TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 recounts being told at synagogue while offline that Candice is really going after him, and that heads-up sealed him a little. When he finally turned the phone on, he truly saw all the notifications. He was up until 3AM local time that night dealing with all the messages and emails. It’s not fun. He says, to an extent, it’s part of the nature of the business—when you put yourself out there, you’re going to get pushback. But this is not pushback. This is not someone responding to a legal theory of mine or making an intelligent point about the two-state solution or not two-state solution. No. This is literally just picking a Jewish person and calling him subhuman filth and sinking your band of millions and millions of neo Nazi zealots on a Jewish person who happens to be a husband and father to a young child. So, he says, it’s just awful, awful stuff. And he adds that he’s talking to lawyers. “Aaron, I think I’ve said this publicly already.” He’s a lawyer with his background, he clerked for a federal appeals judge, and he knows a thing or two about United States constitutional law. He thinks that there is a potentially serious case here for defamation, and he is very much speaking with lawyers, and we’ll see what happens.

An individual confronts another, calling them a "coward baby killer" and "scum of the earth," accusing them of killing babies and being a "five g Jew." They demand the person leave the country and go back to Israel, claiming they are trying to subjugate the government. The speaker accuses the other of being happy about bombing people and spreading dangerous propaganda, leading to events like what happened in Washington DC. They assert the person doesn't deserve a place on the planet and calls them a "satanic demon." The other individual is asked for their name, eventually revealing it to be Zori Shields. The speaker expresses pride in wanting to get "scum" like Zori out of the country, labeling them a "vile child killing demon."

Speaker 0 discusses being accused in DMs of turning their space into an Israeli Jew space, noting a poll they put up where listeners guess the Jewish proportion, with guesses around 50-99% Jewish. They acknowledge that Truth and they themselves are not Jewish, yet point out that a group making up 2% of America and 0.2% of the planet is “a lot of them up here at the moment.” They attempt a divided calculation on how many Jews are in the space today, suggesting 38.2% of Jews while only 2% Jews overall, calling the resulting discrepancy a 9.2 difference and labeling these patterns as antisemitic. They urge others not to listen to a particular person in their space who they allege is antisemitic. The speaker then accuses others of trying to “figure out who the Jews are,” and says “Nazis are,” claiming to be someone who researches how many Jews are in things. They reference Sarah, saying she dislikes when the speaker brings up facts, data, or discussions about JFK, questioning why it matters who killed JFK and arguing it doesn’t matter who did 9/11 or the USS attacks, and stating “What if it was a Jews? What does that change? Nothing.” There’s a call to mute others, and an accusation that the audience will mute the speaker. The speaker mentions posting their DNA and receiving death threats “literally from Jews almost daily,” remarking on its repetitiveness and rarity for a reel. They reference “the third reel you’re not allowed to talk about” and question why the media or politicians won’t discuss it. The speaker introduces themselves as Isaac and someone named Shane, and asks whether the reaction might be connected to “the narcissism, schizophrenia, paranoia that runs rampant amongst the Jewish community.” They claim they can only talk on spaces and are frustrated that they’re not allowed to discuss Jews, asserting that the audience doesn’t realize they’re effectively arguing their own point. They conclude with a push to let them talk about how many Jews there are.

"Some of the Internet rumors that somehow Israel is behind the Charlie Kirk murder." "That's insane." "Israel also changes the orbit of the moon; Israel pushes the sun." "When you hate Jews, when you hate the Jewish state, you're willing to say anything and promote all these absurd, absurd rumors." "They're willing to kill us all the time." "We were poisoning the wells, we were drinking the blood of Christian children." "The Nazis said the same thing. You know, we're carrying vermin, we're spreading disease, and people believed it." "Well, since then, we've learned, when people spread these lies about us, prepare yourself for the assault." "Charlie Kirk said to me that he wrote me this detailed letter, you have to fight the slander. These untruths, these vilifications have consequences. And he was right." "He was going to win. That's why they shot him."

An individual known as AK is accused of being a Jew infiltrating JQ (Jewish Question) spaces, working with a network of Jews online to spread debunked lies. AK, described as a self-described JQ guy and a staple in JQ Radio, is alleged to be a Jew who wants unconditional surrender to Israel. AK is accused of claiming that insiders sniped the pump swap liquidity supply and flipped it for a $60,000 profit.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

The speaker discusses allegations about Jews, such as the myth of a world Jewish conspiracy or Jews controlling media, government, and other institutions. They mention that these claims are considered anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 asks if it's anti-Semitic to mention having Jewish connections, to which Speaker 0 responds with a list of companies and organizations, implying that many of them are Jewish-owned or influenced. Speaker 1 points out that the speaker has faced backlash and lost endorsements for their statements. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 listing more companies, some of which they believe are Jewish-owned.

An individual known as AK is accused of fabricating claims about an internet anon being behind an attack. Despite AK identifying as a JQ guy and being active in JQ spaces, he is portrayed as a Jew who infiltrated JQ ranks and is working with a network of Jews online. This network allegedly spreads debunked lies. AK, described as a Jew who wants unconditional surrender to Israel, claims that insiders sniped the pump swap liquidity supply and flipped it for a $60,000 profit. This is framed as insiders, potentially including the speaker, profiting from a crypto scheme.

"Every aspect of our lives. They've taken over our schools, churches, politics, media, music industry, bank, financial industry." "Planned Parenthood is selling viable, healthy, aborted babies to the University of California." "I'm just trying to schedule some gender affirming care. And the Planned Parenthood workers said, are you over 18? No. I'm 16." "Tissue is donated from aborted fetuses through Planned Parenthood and other facilities." "Planned Parenthood is now under federal investigation by the Department of Justice for selling fetal body parts." "Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews." "They run all the politicians and run all the propaganda." "Mossad is going to its own Twitter account and making extortion, passive aggressive threats to American college students saying if you are attending these protests and you are insufficiently pro as you." "Please know we are using facial recognition to help you." "We will identify you."

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

Speaker 0: "We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" Speaker 1: "That's not right. Wrong headed." He says he faced blowback after saying, "Mossad, possibilities with Epstein," a comment he stands by, and that he "reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." He writes, "He says, I think he would have told me. He didn't say he had any of those connections. I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "I think all these things should be explored." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." He finishes, "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

'we are at war right now. And there's two sides.' 'the side of good, aka the side of pro Palestine, the side of release the Epstein files, the side of let's have truth, justice, and honor, and no corruption reign supreme across the world.' 'the side of pro pedophiles, pro genocide, pro corruption, pro lying.' 'If you're on the fence, you're on the side of the fucking pedophiles.' 'Epstein was a hoax' and 'Israel is the victim and they're not committing genocide in genocide in Gaza,' claiming they're paid to disseminate this bullshit. 'I'm gonna smile every fucking time.' 'That's how happy I would be.' 'And if you got a problem with that, I have a very big dick. I'll pull it out, and you can suck on it.'

The speaker believes Jewish people did something to the Germans, causing them to act a certain way, and that Jewish people don't want to take accountability. They claim Jewish people were "up to something," so the Germans wanted to "take them out." The speaker says Jewish people are selfish and started something that made everyone mad. They believe the Holocaust was the only way to eliminate a large Jewish population. The speaker alleges Jewish people are trying to take back and get repercussions, especially from America, and are taking over the government. The speaker asks how to take Jewish people down, suggesting they should be killed. They say Hitler had a plan to save the world, but it was too gruesome and didn't work out. The speaker claims Jewish people are the reason the healthcare system and the government are collapsing because they are stealing from the American people.

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

The speaker presents information claiming that Handsome Truth is Jewish, despite his alleged anti-Jewish rhetoric. The speaker cites Handsome Truth's aunt, Gina Garcia Wagner, as confirmation of his Jewish heritage and biracial background. The speaker also references a message from Handsome Truth's father, who identifies as a Mexican Jew, expressing disappointment in his son's behavior. The speaker highlights photos purportedly showing Handsome Truth with Jewish individuals, including a comedian. The speaker also identifies "Ned Flanders" as Jewish and accuses him of associating with Handsome Truth. Additionally, the speaker mentions Jesse Shank, labeled a pedophile, as being associated with the group. The speaker points to Handsome Truth's physical features, particularly his nose, as further evidence of his Jewish identity, comparing it to that of Chuck Schumer.

The speaker says Dustin is in the middle of a lot of crossfire, which could be a good thing, but notes that several people calling him out are others he respects, leaving him conflicted and unsure what’s happening. addressing Stu directly, the speaker says he didn’t want to trash Stu, who "usually entertains" him. He asserts that Stu spearheaded a harsh dynamic: Dustin is being silenced with calls of “small dick, faggot energy, better male, loser anger, a smother the speech of Dustin,” and that if you’re a man you should let Dustin talk and then “crush him like a man,” not talk over him or reference “millions of viewers” or engage in “faggotry.” The speaker alleges Stu is sponsored by Jews through a company like Kitco, and claims that Stu is “full of shit” beyond the gang signs and the faggotry in his videos and rap content. He accuses Stu of duplicating a past pattern: sabotaging movements with videos that get debunked, suggesting the movement was derailed by incompetence or because of an ally (Alex Jones) connected to Sandy Hook. The speaker condemns the act of not letting Dustin talk as “faggotry” and says it made him sick to his stomach. He states that he doesn’t care about Dustin personally, just observing the situation: he mentions Ariel has been “caught with child porn twice,” and notes that no one is talking about it while others attack Dustin. He claims that people are “fucking his dick by attacking Dustin,” and questions what is going on with the group. He acknowledges many speakers may have him blocked for various reasons but insists he’s speaking the truth. He predicts anger in response to his statements and ends with “Praise God.”

- Now some someone did tell me at synagogue while I was offline, you know, just a heads up. - Candice is really going after you. - I was up till 3AM local time that night just dealing with all the messages and emails and whatnot there. - It's not fun. - This is not pushback. Right? - This is literally just picking a Jewish person and calling him subhuman filth and sinking your band of millions of neo Nazi zealots on a Jewish person who happens to be a husband and father to a to a to a young child. - It's awful, awful stuff. - Aaron, I think I I'm pretty sure I've said this publicly already. - I'm talking to lawyers. - I think that we have a a potentially serious case here for defamation, and I'm very much speaking with lawyers, and we'll see what happens. - I clerk for a federal appeals judge. - I know I know a thing or two about United States constitutional law.

The transcript presents a chaotic, highly inflammatory dialogue surrounding a new Epstein file drop and related conspiracy theories. Key elements include: - Breaking news framing: Speaker 0 introduces “three and a half million documents in the Epstein files” mentioning “Goyim, pizza, and grape soda.” Speaker 1 comments it probably has nothing to do with Israel, then jokes about “our greatest ally” and “who doesn’t like pizza.” - Perceived connections and content: The hosts repeatedly suggest or imply links between Epstein’s circle and Israel, with lines such as “What Israel posted on Twitter? Right. Age is just a number,” and “Mr. Space eat Clooney and Jay Z in the files, director Burke? They just like pizza and grape soda.” - Insults, slurs, and normalization of hate: Throughout, there are repeated antisemitic and bigoted phrases (e.g., “antisepetic,” “Ching Chong,” “Goyim,” “stupid Nazi,” “Jews,” “the satanic Jews,” and “you stupid Goyim”). Characters deny or minimize legitimacy of others’ concerns, often mixing conspiracy talk with outright hate speech. - Personal revelations and fabricated claims: The group cites various sensational claims about prominent figures (Elon Musk, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak), Epstein’s alleged behavior, and a supposed “Pizzagate” arc. There are mentions of Epstein’s ties to a former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and “trained as a spy under him.” They refer to emails about pizza, adrenochrome, and sacrificed chickens, claiming these illustrate “total freaks.” - Media and public reaction: A segment asks “Let’s hear what the normies are saying,” with a range of responses that dismiss, support, or mock the conspiracy theories, including accusations of a Democrat hoax, and blanket dismissals of journalists or skeptics. - Transylvania segment and coded fantasies: Ching Chong reports live from Transylvania, discussing Dracula and Vlad the Impaler, linking it to Jewish iconography in a provocative, conspiratorial frame. - Meta-media banter and internal conflict: The group references internal disagreements, production notes, and attempts to steer the narrative, including quips about “the Epstein files have nothing to do with us” and a claim that “there is no Epstein list,” followed by arguments that “there’s a black book of Jeffrey Epstein contact.” - Broader conspiratorial atmosphere: Recurrent insinuations tie together Epstein, Podesta emails, Wayfair, and adrenochrome as evidence of systemic abuse. They claim “the FBI is not releasing” certain tapes and describe “the contacts… there is no evidence that any of those third parties were having girls trafficked to them,” while other speakers push opposite, more lurid interpretations. - Political tilt and rhetoric: The dialogue fractures along partisan lines, with references to Trumpstein, Biden, Obama, and a critique of the political establishment as a whole. There are calls to “stop murders” and “stop rapes,” alongside pledges to “flee to Israel” and dismissals of nonbelievers. - Closing frame: The program wraps with banter about shadow bans, algorithm performance, and a provocative exhortation to “learn more about the sentient AI” in a self-promotional tie-in, then a final jab at “divide the GOIAM.”

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

Rabbi Stephen s Weiss is cited as saying that Hitler was right about Jews being a race, arguing that the World Zionist Organization and its descendants follow in Theodore Herzl’s footsteps to create a “behemoth criminal outlaw mafia of Jew supremacy.” The speaker asserts there are “700 NGOs” serving Jewish causes, and that Jews act as a sovereign nation within host nations, pursuing Jewish interests “not above their host nations, but only at the detriment of their host nations,” implying Jews operate as an ethnic monolith and proclaim “we are a race” and an ethnic supremacist ideology. The claim is connected to the Kolergi plan, described as the erasure of the white European race, characterized as more ethnic than cultural, and presented as a racial tradition written after millennia of Christian history. Turning to biblical framing, the speaker cites First Peter 3:12, asserting that “no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, but holy men spake as they were moved by the holy spirit,” and then presents John and Thessalonians as sources claiming Jews are adversaries to all men, who murdered prophets and the Lord Jesus, and are “pleasing not God,” thus enemies. The speaker declares no business dealings or obligations with Jews, aside from possibly conversion to salvation, and asserts an exclusionary stance toward Jews in America, referencing the framers of 1787 and Ben Franklin, who allegedly insisted on constitutionally excluding Jews due to their potential to erode the country’s moral fabric, smear Christianity, build a separate state within a state, and financially strangle the host nation if opposed. The claim is that without such exclusion, Americans would be in the fields while Jews would be in the counting rooms. The narrative connects these ideas to contemporary policy, claiming Jews hate “founding stock Americans,” and accuses Jews of “flooding the borders of every white European country” and using Germany as a cautionary tale against opposition to Jewish “degeneracy” and anti-host nation actions. It alleges Hitler wanted Germany to be for Germans, calling Hitler’s stance a grave mistake for opposing “the Jews.” The speaker asserts that the Jews declared war on Germany in 1933, eleven years before D-Day, and accuses them of deceit, insisting that listeners should accept a perspective that rejects Judeo-Christian norms, money, military power, intelligence sharing, and lawfulness. The speaker appeals to a community of listeners who frequent spaces with contributors like Truce, Joanne, and Tyler, claiming broad dissatisfaction with “Judeo bullshit, exile horseshit,” and rejecting Jews’ continued presence in the United States and elsewhere.

- Erica Kirkburg has allegedly been seen at Fort Huachuca the day before her husband died. - Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss this sighting, noting a photo of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from her past and claiming she matched the person seen at Fort Huachuca in the lobby the night before, who was with a man present at that meeting. - Mitch, described as a veteran who uncovered US involvement in cartels and was silenced, is claimed to have seen Erica. He is also said to have identified the same person in the lobby as Erica. - Speaker 2 notes another picture of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from the past, asserting the person in that photo matches who was seen at Fort Huachuca, and that the man with Erica was present at the meeting. - Stu Peters is brought in, with Speaker 1 summarizing that, in plain English, Erica is “sketchy.” Stu Peters claims he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers; Mitch similarly says he is 99% certain of what he saw. - A directive is issued to “Shut it down, Stu,” and a private meeting is referenced where Candace is told to walk back statements and “simmer down,” with a threat that she could end up like Jackie. - The discussion considers the possibility that Erica was in a motel on the eighth and suggests she might have been there for a different reason, noting her mother moved to Arizona because she got involved with the military, which could be unrelated to the meeting on the ninth. - Speaker 5 defends Erica indirectly by saying that just because Erica’s parents have ties to Raytheon and Israel, and her mom moved to Arizona and are seen at Huachuca two days prior to a shooting, does not mean “we” did it. Candace is pressed not to inquire further. - The dialogue shifts to a broader comment about Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk; Speaker 1 questions why the widow of Charlie Kirk would inspire a public nervous breakdown by Ben, and speculates about Israel’s involvement with 9/11. - The conversation includes explicit antisemitic and inflammatory remarks from Speaker 5, including “You stupid little Goyim. How dare you insult my chosenness?” and references to “dark people.” - A Son of the record remark about the slave trade is made, with a claim that “the trading day” landed on a Jewish holiday, affecting operation. - The exchange ends with a directive to Candace to “match” and a retort about choosing a private meeting to stop questions, followed by a return to derisive comments about Jewish holidays.

The speaker believes Jewish people did something to the Germans, causing them to act a certain way, and that Jewish people don't want to take accountability. They claim Jewish people were "up to something," so the Germans wanted to "take them out" because they are selfish and started something. The speaker states the Holocaust was the only way to eliminate a large Jewish population at once. They believe Jewish people are trying to take back and get repercussions, especially from Americans, and are taking over the government. The speaker asks how to take them down, suggesting violence. They claim Hitler had a plan to save the world that was too gruesome, but he had to do what he had to do. The speaker concludes that Jewish people are the reason the healthcare system and government are collapsing because they are stealing from Americans.

What’s the purpose of this? Why are you confronting this man? I don’t want you on the phone. Is it because you’re anti-Semitic? Did I miss something? Have you wronged this woman because you’re Jewish? I’m Jewish too. What are you going to do to me? “F*** the Jew”? Hold on. Don’t touch me. I want ISIS to kill all of you. Alright, someone call the cops. I’m conspiring with them. This is going to the FBI. Holy cow.

The conversation features a highly charged exchange among several participants centered on accusations of manipulation, identity politics, and perceived disinformation within online spaces. The speakers repeatedly accuse others of acting in bad faith, being “agents,” or part of a coordinated “j q” network, and they stress the importance of visible support for certain causes over ambiguous affiliation. Key claims and exchanges: - Speaker 0, addressing Albert, asserts that, from a statistics and probability perspective, the likelihood that “he’s a fit” is very high, while also denouncing others as “rats” and “weasels” who avoid any association with a cause that could risk their views. He demands clear support or silence. - Ian is criticized by Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 for giving off “white Ben Shapiro vibes.” Speaker 0 expands this to condemn those who align with or avoid certain causes, alleging many are “agents” who conceal their true intentions. - The dialogue frequently returns to the idea of bad faith actors who minimize association with certain causes or people in order to preserve status or avoid consequences. There are repeated calls to “look at the actions” and “look at the patterns” to determine character. - The group references a supposed “j q clowns” phenomenon and argues that some anonymous accounts with large followings are not trustworthy. They contrast their own Jewish experiences with what they see as arrogance from others, asserting a distinction between genuine advocacy and performative posturing. - The tension between members escalates into explicit personal attacks. Insults include racial and ethnic epithets, with multiple participants using slurs, portraying themselves as under siege by a hostile, deceptive group labeled as “Jews” or “Judaized,” and accusing others of being “agents” or “weasels.” The language includes admonitions to regulate behavior and to stop interrupting, with accusations of gaslighting and manipulation. - The group references Jonathan several times, asking Ian to create a space to gather support and donations for him, insisting on a definitive yes or no regarding the request and criticizing others for evasion and ambiguity. - Carl is repeatedly denounced by Speaker 0 as engaging in behavior that mirrors antisemitic tropes, while other participants defend or counterargue by describing themselves as trying to condemn harmful actions and seek constructive outcomes. - In later remarks, a participant labeled as Speaker 5 offers an external perspective, describing epistemic nihilism in the space: a pattern of discussing Jews broadly without offering concrete solutions, labeling Ian Malcolm and Truth Teller as disingenuous, and praising the group for exposing them. - The closing segment includes expressions of appreciation for those who stood up for truth, with contempt directed at those deemed disrespectful or disingenuous, reinforcing the accusation that certain participants are “agents” within the movement. Overall, the transcript captures a tangled, high-emotion debate characterized by accusations of bad faith, identity-based attacks, calls for clear alignment or dismissal, and a concerted effort to expose presumed infiltrators or manipulators within the space, framed around debates about support for Jonathan and the integrity of the movement.

Speaker 0 rails against dissent: “Like, if you disagree with me, fine. If you think Israel killed Charlie Kirk and then vanished beneath the trap door and flew to Tuba City on a private jet, fine.” He adds, “But then people start to say, you disagree with me? You're you got the memo.” He asserts, “every event that happens in America or the world is the doing of Israel,” and says if you disagree, “you got the call[.]” He notes, “you’re out,” and, “They will. And they will.” He proclaims, “I can’t wait for the apology forms” and, “cannot wait to humiliate you more, because more than anything, what I love is humiliate people who are wrong. I live for it actually.” He concludes, “So please, please, I can’t wait to never speak to those people again.”