TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

And one thing a friend said to me interestingly, which is, okay. Charlie, we've pushed back against the media on COVID, on lockdowns, on Ukraine, on the border, on so, like, maybe we should also ask a question. 'Is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel?' 'Just a question, you know, that maybe we shouldn't believe everything the media says because I know I've been conditioned to ask a lot more critical questions over the last couple of years.' 'So, Ben, some people would accuse Israel of wanting to ethnically cleanse.'

Discussion on Hamas and Israel. 'Israel, bombed Qatar, which houses a lot of Hamas officials,' and asks whether this 'will this potentially endanger America's own interest in The Middle East?' They compare Israel’s aims to 'unconditional surrender' and ask, 'What does success look like in Gaza?' noting that twenty three months have passed. They seek feedback from American perspective on how things could have been handled—PR, conduct—and how to respond to claims that Israel is committing genocide. The dialogue questions whether the media is totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel, and discusses ethnic cleansing and what a good outcome five years from now would be. The host adds: 'You can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel,' and 'And it is totally fine to say to people who wish to destroy our civilization, no, your values suck, and they don't belong here.'

I find it hard to believe the story about the recent events in Israel. The country is heavily fortified and surveilled, with IDF soldiers everywhere. However, there were protests against Bibi Netanyahu's actions, and now he has an emergency government. While I'm not saying Netanyahu knew about the incident, some questions need to be asked. Was there a stand down order for 6 hours? It's hard to believe considering the country's size. The IDF is everywhere, so it's legitimate to question if someone in the government told them to stand down.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

The speaker raises several connected points about accountability and messaging around major U.S. foreign and domestic issues. First, they highlight the perceived urgency of a rapid twenty-hour response from a country the size of New Jersey, noting that such a response begs for a big explanation. They then point to what they describe as America underwriting the Israeli government to the tune of $4,000,000,000 annually, arguing that American taxpayers deserve answers about what they are buying with that funding. A central concern voiced is the possibility of a regional or world war arising from an intelligence failure, and the speaker asks for clarity on how the U.S. is funding or supporting actions in the region in light of that risk. They emphasize that they and others deserve to know what the financial backing is achieving. The speaker also recounts personal experience with being smeared for their views, including being labeled a Jew hater, an anti-Semite, and a conspiracy theorist because of what they have said. They insist on not backing down in the face of such smears. Drawing on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, the speaker references multiple narratives they say they encountered: the claim that the virus originated from a bat in the Himalayas, the assertion that the vaccine was safe and effective, and the insistence that ivermectin was “horse-paced.” They express a belief in the importance of asking questions, framing it as the thing that keeps people free. In sum, the speaker calls for transparency about large-scale U.S. financial support to Israel, questions about the potential consequences of intelligence failures leading to broader conflict, and a sustained commitment to inquiry in the face of public criticism, tying these to broader lessons they took from the COVID era.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government. And those two those two things beautifully coexisted." "Exactly. And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

One friend suggested questioning whether the media is fully truthful about Israel, noting that we've pushed back against the media on COVID, lockdowns, Ukraine, and the border. The friend asked, "Is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel?" and added, "Just a question, you know, that maybe we shouldn't believe everything the media says because I know I've been conditioned to ask a lot more critical questions over the last couple of years." The speaker then points to a claim people make: "So, Ben, some people would accuse Israel of wanting to ethnically cleanse." This framing links media credibility debates across issues to perceptions of Israel.

Speaker says 'Fact is now Bibi and the Israeli hard right government has a mandate' I gotta be careful the way I say this. 'To they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza.' They say 'They're talking about basically removing 2,500,000 people from that.' 'And honestly, they have a mandate to go seek justice and revenge.' They add: 'the idea that they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's more after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets.' But there are some serious questions here, Patrick. And let me tell you, my pattern recognition over the last five years has become pretty sharp. 'COVID, Maui fires, you know, Epstein.' 'When I see a story and it doesn't click, we're our guts are usually right.'

The transcript presents a provocative examination of organized crime, arguing that Jewish crime networks, rather than Italians, have historically been the dominant force behind global organized crime and that mainstream media and political power actively obscure this reality. Key claims and points include: - Hollywood imagery has ingrained a link between organized crime and Italians, with films like The Godfather and Goodfellas shaping public perception. In reality, Italians constitute only a tiny fraction of organized crime in the Western world, the speaker asserts. - A controversial WikiLeaks cable from the American Embassy in Jerusalem, titled Promised Land of Organized Crime, is described as warning American law enforcement about the severe threat of Jewish organized crime to America. The speaker claims this cable details extensive Jewish involvement in organized crime and asserts it reveals a hidden history not covered by major media. - The speaker cites a 2010 Al Jazeera interview with Julian Assange, claiming Assange said only a small portion of Israel-related files had been published because newspapers with exclusive rights did not want to publish damaging material about Israel. It is claimed that 3,700 files relate to Israel, with 2,700 from Israeli sources, and that in six months more would be published depending on sources. The speaker argues this demonstrates control of the press by Jewish interests. - The narrative contends that the media’s willingness to publish cables that criticize Western powers contrasts with a reluctance to publish cables about Israel, suggesting media censorship and a protective stance toward Israel due to Jewish influence. It is asserted that this media control shows “the real power in the media.” - The heart of the cable is summarized as showing that Israel is the world center for many criminal syndicates, with organized crime having a global reach and influence within Israel’s government. An example cited is the funeral of Shlomo Oz, with attendance by Amri Sharon, illustrating purported connections between political figures and organized crime. - The speaker asserts that Jews dominated organized crime in the United States during much of the 20th century, naming Murder, Inc. as the fountainhead of American organized crime and identifying Meyer Lansky as a key leader and Zionist. It is claimed that Newsweek described Lansky as pouring money into Israeli bonds and philanthropies, and that journalists like Jack Anderson discussed money laundering from the underworld into Israeli channels. - The claim extends to a long list of Jewish mobsters and the idea that Jewish influence shaped media and politics, with contrasts drawn to Italian mafia portrayals in Hollywood films. - The transfer of crime networks into international arenas is discussed, including Russian organized crime. The “Red Mafia” allegedly emerged from the Soviet collapse, with estimates of thousands of crime groups in the former Soviet Union and widespread protection rackets in Russia. The speaker quotes that by the mid-1990s there were 6,000 crime groups and that the mob controlled many banks; Moscow experienced thousands of mob-related homicides. - Testimonies from various speakers are included, with commentary from those who worked with different organized crime groups, including the assertion that the Russian mafia is highly educated and sophisticated and has extended into the United States and about 60 other countries. - The transcript also discusses white-slave trafficking, asserting that it is dominated by Jewish networks, with a cited 1998 New York Times article describing slave traders of Slavic women; the speaker contends the media would be uncomfortable labeling perpetrators as Jewish slave traders. - The closing segments condemn media censorship and urge viewers to expose organized crime, demanding action against media and government corruption, and promoting the speaker’s books, My Awakening and Jewish Supremacism, as further in-depth resources. Overall, the material argues that Jewish organized crime has historically guided and concealed a global criminal network, with substantial influence over media, politics, and law enforcement, while alleging the mainstream press suppresses this narrative.

Is the media presenting the truth when it comes to Israel? Ethnic cleansing: the idea that population movement is equivalent to ethnic cleansing. If people want to leave, they can, but they're not being forced to leave. Moving people out of areas honeycombed with terrorist booby traps is not the same thing as ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is very often used as a softer form of the genocide attack, the idea that Israel is trying to kill everyone. Legacy media are radically anti Israel overall. The New York Times cannot be accused of being a pro Israel outlet. They're gonna say Ben pro Israel. You Jews own the media, Ben. I'm a Jew, I'm a Zionist. BB said 'you can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel.' You can disagree with Bibi's policies and still be MAGA. If you're pro Hamas, you're something darker, and we shouldn't put up with that.

Speaker 0 announces breaking news that “our greatest ally finally decided to stop genocide in Gaza.” Speaker 1 comments that this is probably because their prime minister is on trial again. Speaker 2, Shapiro Steen, questions where all the people who yelled about genocide have gone, noting that those who were “yelling about genocide now, poof, they’re just gone.” Speaker 3 presses: “Tell us more about how it’s not even a genocide.” Speaker 2 contrasts a “real genocide” with the Gaza situation, saying “not by any stretch of the imagination… a genocide,” and argues that when the supposed genocide stopped, “all the people who were fighting to stop it just disappeared,” asserting they didn’t give credit or say it was a good thing. Speaker 0 teases that “everyone is going to believe you,” then advertises Jake GTV News’s episode, sponsored by Palantir with the line “Finish them off. We deliver.” Speaker 1 complains that tech gurus “don’t seem to value human life,” then generalizes about a group with “tiny hats.” Speaker 0 adds, “they definitely had Jesus crucified.” Speaker 0 muses that Shapiro Steen might get them fired like Candace Owens. Speaker 2 mentions that “we killed Jesus,” but says they can still appropriate “the holy land and use the fake star of David… to usher in the new world order,” asking listeners to “just ask Satan.” Speaker 1, speaking as a Christian, says it should be mandated to go to Israel before heaven, and Speaker 4 says the place will welcome visitors like in Jerusalem, Nazareth, the Sea of Galilee. Speaker 1 questions how Israelis feel about Christians. Michael reports live from the holy land, noting that mention of Jesus “pisses these people off.” Speaker 0 asks if they actually spit on Christians in Israel, to which Speaker 1 confirms, “they literally spit on Christians in Israel.” Speaker 6 interrupts: “Shut it down. We get kicked out of every country for no reason, and facts are antiseptic.” Dennis is told not to mention Jesus again. Speaker 0 accuses the group of murdering thousands of innocent “sand people,” and Satan explains how to stop Christian influencers. Speaker 5 discusses using tools of battle, highlighting TikTok as “Number one” in the fight, and asks what the other important platform is, with Speaker 4 replying to yield to pressure. Speaker 4 recalls a past official recognition of Jerusalem as capital and moving the American embassy there, praising Miriam and Sheldon, and noting their trips to the White House. Speaker 1 remarks that, after the week’s events, the speaker deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, and Speaker 7, in Venezuela, promises a close relationship with Israel and moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. Speaker 8 jokes about donors and elites, and another speaker notes a break room gathering for celebration, offering donuts for the Goyim and pizza for executives. Speaker 1 concludes with “Jackie was so based,” and the room is described as Producerberg. The group instructs staff to finish their goy slop and avoid talking about Jackie. Speaker 0 references JFK and the Epstein files, and calls Charlie Kirkberg “the Jew lover.” Dennis is urged to say “tolerance is strength.” The closing line: “Tolerance is strength, Nikki.” Speaker 1 ends with “You guys are such pussies. Christ is king,” followed by a final jab containing the nontolerant remark “Ching Chong,” and the directive that if you’re not following JankGTV, you’re “not based… retarded.”

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "You never you never once said, hey, I'm I'm out on America. On America's right." "And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government."

I find it hard to believe the story about the recent conflict in Israel. The country is heavily fortified and surveilled, with IDF soldiers everywhere. Israel was on the brink of civil war due to protests against Netanyahu, but now he has an emergency government. I'm not saying Netanyahu knew about the situation, but there are questions to be asked. Was there a stand down order for 6 hours? It's hard to believe that in a country the size of New Jersey, they couldn't respond sooner. The whole country is the IDF, so it's legitimate to question if someone in the government told them to stand down.

"And that suits the Israelis just fine." "And if you're wondering why there's an awful lot of lunatic antisemitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic." "But how much of it is not organic at all?" "How much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" "Probably some because it serves their interest." "And so the true shame here, the actual villain in the story is the leadership of The United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades." "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do." "And for what reason? So if there's someone to be mad at, it's our leaders."

Speaker 0 asks how to weed out Muslims in a country that despises you and means you harm without vilifying or persecuting those who are fine and part of the social fabric. Speaker 1 responds by highlighting that Arab states have taken a strong stance against the Muslim Brotherhood and asks why the West hasn’t. The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt and in many Gulf states (not Qatar), and there is a reason: they know how dangerous this organization is, that it doesn’t represent peace-loving Muslims who simply want to practice their religion and not impose a perverted version of jihad. Speaker 1 asserts that the Muslim Brotherhood is not pro-Muslim; it is an organization providing cover for terrorism that disproportionately impacts Muslims, especially in the Arab world. He emphasizes that the biggest victims of terrorism are the people of the Middle East, the majority of whom are Muslims, and urges people to educate themselves about what’s really happening on this front before it’s too late. Speaker 0 then asks why Europe is failing and has massively open borders, taking people from regimes where terrorism is life-threatening. Speaker 1 answers with a single word: subversion. He claims this is most evident in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, stating that the way the war and the conflict are presented in international media is not an accurate reflection of what’s happening on the ground. He believes many Palestinians would share that sentiment. He contends that what’s happening in Gaza is not how it’s reported, because narratives are shaped to present a certain story, a process he attributes to Al Jazeera. He questions who runs Al Jazeera and asserts it is state-run by Qatar, and says they have been a chief sponsor of a “laundered ideology” presenting Palestinian victimhood even if some stories are fabricated. He claims Al Jazeera has falsified stories during the Gaza war. Speaker 1 concludes that when people push back against Islamism, they’re accused of conspiracy or exaggeration, but the speaker argues that there is a conspiracy to undermine the West. He acknowledges that it may seem crazy to say so, but asserts that such a conspiracy is exactly what is happening. He identifies this as the fundamental ideology of Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Shia side, and says this is something that must be spoken out against to educate the general public.

Team civilization discusses Israel-Hamas, noting "Israel, bombed Qatar, which houses a lot of Hamas officials" and questions what happened and whether it endangers America's interests. The discussion mentions Japan's unconditional surrender and asks, "Is that what Israel is aiming for here?" They ask what "ultimate success" in Gaza would look like after about twenty-three months, and warn that a long war is not good for Israel. They seek feedback on handling, PR, and conduct, and confront the claim "Israel is committing genocide." They question media coverage: "is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel?" They discuss ethnic cleansing and ask, "what would a good outcome five years from now be, and how does one respond to the claims of ethnic cleansing?" Ben Shapiro’s stance is referenced: "You can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel. I don't like it for a couple of reasons."

Speaker 0: Is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel? Just a question. You know, look at Maybe we shouldn't believe everything. Look at that. Maybe we shouldn't believe everything. Here too, but they got Charlie Kirk, and it's just heartbreaking. Who's they, b b? Who's they? You got Charlie Carter.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "And those two things beautifully coexisted." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often." "Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

The transcript centers on a controversial, repeatedly asserted claim that Jewish people run or control the media. The speakers discuss Kanye West’s position on Jewish influence, repeatedly insisting that “the Jews run the media” and that interviewing a Jewish host on a Jewish platform implies media control. Specific points raised include: - A speaker asserts that “Artists over in the music industry are individuals. They're not Jews. Can you say They are they are Jewish,” followed by a quick retort, and the line “Nigga. They are. Lex fucking Friedman?” to imply Lex Friedman is Jewish and part of the media. - A speaker says, “The Jews do run the media,” and argues that a Jewish person interviewing Kanye on a video podcast proves media control, calling Lex Friedman a “Jew” and a “fucking Jew,” and claiming the interview demonstrates media control by Jews. - The discussion frames the media as Jewish-owned or Jewish-run, referencing Lex Friedman, YouTube’s leadership (Susan Wojcicki), and positions within the media ecosystem to support the claim of Jewish influence. - One speaker states, “There is [Jewish control of the media],” while another questions whether it is antisemitic for Ye (Kanye) to say “Jewish” aloud, with the other replying that there is “no Jewish media” and then contradicting that with “There is.” - The dialogue inserts biographical claims about Jewish individuals in media leadership, including “Susan Wojowski” (Susan Wojcicki), noting she ran YouTube for a decade, and suggesting this corroborates the premise of Jewish control of media. - The conversation touches on personal experiences and accusations about people in the industry, including allegations that a Jewish lawyer and a regulator were connected through groups, and that a “head of YouTube” being Jewish supports the claim. - The speakers criticize Lex Friedman’s interview style, calling him “boring,” and claim his position on Jewish media is inconsistent with his role as a media figure, while reiterating the assertion that “the Jews run the media.” - The discussion broadens to reference other examples, including Logan Paul’s crypto project and the broader pattern of alleged exploitation by “Jewish media” or “Jewish” entities in various industries, including music and media. - The dialogue ends with continued questions about whether mentioning “Jewish media” is acceptable, and a repeated concern with naming individuals to “start a war” against those perceived as part of the media establishment, insisting that the media is “Jewish” and “run by Jewish people.” Overall, the transcript presents a persistent, unnuanced narration asserting Jewish control of media institutions, interwoven with personal grievances, confrontations about antisemitism, and critiques of specific media figures.

Speaker 0 opens with "we wanna see the maniacs of Hamas be defeated" and notes "Israel, bombed Qatar, which houses a lot of Hamas officials," asking "What happened here? ... Will this potentially endanger America's own interest in The Middle East?" He contrasts Israel's aims with "unconditional surrender" and asks, "Is that what Israel is aiming for here?" He wonders what "success look[s] like" in Gaza after about twenty-three months and what could have been done differently "on the PR front" or "conduct front." A claim heard is "Israel is committing genocide." The discussion touches on media skepticism, accusations that Israel wants to "ethnically cleanse," and asks for a five-year outlook. The remark "you can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel" prompts Ben Shapiro's response: "And it is totally fine to say to people who wish to destroy our civilization, no, your values suck, and they don't belong here."

Speaker argues that "And that suits the Israelis just fine." They question how much antisemitic content about Israel online is organic, noting there are "haters" and asking "how much of it is not organic at all?" They contend that some messaging is "being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" They add, "Probably some because it serves their interest." They insist the "true villain here" is not "the state of Israel, the Jews" but "the United States" and its leaders, who are "putting up with this." Israel is "a small country with very limited resources" trying to serve its own interests. "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do," yet "there are some that don't, and ours would top that list."

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

The speaker addresses Tucker, noting a perceived "obsession with Israel" when discussing foreign countries, unlike when discussing China, Japan, the UK, or France. The speaker claims that when Israel is mentioned, the question arises: "What about the Jews?" The speaker anticipates being labeled antisemitic for raising this point. The speaker denies directly asking if Jews control foreign policy, but the other person insists that is exactly what the speaker implied.