reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the media covers up violence by Antifa and ignores violence against Trump supporters. The speaker says that after a White House press briefing, they asked assembled journalists why they wouldn't cover violence against Trump supporters or demand that Democratic leaders disavow violence from Antifa, as they demanded of Trump regarding his supporters. The speaker states the journalists laughed at them, which the speaker took as proof that the media laughs at violence against people they don't like.

We begin tonight with the horrific discovery at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. They would shave our heads and beat the hell out of you. These are crime scenes. The residential schools was a genocide of our people. 215 children were found in unmarked graves. The federal government is ready to dispense $10,000,000. $8,000,000. $27,000,000 to find unidentified burial sites. We will follow the evidence. We will follow the science. We are here for truth telling. Neotribal elites are pretending that it's been found that there's 215 children. There's a difference between murders and children dying in the building. There's no list of names of missing children at any of these schools.

The speaker references 'Of hostages before engaging in what many see as as a animal cruelty.' They say, 'I can't imagine, this is absolutely astonishing to me, that an animal welfare issue in Canada has garnered the attention of MAGA type billionaires in The United States, which makes me sympathize with the ostriches less.' They conclude, 'But that doesn't matter. What'.

The speaker argues that the Bolsheviks were as brutal as the Nazis in at least two key ways: they made Christianity illegal and religion illegal, and they also criminalized criticizing the regime. They claim the Bolsheviks destroyed 40,000 churches and tens of millions of Christians, and note that “that’s who we sided with.” They critique how history is framed, saying narratives always start after the most horrific actions and focus on the response to those actions, such as events around October 7, the Warsaw Ghetto, or Russia’s expulsions, rather than addressing why those actions occurred. The speaker contends this approach skews the overall picture. They acknowledge that “The Bolsheviks were unequivocally horrible,” but they argue that people don’t learn about that history. The speaker mentions denial of the Armenian genocide and the Holodomor, suggesting there is a double standard: it is “okay for them to deny the Armenian [Holodomor],” but now, in about 30 countries, people can be arrested or imprisoned over related claims.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the central event and its factual claims (Kamloops discovery, 215 unmarked graves). - Catalogue the competing viewpoints and claims (genocide vs not, murder vs not, truth-telling vs denial). - Note government actions and policy references (funding amounts, Bill C-15, UNDRIP, land rights concerns). - Highlight conflicts over money and governance (revenue, where money goes, band involvement). - Preserve direct quotes for key, pivotal statements to maintain precision. - Exclude evaluative judgments; avoid adding or interpreting beyond stated claims. - Emphasize unique or surprising elements (denialism, political gains, protracted reconciliation). - Keep within 374–468 words; translate if needed (not needed here). Summary: The transcript centers on a broadcast about the horrific discovery at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. It begins with the claim: "215 children were found in unmarked graves." Speakers frame the site in stark terms: "They would shave our heads and beat the hell out of you," and "These are crime scenes." Another speaker declares: "The residential schools was a genocide of our people." Amid the testimony, debate erupts over truth, privilege, and interpretation: "Because of your white privilege, you can't take our truth." Financial and policy implications surface as the federal government is described as ready to dispense funding: "The federal government is ready to dispense $10,000,000. $8,000,000. $27,000,000 to find unidentified burial sites." A commitment to evidentiary process is expressed: "We will follow the evidence. We will follow the science. We are here for truth telling." Yet a counter-narrative questions the framing of the events: "Neotribal elites are pretending that it's been found that there's 215 children." Another speaker distinguishes: "There's a difference between murders and children dying in the building." Questions about documentation and causation follow: "There's no list of names of missing children at any of these schools. ... There wasn't murder. There wasn't genocide. Why do you think they are holding to this mass grave story?" The dialogue suggests perceived political gains from the narrative: "There have been all kinds of political gains as a result of this story." The discussion advances to legislative and sovereignty issues: "This week, the senate passed bill c 15 aimed at aligning Canadian law with the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people." The claim about sovereignty is asserted: "That law was a surrender of the province. They have a right to the land. They own it. All of it. So is that what we're saying?" There is worry about land rights and the so-called "Drucker legislation," along with concern about property rights: "You're not getting the truth," and "They're worried about property rights and how it could possibly affect them with the Drucker legislation." A charged atmosphere is conveyed: "The reaction from those with various kinds of interests will be fierce. This incoherent and consistently racist posturing in this house against indigenous and first nations." The phrase "Denialism is hate" appears, followed by questions about reconciliation: "Is there an end? Are we ever done reconciling? Why haven't you dug in the ground yet with the millions of dollars you see?" The dialogue closes with concerns about funding and accountability: "All these millions that are that revenue are going through my band. It's not empowering aboriginal people at all. Because we have no idea where all this money is going." The concluding note affirms a long-term process: "The journey of reconciliation is a long one, but it is a journey we are on."

Speaker 0 argues that the premise is disgusting and cites CBS admitting that sixty percent of those arrested had criminal charges or convictions, while noting the majority were non-violent. They question what “non-violent” includes, listing drug trafficking, child porn, fraud, DUI, and human smuggling, and mock the idea of those as harmless offenses. They accuse CBS of trying to influence public perception and claim, “What are you trying to do here? It’s like you want more people to die.” They proceed to highlight CBS’s claim that forty percent of ICE arrestees had no criminal past, arguing the distinction should be about status in The US. They counter with examples: an MS-13 member who shot, tortured, and murdered five people but “forget it, in El Salvador,” suggesting he’s nonviolent because he wasn’t convicted in the US. They compare this to other cases where alleged criminals killed in the US had no prior US criminal history, and to scammers running fake day cares who haven’t been prosecuted yet. The speaker contends that crimes committed outside The US do not count, and posits that we should owe Nicolas Maduro an apology. They note that this is coming from “the same media that lectures one death is too many, which is used to justify insane regulations in public health policies,” referencing the pandemic and the claim that “a single death is a tragedy,” contrasted with a later statement about a jogger being killed during lunch. They frame the report as an effort to stop deporting bad people by portraying the target as peaceful illegals and by saying they lied when they claimed to do “the worst first.” They argue that resisting the goal of deporting the worst first forced ICE to use a wider net that included all illegals. They claim that if Waltz or Fry had cooperated, the issue would never have arisen, and state that their goal was to prevent deporting criminals so ICE would be forced to sift through all illegals, which would be a political win for those who would say, “They’re not going after the worst after all.” The speaker concludes it’s moronic, not to protect people but to protect political power, and that this allows the narrative to say a murderous felon came here looking for a better life, when in fact, it was a better knife.

The speaker discusses the government's spending of $8 million on searching for unmarked graves at a school in Kamloops, BC, with no results. They criticize the wasteful spending and highlight the financial struggles of Canadians. The speaker expresses frustration at consistently being proven right about issues years before they are acknowledged, leading to backlash and cancelation. They predict being vindicated in the future.

They have said again and again that unmarked mass graves have been found at Canada's residential schools, which were boarding schools for Indian children that existed for about a hundred years peaking in the early twentieth century. Last year, archaeologists detected what they said could be 200 unmarked graves at this former school in Kamloops, British Columbia. Weeks later, a further 751 unmarked graves were detected across from the former Marivelle Residential School on the Cowices Reserve in Saskatchewan. More than three years later, not a single body has been found in any unmarked grave at any residential school anywhere in Canada. Turns out that, in fact, the alleged unmarked gravesite in Kamloops was in reality a 2,000 foot long, three foot deep trench that was established in 1924 as a septic field to store sewage from the school.

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.

The speaker defends their statement about the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge checkpoint being terrorism, citing media reports that the Canadian government presumed it to be so. They criticize CP for making false claims in an article and question CTV's responsibility for reporting on the incident. The speaker also mentions the awkward situation of CP attacking CTV's reporting, considering that CP works for CTV.

There are those who are intentionally undermining mainstream media, such as conspiracy theorists and social media influencers who keep people in filter bubbles. This prevents agreement on common facts, unlike when CBC, CTV, and Global were the main news sources projecting a shared understanding across the country.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

The two speakers discuss the media coverage surrounding a high-profile case. The second speaker says the media coverage has been absolutely unfair and biased. They’ve done many interviews and are reaching a point where they won’t do them anymore, trusting the media less. They note a preference for live interviews because edited pieces distort their message. A concrete example is CBC’s Karen Pauls: she interviewed Russ Harald, Sudhoo, and several families who forgave. The second speaker claims Harald told them Pauls didn’t include half of what he said, and that she did the same to Andrea and Shauna Nordstrom (Logan Hunter’s mother). They allege that Nordstroms were given a bit part in a story that portrayed the subject as loving and forgiving, downplaying negative aspects, making it seem like the subject was sympathetic. The second speaker claims Karen Pauls twisted the narrative, and contends that much of the media has done this. Consequently, they’ve declined numerous interviews and no longer trust mainstream media regarding this story. The second speaker adds that there are people with no vested interest who want to express approval or forgiveness to feel good about themselves and to allow the subject to stay in the country. They contrast this with others who are deported for other offenses, such as those who steal $5,000 cars and are permanent residents who get deported. They have listened in on immigration and refugee board hearings to learn more about the process. They claim that because the case is so prominent, some people want to excuse the subject, even if it means allowing criminals or poor drivers to stay, thereby harming the system. The first speaker asks what precedent would be set if the subject were allowed to stay in Canada. The second speaker replies that it would imply that 16 lives mean nothing and questions how many people one would have to kill to be deported, underscoring the idea that the mere possibility of killing someone is central to the debate. They insist that raising the question of whether the person killed anyone is itself “crazy.”

The speaker discusses Canada becoming interesting in January and February due to protesters in Ottawa. The job of reporters, according to the speaker, is to go out and ask protesters why they are on the streets, why they are there with their kids, and why there is a bouncy castle in the middle of Ottawa, to discover the story. The speaker claims the Government did not want that and that the Prime Minister decided in advance that the protesters were all the modern excommunications—Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, probably homophobes, misogynists, probably transphobes, etc.—and then he brings in the Emergency Powers Act. The speaker asks what the mainstream media would do at such a time, and asserts they would question it, but claims the Canadian mainstream media did not and instead acted as an Amen Chorus of the government. Several examples are provided. A CBC host described the Freedom Convoy as a feral mob. A Toronto Star columnist said, “sorry for the language, it's a homegrown hate farm that was then jet fueled by an American right funded rat fucking operation.” The speaker notes that CBC claimed two indigenous women who were scared to go outside in Ottawa because of racist violence did not bother to mention that indigenous drummers had led the truckers in an 0 Canada rendition. The National Observer allegedly stated that many black and indigenous freedom convoy supporters were, in fact, duped by the truckers. A Globe and Mail reporter claimed, “My 13 year old son told me to tell protesters I'm not a Jew” out of fear of antisemitic violence, without mentioning that one of the convoy leaders was Jewish. The speaker argues this demonstrably rancid and corrupt behavior is rooted in a system where in Canada, the media is funded by the government. It is stated that in 2018, election year, there was a coincidence with the government funding; the Canadian media allegedly received $595,000,000 over five years, and the Toronto Star estimated it was going to be getting $3,000,000 from the Government in the first half of the year. The government is described as able to tell banks to shut down people’s bank accounts, and able to tell the media what to do, with the media then doing the bidding of the government camp. The speaker concludes that this is not a free society’s media.

In 2019, the Canadian government removed the crime of spreading false news from the Criminal Code. This raises concerns about trusting a government that takes our money, restricts effective treatments, and fails to investigate the safety of promoted vaccines. Additionally, the parliament we elect allows mainstream media to freely lie without consequences.

Speaker 0 says a piece about Israel’s “obscene treatment” of Speaker 0’s country has an obvious takeaway that America’s “special ally is not actually an ally,” and that NBC News did not want readers to realize this. Speaker 0 claims the report’s authors repeatedly inserted “globalist propaganda” into the story, including the neocon talking point that Israelis are America’s “special friends,” while still presenting “eye-opening” information about Israel spying. Speaker 0 argues that throughout the entire NBC News piece, there is continued praise for Israel as “our greatest ally” and “special friend.” Speaker 1 says the piece lays praise on Israel and is about Israel spying, which they find “reprehensible.” Speaker 1 describes decades of belief that Israel is America’s best ally, an “island of democracy” amid “sea of chaos” in the Middle East, and that many Jewish people Speaker 1 personally knew seemed “like really good people.” Speaker 1 says that as “growing physical evidence” has emerged that Israel is “not quite who we thought they were” and that Israel “definitely” abuses America, the situation has become normalized. Speaker 1 claims that even when things have come out, “no action has been taken,” leading Israel to be “a little bit more bold,” doing actions “out in the open.” Speaker 1 cites an example involving Netanyahu and Lebanon: Speaker 1 says Netanyahu stated that a stop to fighting in Lebanon is a “non-negotiable requirement” for Iran to end the war, and that Speaker 1 believes Netanyahu will “do what I want anyway,” even if President Trump intervenes. Speaker 1 says Speaker 1 expects Trump may “hold off for a day or two,” but that Israel “they’re fighting again today.” Speaker 1 asks why the U.S. continues to support Israel and provide it with ammunition, weapons, political cover, and diplomatic cover “to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests?” Speaker 0 responds, “It’s so frustrating.”

There are associations of various community groups that have clearly been infiltrated. They originally started completely innocent—members of the Chinese diaspora, like any community, wanting to come together, celebrate their culture, and engage in activities in their new home. But over time, those groups have been systematically infiltrated by the Chinese Communist Party, and they’re used as a front for other things. Some of the organizations identified as alleged police stations are public; you can look them up and see they have been beneficiaries of different federal government grants. You also see them actively trying to obstruct. At the time, we hadn’t passed the legislation to create a foreign agent registry—something our American friends have had for nearly a century—but we did end up passing it on 06/20/2024, last year, yet the government hasn’t implemented it. A coincidence, I’m sure. And you see the obstruction. You see them repeating—parliamentarians repeating—clear talking points out of the Chinese Communist Party. This focus on the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was a sad part of Canada’s history when it was official government policy to be discriminatory and you couldn’t immigrate to Canada if you were of Chinese heritage. And it’s true that was bad. But speaking as someone of the community, people of Chinese heritage don’t live in victimhood. K? That’s not who we are. It’s not part of our culture. We are merit-based. We work hard. We put our heads down, and we get shit done. And so to see now these talking points coming out of the Chinese Communist Party, repeated on the floor of the House of Commons by people who have been alleged to be their proxies, was a huge wake-up call.

Look for a few minutes at the Liberal Hall Of Shame for 2015 to 02/2021. Liberal MP William Amos was caught twice on house Zoom proceedings in indecent positions. Liberal MP Yasmin Rathansi was wrongfully employing her sister with taxpayers' dollars and deliberately hiding this information from Canadians. Liberal MP Ramesh Sengha was removed from the Liberal Caucus in January 2021 after he accused multiple other Liberal MPs of supporting the calisthenia movement. Liberal MP Darshan Singh Kang had to leave the Liberal Caucus in 2015 over accusations of sexual harassment. Liberal MP Nikola Di Laurio didn't show up for work for a year after he announced his resignation in 02/2018. Then the public found out, oh, he actually didn't resign. He still collected his salary as an MP even if he was working full time in a law firm in Montreal. To this today to this day, this situation has never been clearly explained by Trudeau and the Liberals. Liberal MP Raj Greywall admitted he racked up millions of dollars in debts, paying casino blackjack, and ended up resigning from the Liberal caucus in 2018 after the news came to light. Following an RCMP investigation. But after suddenly announcing he had paid off his 7 figure debts, he stayed on as a member of parliament for the rest of the parliamentary session. You may recall that mister Graywald was already under investigation by the federal ethics commissioner at the time and was later found guilty of being in violation of conflict of interest. Then there was a liberal MP Marwin Tabarro. He was allowed to run against again for the liberal party in February even though detailed allegations of sexual harassment had been made against him. After being arrested in April 2020, he remained in caucus for almost two months because the prime minister's office claimed they knew nothing about it, took a newspaper article for the liberals to kick him out of caucus. Then former Liberal MP Frank Bayless signed one of those juicy sole source contracts with the Liberal government during the COVID epidemic. He received $237,000,000. Public health agency figures disclosed that more than 90% of the 10,000 Bayless Medical Company ventilators it bought were never used in any clinic or any hospital. Sadly, these ethical lapses were even worse amongst cabinet ministers. Let me give you a few examples. Anita Anad's husband was the recipient of one of those juicy COVID contracts. LifeLabs received tens of millions of dollars of COVID contracts. They sell test kits. Anita Anad's husband, John Knowlton, is a director of LifeLabs. The LifeLabs division has received multiple contracts worth millions since Anad was elected to the parliament in 2019. Navdeep Baines was industry minister and, as such, promised to crack down on big telcos who overcharge Canadians for Internet and cell phone service. Guess what? He found a job at Rogers after leaving the government. The lobbying commissioner said she was frustrated at this, but liberals will always find loopholes that means more money for them. Then there was Bill Blair, on several occasions, lied, meddled into the work of the RCMP regarding the worst mass killing in the history of Canada in Porta Peak, Nova Scotia. While he was the president of the Treasury Board, Scott Bryson tried to block approval for the contract of a navy supply ship being built at the navy shipyard in Quebec because he was lobbied to do so by New Brunswick's powerful Irving family, owners of the rival Halifax shipyard. Minister Bryson also tried to argue there was no need for him to set up a conflict of interest screen to prevent him from participating in government decisions involving two of Atlantic Canada's wealthiest families, even though he used to chair one of their investment firms and that his spouse continued to sit on the company's board of directors. Francois Philippe Champagne owned two apartments in London, England worth millions of dollars. His mortgages were with a Chinese bank. Strange indeed for a Canadian in The UK, Canadian MP in The UK to have to go to a Chinese bank for a mortgage. Judy Foote got involved in the Frank Norman affair. I will talk about that in a bit. But what is interesting here is that she resigned for health reasons. But suddenly, her health improved, and she was rewarded with the job of lieutenant governor in Lupinland and Labrador. Steven Gebel forgot to pay his taxes, but he never forgot to travel, especially to China. This minister is running around the globe, busy lecturing Canadians, but patting Chinese or Gulf Emirates officials on the back. Catherine McKenna and John Wilkinson, his predecessors, and environment were of the same ilk, jetting around the world to lecture the common folks that they should bicycle to work. Foreign affairs minister Melanie Jolie's office staff didn't read an email that said her department was sending a representative to a Russian embassy party. So we had a representative at a party drinking vodka with the Russian officials just after Putin invaded Ukraine. Not reading their emails is a hallmark of Trudeau ministers and their staff. It was the excuse given by Bill Blair and Marco Mendocino and, of course, Justin Trudeau. When David LaMetti was turfed from cabinet, a lot of people wondered why. He had actually, after all, done much of Trudeau's bidding, we thought. Well, in the last few weeks, we learned that LaMetti canceled a verdict of first degree murder against Jacques Delisle, a former judge, even if all the experts were against this decision. Lemetti and the government refused to come clean on why he did that, even though Delisle later pleaded guilty to manslaughter. You all heard senators' nonanswers to our questions on this issue. What about Dominique Leblanc, who, despite despite connection to the powerful Irving family, was appointed to be minister of fisheries, oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard. He had to consult with the Essex commissioner for weeks in order to figure out how to stick handle around this very obvious conflict of interest. Then there was a time when minister LeBlanc flew from Moncton to Montreal and back aboard a jet owned by JD Irving Limited. Nothing to see here, folks. But when the ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, found minister LeBlanc guilty of breaking a conflict of interest act because he awarded a lucrative Arctic surf clam license to a company linked to his wife's cousin. He couldn't wiggle out of that. Speaking of Dominique Leblanc and Scott Bryson, we still don't know what their exact role was in the vice admiral Norman affair. The Liberals tried to renege on a contract for a supply ship in order to give it back to the Irvings. When they got caught, they decided they would get the height ahead of vice admiral Norman. The prime minister even sent him to trial before the police had investigated its investigation. Scott Bryson and Judy Foote left their positions, and taxpayers ended up being invoiced for an undisclosed sum of money paid out to vice admiral Norman. That is a first class cover up. Marco Mendocino's case was hopeless. Conflicts of interest, emails not read, bold lies in public, pure incompetence. When you are so bad that even Justin Trudeau thinks you're bad, you've hit the bottom. Someday, I will have a speech just on Marco Mendocino's scandals. I may need my unlimited time for that. It happens that ministers organize fundraisers outside their writings, but when you represent a downtown Montreal riding, this is strange. It is even stranger if this fundraiser happens to be in New York. New York, USA. To my knowledge, that is the first, and this honor belongs to Mark Miller. Mary Anne Monsoff had to admit that she was actually not born in Afghanistan, as she had told people and led people to believe for years. Bill Morneau is another minister who was scandal prone. He started his political career with violating the Elections Act, for which he was fined. This is, after all, the same finance minister who forgot that he had and forgot to declare his villa in France in his ethics reporting. This is the same finance minister who sponsored Bill C27, which happened to increase the value of pensions sold by the minister's own company, Morneau Shepell. When the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, the value of Morneau Shepell shares joked, and minister Morneau just happened to still be holding $21,000,000 worth of shares. And as I already mentioned, his role in the We Charity scandal, when he quit, he pretended he was going to the OECD top position. No one knows for sure if this was true. One thing is true, and it's real. Taxpayers footed the bill for his failed campaign. I still have an order paper question on the true cost. Still unanswered after twenty five months, it was reported in the media that this phony campaign cost at least $11,000,000. Mary Ang was found guilty by the ethics commissioner for giving contracts to her best friend. In a Trudeau government, that means you pretend to be sorry, and that has no consequences. How about Seamus O'Regan? The government spent $180,000 defending him in a defamation suit. And do you remember Hunter Tootoo? He had to leave cabinet to deal with, sadly, addiction issues. But what was strange was when he said that Justin Trudeau had hugged him after he revealed that he had an inappropriate relationship with a staff member. Harjit Sajid was found to have lied about his role in Afghanistan. But this happy bunch knows how to organize a party sorry, a cabinet retreat. The three affordability retreats held in Charlottetown, Vancouver, and Hamilton between 2022 and August 2023 cost 1,325,000. Hey, life is better with lobster and white wine, especially when you are discussing affordability. It's not surprising to see all those ethical lapses. After all, this is the leader of an organization who sets the tone. Justin Trudeau does not believe the rules of ethics apply to him. So how could he insist that his officials, his MPs, and his ministers be any better? In 02/2015, we learned that Justin Trudeau was billing charities for speaking engagements, even as an MP. This was a First Colleagues, a sitting politician who charges people to hear him speak. When he got caught, he said he was sorry and wrote a check. A few weeks later, he was caught again. He had charged the House of Commons for expenses that had also been reimbursed by the organizations to which he spoke. Again, we had the, I'm sorry, here's a check routine. This was a preview of things to come. Who can forget the thank you for your donation comment and incident where the PM's elitist and condescending attitude was on full display when he jeered at an indigenous protester before that? Before that, we had Elbowgate when Justin Trudeau pushed aside fellow MP Ruth Ellen Brasso Brasso because he was in a hurry to vote. His time was more precious than others, and pushing aside women who get in the way is something our fake feminist prime minister does without hesitation. That was in line with Justin Trudeau's behavior in the Kokanee grope incident where he groped a female journalist. Then he said, oh my, I would not have done this had I known that the woman was a national reporter. I guess in his mind, it's more acceptable to grope a person that is not a national reporter than one that is. Now we all remember, of course, that our prime minister decided that this was indeed a lesson, not just for him, but for all of us. We all know that some people experience things differently, he said. Now let's not forget the three, four, five, maybe more incidents where Justin Trudeau wore blackface because he thought it was funny to pretend that he was black. We don't know how many times he did that because he can't re

Speaker 1: "The narrative that they have pushed forward in the last ten years is that there is a relentless assault on against black people be on behalf of white people, and the data does not show that." Speaker 1: "White individuals are actually more likely to be attacked, especially even per capita, by black individuals in this country." Speaker 3: "it's just pure race race mongering, hate mongering. It's wrong." Speaker 3: "Where is the George Floyd policing act? It didn't pass." Speaker 0: "The media doesn't care about this, and we should start asking why." Speaker 1: "All of a sudden, when we make the left live up to their own standard of rules, there is complete silence by the entire American media."

- Grokopedia is introduced as a new alternative to Wikipedia, built on Elon Musk’s xAI model designed for deep understanding and reasoning, not just regurgitating text. - The program suggests Wikipedia has shifted left over time. It recounts how, ten years ago, Wikipedia was praised as a dream and as a replacement for traditional encyclopedias, with Britannica’s editor deriding encyclopedias as requiring paid researchers, while Wikipedia grew to become the world’s go-to resource and Britannica stopped printing books. - The speakers claim that, although Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, politics on the site is dominated by leftists. They point to examples of editors who advertise socialist views and display images of Che Guevara and Lenin. - They state that Wikipedia’s bias is evident in who counts as reliable or not, asserting that conservative media are deemed unreliable while outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Vox, Slate, The Nation, and Mother Jones are considered reliable. They claim Fox News is treated as unreliable, while Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable. - The narrative asserts bias in topic coverage and notability decisions. They mention a controversy over an article about a Ukrainian refugee that was deleted on the grounds it might not meet notability, contrasting it with other crimes that remained in Wikipedia. They also note a case where a suspect’s name was blacked out because he hadn’t been convicted, but another case (Kyle Rittenhouse) was named despite his status as a minor and not convicted. - The discussion includes claims that public pressure can sway Wikipedia at times (e.g., Irina Zerutsko’s article staying after outcry), but overall “nothing changes.” They describe a group of editors they call the “gang of forty,” who allegedly push propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict by removing mentions of terror attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas, and they describe a page titled “Donald Trump and Fascism” created just before a presidential election as interfering with elections. - They argue that Wikipedia presents a single worldview on major topics, excluding other perspectives, citing Fidel Castro’s successor Raul Castro as lacking the term “authoritarian” on his page, while other leaders have such labels applied. They also discuss government censorship and state-controlled outlets influencing Wikipedia’s content, noting that Chinese government censors flood the site and that China runs state propaganda outlets cited tens of thousands of times. - The COVID-19 lab-leak theory is discussed, with the speakers claiming that while evidence later emerged suggesting a lab origin, Wikipedia still claims “no evidence supporting laboratory involvement,” calling it a conspiracy theory. - Grokopedia is presented as offering an alternative where Grok lists investigations that affirm a lab-leak as the most probable origin, and the speaker says Grok is better than Wikipedia on their own page, which they claim contains mistakes and smears on the Wikipedia platform. - They mention other competing projects like Justopedia, founded by a veteran Wikipedia editor who wanted an alternative due to perceived left-wing bias; Scienceopedia and Justopedia are described as gaining momentum to provide more source variety. - The discussion closes with perspectives on governance of Wikipedia’s editorial direction: Catherine Mayer, head of the Wikimedia Foundation, is portrayed as evolving Wikipedia toward a woke and DEI ideology, with Maurer described as shaping critical years starting in 2016 and steering the foundation toward a social justice mission. - The speakers conclude with a call for dedicated, area-specific editors to enter and influence topics, suggesting that a few dozen committed editors could make a difference, though acknowledging the time required.