mass destruction. This will go down as another oops, I prescribed too many opioids. Wake up.
Speaker 40: This is a Chris Sky World exclusive straight from the fucking horse's mouth in Texas. So everybody remembers the Travis Scott concert where all those children and some young adults died suddenly Moderna and Pfizer style. And I did a follow-up with the uncle of an 18 year old girl who was double jabbed, got really sick, was in and out of the hospital, and eventually passed away from that concert. Well, guess what? After the incident on Monday Night Football, I just got a call from this person in Texas who is the uncle of that 18 year old girl who was killed after double dose of the Moderna vaccine.
Vaccine. And guess what happened? The entire family, including the aunts, uncles, and cousins were paid an enormous amount of money, and they were relocated to a different part of
Speaker 34: Texas
Speaker 40: Given Texas given new phones, new identities, and everything. This is how they're sweeping the deaths under the rug. And this gentleman informed me that he's not alone, and they're paying off lots of families. And when you take the money, you're not allowed to talk about what happened. So they're literally paying out blood money and literally relocating families so they can't talk to their friends and relatives about what's going on.
This is absolutely bombshell. This is what's going on right now in The United States and Canada, and I have direct evidence. I'm going to talk to this gentleman again and see what other information he's allowed by law to share with me. And nobody's gonna be talking about this because these kind of people only trust people like me because they know when they tell me this shit, I'm gonna tell you and I'm gonna tell you the truth. So once again, Moderna knowingly killing people, the Travis Scott concert was 100% the deaths and people collapsing caused by the jabs, and the jab companies are paying out hush money and relocating people in like a literal witness protection program to try to hide these deaths and other things under the rug.
Fuck you, Moderna.
Speaker 41: And this is a dividing line between those who are living in reality and those who are not, and that is a very important division. Those who are not living in reality deny the existence of evil. They assume that everything bad happens because something in the environment made it happen. It didn't come from the inside. I truly believe that there is evil on the inside of people, and if we don't accept that, we will be routinely and repetitively victimized for the rest of time.
Speaker 20: So, basically, they're coming after your land, and they're going to start fifteen minute cities. And their slogan is just transition. Where did that come from? Well, it comes from a group called the c forty, cities forty. They are trying to make certain cities, almost all major cities in the world, fifteen minute cities.
And for us rural folks, they have planned to land grab. How will they do this? They are starting to make changes in our land use bylaws knowledge, without any votes or anything. This is a time to get involved because they have not passed this yet, and they want to pass it September this year. Everybody in rural communities, everyone in large cities, start calling your mayors, start calling your MLAs, and asking them what are the changes that they want to make to the land use bylaws so that we know because this is what they're going to put in there.
They're going to make slight changes that don't really make sense, but you will have to watch that in case of emergencies lockdowns or climate lockdowns, what are they allowed to do to your land? Those of you who think that this is a conspiracy theory, this is already happening in The Netherlands with the farm protests. And those of you who really think that we're out to lunch, remember 2020 when you were just touting, oh, it's only two weeks to flatten the curve? Yeah. How did that work out?
And then remember when you were saying it's safe and effective? Yeah. How are those, like, side effects that you don't wanna talk about going? Exactly. So, basically, this isn't the first time they have attempted to do this.
I was at the protest when the NDP tried to do a land grab with the Y2Y group. Who's the Y2Y group? Well, they're called the Yukon to Yellowstone group, and they were saying that it was for caribou migration and that we needed to save that land and kick off all the farmers that were basically in that, like, category of land. But you know what's really funny? That's exactly where the biggest oil reserves are in North America.
So was the NDP really trying to save the Cariboo, or were they trying to get the oil companies to not go in and drill so that they could make a false energy crisis so that they could actually expedite this? Those of you who think I'm lying, there it is. See 40 cities. They even have a playbook so that you can get your youth going. You know, Greta Thunberg and so forth.
Hey, Texas. Your mayor's in on this. And this is basically that the goals that they're trying to reach. We're very cool. Right?
Except they will actually need to maybe cut out your ability to drive. Don Iveson, mayor of Edmonton, Liberal. Go figure. He was part
Speaker 7: of this.
Speaker 20: And if you think this is a conspiracy theory
Speaker 42: The battle is being fought. One family, one physician, one health center. That's why we're doing as well as we are. We're talking about the minority and strategies against the minority. So I have the solution.
Every study published in the last five years, when you look at vaccine refusers, I'm not talking about well, hesitance, most of them we can talk into coming to terms, but refusers. We'll just get rid of all the whites in The United States. I've been a minority for more than twenty years in the city of Houston and the majority is we call Hispanic. That is not a race or an ethnicity. That is a political designation, but a lot of them are from Central, South America, Mexico.
Guess who wants to get vaccinated the most?
Speaker 43: Immigrants. So there's a second thing in that black box, an unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop. Nonstop. Folks like me who were Caucasian of European descent for the first time in 02/2017 will be in an absolute minority in The United States Of America.
Absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock. That's not a bad thing.
Speaker 44: The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled in which it is said that when the messianic time has come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands. Baruch Levy, letter to Karl Marx, aka Moses Mordecai Levy, La Review de Paris, page five seventy four, June first 19 20 eight.
Speaker 37: And there's Orwell writing this, which was supposed to be in the future, but it was not really the future. He was right then and there. I mean, just remember that the Germans were being genocided as Orwell was writing that book. Right when he finished that book, the Germans all of Germany was going to be exterminated by the Jew. And the American knew nothing about this.
Absolutely nothing. How can I have respect for these people? I ask you, how can I? Just amazing. So all Warwell was doing is just documenting what he was seeing.
And it was classified as some kind of a futuristic dystopian fantasy, but Orwell knew the Jew. See?
Speaker 45: You once claimed that you have an ability to face unpleasant facts. Is that what you demonstrated in 1984 by drawing an accurate portrait of the future?
Speaker 12: This is the direction the world is going in at the present time. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self abasement. The sex instinct will be eradicated. We shall abolish the orgasm. There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the party.
But always, there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory. The sensation of trampling on an enemy is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one.
Don't let it happen. Depends on you.
@Seaotter369 - Eelco
UNRAVELING SANDY HOOK By: Dustin Nemos ~ @TheDustinNemos By: Sofia Smallstorm ⏱️ 1:32:12 https://www.bitchute.com/video/Jd07oCm2Eniq
UNRAVELING SANDY HOOK | by Sofia Smallstorm
UNRAVELING SANDY HOOK | by Sofia Smallstorm
Source: foundring (@foundring1 on X)
https://x.com/foundring1/status/1838994537194438671
On Sale Now - CarbonShield60 Oil Infusions 15% OFF
Go to >> https://www.redpillliving.com/NEMOS
Coupon Code: NEMOS
(Coupon code good for one time use)
Sleepy Joe Sleep Aid
https://redpillliving.com/sleep
If you wish to support our work by donating - Bitcoin Accepted.
✅ https://NemosNewsNetwork.com/Donate
———————————————————————
FALL ASLEEP FAST - Stay Asleep Longer... Without Negative Side Effects.
✅ https://redpillliving.com/sleep
———————————————————————
For breaking news from one of the most over the target and censored names in the world join our 100% Free newsletter at www.NemosNewsNetwork.com/news
———————————————————————
Follow on Truth Social
https://truthsocial.com/@REALDUSTINNEMOS
Also follow us at Gab
https://gab.com/nemosnewsnetwork
Join our Telegram chat: https://NemosNewsNetwork.com/chat
———————————————————————
💵 Please support our sponsors:
Protect yourself by buying gold;
Nemosnewsnetwork.com/gold
Nemos News is 100% listener funded. Thank you for your support in our mission to Break the Cycle of Fake News.
If you value our work please consider supporting us with our vetted patriot sponsors!
✅ https://NemosNewsNetwork.com/sponsors
Shop Patriot & Detox the Deep State with www.RedPillLiving.com, Home of Sleepy Joe - the world's most powerful all natural sleep formula & The Great Awakening Gourmet Coffee for Patriots.
"Our Specialty, is Waking People Up."
———————————————————————
Other Links
Learn the Hidden History of Man, Myth, & Mystery Babylon. Learn His Story, as we take you on a guided tour of the greatest conspiracies of all time, and how they all connect together! From Adam & Eve to Fauci the Freemason, and the New World Order. Learn your history, where you fit in creation, and your purpose. Find the Deep States deepest secrets, and prepare to unlearn everything you thought you knew.
https:// TheSerapeum.com/hisstory
https://TheSerapeum.com - Your Archive of The Hidden History of Mankind, and The Mystery Babylon Religion of The Deep State.
https://nemosnewsnetwork.com/category/news/documentaries/
https://theserapeum.com/sinwar-the-origins-of-assault-trannies/
bitchute.com
@shaunmmaguire - Shaun Maguire
For anyone new to the issue of “mass rape gangs” in the UK Which have been operating for decades And which have been covered up systematically I highly recommend you watch @TRobinsonNewEra’s doc Also, Tommy is in jail for releasing this https://t.co/ZDAYiLn3j4
Video Transcript AI Summary
This documentary reveals the manipulation of the justice system and media to silence dissent and control narratives. It highlights a playground incident involving a Syrian refugee, Jamal, and a British boy, Bailey, which was sensationalized by the media, leading to severe consequences for Bailey. The documentary questions the accountability of the media and legal system, revealing how they can distort the truth for their agendas. It discusses the repercussions of this incident, including threats against Bailey's family and the broader implications for free speech in the UK. Ultimately, it calls for public awareness and accountability, urging viewers to support the fight for truth and freedom of expression.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The documentary you're about to watch is the most important documentary I've ever made. This story is far bigger than Tommy Robinson. This is about the weaponization and the politicization of these buildings. Court buildings across the west. The Royal Courts of Justice, ironically named.
These buildings have been weaponized and used against members of the public to destroy them if they speak out. From Donald Trump to Steve Bannon, to Gert Wilders, to Marie Le Pen, to Katie Hopkins. That's what's happening. My job as a journalist, I stand for freedom of speech. I stand for freedom of press.
And I failed. Because 3 years ago, when I lost a court case in here, then they banked me to the tune of £1,600,000. On a documentary, you're gonna see the entire story was a lie. Okay? I failed because I should have come out of court and I should have played you that film.
Why didn't I play you that film? Because I was given a gagging order by this building, by this judge. I was silent and I allowed them to silence me because I was scared. I was scared of 2 years in prison. I was scared of the effect that solitary confinement for that length of time would have on me.
I was scared of jihadi gangs in jail and I was scared of the effect it would have on my family. I failed me and I failed you. I'm not gonna fail myself again. You're now gonna watch the best citizen journalism and the most incredible expose of the establishment you've ever seen. The news is how we find out what's happening in the world.
It's how we form our opinions. Opinions based on facts. That's the key. Facts. Facts should be delivered to you by journalists based on the truth.
But what if what they're delivering you isn't the truth? What if it's stories that are manipulated to make you think a certain way, to follow a certain narrative, different people's agendas? And what do they do to those who go against that mainstream narrative? Those who try to expose the truth. This is a documentary about the lengths they will go to to shut down and silence anyone from bringing you, the British public, the truth.
Alright. Smell me off. Obviously, not me.
Speaker 1: I lost my job over this. No. I'm just kidding this.
Speaker 2: He's a nasty little piece of shit.
Speaker 3: He's won the hockey stick over his head and hit me in the spine with it.
Speaker 2: Well, it's all very liberating.
Speaker 4: This kid was out unconscious already. That's just malicious. I'm not
Speaker 5: standing.
Speaker 0: You're not going, but No. Because no. Because what yous are doing, I know what yous are doing.
Speaker 6: Tommy, I am gonna mince your kids, aye. This is a documentary
Speaker 0: about the a documentary about the unholy alliance between the media, the justice system, and our politicians. How they conspire to suppress free speech, how they pervert democracy, and how the truth and your freedoms are just 2 of the casualties. We will show how the mainstream media deceives people, how they ignore the truth, how the lies of the virtue signalling, BBC, IT Fear, and Channel 4 are all about their poisonous agenda, no matter the cost to innocent people. It's also a documentary about how an everyday playground incident between 2 young lads was spun into global news at a terrible cost to so many people, not least the 2 young lads themselves. We will show how the law is being abused, how people driven by hateful ideologies attempt to intimidate and silence anyone who dares to challenge the so called progressive, so called liberal narrative.
We will show the foolishness of our fear driven political leaders who jumped on a story, took a side without knowing the truth, or worse still, knowing it but hiding it because the truth didn't fit their narrative regardless of the human cost. And we'll ask 3 important questions. Firstly, is the media accountable to anyone in any way for what they report? Years after the Levinson inquiry, has anything changed, or do they continue to act with impunity? Secondly, is our legal system still fit for purpose?
We will show how lawyers who hate Britain but love jihadi warriors have weaponized the law system against us and how the legal system really only works for the rich. And finally, how do we keep our politicians accountable? If the police, the cause, and the state can silence anyone for speaking inconvenient truths, truths that may raise questions about government policy? Is the UK any different from China, Russia, or Iran in their treatment of dissidents? And, of course, for Piers Morgan, for Jeremy Fine, for the BBC ITV, and channel 4, it's a tutorial on journalism.
Keep watching it. You'll learn. Our story appears to start and end in a brief playground incident at Ormondbury Community School in Huddersfield. A playground scuffle. One boy poured a bottle of water on another child.
The school dealt with it and that should have been that. 3 weeks later, however, a video clip of the incident surfaced and within hours, with the help of lawyers and the ignorant rant ins of ITV's Piers Morgan and the BBC's Jeremy Vine, it was made into global news event. And the lives of so many people were turned upside down. Such playground incidents happen every day. So why was this spat between 2 boys transformed into global news?
Well, one of the boys was white and the other a Syrian refugee, at which point the truth of the matter was buried beneath an avalanche of agendas and opportunism. Within hours, the race hate brigade was sharpening their blades.
Speaker 7: But clearly when somebody comes from Syria fleeing Assad's regime, coming to a place like this, when they get treated that way, that's an issue, and the whole world is looking at us.
Speaker 0: Where are we? We're in Almunbury. Do I say the scene of the incident? Is it a scene in it's the incident? It's the scene of the great lie.
I call it the great lie because this lie was pushed around the globe. Yeah? This here is the school where the world was told a Syrian refugee was waterboarded by a racist English bully. It was in a playing field here, and do you know what? This is the first time I've been here.
Because when this blew up on the news, it's a child's school. Kids are in school. I didn't come outside here. You see the scenes outside here where the imam was here with mobs of men. Yeah?
Mobs of Muslim men. Extremists traveled up from London such as Ali Dua to cause a scene outside this this kids' school. Anyway, but I'm here. Why am I here? I'm here because I faced a court case.
I'm being prosecuted. It's gone it's gone to the high court, and I have to prove I made a video stating that it was a lie, stating that Jamal wasn't innocent, and telling some facts about Jamal beating up girls, an instance that I've been warned about by the members of this community to tell the truth about what happened at this school. I've gotta prove it in court, so I've come to Huddersfield. I'm now gonna knock. I need to find witnesses.
I've got addresses for many. I need to knock and talk to them and see who I can get to come to court to help me prove to you, the public, this is about as much as proven in court as proving to you, the British public, that I was the only journalist in the country who told the truth about what happened in this community. The story you were told. You were told a vulnerable Syrian child refugee had been bullied and waterboarded by a nasty white boy. You were told it was a racist attack.
You were told of the dangers of Far Right extremism. You were invited to agree that this kind of intolerance could not be tolerated. Was he vulnerable? Was it a racist attack? Our evidence shows the answers to both these questions was no.
Was the Syrian lad waterboarded? Why was this word used? What about this? No. Was that waterboarding?
Take a look at this. It shows a group of non white children beating up a white girl. It went viral online, but it wasn't touched by the mainstream media. It wasn't made into a global story. Why not?
Meanwhile, the usual suspects had lit the fire and were gleefully stoking the flames.
Speaker 8: Everybody was exposing the scumbag that did this, who I hope gets severe retribution.
Speaker 0: And of course, the politicians. They're always quick to jump on the bandwagon. Theresa May, Sajid Javid, Naz Shah, Nicholas Soames, Winston Churchill's grandson. Such moral outrage. And it's not just the media and the politicians.
In today's Twitter and Facebook driven worlds where celebrities and groups compete to virtue signal, most of them driven by the warm feeling they get by expressing their moral outrage or by fear. The fear of what might happen to them if they don't. Everyone who's anyone pumped the Bailey Jamal story. Boxers, Lennox Lewis, Huddersfield Football Club, celebrities from across the globe. Let's have a look at all of the celebrities and Blue Tick Brigade who pumped the Jamal story.
And here are some of the people who pumped the story you watched earlier of the white girl getting beaten up. Sadly, whether it's politicians, celebrities, or other groups, None of them are wise enough or pause long enough to ask whether they have the whole story, to check the facts, to find the truth. But why let the truth get in the way of such a good story? And this story was just too good a story. 2 lads in a playground scrap is not international news, but racist white thug water boards helpless Syrian refugee.
Boom. Racism can't be tolerated. Beware of the far right. That's their kind of story. We'll hear more about the militant left later but they clearly weren't gonna miss out on this.
Speaker 7: Well, we well, representing might be too harsh a word, but I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm here as as a concerned citizen.
Speaker 0: Mohammed Amin Pandur, a Mufti on a mission. He rushed to Ulman Bire from his mosque in Bali, a town at the far end of the district. In fact, there's 40 mosques closer to this school. But perhaps Mufti Pandor had his own agenda. You see, his little brother, Councillor Shabir Pandor, is the leader of Kirkland East Councilman Huntsfield.
And they were having some pretty bad news days at that time. By the way, Mufti Pandor, he's the same guy who ordered the Islamic mob to come to the school in Batley and demand the second of the RE teacher who showed a cartoon of Mohammed in a discussion about free speech.
Speaker 7: Look look at what we do as a community, and you'll understand our stance. So what has happened is totally unacceptable. Yeah? And we have made sure that the school understands that. The teacher has been suspended.
The teacher has been suspended.
Speaker 0: You may recall the teacher had to flee, and he's still in hiding under police protection. Luckily, he hasn't ended up like Samuel Patti, the French teacher who's beheaded for having a similar discussion in a classroom about free speech. You see, free speech is essential for any society wishing to maintain intellectual and social progress, but not all societies are bothered about intellectual and social progress. Should we be silenced by the demands of Mufti Pandor and Sharia Law? Should we sacrifice our freedom of speech?
Should we sacrifice the free and open exchange of ideas? Should we sacrifice the cultural inheritance of which we are all custodians? But back to the bad news days in Kirklees and the playground incident in 2018. There was also Kirklees counselor, Masood Ahmed.
Speaker 9: I'm not aware of there's a problem at the school. That's something I obviously need to find out in terms of that there is a problem at this school, and that is something I will definitely be picking up.
Speaker 0: Now some of you may remember this.
Speaker 10: Michael, are you gonna explain what's gonna happen next? Right?
Speaker 0: Are you being arrested?
Speaker 7: You won't be arrested.
Speaker 0: I am being arrested.
Speaker 11: A breach of peace.
Speaker 0: I'm of course.
Speaker 5: Of the I'm of
Speaker 7: course a breach of peace.
Speaker 0: I'm being arrested. The content of what
Speaker 5: you're Can
Speaker 12: we just
Speaker 5: say streaming The content of what I'm streaming told. I'm being
Speaker 10: arrested for breach of peace. The game. I've been
Speaker 0: Can you
Speaker 13: just turn off your
Speaker 12: life, please? Yeah.
Speaker 5: Do you want to someone just What's that?
Speaker 14: Can you
Speaker 0: just explain it again? You want to
Speaker 14: rest in suspicion
Speaker 5: following the breach of the people?
Speaker 0: What what does that mean? What what does that mean? At the same time as this playground spat between 2 young lads, 20 Huddersfield men were being jailed across Yorkshire at Leeds Crown Court for what would be the biggest grooming gang Britain has ever seen. Ultimately, 35 almost exclusively Muslim men would be given 380 years in prison for grooming, trafficking, and raping young children, most of whom were known to counsely Pandora's Kirklees Council. Mufti Pandor traveled for half an hour to rabble rouse a gang outside the school gates over this playground incident.
When within a couple of mile radius in Batley, police have arrested a further 99 men in relation to historic sex crimes. So far 32 have been charged including 1 Ibrahim Pandor, 41 of Batley. That makes it the highest destination of grooming gang arrests anywhere in the UK. We Googled to see what Mufti Pandor has said about these grooming gang atrocities. Nothing.
We Googled to see what counsel and sued Ahmed's condemnation. Nothing. In fact we can't find the condemnation from the of these brother either, Councillor Shabir Pandor, leader of the council. Just one statement from him reported in June 2019, telling the National Working Group of Child Sexual Eratiation Response Unit that his authority had moved forward. That's it.
They've moved on. Never mind grooming gangs, gang rape of young children, all these men seem to be far more concerned about what happened in a playground at Ormerbury Community School or about cartoons of their prophet Mohammed. I think I now realize how difficult this is gonna be because everyone we've spoke to today,
Speaker 1: they're all confirming what I
Speaker 0: said was true. Everyone's confirming what Jamal was like, including school staff. But as soon as I mention this camera, as soon as I mention court, I need someone to come to court, they're just totally silent straight away. No. We no.
No one can have said that. No one can have said this. You jump in. It's raining. But I'm realizing how difficult it's gonna be but I have got an idea for that now after today.
So but first stop, McDonald's. Yeah? Let's go to McDonald's because I'm starving. It's been a long day.
Speaker 14: Yeah. I'll see you on a YouTube.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Nice to
Speaker 14: see you.
Speaker 0: Smaller in real life. Nice to see you.
Speaker 5: Nice to meet
Speaker 0: you, mate.
Speaker 14: Sorry. I'll put your interview.
Speaker 0: No. I'm fine. Thank you. Cheers, though. You're good.
Yeah. Thanks, man. Oh, man. Very nice to see you. Oh, thank you, bro.
Hello?
Speaker 2: Steve, how
Speaker 0: are you, mate? It's Tommy. How
Speaker 12: are you?
Speaker 0: I'm good, mate. Doing good. Bro, mate, have you still got all those hidden cameras?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Of course, I have. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Could I borrow them? You need Yeah. But when I say borrow them, can I borrow I'm gonna need to take them for weeks because I've got so much to do? It's a long story. I'll explain when I see you.
But, I'm in a bit of a situation. I need some hidden cameras.
Speaker 5: This is not a problem. I have put some kit together for you.
Speaker 0: That's it. So that's the idea. The idea is I've got a friend there, secret Steve, who has all sorts of cameras, yeah. He's a he's a private investigator. I need to show the public everything I've heard today.
I need the public to hear and know the truth. I need them to know how much they've been lied to by the media about what happened in this town. And, the only way, unfortunately, the only way I'm gonna be able to do that is with hidden cameras. Because today, I've heard the truth, but I need everyone of you to know the truth, and everyone's too scared. That's why I said Project Fear.
Everyone is too scared to speak the truth or to come to court. So I'm gonna end up getting I'm gonna end up getting hammered in court. The whole world told I've lied when I haven't. I was the only journalist in the UK who told the truth. So we need to prove it.
So we'll shoot down the motorway now. We'll go get these hidden cameras. These are all so this is a tie. There's a camera in that. That's the camera.
Mad, isn't it? There's a camera there. You've got everything here. Cameras, glasses. I don't wear glasses.
That's gonna be awkward. That's the bottom of a cup coffee cup. So you put that on the bottom of the coffee cup. I feel like James Bond. This today, that's the camera.
I'll have to take this off, but it doesn't matter because apparently this records all the audio, records everything. That's the camera and I feel a little bit dirty doing this. But it is the only way I'm gonna get people to speak. And then I need you to hear what I hear.
Speaker 1: The idea that people would move over the streets looking for him was appalling. The fact that the video itself, although it showed the accumulation of things that built up to that, did not deserve what happened to him or to anybody else in that situation. We knew that I'm afraid the media, I call it a perfect storm. I was getting, emails from Pakistan, from Australia, from America telling me to resign. So it went worldwide, and I'm afraid I came into teaching to help poor people, and they got me today.
I've got a problem here. I lost my job over this. And as a result, the council has told me that I cannot speak to anybody ever about it. So unfortunately When you asked to go over to me about anything? I was there when it happened.
I was there when I dealt with all the situation. And then, Ofsted came, then Trevor wasn't there anymore. That's that's all I can say. Well, I can't get a job. So that's where it's left me.
And I can live with that, but barely only 15. I'm not with her. That's different.
Speaker 12: It's got a
Speaker 1: pretty good man. It's a young man with No. No. If I do,
Speaker 5: I think
Speaker 0: you get
Speaker 1: myself into
Speaker 12: real trouble. No. Okay.
Speaker 1: I thought really serious trouble. Little trouble because partly cancels You signed an NDA or something? Correct. So they've said, you can't be split free. I'm not with the NDA so you keep the pension.
So you get pension? Yeah. Fucking hell, bro. I have to be very careful about what I say to it. I'm not allowed to talk about it.
I really am not. So I can't discuss it. I can't discuss it with the media. I always wanted to have my say against it, which I've never had, Never been allowed to have. Never be allowed to say goodbye to my staff.
They're just told to leave. So I've worked there nearly 30 years. Actually, 20 years and never got a card, never got a goodbye. This whole thing was just used. The whole thing was used.
Yes. Could push him in over there. And hijacked and by by by the right of it politic I'm quite a political person by the right and the left. It was hijacked and spun all out of the position and now we've got problems. That's interesting.
What? I thought she looked 1 more meters of all the silence. What a mess. It is a it is a mess, but but it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy for Bailey.
I'm not sure, Jamar, will get anything out of this ever in his life, positive out of it either. Necessarily, might have he might have got a few, silver coins from Julius, but that's about it. You know, that that's it. The thing is that they haven't 6 weeks, prior or weeks prior. And then in the same day at the same time, if you look for the to go fund me up, the site was released.
Yeah. Now you see your full picture together?
Speaker 0: Already, that's gold. Yeah. I know that's gold. All I hope, I hope that's recorded. I can't turn a computer on.
So I just pray that's got the audio and the visual and it's not pointing up there that we've got it because that was the head teacher and that's the first visit. And I know this is gonna work. So I now need I know just off that, I didn't think he'd talk before he shut the door on my face. He didn't. He seemed like he wanted to talk.
There's a lot he wants to say. So but, yeah, let's go. Next stretch. Yeah? It's exciting.
Was there a racism problem in the school and
Speaker 5: Well, no. I don't I don't I don't think there was.
Speaker 0: What about other Syrian refugees? Like, do you think what happened to Jamal in the school was because he was a Syrian refugee?
Speaker 5: No. Not at all. I told you before That that would have happened
Speaker 1: No, ma'am.
Speaker 5: If the child was white, big, blue, whatever color.
Speaker 0: They're all scared.
Speaker 5: Yeah. A lot of careers on there. I work for operation service now.
Speaker 0: You do now?
Speaker 5: Yeah. So I don't know where I stand with it. If I go, I could lose the job.
Speaker 0: What about if you know, I don't want You
Speaker 5: know what someone said? I work
Speaker 0: I get it, bro.
Speaker 5: I work for probation service now. You see, if
Speaker 0: I didn't work for You see, if you're someone
Speaker 5: If I didn't if I didn't work for the fucking public sector no more, I'd say, god, they can go fuck themselves. They can't. You know what I mean?
Speaker 0: So they seem to be pretty keen on these NDAs.
Speaker 1: Who is that?
Speaker 5: That is counsel. But I can't disclose that with you.
Speaker 0: That's what?
Speaker 5: Lords. I'm saying I can't disclose it because I Yes. Assigned it.
Speaker 1: That incident was talked about by Theresa May at a g twenty summit. He asked her a question about it. We were then offsteaded by 5 of the top inspectors in the country. We'd only send 1 registered inspector. We have the head of safeguarding.
We are I had a member speaking to me about it. If you want my opinion, they said, get up there. This is I don't know who they is. Get up there and shut that school. Get up there and get rid of this.
Speaker 0: Get rid of the problem.
Speaker 1: Over to the Bailey.
Speaker 0: Correct. Over to Mal.
Speaker 12: Correct. Get rid
Speaker 1: of the problem. Over to Mal. Correct. Get rid of the problem. Get rid of it.
But why do you think that is? Do you think because I'm not Jamal. Jamal, because he come here 2 years ago. I've got so many negative things said about it now for so many people. Well, I mean, so many.
You in a few before. We have non Syrian children. Non families. Yep. We're not one issue.
Speaker 0: Well, Well, my my view is
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: That you won't get much of an answer out of all because you work there and it's bound by various confidentiality. So
Speaker 1: Long disclosure of business.
Speaker 0: Do you get paid as well? Not been to me. They all have. Every teacher got paid not to tell the truth. But the head teacher can't even talk about Jamelle at all.
Speaker 2: No. No. They cannot.
Speaker 1: Both, can you? Shouldn't it?
Speaker 0: Well, if you work it out, it must be a good one.
Speaker 1: Mustn't it? Did
Speaker 0: you work there as well?
Speaker 2: No. I was the chair of goodness there. But so it's it's not What my issue
Speaker 0: is is
Speaker 2: you're not gonna get anywhere.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And Rob wouldn't talk to you either. So it's
Speaker 0: They're trying to
Speaker 13: It's pointless me even giving you I told but
Speaker 0: I told the truth. Your contact details Okay.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't work with us.
Speaker 0: I told the truth about what happened that day.
Speaker 10: I am not even arguing.
Speaker 0: His life was destroyed.
Speaker 2: Well, that's not fair either, is it?
Speaker 0: As a racist bully, and he won't. And he wasn't. I know. And
Speaker 2: I both know that.
Speaker 15: Truth is just
Speaker 1: How much money is it?
Speaker 5: I can't see the figure because if I see the figure, it goes out.
Speaker 1: Because, mate
Speaker 0: 18. 18. I've just found out. Well, the head teacher's told us already that he was blackmailed and threatened. I've just found out of Kumar.
He was paid £18,000. Paid he said, I can't take I signed. I I was paid. So paid what? He was paid money by the local council, so he can't tell the truth about what's going on in that school.
Then they've they've give everyone non disclosure agreements from school staff to governors to and and Paul Coomar to get £18,000. He's not even involved. If you live here, if you live in this area, your tax money he's got 18 grand what must the head teacher have got? He must have got 6 figures. How much money have they spent on this lie?
We put in a freedom of information request to Kirklees Council to find out exactly how much they had spent of taxpayers' money to get the silence of their staff. They didn't answer the first request. They avoided the second. Only when we sent them legal letters because they have to, by law, answer these questions, did we get our answer. They had spent over a quarter of £1,000,000.
£275,000 of taxpayers' money was spent making people remain silent. But they've they've they've spent money silencing everybody, so no one can ever this is for ever, once you sign that agreement, no one can ever tell the truth While they push this manufactured lie that destroyed lives, schools, communities, everyone's life. I've seen life after life after life, person after person's life destroyed, while the council, your local council, Kirkley's council, give away 100 of £1,000 to make sure that the truth can never be told. I can't believe it. I knew from day dot, I asked myself the question, when this was blowing up and I knew the truth, I kept saying, how come no teacher is telling the truth?
If all those teachers know what's going on in that school, how come none of them are coming out and saying? Well, now we know. Now the whole world's gonna know, because corporate council paid them not to. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
Jamal was in India?
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was in the same
Speaker 12: well. What was his what
Speaker 0: was Jamal's attitude about in school?
Speaker 3: He wasn't very nice. He called female teachers bitches. He just didn't really have respect for the female students, to be honest. Yeah. Basically, we were in a p lesson, and we were playing hockey with a teacher called Mr.
Cattell. And I had taken the hockey puck off of Jamal, because I was on the other team, and sent it to the other side of the room where my team mates were. And I then turned around and just felt a really sharp pain in my back, and he'd swung the hockey stick over his head and hit me in the spine with it.
Speaker 0: Is there do you think there's any way that could have been an accident?
Speaker 3: No. It knocked me to my knees.
Speaker 0: It knocked you to your knees. How how long have your mom been in school when this happened?
Speaker 3: About 2 weeks. I've had lasting injuries from it. It's caused me to have severe pain in my top in the top of my back and, I'm on medication for the pain.
Speaker 0: Still now?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Did
Speaker 0: Jamelle get in trouble for this?
Speaker 3: Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 0: First, I wanna apologize to anyone I've been forced to record with a hidden camera. Sadly, people are terrified to tell the truth because of the potential consequences, but the truth still needs to be told.
Speaker 1: Do you know if you do remember of any any incident specifically with tomorrow with those?
Speaker 2: Well, do you remember that one there, it it got go with octetick, won't it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Charlie.
Speaker 2: Charlie. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Don't get the name there. Yeah. You must go. Lovely little girl. Yeah.
Speaker 2: It just
Speaker 0: wrote to him
Speaker 2: of not sure to bloody nasty. No
Speaker 10: he was, like, to the side of me. So he tried, like, pushing me and, like, so I quickly moved out there because obviously I knew what he would like. He would have actually hit me and stuff. Mhmm. So I moved and then he, like, moved his arms if he were gonna try and stop my face, like, back.
Okay.
Speaker 0: And he dropped but he did, but on that day, he spat
Speaker 1: at you. What was on? Where'd the spit go?
Speaker 10: Like, literally, all on me and if I'm outside and all down the school bag. Because when I went home, I told mum and mum we were disgusted in it. But the school said that that because it was outside of school time, so can't really do much about
Speaker 5: it. Okay.
Speaker 2: He's a nasty little piece of shit.
Speaker 1: Was he?
Speaker 2: Yeah. And dad.
Speaker 1: 2.
Speaker 2: Everybody and anybody. It does it has no respect for women at all. None. Did he even snap? No response from
Speaker 12: him? No.
Speaker 2: I told I told his father to all this on phone.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: Jamal grabbed him by his tie and was just threw him against the wall, cracked his head up and he gets back at wall and just kept throwing against the wall. This kid was out unconscious already. That's just malicious. That's just intent to kill.
Speaker 1: Were they?
Speaker 10: They had, a young lad and a girl. And they were absolutely they were horrendous. The kids, they were just horrific. The the kids that they are, they used to bully the kids.
Speaker 1: Oh, Jamal. Yeah.
Speaker 0: See, what was
Speaker 12: what
Speaker 5: was Jamal like though? The dickhead.
Speaker 0: Was he?
Speaker 5: He spent he he came to isolation a few times. He want he want perfect child?
Speaker 1: No. No.
Speaker 5: He was the same. Well, you know what Joe Biden did, don't you?
Speaker 0: He was in isolation? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 5: That's what he's in other times.
Speaker 0: Was he?
Speaker 12: Yeah. What
Speaker 0: was he like, though?
Speaker 5: Troublesome, Charles. Yeah. He's a makeup fucking star, he's
Speaker 0: He used to make up stories.
Speaker 5: Yeah. At at one stage, I think you see something to do with your sister. Somebody said something to his sister that I was in isolation. I just go come out and he was waiting outside isolation. I wanted to be the girl or for someone.
I can't can't remember.
Speaker 0: He want to be here. Yeah.
Speaker 5: They did ask someone to his sister. Just one second. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No problem.
Speaker 5: Yeah. No problem. Well, you you you you want you want he used to lie lie a lot.
Speaker 0: But this whole thing was built with what he said. And if you lied a lot, light, it's a big problem.
Speaker 1: What was that over?
Speaker 5: Him. Oh, no. It's whatever. Oh, no. It's whatever.
Or we want this or not. Did you
Speaker 0: like that with lots of kids? Not really. No. Just certain kids?
Speaker 12: Yeah. I would
Speaker 0: say I'm like, he's got an insurance group. So he thought he could? Yeah. Yeah. So he just randomly attacked you?
Yeah. Yeah. What about, your mom your mom just sank about he puts anything between his hands?
Speaker 16: Oh, yeah. It was a compass.
Speaker 17: I remembered it yesterday. It was just as you went.
Speaker 16: It was a compass. He got he got a compass, and he was going around like when
Speaker 0: he got to be
Speaker 16: with proper hearted to be able to be believed in everything. And I think it was miss Ennis that proper gave him a top telling off
Speaker 0: Okay. You know, you said so so say say like that instant there. You said some girl said something to my sister, and he walked away outside to beat her up. Well there are testimonies from several children who alleged they were being bullied by him. Younger children.
Little girls. Mostly girls. Is Jamal the innocent victim? You've been told. I gathered these testimonies over just a few hours filming in Huddersfield.
I could have carried on.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I was waiting outside my pleasure to be the yellow.
Speaker 0: And about the noise. Yeah.
Speaker 5: I'll say about Juwani used to tell fibs. There was several times he got investigated, and it just fucking turned out to be fucking lies.
Speaker 0: The fact he always lied is a big point. The fact that you know that the police the the school investigated incidents where he said things happened Yeah. And they turned out to be made up. Yeah.
Speaker 5: It was thieves. They couldn't have happened. It could happen because of of the one. The child were even in school that he accused.
Speaker 0: I can remember. Oh my god. Yeah. Oh my god.
Speaker 5: So I'm sure he accused us another guy called Jaden. I can't remember his last name.
Speaker 0: Called what?
Speaker 5: Jaden.
Speaker 0: Jaden.
Speaker 5: He accused he accused Jaden or someone. I'm a mean miss any investigative of complex.
Speaker 2: Not very likable, really.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: You know, about what we're gonna do to sisters and what have you bury aunt's office.
Speaker 1: I'm toddlers.
Speaker 2: But not a very nice boss.
Speaker 1: When you say what are
Speaker 0: you gonna do to your sisters?
Speaker 2: Well, I told Betty, wouldn't it?
Speaker 0: Tell Betty is your baby sister? Mhmm. Alright. And I'd
Speaker 1: try to argue that it was in the public's interest for them to know the truth about Jamelle.
Speaker 12: I know.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Unless they They were just retaliating. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know, which most people know is from the side in the world's history.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Jamelle seems like every kid I spoke to that he attacked was younger.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Bullock.
Speaker 0: Jamelle. Hey, Jamelle. Yeah. Yes. That's what I'm fine now.
Yeah.
Speaker 5: That's what I remember. He said he would have stabbed him or something with a science or something. I remember. He said, yeah. So he goes to come and then what he's saying now.
Speaker 0: Because that thing of him getting caught with a knife in school. It's like, what? What with a knife and screwdriver? Bailey gets his tail thrown in a bottle of water. Yeah.
What the fuck? Surely he gets
Speaker 5: a statement on that?
Speaker 0: No. Because it there's things missing.
Speaker 1: But I've got I've got his dad mentioned it in
Speaker 0: the minutes in the meeting. His dad mentioned it in the meeting with the school. His dad mentioned about them catching him with a knife and a screwdriver. His dad
Speaker 5: his dad bought it up. I've got it I've
Speaker 0: got it in black and white.
Speaker 5: Yeah. You got good case there?
Speaker 1: I've got
Speaker 0: I've got it. Yeah. He got caught with a knife. They they can't deny it. You see, the truth was there for the media.
It was there for celebrities and politicians to see. They could have told you the truth at the time before some of you gave over a £160,000 of your money to the poor victim, Jamal. Well, not so poor anymore. But none of this was true. A key part of this case is that I reported what I was told.
Before my involvement in this story, a mother went online and said her daughter had been attacked by Jamal. I contacted that mother. She sent me images of her daughter. She said her little daughter was beaten by 3 Muslim girls and that Jamal jumped in and bit her daughter on the head. She sent me the images of the bite marks on her daughter's head.
I said, can I speak to you? Can I interview you? I rang the mother, but the child was too scared to talk to me.
Speaker 2: Too scared?
Speaker 0: No. No. Everyone's scared. A girl went online and said that she had been attacked by Jamal. Both of these victims deleted their comments why.
Both of these victims had gone online and reported this before my involvement at all in this case. I simply reported what they were saying. We revisited the mother's house to try and get confirmation as to why she backtracked on the story she had put out and the story she had told me.
Speaker 10: I got car if you're driving. Tony Robinson's there.
Speaker 0: Tell her not to worry, don't worry.
Speaker 13: He said don't worry. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So when you when you put online about Jamelle, what what what happened? Like what did you What happened, what was the response to that?
Speaker 5: What do you mean?
Speaker 0: I mean, did you receive did you receive
Speaker 15: I don't receive threats. Yeah, I did.
Speaker 1: What sort
Speaker 0: of threats?
Speaker 5: We all thought. All thought. Don't let all thought. And I'm just
Speaker 0: because I'm trying to understand this. Is that, and is that because and it because what I've what I've looked at and then because Jamelle's solicitors are using a statement that you made saying that, Jamelle had nothing to do with it. But was that I'm asking is that was that in response to the re reflects your seat that you received?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It was. Okay.
Speaker 5: Liar. Straight. Is this a symbol just a liar? Jamal telling fibs all the time. There's several times investigated.
Fucking who found out that he's talking fucking shit.
Speaker 12: I don't
Speaker 0: think the whole but then I read Jamal reading reading was slightly a prepared statement on the news.
Speaker 18: I don't feel safe at school. Sometimes I say to my dad, I don't want to go to school anymore. I was just crying and I didn't do nothing because I respect the school rules.
Speaker 11: He used to break rule
Speaker 5: all the time. Yeah. He used to lie. He used to lie a lot. He lied several times.
He lied he lied several times. I caught him several times lying.
Speaker 0: He's suing me for defamation for what I've said about him. And I'm finding out after teacher after teacher after teacher he's far worse than what I said. Far worse. I mean, like, far worse. He was put up on a pedestal by every single media outlet, politicians, footballers, celebrities, boxers, everybody.
They're suing me for defamation for what I've said about him. All I'm knocking on the door and asking teacher after teacher after teacher is what was Jamal like? And it's just flowing. It's just boom. And he was far worse than anything I said.
Far worse. I find it insane because no there is no way that all the things I'm now finding out, the neither journalists has found this out. They must have known what it was like because it hasn't been hard.
Speaker 10: The Isle of Portrait, Port Bailey, the the spin. He was
Speaker 1: and that Jamal was an innocent woman in London too. He wasn't.
Speaker 10: Not far from that.
Speaker 0: So you were told Bailey was a bully and he was a racist. He wasn't a saint in school, he'd be the 1st to admit that, but he wasn't a bully or a racist. Police concluded there was nothing racist about the scuffle, yet you were told he was vermin. You were told he needed to be dealt with. He was vilified by the media, by politicians, and by celebrities.
Bailey a bully, Bailey a racist. Not according to his teachers and other children. Not according to his head teacher of his school. Who is this? He was
Speaker 1: a 15 year old kid Yeah. And it it would have been, could be, have a great future. He's a very articulate lad. He's got a lot of issue about justice. Yeah.
I think, you know, I could've seen him in a row or something like like that because he has that in him. Really? Yeah. And he would stand up for his peers in school where he felt things were. Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 12: You know, he would do that. I just wanna tell the truth
Speaker 1: about Vaden. Well His life was destroyed.
Speaker 2: Well, that's not
Speaker 0: fair either, is it?
Speaker 2: As a racist bully, and he won.
Speaker 14: And he wasn't.
Speaker 0: I know. And I both
Speaker 1: know that. I know. Unfortunately, the
Speaker 0: truth is just I know. I know. But Bailey didn't even get to sit his GCSEs because of this campaign of hate, this perversion of the truth. What about Jamal's broken arm? Which the world was told was because of bullying.
That was a like. School incident reports record that he had been punching a much younger child in the face while holding him in a headlock, and he was pushed off him, fell, and broke his arm. The police considered the incident to have been dealt with it properly.
Speaker 5: You were picking you were picking I think you picked I've got an old somebody pushed him to get him off.
Speaker 10: He started calling me my white fat bitch and stuff, and then he like Is
Speaker 0: that what you're my mate?
Speaker 12: I'm a
Speaker 10: white fat bitch.
Speaker 0: White fat bitch.
Speaker 10: And then, I went up to him, and then he like, I took I took the bottle and then he put me in a headlock, and then my mate pushed him off me. And I believe that's how he broke his arm. Yeah. So he had you in a headlock.
Speaker 12: And I
Speaker 0: believe that's how he broke his arm. Yeah. So he had you in a headlock? Yeah. So he he physically assaulted you?
Yeah.
Speaker 5: You said
Speaker 0: he called you mama white bitch.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Is
Speaker 0: that the sort of terminology he uses a lot? Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's all sorts of misconceptions like the fact that he had a broken arm.
Speaker 0: Oh, I've got 2 independent witnesses now.
Speaker 1: He he had a year 8 kid. And another kid in year 11 stepped in and said, what are you doing? Pushed him over. Poked him off.
Speaker 0: Who he had in the headlock?
Speaker 4: It was must have been just start of year 11, put this kid in a headlock. One of my friends, one of my friends, didn't like how he was behaving, grabbed him and just threw him off him. Like anyone do break up a fight, they just, like, throw him off him, but this wasn't a fight. This was an all out brawl, one-sided, completely one-sided, because this kid had no match against Jamal, just threw him off him and he landed on the curb.
Speaker 0: How did was he did? Jamal was in year 11?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Half half the size of Jamal, easily.
Speaker 0: Okay. You know, I know he was 12 and Jamal was 15. Mhmm.
Speaker 4: But he was like, kind of like half size ish, kind of like, up to shoulders kind of thing. Yeah. But he still had no match against him, And my friend just grabbed him, threw him off him, he landed on a curb, and that was like it.
Speaker 0: So I've read it reported in by Jeremy Biden and in the newspapers that that was an incident of Jamelle being bullied.
Speaker 4: No. Exact opposite. He was bullying this kid.
Speaker 1: So you see people thought that was all part of it.
Speaker 0: But that's do you know why somebody destroyed it
Speaker 1: for all your broken arm.
Speaker 0: But do you know why they
Speaker 12: do you know
Speaker 1: why they thought
Speaker 0: it was part of it? Because the solicitor said it was.
Speaker 1: No. Well, it's not it's not true. I'm telling you, it's not true. I could even name it I won't. But I could name the child in year 8 that he did it to.
Speaker 12: And I
Speaker 1: could name the child in year 11 that stepped in.
Speaker 0: So someone stepped in?
Speaker 1: Because basically, school school is a pretty good place. Kids have good values. So if you saw a bigger kid, you'd see a little kid. He said, oh, he stepped in and said, what are you doing? Yeah.
And we even had it where
Speaker 0: Do you know what he said to the year 8 kid? No. Called his mom on white slag?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Now I've got that on camera, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Now you say it. Yes. He would have done that, and that would have been incredibly provocative for them.
Speaker 0: Even in his statement to court, Jamal claims they were forced to relocate from Huddersfield for their own safety to a different part of the country. Really? Because the records say there was no most racial motivation and there was no threat at home. That's what the records say. And this is why the authorities, they refused to move them.
And while all this was going on, records also show that his dad Jihad Yeah, his dad's name is Jihad. He'd threatened to kill himself if the rest of his family weren't brought in from Syria. It's not surprising that some authorities expressed concerns that Jihad Hijazi was trying to manipulate the system to get what he wanted, including their housing. You were not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You weren't told anything approaching the truth by the mainstream media.
And in Jihad's holy war statement to the court, Jihad said that he wished he had died in the war with his family, rather than go through what happened at Almanbury Community School. Really? He wished he was dead and all his family were dead rather than go through this school playground instant. Listen to the clip again. Listen to what Bailey's saying.
He's asking Jamal repeatedly. What are you saying now? It wasn't a random attack. It wasn't a racist attack. Bailey didn't threaten to stab Jamal.
The playground incident was not the beginning of the story. It was a culmination of many events. Not least, it was a response to Jamal's alleged threats to rape Bailey's younger sisters. They're about 9 years old at the time of this. So how's it going at that school when you saw the portrayal of what happened with Bailey and him.
Because he was painted as this innocent little kid.
Speaker 10: He was an innocent.
Speaker 12: He's out
Speaker 10: in there for a while. He's out in there. I used to see him bully Bailey's little sisters
Speaker 0: and stuff.
Speaker 8: Everybody was exposing the scumbag that did this, who I hope gets severe retribution. Hope his parents take action. Right? Never mind anything else. What what what what are you producing here with this vermin doing what he's doing here?
Speaker 17: That's not Britain. That's not what
Speaker 8: we do as a country.
Speaker 0: You can hear him there describe Bailey as vermin. Words are important when you're on a daytime platformer and people listen to what you say. What do you do to Vernon? You exterminate. You kill it.
Low life, called him a thug. But worst of all, he demanded severe retribution against this child. At the same time as this, Jeremy Vine was reporting. He didn't tell people the bully's name, although he was finding it hard not to name a child. Instead he told his followers where they could find that name.
Now this is a direct response of both of your reporting, because when you reported, you can follow the timeline and the repercussions of what that bore. What I've done here, in 2018 there's a charity called Tell Mama that records Muslim hate incidents. Even though they've been in the past penalised for exaggerating the figures, let's go, let's work off their figures. They say there are over a 1,000 hate instances with 325 of them being online. Some of them are Islamophobic, which means criticizing Islam as well.
Here, I've printed a piece of paper for each one of those hate incidents. 327 hate incidents online against the entire Muslim community of the UK in 2018. The 325 Islamophobic comments, they're the ones you read about on the news every day. They're the ones people are in jail for. They're the hate incidents the media keeps shoving down your throat.
So each piece of paper here represents a hate comment aimed at a child after a playground dispute. I want to read these now, and peers, you demanded severe retribution, that's what you demanded against this child. Let's see if you're happy with some of this. I pray someone rapes you and your whole family while you watch. Fuck your mother.
Fuck your love. The Syrians will rape your family. If I saw you, I would rape you to death. You'll be raped by the Volusian group. I hope your mother will not be racist when she is raped.
I'm going to bum your nan alive then dead her again. And the threats of rape, all of these threats of rape, imagine being these children, imagine being a 15 year old child living in Huddersfield with your little sisters. Muslim men are jailed in the biggest scandal in the history of our country for mass rapes in that town. And then you're receiving and you're reading these messages. You're going to die, you're going to fucking die, we're going to strangle your mum, your dad, your friends.
I'll kill your whole family. I can't wait to find you so I can slit your throat. You're the person who should be killed in those ISIS videos. You, your parents and your whole family have to be burned. Do heaven a favor of fucking off yourself.
Looking at you makes me want to commit suicide. Go commit suicide your your oxygen thief. Jump off a bridge bro. Do humans a favor and kill yourself. We don't want you and you don't belong in this world.
Again, imagine being that child reading them. Piers. Is that severe enough for you? This is a mental health record for Bailey McLaren. Bailey was referred to Luton CAMS by Luton and Dunstable Psychiatry Liaison on the 31st December 2018.
Reason patient involved in incident in Huddersfield and has been relocated to Luton with family. Patient unable to cope with not returning home and has taken an overdose. So this lie, this narrative, this agenda which comes before anything else by the politicians, by the media that was pumped. This child, it doesn't matter. His life didn't matter.
You know if he killed himself, no one would have cared. We wouldn't have heard condemnation from any of the politicians or from any of the media. No one cared. Because everyone from start to finish in this story is collateral damage so long as they have the narrative. And peers, you have a son, you have children.
Demanding severe retribution against a child for a school playground dispute is unforgivable. You sit there and you preach. You preach against us. You make your accusations against me. Never have I labelled Muslim children as vermin.
Never have I demanded my followers to commit severe retribution against anybody. And this is what the media, the politicians, and the celebrities created, aided and abetted by the left wing activism and the selective indignation of Islam. Hypocrites out there might say, who cares? That's what he deserved, right? Imagine for one moment if I had incited violence against young Muslim lad in the reversal of this situation.
And you see, in a district where a generation of young girls have been raped, these threats are far from empty. What do you think, if you were working in the school at that time, what do you think what the media done?
Speaker 5: I think the media fucking blew out of fucking proportion of what the fucking world body got off.
Speaker 0: I know. But in the media run that Jamal was being bullied,
Speaker 5: like You see, he used to complain that he used to be bullied. There was a there was another, I think, Kirklees Kirklees guy that came that Jamal that Jamal said somebody bought a knife or something? I think that that be that be that that should be on record. Yeah. Yeah.
I don't think when we we we we have to get I think it were a lot of bollocks.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm gathering that by reading the school records. They made accusations and then when they're investigated.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And there were a lot of bollocks. It lied.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Now ITV, Piers Morgan. You used your platform to incite hatred of a young child. No time for facts or the inconvenient truth. Surely you must have known the truth because within a few hours of the story breaking, I was receiving dozens of messages from parents, pupils and staff saying there was much more to the story than met the eye.
So I did what any journalist could have done, should have done. I asked questions. Were you just being lazy? Was it willful blindness? Or are you just incompetent peers?
And the BBC's Jeremy Vine, to you personally, was it clinical cowardice? After all, you didn't reveal the white boy's name. You just told everyone where to find it on Twitter. Were you afraid of being sued? Although it wouldn't have been the BBC licence fee payers picking up your legal bills, would it?
Or was this your Pontius Pilate moment? Condemning a child whilst washing your hands of any responsibility? Because that's what you did and you didn't seek the truth either. Piers, Jeremy, your lazy inept reporting was not without consequence as we will see. You incited hatred, you succeeded.
And that's contempt. Your actions, not Bailey's, led to Bailey and his family being driven from their home in the middle of the night. Like the very refugees you claim you care about. The hate you incited was off the scale. Then when machetes had arrived at the school, gangs were roaming the streets looking for bait.
West Yorkshire police told Bailey's mum that terrorism threat had been raised to writ. They had intelligence of people coming from Bradford to get Bailey and his family. Rather than deal with the threat, they moved Bailey and his family to a place of safety. So whilst one child had the support of the whole country, had the support of the prime minister, Sajid Javid, the local football club. Everyone rallying behind this child, £160,000 donated to him.
The other child in this incident, his family were driven from their home. Fret. Groups of men looking for him, ready to commit violence against him. And the police the police stopped their mom. So the police took the family.
The police went and got the family to get them out of their house through imminent danger, and they were taking them to relocate them here. Let's have a look. The night in. This is the accommodation that Bailey's mother with 2 9 year old sisters and children were being relocated to. This one star hotel where rooms are rented by the hour next door to a brothel.
The imam who brought a mob of men up to the school, he has 3 mosques within a stone's throw of where we're standing now. Bailey's mother, through her sense, looked up this hotel, saw it was owned by Muslims, read this read the reviews that it's a prostitute racket drug hole, and got out of the police meat wagon with her children to take them to safety herself. But this is where Kirklees Council were housing those children and that family. This is the most Muslim populated area of Leeds. That family were taken to so called safety, yeah, Surrounded by mosques in what is a Muslim ghetto.
Yeah? Which is why I'm getting bibbed. I'm gonna get some cause a scene now. We went to see from neighbors what it was like at the time of the incident.
Speaker 17: I think it was a a BMW
Speaker 16: the fire down the house.
Speaker 0: God. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 5: So it was
Speaker 17: it was meant to shoot,
Speaker 5: the 7
Speaker 0: To shoot the mum?
Speaker 17: The mum. The 7 2, to the it's
Speaker 0: Well, they come outside and under there. It's shouting and screaming. Shout and screaming.
Speaker 10: Well, I
Speaker 3: saw the video because the neighbor had shared it. And then I saw in the Yorkshire live, them making Bailey out to be really horrible, and that Jamal was a poor little victim, and it it wound me up. So I commented on it. The victim wasn't a victim. He hit me in the back with a hockey stick.
And then within the space of 2 hours, I had about 250 comments saying that I was lying, that I must have been excluded from the school because I'm a liar. Just horrible comments like that. None of them believe in me.
Speaker 0: And did you take this did you take the comment down?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I didn't want to, but my mom was worried for repercussions, so she asked me to take it down so I did.
Speaker 0: This is the area that Kirklees Council thought it was the right place to send a child and his family, who were wanted at the time, the main imam outside their school with mobs of Muslim men looking for them, and this is where they decided to send them. They basically dropped them in their backyard. That's what they were doing. This is the hotel. This is, I believe, a 4 star hotel.
It's totally full of illegal immigrants. This is across the country. So the point to make is that illegal immigrants come here, young fine age men, not families, not children, and this is where council would help them. Let's have a look. Hello, boys.
Hello.
Speaker 5: How are you doing?
Speaker 0: Can I do you mind if I ask, what what country are you from, though?
Speaker 1: I I do not know speak English.
Speaker 0: You do speak English. I do. This is what
Speaker 14: country are you from? Mine
Speaker 0: yeah. Iran? Yeah. Iran. Okay.
Speaker 14: Yeah. Iran.
Speaker 0: Kurdistan. Iran. Okay. Nice call, man. I'm just seeing.
Is the hotel full? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Full.
Enjoying it here? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 14: Nice hotel. Nice food.
Speaker 0: Nice hotel. Nice food?
Speaker 14: Yeah. Healthy food.
Speaker 0: Healthy food. It looks like a nice hotel. Yeah. How many people are in here?
Speaker 14: I think there's 200.
Speaker 0: 200? Lots of children?
Speaker 14: So my iPhone, I think it has a little children.
Speaker 0: No children?
Speaker 14: Oh, my mom's children. No.
Speaker 0: Not many children. But it's a nice hotel.
Speaker 14: Nice hotel.
Speaker 0: Nice hotel. It is a nice hotel. And if if you look at if you look at where the other family were being housed in Beeston and you compare it to this 4 star 4 star hotel, nice food as our friend says.
Speaker 1: Healthy food.
Speaker 0: Healthy food.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Alright.
Speaker 0: Hello, bro. Hi. How you doing?
Speaker 1: Hey. Do you want to come back in?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We're off now, mate. We're only we're only we're only we're done now.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Do you know what they have in here? They have a full time doctor and nurses. Full time, stationed in there.
Speaker 14: In, buddy.
Speaker 0: Full time. So you know when you come my dad tried to get a doctor's appointment earlier. Couldn't get one. Full time. Full time.
Full time.
Speaker 1: You're very bad.
Speaker 0: The food's bad? Yeah. The food's bad? Yeah. Is it free?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's free.
Speaker 5: They called our school. Soon as the media media and all that died, they sent in chief inspectors chief inspectors of fucking off state. We knew they're gonna fail and every fucking thing they can think of.
Speaker 1: I have goofiness, There's a lot more changes. All of that and yesterday. And, you know, they're only in the bank, but it was never picked up.
Speaker 0: Apart from my reporting, there was not a single media statement given the other side of this story. The staff knew. Other pupils knew. They could've exposed the lie. Why didn't they?
Speaker 1: The incident I always quote the incident. Yeah. The incident has reoccurred. It's come to my door. They said you can't talk about it because you've got an undistclosure agreement.
They're not satisfactory. So that was the reason they triggered it.
Speaker 0: They were even not free to tell you the truth or they were terrified of the consequences. And that's for so called journalists. Some can't find the truth, some won't tell the truth, and some they're afraid of the truth. But me, as a journalist, it's my job to present you the truth.
Speaker 1: If you want my honest opinion, they said, get up there. This is I don't know who they is. Get up there and shoot that school. Get up there and get rid of this.
Speaker 0: You see, when the media and politicians decide to kill a story, when they decide to hide the truth from you, they'll do whatever it takes. They shut down the school. It's gone. Everyone lost their jobs. You see, once this Live Our Racist attack had gone global, the truth would never be allowed to come out.
The real truth, that a young Syrian refugee was struggling to fit into his new environment was problematic. His allegedly abusive and violent conduct towards teachers and children was allowed to run unchecked. Why? Did the school authorities turn a blind eye rather than be accused of victimizing the boy, of being racist towards him? They stayed silent.
The truth may have triggered accusations of racism or sparked discussion about immigration policies. The challenges of achieving the successful integration of migrants we welcome into United Kingdom, and the need to take those challenges seriously. You see, Jamal was one of 20,000 Syrian refugees who come to the UK as part of the United Nations resettlement program. The government could not allow their policies to be examined and the consequences and their incompetence to be exposed. And if you don't think the government is incompetent, you ain't been paying attention to anything.
Priti Patel's been talking tough, really tough on controlling our borders for years. And yet we have boatloads of illegal economic migrants being escorted across the English Channel and put into these luxury accommodation at your expense. This ineptitude does nothing for the refugees who come here legally, who we welcome into England, refugees who are trying to integrate and make a new life here. And who was the community's rage directed at? All Syrian refugees.
That's who. When in fact, there are many families of Syrian refugees in the area, we're told, all of them delightful, working hard to settle and integrate into the country they can now call home. I spoke to multiple refugee families. In the school, Gremlin, my children. No.
Any Gremlin. No problems with your children? No. That's it. And you've had a you've had a good experience in the school?
Speaker 10: I used to have 2 friends and they don't Bali and they don't care where from country I can't move anything.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 10: And when I spoke English, like, I was we was about 1 month we've been in here, and I used to not speak English very much. So they used to tell me how to speak all that thing. And now I'm in year 8, and I know how to speak English. And I made more friends, and now I am fine.
Speaker 0: And you're fine? And then no problems?
Speaker 18: I don't feel safe at school. Sometimes I say to my dad, I don't want to go to school anymore. I was just crying and I didn't do nothing because I respect the school rules.
Speaker 0: Who told Jamal to go on camera and say this? Who arranged the media tour? Who encouraged him to take legal action? He was originally going to sue the school for not looking after him and then decided to sue me instead. Who told him to put this in his statement to the High Court?
You see, Jamal doesn't like to break the school rules. Here's the problem. This is his behavior record. Almost a 100 codes for bad behavior. Truancy, verbal abuse to teachers, physical violence towards pupils, and lying.
Yeah, there's plenty for lying. You see, I haven't got all of Jamal's school records. Large sections of documents I was given were blacked out. We tried to get access but we weren't allowed. And the lawyers wrote to the court to explain they had misplaced documentation.
And finally, as you can hear, the lawyers decided what they were gonna allow me to see. Whilst I was preparing my defense, Jamal's lawyers decided what I could see. And this global news story wasn't an accident. It was all carefully planned. You see, the day before the video went viral, a GoFundMe page was set up for Jamal and the video went viral the day after a criminal record check come back on Jamal.
Why would his lawyers do a criminal record check? Well, they had to make sure this was financially beneficial exercise. Wasn't going to be derailed by an unhelpful pass. 15 Rold Jamal, his record was clean by the way. Mohammed Akanji, the jihadist lawyer of choice, was immediately on the global media blitz.
Speaker 19: Listen. I'm very conned to himself. I'm after him for my own reason.
Speaker 8: Right. Okay. Nothing sinister though, is it?
Speaker 19: Oh, fuck. No. No. Journalistic. Oh, journalistic.
Well, that's good.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. No. No.
Speaker 19: No. Fucking totally journalistic. I wanna get all the background on him. You reckon he Yeah. You reckon he was a member of that?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Al and Midrgharun are a prescribed terrorist organization. Almost 60% of terrorists in British prisons are ex members of this organization. They kill. They murder.
They slaughter. That is the organization that Mohammed Khanji and his brother were allegedly, according to this, top mainstream Muslim British journalist who are members of it. How does a Syrian lad find himself working with the jihadist lawyer of choice before this video even went out? Before anyone has seen this viral video. Within 2 weeks, the lawyers have been made the beneficiaries of the GoFundMe page of £160,000.
A plan to sue the school? That's put on hold. And a plan to sue, moi, for libel was launched. What riches had these lawyers promised Jamal and his family? School records were edited.
Migration Yorkshire clamored to make this playground fight about race and hate. They contacted the Home Office as soon as they heard about this playground fight. Yeah. The home office, a playground scuffle. Why are they contacting the home office instantly?
Someone went further. You see, we had this school incident report analyzed by a graphologist. Someone who analyzes handwriting. It appears to show that a second person with very different handwriting doctored the report to allege that Bailey had threatened to stab Jamal. Even though all the witness reports mentioned there was only one teacher there, so only one teacher could have done an instant report.
So, with the careful planning, the jihadist favorite lawyer and the enthusiastic support of some useful idiots, it was possible for the lies to go round the world twice before the truth had had a chance to put his pants on. I now need to mention other repercussions of what happened in Ormondbury. I was being sued for reporting the things that were said to me about Jamau. I had to defend myself. The judges already already ruled that I was not allowed to argue.
It was in the public's interest for people to hear a different perspective of Jamal. I had to prove that the information reported to me was true. That's not the kind of burden placed on Piers Morgan or Jeremy Vine. Piers can describe Bailey as vermin without being held to account. And who is behind propagating this deception and the lawsuit against me?
You see, this is where we get to meet the most sinister part of the unholy alliance. All sorts of people are helping out, but leading the posse from the front is the jihadist lawyer of choice. He represented Shamina Begman, you know the jihadi terrorist that's out in Syria. He represented, I think, Michael Adeballajo, Lee Rigby's killer. I think he's even had to change his name because he's got such a terrible track record.
So this is the lawyer who's suing me and who the media celebrated that he had served me papers even though I wasn't in the country. If you're pillaged, if you've plundered, if you've raped and you're beheaded, and you say you've done it in the name of Islam, well these are the lawyers for you. The lawyers who stepped forward for ISIS by Shmina Begum, who've been fighting to get her back into our country. Who defended Michael Adeballaju who beheaded Lee Rigby. This is Mohammed Akanji and his colleague, Faruk Bajwa, who's been banned from claiming legal aid.
Yeah. Banned from claiming legal aid for putting in fraudulent expense claims. Let me rewind a bit. Let's go back a few weeks. There's an important piece of background information to this.
Speaker 16: Don't know the full ins and outs of it, but, basically, to inform the group call themselves Antifa UK. Yeah. Over there? Yep. To be honest, I kind of haven't, and Antifa Dundee.
The base he says are planning to help possibly kill Tommy Robinson, because they know where he lives and want to silence him. They've got their hands on it says they've got hands hands on to make a 40 sevens, make ketchup bombs and stuff. And allegedly, instead, wherever the foot, these petrol bonds through your door when he sleeps. They say they're also friends with a few MPs.
Speaker 0: Now at the heightened tensions with multiple osmond warnings, they now take back the radar phone, the one option we have to go direct to the police, and they are removing it at this current moment.
Speaker 1: Where are you from? I'm from
Speaker 0: So, look, what did you just say, basically, the the the radar phone or whatever it is? Yes. Yes. The phone, the emergency phone that you Will will be taking that back. You'll be taking that back.
Yeah. But those those phones are They're used for a aren't even for real. Like, so so when there's a heightened threat and people have come to the house and the address has been put out where my kids are, you're then gonna take the panic phone back. It's Christmas 2018. The police come to my family's home to tell me that people in Antifa, file a violent and extremist organisation, are planning to kill me and my family.
See who were the first to comment on this video? Well, Mohammed Akanji of Farooq Bazrunko, of course, the jihadists lawyers of choice, but also Mike Stoodsbury, an independent journalist, an Antifa activist. So the jihadist lawyers knew Antifa were planning to kill me, then actually commented on the video of the Ozmen warning. You see, what happened next is interesting, although not interesting to the solicitors regulation authority or the law society. The people who should be interested in the integrity of our lawyers.
Speaker 17: It will be live streamed. I'm not in charge of the
Speaker 4: filming or anything like that.
Speaker 17: That's, down to the
Speaker 4: the guys over here.
Speaker 17: And you literally know we wanted to do this, so we thought, what mug can we probably do with a creep for this?
Speaker 0: So 2 lawyers who know Antifa are planning to kill me, seek out an Antifa extremist, hire him for one day, just one day, and send him to live stream the servant of papers to my home, my family's home. Papers which had already been served by the way, with a gang. When my wife and children were there, when they knew I was abroad, lawyers commissioned the Antifa Extremist to broadcast my home address in order, as they put it, to cause a spectacle.
Speaker 11: The law firm or the lawyer who has been, you know, sort of taking the lead on the Tommy case wanted to make sure, doubly sure that that, a, Tommy got the, the the letter. It actually went out 2 2 two different ways, and he wanted to make a bit of a spectacle out of it. This this is all very they're very amusing.
Speaker 0: A group supported by Mike Stitchbury came to the home that my wife and children were in on a Sunday afternoon when I wasn't even in the country. So let's have a look at Mike Stitchbury, who calls himself a journalist, who promoted this event, who shared it and encouraged it, who found it amusing that my wife was so scared she had to ring the police. My wife has been sat down and told in her home that Antifa are planning to kill her. They're planning to kill our family and harm our family. She's been told that she may get acid in her face.
Well, how do you think she felt on a Sunday afternoon whilst my children are playing outside on their bikes? To be told that Antifa were on their way to our home. Let's have a look at Mike Stuxbury, the man that sent them. Here he is self admitting that he is part of Antifa. Here he is promoting violence against his opposition.
Punch them, punch them, punch them. Here he is hoping that buses full of Antifa get shipped in to smash people's skulls in. Here he is calling for white genocide. Mike Stitchby is an extremist. He's a far left extremist who currently is playing a victim.
He encouraged people to come and he sent people and was part of an organization that communicated together, to send people to the home where my wife and children were when I wasn't there. He even crowdfunded to support them in their action.
Speaker 11: He, you know, he was looking at various people and eventually he sort of came on to Dick Coughlin. Dick Coughlin? I can't say it properly. Who is a a a YouTuber who has made videos about Tommy for, god, almost 10 years, I think, who's a who's a real critic. He's a I don't know if you've checked him out, but he's a he's a funny guy.
Speaker 5: Check out. Yeah.
Speaker 11: He's, sort of, you know, got red hair, x he calls you know, he's he's an ex crackhead, basically.
Speaker 0: And who is this antique extremist hired to come to my kids' home? Keep watching. I went up to where and they said, right. We'll take that from him. We'll make sure he gets it.
And later that night, the Antifa Extremists hired by their lawyers had a message for me and my children.
Speaker 17: And on that note, see, on that on the happy note,
Speaker 6: oh, by the way, Tommy, I am gonna mince your kids, mate.
Speaker 0: So look at the man that they sent. The man that you can see, the Muslim lawyer, handed privileged documentation giving this man my children's home address. That's what he's done. Fully aware of the serious danger my family are in, and he hands them my children's address. They then come to my children's home, my wife gets a phone call, my children run off the drive, they lock themselves in the house, they ring emergency, the emergency 999 call for the police to come, they press panic buttons, they need support because Antifa are coming.
They came, they told the Muslim lawyer, he's fully aware they're coming to live stream where my family are. They live stream and dox the name of the road. They dox the door number. I went up to where and I'm and I said, right. We'll take that from him.
We'll make sure he gets it. The man's specifically chosen. He was chosen. He says in his own video.
Speaker 17: The lawyer in this case was a guy called Mohammed Sunimi Akundra who works for a solicitors in London called, I shit you not, Farooq Bajwa and Co, solicitors of London. I get asked by this guy that, they've decided that they're going to Tommy Robinson is going to be served legal papers, so he can be sued by this family. And they asked, me, do I want to be the one to go along to serve legal documents?
Speaker 0: Let's have a look at who Dick Coughlin is. Let's have a look at some of the things he said. Here he is promoting hatred against black people. Serious, this is a crime. The comments he makes are a crime.
Here he is promoting hatred against Pakistanis. Here he is singing a song promoting anti semitism, singing a song about lampshades being made out of Jewish people's skin from the hollow. Yeah. 3rd black, 3rd black, you're a good killer kite. We're white, far right, and we're gonna have a fight.
We're in the A self confessed racist anti semitic crackhead was sent to my children's property. He talked about raping my wife in her skull socket. He talked about my children being fed for a meat winder. He talked about burning my house down and whilst masturbating with my family in it. Now other than to terrorize my wife and children, why would any sane person do this?
It worked, okay. Tipped off by a friend who saw the gang on livestream approaching, my ex wife hit the panic button and barricaded herself and our children in a bedroom. The police thankfully responded in time. And these are exactly the same tactics being used against the unbelievably courageous children in Ombre. Threats of violence and rape against children who are willing to stand with me in defence of the truth at the High Court of London.
The video release, media, GoFundMe, Antifa, it all happened at the same time. It was coordinated, and it was about hate and making money. And how that far left activist, who appears to be an antisemitic, Jew hating, black hating racist, came to my home with his gang and threatened to kill my children. These lawyers, the mainstream media, they don't care about refugees. They don't care about Jamelle.
They don't care about the truth. Say that bloke who made the video saying he's gonna kill the kids. Yeah. Can you if you didn't do it, I know 100% give a statement. I know.
I was there.
Speaker 1: Okay. Give a
Speaker 0: statement about that. She complained about it. She contacted Paul, remember, it would have been the liaison officer at the time, to Okay. Ask if he was arrested. I found out his address, and I gave you all the information for him.
So even now Right. Say now, looking at that, can he be arrested now then?
Speaker 16: I don't know what happened with
Speaker 20: the previous report because when we search on our system that we currently use
Speaker 0: You probably got very good.
Speaker 20: See any crime report that was linked to it.
Speaker 0: You see, the next day, knowing I've been provoked with threats against my ex wife and my children, no doubt thinking they would catch me conspiring to commit violence and lock me up on a conspiracy charge. Here, outside my ex wife's house, men in a car that has never been registered, check the registration plate. So presumably from the security services, we've listing devices recording what's being said in my home. The involvement of the security services may explain why Dick Coughlin, the man who publicly threatened to murder my children, has never even been spoken to or arrested despite my wife's complaints. What are you doing?
Is there any reason the back of your glove? There's no
Speaker 5: one in the back of your glove.
Speaker 0: So what are you doing? We're not here. Anything to do with you. What are you doing now? Well, who what do you think we're doing?
I think you're starting to do me.
Speaker 16: No. No. It's a pissy.
Speaker 0: Who's this with? What are you doing? And there is someone in the back. I'm at
Speaker 12: Can you
Speaker 1: tell me what you're doing now?
Speaker 0: Because essentially, I've got threats against me. I'm not. Yeah? So what are you doing? I don't know what you're doing, bro.
That's all everyone knows what you're doing. I've got police officers sat with a recording in a recording van. In the back of this van is a recording station. I'm not standing. You're not going.
No. Because I no. Because what yous are doing I know what yous are doing. I know what yous are doing. I know what yous are doing.
They're sat in the back of their van. This is recording devices. The whole of this back thing because he just opened up when I got him out. The whole of this back thing is recording where they're pointing it because they what this is has been a setup. These people are set these police officers are setting me
Speaker 1: up.
Speaker 0: They're setting me up. It's a setup. They're setting me up by sending people to my house because they think I'm gonna react and do something, and they're recording it with listening devices. We checked the vehicle registration plate outside the house on the government website and there's no such vehicle. Let's not forget the politicians are fearless leaders.
It was only when I went alone to the home of self declared journalist, Mike Stuchby, to ask him why he had done what he had and why he thought it was funny to intimidate my children. Some of you may some of you may have seen that people have been outside my home. Timberland, my family. The difference is when they come to my home, 5 men come to my home. I'm on my own.
I've had to move my children who are scared and upset. And people encouraged people to participate in coming to my address. One of those such people
Speaker 14: who
Speaker 0: It was only then that the fearless then deputy leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, steps forwards. Ignoring reality completely.
Speaker 21: Every major social media platform other than YouTube has taken down Steven Yaxley Lennon's profile because of his hateful conduct. Late on Monday night, Yaxley Lennon turned up at a journalist home banging on the doors and windows demanding to be let in. And after being escorted away by the police, he returned at 5 AM and continued his intimidation. The incident was live streamed. He later warned journalists in a YouTube video to expect a knock at the door.
Does the secretary of state think that is right that YouTube and the parent company Alphabet continues to give this man a platform, sir?
Speaker 0: It'd be funny, you know, if it wasn't so insidious. The hardly honorable mister Watson totally misrepresented what happened, and from behind his shield of parliamentary privilege, bravely declared but I've been terrorizing a journalist. Journalist. Stokesbury's an antifa activist who incites violence and wants to kill white people. Terrorizing.
Was I terrorizing? Mister Watson bravely demanded that I'd be removed from YouTube. YouTube had now had only recently confirmed that none, not one of my videos had broken any of their stringent guidelines. And my videos hadn't broken any laws. It was clear I hadn't harassed anyone, certainly not Mike Stutchbury, if indeed he is a journalist.
But none of that mattered. My wife and children left their family home that night. They never went back. Perhaps having their lives endangered by their jihadist lawyers. See my wife started legal action against Mohammed Akanji and Farooq Basra's firm.
But Mo and Co, Mohammed Akanji and Farooq Basra, see they weren't so keen on facing the law as they were on abusing the law to persecute others for financial and ideological reasons. On the 31st March 2019, they promptly collapsed their law firm. They'd never be involved in the case. That's what they said. And doctor Farooq Basra, well he's no longer gonna be a lawyer.
He'd been living in Pakistan. That's it. That's what they said. That's how easy it was for Mo and Co to escape justice. Interestingly, they're still signing documents on the case on the 6th June, months after saying they're not involved.
Several other law firms have reported them to the Law Society, the body that is supposed to make sure lawyers behave ethically. Nothing's been done. I wonder why. In fact, all the lawyers working at Fruit Basement and Co just moved across to a new law firm called Burlington's. And guess what?
Yeah. Burlington's took on Jamelle's case against me. FruitBazwa now works for Burlington's. FruitBazwa's son now works for Burlington's. Fruit Basra is Burlington's GDPR expert.
Pretty ironic, no? Fruit Basra and Co leaked my children's address to an antifa activist to put it online for everyone. And if we've been stupid enough to expect more ethical behaviour from Birlingtons than from Faruk Bajwa and Mohammed Akanji, well, we'd have been disappointed. I just really, which I've been trying to do, I need all of the disclosure, which I haven't had. I haven't had a full disclosure of his school records.
Speaker 13: Therefore, to make sure, that we have it, that that some documents haven't been lost in the transfer of the bathroom through Bourgeois to to Burlington's, we have done another subject access request to the council for
Speaker 0: July. And how long would that and how long would the council take for that?
Speaker 13: I I don't know. I I don't think they gave us time frame, did they,
Speaker 12: Luke? No. No.
Speaker 16: They didn't, unfortunately. So you're asking
Speaker 0: so what what you're saying is you believe there may be things that I that I haven't been disclosed. You don't know how long they're gonna take, but you won't agree to an adjournment?
Speaker 13: No. No. Our position is that we're not agreeing to an adjournment. Those are my instructions.
Speaker 0: Because my my my concern and serious concern is the safety of the witnesses. And and it's a genuine and and if you I don't believe for 1 minute that Mohammed al Khemji or Farooq Basra give a shit about any of this or Jamelle. Yeah. I I generally don't think they do. And this is I'm
Speaker 13: just gonna say Farooq Bajwa and Mohammed Dukunji have nothing to do with this case. This is my case.
Speaker 0: How how how come how come how come then
Speaker 13: to anybody from Fruit Bajwa
Speaker 0: How come then Fruit Bajwa
Speaker 13: have Burlington started with me.
Speaker 0: How come Fritbajwa signed a form 3 months after he left then to do this case?
Speaker 13: It's absolute it was, if if that was the case, it was before I gave the undertaking, and he wasn't involved in this case before.
Speaker 0: He signed a he signed a form dated June in June. He signed a form, and the date on that form that he signed is June. He left this case in March, apparently. How come?
Speaker 13: Well, I I I if you explanation as to why. I'm not quite sure what the formula is about.
Speaker 0: No. You'll see it you'll see it you'll see it on my documentary. Okay so when you when you send me what you decide is relevant yeah, how am I going to know what you've cut out?
Speaker 16: Well I suppose you wouldn't.
Speaker 0: I wouldn't. Does that seem fair? If the info if the if the information is not relevant, then what harm could it do in me hacking it?
Speaker 16: But it's not about harm Stephen, it's about privacy.
Speaker 0: For the last for the last 3 days, since I gave you, since you received videos so that you become aware that I have video evidence that's going to prove my case, since that point my ex wife and my children for the last 2 days have had police at their house because they've been receiving threats. On top of that pictures of my ex wife have been put online by the same people who were in bed with Mohammed Okanji. Then 2 days ago Mohammed Okanji doxxed my mother and father's house. Last night, that house at 1 o'clock in the morning was smashed to pieces with bricks through the windows, yeah? This is all going on in the background of it.
I've been trying to get my stuff ready, but just so you're aware of what's going on as to why I don't trust the words you say. When you have Farouk Basra's son working for your, working for your company and Farooq Basra is the man that sent people to threaten to kill my children, I'm wondering why in the last 48 hours or last 72 hours, since I disclosed information to you, Why why my family and loved ones have come under persecuted harm? Of which is all detailed with police records and video footage of everything that's been going on. So I'm super concerned and don't trust you or your party to decide what's relevant in this case. I don't trust you.
So where, how, if this should be fair trial about getting out the truth, if that's what you're working for, you need to give me your disclosure. Instead of reviewing it and taking bits out, which is what you've already done with the school records. You'll say, because I know that's not the full school records, so and you've covered up things which, and Luke, Francesca told me, I have a recording of her telling me, that your, that Burlington's did not retract anything, redact anything, yet in court you had to admit you did. I've got the recording of that telling you. Everything was redacted prior to coming to you.
Everything was redacted prior to coming to you. And then in court you sit and admit that you have been redacting things. So, forgive me. It's just lie after lie. This is Burlington's lawyers losing documents that they're supposed to send to me and deleting things that they don't want me to see?
Misplaced. How do you misplace documents that were electronically filed on their case management system through Basra and Co, then passed over to Berlin's? All of this is because they're sharing it. And all of this is to put pressure on me in the weeks before it. And all this, and this is a kanji, I guarantee you this is a kanji, a kanji working with resistant hay.
The the account that's put put it on is is resisting hate, yeah? Resistant hate who a country hires with Dick Coughlin to send to the house before. They're like his little minis. So now he knows that it's coming, it's going to land on his lap. The whole lie that they've told, and this is the actions they use.
They can't play the man so they play the kids and the family. You don't need to be scared, Sanya, because, they're doing this
Speaker 10: you guys just told me he's a good boy.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I know, babe. But they're purposely just doing that. But when they're doing this, they're just doing this to try and get cause me shit and make you worry. So I know it's easier said, but you don't need to worry.
Yeah? They're doing this so they're doing this so that I don't beat them in court. That's why they're doing this. Yeah? The mad thing is the whole time this goes on, the media and all of the, we're the bad guys.
That we've been on. But like I'm the one persecuting people or targeting them. And they're such cowards. They're such cowards, man. I just got a phone call, and they said goodbye.
I'm so scared. I've told the police, but I'm so scared.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Hello?
Speaker 0: Jenna, who's just wrong with Spencer?
Speaker 10: We don't know at the minute.
Speaker 12: What are
Speaker 0: the police then?
Speaker 10: I'm just making a statement.
Speaker 0: Okay. But just quickly, what are they what are they are they getting that account? Let's put a picture of you online. How who's who showed you that picture, Jenna?
Speaker 10: It's on Twitter. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Who saw it?
Speaker 10: I saw it myself.
Speaker 0: You saw it yourself. Okay. Yeah. Are they gonna are the police sorting out to get rid of it?
Speaker 10: Yeah, they've taken the address of the Twitter person to put it out.
Speaker 0: If you can say I give them 50 addresses of people who have done exactly this over the years, including the redhead man who what about the redhead bloke who friends come to kids? What do they say about that?
Speaker 10: Well nothing really.
Speaker 0: No? It's a crime. Do you know what I mean? If I make if I make a video threatening to kill some kids, I'll be arrested. So that the point where you need to ask them specifically and say to them you made a complaint, someone threatened to murder your children, you had to leave your home yeah, Those threats have now followed you to where you're now living.
Yeah. And they're coming from the same people, the same organizations, the same people they done fuck all about last time. They didn't lick them. They didn't speak to them. They didn't.
The solicitor is still acting with impunity, doing it to my mom and dad yesterday. See, you need to specifically ask them, then I want our answer, Adam. When you made a complaint against Richard Coughlin, Dick Coughlin last year, why have they not done anything? And give us and get you a follow-up and an answer as to why they haven't
Speaker 16: done anything, if you can.
Speaker 12: Just get
Speaker 13: it up. You've got time?
Speaker 0: I mean, the kids are right. Am I right that you managed to track the number? Yes. So you know who made those phone calls to her and the
Speaker 15: We know where the number it came from
Speaker 5: Yep.
Speaker 15: And who who that phone was registered to. So that's all obviously, we cannot prove well, I I at that time, I wasn't able to prove who. I only could say where the number came from.
Speaker 0: As in as in as in whose phone is?
Speaker 15: Who the phone is registered to.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because because, obviously, for me, this was this was threatening phone calls a week before a high court trial trying to prevent the court trying to prevent the court to justice. How come no one's been arrested?
Speaker 15: I can't see any again on the crime report.
Speaker 0: If I send you evidence, which I'm going to anyway because it's all going to the judge, if I send you evidence of Mohammed Akanji doxing my mum and dad's address, if I send you evidence of criminal damage and attacks in the middle of the night at an old pensioner's old pensioner's home, and I show you evidence of pictures of my wife being put on, ex wife being put online, and my son. They've hung my 11 year old son's phone. The police were all involved. They've been threatening my 11 year old son. Yeah?
This is what's going on. If I send you evidence of that, do you think you'll support an anonymity order to protect the children in this case?
Speaker 16: Steven, I I I can't answer that because I don't have instructions to answer that. I don't have conduct of the matter. But what I can clarify for you is some of the issues that I can give answers on. One of those of which I heard you made reference to, Farooq's son working. He is not involved in the case in any way at all, has no access to any files whatsoever.
Speaker 0: You've heard how Luke hack here. He couldn't explain why they were adapting and deleting information from documents before handing them over to me. Information I should have been given. He couldn't answer the simple question, who decides what's relevant? Unfortunately, in terms of integrity, bowlands don't appear to be any better than Fruit Bajwa and Mohammed al Kanchi.
You see, I was told he'd violently attacked a girl. I was told he'd attack someone as part of a gang. And I was told he'd threaten to stab someone. In fact, Jamal would violently attack more than 1 girl and we presented the evidence to the court, including the testimony of courageous children who came to court. These children weren't Tommy Robinson fans, but they came to the high court to speak the truth.
So let me just look at one of the pupils that come to court and testified. This young girl wasn't a supporter of mine, didn't support my politics, but she still came to court and testified. Let me have a look at her school record and read what her teacher says about her. Charlie is a very mature and hardworking member of the form. She has been an absolute pleasure to have in the form.
She has represented the form in the school council and in various events across the school throughout the school year. She represents all that is positive and exciting about studying studying at Almunbury. Charlie is now currently studying law at university. Why would this girl lie, randomly lie, before I was involved? Why would she then travel to the high court of London and commit perjury?
Speaker 12: Because
Speaker 0: that is what the judge has found, that she's made it all up. And Jamal, the Syrian refugee, the one with multiple lies in his school records and behavioral discipline reads everywhere, well, he was telling the truth. That is what he found in this case. Why would a mother post images and send me those images of her daughter being black and blue? Why?
For what reason? Why would the staff lie? Why would the head teacher lie? Why would every single person who was recorded covertly lie about what Jamal was like. 12 different people lying about what Jamal was like.
Why? See, the judge has really helped us out here. The judge says people can lie for reasons that make no sense. Sometimes for no reason at all. He could not readily identify any explanation for why some of these people were prepared to do so and lie.
He concludes the alleged assaults, they never happened at all. Despite Jamal's school record, which you've seen, the judge states the Cayman's record is overwhelmingly positive. He acknowledged Jamal has a record of lying, but decides on this occasion, it is Jamal who's telling the truth and everyone else, everyone else is lying. Really? We waited 10 weeks for this?
That's your conclusion? That's the logic from the highest liable judge in our land? There was no jury. That's right. There's no jury.
All of these people were lying, But Jamal, he was telling the truth. Jamal, who could only find his dad Jihad to speak for him. Not a single teacher. Not a classmate, not a friend, not a neighbor, or a support worker came to court to support Jamal's version of defense. Jamal, who said he only broke the rules a few times at school and even then it weren't his fault.
His school records suggest something very different. I wanna be clear and fair to Jamal. He denies every accusation against him, completely and utterly. On the day the 5 courageous children appeared in the dock, giving testimony against Jamal. Jamal didn't even show up in court that day to face his accusers.
Neither did the press. The press actually left court when the witnesses stood up to give their evidence in my defense. It's alarming to think we have this kind of intellect at the top of our judiciary. The story of these 2 children is actually a story about free speech or the death of it. It's a story about how the mainstream media is more interested in pushing an agenda than giving you balance and truth.
How it continues despite Levenson to act with impunity. Is the media held to account for what they report? Have Pierce Morgan or Jeremy Vine been held to account? No. It's a story about how the the law is being manipulated and exploited by the far left and Islamists to destroy the lives of anyone who speaks out against the accepted so called progressive, so called liberal narrative.
Or about the poisonous influence of Islam's Sharia law in our society. Is the law fit for purpose? No. And it's a story about our government and judiciary's disdain for free speech and the truth, and the lengths that they will go to in order to silence dissent, especially with its new and increasing powers. Is our government being held accountable for its actions?
No. Is the judiciary independent of political influence? You've seen all the evidence. You decide. Whether you agree in my politics is irrelevant.
When dissent is crushed, free speech dies and governments move one step closer to tyranny. The lawyers know the truth. Even Jamal's father Jihad, he knows the truth about his son. They all knew the truth and were using Jamal to further their agenda, regardless of the consequences for Jamal. They continued to pursue the case, which incidentally, has caused my divorce and bankruptcy.
My ex wife had to choose between her marriage to me, and the safety of our children. I'm glad she chose our children. We're still best mates. You see, Jamal's lawyers told me very early on, if I apologized and paid them 50 grand, they'd drop their case. If you're watching this, you know the decision I made.
I might apologize for reporting what I was told, for what I believed to be true, for standing up for Bailey, a young lad unjustly vilified by pretty much everyone. But in silence and dissent, are the media and our government any different to the governments they criticize so much? China, Russia, Iran. Immigration, COVID, Brexit, if it doesn't fit the narrative, you will not hear the alternative view. And where else have we seen this?
Where else has the media, politicians, police, and social services hidden for truth for decades, fearful of being called racist, grooming gangs. That's where a cover up of such horrific cost to 1,000 of young girls in towns and cities across our country. And nowhere worse than under the stewardship of counselor Shabir Pandor's Kirklees Council. You see, hiding the truth doesn't protect communication. It does the total opposite.
It undermines trust in public institutions. It stokes resentment and conflict in our communities. Tragically, those who lead us don't seem to have the moral clarity or courage to speak the truth. They cause the division that they're trying to prevent. People ask me, was it worth it?
Yeah. It was worth it. The truth is always worth defending. I'm still here. If you were born in the United Kingdom, you've already won the lottery your life.
An inheritance from our parents and grandparents of freedom, equality under English law, and democracy. If we allow ourselves to be silenced, that inheritance is rendered worthless. What legacy will we leave for the children and grandchildren who come after us? None of us can afford to let free speech die. We cannot and we will not be silenced.
So you've seen. I'm being sent to jail. I'm being prosecuted for showing you the truth. Nothing else. I didn't lie.
Okay? They've lied, continually lied. Now for the attorney general to bring a charge against a member of the public for contempt to court, it has to be in the public interest. I say to the attorney general, this is not the police prosecuting. In fact, the claimant in this case is not asking me to to be prosecuted.
His lawyers are not asking me to be prosecuted. The Labour government's attorney general is the one attempting to send me to jail. Now for it to be in the public's interest you remember the public. You've just watched this expose. Is it in your interest to lock me up for 2 years?
How can it be? Let the government know. Let the attorney general know by signing the petition at www.truthontrial.co.uk to let them know you don't support the imprisonment of journalists for reporting facts to you, the British public. Who knows what the future now holds for me? The one thing that gives me a peace of mind if I'm in prison or if even if the worst happens is knowing that my family have stability and have security.
If you can support them during these times, the link is at www.helptommy.com. I really appreciate your support.
@Hal9000_T1 - Dr. KHAL
"Occupation of the American Mind" Documentary every American should watch. Pass it around. https://t.co/cpFIFHns9l
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014, Israel launched a devastating attack on Gaza, resulting in thousands of Palestinian casualties. Despite global outrage, American public opinion remained largely supportive of Israel, influenced by media coverage that often frames the conflict from an Israeli perspective, emphasizing Israel's right to self-defense against Palestinian terrorism.
This narrative overlooks the historical context of Palestinian dispossession and the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967. Israel's PR efforts, which began after the Lebanon invasion in 1982, aim to shape American perceptions by portraying Israel as a victim and downplaying the impact of the occupation. While international consensus supports a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders, Israel continues to expand settlements. The US government's backing of Israel further complicates efforts to achieve a just resolution.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On 07/08/2014, Israel launched a devastating military attack on the Gaza Strip. Over the course of fifty one days, the Israeli military dropped nearly 20,000 tons of explosive on Gaza, a densely populated area the size of Philadelphia, killing over 2,000 Palestinians and wounding tens of thousands more. The overwhelming majority of these casualties were civilians.
Speaker 1: This strip of land is being bombarded from the air, sea, and land.
Speaker 2: Israel launched at least a 60 strikes on the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 3: And there's one less hospital in Gaza now. Israel today flattened Waffah Hospital.
Speaker 0: The sheer scale of the attack sparked outrage and condemnation around the world.
Speaker 1: Israel's Month long pounding of Gaza shocked many people around the world. Mass demonstrations have been held in many of the world's major cities. Bring good.
Speaker 4: Bring good. But
Speaker 0: in The United States, the story was different. Polls showed the American people holding firm in their support for Israel.
Speaker 5: This is the latest CNN ORC poll of Americans shows 57% of those polls say Israel's action in Gaza is justified, 34% say unjustified.
Speaker 0: These numbers were striking, but they weren't new. Over the course of a conflict in which Palestinian casualties have far outnumbered Israeli casualties, the American people have consistently shown far more sympathy for Israelis than for Palestinians.
Speaker 6: It's very difficult to divorce public opinion on any question from the media coverage that people rely on to form opinions. And I think the most prevalent lesson from looking at the coverage is that the coverage tends to see this conflict from the Israeli side.
Speaker 7: Study after study has demonstrated that Israeli perspectives dominate American media coverage. So by far, the most common thing we've heard is that everything comes down to Israel's right to defend itself.
Speaker 8: Israel is a state that implements its right to defend itself and its citizens.
Speaker 3: It is a talking point that is set from the top. And by the top, I mean from the highest officials, government officials who are commenting on this issue, which the media obsessively covers and repeats.
Speaker 9: A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and you'd say a country's gotta do what a country's gotta do. We have to defend ourselves.
Speaker 3: In the most recent war in 2014, when we looked at mainstream media outlets, almost by a margin of of three to one, Israeli spokespeople overrepresented compared to Palestinian spokespeople. So almost every time you turned on the screen, there was a Israeli representative on the screen telling you Israel is the one that's in a position of defense. It is being attacked.
Speaker 10: And basically, Israel is saying, hey. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if rockets fly in your head, you're allowed to defend yourself.
Speaker 3: Add to this the fact that you have American elected officials also reinforcing Israel's right to defend itself.
Speaker 11: As I've said many times, Israel has a right to defend itself against rocket and tunnel attacks from Hamas.
Speaker 3: And you hear some of the same framing by anchors who reiterate and reinforce many of the same talking points that the Israeli official spokespeople are making.
Speaker 12: Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, of course, a group that is firing rockets on Israel coming out of tunnels to attack Israelis.
Speaker 3: That imbalance there was very significant in shaping the way the the public understood this conflict.
Speaker 13: I worked in European media for a long time. The coverage is the opposite. There's Palestinian legislators, Palestinian thinkers, Palestinian intellectuals, pro Palestinian thinkers, many voices.
Speaker 8: So let me say very very frankly, it's very easy to blame the victim. It's very easy to pull out a terrorist label.
Speaker 13: You come to America and you think that you're an alien. You're looking at a different world or a different planet, And I'm thinking, what's going on here?
Speaker 14: When a narrative is so dominant Thousands of rockets without any visible descent or complication, it's it's extremely difficult to make clear to people that it is it is basically a propaganda story.
Speaker 15: Israel is under siege by a terrorist organization that is
Speaker 14: How do you make that clear when the mainstream spectacle is so unrelenting and total?
Speaker 7: We hear over and over again that the conflict comes down to Palestinian terrorism and Israeli security. And what gets pushed out of the frame entirely is the fact that that for almost fifty years, Palestinians have been systematically dispossessed from their land and denied their most basic human rights.
Speaker 16: Pioneers and refugees from countries of the oppression, young and old, they are going now to a land which accepts them. They will march to their work in the Jewish settlements to build roads, to quarry stones. They will drill wells to restore to Palestine soil its long neglected fruitfulness.
Speaker 0: Zionism, the nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late eighteen hundreds, was dedicated to the idea that the Jewish people, after centuries of living as persecuted minorities within other countries, were entitled to a state in historic Palestine, the biblical homeland of the Jews more than three thousand years before. But there was a basic problem with the choice from the start. Palestine was already home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs who had been living in Palestine for centuries, first under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and since World War one under the control of the British Empire, and for decades had aspirations of their own for an independent state in Palestine. Tensions steadily escalated during the nineteen thirties, placing more and more pressure on the British colonial government to reconcile the competing interests of both sides. After World War two and the Holocaust, the situation reached a break point.
Ultimately, the British colonial government made the decision to withdraw and to pass the problem on to the newly created United Nations. In 1947, UN resolution one eight one recommended that Palestine be split into two parts. Jews, who were a third of the population, would receive 56% of the land. Palestinians, who were two thirds of the population and possessed more than 90% of historic Palestine, would receive 44%. These terms were immediately rejected by Arab leaders as unfair, but in the spring of nineteen forty eight, Zionist leaders declared Israel a state along the proposed borders anyway, triggering the first Arab Israeli war.
Speaker 17: Arab armies set out to destroy the newly born nation that suffered repeated defeat.
Speaker 0: After winning a crushing victory, Israel took possession of even more land. By the time armistice was declared in 1949, Israel controlled 78% of historic Palestine. The creation of the new state would be celebrated by Israelis as a triumph. But to this day, it is commemorated by Palestinians as the Nakba, the Arabic term for the catastrophe, in memory of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were driven from their homes to make way for the new Jewish state. All told, approximately 700,000 people, more than half of Palestine's native population were uprooted.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of sympathy that can be generated, and I think rightly so, for what Jewish people as a whole have dealt with in Western societies and globally because of antisemitism. The question then becomes, what is the proper response to that? The Zionist answer is, of course, statehood. And there's many people who would sympathize with that if it was in fact done in a vacuum and if it was in fact done for a people without a land in a land without people. The reality is that's just not the way that it happened.
There were people here. They lost their homes, their
Speaker 18: livelihood, their nation, their everything. This was a land in 1910 that was 93% Palestinian Arab and 7% Jewish. How did it suddenly become 80% Jewish and 20% Palestinian? This was not a normal demographic transition. This was a consequence of Israel's desire to create a Jewish state, and to do that, it had to get rid of as many Palestinians as possible.
There's other more complex factors, but that's cutting it to its bare bones as we see it.
Speaker 19: That is, I think, in a certain sense, the core of the conflict. The Palestinians have suffered inordinately as a result of the creation of Israel. The creation of a Jewish state in a country that had an Arab majority necessarily and inevitably caused them irreparable harm.
Speaker 20: The Palestinians used the term catastrophe to speak of the 1948 consequences when they lost their land the first time around. In '67, it was another Nakba, another catastrophe.
Speaker 0: In June of nineteen sixty seven, Israel won what was perceived as a stunning underdog victory over much larger Arab armies during the Six Day War. With victory, in addition to taking land from Egypt and Syria, Israel began to militarily occupy all remaining Palestinian territory in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.
Speaker 20: Suddenly, all of Palestine is now lost. We now had no Palestinian land left under Palestinian control. You had a huge Palestinian population living as refugees or living under occupation. Palestinians are governed under military law. They are essentially prisoners.
They are treated as if they were all prisoners of war. They have no rights.
Speaker 0: In the immediate aftermath of the sixty seven war, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution two four two. Citing international law forbidding the takeover of territory by war, two four two explicitly called for Israel to withdraw its armed forces. But to this day, Israel has largely failed to comply, not only holding Palestinian territory, but confiscating additional land and building massive Jewish settlement blocks in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which expressly forbids states from transferring civilian populations into territory it occupies. In addition, Israel has established an entire matrix of security control on Palestinian land to secure these settlements, including checkpoints that prevent Palestinians from traveling freely within their own land and a 440 mile security wall along the Israeli border that cuts into Palestinian territory.
Speaker 3: We're talking about massive denial of human rights for millions of people. At the most basic level, the government that is ruling over these people is is not a government in which these people, the Palestinians, have a voice.
Speaker 7: There's really no way to fully understand why the Palestinian people have resisted Israel for so long without understanding this basic history of dispossession and occupation. But for the most part, this isn't the story we get in American media coverage. Instead, the legitimate grievances of Palestinians, including their right to resist an illegal military occupation, get pushed out of the frame by this constant discussion about extremism and terrorism and antisemitism.
Speaker 21: You know, rational, clear minded people understand that Hamas is a terror group, and it is, committed to killing Jews and wiping Israel off the face of the earth. That's not debatable. That's a fact.
Speaker 20: It's never about land somehow. That gets dropped out. It's never about settlements. It's always about they hate us because we're Jewish.
Speaker 19: Whatever the Palestinians have done is portrayed in terms of mindless violence against Jews out of some kind of primeval anti Semitism. No sense of how this started, where the animus comes from. It's completely inexplicable in the the the way in which it's generally presented, and these people basically kill because they hate, and they hate because they're irrational Muslim fanatics or whatever.
Speaker 9: I think Americans largely get it. They know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
Speaker 19: This is not an illusion. American public opinion is generally supportive of Israel because it's been led to believe that Israel is in the right and the Arabs are bad guys.
Speaker 7: None of this is by accident. It's the result of a deliberate effort to shape American perceptions of the conflict, a propaganda effort that really begins to take shape with Israel's Invasion Of Lebanon in 1982.
Speaker 5: Israel unleashed another massive air attack on Palestinian guerrilla targets in Lebanon today.
Speaker 19: From the sky, the howl of Israeli jets bombing and bombing.
Speaker 22: Tonight, Israel has never been closer to nor more in control of an Arab capital.
Speaker 0: In the summer of nineteen eighty two, Israel invaded neighboring Lebanon in an attempt to drive the Palestinian Liberation Organization out of its encampments on the southern border with Israel. Israeli Officials justified the attack as a defensive action required to take out terrorists. But as the story played out on American television, a different narrative began to emerge, one that presented Israel as the aggressor.
Speaker 23: What in the world is going on? Israel's security problem on its border is 50 miles to the south. What's an Israeli army doing here in Beirut? The answer is that we are now dealing with an imperial Israel which is solving its problems in someone else's country. World opinion be damned.
Speaker 24: The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was a watershed. It was Israel breaking out beyond its immediate region to aggressively attack another country, and it was a bit of a shock to many people.
Speaker 22: Israel was always that gallant little underdog democracy fighting for survival against all the odds. Now the Israelis have annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights settled down more or less permanently on the West Bank and occupied close to half of Lebanon. In the interests of self defense, that gallant little underdog Israel has suddenly started behaving like the neighborhood bully.
Speaker 0: By the time the war was over, the Israeli military would kill seventeen thousand Lebanese and Palestinians and wound another thirty thousand, almost all of them civilians.
Speaker 17: In West Beirut, hospitals are so taxed with the injured that they have become specialized. This center takes only burn victims of phosphorus shells. Trapnel cases, concussions, and fractures are directed to other facilities.
Speaker 0: And just a few months later, American media coverage would take an even darker turn.
Speaker 5: There's been another horrendous turn of events in The Middle East. Hundreds of men, women, and children, perhaps as many as a thousand people in all, have been massacred in two Palestinian refugee camps in West Beirut.
Speaker 0: Israel's Lebanese allies, operating with the consent of the Israeli government, had massacred several thousand Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, and American news media had the pictures to prove it.
Speaker 25: The Israelis permitted an armored column of right wing Christian gunmen to enter West Beirut late Friday. They took up positions surrounding Shatila refugee camp last night, and this morning, they were gone.
Speaker 22: A bloody massacre which has heightened tensions between The US and Israel.
Speaker 20: Sabra Shatila was hardly the first massacre committed by Israel against Palestinians and against Arabs. There's a dirty legacy of Israeli massacres from the pre state through the creation of the state and beyond. The big difference was this one was televised.
Speaker 25: By all appearances, groups of men had been ordered to stand against the wall and then gunned down in cold blood.
Speaker 22: Today, Palestinians search frantically for relatives. They took our children, one said. They're killing our families.
Speaker 20: This was a game changer in terms of how Israel was going to deal with the question of publicity. They went on the offensive for the first time.
Speaker 26: All the direct or implicit accusations that the IDF bear any blame whatsoever for this human tragedy in the Shatila camp are entirely baseless and without any foundation. The government of Israel rejects them with a contempt which they deserve.
Speaker 20: It was perhaps the first time they recognized at the highest levels inside Israel how much they needed to do that if they expected to maintain the kind of understood support in The United States. Israel can do no wrong. Israel is always the the victim. Israel is the little David against the big bad Goliath.
Speaker 0: Two years after the Lebanon invasion, the American Jewish Congress sponsored a conference in Jerusalem to devise a formal public relations strategy known in Hebrew as Hasbah. Participants included PR and advertising executives, media specialists, journalists, and leaders of major Jewish groups. According to a brochure from the congress, no single event brought home the need for a more effective or information program more persuasively than the nineteen eighty two war in Lebanon and the events that followed. As one conference participant put it, Israel is no longer perceived to be little David, but Goliath steamrolling across the map. The primary aim of the conference was to develop strategies to spin unpopular Israeli policies and to counter negative press coverage by shaping the media frame in advance.
News doesn't just jump into a camera, a conference delegate said. It's directed. It's managed. It's made accessible. Israel based advertising executive Martin Fenton would put it in even more blunt terms.
Propaganda is not a dirty word, he said. Face it. We are in the game of changing people's minds and making them think differently. To accomplish that, we need propaganda. The conference was chaired by US Advertising Executive Carl Spielvogel, the legendary ad man who created the highly acclaimed Miller Lite beer ads in the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 7: The choice of Spielvogel makes perfect sense. He's known as a master of image inversion and rebranding. The ad man responsible for transforming Miller Lite, which had been viewed before as a woman's beer, into a manly beer that tough guys would drink.
Speaker 16: But the best part is that it
Speaker 22: tastes so great. The best part is it's less philly. No. It tastes great. Less philly.
Speaker 7: His job with Israel would require the same kind of rebranding only in the opposite direction to help soften the image of a country that's coming to be seen as a bully. So he recommends creating a cabinet post dedicated exclusively to explaining policy, whose job would not be setting policy but presenting it in the most attractive way to the rest of the world.
Speaker 24: Classic PR is to say the problem is not the policy, it's the presentation. When the policies are so reprehensible that many people become critical, Rather than acknowledge there's anything wrong with the policy, there's a doubling down on the PR effort.
Speaker 7: After Lebanon, you start to see the basic Hezbollah strategy in action. Images of Palestinians fighting back against Israel's occupation make their way onto American television screens. And the Israeli military crushes this resistance in brutal ways that undercut Israel's image as underdog and victim.
Speaker 27: Israeli helicopter gunships deliberately fired a missile into a crowd of civilians last night, killing seven Palestinians and wounding seventy more.
Speaker 7: Then Israeli officials go into full Hasbro mode, an act of the occupation doesn't even exist, framing all Palestinian resistance as terrorism and Israeli aggression as self defense.
Speaker 9: We will do whatever it takes to defend ourself and defend ourselves, we will.
Speaker 7: That's the basic Hasbro strategy in a nutshell. Even when you're violently crushing resistance to your own brutal occupation, portray Israel as an innocent victim by demonizing Palestinians as nothing but terrorists.
Speaker 13: The Palestinian terror campaign continues. It only justifies again and again that we Israel have to continue and defend ourselves.
Speaker 20: There have been horrific Palestinian terrorist attacks, and I use that word very specifically to mean what terrorism means, which is attacks on civilians for a political purpose.
Speaker 27: Anger in Israel today at last night's suicide bomb in Tel Aviv, killed four and wounded around 50.
Speaker 20: Those are horrific attacks, which should be condemned. They are violations of international law, period. But the problem is Israeli violence is assumed to be legitimate because it's always self defense.
Speaker 28: Some of the people who have been killed are said to be civilians. In fact, two of them are said to be, little girls. But the Israeli military says they try to the best of their knowledge to make sure whoever they are striking was a known militant.
Speaker 8: All the cases when Palestinian people were killed by the Israeli military, and this is not called acts of terror, and one should ask why if it is civilians who are being killed but from a plane and not by a suicide bomber, why this is not terror and only terrorist when somebody is killed by a suicide bomber?
Speaker 24: If the terrorist label can only be affixed to one set of people but not another set of people, then you're in an Orwellian zone. You're down a rabbit hole of linguistic manipulation.
Speaker 9: The last thing they want is a political settlement. What they want is more demonstrations, more riots, more bodies. That's what they want.
Speaker 3: And so this becomes the framing of the situation. Israel is defending itself, which means Israel is not the aggressor here. That doesn't square with the reality on the ground, and we know that. You have a right to defend yourself. You don't have a right to occupy people, deny them their human rights, and then cry foul when they resist.
That's not the right to self defense. That's the right to repression. That's what Israel is asking for here. Let us do away with these dissenters, these Palestinian dissenters, and call it defense.
Speaker 0: As news media have proliferated over the years, Israel's public relations efforts have only become more and more explicit and intense.
Speaker 29: In The United States, we have a show called The Apprentice where Donald Trump auditions people to work in his corporate boardroom. In Israel, the version of the apprentice is called, the ambassador.
Speaker 30: The ambassador. In a world where the real battles take place in newsrooms and TV studios, the ability to create a positive image for your country is a crucial task for every ambassador.
Speaker 29: It's a show where Israelis compete for who can offer the best Hosbura. That means explain in Hebrew. Explain our situation.
Speaker 31: While The Apprentice tests contestants' ability to sell lemonade on the street Lemonade. Or handle office politics, the ambassador finalists have learned that selling real politics is a lot harder.
Speaker 2: The problem is that when you sell lemonade, nobody hates lemonade. Nobody's gonna say that your lemonade occupies territories or that your lemonade kills babies.
Speaker 29: Israel's mechanism of projecting its propaganda or what they call Hasbara is one of the most sophisticated arms of its government. It's a weapon of Israeli warfare.
Speaker 7: And when you look today at how the media cover the conflict, you see just how successful Israel's propaganda has been in reversing the legacy of Lebanon.
Speaker 9: If there's any complaints, and there should be, about civilian deaths that they they belong, the responsibility and the blame belongs in one place, Hamas. I don't think anyone should get that wrong.
Speaker 6: The Israeli position is the first position they are allowed to to determine the narrative, determine the facts on the ground.
Speaker 2: Hamas is a terror organization committed to our destruction. They fire thousands of rockets at our cities.
Speaker 6: It becomes a story of Israelis responding to Palestinian attacks.
Speaker 2: Israel says this is a response to the almost 800 rockets that had landed in Israel from Gaza this year alone.
Speaker 7: Again and again, the wider context of Israel's occupation simply drops out of the coverage. So it comes across as this confusing and endless cycle of violence that begins when Palestinians attack and Israelis retaliate in self defense.
Speaker 32: Three Palestinians were shot and killed while allegedly trying to attack Israelis with kitchen knives.
Speaker 5: This cycle of violence continues. When Hamas launches rockets from Gaza, Israel hits back.
Speaker 3: Cycle of violence presupposes this back and forth retaliation. It's the same sort of thing with a lull in the violence or a relative calm.
Speaker 12: After three days of relative calm, the violence is once again picking up here in The Middle East.
Speaker 3: Well, relative to who and to what. Right, what's actually going on on the ground is not ever a lull in the violence for Palestinians. In fact, occupation is a system of violence that goes on every single day. Just because there's no violence that Israelis are witnessing for a particular period of time before it resumes again does not mean that there's no violence facing Palestinians from the occupation. So this lull in the violence is only seen through the prism of Israeli victimhood, not Palestinian victimhood.
Speaker 6: It's no wonder that Americans would identify with the Israeli side or or support it. It would be shocking if they didn't. And I think this is the the lesson to be drawn from thirty years of media coverage that I think has been slanted heavily in favor of Israeli interests.
Speaker 7: What we've seen is really another kind of occupation, an occupation of American media and what we could call the American mind by a pro Israel narrative that's deflected attention away from what virtually everyone recognizes as the best way to resolve this conflict, end the occupation and the settlements so that Palestinians can finally have a state of their own.
Speaker 33: Ladies and gentlemen, mister Arafat, chairman of the executive council of the Palestine Liberation Organization, his excellency, Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of Israel, the president of The United States.
Speaker 0: The ongoing peace process that began with the Oslo peace accords in 1993 was designed to negotiate the terms of Israel's withdrawal from Palestinian territory in accordance with the UN resolution two four two, which made an explicit connection between Israeli withdrawal and a just and lasting peace.
Speaker 34: For decades, there has been an overwhelming international consensus on a political settlement of the conflict, namely a settlement on the internationally recognized border.
Speaker 7: The international consensus for a two state solution is based on the borders in place before the sixty seven war. This means that Israel gets 78% and the Palestinians get the rest, 22 of historic Palestine. Twenty Two Percent. That's it.
Speaker 0: But since Oslo, Israel has actually taken more Palestinian land for its Jewish only settlements. In 1993, there were approximately 200,000 illegal Jewish settlers living in the occupied Palestinian territories. Since then, that number has more than tripled with approximately 650,000 settlers now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In addition, since 1967, Israel has also demolished approximately 28,000 Palestinian homes.
Speaker 2: The United Nations says there's been a big increase in the number of Palestinian homes demolished by Israeli forces. This
Speaker 0: is what Palestinians have called ethnic cleansing, demolitions and evictions carried out by Israel in the occupied West Bank. So
Speaker 15: if you look
Speaker 35: at the result, not the words and the pretty phrases, what's happened over the past twenty years and was inaugurated at Oslo was not a peace process. It was an annexation process.
Speaker 19: What has happened is that now one in 11 Israeli Jews live in these illegal settlements. So the failure to confront the settlement enterprise from the very beginning, I think has created a almost insuperable obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state. There's no place to put it.
Speaker 20: And that's what the settlements are all about. It's to claim the land, facts on the ground that become nothing we can do about it now, it's too late. Israel wants as much of the land as they can get away with, with as few Palestinians on it as possible.
Speaker 36: Israeli governments from the very beginning after the sixty seven war never considered giving up Israeli control of the territories. Moshe Dayan, who served as defense minister and foreign minister, people asked him what will be the future. Now we're controlling the territories. And he said, the future will be exactly what it is today. We must continue to retain the control of these territories.
Speaker 7: Just listen to Netanyahu talking in private to his right wing settler base in 02/2001 about how he has no intention despite what Israel agreed to at Oslo of giving up land and ending its illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank and the rest of the Jordan Valley. Netanyahu is clear that Israel's not giving anything up. But he's also very clear that the way to make that argument is to invoke security threats, and he's especially confident that he can manipulate the American people to buy into this argument.
Speaker 9: And
Speaker 7: this, of course, is exactly the case is made to the American people time and time again whenever Israel's been called out for refusing to end the occupation and its settlement project.
Speaker 9: We're willing to make great concessions for peace, but there is something that I will never compromise on, and that's Israel's security.
Speaker 24: The conventional wisdom is that continuing the occupation makes Israel more secure. And if you buy that argument, then it's a license to occupy indefinitely.
Speaker 3: What we're we're talking about here is something that is completely indefensible. Israel knows this. Israel knows this very well, and for that reason, wants to talk about anything and everything else. They'd rather talk about terrorism. They'd rather talk about security.
They'd rather talk about Iran. Anything but the occupation.
Speaker 7: The reason they've been able to so effectively change the subject isn't because they're practicing some kind of mass mind control. The main reason is that the US government itself has had a vested interest in promoting the same narrative for almost fifty years now. This goes back to the start of the so called special relationship with Israel in the late nineteen sixties when The US decides to deputize Israel and make it what the Nixon administration called a cop on the beat to protect American interest in the Middle East, especially US energy supplies. Ever since, the American government has continued to give Israel roughly $3,000,000,000 a year in military aid while also vetoing one UN resolution after another, condemning the occupation and settlements. The challenge is to make sure that the American people stay on board with despite what Israel is doing.
Speaker 0: A number of well funded public relations organizations have emerged within The United States to help Israel justify its policies, especially the occupation and settlements, on security grounds. One of these groups is the Israel project. In 02/2009, the Israel project turned to conservative pollster and rebranding expert Frank Luntz.
Speaker 2: Frank Luntz. This is the man that reframed the estate tax as the death tax, Health care reform as government takeover of health care. Now some critics have called Luntz a spin doctor who manipulates public emotion, but Luntz would reframe that as Fox News analyst.
Speaker 0: The Israel project hired him to determine which talking points used by Israeli and US Officials over time have been most effective in maintaining American sympathy for Israel. Luntz wrote up his recommendations in a 02/2009 report called the Global Language Dictionary.
Speaker 7: If you wanna understand how the propaganda works, especially in The US, you need to read the Luntz document. He's really clear that the occupation and especially the settlements are a problem. And he points the polls that show a large majority of Americans actually think that Israel should retreat to the 67 borders. In fact, he says, when you talk about land in terms of 67, you completely flip American sentiment against you. But, and this is his solution, if you bring up the danger of terrorism, you win back to support.
The key, Lunt says, is to claim that the fight is over ideology, not land, about terror, not territory. In fact, these three words, terror, not territory, summarize the basis of the propaganda campaign in The US. And Lance goes on to say that one of the most effective ways to make the conflict about terrorism is to refer to an obscure political document written in 1988 by a small group of idolugs, the Hamas Charter, that calls for the destruction of Israel. Even though the Hamas leadership effectively disowned the charter a long time ago, it's been PR gold for Israel. Lunt's research has discovered that when Americans hear the words of the charter, Israel goes from bully to victim, and sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians dissipates.
So he says, don't just quote it. Read it out loud again and again. And his advice has been taken up often hysterically by Israel's advocates.
Speaker 37: The Hamash charter not only calls for Israel's destructions, ladies and gentlemen. Article seven calls for the murder of every Jew. It calls for the murder of every Jew. It's a Nazi document.
Speaker 3: We have the Israeli prime minister saying movements like Hamas that are national movements are the same thing as ISIS.
Speaker 9: Hamas is like ISIS. Hamas is like Al Qaeda. Hamas is like Hezbollah. Hamas is like Boko Haram.
Speaker 3: And they are completely not the same thing. And anyone who understands anything about The Middle East and political dynamics there will will explain to you exactly why that is the case and and immediately spot that for the propaganda that it is.
Speaker 36: Hamas is as much a nationalist movement as it is in a religious movement. And in fact, it it often assigns priority to its nationalist goals over its religious goals. This false notion that Hamas is part of this Al Qaeda network is not bought even by important elements of the American military.
Speaker 0: In 02/2010, the United States Central Command or CENTCOM, the highest military command in The US, issued a classified report that questioned The current US policy of isolating and marginalizing Hamas as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon. The report described the two groups as pragmatic and argued that putting them and Al Qaeda in the same sentence as if they're all the same is just stupid, and it directly repudiated Israel's publicly stated view that Hamas and Hezbollah are incapable of change and must be confronted with force, warning that failing to recognize their grievances and objectives would result in continued failure in moderating their behavior.
Speaker 7: And the US military isn't alone in this assessment. ISIS itself has attacked Hamas again and again because they're not radical enough. They're too pragmatic and too compromising. But none of these facts stop people from going on and on about Hamas' charter anyway in order to paint Hamas with the same brush as ISIS.
Speaker 37: I spent a lot of time on my radio program going over Hamas' charter. What it says, it wants to obliterate Israel. It wants to destroy the Jews. It is a sick, twisted, you know, perverted ideology, a religion that has been hijacked by radicals, and it it manifests itself in different forms, Muslim brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Hamas Hezbollah, ISIS Al Qaeda, you know, it's all the same thing.
Speaker 7: Meanwhile, you hear next to nothing about another extreme political charter that has much more relevance to the conflict, the platform of the ruling Likud party in Israel.
Speaker 3: Well, if you look at the language that's in that charter, the Likud charter, it flatly rejects, quote, flatly rejects the existence of a Palestinian state anywhere anywhere on that side of the Jordan River. In other words, completely denying the right of a state of Palestine to exist. That's far more relevant to have language like the language in the Likud charter be in the charter of a party that is the largest in an Israeli government, driving an Israeli state, and has the capacity to act upon the words in their charter in a way that no other party does.
Speaker 0: To strengthen the case that the conflict is about terrorism and not territory, Luntz points to the effectiveness of another well established Israeli talking point, the claim that Israel gave up control of Gaza in 02/2005 in hopes of achieving peace and a two state solution and got only rockets in return.
Speaker 10: We left Gaza completely. We had Gaza. They could have turned it into a flourishing, wonderful place to live in. Look at what they did. They turned it into a haven of terrorists coming from all over the world.
Speaker 3: It's completely untrue that Israel left the the Gaza Strip. They did withdraw their colonists, but at the same time, they tightened their control over the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 2: This is Gaza's main freight route into Israel, and normally this road would be bumper to bumper with heavily laden trucks, but it's completely closed as is every other border crossing in the country. Nothing's coming into Gaza and nothing is getting out.
Speaker 3: So the idea that Israel left is 100% bogus.
Speaker 20: Gaza remains occupied. Gaza has no control over its coast, over its waters, over its harbor, over its airspace, over the land or its borders, over its people. Who can come and go is totally at the Israeli discretion. In Gaza, there are constant military attacks by the Israeli Air Force by drones. Targeted assassinations go on all the time.
It wasn't really a withdrawal,
Speaker 6: but the conventional shorthand in the media is that Israel was willing to give up an enormous amount to the Palestinian side, and the Palestinians responded with violence. Israel,
Speaker 38: for since 1967, controlled Gaza. They gave it to the Palestinians in a gesture of peace, and all they got are a bunch of rockets and retriever.
Speaker 7: This is the basic frame of Israel's PR campaign. Make sure the media stays focused on terrorism and amass extremism as a source of the conflict, not the occupation and the settlements. If you wanna see this in operation, just look at the coverage of any of Israel's many attacks on Gaza over the past few
Speaker 2: evening. In the sixty years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, there have been few, if any, days like this one. The scale and intensity of this attack was surprising. The deadliest operation against Palestinians in decades.
Speaker 3: After an intense three week assault, thirteen hundred dead, five thousand wounded.
Speaker 0: In February, Israel launched Operation Karzleid, a massive ground and air assault on the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 27: The air force released this cockpit video.
Speaker 0: Over a period of three weeks, the Israeli military dropped over 600 tons of bombs on Gaza.
Speaker 27: It isn't clear yet how many civilians are among
Speaker 0: Nearly fourteen hundred Palestinians were killed and thousands more injured.
Speaker 27: The wounded were carried on corrugated iron, in private cars, on bats, and in arms. The worst one day casualty toll in Gaza anybody can remember.
Speaker 18: Normally in a conflict, civilians can run for their lives. Gaza was one of the few, if not the only modern conflict where the helpless civilians who were subjected to massive technologically advanced firepower by the Israelis had no escape route.
Speaker 39: With Gaza City bombed and burning, Palestinians heeded Israel's warning to get out of the way, but found they had nowhere to go. What's a safe place for us to go, the woman cried? Not the UN compound where 700 people took shelter. Israeli artillery hit it then hit it again.
Speaker 34: It was a brutal murderous attack, devastating. This attack was murderous.
Speaker 0: As with the Lebanon invasion three decades before, horrific images of destruction spilled onto television screens around the world. But this time, the Israeli government was prepared. Six months earlier, it had set up a new unit within the Israeli prime minister's office to help coordinate the government's messaging once the invasion started.
Speaker 32: Israel is defending its actions, saying this assault is in direct response to almost daily rocket and mortar attacks.
Speaker 40: If you ask any American why that war started, they would say because the Palestinians started, you know, firing rockets at Israel.
Speaker 2: Hamas keeping up the rocket fire that triggered the Israeli attacks in the first place.
Speaker 41: Hamas once again firing several dozen rockets into Israel today.
Speaker 40: They're always preparing Americans for an attack against these people who are incorrigible terrorists, who are constantly shooting rockets, and never ever giving the other side of the story.
Speaker 6: We were told endlessly in any media outlet you wanna look at that Israel had to invade and attack the Gaza Strip because of an unending assault from Hamas and various militant groups in Gaza.
Speaker 2: What are the goals of that operation right now?
Speaker 36: To change totally the behavior of the Hamas. It's a terrorist regime that keeps shelling Israel with thousands of rockets and motor shells.
Speaker 6: What this forgets is that for the latter half of 2,008, there was a very successful ceasefire that curtailed rocket fire into Israel dramatically, almost to the point at which there was none. This was shattered in February when Israel attacked what they said was a tunnel building project, killed six Hamas militants. At that point, the ceasefire was off. Now the New York Times, the so called paper of record, reported this very clearly one time.
Speaker 7: The story gets buried on page eight of the New York Times and hardly registers anywhere else. Why? Well, look at the day that Israel chose to break the ceasefire, 11/04/2008, which just coincidentally happened to be the day of the historic election of Barack Obama. It virtually guaranteed that no one in America would notice, and that's exactly how it played out. When Hamas resumed rocket attacks after Israel broke the ceasefire, Israeli officials went on American television and got away with blaming Hamas for breaking the ceasefire.
Speaker 42: You know, it was Hamas that unilaterally tore up the ceasefire understandings. It was Hamas that escalated the vines that reached a crescendo on Christmas day when we had in one twenty four hour period some 80 rockets, mortar shells, and missiles coming into Israel attacking our civilians. Now we want to work with the Palestinian government.
Speaker 7: And the lie was then repeated uncritically by US news media.
Speaker 40: James, there's no question here, is there, that Hamas started this?
Speaker 43: Well, look, I don't think Israel had any choice. It was a ceasefire that was broken by Hamas. They fired something like 300 rockets into Israel. I mean, this is an act of war. What are they supposed to do?
Speaker 7: Just compare this to how media outside The US dealt with this.
Speaker 4: Isn't it the fact that during the ceasefire, not a single Israeli was killed? And the reason for that was because Hamas fired not a single rocket.
Speaker 44: No. I think you're wrong, unfortunately, because during that ceasefire of six months, they were firing rockets on a daily basis.
Speaker 7: On channel four in Britain, you saw an anchor presenting evidence that the Israeli government itself acknowledged that Hamas observed the ceasefire.
Speaker 4: This is actually a document that's given to journalists by the Israeli government. And in this document, it says, and I'm quoting, Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.
Speaker 7: The Israeli official clearly caught in a lie, attempts to change the subject to how evil Hamas is. But the interviewer doesn't let him get away with it.
Speaker 44: They were firing rockets, and they're always trying to target civilians. Their main goal is to try to kill children and women.
Speaker 4: And not that Shasham, I'm I'm I'm I'm gonna have to stop you because this document is published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, and they say
Speaker 27: It is not a
Speaker 4: that Hamas maintained the ceasefire.
Speaker 44: It's not a government. It is private institution.
Speaker 4: To foreign journalists by the government as a statement
Speaker 44: of fact. Listen.
Speaker 4: Now
Speaker 44: the facts to hear the facts or you'd like to invent some facts?
Speaker 32: I would
Speaker 4: like you to tell me
Speaker 3: the facts because these are actually
Speaker 7: Exchanges like these are unthinkable in The US, even though Israel itself behind the scenes acknowledged Hamas had observed the ceasefire, something another British reporter forced Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev to admit on camera.
Speaker 19: There were no Hamas rockets during the ceasefire. Before November, there were no Hamas rockets for four months.
Speaker 42: And that's correct.
Speaker 34: Israel officially recognizes that until it broke the ceasefire, Hamas didn't fire a single rocket. I mean, the propaganda is so powerful that these truisms, literally truisms, are almost inexpressible.
Speaker 6: The lesson is that this conflict started when we say it started, and we say it started when Israel was attacked.
Speaker 0: In 02/2012 and again in 02/2014, Israel launched two more devastating attacks on Gaza.
Speaker 7: Israel can saturate the media with its spokespeople, but there's still the problem of massive Palestinian casualties showing up on television screens. You can't make those images go away. An Israeli official actually said, in the war of pictures, we lose. So you need to correct, explain, or balance it in other ways. Here again, the Luntz document spells out which talking points have been most effective in spinning the brutal reality of Palestinian casualties.
He says the first thing the pro Israeli spokespeople should do is to express empathy for the innocent victims.
Speaker 36: Unfortunately, innocents do get hurt, and we we really grieve that. We're sad for every civilian casualty.
Speaker 14: The entire situation is tragic.
Speaker 7: Once you've done that, Lance says, you also have to get people to empathize with Israelis by describing what life is like for them, living in constant fear of Hamas rocket attacks. So again and again, we hear the focused tested phrase that the rockets are raining down on Israel.
Speaker 14: We have thousands of rockets raining down on our civilians. Rockets were raining down on Israel.
Speaker 24: Any advertising executive will tell you the essence of propaganda is repetition.
Speaker 32: Rockets raining down on Southern Israel. Rockets raining down on Israel. The Hamas rockets rained down on Israeli border towns.
Speaker 7: Then, Lance tells PR spokespeople to turn the tables and ask the American people, what would you do?
Speaker 9: So what would you do in The United States?
Speaker 2: You imagine what America would do if it were facing a similar threat?
Speaker 36: We always try to ask you the question we ask ourselves. What will you do? What would you do? What would you do
Speaker 42: if more than 3,000 rockets had been fired on your cities?
Speaker 37: What would you do, 3,000 rockets?
Speaker 42: What would you do if terrorists were tunneling under your frontier?
Speaker 37: What would you do if three kids are kidnapped because of a tunnel network?
Speaker 3: What sort of question is this? Of course, anybody would act to defend themselves against unprovoked aggression, but it is a question that is completely devoid of any context. What drives society to a point where after multiple devastating wars, they continue to resist with these most feeble methods? They don't want you to ask that question. They don't want you to ask what is behind this?
What's the history here? Who are these people? Where did they come from? Why are they so desperate? No.
They want you to understand Israeli behavior. Israeli behavior is always characterized as a reaction to unprovoked violence.
Speaker 7: Then on top of that, when massive numbers of Palestinian civilians predictably die from Israeli attacks, Israel claims it's part of a deliberate Hamas strategy to drum up sympathy. They use
Speaker 9: telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better.
Speaker 7: So they end up in this upside down Orwellian world where Israelis killing civilians becomes an unforgivable transgression against Israelis.
Speaker 5: It is hard to come away with any feeling but that we are in the midst of a world gone mad. Last week, I found a quote of many years ago by Golda Meir, one of Israel's early leaders, which might have been said yesterday. We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, she said, but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.
Speaker 6: It's not difficult to imagine Americans identifying with Palestinians who are suffering, but they need to be able to see that suffering on their television screens and in their newspapers.
Speaker 4: Israel said today its new offensive is targeting terrorists.
Speaker 6: And when your sense of the coverage is that there's something that these people did to deserve this or that they are affiliated with terrorists and terrorist minded governments, The fallout of that is an inability to identify with people who are suffering in far greater numbers and in far greater proportion than their Israeli counterparts.
Speaker 0: The effort to shape American perceptions of the Israeli Palestinian conflict has been taken up by a number of pro Israel groups based in The US. Together, these groups are commonly referred to as the Israel lobby. Nowhere has the lobby's power to shape a pro Israel narrative been more visible than in the US Congress due largely to the efforts of one of the most influential lobbying groups working on Capitol Hill today, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as APEC.
Speaker 45: It
Speaker 11: is great to see so many good friends from all across the country.
Speaker 46: I see more than 10,000 people, young and old.
Speaker 0: APAC's annual conference draws nearly 10,000 attendees from around the country, including the most influential members of both houses of congress from both parties.
Speaker 2: Remember there are seven congressional office buildings?
Speaker 47: As you leave here today to meet with your senators and representatives, I want you to go there knowing with certainty that you'll make a difference with every member that you meet.
Speaker 2: You're gonna feel so good when six months from now, you see the three major talking points evolve to three points of legislation for the US government.
Speaker 48: Is passed.
Speaker 19: It would be very hard for ordinary Americans to know that they're being deceived, that that some very competent experts at spin management are in fact deluding them. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that the American political class has basically swallowed the line hook line and sinker.
Speaker 49: They keep getting rocket attack after rocket attack, and then they're criticized for human rights problems because they defend themselves.
Speaker 19: This is particularly true for Republicans.
Speaker 50: They're responding, mister speaker, to attacks on their civilian population. I mean, what is it that they want? Well, we know what they want. They want Israel obliterated from the map, mister speaker.
Speaker 19: But it's also true for many Democrats.
Speaker 11: We stand with our ally. We stand with the democratic state of Israel. We stand against terrorism.
Speaker 2: This administration will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself.
Speaker 19: They made the mistake of actually leaving APEC's fax address on one bill that was actually laid before congress. And, of course, nobody was apparently embarrassed. The fact that APEC writes the legislation for them or writes their speeches for them doesn't seem to, in the least, bother people.
Speaker 41: There's nothing happening here that's secret or under the table. It's not a cabal. It's not a conspiracy. It is, in fact, domestic politics the way it's practiced here in The United States. There are roughly three dozen or so pro Israel pacts that give money.
Over the last fifteen or twenty years, they've given $5,560,000,000 dollars in American elections. There are one or two Arab American PACs, and I believe last time I looked, they'd given, you know, 800,000 to a million. So you've got $55,000,000 of PAC contributions on one side, and you've got maybe a million at most on the other side. That gives you a pretty good sense of what the balance of power is if you're planning on running for congress.
Speaker 40: It's all about the money.
Speaker 9: And I do see a lot of old friends here, and I see a lot of new friends of Israel here as well. Democrats and Republicans alike.
Speaker 40: He being Netanyahu got a joint session so that Democrats and Republicans would have the opportunity to stand up and cheer for him, and it would be good for their campaigns to raise money. He put out the most hard line propaganda that went entirely against US policy.
Speaker 9: The border will be different than the one that existed on 06/04/1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.
Speaker 40: And he gets 29 or 39 standing ovations. What are they applauding? The continuation of the conflict? Are they applauding that more Israelis and Palestinians are gonna keep dying? Is that what they're applauding?
No. They're applauding we want more money in the next campaign. That's what it's entirely about. There is no other issue like this.
Speaker 7: For the most part, the lobby pushes policies that are consistent with US interests anyway. And when these interests don't align, we see the limits of the lobby's power as we saw with Obama's Iran policy, which passed despite an intense campaign by the lobby to defeat it. So we shouldn't overstate the influence of the lobby on American foreign policy. But at the same time, we shouldn't underestimate the lobby's power to limit debate about Israeli policies in the occupied territories, especially far right Israeli policies that are often way out of step with the political views of most American Jews. In fact, it's not accurate to call it a Jewish lobby at all.
It's the Israel lobby.
Speaker 19: The actual views of most people in the American Jewish community according to every poll diverge greatly from the extreme right wing, neoconservative views of the entire establishment leadership of that community. Most people in the Jewish community are much more liberal. They're against settlement. They're against occupation. They want a two state solution.
The lobby and its the various other institutions are the main supports and props of settlement and occupation and of protection of the status quo.
Speaker 41: And there are some key elements of what we call the Israel lobby that aren't Jewish, so called Christian Zionists.
Speaker 32: Evangelical Christians in America have become Israel's staunchest ally in an increasingly hostile world.
Speaker 7: Powerful groups like CUFI, Christians United for Israel, lobby Congress for an expansion of Israeli territory because they believe that's what the Bible calls for.
Speaker 22: CUFI representatives from all 50 states went to Capitol Hill. Their purpose was to personally speak with their elected officials and express concerns for Israel's security and their support of Israel's right to the land by biblical mandate.
Speaker 34: In The United States, roughly a third of the population believes that every word of the Bible is literally true. If the Bible is literally true, then the land of Israel was promised to the Jews by God, and they have every right to take it over from the usurpers.
Speaker 15: Listen closely, those of you who are listening in the liberal media. The Jewish people are not occupying the land of Israel. They own the land of Israel. The truth about Israel is God gave the land of Israel to Abraham in an eternal blood covenant four thousand years ago. The land of Israel belonged to the Jewish people then.
It belongs to the Jewish people today, and it will belong to the Jewish people forever. The land is their land.
Speaker 41: One of the problems with the influence the Israel lobby has in The United States now is it has been hard for government officials to have an honest discussion.
Speaker 7: Just look what happened to president Obama when he made the mistake of simply saying out loud what the international consensus is.
Speaker 11: We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
Speaker 7: It didn't matter that Obama was just repeating what had been official US policy for decades Or the right wing president Ronald Reagan had said essentially the same thing in the nineteen eighties in even stronger language.
Speaker 5: UN resolution two four two remains wholly valid as the foundation stone of America's Middle East peace effort. It is The United States position that in return for peace, the withdrawal provision of resolution two four two applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.
Speaker 7: When Obama said it, he was immediately accused by right wing groups of setting up Israel for another holocaust.
Speaker 51: Has president Obama abandoned Israel? After strong support by 11 consecutive American presidents, it appears Obama has moved sharply toward Israel's enemies, and the results could be disastrous. The leader of Hezbollah has vowed to finish the job Hitler started. Up till now, America's strong backing of Israel made that impossible. But with Obama's waffling, could a second holocaust be on the way?
Speaker 15: No. Auschwitz.
Speaker 7: It's a pretty ingenious tactic. How are supposed to have a rational discussion about the occupation when pro Israel Extremists call the 67 borders the Auschwitz borders? No. Auschwitz border.
Speaker 40: These are the two alternatives. You're either gonna be in Auschwitz or you support Israel. Because Israel was in fact created in the wake of the Holocaust, it isn't that extraordinary that the two would be linked that way. I have a problem with the idea of exploiting the link and using those 6,000,000 Jews in almost in my mind, it's like saying Anne Frank would would want the occupation to continue.
Speaker 14: You know, the Jews have gone through, an unspeakable historical trauma. Right? But the fact is that if you look at other sort of reactionary or right wing propagandas, various kinds, you know, nationalistic and so on, you see that what they all kinda have in common is this view that we are in danger. We are victims. They're trying to destroy us.
Speaker 9: If history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again.
Speaker 14: You're the victim, so anything you do in self defense is okay, even though it has you acting like a monster. Right?
Speaker 19: A suggestion that Israel has committed war crimes is particularly offensive given that the Jewish people suffered under the most horrific war crimes in the Holocaust.
Speaker 35: It's the argument they always use. Remember the Holocaust. It's always invoking the Holocaust in order to justify Israel being held to a different standard than everyone else is being held to.
Speaker 8: I see a lot of manipulation here about the victimhood of Israeli Jews, the sense of victimhood. And I'm a child of survivors, Holocaust survivors, so I'll be the last one to underestimate the importance of history and the history of persecution of Jews in the Israeli Palestinian context. But does it mean that Jews now in Israel go every day and think about Auschwitz? I doubt it.
Speaker 41: Anyone who is critical of the special relationship, criticizes the activities of the lobby, or disagrees with the policies that they recommend, or is critical of Israel's conduct, is virtually certain to be attacked, usually in very harsh ways, by Israel's defenders. There are watchdog groups that keep track of what different media organizations publish or broadcast, and if they're not happy about it, they either publish their own attacks, they organize consumer boycotts.
Speaker 40: Israelis and the lobby do not think there's ever any problem with policy. The problem is only the way it's covered, which is why they have organizations like CAMR, which is, you know, the Committee on Middle East Accuracy. Accuracy means that you present the side that makes Israel look good. The lobby and the Israelis believe that the mainstream media in America is pro Palestinian. I mean, it's laughable.
Speaker 2: Consistently, the Times has suppressed any story that would portray Israel sympathetically, and on the other hand, has written dozens of stories portraying the Palestinians sympathetically.
Speaker 38: Israel is now portrayed in much of the major media, especially CNN, the BBC, as the aggressor, as the predator nation, and the poor Palestinians and Arabs as the victims.
Speaker 6: It's one of the most profoundly successful tactics of right wing media pressure and media criticism groups, and they were going to argue that it's true in violation of all the facts.
Speaker 32: You're saying that because CNN has interviewed Palestinian families and shown Palestinian children who have been wounded or killed, that somehow CNN is saying that Hamas is okay? I don't think that those two are equivalent. We're not allowed to show the civilians caught in the crossfire?
Speaker 52: Of course, you're allowed to show civilians caught in the crossfire. You should also mention all the restrictions that Hamas puts on your reporting inside the Gaza Strip. You should also mention all the context with regard Hamas putting children in harm's way. You should also routinely mention the fact that Hamas' charter calls for destruction not only to the state of Israel, but for the murder of Jews across the world, which, of course, CNN does not.
Speaker 32: That that's silly, Ben. We talk about that all the time. We talk about the charter the Hamas charter that says that they want to obliterate Israel and wipe Israel off the face of the map. That's you're just not being fair. That's not true.
Speaker 15: Our
Speaker 52: reporters on ground occasionally. In the you mentioned it occasionally in the midst of vast swaths of imagery about Israel using what you would term excessive force.
Speaker 6: The media outlets don't see the pushback from the other side. They don't see the upside to standing up for for their own reporting. So I think in most cases, they cave.
Speaker 7: Look at the pressure that came down on veteran NBC reporter Ayman Moyaldin when he was covering the two thousand and fourteen Gaza invasion for NBC. Moyaldin was playing soccer on a beach with four Palestinian kids just moments before they were killed by an Israeli rocket. And he talked about this on social media and shared video of the heartbroken reactions of the kid's parents. And what did NBC do? It responded by pulling Mayold in from Gaza.
And, of course, there's no greater weapon in the attack arsenal than equating critical coverage of Israel's policies with antisemitism.
Speaker 21: Any fair minded person who follows Al Jazeera knows it's anti American and antisemitic. You're a Jew Exploding. Jewish man. Correct?
Speaker 27: Yes.
Speaker 21: I am. It doesn't it doesn't come more antisemitic now, Al Jazeera. I am They would they would they would do violence to you.
Speaker 18: Who and who?
Speaker 21: A journalist at Al Jazeera? People that run that network. They would do violence you. I hardly think so.
Speaker 34: Abba Eban wrote an article in which he explained to American Jews what their task was. Their task is to show that anyone who's a critic of Zionism, by which he means a critic of the policies of the state of Israel, must be either an anti Semite or a neurotic self hating Jew that covers a % of possible criticism.
Speaker 37: We'll start tonight in in The Middle East where Israel What? Israel isn't supposed to defend itself?
Speaker 48: Mexico bomb taxes will be exercised What are
Speaker 15: the countries
Speaker 2: around the same standard
Speaker 3: as it is?
Speaker 15: What are destroy her terrorism? 4,000 men away. Who's the only democracy in The Middle East? You're lying. Self hating Jew?
Speaker 40: So used to be I was always called a self hating Jew, and and everybody like me was called a self hating Jew. I am now not only a self hating Jew, but they also call me an anti Semite. How I, with my four Jewish grandparents, I'm still an anti Semite. My wife was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany, and I'm an anti Semite.
Speaker 3: They have for a very long time been able to effectively defend the indefensible, to the American public through miseducation and misinformation campaigns, through effective talking points, through, smearing individuals on the opposite, side of things, labeling them all kinds of things, sympathizers with terrorism. I've done dozens of interviews which begin from the terrorism departure point. But when given an opportunity to actually speak and present a different perspective, that can dissolve rather quickly.
Speaker 37: Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
Speaker 3: Do I get to actually speak now?
Speaker 37: You get to answer the question. It's a simple yes or no question. Is Hamas Did you invite me on here? Is Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, is that a terrorist organization? That's a yes or no question.
Thank
Speaker 3: you for your question. It's very telling to me that and it should be telling to your viewers as well, by the way, that the moment you have a Palestinian voice on your program who begins to explain the legitimate grievances of Palestinians around
Speaker 37: terrorist attacks. Answer. Let me Answer that question. What part of this can you get through your thick head? I think Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
Me? Excuse me? Or no? The only thing
Speaker 3: that you're gonna say is what we want you to say. And if you don't say it, we're not gonna let you speak.
Speaker 7: So you end up with reporting that gives way more priority and weight to the official Israeli perspective than to the Palestinian one. Look at how American media covered Israel's Two Thousand And Fourteen Attack On Gaza. A keyword search of all the major networks showed that over the course of the 51 assault, Israel's ongoing military siege and blockade of Gaza were barely mentioned compared to the thousands of times Hamas rocket attacks on Israel were mentioned.
Speaker 12: Why is Hamas launching missiles into population centers of Israel?
Speaker 7: The basic propaganda frame is built into the very assumptions journalists bring to the table.
Speaker 12: Since Israel pulled out of Gaza in 02/2005, '8 thousand rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel.
Speaker 7: This is how propaganda works. It works by getting your words in the mouths of other people, especially the mouths of supposedly objective media commentators.
Speaker 46: I'm wondering though whether you're outraged by the conduct of Hamas, starting the conflict by firing rockers, building tunnels to kill and kidnap Israelis, being more than willing to sacrifice Palestinian lives by embedding them into into their own kind of arsenal and using them as Israel contends as human shields. Do you have a level of outrage at Hamas itself?
Speaker 7: It doesn't seem like propaganda at all. It just seems like news. And this goes across all the major media, including the supposedly most liberal. Look at Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, who's known as the leading progressive voice on mainstream television. She did only four segments on the war.
And during these few segments, she never once mentioned Israel's ongoing occupation of the West Bank or its siege and blockade of Gaza, and never once mentioned the fact that The US has armed Israel with the very weapons that were being used against the defenseless civilian population, Instead, choosing to frame the invasion as part of a senseless cycle of violence perpetrated by both sides.
Speaker 48: It's been a constant cycle of fighting between Israel and Hamas for the past several years in Gaza. And the fighting and the cause of the fighting feel terribly familiar because this is basically a recurring war. And if it feels like deja vu, feels like, ugh, I've heard all of this before, you are right because this really does keep happening over and over and over again.
Speaker 13: Rachel Manor, most important woman on MSNBC, the leader when it comes to politics, in six weeks of war, never mentioned the word blockade, occupation, illegal settlements, Never mentioned the support that Congress have for Israel, unconditional amount of money, billions of dollars. What is that? What a disappointment. Our media operations, national media is a scandal when it comes to Israel. I look at The UK with all its deficit, and there's real debate.
For example, there's this anchor called Joan Snow, channel four in The UK, he interviewed Mark Regev, and he grilled him with questions, Grilled him.
Speaker 53: Mark Regev, how does killing children on a beach contribute to that purpose? What was the point of bombing the El Wafa hospital, for goodness' sake? There are grave uncertainties No. No. About whether you are acting within
Speaker 19: the law.
Speaker 53: Oh, Oh, yes. You are deliberately targeting neighborhoods in which you know there are women and children. You've tried everything with Gaza. You've besieged it for seven years. The people live an intolerable and ghastly life, and you know that better than anybody.
Why don't you try one other thing, talking? Why not talk? Why not be brave and talk directly with them? Why not?
Speaker 13: I can never see this in America. I never seen anything like this in The United States.
Speaker 7: There have been occasional examples of American journalists who've had the courage to challenge the official Israeli line. Back in the fifties, CBS's Mike Wallace didn't back down from grilling Israeli ambassador Abba Ibn about Israel's illegal takeover of Arab land.
Speaker 22: The fact remains that Israel benefited territorially from a war, from armed violence. Well, as a member of the Judaic faith, which cherishes social justice and morality, do you believe that any country should profit territorially from violence?
Speaker 7: And years later, Wallace didn't shy away from comparing the terrorist tactics of Palestinian militants with the terrorist tactics of Jewish militants in the nineteen forties.
Speaker 22: The fact is that innocent people die from terror whoever the terrorist. The Jewish independence fighters, trying to hasten the exit of the British from Palestine and to intimidate the Arab population there, bombed bus stops and office buildings, railroad trains, and shopping crowds. The fighters of Stern and Irgun took a toll of innocent victims that ran into the hundreds.
Speaker 7: More recently in 02/2012, during a sixty minutes piece, the late Bob Simon dared to report on what day to day life is like for Palestinian Christians who live under Israeli occupation.
Speaker 54: Israel has occupied the West Bank for forty five years, turning the little town where Christ was born into what its residents call an open air prison. Christian Nastas lives with her mother Claire, her father, brother, and sister in this house which is surrounded on three sides by the wall. How do you live with this?
Speaker 7: Simon's report was seen as so unusual and so incendiary that Israeli ambassador Michael Oren actually tried to spike it, censor it, leading Simon to directly confront him on camera.
Speaker 55: When I heard that you were going to do a story about Christians in the holy Land and my and
Speaker 14: had, I believe, information about the nature of it
Speaker 55: and it's been confirmed by this interview today.
Speaker 54: Nothing has been confirmed by the interview, mister ambassador, because you don't know what's going to be put on air.
Speaker 55: Okay. I don't. True.
Speaker 54: Mister ambassador, I've been doing this a long time, and I've received lots of reactions from just about everyone I've done stories about, but I've never gotten a reaction before from a story that hasn't been broadcast yet.
Speaker 55: Well, it's a first time for everything, Bob.
Speaker 7: These are examples of exceptional reporting, but they are the exception. And there's a reason for that. In each of these cases, these journalists were mercilessly attacked and labeled antisemitic. It didn't matter that they were both Jewish. That's how the climate of intimidation works.
Speaker 19: It's almost impossible to get any view that isn't one way or another shaped by an Israeli perspective. Almost impossible. It cannot get in without facing a firestorm of pit bull attacks to make sure that the line is followed.
Speaker 29: Everyone who's trying to tell the American public a different side of the story, an alternative view of the conflict that's reality based has already crossed a barrier of fear, and I think they've already told themselves, well, I'm gonna pay for this, but I'm ready to pay the price.
Speaker 0: Over just the past few years, the proliferation of social media and Internet news sources has made it increasingly difficult for the Israeli government and pro Israel groups in The US to manage American perceptions of the conflict. Video footage and reporting from the ground bearing witness to the reality of the occupation are now more accessible than ever on the Internet. In addition, over the past few years, a number of high profile documentaries made by Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers alike have trained a harsh light on current Israeli policy and the repression of Palestinian At the same time, a powerful new boycott divestment and sanctions movement has been gaining momentum and raising awareness of the occupation. While activists from the Black Lives Matter movement have been making explicit connections between police violence against African Americans and the Israeli military's repression of Palestinians
Speaker 56: We stand next to people who continue to courageously struggle and resist the occupation. People continue to dream and fight for freedom. From Ferguson to Palestine, the struggle for freedom continues.
Speaker 0: And all of these developments seem to be having an effect. Polls now show that while sympathy for Israel remains at all time highs among older Americans, it has been hemorrhaging among young people.
Speaker 7: Despite the efforts of the lobby, something really striking is taking place. Lots of young people are abandoning the mainstream media and turning instead other independent sources. So they have a totally different way of making sense of what's happening, an unfiltered view of Israel's repression. And pro Israel Operatives like Frank Lantz are in a panic. In his latest report, he calls what's happening with young people a disaster and demands that Israel supporters respond.
And people have answered the call. You have powerful right wing billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, a major donor to Republican candidates, bankrolling a campaign to silence and intimidate student activists on college campuses. But it's not working. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, who see what's happening to Palestinians as a civil rights issue, have refused to be intimidated. They're refusing to back down even though they're being labeled as anti Semitic and terrorist sympathizers, and their numbers are growing.
Hey. Hey. Ho ho. This seat of justice got to go.
Speaker 3: As the discourse begins to open, more people are starting to understand this as a rights based issue, not an issue of radicalism. This is a movement for the rights of people whose rights are being denied, who are living under occupation, who want to live in their country freely just like anybody else.
Speaker 19: You can see just so many video clips of kids having their hands smashed by soldiers with batons. You can see just so many pictures of thousands of people being killed as happened in Gaza. And at a certain point, you there's a cognitive dissonance. You realize that what you're being told
Speaker 14: is a pack of lies. Let's just get away from the mythologies and talk about the realities, and then maybe be able to persuade people that they should not any longer give their unwavering support to a nation engaged in a policy that's not just inhumane and and brutal, but ultimately suicidal.
Speaker 41: Given the central role that The United States plays in backing Israel, seems to me Americans, all Americans have a right to question particular Israeli policies and in particular the prolonged occupation. The fact that the Palestinian people have been kept without a state and without any political rights for decades now.
Speaker 20: For us in The United States, I think, the issue has to be what is our government doing? How is our government allowing, enabling, supporting, arming, defending Israeli violations.
Speaker 7: In the end, this comes down to a battle for the minds of the American people. A battle over the stories they're told to make sense of this conflict. A battle over perception. The more Americans are able to see the reality of occupation with their own eyes, to see images of routine daily violence, of the repression and humiliation that never make their way into mainstream news, the more they'll question the image of Israel as this tiny little David up against the bullying Arab Goliath and start to wonder if it's actually the outgun Palestinians who might be the real Davids here. When that starts becoming the dominant perception here in The US, all bets are off.
It all comes down to American public perception.
Speaker 34: That's the one way to change anything, changing perception and understanding here leading to a change of policy here. As long as The United States supports Israel, nothing's gonna happen. US government will support it as long as The US population tolerates.
Speaker 45: In checkpoint. Better have your premise if you found at the checkpoint. Gumming on the tower aiming down at the checkpoint. I did it to keep you in fear at the checkpoint. Interfuse a cage in the rear of the checkpoint.
Feels like prison on a tear at the checkpoint. I'd rather be anywhere but here at this checkpoint. Nelson Mandela wasn't blind to the checkpoint. He stood for free Palestine, not at checkpoint support. BDS don't give a dime to the checkpoint.
This is international crime at the checkpoint. Arabs get treated like dogs at the checkpoint. Because discrimination is the law at the checkpoint. Criminalize without a cause at the checkpoint. I'm just telling you what I saw at the checkpoint.
So I just got bad attitudes at the checkpoint. Condescending and real rules at the checkpoint. Don't let them in their ass when they move at the checkpoint. They might strip a man or woman nude at the checkpoint. Soldiers might blow you out the shoes at the checkpoint.
Gas you up and in like the fuse at the checkpoint. Every day you stand to be accused at the checkpoint. Each time your life, you can lose at the checkpoint.
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
If you only watch one thing on 𝕏 today, please watch this. https://t.co/BAygoVdMmC
Video Transcript AI Summary
DOSH has already saved $69 billion, and another $100 billion in Social Security fraud has been uncovered. It seems widespread government corruption is the norm, not the exception. Billions in USAID funds, misused by figures like George Soros, have been funneled into harmful projects. Chemtronics' $17 billion pharmaceutical shipments to Africa warrant investigation, as does the high rate of AIDS there. Our tax dollars fund global corruption, murder, and war. We need accountability. Like Caesar, who seized assets from corrupt Roman patricians and redistributed the wealth, we need to arrest and prosecute these criminals. This isn't just an election; it's a revolution. We’ve uncovered massive fraud; now we await justice. Welcome to the upswing, America. Long live the republic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So as of right now, DOSH has saved us $69,000,000,000 Today, he found another hundred billion dollars worth of fraud and scams in Social Security, leaving you with the only question. Is there any agency in this fucking entire government that is not defrauding the American people? And it's sounding like no. It's sounding like no. Every single one of them.
The USAID thing has gotten so fucking bad. George Soros didn't even use his own money to ass fuck us all. He used our money to ass fuck us. How how does how do you feel about that? Like and that's not even the worst of it.
Chemtronics, this company, shipping pharmaceuticals to Africa, 17 Billion Dollars. There is look into that. Why do you think Africa is so full of fucking AIDS? Fauci. Ask Fauci why that is.
To destabilize the country so everybody can get in there and steal the fucking the all the worst shit all around the world is not even organically funded by these evil fucks. They steal our money to fucking literally ass fucking destroy the entire world. Murder, corruption, blackmail, wars, fucking pet the petos, the fucking sex changes, all of it, dude. It's all being stolen and done with our own tax dollars. That's what we've been getting this entire time.
This is fucking out of control. And everybody's like, you know what? This is so dirty. I want my money back. Here's a little history lesson.
When Caesar came back to Rome to save the republic that's correct. Caesar came back to Rome to save the republic, and he did. He enacted many reforms, cleaned up many things. The Roman citizens love Caesar. One of the main things Caesar did when he came back and found all the same corruption of all the the the patrician class that had been just siphoning money off of the Roman Republic, he arrested them.
He arrested them. He sees their money. He sees their property. He seized their assets. He auctioned shit off, and then he distributed all that money back to the Roman citizens.
Every Roman citizen got something like a hundred or 200 denarii, and that was a fuckload of money back then. Right? Trump, look that up. Check into that because that's what needs to happen here. Something needs to be done to make this right.
We need to see some fucking accountability. The only question we should all have is how long do we have to wait to hear the jingle jingle of some handcuffs? Pam Bondi, how long do we have to wait to see some motherfuckers get arrested for these crimes against not only us, but all of the world? This is crimes against humanity. That's what these are.
Do we have to wait for Cash Patel to get in there to send the FBI over to arrest these cocksuckers, or can you just send the US Marshals over there? How long do we have to wait for accountability? America, prepare yourselves to learn some shit because this wasn't just an election. This was a revolution. And by the time it's done, it is going to touch left, right, and center.
All these corrupt fucks are going to be dragged out into the light of day. Did we have just scraped the tip of the iceberg and look what we have already found? What a great time to be alive. I never thought. Now we just sit back.
We've seen the receipts. We will wait for the justice, I suppose. Welcome to the upswing, America. Long live the republic.
@CalenArcher - American Archer
Since Ian Carroll was on Joe Rogan today, I figured it would be worth sharing this Pizzagate documentary. Spoiler: Pizzagate and Child trafficking among the elites is real. https://t.co/wrCOR3tqvb
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'd demand the Anthony Weiner laptop be analyzed by trusted military personnel for prosecutable material. This topic has been covered poorly, and important aspects have been deleted. I've discovered something new about James Alifantis, an influential DC figure with ties to Comet Ping Pong and prominent Democrats.
Some became suspicious due to rhetoric from bands who performed at Comet Ping Pong. Also, Alifantis's close relationship with Tony Podesta and the disturbing art in Podesta's collection raised eyebrows. Alifantis posted images of children on Instagram, claiming they were from family and friends. Some images and associations with people like Scott Cummings, Panda Head Morgan, and individuals connected to coffin-making and disturbing online behavior are concerning. My findings have been reported to authorities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do not search for the terms discussed in this video on Google or elsewhere as you could be committing a crime. The findings have been reported to authorities and the research supervised by legal counsel. No illegal imagery is shown. Do not contact or harass anyone mentioned. Attempts to unjustifiably remove this video will result in a legal dispute.
Speaker 1: So one of the things if I were the president, I'd do is demand the Anthony Weiner laptop and get it to the most trusted person in the military to take apart everything on it and then start using it. There's a lot that can be prosecuted. In fact, I heard that the New York police officers who saw some of it, even though they're hardened investigators, literally had to go throw up. It's bad.
Speaker 0: I'm fully aware this topic has been covered ad nauseam, but parts of it have been covered terribly, and the aspects covered well have been deleted. But more importantly, while researching, I discovered something new that's never been reported by anyone.
Speaker 2: Dinner with American celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain, ABC's Bob Woodruff tonight with how that meal came together.
Speaker 0: Initially, this video was structured in a way that debunked the more exaggerated claims from pizzagators and QAnon obsessives, while also shining a light on the facts of aristocratic pedophilia rings. If you think this has occurred in the Catholic church, I encourage you to read the Dattroux dossiers and the recent findings from an inquiry in former British MPs who were freely able to sexually abuse children for decades. But I trashed all that as soon as I found what I found. So instead, I'm just going to show you what I discovered while vetting a now infamous yet indecipherable man who in 02/2012 was named by GQ magazine as one of the 50 most powerful people in Washington DC. James Alifantis is an avid art collector, prolific fundraiser, owner of multiple establishments including Comet Ping Pong, and was personally thanked by Hillary Clinton for what she called his extraordinary talent during her Cooking with Fratelli Podesta fundraiser.
He is pictured here with Tony Podesta, who celebrates his birthday with Aliphantus almost every year. His previous boyfriend was founder of media matters, David Brock. And with the Federal Election Commission showing his multiple donations for Pete Buttigieg, it's apparent that Alifantis' influence among the DC establishment remained strong. But why was anyone suspicious of him in the first place? More specifically, why did anyone equate him with something as monstrous as pedophilia?
One reason surrounds the rhetoric of several bands who often performed at comet ping pong. This video shows Amanda Kleinman, keyboardist for a group called Heavy Breathing. In a separate venue, some in the audience appeared to insinuate a person's preference for pedophilia.
Speaker 3: He likes the world sounds, tamales. And little boys. And children. I think I was his manager. No.
Speaker 0: Another group is DC punk band, Loud Boys, Who we'll see again later, but for the sake of time, we'll end with sex stains. In a 02/2007 FBI bulletin, one of the symbols with which predators identified each other with was a blue spiral shaped triangle wrapping around itself clockwise. The symbol was so prominent it was etched into coins and rings. This music video is from The Sextanes. Their promotional posters said they were for, quote, all ages.
According to Alifantis, Comet Ping Pong is a family restaurant with a backroom designated for children's birthdays.
Speaker 3: This is the kids' party room in that. Birthday parties.
Speaker 0: Another reason some were suspicious of Alifantis surrounds his close relationship with Tony Podesta, a former super lobbyist who's had a lifetime friendship with convicted pedophile Dennis Hasturt. Additionally, Tony's art collection. Now any of these works on its own could merely be employing theatrical strategies to inspire insight, but it's when they're all collected by one person that it begins to say more about the collector than the artist's intent. Among those artists who made up Tony's collection included Maria Marshall, Margie Gearlinks, Patricia Piccinini. Marina Abramovic.
Speaker 4: I like to tell you a story how we in Balkan killed the rocks.
Speaker 0: Kim Noble. Aliphantus' previous Instagram profile picture is of Antinous, a Greek emperor whose influence reemerged in the early two thousands, forming a modern cult that attracted a subculture of LGBT polytheists who worshipped Antinous as a deity. Historian and author Lambert Royston writes, the sculptures of Antinous remain one of the most elevated and ideal monuments to Pederastic love of the whole ancient world. Dictionary.com defines Pederasty as quote sexual relations between two males, especially when one of them is a minor. Whether or not these are good reasons to become suspicious is up to you.
Either way, it's for those reasons and because James Elephantis has no children, some questioned why he had so many kids on his Instagram. According to James, he took all the images of kids and infants from other Facebook pages and from family and friends whom he says haven't come forward for fear of retribution. Retribution. Now, I'm simply going to show you some of those images and give context when necessary. I'm not, however, going to apply sinister interpretations to hashtags, which might seem out of place.
If your damning case against James Alifantis includes references to the urban dictionary and arguments for why he might be using them, you failed. If there really is something here, it should reveal itself without argument. Aliphantus said that this is his goddaughter with her arms taped to a table. Here's a baby in an art gallery, another baby. Now some of these are obviously the same newborn, it appears.
But this is a baby doll and in this image there's two babies. I had to censor this because it shows a flat chested female whose age is ambiguous. Notice that it's liked by Panda Head Morgan, a name found in dozens of James posts who is very important and we'll get to later. Here's an image of Alifantis' friend Scott Cummings holding a toddler with the hashtag chicken liver. In 02/2010, the website Things That Are Rectangles interviewed Scott Cummings about his privately owned business in Portland, Oregon called Portland Natural Casket Company.
During the interview, mister Cummings said, when I was a child, my mother taught classes on death and dying. She would often talk to me about how death is an important part of life and how different cultures have different rituals and burial rites. The interviewer stated, Even the tat on his wrist is death related. He snapped a photo of it. It's a body hanging.
Alifantis uploaded this picture of a guy in a panda mask. Here are many other images of pandas with the hashtag come panda. One of his tags is Panda Head Magazine, which used to be run by a small team of DC Bloggers who also made this video described by make.com as a perfectly creepy panda cult film called Cult Panda, but with the u spelled with a v. Here, James commented murder, another user working on my night cheese, who I'll refer to as w c, commented kill room. W c owned a workshop in the industrial complex pictured here called the Pajama Factory, where he, similar to mister Cummings, also built coffins, many of which were child size.
WC can be found commenting here to another Instagram user, j blair smith, who uploaded this image commenting, my favorite pedo. Jay Blair Smith uploaded this drawing of a woman being hanged and what appears to be a baby statue that's been burnt. User Joshua Ryan v posted these while at Comet Ping Pong. He also played in a low budget independent film called Kill Dolly Kill.
Speaker 4: Kill them, Benjie. Kill them.
Speaker 0: This is miss summer camp's Instagram. James Alifantis commented sex. Miss summer camp also posted this picture of a girl a watermelon with the end of a tagline saying priceless. He said, quote, Priceless isn't the word most people use upon tasting me. A user below named Barrett C responded.
He posted on his Instagram a picture of a baby changing station with the C etched out saying let's hang a baby. He also posted an apparent text message saying I put my baby in a slow cooker, it's been burning all day. And in this image uploaded by Barrett, one of the commenters is pizza fucking party, who I'll refer to as PFP. PFP uploaded this image of a group of young children picking up either fake or real condoms, fake gold coins, according to P. F.
P. Comment, little vials of alcohol. He also uploaded a bull like meme on a pentagram, a pizza cut into a pentagram, and this photo of him or someone else in front of a van with a logo that says Baby Doll Pizza. As it turns out, the logo is from an actual restaurant named Baby Doll Pizza in Portland, Oregon, the same city where a man named Michael Whelan used to live, who alleges to be a witness to illegal activity there, claiming the owners of Voodoo Doughnuts are trafficking children.
Speaker 5: As to why Voodoo Doughnuts and why Portland, Oregon, it's because my question is why are they abusing kids? Then I see kids being brought into the back. Then I'm asking, who are these kids? Who are their parents? And and that immediately drew attention onto me.
So when I'm asking why there are adult males and females taking children in the back. When you're confronted with these type of people, other survivors will know what I mean when I say that they flaunt this. They are proud of this. They feel protected in this, and they feel untouchable in this.
Speaker 3: Sonic Delights of Voodoo Doughnut.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now that we've outlined the context, here's what I found. In this image from James, he references pickles and tags a user named Gordy's pickle jar. Together, they seem to be enjoying a pickle related inside joke. It turns out Gordy's pickle jar is a real establishment in Washington DC that makes cocktail brines, Bloody Mary mixes, and other related spreads.
Their Instagram shows them at Comet Ping Pong. And here are both owners, Sarah Gordon and Sheila Fain. On their Instagram is picture of President Obama and Anthony Bourdain eating in a modest Vietnamese restaurant in 02/2016.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you have an important state function after, you might not wanna I'm going with this thing. You know, we're gonna do what's appropriate.
Speaker 6: Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain shooting for his TV series, it was a low key end to an historic day with The US lifting that decades old arms embargo on Vietnam. David, the president's trip has also brought very good news to American giant Boeing, which signed an $11,000,000,000 order today to deliver 100 jetliners to Vietnam.
Speaker 0: The red words behind them are Vietnamese for not smoking. Either way, after finding that out, I decided to type the words into Google. This video belongs to a massive YouTube channel. With almost all videos showing Vietnamese children and a BH Kids logo. Now, I immediately contacted my brother-in-law, who's a lawyer, and he put me in contact with someone who advised me how to legally research this, where to report the findings, and how to ethically present it.
So, upon clicking on one of these images, I discovered that the term b h or b h kids leads to a plethora of websites showing children modeling underwear, and in several instances, showing young girls posing in an indecent manner with the top half of their body exposed. Surprisingly, as you just saw, some of these illicit images showing naked children were suggested to me from Google. One of the illicit websites Google suggested was lisca.com, which is arguably the biggest lingerie company in Europe. It's important to understand that Lisca doesn't market to children. Their YouTube channel, fashion shows, and catalogs show only adults.
When typing Liska into Google, the images show only adults. The same goes for their website, where not a single image of a child can be found. But if that's true, how was I suggested this image of a naked girl from Liska.com? The answer lies in the cryptic use of BH Kids. For example, if I simply go to Liska.com by normally typing in the domain name, the illicit images are nowhere to be found.
The kids swimwear section is as it should be, meaning they only show the swimsuits and not the children modeling them. But when I type b h kids into Google, in the images tab, the same list of website pulls up. But this time, it shows the naked girl. Here's the crucial point. The steps listed to find this illicit image is home, outlet, kids, Kim, swimwear.
But if you go to the site by typing in the domain name, the step required to be able to see that image is missing. This step, Kim, doesn't exist. So as it pertains to these sites, the term b h or b h kids acts as a code for child predators, serving as a kind of key which can activate hidden links that were not otherwise accessible when visiting the site normally. Therefore, the associations between BH, BHKIDS, and pedophilic content are clear. Although it's speculation, other potential uses of the term could include Bad Baby, a sexually explicit minor whose stage name is spelled with the b h b h.
Speaker 4: White j's, white horse, white wrist, white horse.
Speaker 0: One must be careful, however, not to apply malicious intent to every organization that happens to use the term like b and h photo, for instance, whose website functions in no way like the websites in question.
Speaker 7: 1984 and 1994 she worked on a series Immediate Family, Bare Chested with Arms Crossed.
Speaker 3: And I wanna make you feel beautiful. Sure. Let me take care.
Speaker 4: Let me tell you how things should proceed.
Speaker 0: As the New York Times lose their minds over the quote alt right rabbit hole, they seem to have overlooked an arguably deeper flaw within Google's algorithms. The same goes for YouTube who was owned by Google. Somehow, I was able to find this insidious code from this image, an image that was taken during an event where our country was opening up travel to and from Vietnam, an image of a man whose suicide would require another video and posted from two women intimately connected with James Alifantis. Now, I also discovered something else.
Speaker 3: If I simply take an isolated photograph of my In N Out burger sitting on a table, an anonymous In N Out burger, I'll get like 50,000 likes in nine minutes.
Speaker 0: Gordy's pickle jar uploaded this image of a girl holding an In N Out burger and their brine for flavoring alcohol. They pinned two In N Out burgers, one that led to the real restaurant showing nothing but family friendly content. The other tag led to this page with only one post and just over a thousand followers, so I checked the tags. The vast majority of images are of women from adult modeling accounts with many being sexually explicit. One video shows intercourse.
But overall, it's model after model after model after model, all either holding an In N Out burger or posing in front of the restaurant, hence the hashtag. But as seen before, they aren't tagging the actual burger place, but instead hashtag in and out burger. It's apparent that hashtags like model or modeling are oversaturated with talent. If, however, an aspiring model can get queued into a set of specific hashtags, they can increase their chances of getting noticed by scouts who monitor those pages. For example, this model's use of the hashtag enabled her to be seen by two talent scouts.
This model was noticed by a fashion company. This model flat out asked, okay, who's going to sponsor me? One wonders if the term in and out, in this case, is being used as a sexual innuendo, and these women aren't simply themselves to scouts, but knowingly participating in prostitution. This is highly speculative, and even if it was true, what these adults do on their own time isn't the problem. The problem is, why are videos like these on here?
This organization is called Crazy Pants, a kid's clothing company that also participates in kid pageants. In 2018, TechCrunch ran a story exposing WhatsApp's child abuse problem. A spokesperson claimed the abbreviation CP was a prominent indicator of these groups. Stores like Crazy Pants should be fully aware their events draw on predators and take precautions that can deter them. If nothing else, their parents should be informed that Crazy Pants website has a section called CP for Guys and is uploading their kids' photoshoots to an Instagram page filled with explicit adult models who appear to be advertising themselves to a specific set of individuals.
But most, if not all, of these children's pages are operated by their parents. They're the ones who respond to the comments from independent photographers and fashion shops urging to DM them, saying make sure you say so and so sent you. Gordy's pickle jar shows multiple images of children, which doesn't mean anything other than that. But once again, some of the comments are insane. Here, a user hashtags edible children, which obviously leads to a tiny page given how deviant the term is.
The same user comments on this image, I want you to do a whole Foodie and the Beast show about edible children and various ways to prepare and eat the children in our lives. Gordy's pickle jar also has this image of a young girl eating pickle. They tagged three people, one of whom is Panda Head Morgan. The same person found on several posts from James Alifantis and seen here in the Panda Cult film. Her name is Morgan Hungerford West, known for her, quote, problem solving skills and the founder of Creative DC, a hashtag related to events surrounding the DC area.
Morgan responded to a question about the hashtag, saying, quote, we like to think of it as a resource and also an access point. She's global brand director for Line Hotels for the Saddell Group, which are a string of boutique destinations that transform already existing infrastructure into modern hotels. The founder is Andrew Zobler, whose co founder and longtime friend before they recently sued each other was Ron Burkle, a billionaire lobbyist whose name can be found inside Jeffrey Epstein's black book and on Epstein's private jet log.
Speaker 4: I realize what I am. I'm very comfortable in my own skin.
Speaker 0: Burkle was close friends with Michael Jackson and counseled the pop star during his first child abuse trial, Referred to by the New York Times as Bill Clinton's bachelor buddy, both Ron Burkle and Bill Clinton accompanied each other several times on Epstein's Lolita Express.
Speaker 4: On almost every trip that I did go on, there were young girls around.
Speaker 0: And according to sworn statements from New York Post columnist Jared Stern, Ron Burgle and Bill Clinton had sex with minors. Judge Walter B. Tolop dismissed the accusations from Stern, dropping all charges against Burgle and Clinton. Judge Tolop is the same judge who dismissed another sexual abuse case in 02/2008, ruling in favor of Jeffrey Epstein. This is a picture of Morgan's front door, six six six Pizza Coffins.
Her boyfriend, Mitchell West, works for a company that monitors political ads and used to be the bassist for DC punk band, Loud Boys. His Instagram shows, among other things, the owners of Gordy's pickle jar, the whole group together, Satan is real, more pentagrams, and three visitor passes for the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Washington DC, which houses premature infants who are sick or in critical condition. The difficulty in navigating topics like these is knowing whether I'm on to something significant or deluding myself. In the case of BH Kids, however, and the exploitative images that surround it, its sinister function is clear. But are Morgan and Mitchell West's cultic nods to Satan indicative of malevolence or something far more benign?
Additionally, how do you perceive James Alifantis and his friends and the models and the hashtags and the images. How do you see Do not search for the terms discussed in this video on Yandex or elsewhere as you could be committing a crime. The findings have been reported to authorities and the research supervised by legal counsel. No illegal imagery is shown. Do not contact or harass anyone mentioned.
After thinking for a while on how to best disseminate the information I've received, I've settled on dropping this particular discovery in its own shorter video.
Speaker 3: The the problem now is that people now know that I am interested in in lost glove photos.
Speaker 0: And the rest of the leads and new testimonies will be in part three.
Speaker 4: And then they made each little boy in turn come up and stab him.
Speaker 0: I'm doing this because I consider this finding a bit more time sensitive and I've already received veiled threats and attempts to hack my social media. I knew I might receive some trolls when giving out an email and asking for information, which on one hand has proven remarkably useful. But I wasn't prepared for how sophisticated some of these phishing attempts would be. While some are of course benign spam attempts that we all get, others seem designed solely to intimidate, like trying to reset my Twitter password or calling my phone but not saying anything. Among the threats I've received was this one, quote, you have no idea what you are getting into here or what kind of danger you are in.
Think enemy of the state means arrival. Stay far away from and then it shows my location. Let's assume for a second that this person's not a troll and they really do know something I don't. Well then, what is it exactly that I'm getting into here? What is it that I'm in danger of?
Speaker 8: I'm looking into it. It appeared that this girl was one of many.
Speaker 0: A former Scotland Yard Detective, John Wedger, was part of a small team investigating sex abuse allegations in London.
Speaker 8: We had dozens of young kids aging from nine to 14 years old.
Speaker 0: But when officer Wedger, quote, dug too deep, he was given a similar warning.
Speaker 8: I was brought before someone who is now a very, very high ranked officer in The UK indeed, and he said you will be thrown to the walls. You have no idea who and what you are dealing with. He said, I'm warning you now. You must back away.
Speaker 0: Although it can be disconcerting, and at times, I do wonder if what I'm doing here is even worth it. As of now, I have no intention of stopping. Now, the new information you're about to see ostensibly involves Tom Hanks.
Speaker 3: First of all, it looks like an ad for Chevy.
Speaker 0: Whether or not Hanks is aware of any of this remains to be seen. Nonetheless, some of the images he's posted to his social media are not only relevant to the findings, it's how they were discovered. The person who provided this tip wishes to remain anonymous under the alias Veritas Fotiore. But why Tom Hanks? An actor I've loved since I was a kid, a man whose films are consistently inspirational, influential, and iconic.
This is true, but it's also true that recently, a new range of theories have begun to emerge showing a different side to the Hollywood Actor. Many of the claims are unfounded and nonsensical. I'm not saying they're all bullshit, but as I did with part one, no theories will be given, just information and context. So one reason some have recently changed their perspective of Hanks surrounds the testimony of a former Hollywood Actor, Isaac Cappy.
Speaker 9: Oh, I'm not gonna talk about Tom Hanks either, who is also a pedophile. Tom Hanks, folks, is a pedophile. Sorry to I'm sorry if this is the kind of bursting your bubble. All this information is new.
Speaker 0: Isaac claimed that within Hollywood, a high society is involved in child trafficking.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Tom Hanks. Tom fucking Hanks, guys. Pedophile. Called out.
No response.
Speaker 0: Information he claimed was privy to because of his time spent among Hollywood's gentility.
Speaker 9: I'm in their source code. These people are being taken up north to San Francisco, some sort of R and D project for a new Terminator. And this make no mistake. This is a cult. There is a widespread cult that is worldwide.
And by the way, the proof is in the fucking pudding. If I'm lying, sue me. Sue me. Great. Let's go to court.
Let's have discovery.
Speaker 0: As Kapi's following grew, he took measures to ensure his safety, one of which he alleged included a quote, dead man's switch.
Speaker 9: What does that do? It means they can't kill me, which is good because I like to stay alive. A dead man's switch is, basically, it's like if you die, then, like, stuff happens. Okay? Like, information goes out.
They can try to kill me. You know. Good luck with that.
Speaker 0: Many expected Cappy to continue expanding upon his testimony. Instead, he uploaded one of his final videos.
Speaker 9: My anger at these people, these people, my anger consumed me. Did I lie about Seth Green? No. Seth Green's a pedophile. Am I afraid of something?
Well, I should be because bad things are coming my way.
Speaker 0: Three days later, Cappy was found dead in what local authorities assert was a suicide. Yeah.
Speaker 10: They called him.
Speaker 0: It's worth noting that Cappy was asked here if he currently felt suicidal.
Speaker 9: I'm not suicidal. I'm not suicidal.
Speaker 0: Purportedly, Cappy jumped from that bridge and was hit by a truck. Soon after, a controversial video began making its rounds on the internet.
Speaker 4: You promised you wouldn't hurt my mom
Speaker 11: and dad if I came back. Right?
Speaker 5: Right. I won't hurt you either.
Speaker 0: A woman named Sarah Ruth Ashcraft accused Tom Hanks of purchasing her from her father for sex. She claims to have been abused most of her childhood.
Speaker 12: I depersonalized a lot of this because it's really ugly, tough stuff. I'm glad something's being done about it now.
Speaker 4: I guess nobody should have
Speaker 12: to look back on their childhood memories and realize that the things that they thought were just meaningless and innocent were anything but that.
Speaker 4: Nobody should have to discover
Speaker 12: these things about their own life.
Speaker 3: I noticed you have this obsession obsession on Instagram with lost gloves. Well, it's lost objects, but it started with lost gloves. And I first of all, there's a story behind them all. What happened? What happened to its mate?
How did this love go glove get lost? Is some is someone gonna keep the other glove at home on the off chance? Are they gonna pair it up? It's a it's a little bit of, you know, Romeo and Juliet kind of quality to it. There's a you're saying there's a little bit of a hint of sadness to these it's like it's telling you a tale, but you don't know what the tale is.
They're all bittersweet city adventure. Let's take a look at some of these. I wanna put this up. This is one you took and Yeah. Now tell me what's going on here?
Why does this why is this so evocative to you? Well, first of all, I don't touch them. I just see them and I photograph them. So I have I have You don't want your DNA on those. Well, you know, but it it could be a crime scene.
Let's let's not give the cops a break.
Speaker 0: Notice that in this image, we see another glove, but this time, we also see letters. Look closely and spell them out for yourself. What does the top row spell? What does the bottom row spell? Here's what happens when you run a search for SRC USA on DuckDuckGo.
It shows nothing out of the ordinary. The same goes for the images tab. And the same also goes for Google. In the trailer update video I uploaded prior, I provided tips for independent researchers to use. Among those was to utilize multiple search engines, including the Russian search engine Yandex.
It's important to understand that just like Google or Bing, Yandex does not show child pornography and is not to be confused with a dark web search engine, many of which lead to an array of CP no matter what you type in. In part three, we'll attempt to expose an apparent distributor who operates within these networks. Back to Yandex. To further emphasize how similar Yandex is to Google, here are some control searches. When typing kids, the images are as they should be.
The same goes for any other mixture of SRC. So if we search RCS, RCS USA, and some others, all of them are fine. But what happens if we type in SRC USA? In part one, I showed how the term b h kids was almost certainly a pedophile code as it revealed in decent images of children on Google, some of which cryptically. But are some who claimed I was making a mistake, pointing to the German use of b h, which means bra.
This definitely helps to explain why, quote, bra was found next to many of the images, but it does not explain the b h kids logo on the Vietnamese YouTube channel where I found the term in the first place. Furthermore, one of the most suggested images BH Kids pulled up was of this young girl who I've chosen to pixelate given that the image has already been printed onto a foreign newspaper. Now, if Google's suggestion of this image only had to do with the German word for bra typed next to kids and not potentially indicative of a larger operation, then how do you explain this?
Speaker 3: All day yesterday, doing a shoot with with pizza slime blog.
Speaker 0: The term SRC, which is typically short for source or search, appears to act in this case as a kind of algorithmic glue for online predators on Yandex. These images are then collected and shared on Yandex profiles. Disturbing amounts of illegal child exploitation imagery are currently being cataloged and shared by predators on Russia's Yandex search engine. Terms like SRC USA, SRC Kids, SRC Boys all surfaced images of children in varying degrees of dress, many with sexually explicit tags and comments. The Yandex child pornography problem exemplifies the failure of big tech to effectively resolve an issue which could easily be fixed by blocking or cleaning up those queries.
It's entirely possible that Tom Hanks has no connection to the term, but it would have been misleading, even dishonest, if I didn't include that this image was how the apparent code was discovered. Additionally, because it included Tom Hanks, leaving out the testimonies of Isaac and Sarah would have also left out information we felt was pertinent, and it's up to you to decide the authenticity of their claims. But what I find most bizarre is that apparently in general, Yandex knows this is a problem. Whether or not they're aware of the specifics in this documentary remains to be seen, but it does appear they're knowledgeable of their engine's failure to eliminate images showing child sexual abuse, which begs the question, why aren't they fixing it? In the course of our research into online pedophile networks, a specific URL continued to reemerge within deviant chat rooms.
A site featuring over 230 gigs of sexually suggestive material involving children, specifically young girls ranging from the age of 14 to five years old. And on one occasion, a user shared a link featuring the sexual torture of an infant. We immediately reported the link to cybertip.org. This website is arguably one of the largest surface web pedophile networks in the world with new images uploaded every day and it can all be accessed through Google. For obvious reasons, we cannot reveal too much of the site.
We think it's important, however, to expose its name and how it functions. But first, it's crucial to understand why. Educating ourselves about the prominence of surface web child sexual abuse material can help us protect our children. We can also work together and collectively flag the URL on cybertip.org. Unfortunately, our attempts to remove the site will be difficult because the pedophiles who created it have made it nearly impossible to remove.
Its opening page features a set of rules which when adhered to are considered technically legal. Rules like do not upload or request child pornography, No visible genitalia is allowed. Both nipples and butts in a non commercial, non sexual context are okay. Some images do adhere to these rules, even depicting children in a decent manner. But the implications of this fact are just as troubling because according to this website, it appears that even wholesome images of children can be sexually gratifying for pedophiles.
I kind of freaked out after discovering this and I scoured my Facebook asking myself, have I posted any images of my nephew? How devastating would it be if I saw an innocent picture of him being shared by these perverts knowing the only person to blame is me? And perhaps most unsettling, what exactly would I be able to do about it? Many users on this website share YouTube links, one of which led to this rather disturbing channel called Piper Bynes.
Speaker 4: I think I know why Fluffy won't say anything else because he's a stinking dog. A dog. Hello, my friends. Watch my workout and subscribe please.
Speaker 0: Other users are literally stalking the social media accounts of young girls. This person says she is a hottie, but nothing secret and all freely accessible. How are we to respond knowing that many of these images are harmless but are being used in the most harmful ways. How can this website be quote technically legal if we know its users are sexually exploiting children on it? And how are we supposed to protect our children while this legal gray area exists?
These apparent guidelines merely serve as a protection mechanism for the preservation of the site. In minutes, we found images portraying naked children, forcing to pose inside of cheap photoshoots and videos displaying actual child pornography, all of which was reported to cybertip.org. Now, everything that you've just seen is merely the contextual setup for what regrettably is next. As seen in Pedogate twenty twenty part two, when typing s r c into Russia's Yandex search engine, countless and decent images of children pulled up, almost all of which featured disturbing tags and comments. But if you were to type s r c into Yandex right now, literally nothing pulls up.
This is a very good thing and if our video played a role, which we think it did, we're encouraged. What is shocking, however, is that new findings point to another flaw in Yandex, one which might shine a light onto the name of this website and potentially bring new context to a controversial new film.
Speaker 7: It's really sparked outrage and calls for a boycott. Social media erupted in outrage with the hashtag cancel Netflix.
Speaker 10: I thought the movie poster was simply a victim of poor marketing on the behalf of Netflix. Boy, was I fucking wrong.
Speaker 4: There is literally no reason why there should be any close ups.
Speaker 3: It's literally awful. It is beyond repulsive.
Speaker 9: We are currently living in clown world.
Speaker 7: However well intentioned, I think it falls far short of the mark.
Speaker 0: After Cuties was published Netflix, a kind of social battle ensued with one side praising the film for what they viewed as a fearless critique of religious traditionalism. And the other incensed at what they perceived as the sexual exploitation of children, a societal defect both sides are against. After watching the film myself, I see Cuties as either an intentional or unintentional pedophilia apologist film. For example, in one scene, the children sneak into laser tag and are caught by security. Rightly so, the moral pitfalls of Islamic fundamentalism.
But aren't both worthy of critique? Why reprimand one but give the other a pass? This blind spot occurs again and again, making the final scene where Amy independently decides to dress decently, feel unearned, and tone deaf. Are we supposed to forget about these sexualized dance routines? Do the creators of Cuties even see anything wrong with those routines?
That I cannot confidently answer that question is to acknowledge the problem. And it's because of this problem that I think it's worth asking. What if the intent of Cuties actually was to condone pedophilia, to normalize it in some sense.
Speaker 9: What's wrong with you?
Speaker 0: Well, perhaps now it's time to go back to the aforementioned website. Now, what word do you think the pedophiles on this website repeatedly use when referring to their fantasies? It's worth noting that this website was fully operational before the film Cuties was seen by anyone. And according to IPaddress.com, this site was up and running for almost a year before Cuties debuted in France. Cuties simply means a cute person, especially girl or young woman.
So it makes sense why a film about young girls would use the name. A name that when translated into French, where the film was based, is McNonna's. Nonetheless, it remains a fact that before the French film was even released, a large network of pedophiles were using the word cuties as their foundational term with which to label young girls online. But how do I know it's quote foundational? Surely there are other words this network uses to reference children.
Right? Isn't this just an example of a kind of confirmation bias? I saw the movie Cuties and now I'm trying to maliciously link it to this pedophile website. Why am I so focused on the word cutie? Well, answer lies in the website's domain name.
Cutiegarden.org. As seen in part two, when using control searches on Yandex such as kids, boy scouts, SRC USA, the term boy or girl, all of which pull up nothing concerning. Because similar to Google and DuckDuckGo, Yandex is designed to hide indecent imagery of children. But what about the term cuties? Fortunately, when typing it into Google, other than a few images of the film, it pulls up nothing but the popular brand of oranges.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Google's cousin. The reality that the term cuties has had a gruesome and indefensible meaning among predators online and still does to this day should be considered when deciding the intentions of Netflix's film. And as for cutiegarden.org, let's work in unison. And even though our efforts might ultimately prove futile, we can still try to protect the children currently being exploited there and report the URL together. Let's hope it works.
With my YouTube channel removed, your help toward the continuation of my content is essential. Please consider clicking this green icon next to the sub button on my Bitchute channel and giving a buck a month on my SubscribeStar. You can also support me on Patreon. My small team of research peers are continually gaining access to new information. As I see it, the platform is less important than the impact and the message.
So if you wanna see our videos continue and you think they're important and you think they're worth a dollar, please support them on SubscribeStar or Patreon. Keep your eyes peeled on my Twitter, where I'll be announcing the next drop.
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Please watch ‘Plandemic: InDOCTORnation’, a brilliant film which perfectly explains how the ‘Covid Pandemic’ was an orchestrated event that had the sole purpose of committing Global Genocide. PLEASE share everywhere. https://t.co/mBG0ZtOmTy
Video Transcript AI Summary
This event simulates a pandemic emergency board meeting where global businesses and governments collaborate to solve emerging problems. Conspiracy theories arise, blaming pharmaceutical companies or the UN for releasing the virus. Arrests and penalties are suggested for spreading falsehoods, even if it means controlling information access. Protests and riots erupt, causing public distrust in government and economic turmoil.
Linguistic genomics identified coronavirus patents as early as 1999. The CDC patented the virus in 2003, controlling proprietary rights and profiting from it. Gain of Function Research on coronavirus was later offshored to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Some believe the virus was lab-designed, not a natural occurrence.
Google's search engine and fact-checkers like Snopes and PolitiFact are accused of manipulating information. The WHO is criticized for inaccurate advice and being influenced by the Communist Party of China.
Event 201, a pandemic simulation, occurred months before COVID-19. The Rockefeller Foundation's "Lockstep" scenario predicted authoritarian control. The "Great Reset" is seen as a coordinated agenda stripping away liberties.
Bill Gates and his foundation are scrutinized for their influence on global health, vaccine initiatives, and investments in controversial technologies. Concerns are raised about vaccine safety, liability protection, and potential harm in developing countries. The COVID-19 vaccine is being developed and distributed rapidly, but there are concerns about safety testing and potential side effects.
The pandemic is seen as a test of humanity's liberty. Medical freedom is emphasized. The need to reclaim humanity and avoid tyranny is highlighted.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On behalf of our center and our partners, the World Economic Forum and the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation, I'd like to extend a very warm welcome to our audience here in New York, as well as our larger virtual audience participating online today. The event two zero one scenario is fictional. Today's scenario is going to simulate meetings of a multi stakeholder group called the pandemic emergency board.
Speaker 1: We're at the start of what's looking like it will be a severe pandemic, and there are problems emerging that can only be solved by global business and governments working together.
Speaker 2: There has been some conspiracy theories that are around about the potential that pharmaceutical companies or the UN have released this for their own benefit.
Speaker 3: And maybe this is a time for us to showcase some cases where we are able to to bring forward some bad actors and leave it before the courts to decide whether they have actually spread some fake news.
Speaker 4: Signs to severe pneumonia. In related news, a significant demand for personal protective equipment like N95 masks and gloves are on the rise. Patients are overwhelming healthcare facilities. People are avoiding public spaces out of fear of infection and in compliance with public health recommendations. Our US affiliate has just released polling results on public expectations for a vaccine, and sixty five percent of those polled are eager to take the vaccine even if it's experimental.
Speaker 5: I am not optimistic about having the vaccine in time to be relevant during this pandemic.
Speaker 6: With enough money and political will, anything is possible.
Speaker 7: Penalties have been put in place for spreading harmful falsehoods, including arrest.
Speaker 8: If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it's the right choice.
Speaker 9: The world saw large scale protests and in some places riots. This led to violent crackdowns in some countries and even martial law. The public lost trust in their respective administration. Economists say the economic turmoil caused by such a pandemic will last for years. The societal impacts, the loss of faith in government, the distrust of news, and the breakdown of social cohesion could last even longer.
We have to ask, did this need to be so bad?
Speaker 10: I'm the developer of linguistic genomics, which was the first platform on which you could determine the intent of communication rather than the literal artifact of communication. But we've also used that technology for a number of other applications in defense intelligence and finance. And most notably, in the early 2000s, my company was responsible for bringing down what was at the time one of the largest tax frauds in US history. We maintained a series of inquiries into every individual, every organization, and every company that is involved in anything that either blurs the line of biological and chemical weapons or crosses that line in any of 168 countries. In 1999, there were a million patents digitized by IBM, and those million patents were the first time human innovation had been put into an electronic digital searchable format.
We took that information and we did a very simple exercise using our linguistic genomics technology, where I made the horrific assessment that approximately one third of all patents filed in The United States were functional forgeries, meaning that while they had linguistic variations, they actually covered the same subject matter. In 1999, patents on coronavirus started showing up, and thus began the rabbit trail.
Speaker 11: March 2003, panic grips Hong Kong as a deadly new virus sweeps through the city.
Speaker 10: In 02/2003, the Center for Disease Control saw the possibility of a gold strike, and that was the coronavirus outbreak that happened in Asia. They saw that a virus they knew could be easily manipulated was something that was very valuable, and in 02/2003, they sought to patent it. And they made sure that they controlled the proprietary rights to the disease, to the virus, and to its detection, and all of the measurement of it. We know that Anthony Fauci, that Ralph Baric, that the Center for Disease Control, and the laundry list of people who wanted to take credit for inventing coronavirus were at the hub
Speaker 12: of this story. From 02/2003 to 02/2018, they controlled 100% of the cash flow that built the empire around the industrial complex of coronavirus.
Speaker 13: The World Health Organization has officially named the new coronavirus their sleeping the virus The
Speaker 7: World Health Organization is a pandemic. An international public health emergency.
Speaker 10: Well, we know that the coronavirus manipulation started with doctor Ralph Baric in 1999.
Speaker 14: The major characteristics of SARS, MERS, and SARS coronavirus too. It's a good way for you
Speaker 10: Ralph Baric is the researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who is famous for his chimeric coronavirus research. In 02/2002, there was a recognition that the coronavirus was seen as an exploitable mechanism for both good and ill. On 04/25/2003, the U. S. Center for Disease Control filed a patent on the coronavirus transmitted to humans.
Under 35 U. S. Code Section 101, nature is prohibited from being patented. Either SARS coronavirus was manufactured, therefore making a patent on it legal, or it was natural, therefore making a patent on it illegal. If it was manufactured, it was a violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties and laws.
If it was natural, filing a patent on it was illegal. In either outcome, both are illegal. In the February, the CDC filed a petition with the Patent Office to keep their application confidential and private. They actually filed patents on not only the virus, but they also filed patents on its detection and a kit to measure it. Because of that CDC patent, they had the ability to control who was authorized and who was not authorized to make independent inquiries into coronavirus.
You cannot look at the virus, you cannot measure it, you cannot develop a test kit for and by ultimately receiving the patents that constrained anyone from using it. They had the means, they had the motive, and most of all, they had the monetary gain from turning coronavirus from a pathogen to profit.
Speaker 6: Developing and owning a coronavirus vaccine has become a biotech arms race with political overtones.
Speaker 10: This vaccine gold rush is starting to bother me. Gold rush. Let's keep that in mind. And so somewhere between 02/2012 and 02/2013, something happened. The federal funding for research that was feeding into places like Harvard, Emory, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, that funding suddenly became impaired by something that happened at the NIH, where the NIH got this little tiny moment of clarity and said, I think something we're doing is wrong.
And in 2013, the NIH said, Gain of Function Research on coronavirus should be suspended. The National Institutes of Health had a moral and social and potentially legal reason to object to research. But the letters that were sent to the researchers essentially said, You are receiving notice that we're telling you to stop. And now on the bottom of the page, we're going to clarify what stop means. Keep going.
But when the heat gets hot in 02/1415, what do you do? You offshore the research. You fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology to do this stuff that sounds like it's getting a little edgy with respect to its morality and legality. But do you do it straight way? No.
You run the money through a series of cover organizations to make it look like you're funding a US operation, which then subcontracts with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The US could say China did it. China could say The US did it. And the cool thing is both of them are almost telling the truth.
Speaker 15: Where did the coronavirus come from? There is a new investigation into its origins. US intelligence tell NBC News that they are examining whether the virus accidentally came from a Chinese lab.
Speaker 16: Chinese officials pushing back against that claim on Thursday, tweeting that it might be the US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.
Speaker 17: I was the first person in the world to look at an epidemic and study its characteristics and prove that it was due to biological warfare and was not a natural occurrence. So I published that twenty eight years ago. Early
Speaker 12: in
Speaker 17: this pandemic, I did not think the coronavirus was a natural occurrence from bats. I feel quite convinced that this was a laboratory designed organism. There have been hundreds and hundreds of leaks from high containment laboratories that do research on pathogenic coronaviruses and other potentially lethal organisms. I was particularly interested in a paper that came out in Nature Medicine by five scientists claiming that it was definitely a natural occurrence rather than a lab construct. But the arguments they used did not hold water.
They didn't really make a lot of scientific sense. And yet all kinds of very important people started parroting what this paper said. And so that got me scratching my head saying, Why are these people risking their reputation when it's obviously illogical, doesn't hold water? Somebody must have made them publish this, and somebody must have told these other people that they have to say it's it's a great piece of science.
Speaker 18: You were quoted as saying it was a meticulous job done professionally.
Speaker 19: It could be done by some somebody very expert in molecular biology, I think.
Speaker 10: See, the problem with all of this is the evidence is right in front of our face. And when confronted with evidence, we are told fact checkers are somehow transcendent.
Speaker 18: The pace of our modern world makes it nearly impossible for working people to research the events and policies that shape their lives. When seeking answers to life's most pressing questions, where do we go first? Google. Enter the subject, hit go, and there it is, only what they want us to see. In today's culture of copy and paste journalism, it's common for hundreds of unrelated outlets to feature the exact same report.
This is not the result of laziness. This is by design. When we see identical headlines across seemingly unrelated platforms, the logical mind concludes, well then, it must be true. The illusion that numerous news sources have arrived at the same conclusion gives us confidence to share the chosen narrative. And just like that, we become the unwitting pushers of propaganda.
Search engines are the holy grail for those seeking to control the narrative.
Speaker 20: Google is already more powerful in terms of its control over people's lives than almost every government on the planet.
Speaker 18: As the most influential search engine in the world, through its ubiquitous reach, Google has more power to influence US elections than any foreign nation.
Speaker 10: You testified before this committee. You said subsequent elections, Google and Facebook and Twitter and big text manipulation could manipulate as many as 15,000,000 votes in a subsequent election.
Speaker 14: And the methods that they're using are invisible. They're subliminal. They're more powerful than most any effects I've ever seen in the behavioral sciences, and I've been in the behavioral sciences for almost forty years.
Speaker 16: The blacklist is something that Google said didn't exist, and they test testified that under oath.
Speaker 3: And nothing but the truth shall help you God. I do.
Speaker 16: Now me as an engineer, I just did a search on Google's internal search engine, and guess what I found? It had blacklisted search terms like cancer cures. Why is Google deciding what people can and cannot search for?
Speaker 18: What was once an efficient tool for navigating the world of information is now a network for global surveillance, data collection, and social engineering. Now let's take a look at a few of the most commonly used fact checkers, beginning with Snopes. The husband and wife duo of David and Barbara Mikkelsen founded Snopes.com in 1995. They had no journalism background or training whatsoever. They built their fact checking empire by using Google as their primary verifying source.
The Mikkelsen's divorced in 02/2015. Barbara sued David for embezzling money that he had allegedly spent on prostitutes as well as a lavish honeymoon with his new wife who worked as an escort in Las Vegas before joining the Snopes cast of characters. In 02/2017, David Mechelson's new business partners filed a lawsuit accusing Mikkelsen of multiple counts of fraud and embezzlement. Snopes proclaimed to be the Internet's go to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense. Yet one glance at their history of fact free checking tells another story.
When doctor Mikrovitz claimed she was arrested without a warrant and jailed without a charge, Snopes rated her statement false. Had they bothered to explore the arrest documents, they would have seen that indeed there was neither a warrant nor signatures to officiate a charge. A fact that I confirmed with members of Doctor. Mikovits' legal team. Was there a search warrant?
No. And was she ever charged?
Speaker 21: No. Never charged with the crime.
Speaker 1: A % correct. Judy has never been charged with any crime.
Speaker 18: Facebook's fact checking arm, PolitiFact, is owned by the Pointer Institute, which has received substantial funding from big pharma allies such as Google and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Like Snopes, PolitiFact has a history of misleading the public. In February, PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck.org raced to squash the notion that coronavirus and its treatments were patented. They reviewed only three of the 4,452 publicly available patents, which unmistakenly show that SARS coronavirus detection and treatment have been widely patented by both the public and private sectors.
Speaker 6: Facebook's founder pledged to the WHO, saying they would remove false claims and block exploitative ads.
Speaker 22: They're working with the World Health Organization and with the NHS, so they have a hotline, if you like, from those official sources.
Speaker 18: Wikipedia is the go to destination for introductions to people, places, and things. Wikipedia is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit parent organization with a long history of politically tied funders. Many named, many anonymous. What exactly does a Wikipedia donor receive in exchange for their generosity? What began as an unbiased open source platform is now weaponized to undermine the work and reputation of anyone deemed a threat to its stakeholders.
And once they smear you, they lock you out for making corrections to your own bio. In summary, most independent fact checkers are neither independent nor factual. Simply put, they are political spin machines.
Speaker 10: And so what they have done is they have decided that there is an approved narrative. If it is in line with the CDC's public pronouncements, and if it is in line with the World Health Organization public pronouncements, it is presumed to be correct. I don't have to remind many Americans that the Center for Disease Control was the one that said you should use DDT in your homes.
Speaker 23: Used right, it is absolutely harmless to humans and animals. Remember the name DDT. It spells certain death
Speaker 1: A scientific panel today reported that pesticides may indeed represent a grave threat to mankind.
Speaker 24: Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the US government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer, and Washington decided that every man, woman, and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nationwide outbreak, a pandemic. Well, forty six million of us obediently took the shot. Did anyone ever come to you and say, there's the possibility of neurological damage if you get into a mass immunization program?
Speaker 25: No. No one ever did. No.
Speaker 26: I can't believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination. That simply is not true. We did know that.
Speaker 24: Then he's lying.
Speaker 10: I guess you would have to, make that assumption.
Speaker 24: Then why does this report from your own agency list neurological complications as a possibility? You didn't feel it was necessary to tell the American people that information. Doctor. Censer's CDC also helped create the advertising to get the public to take the shot. The vaccines are safe, so roll up your sleeve.
And now Americans are claiming damages from Sam amounting to 3 and a half billion dollars. By far the greatest number of the claims, two thirds of them, are for neurological damage or even death.
Speaker 27: There are serious concerns tonight about how well the CDC controls dangerous germs at its own labs after yet another safety lapse.
Speaker 18: For the third time in a month, the CDC acknowledged deadly pathogens were handled incorrectly in government labs.
Speaker 10: That CDC is the CDC that allegedly is looking out for your public health. When we start with the assumption that the official dogma has to be the objective standard, then what fact checkers look for is a piece of published media that confirms the statement made by that particular organization. And then debunkers and conspiracy theorist blower uppers come in and say, we're going to make this thing clearly the scam that it is. Every media outlet that is in the public media right now has planted evidence, and they have re ranked pages. So if you look today at face mask wearing, and if you look today at social distancing studies, you will see the studies that used to be number one, number two, number three on the pages of page rank search don't exist anymore.
What is there are studies that wind up having headlines that support the common narrative. They're planting evidence to back into the narrative of the story that they're looking for. Because it turns out that after every single effort to disrupt the electoral process has failed, you suddenly have nature's gift, COVID nineteen. You're gonna be hearing more about advanced guidelines. Because if you can keep people from assembling, guess what they're not talking about?
They're not talking about the issues of the campaign. If you can keep people in their homes, the only source of information that you can have is what you curate for them. Now I know how to target my electorate. They're in the only place I allowed them to be, being fed the only message I'm allowing them to hear through a media that I control.
Speaker 18: Since the invention of the printing press, there's been a battle to control disseminated information. In the early nineteen hundreds, oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller took control of every newspaper and news editor of his era. He became America's First Billionaire, paving the way for the power hungry ever since. Thus began the gold rush for the modern world's most precious resource, the narrative.
Speaker 1: Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation, American journal?
Speaker 18: During a senate committee investigation, it was revealed that the CIA had been conducting a covert operation to infiltrate and control US media. They called it operation mockingbird.
Speaker 28: We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.
Speaker 1: Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?
Speaker 28: This, I think, gets into the kind of details, mister chairman, that I'd like to get into in executive session.
Speaker 18: Over 3,000 CIA contracted and trained operatives are placed in key positions within top media outlets. Posing as editors and journalists, these well paid actors never dared to question the effect of their lies on the world beyond their cozy studio.
Speaker 10: How often does the CIA manipulate the media in this way?
Speaker 29: It goes beyond your wildest imagination. Setting up student organizations so they could draw radical students in, 5,000 university professors co opted to help the CIA manipulate people's minds. Journalists in The US, including big name journalists, co opted to function routinely to help the CIA put out stories and biases to the world. As
Speaker 1: this 1952 CIA memo says, the aim is controlling an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will.
Speaker 30: It's a great brainwashing process to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
Speaker 29: Would you say that continues today?
Speaker 1: Well, I yeah. I would think probably for a reporter, it would continue today. But because of all of the revelations, I think you've gotta be much more careful about it.
Speaker 7: So how do we know that operation mockingbird still is in an effect? Well, we don't.
Speaker 18: It was the telecommunications act of 1996 that opened the door for predatory corporations to monopolize the industries of print and broadcast.
Speaker 31: This bill protects consumers against monopolies. It guarantees the diversity of voices are
Speaker 18: Today, a handful handful of corporate empires own and control the vast majority of everything you read, hear, and watch. From the biggest movie studios, television and radio networks, newspapers and magazines, to the vast universe of Internet news and entertainment sites.
Speaker 10: Amazon has transformed its operations in response to COVID nineteen to protect employees and keep the packages flowing. To protect employees and keep employees safe
Speaker 32: and healthy while still delivering those packages to the company is keeping its safe. The company is keeping its employees safe. Millions of Americans staying home.
Speaker 6: Millions of Americans staying at home.
Speaker 33: And that is how it works. It's like a house of mirrors where you're seeing the same thing over and over and over again, except it's distorted.
Speaker 7: There's an industry that is paid to go after and target journalists, whistleblowers, and inundate our consciousness and the images we see to try to ruin, destroy, or smear the idea that they don't like or the person who's delivering it. You smear somebody with
Speaker 34: falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it. And then you write it, and they'll say, see, it's reported in the press so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it's called the wrap up smear. Now I'm gonna merchandise the press's report on the smear that we made. And it's it's a tactic.
Speaker 35: Welcome back, everybody.
Speaker 18: News personalities are not the only high paid actors to serve the propaganda machine. Most late night talk shows are owned by the same corporate overlords and thus follow the same script, only laced with a laugh.
Speaker 11: Our main story tonight concerns conspiracy theories.
Speaker 18: Last week tonight with John Oliver featured a skit entitled coronavirus conspiracy theories.
Speaker 11: Like the claim that the moon landing was faked.
Speaker 18: First thing to note here is that mister Oliver opens with commentary about conspiracy theories that are completely unrelated to coronavirus. This
Speaker 36: is
Speaker 18: a standard tactic used by propagandists to set a tone so that anything that follows will be seen through the lens of absurdity.
Speaker 11: Plandemic, a pseudo documentary filled with a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 18: Mister Oliver then does his best to debunk doctor Judy's claim that she was arrested but never charged with a crime.
Speaker 11: She was absolutely criminally charged.
Speaker 18: This was not an oversight, but a blatant lie. Prior to the taping of this episode, mister Oliver had the official arrest documents that clearly proved that doctor Judy was never charged with a crime. Mister Oliver then attempts to debunk the idea that a beach, aka nature, holds any value in boosting our body's natural immune system. Instead of challenging the point with science, he kills it with a smear.
Speaker 11: Everything that you just said is insane.
Speaker 35: Television is not the truth. We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true. But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know.
You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spending here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. This is mass madness, you maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.
So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence.
I'm speaking to you now. Turn them off.
Speaker 10: In 1979, the world decided that we needed the Bayh Dole Act because we needed to reform our patent system. And one of the modifications was we allowed recipients of federal funding to patent and retain economic interest in the research that the public paid for. You get a $5,000,000 grant from the taxpayer, and then you get to charge the taxpayer a premium for the technology they paid to develop.
Speaker 7: Pfizer's going to get nearly $2,000,000,000 Moderna receiving $438,000,000 in taxpayer money, and yet both companies have said they will not sell the vaccine at cost. They're going make a profit on it. Should pharmaceutical companies profit off this vaccine research that taxpayers have helped fund?
Speaker 10: The Bayh Dole Act failed the American people because rather than standing on the shoulders of giants, we now kneel at the feet of greed. My systems flagged anomalies when I started seeing nonprofits and corporates and cover financing for coronavirus programs in the late summer and fall of twenty nineteen. Our first red flag came out when we read the world at risk scenario. Now there is an organization called the Global Monitoring Preparedness Board. This organization is a part of the World Health Organization and this board includes Doctor.
Elias from the Gates Foundation and Anthony Fauci from NIAID. These two individuals, plus the director of the Center for Disease Control in China, come out with a recommendation that says that by September 2020, '2 global pandemic preparedness exercises have to be completed. And one of them has to be done on the release of a respiratory pathogen. That then gave rise to an October event, Event two zero one.
Speaker 0: Behalf of our partners in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Speaker 18: Event two zero one took place five months before COVID-nineteen was declared a pandemic. The participants of the event are some of the same people that are now deeply involved in the real pandemic and profiting from it as well. Event two zero one was a scripted multi camera live event that was broadcast globally via the Internet. An event of this complexity and magnitude would take months to write, prep, and produce, placing the conception date at least one year prior to the actual pandemic.
Speaker 10: There is no question that there will be a surprise outbreak.
Speaker 18: Anthony Fauci knew as early as February that we would see an outbreak before the end of twenty twenty. Even Bill Gates, a man with no medical training, knew it was coming.
Speaker 37: If we start now, we can be ready for the next
Speaker 10: epidemic. Every single thing that you have seen play out in front of your eyes, all of them laid out in their tabletop exercise, which by the way fact checkers have said has nothing to do with the coronavirus outbreak. Just happenstance. This is that wonderful universe of improbabilities where events just co emerge and then nature conveniently backs itself into our architecture. That's that's the scenario we're supposed to accept.
Brilliant.
Speaker 4: Some countries have banned travel from the worst affected areas.
Speaker 1: The president has made a decision to suspend all travel to The United Kingdom and Ireland.
Speaker 32: Dis and misinformation circulating over the Internet.
Speaker 38: Across the world, misinformation about the virus is being shared online.
Speaker 4: A significant demand for n 95 masks and gloves are on the rise.
Speaker 6: The demand for n 95 masks to prevent the deadly airborne virus has surged.
Speaker 10: We could eventually have 52,000,000 treatment courses per year, but it will take many months to get there.
Speaker 6: We're still many months out from having something that we can really deploy to the public.
Speaker 4: And sixty five percent of those polled are eager to take the vaccine, even if it's experimental.
Speaker 10: The new poll finds that forty nine percent of Americans say they would get a COVID-nineteen vaccine should an effective one be discovered.
Speaker 18: I'm curious. Who wrote the Event two zero one script? If the visionaries of the event knew at least one year in advance what was needed, why didn't they take care of those things? Considering that Bill Gates has donated half of his fortune to make the world safer, why didn't he help to better prepare our hospitals and frontline workers? Why didn't any of the events wealthy sponsors do something?
Speaker 37: Now here we are, you know, we we didn't simulate this, we didn't practice.
Speaker 0: On behalf of our partners in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Speaker 37: So both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in unchartered territory.
Speaker 18: Event two zero one was not the first scripted exercise to prophesize the future with astonishing accuracy. Leaders of global health and business have been seeding reality with fictional scenarios for several decades.
Speaker 0: The scenario obviously is fictional.
Speaker 18: One year prior to event two zero one, many of the same sponsors, hosts, and actors came together to produce a tabletop pandemic simulation for a fictional virus they branded, Klade X.
Speaker 27: One year to produce a vaccine for this is too long.
Speaker 1: We should have stockpiled, we didn't, but we're gonna have to look at that vaccine question to see if we can speed up the delivery.
Speaker 7: And if we do not have the public with us, we're in big trouble.
Speaker 18: In 02/2010, the Rockefeller Foundation released a 54 page document called scenarios for the future of technology and international development. Page 18 features the pandemic scenario, lockstep, a world of tighter top down government control and authoritarian leadership with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback. China's government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified.
Speaker 38: It's the United Nations in lockstep with the World Economic Forum. In what they are boasting will be the great reset of all our economies and of all our personal liberties.
Speaker 1: Now is a historical moment, a time.
Speaker 39: This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset.
Speaker 11: It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.
Speaker 1: We must not miss this unique window of opportunity.
Speaker 40: Reading from the COVID nineteen, the great reset book by Klaus Schwab and his coauthor, if no one power can enforce order, our world will suffer from a global order deficit. Think about that. Reread that sentence. If no one power can enforce order, our world will suffer from a global order deficit. In short,
Speaker 1: we need a great reset.
Speaker 38: But how do the World Economic Forum and the United Nations intend to bring about this great reset they keep promising us? Well, they need national and state governments, other bodies to play along. And one of the key tools they are using is a three word slogan, build back better.
Speaker 6: We will build back better from the COVID crisis.
Speaker 7: Build it back better.
Speaker 11: Become back stronger and build back better.
Speaker 39: Build Canada back better.
Speaker 38: Build back better has bizarrely been the slogan for all sorts of different political groups around the world. Bill Clinton used it to promote the Clinton Foundation Foundation after the Haiti hurricane disaster.
Speaker 31: The recent cholera outbreak serves as a stark reminder of the urgency we face to address the strengthened reconstruction efforts in Haiti to help the people build back better.
Speaker 36: Haitian activists stage a protest outside Hillary Clinton's Manhattan office. The demonstrators claim billions of dollars were stolen through the Haiti reconstruction commission headed by Bill Clinton. They also say Haiti was used as a cover for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of possibly hundreds of millions of dollars through the Clinton Foundation.
Speaker 41: Given that Clinton himself was the one who who coined this term build back better, there's been very little transparency and accountability despite all these buzzwords, you know, sustainable development community consultation.
Speaker 38: Any disaster can be the perfect excuse to build back better by using the money that should be going to disaster relief to instead subsidize the UN agenda at the same time as making renewables investors very rich.
Speaker 13: So behind the great Haiti disaster story, that is used to cover up what big pharma, big oil, big bank is actually doing.
Speaker 40: The absolute first thing we have to keep in mind with The Great Reset is that this has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of virus or disease or anything of the sort. This is a coordinated agenda that has been years in the making. This this isn't meant to end.
Speaker 38: The so called great reset, which is deliberately designed to strip away your liberties and your rights using the tools of oppression and the opportunity provided by the COVID pandemic.
Speaker 42: Here we are now with an economy in crisis, but with an incredible opportunity, And not just to build back to where we were before, but better.
Speaker 16: It designed your cute and adorable pal Grover with a message for listeners of the great reset. I know a thing or two about resetting. Mhmm. I reset my alarm clock every morning. But you are talking about resetting the entire world.
Speaker 10: We are living in a time where leadership unfortunately is compromised. And by that I mean that individuals are placed in power for their ability to be influenced, not their merits of leadership. Nothing could be clearer than the leadership of the World Health Organization.
Speaker 18: The World Health Organization is the institution granted exclusive power to guide and protect the health and wellness of humanity. The WHO is sustained by private donations, the bulk of which are made by pharmaceutical and biotech corporations who have a vested financial interest in the organization's support. In 2017, the Associated Press reported that The WHO routinely spends about 200,000,000 a year on travel expenses, more than what it spends to fight some of the biggest problems in public health, including AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. The WHO's repeated issuing of inaccurate and bad advice is not merely the result of incompetence, but rather the direct result of the Communist Party of China deliberately buying out WHO's leadership.
Speaker 43: On the nomination of the executive board appoints doctor Tedros Adhanom Gebriasis as director general of the World Health Organization.
Speaker 18: Tedros Gebriasis is the World Health Organization's first director general that isn't a medical doctor.
Speaker 35: No, Tedros for WHO. No, Tedros for WHO. The
Speaker 18: appointment to the organization's highest position was controversial given that in his previous role as Ethiopian's health minister, Tedros was accused of covering up three major health epidemics.
Speaker 44: Tedros is no stranger to controversy. As a former minister of health in Ethiopia, he has been accused of an alleged cover up of three possible cholera epidemics.
Speaker 18: Prior to his appointment, Kedros was a high ranking member of the Tigray People's Liberation Front, a brutal and corrupt political group responsible for crimes against humanity, including bombings, kidnappings, tortures, and killings. How does a man with such a controversial past score the top position at the world's most influential health organization?
Speaker 1: Have known Bill and Melinda for many, many years now.
Speaker 18: While serving as Ethiopia's Health Minister, Tedros became intimately intertwined with both the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation.
Speaker 31: The health minister of Ethiopia, One of the ablest public servants I ever worked with.
Speaker 18: With the backing of the two most powerful foundations on earth and the full support of the Communist Party of China, Tedros was a shoo in.
Speaker 1: We will have many body bags in front of us if we don't behave.
Speaker 10: You cannot find a person promoting this scenario that's not part of the interlocking directorates of the World Health Organization, the CDC, the NIAID, or the organizations that are the philanthropic cover organizations that fund them. We now know that there are over 1,300 patents currently issued and held by organizations that are multiply recipients of funding through the Gates Foundation, through EcoHealth Alliance, through the Sherlock Biosciences connection back into open philanthropy, and all of them also have links directly to NIAID Anthony Fauci's funding sources. If you have conflicts of interest in the funding and in the decision making and in the inside knowledge that you have between competing or competitor organizations, that is a violation of the antitrust laws of The United States. These are federal crimes.
Speaker 18: If you have the power to immediately fix whatever's wrong with our current medical system, where would you start?
Speaker 17: Conflicts of interest. About forty or fifty years ago, pharmaceutical CEOs actually went to jail if they knowingly sold a bad product and concealed information about the problems with that product. Since then, all they have done is paid fines. And so selling a product and concealing information about it is okay because paying the fine is considered the cost of doing business. How did the pharmaceutical industry come to capture the rest of the medical industry?
And it's because they had so much money to bribe the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, the professional associations, you know, the journals, the medical schools, and everyone else.
Speaker 18: Around the same time that John D. Rockefeller seized US media, he also hijacked US medicine. When it was discovered that drugs could be produced from petroleum, America's top oil mogul ordered his army of propagandists to invert reality accordingly. Medicines used for thousands of years were suddenly classified as alternative, while the new petroleum based, highly addictive, and patentable drugs were declared the gold standard. After buying the German pharmaceutical company that manufactured chemicals of war for Adolf Hitler, Rockefeller leveraged his political influence by pressing Congress to declare natural healing modalities unscientific quackery.
Rockefeller then took control of the American Medical Association and began offering massive grants to top medical schools under the mandate that only his approved curriculum be taught. Any mention of the healing powers of herbs, plants, and diet was erased from most medical textbooks. Doctors and professors who objected to Rockefeller's plan were crucified by the media, removed from the AMA, and stripped of their license to teach and practice medicine. Those who dared to speak out were arrested and jailed. Evidence began to emerge that petroleum based medicines were causing cancer, Mr.
Rockefeller founded the American Cancer Society through which he suppressed that information. John D. Rockefeller is duly credited as the founder of the pharmaceutical industry and the reason that medical error is currently the third leading cause of death in America. This is not an indictment against doctors. More than anyone, they are under the stranglehold of the single largest lobbying power in Washington.
Every year, the pharmaceutical industry spends at least twice the amount as big oil to influence laws, policies, and public perception. Thanks to mister Rockefeller, the architect of American monopolies, no industry has more power over our lives than big pharma.
Speaker 10: Part of the problem, and this by the way goes back to the nineteen eighties with Microsoft, is Bill Gates found out that it was very difficult to manufacture a way to navigate through the patent universe, saying that it's Microsoft holding the patents. And he became the architect of a very cunning program of putting patents in holding companies that didn't have anything to do with the named of the organization.
Speaker 18: According to legend, young Bill Gates built his computer empire out of his garage. Reality tells another story, that Bill Gates was born into wealth and privilege. Both his grandfather and great grandfather were banking muggles. His father, William Gates senior, was a prominent Seattle based lawyer and political lobbyist. Through his father, Bill Gates learned the ins and outs of law and politics and how to manipulate those governing forces.
Speaker 1: I'm Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft.
Speaker 18: Bill Gates dropped out of college to start Microsoft. He is credited with inventing the operating system that became Windows. However, he played no part in the invention of Windows. The fact is he bought an existing operating system from Seattle Computer Products, had it modified, then licensed it to IBM. That didn't stop him from taking all the credit.
Speaker 1: I don't see Bill Gates as this great creative person. I see him as an opportunist.
Speaker 18: While Microsoft's cofounder Paul Allen was struggling with cancer, Bill Gates seized the opportunity by attempting to cheat him out of his share of the company's fortune.
Speaker 45: They were basically talking about how they were planning to dilute my share down to almost nothing and it was really a shocking and disheartening moment for me.
Speaker 6: And you were sick?
Speaker 45: I think I was still probably in the middle of radiation therapy.
Speaker 18: Gates's business strategies came under fire in 1998 when the United States Department of Justice sued Microsoft for antitrust violations.
Speaker 10: This is tape three of the videotape deposition of Bill Gates on September
Speaker 18: During the eighteen month trial, Gates gave hours of videotape testimony.
Speaker 46: What were the non Microsoft browsers that you were concerned about in January of nineteen ninety six?
Speaker 1: That month. Yes, sir. And what about it?
Speaker 46: What non Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of nineteen ninety six?
Speaker 1: I don't know. What do you mean concerned?
Speaker 46: What is it about the word concerned that you don't understand?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what you mean by it.
Speaker 10: The justice department has charged Microsoft with engaging in anticompetitive and exclusionary practices designed to maintain its monopoly in personal computer operating systems.
Speaker 18: In a move to overshadow the negative press, Gates invested $100,000,000 to set up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Overnight, Bill Gates transformed his public image from ruthless tech monopolizer to the world's most generous philanthropist.
Speaker 37: I'm pleased to announce that we're pledging an additional billion dollars to sex.
Speaker 24: We had the chance to witness Bill Gates two point o, the man you don't know.
Speaker 18: The rebranding campaign paid off. His net worth swiftly doubled, earning Bill Gates the title of richest man in the world.
Speaker 6: You've invested $10,000,000,000 in vaccinations over the last two decades, and you figured out the return on investment for that. And it kind of stunned me. Can you walk us through the math?
Speaker 18: In a Wall Street essay, Bill Gates declared vaccines the best investment I've ever made.
Speaker 37: There's been over a 20 to one return. So if you just look at the economic benefits, that's a pretty strong number compared to anything else.
Speaker 18: The Gates Foundation expanded rapidly into a massive, vertically integrated, multinational corporation controlling every step in a supply chain that reaches from its Seattle based boardrooms to the villages of Africa and Asia.
Speaker 7: Is the world's largest private philanthropy causing harm? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made millions of dollars each year from companies blamed for many of the same social and health problems the foundation seeks to address. The Gates Foundation has investments in 69 of the worst polluting companies in The US and Canada. Other companies in the foundation's portfolio have been accused of transgressions including forcing thousands of people to lose their homes, supporting child labor, defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care. The Gates Foundation has not provided details.
Speaker 10: William H. Gates III and Melinda French Gates.
Speaker 18: As a top donor to both The WHO and the CDC, no one man has more power than Bill Gates to influence and control the health and medical freedom of all people.
Speaker 37: Normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population.
Speaker 39: This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.
Speaker 1: Until we find a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.
Speaker 17: We need to produce it and to deploy it in every single corner of the world.
Speaker 43: Full vaccination of our children and pregnant women.
Speaker 18: Development of new vaccines, therapeutics,
Speaker 7: and diagnostics. And that effectual vaccines and therapeutics are developed.
Speaker 30: Will divide up fewer new sites.
Speaker 16: Vaccines. Vaccines.
Speaker 47: We've already bought the syringes. We already know where it's gonna happen. We're thinking about what that's going to be. It's all part of this plan.
Speaker 48: Our military is now being mobilized. So at the end of the year, we're gonna be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly.
Speaker 18: In 1986, president Ronald Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, granting total immunity to vaccine manufacturers. After a decade of lawsuits related to vaccine injuries and deaths, vaccine makers were going bankrupt. In a move to coerce policymakers, vaccine companies threatened to stop making vaccines until they could be legally shielded from liability. To this day, when someone is injured or killed as the result of an adverse reaction, it is The US taxpayers that pay for the damages.
Speaker 49: Welcome back. Were several Indian tribal girls used as guinea pigs? The report alleges that two American farmer giants' untested vaccine was administered to thousands of tribal girls without proper study and paperwork.
Speaker 18: India was among the hardest hit after Bollywood celebrities were incentivized by the Gates Foundation to urge the public to submit to mass vaccinations. In 02/2009, tribal children were administered the HPV vaccine. Over 24,000 girls were told they were being given wellness shots, in many cases without the informed consent of a parent or guardian.
Speaker 50: The people that were administering these vaccines lied to the guardians of these girls and told the girls, Oh, this is gonna cure cancer. You're never gonna have cancer. And these girls became severely injured. Seizures, some of them developed cancer. And seven girls died and there was no insurance, there was no assistance for them, and the Gates Foundation denied that it had been clinical trials.
And it was so bad that the parliament in India created a task force, they studied it, and they kicked out the Gates Foundation.
Speaker 43: But India is a barbaric country. Things happen here in a very barbaric way. But I was surprised to find an American organisation operating in broad day life, doing things in a very, very, let's say, Indian fashion. And so the route I took was that I want the whole procedure to be investigated. The Indian Parliament formed a committee and it was to me a rather surprising move because you generally don't often have such a high level inquiry into matters affecting poor people.
And that was such an extraordinary report. I don't think the Indian Parliament has ever come out with such a scathing report. And the government officials came up and said, we shouldn't have authorised this. We're sorry. We're not going to allow them again.
And now they are back doing their same old tricks again.
Speaker 51: The good news is that human clinical trials can start as early as July 2020 for India's First COVID Nineteen indigenous vaccine that's been developed by Bharat Biotech.
Speaker 43: So you can imagine how the manipulation of the media by the media, the manipulation of public opinion by leaders from all political parties unanimously saying, we want a vaccine. And the worst thing is they are taken as philanthropists, whereas what this actually is, is the acquisition of political and financial power. And I think the second most populous country with 1,300,000,000 people is going to be a good base for pharmaceutical companies to make a killing and also kill a lot of people in the process. Yes, I just find it a pity that we haven't been able to get any benefit for the girls who suffered, you know. It's so terrifying as to what they're actually doing with the world.
Speaker 37: We're taking things that are, you know, genetically modified organisms, we're injecting them in little kids' arms. We just shoot them right into the vein.
Speaker 18: A 2018 scientific study released in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluded that over four hundred and ninety thousand children in India developed paralysis as a result of the gate supported oral polio vaccine that was administered between the years of 02/2017. Using all the usual sleight of hand, US based media and fact checkers rushed to bury the story. But thanks to the meticulous work of a team of Indian researchers and doctors, the inconvenient truth lives on the nih.gov website.
Speaker 10: It's my honor to introduce Bill and Melinda Gates.
Speaker 18: Without any medical training, Bill and Melinda Gates founded the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, through which they fulfill their agenda to vaccinate the world. The foundation has been sued by the governments of some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations for causing serious harm through experimental vaccine programs.
Speaker 6: If you just look at health care workers around the world, they deserve to get the vaccine first. Here in The United States, really, it's going to be Black people who really should get it first and many indigenous people.
Speaker 52: Vaccines were always taught to us that it was safe, it was healthy. This is things that we had to do. But given the position that I am in now as a state legislator and looking at these studies and reviewing a lot of these studies, it's very scary. And I want the African American community to open up their eyes.
Speaker 53: Of all the places that mister Gates could have gone in the world, why did he settle on Africa? It's not because he cares about people that look like me. He cares about an agenda.
Speaker 17: African bodies have been used as lab rats for many years for big pharma. They are using us for trials. They are using us for testing. But as an African, I say no more.
Speaker 21: Africans, they're tired of becoming the guinea pigs of the world. Their antennas are raised, they are telling each other all over social media. They're on high alert right now.
Speaker 19: There is a policy of the American government. It's called the Kissinger Report, which was produced in the mid seventies, and it explicitly states that the purpose of the foreign policy in Africa was to reduce the population because they have a great mineral resources there. And the time Kissinger and those involved with the Carter administration wanted to shrink the population make sure that the Africans do not develop and do not use the resources for themselves because we in The States we need them. There is a concerted effort of foreign powers to control the population of Africa.
Speaker 54: Some children did survive the botched vaccinations last month and will recover, but fifteen, all under the age of five, died from fever, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Speaker 55: Human errors contributed to the unfortunate deaths of the children.
Speaker 21: How can you believe big pharma but not believe these parents when they tell you that their children have been injured by big pharma? I don't care how big this corporate machine looks. As a parent, I can tell you, these people will never stop fighting for their kids.
Speaker 18: Questionable initiatives that Bill Gates is involved in. Here's a few of the highlights. Gates is one of the key funders in the stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment designed to block out the sun in an effort to control global warming by releasing massive amounts of calcium carbonate and other materials into the upper atmosphere. Critics, including environmental scientists, have called the project a global genocide experiment. Gates has invested over $1,000,000,000 in Earth Now's global surveillance project.
The project will launch hundreds of satellites into space, which will allow for the twenty four seven monitoring of all people everywhere. In partnership with MIT, Bill Gates has developed a new technology that allows vaccines to be injected under your skin along with your medical records. The quantum dot tattoo will implant an invisible certificate that can be scanned by authorities using a cell phone app and infrared light.
Speaker 37: Eventually what we'll have to have is certificates of who's a recovered person, who's a vaccinated person. So who's eventually there will be this digital immunity proof.
Speaker 18: The EPA recently approved an experimental use permit to Oxitec, a biotech company funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In an effort to fight malaria, Oktutech will soon release millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in various US states. According to the NIH website, programs are being developed to allow human immunization via mosquito bite. It was Science Magazine that coined the phrase flying syringes.
Speaker 7: Would you raise your hand please?
Speaker 6: Do you solemnly swear
Speaker 7: the testimony you're about to give in the matter now pending?
Speaker 32: A shocking new report from the New York Times sheds light on the connection between Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the late Jeffrey Epstein. You report these two men met at least six times.
Speaker 56: Well, believe that there were more. This included visits to the mansion, seeing each other in Seattle, flying on Epstein's plane.
Speaker 18: When flight logs revealed that Gates had been a passenger on the Lolita Express, he claimed that he didn't know that the private jet belonged to Epstein. He also denied that he and mister Epstein were involved in any business deals. However, an expose by the New York Times revealed that not only did Bill Gates initiate a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein well he was convicted of sex crimes, but the two were also involved in the process of co founding a multibillion dollar charitable fund.
Speaker 32: Why would they ever set up a charitable trust benefiting Jeffrey Epstein?
Speaker 56: That it was all about philanthropy, that Bill Gates just wanted to find new sources of money.
Speaker 18: Why would one of the richest men in the world choose to partner with the world's most notorious pedophile? A deeper dive into Epstein's world revealed that the two men had more in common than meets the eye. Like Gates, Epstein was a billionaire philanthropist with a passion for science, health, education, and children. The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation donated millions of dollars to top universities, science institutes, medical schools, early education programs, youth initiatives, and international peace accords. Bill Gates is either the most misunderstood man alive or one of the most convincing con men to ever live.
Is he a benevolent hero or a malevolent opportunist? Bill Gates. Personally, I would love to believe that one of the richest men in the world is giving away his fortune for the better men of humanity. I wanna believe that endearing smile. I wanna believe that his heart is as soft and warm as his sweaters.
At the very least, I wanna believe that he's unaware of the damage he's done.
Speaker 57: I'm happy to announce that we've discovered a vaccine. We no longer have to live in fear. Everyone can get back to their normal lives.
Speaker 58: It's the great hope galvanizing the world, a vaccine for COVID nineteen. But are we being sold alive? After all, COVID nineteen is the seventh coronavirus to strike mankind, and we've never found a vaccine for any of them.
Speaker 59: The shortest time anybody's ever found a vaccine against any disease that I'm familiar with is about seven years. The average time is twenty. To be talking about a magic bullet coming in months, it borders on the absurd.
Speaker 37: People like myself and Tony Fauci are saying eighteen months.
Speaker 10: A year to a year and a half.
Speaker 37: If everything went perfectly, we could do slightly better than that, but there will be a trade off. We'll have less safety testing than we typically would have. And so governments will have to decide, you know, do they indemnify the companies and really say, let's let's go out with this.
Speaker 50: Something that people should know about COVID nineteen vaccines is they fall today under the PREP Act, which came into being after nine eleven and after an anthrax scare. And this law gives virtually blanket liability protection. It's basically impossible to get any kind of compensation if you're injured. So people need to understand that if you take COVID nineteen vaccines, you are absolutely on your own. If you're permanently injured, if you lose your job, if your health care expenses go through the roof, tough luck.
Speaker 7: Volunteers all across the country began getting shots today as part of the final phase of testing for an experimental vaccine being developed by the NIH and the drug company Moderna. The side effects for the Moderna vaccine sound concerning. We looked. After the second dose, at least eighty percent of participants experienced a systemic side effect. So are these vaccines safe?
Speaker 37: Well, FDA not being pressured will look hard at that. The FDA is the gold standard of regulators, and their current guidance on this, if they stick with that, is is very, very appropriate. You know, the the side effects were not super severe. That is it didn't cause permanent health problems for the things that are they you know, Moderna did have to go with a fairly high dose. And so, you know, to get the antibodies
Speaker 10: This isn't a management story. If your goal is to make this beautiful earth that we live on an exclusive playground for the entitled few, then populations that get in the way are a problem. And it is the empirical impulses of individuals who have decided that by outranking the rest of humanity, they can dictate upon humanity the conditions of their existence.
Speaker 60: Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them.
Speaker 55: This bill enables the police to enter a home without a warrant. Madam speaker, the police have never held that power.
Speaker 7: We will find out who lives in the house.
Speaker 43: And if
Speaker 16: it's someone that is refusing, we will definitely consult with our health officer to look into next steps.
Speaker 6: So the sheriff's department and the health department showed up at her door with orders for her and her husband to wear ankle monitors. The couple says they never denied self quarantining.
Speaker 25: You will no longer be able to leave home. Only one person will be able to go shopping once per day. Recreational activity is now no longer allowed. You will be allowed to have one hour of exercise no further than five kilometers from your home.
Speaker 12: Are you serious just for not having a mask? For no mask. Are you serious?
Speaker 61: We will shut you down. We will cite you. And if we need to, we will arrest you, and we will take you to jail.
Speaker 54: You know the old expression about snitches? Well, in this case, snitches get rewards. Some people are ratting their neighbors out, calling the police, but others are turning to the Internet where social distance shaming has gotten ugly. In
Speaker 7: a time of crisis, trying to force compliance upon a population by making neighbors and friends distrust one another is exactly the opposite tactic we actually need.
Speaker 55: When human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. That's what I fear we are seeing now.
Speaker 10: This is a cognitive dissonant moment, which is being imprinted in your brain just like remember the Great Depression, remember nine eleven.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. Weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker 10: We are being conditioned to have the excuse for unbelievable acts of tyranny, which will be justified by remember 2020. And your loved ones, those that die, those that are infected, they're being used as cannon fodder, which is the ultimate desecration of their honor and integrity. And this is also a test of humanity to see how much of our liberty we will let go before we finally draw the line under enough. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence stated, unless we put medical freedom into constitution, a time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others. That time is now.
Well, this
Speaker 37: won't be the last pandemic that we face. So we, you know, we'll have to prepare for the next one. That, you know, I'd say is, will get attention this time.
Speaker 10: This is not a time for us to go in a mob frenzy, find the perpetrators and haul them into the town square and pillory them. This is a moment for us to recognize that every decision that is being made today by any of the conspiring is parties made perfect sense in each increment when each one of those decisions was made. The sum of those incremental steps has led to devastation because they lost touch with their fellow humanity. But that's an invitation for each one of us to examine how we're living and how not a single decision we make, not one, in any moment is without consequence. This is our moment to reclaim our humanity.
Speaker 32: Another one and a half
Speaker 18: Our lives are shaped and guided by stories. The stories we're told become the stories we tell. The more we hear them, the more we believe them.
Speaker 38: And the investigation
Speaker 18: When used as a tool, they help us to better understand who we are, where we came from, and where we're going. When used as a weapon, they can be deadly. One of the most dangerous stories we've been told is the one that goes something like this. Humanity is a failed experiment. We are parasites, a cancer, a virus.
Speaker 24: Human beings are a disease.
Speaker 18: It is a myth that permeates our movies, our music, our media, and our minds. As they say, repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth. Perhaps that was the goal of the authors of that story.
Speaker 62: We feel too afraid to have kids, because we feel that we're heading towards civilization breakdown as a result.
Speaker 18: Fear shuts down the part of our brain designed to solve problems. Without that ability, we look for others to guide and save us. In doing so, we lose touch with our most primal nature. We forget that we are an extension of the most brilliant and resilient ecosystem in the universe. We stop eating food grown from the earth and begin consuming products processed from machines.
We trade medicines that heal for drugs that harm. We abandon love and liberty for debt and dependency. The good news is our story is not over. The climax has yet to come. That moment when the hero rises from defeat, summoning a force they forgot they had.
A force within, a force of nature.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
There’s a documentary on Pizzagate that’s been scrubbed from nearly every major social media platform. Our team managed to track it down, and after watching and discussing it in depth, we were left stunned. https://t.co/NwZcDcjqMg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss child abuse, missing children, and related cultural issues. One speaker notes skepticism is warranted when interpreting coded language in alleged abuse cases. There is agreement that child trafficking is a serious issue that warrants investigation, and it is questioned why films like "Sound of Freedom" faced resistance.
The speakers explore the reasons why child abuse might be covered up, including shame and the desire to protect families and friends. The conversation shifts to the pervasiveness of shame in society, particularly around sexuality, and how this vulnerability can be exploited.
They touch on the normalization and commodification of sex in culture, including drag shows and the sexualization of children, and question whether these trends are spiritually harmful. One speaker suggests that a lack of sacredness around sex can lead to exploitation and a focus on self-worship, aligning with a broader, potentially occult, agenda.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The code words in the emails, there's no possible way of definitively knowing that they're used in the context of pedophilia. Sure. They might seem like they're used in odd contexts at time, but really, it's nothing more than just speculation, and sometimes not even good speculation at that. Like the one where Tony says to John he'd love to get a pizza for an hour.
Speaker 1: This is when I thought, oh, this is a good documentary because he's being critical and skeptical about it. Because, like, the problem I have is, and the truth is, because I feel personally offended, wounded, attacked by the establishment, I, on some level, want the worst things to be true. I want to find out that Kyuss Talmud did this, Barack Obama did that, but that's a stupid motivation, and it's petty. Really, what we should be interested in is the true nature of power. And if there are genuine victims of wide scale exploitation, then we should discover why that's not being investigated properly.
I would just mention this point that The UK refused to do inquiry into those rape gangs and into other matters that relate to child abuse. And, definitely, the stuff in the eighties and nineties around child abuse got hushed up. And, definitely, the Jimmy Savile story was webbed into networks of power in ways that were obfuscated and shut down. Furthermore, when we look at something like, Tim Tebow on Sean Ryan, he's talking about just evidence of child trafficking and the child trafficking stories in Sound of Freedom. Remember, Sound of Freedom, they try to shut that movie down.
Like, why is that? I I remember, like, just thinking, why is that controversial? I mean, obviously, it's true. You know, trafficking children is controversial, but making a film out of it, why is that not exactly the sort of thing that the liberal left are, like, embracing and really getting behind? I don't know.
But and that doesn't mean that all these people are involved in this stuff, but it means it's worth investigating. And it's certainly what I like about the person that's making this documentary is they're moving past the exciting frivolous bit that we're like, that you know how these campaigns work when you're running misinformation campaigns is, you know, you have, like, the people come on news, there's a scandal called Pizzagate now. This is misinformation. Well, this is the very reason we need to control the Internet because of misinformation like this. And then you look at it and go, come on.
What is the testimony of all these people? What where what's going on with that? Where is it all coming from? Sure. There are broken people out there, and I happen to know personally there are ways of manipulating people into believing stuff and thinking stuff because, obviously, it's the peculiar position I find myself in.
But you do have to take extremely seriously the testimony of anybody that's been through exploitation and abuse, particularly if it's not being investigated or covered, and that's where I think this gets, right, interesting.
Speaker 2: I can't believe we don't hear enough, like, anything about, like, children going missing and stuff. Yeah. It doesn't seem like it's something I used to hear about in, like, the eighties and nineties, and then you got the big ones like Madeline McCann, people like that that go missing. But if there's that big of a problem, and I believe there is, why is it never really being spoken everywhere. And then when something comes out which talks about it, it get take it down, you know, and then Sound of Freedom.
So I saw that movie. It's a really well made movie, not like, you know, set in the world of ways, but it was good and it made you think, oh, you gotta, you know It raises awareness for it. Raises awareness of that kind of stuff, which is I don't know why they had a big problem with it. Think part of it was the the way they funded it, and it was going against the Hollywood machine, but certainly a lot of it was to do because it was seen as like it's right wing to care about the abuse of children you don't That's right wing somehow, but we should all do Freedom is right wing now, quite frankly. Which is a big part
Speaker 1: of it,
Speaker 3: I think with child abuse too, a lot of times it's like it's somebody that they knew. It's like a close family member or a friend that lived down the street. And so instead of exposing it because it makes the family who is connected as a friend look bad, they cover it up. That's how it used to be like in the nineties and AM, it's still quite
Speaker 2: an embarrassment factor.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So like, they knew it happened instead of exposing it because it came back on them and made it look bad, they covered it up, which makes me think all of this is connected to people that it will come back and make them look bad. Whether they were involved with it or that they knew about it, it's still gonna come back on them and look bad. They're covered.
Speaker 1: Very interesting to talk about the power of shame because even I sometimes felt during the Epstein the ongoing Epstein scandal that in a way, everywhere is a kind of Epstein island. Even if you're not participating in the kind of coercive activity that's alleged to have taken place on that island, how do you feel personally about pornography? How do you feel about sex work OnlyFans or the sort of normalization of, commodifying sex? And I think that there's a sort of a pervasive shame kind of every everyone's in this kind of state of shame. Now at the highest level, that means people are vulnerable to blackmail.
Mhmm. But at social level, I think that a lot of us have participated in things that are lauded by the cult culture and commodified by the culture, but actually are spiritually not good things. Like that's what I felt when we were watching that White Lotus thing. Yeah. Yeah, actually.
Speaker 2: Well, about sexuality in our culture is because we'd never really speak about it, especially in England and obviously in America, like violence on TV but sex is like an issue. It's an icky thing to talk about even like you say in a consensual marriage, like to think about your parents, the most important sexual relationship that's ever existed for all this is our parents to think about it like, whereas it should be the at least the most important thing to you that's ever happened right? So when talking about children, like talking about non consent and talking about children, it's just that horrible for people. I think a part of this is that people just don't even want to talk about it, just like they didn't, a lot of people probably didn't wanna talk about what Savile was doing.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You know?
Speaker 1: So we can't get into all that, it's just sort of a bit weird. And I think it's about I was thinking then about sacralization and making things profane. There's a really good Rick and Morty episode actually where they do a sort of a they mimic inception or parody inception and go through layers of consciousness. And there's sort of one moment when they're in hell somewhere where they're like, there's some awful sort of sex party going on, which, by the way, isn't it weird how that kind of sex is getting elevated by the culture? So drag shows, children at drag shows, dressing kids up, sexualizing kids, weird, diffuse campaigns to normalize sex with children that seems sort of very peculiar.
These are edgeland things. I'm not suggesting that's a mainstream trope to normalize sex with children, but it's one of the topics and subjects that's come up. And in that episode of Rick and Morty, there's a bit where, like, when they're going back through the inception levels, they of cure. Sex is sacred. And cure.
Like, is supposed to be sacred. Sex isn't supposed to be a game, Latoya. And speaking of someone that turns sex into a leisure activity, on a spiritual level, I can really see how the situation that I find myself in has played out even within consensual action because spiritually, I was in a liminal space. And the culture wants us in liminal spaces. If you have a sort of a bond to Christ or a bond to God and there are things that you just will not do, that you won't do, that you won't treat sex as a kind of sex as an activity, pleasure as an end point.
If you recognize what your role is, and that's where it starts to get occultist. That's when I start to say, oh, yeah. You would make sex into a kind of transactional thing if at the heart of your mentality was this organised evil intelligence that wants to make the whole world their principality, like it says in Ephesians, or the prince of the world as Christ refers to him as, where everything becomes about if you worship another thing, if you worship food or sex, really you're worshiping yourself. You're worshiping your small s self, and that's how you end up in the the dominion of evil, the the dominion of the four.