Is it Genocide? w/ Jeremy R. Hammond & Keith Knight

Welcome to Keith Knight. Don't tread on anyone, any libertarian institute. Today I'm joined by Jeremy R Hammond, my colleague at the Libertarian Institute. He is a research fellow and author of a number of books which we will go through today, starting off with Ron Paul versus Paul Krugman, Austrian versus Keynesian economics in the financial crisis. Before we get into this, where is the best place for people to find your collection of research articles and books? On my website,

jeremyrhammond.com. And don't forget my middle initial there. I'm not the hacker, not that other Jeremy Hammond. So jeremyrhammond.com. And then you'll see I got my web shop there and actually you can

buy all my books. Well, not all of them, but some of my print books you can get signed copies of directly from me. So cut up the middle man and and get them from me. Otherwise, yeah, you can can use my affiliate links to Amazon and then still help support my work better than just going straight to the the retailer. Sounds good. What is the Federal Reserve and how do these two world views differentiate in their analysis

of the Federal Reserve? So the Federal Reserve is a government legislated private monopoly on the control of currency, the currency supply. And so its purpose is to engage in legalized counterfeiting, which effects an upward transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class. And also wealthy people can also be punished by the Federal

Reserve's policies. So it affects this upward transfer of wealth from the masses to the politically connected financial elites who are close to politics and close to the the money power and who receive the newly created dollars first and then they're able to spend it to purchase assets. And then later on, as the money flows through the economy, of course, we get price inflation. So the monetary inflation is the cause primarily of price

inflation. And so apart from affecting this upward transfer of wealth, the book Paul Krugman, Ron Paul versus Paul Krugman kind of compares and contrasts the, the Austrian, the Austrian school theory of the business cycle with mainstream Keynesian economics, which of course represented by Paul Krugman. And so Ron Paul back in 2001 was warning how the Federal Reserve's policy of pushing

interest rates artificially low. So interest rates are a price and of course prices are incredibly important in an economy because prices are how, you know, investors and entrepreneurs determine how to utilize scarce assets. How should scarce assets be distributed and and utilized and directed? And prices are the mechanism by which they make good determinations about that.

So when you have when you have this central planning agency essentially fixing prices, which is what the Federal Reserve does with the interest rate, it it causes all kinds of distortions and malinvestments and creates all kinds of problems. And so Ron Paul was saying that this the policy of pushing interest rates artificially low, meaning below where they would be if they were determined by the free market and supply and demand, the supply of capital and demand for capital.

Then, you know, he was sent, he was warning that this policy was going to create a housing bubble. Contrast that with Paul Krugman, who was saying at the same time that we need the Federal Reserve to push interest rates low precisely to fuel this boom in housing. And so that was his specific aim. And so of course, that blew up in his face. And of course, the Federal Reserve policy created the

housing bubble. And so is it instructive how Paul Krugman then tried to blame the free market for the housing bubble in the financial crisis that it precipitated and trying to deflect attention away from the role of the Federal Reserve, even though he specifically advocated that same policy specifically to create that that boom in in the in the housing market. And so that's what the book is about. It really just it's, it's, it's

not a very long book. It got a a great review from Barron's, incidentally, who our friend Gene Epstein over at Barron's described it as a as a must read that conveys more insights into the causes and cures of the business cycle than most economic textbooks. But it's just, it's a pretty, pretty short read. And what I really did is I just kind of went through and I said, well, here is their record. Here are their records. Here's what Ron Paul was saying from like, you know, 2000 onward.

And here's what Paul Krugman was writing in his columns and saying in various forms. And I just contrast their statements like like quote after quote from these two people showing how Ron Paul predicted it. He had it right. Paul Krugman was literally advocating the very policy that caused the housing bubble and, and, and the financial crisis that the bursting of the housing housing bubble precipitated. And so that's, that's what the Fed does. That's what it is.

And and that's how those two individuals views differed. So what is the interest rate that the Federal Reserve chooses? Because different banks and different credit unions have different interest rates that they advertise, What is the interest rate that the Federal

Reserve actually controls? Oh, now you're getting into details that it's been a while since I I reviewed, but there's the Fed funds rate that the, the Federal Reserve essentially fixes, you know, by through its purse purchases of government debt, essentially, which it doesn't, you know, that they have that what's called the open market operations, which you know that the people will say, well, the Federal Reserve doesn't monetize the debt because it doesn't buy the IT

doesn't buy the the bonds from from the US Treasury, but the, the treasury issues IO us and they're sold on the market. And then the, the Fed is the this buyer that will go and then on the market purchase the government debt that way. So it's kind of just, you know, that there's a, there's a sleight of hand there 'cause it's, it's and effectively the, the effect of the same. And so the, by purchasing the government that it pushes down the interest rates.

And so, and then by pushing down the interest rates, it's affecting, it's, it's affecting investors and entrepreneurs decisions. And so, you know, if you, if we, if interest rates were determined by the free market, you would have a situation where people will accumulate capital, People would have savings. And then banks lend based on, you know, that this, the savings rates.

If saving rates are high and there's a large pool of capital that banks have on hand to, to, to lend out, then they'll, they'll lower interest rates. And it's an incentive to, to, to get more lenders. If, if capital rates of savings are low and they want to attract more depositors, then they'll, interest rates will go up and, and to attract depositors. And so if prices were determined by the market, that's supply and

demand. And, and so interest rates would be determined through that mechanism. What the Fed does is it pushes, pushes rates artificially low. And then, you know, based on what the, the Fed does with the Fed funds rate, you know, then the, all the banks in the system in, in the, the, you know, the fractional reserve banking system then kind of go off of the back of that and in determining their own rates. But that kind of influences the whole banking system and what the rates are.

And it's so by pushing the rates artificially low, it's creating an illusion of this large pool of capital that's available for for borrowing and investing and spending and in in building projects with, you know, for example, housing projects. But really that capital isn't there. It's an illusion. And so if inevitably you're going to have this upward pressure on interest rates because the market is still functioning, right, you can't like legislate away the law of supply and demand.

And so eventually you're going to have, you know, this upward pressure on interest rates or, or there's going to be price inflation will start showing up. And then the Fed has to kind of do something to control the price inflation and allow rates

to rise. And eventually going to have a situation where there are certain projects that just aren't going to be able to be finished because that capital was never there in the 1st place and they're not able to afford to continue keeping up the projects. You're not able to afford the debt on it. And so you have all of this Mal investment. And that's what that's what happens with the bust.

And so the, the Austrian theory of the business cycle basically explains how the the Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy and the policy of pushing interest rates artificially low, inflating the money supply causes not only price inflation, but it causes the, the boom bust cycle. And Ron Paul explained that very well over the years in in leading up to the housing bubble and repeatedly was trying to warn people about that. And he was dismissed as a kook.

But of course, he had it exactly right. And are the Austrians in general today saying that Sallie Mae, the government sponsored enterprise, is basically doing the same thing with college loans today? We need to get everyone a home in 2005. Today we need to get everyone into college and they need to take out $100,000 loans they'll pay for themselves once they work at HR departments. Calling everyone racist with no verifiable evidence isn't the same thing happening with

college loans today. Yeah, I mean, when you have the government essentially trying to create incentives for various purchases, it's it's interfering in the market and it's it's distorting the market. And So what happened with the, you know, the government sponsored enterprises, Was it that that was in conjunction with the Federal Reserve's policy? There were two major causes of

the housing bubble. One was, as I just explained, the Federal Reserve's policy, but coupled with that, compounding that problem was the government's policies of trying to incentivize home ownership, which created these distortions in the market 'cause, you know, looking at the, you know, the problem of the mortgage-backed securities and the junk mortgages that were bundled together and packaged. And in that the government sponsored enterprises were right

in the middle of that. In fact, they, they literally invented the, the bundling of the mortgage-backed securities. And so that of course, blew up into the financial crisis. So those were the two policies essentially that caused the problem to begin with. And yeah, if the government's doing the same thing with with student loans, it's creating all kinds of problems there. You know, I haven't researched and studied that particular aspect of of economics as much.

But essentially, you know, why do you think college prices are so unaffordable? You know, why are, why are college, the tuition's so high? I mean, you have your, the government is essentially bidding up demand for, for college education with these cheap loans. And then and then students can't pay them off and then they want

to forgive all the debt. And it's just, it was just, it's just a really a big scam like so many other scams that the government has where it's interfering in the market in ways that cause distortions and malinvestment and unsustainable, unsustainable spending. When we ought to, we ought to allow the market to function, because things run pretty smoothly when the market is allowed to do what it does.

So and not only that they have completely had they brought so many kids into universities who otherwise wouldn't have gone that they're professors are not going to fail half their class. So they lower the standards for everyone and then society as a whole is worse off because the people coming into the labor force are less qualified than they otherwise would have been. So it's a complete disaster. So you're differentiating two types of inflation. When people say inflation, they

mean a rise in prices. You're referring to an increase in the money supply that results in higher prices for all goods in the economy. So what do you say to Vice President Harris on Howard Stern's show? She said, yeah, we're going to tackle inflation. We're going to go after the price gougers. Why is her definition wrong and the Austrian definition right?

Yeah, I mean, when I when I generally, when I say inflation, like you said, most people think of inflation as a rise in prices for consumer goods, but that's not necessarily the case. Well, it's not the case in in my definition. I mean, and in classically, inflation referred to an increase in the supply of money, the money supply. And so it's the monetary inflation that causes price

inflation. And kind of an instructive example of how people kind of misunderstand that that relationship is Paul Krugman. You know, before the housing bubble burst in 2000 and seven, 2008, you know, Paul Krugman was saying, oh, you know, people are complaining about the inflation. They're saying that the Federal Reserve's policy is creating all this inflation. But look at the CPI.

I don't see any inflation. And of course, it's not the case that the money just, you know, flows evenly throughout the economy and and immediately results in and an increase in the prices of consumer goods. So where it was going, it was going into the asset classes, you know, that it will first go into capital goods or housing or various asset classes. And so there was the inflation that Paul Krugman couldn't see. Look, it was in the housing in the housing bubble.

It was in the stock market. And so that's also inflation. You know, when, when the in fact, Krugman wrote an article advocating, again, advocating the Federal Reserve's policy of pushing interest rates artificially low and, and inflating the money supply to boost the, the stock market. I mean, he understands how it works.

It's just that essentially the entire school of Keynesian economics in my, in my analysis is, is basically existing for the purpose of manufacturing consent for the existence of central banks. That's what Keynesian economics is. And modern monetary theory is essentially Keynesianism. 2 point O it's the same thing that they're just advocating central banking. And so of course they have to, they have all kinds of deceptions and they might understand how things work.

But then you have, you know, again, you have Paul Krugman advocating these, these policies. But then when the I won't, I won't, I won't swear. But when the stuff hits the fan, you know, then suddenly it's the free market that caused all the problems. And the solution is we need even more government intervention. We need more, we need the Federal Reserve to, to lower interest rates and inflate the money supply. And that's the, that's the solution to the problem.

I mean, after the housing bubble burst, what was the, what was the Fed's solution? Well, they started buying up mortgage-backed securities and inflating the money supply and they quadrupled the money supply beyond where it had been when the bubble burst. And then, of course, with COVID hit again, massive, massive inflation. And here's where Kamala Harris just doesn't seem to get it that that she's looking at the problem of price inflation. Well, what caused the price inflation?

Well, it wasn't, you know, what did they call it? They when that when the inflation started with price inflation started appearing and like the consumer goods area, you know, they called it transitory. It's just transitory. Paul Krugman is transitory, the Federal Reserve Chairman. It's transitory inflation. Well, it turned out not to be transitory because you, you can't expect to just inflate the money supply by trillions of dollars and not expect an increase in prices.

And so people really need to understand the relationship between the monetary inflation and the price inflation. And typically they'll talk about inflation is only meaning price inflation and and they completely ignore the role of the Federal Reserve in causing it. Oh, yeah, The problem is always too many voluntary exchanges between consenting adults. It's never the mass murdering government monopolizing the money supply, regulating every aspect of our commercial interactions.

When it comes to the response to OK, so we're in a recession. Some say, you know, low interest rates that were artificially pushed down caused it. Others say it was deregulation. Of course, there's already like hundreds of regulatory agencies, 10s of thousands of bureaucrats, which they spend billions of dollars regulating whatever, OK, you're in the recession. How do these world views differentiate in their response

to recessions? Yeah. So again, I kind of just touched on what Paul Krugman's response was, which which was, you know, Oh well, we need to lower the interest. We need to push interest rates down and incentivize spending because in his view of the problem is, well, there's not enough spending. We need people to get out and spend more.

But you know what? People are already up to the debt over their heads, you know, and debt over their heads, you know, encouraging them, incentivizing them to borrow and spend even more is really not helpful. It's not doing anything to increase savings rates and build up another, you know, to to accumulate capital that can then

be borrowed and spent. And so it's just, it's just, it's compounding the problems, whereas, you know, the, the kind of the Austrian economics view of things would be, well, you need to allow the market correction to occur. And of course, the Federal Reserve does everything it can to prevent the market correction, which is, you know, looking back at the Great Depression, What, what made it

great? Well, the government, you know, the, the Hoover in FDR policies of, of the spending programs in the New Deal, which started under Hoover and continued under FDR and, and the Federal Reserve's, the Federal Reserve's policy and inflationary policy is what made the Great Depression great and but before that in 1921. I was just going to say for for people not familiar with this cause, Krugman likes to say 50 Herbert Hoover's. That's his case against austerity.

Hoover increased government spending by 48% over his administration and enacted to smooth Hawley tariffs. This was not a free market isolationist, even though that myth persists to this day. Krugman even mentioned that in front of Ron Paul and he just didn't have the numbers on him at the time. You were the depression of 19/20/21. Yeah, it which the government basically sat back and did nothing and it was short.

It was, it was severe, but it was, it was short and it and the correct, the correction was rapid and things were soon rolling along again and the economy got back on its feet. And so that's what needs to happen is they need to allow the market correction to occur. They need to allow the malinvestment, you know, to, to essentially to, for resources to be reallocated efficiently a lot. But you know which again, the role of market prices.

People don't understand the, the function of market prices and the importance of prices to enable the efficient allocation of scarce resources. And so when the government interferes, it'd take the heart healthcare mark, you know, healthcare industry, the so-called healthcare system where there is no, there's no such thing as market prices because the government is so heavily intervened into that

market that prices don't exist. And so why do, why do people think that Healthcare is so unaffordable? Well, it's precisely because we have the government intervening so deeply in every single aspect of our lives and our, our health. And so it's caused this huge problem where essentially you have this government enforced medical cartel. And that's what that's what passes for a healthcare system in the United States.

It's amazing. That is the problem is just all the government interference into the market just creates all these problems, causes price increases, inefficient use of of resources. And the solution is to just allow the market to correct itself and then, and then then stop doing what's causing the problems in the 1st place. We need to end the Federal Reserve. We need to end the the the legalized system of counterfeiting. Exactly. Oppose both foreign and domestic imperialism.

It's amazing that they will say things like, well, to grow the economy, we need to stimulate demand, we need to increase the money supply, we need to spend. Krugman went as far as to say if we thought there was going to be an alien invasion and the government mobilized against the alien invasion, the recession would be over in 18 months. That's an actual quote. So he doesn't differentiate spending.

That's the result of revealed choice preference in people's voluntary exchanges versus the state printing money or confiscating money, spending it on behalf of involuntary investors. That should just be basic for anyone who's trying to say well there's two schools of thought, Keynes and the Austrian. To even equate these two with that Santa Claus logic. Do they have a do they? How would you summarize the disagreement they have on the

origin of what creates wealth? Austrians versus Keynesian? How is wealth created in the 1st place? How did Singapore go from impoverished to wealthy? Yeah, well, Krugman has this idea that that economic growth comes from spending. And so we just need to, if people are spending, you know, hey, if I buy something from you and then you've got money in your pocket and you go buy something from someone else and it's hey, great. Every time money exchanges hands, that's like, that's

economic growth. But that's not actually the case. It it depends how the money is spent. It depends on is it, is it, is it debt being spent? You know, is it, are you borrowing and spending? Is that capital actually there? And also there's the the broken window fallacy that they rely on all the time. So you have to look at the opportunity costs so that you know. So walk me through the broken window fallacy using this

example. There were terrible hurricanes recently in North Carolina and Florida. And the good thing is it caused a lot of destruction, which is going to create a lot of jobs. And they'll those people who get the jobs are going to spend that money, and that's going to stimulate growth. What, if anything, is wrong with that understanding of how wealth is created?

Yeah, sure. Well, let me just first explain, you know, the the broken window fallacy kind of where I'm getting that from, which is Frederick Bastia in in his eighteen, forget what year it was. But in the 1800s he wrote an essay that which is seen and that which is not seen, I think was the title of the whole, the kind of the mini book he wrote a pamphlet or a book in. In that book, there was a section on on the fallacy of not

considering opportunity costs. So which is the reason it's called a broken window fallacy is because he gave this parable, the story use the example of a of a shopkeeper who gets his window broken. And so then he has to pay the glazier to come and fix his window. And so the mainstream economists of Bastiat stay would say, oh, look, there's economic growth, that the job was created. And so Bastiat pointed out that that's a fallacy.

That's not correct. In fact, there was an economic loss because had the window not been broken, the shopkeeper would have had both that money that he had spent on, on fixing the window and he would have had his window. And so the destruction doesn't, isn't a means of growing the economy because the shopkeeper could have otherwise spent that

money in a more efficient way. If the, if he would have still had the window, he could have, then maybe he needed a helper in his shop and he could have created a job by using that money to, to hire a helper, you know, to sweep a shop or something. And so it's, and then he would have had both. And so you would have had the great job created and the window with it, without it, without the

destruction. You know, Krogen literally argued that the the 9/11 attacks could be good for the economy because, you know, people are going to go out and buy bottled waters and stuff and they had to rebuild the towers. But you know, that again, the problem in this situation of the Hurricanes, Yeah, well, if the destruction didn't occur in the 1st place, you wouldn't have to spend so much money to rebuild it. So you're just, you're just getting back to where you started.

And you know, in terms of having stuff like houses, you know, that are destroyed. And so if the hurricane didn't cause all this destruction, then you that all those resources would be available to, to, to spend in more efficient ways, in more productive ways. And instead of just rebuilding what you already had. So you get back to like where you were when you started and you haven't created anything.

And so it's just not the case. It's it's it's the broken window fallacy, which is just incessantly repeated by mainstream economists in the mainstream media. They don't seem to understand the importance of considering opportunity cost. Yes, I would love to just speak with the average person in Malawi and try to sell them on

this. I'd say look what you guys need in Malawi. You need a war to break out because that's going to grow the economy and you need to increase the money supply to maybe threefold and then increase your minimum wage. I wonder if even the average person would be like, well, how is that going to increase our productivity levels if there's, you know, no private property, if there's no free trade, there's no protection of

investments? I wonder if the average person who's actually in poverty, rather than the Krugman's and the Keynesians who are so far removed from it that they can just advocate it without ever having to bear the cost of the inevitable downsides. Anything more we should know about the Austrian versus Keynesian school before moving on? Yeah, just to come back to that question, I didn't fully answer it. So that's kind of the difference between the, the, the Keynesian

Krugman view. Where is it? Where does it come from? And you know, it's, it's like they just think it's just spending. And I'm saying, well, no, it matters what type of spending. And so to come back to that point, you know, economic growth really comes from savings. It's not spending, it's the

savings. And so when you save and you accumulate capital and then you're able to, which sometimes requires, you know, you sometimes you have to sacrifice to be able to save and you can't go out and buy those things that you, that you want. So it's, it's, but you're, but you're saving it for a purpose. And so, and then you're able to invest it. And that's really where the

economic growth comes from. And so that's that's kind of the other point to just kind of wrap up that question is it, it matters where, how, where the spending comes from and and what this spent on. And so it really comes from from investment of savings as opposed to just any spending whatsoever.

Next we have a book from you titled The War on Informed Consent, The Persecution of Doctor Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board. This is published by the Children's Health Defense and RFK Junior wrote the foreword. Is that correct? Yep, that's correct. Sky Horse Publishing is is the the publishing company, but Children's Health Defense has a has an imprint with them. So it was kind of published through Children's Health Defense with Sky Horse. Got it.

So I would never have questioned this something maybe like two or three years ago. But after realizing there was no difference in states that had mask mandates and states that didn't when it came to COVID deaths. After realizing the lockdowns actually showed no effect.

If you compare comparable populations with the amount of time they locked down, Florida did not have more access deaths even accounting for Florida's older population than California. And then the nail in the coffin for me was this food pyramid from the USDA that since 1992 has and telling people the main thing you should get at least 11 servings a day of bread and pasta. And now people are shocked at the obesity epidemic.

So when it comes to vaccines, by the way, do you have the numbers on how many people a year die as a causal result of prescribed medications or doctors not performing well on the job?

I hear it's like one of the highest causes of death outside of. Yeah, there was a study, it's been a number of years since that study came out, but there was a study I think was published in the BMJ, if memory serves, that found it that that was the third leading cause of death in the United States. And I doubt that that's changed, if anything is probably gotten worse. I mean, you have the opioid epidemic, so. Medical malpractice. Is that the term?

Actually, I think it was prescription drugs. Prescription. Drugs, it might have been coupled with medical malpractice, but I think those were actually 2 separate categories. And so when you when you combine all of the all of the ways in which the medical system itself kills people, I would be completely unsurprised if it was the leading cause of death. And there's also historical examples I believe. Tell me if this is a myth or not.

I'm not married to this idea, but my understanding was that originally at home births were safer for the mother and the child than hospital births because before the germ theory was understood, doctors were not washing their hands. Is that accurate? Yeah, yeah. In fact, when people there was a particular individual, I don't remember the person's name, but I think it, I think it was maybe a midwife. I don't, I don't recall that the

history there. But there's somebody like publicly speaking out and just saying like these doctors need to wash their hands. And the mainstream medical system was just like dismissive of that, like how ridiculous. But of course that was a big problem and that that was causing a lot of of, of infant deaths and infant infant mortality rate was, was very high. So just that one simple thing of washing hands caused quite a reduction in infant mortality. That's true.

Now, what is a vaccine? We couldn't really even agree on this when it came to the mRNA vaccine. Some say, well, it's mRNA technology. What a vaccine does is it gives you a small dose of an illness in order to increase, in order to decrease the likelihood that a larger exposure to this will actually make you I'll, you know, like give you a small portion of the virus to protect you from something that's more deadly.

Some say, well, it's about the goal of the vaccine is so you never get sick or well, actually the goal is to decrease your symptoms if you do catch it. What is a vaccine? Well, the traditional vaccine is as you described, you know, they would, they would inject you with the antigen. So, you know, maybe I killed a virus or what they call a live virus, which is attenuated or weakened.

So there's those two types of viral vaccines, the live and the killed, although viruses aren't technically alive, they're not technically living things, but for the sake of just using the, the language that everyone's familiar with. But then or bacterial vaccines, you know, the, the pertussis vaccine is an example. So, you know, they had, they have, you know, either a weekend or a part of the, the antigen is a component of the vaccine. But of course there's all kinds

of other ingredients. Some vaccines, well in the past, many childhood vaccines contain mercury. They phase that out around the turn of the century. Flu shots, multi dose vials of flu shots still contain mercury. And many vaccines contain aluminum, another known neurotoxin. And when you say aluminum are I'm picturing the can that Diet Coke comes in. Is that what you're literally referring to? Yeah, aluminum. Well, they, they use a form of

aluminum in the vaccines. I mean, and there's different compounds of of the aluminum that they use, but they use it as a so the mercury they use as a preservative. So it's to preserve, you know, because the multi those vials, so you, you have multiple doses out of a single vial. And so there's the preservative to avoid contamination. So that's what mercury is used for. Aluminum is used as what they call an adjuvant, which is essentially the purpose is to cause a more inflammatory

reaction. So it's in the downstream. You'll have a higher level of antibodies by including the aluminum in there. And so the pharmaceutical companies require the adjuvant in many of their vaccines because without it, just the antigen component alone doesn't cause enough of a reaction to induce the level of antibodies required to gain FDA licensure. So that's just kind of some background on on aluminum and vaccines. So, you know, you have to be careful about what the

ingredients are. But of course, you know, then as you mentioned, so that that's kind of the traditional vaccine and that's what it is. And the purpose being, you know, as they used to define a vaccine was to confer immunity. Well, what is immunity? So immunity being, well, you, you can be exposed to a pathogen and yet either not become infected or suffer only mild symptoms because your immune system effectively fights it off.

And then of course, the mRNA vaccines came along, which are built on gene therapy technology. And there was this whole debate about what's the definition of a vaccine. The CDC literally changed the death, its definition of a vaccine. And so again, yeah, go ahead. And gain of function research. They explicitly gain tattoo PPP. Fauci tried to play word games with the definition of gain of function. But so you had that whole debate about what what is a vaccine?

But essentially, you know, they basically claim, well, it's a vaccine because the design is to give you immunity. Of course, when the vaccines first rolled out, they were claiming number one, that all summer long in 2020, all through that summer and fall, there was all kinds of propaganda claiming that natural immunity is weak and short lived and we need the vaccines because that's going to be what's going to give us good

immunity. That was all a bunch of BS as I was writing all summer long and all through the fall, that the the claim that they were making that that natural immunity is weak and short lived was all a bunch of BS as I was exposing at the time. And then when the shots rolled around before, before they were even authorized for emergency use, which was in December 2020, they were already claiming that they were going to confer herd immunity.

This was going to be the path out of the pandemic because the mRNA shots were going to confer herd immunity, which means that they would stop infection and transmission. And so 2 doses was the claim. They, they claim that two doses of the mRNA shots would confer durable sterilizing immunity, sterilizing immunity being stopping, stopping infection and transmission, which and, and again at the time, this isn't

hindsight. At the time I was pointing out that there was no scientific evidence to support that claim because of course, the clinical trials weren't designed to determine effectiveness against infection and and transmission. And so anyhow, So what is a vaccine that those are they, they from their point of view, it's supposed to confer

immunity. And then when the vaccines essentially were proven not to stop infection and transmission, suddenly it became, Oh, well, it's to reduce the severity of symptoms, which is also ironic because it's, it's, it started out, you need the vaccine to get high level of antibodies, right? This was the whole, the whole argument, the whole framework. So you want to get your antibody levels up really high.

And which was also ironic because when you looked at cases of infection, high levels of antibodies were actually associated with severe disease, whereas people who had lower levels of antibodies tended to be have lesser symptoms or completely asymptomatic. They never developed the disease because they had superior cellular immune function.

So there's the antibody immunity or humoral immunity, which is the antibodies in your blood, but there's also cellular immunity and T cells that serve different functions. And so with with COVID-19 in particular, cellular immunity is very, very important. And it's not so much about the

antibodies. And so they're, they're saying, well, you need a high level of antibodies, which was already ironic to begin with, because it just, that's not the correlation when you look at infections and severity of disease. And then suddenly, suddenly when they, when it was proven that the shots don't stop infection and transmission and they started calling for boosters, suddenly they discovered

cellular immunity. And they say, oh, well, don't worry, your antibodies wane but, and you lose your antibodies, but there's cellular immunity. And so, you know, the irony of that, it's like, well, how come they weren't educating people about cellular immunity when they were claiming that antibodies from infection were insufficient, right. When they were claiming that natural immunity was weak and

short lived. And about the basis for that claim was that after the peak phase of infection, after the acute phase of infection, they were looking at people who recovered from COVID and, and, and measuring the antibodies and there was a rapid decline of antibodies. They were claiming they were, they were saying like, oh, look, people's people are losing their antibodies are losing their immunity, which every immunology, I mean, this is a

basic immunology. Every immunologist who like supported that propaganda claim was complicit in, in an absolute intentional, deliberate deception because they all know that that's completely normal. That's what happens after the acute phase of infection. But looking longer term at the antibodies of people who recovered from infection, antibodies persisted at a lower level. They plateau, they after the initial rapid drop, they, they

plateau at A at a lower level. Plus this completely overlooked the role of immune memory. So you have immunological memory where your body learns how to fight off a pathogen and it develops effective antibodies. And then if you encounter that pathogen again, you can wrap it. You don't need the body doesn't have to go through that relearning process all over again. You can rapidly turn out antibodies as needed to fight off an infection, which again, this is immunology one O 1 stuff.

And yet this was the basis for the whole lie that natural immunity is weak and short lived and people who were recovering from people who recovered from COVID were losing their immunity. That was literally the claim in in the headlines. And it was all a bunch of it was all a deception for the specific aim of because if we go back to March of of 2020, the end, the explicitly stated end game of the lockdowns was coerced mass vaccination and, and, and my

source for that is the the. Imperial College London paper that was put out, if you remember the lockdowns, the claim for the lockdowns was that we need to flatten the curve. Yes. Right. They never even claimed that it would save lives. It originally they had said this will stop the overflow of hospitalizations. The only lives it would save would be excess deaths due to lack of care because hospitals

were overflowing. It wasn't to stop deaths from from COVID per SE, OK, because the area under the curve was the same. So instead of a short sharp peak, it's a flatter, a flatter wave. I know it's supposed to be, you know, 14 days to flatten the curve or something like that. And so they cited this Imperial

College paper that was put out. But what the media didn't talk about was how actually that paper that the authors of that Neil Ferguson and colleagues had claimed that, well, we need to keep things under lockdown until a vaccine is developed and then only once everyone is vaccinated can can we stop doing these lockdowns. And so again, the explicitly stated end game of the lockdowns from the start was always

coerced mass vaccination. And that would have been so important because then there never could have been the counterfactual of like right when a judge repealed the mask mandate on airplanes, they were in big trouble because we'd expect there to be mass deaths, massive increase in COVID cases and all these symptoms, hospitals overrun. But you saw no significant change. So you could compare the before and afterwards.

Whereas if everyone had gotten vaccine, no matter what happened, they could just say over there a million deaths, you're welcome. There would have been 30 million had everyone not been vax. But now we can actually compare the vax population versus the unvax. Of course, there's a selection process. So even know, there was a time where it's like more people are dying with the vaccine than without. Well, you're more likely to get the vax if you're old.

You're more likely to die if you're old and if you get COVID and you're old. So how can we verify whether these vaccines actually did help the people who got them? Well, unfortunately because as soon as the FDA issued emergency use authorization which is a status for experimental investigational drugs, the they effectively ended the trials because they vaccinated away the placebo control groups.

And so we never, we don't have any long term data any good, you know, from, from like randomized trials. We have no good data from randomized trials on the long term effects of these vaccines. So we have no way to compare with really good data the the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, which is really important that you have to look at #1 long term outcomes and #2 you can't narrow your focus to just COVID outcomes.

So for example, they'll say that, well, you need, you need the COVID vaccine to reduce your risk of death from COVID. But let's just stipulate that the, the vaccines reduce your risk of dying from COVID. It doesn't mean that reduces your risk of dying because it might simultaneously increase your risk of dying from other causes. In fact, there's a there's a term for this in the literature. It's non specific effects. So vaccines can have non

specific effects. And the best, probably best known example of this is the diphtheria, tetanus and wholesale pertussis vaccine, which is not used in developed countries anymore, but it's still the most widely used vaccine around the world in the developing world.

And the studies show that that vaccine is actually associated with an increased rate of childhood mortality because even though it seems to offer protection against the three target diseases, it detrimentally effects children's immune systems in a way that makes them more vulnerable to other diseases. And so they're dying at a higher rate from other causes than they otherwise would have from the

three target diseases. And so This is why a vaccine can appear to be effective against the target diseases and yet increase your risk of dying. And so it's really important to look at all 'cause mortality and all health outcomes. There's also health outcomes, autoimmune diseases, asthma, allergies, all sorts of chronic, you know, neuro, neurodevelopmental diseases, autism, might as well bring that up. There are all kinds of other possible outcomes, health outcomes that need to be

compared. And the CDC has been really adamant about not doing those types of studies that they, they won't do studies comparing, you know, the childhood population, which is incredibly sick. It's frighteningly sick, the childhood population in the US with epidemic rates of chronic illnesses and diseases and disorders. So one thing I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. When I originally thought of autism I thought of literally a

Down syndrome child. However, if you look at how they define it, 1 alternative could be they've changed the definition of autism because I work with a lot of kids and while a lot of them are listed as autist, as autistic, they don't come off as like, you know, visibly having a mental disorder. What do you mean when you say autism? And is there a causal connection between getting a vaccine and a child who did not have autism having autism in the future? Yeah.

So I mean, the technical name for it is autism spectrum disorder. So there's a spectrum which is diagnosed based on symptoms. And so yeah, there there could be mild cases of autism or severe. I mean, some children are non completely non verbal, for example, whereas others, you know, they they, they do OK. You know, they can be sociable, they're they're commutative, they can, they can verbalize ideas and things. And, you know, they're just a milder case.

And so it is a spectrum. And so as far as the question, you know, of course, we're all supposed to believe that the, the idea that vaccines can cause autism has been debunked. Well, there's that, that claim is disinformation. And we're supposed to believe it as a matter of faith because we're told there's been study after study after study looking

at that question. Well, but first of all, you have, you have the situation where the government itself has acknowledged that vaccines can cause autism.

And so in 1986, the government passed a, a, a law called the National Vaccine Childhood Injury Act, which essentially granted broad legal immunity to the, the vaccine, the Pharmaceutical industry, the manufacturers against injury lawsuits because they were literally going out of business because their vaccines were damaging people and people were suing. And so the government stepped in

to preserve public policy. And it's it's it's policy of advocating mass vaccination and also to save the Pharmaceutical industry to by granting them legal immunity. And part of that was they also established the vaccine injury compensation program, the VICP, which is funded by an excise tax on every dose of vaccine administered. So effectively, the law shifted the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the Pharmaceutical industry and on

to the tax paying consumer. And so under the VICP, there was a case of a young girl named Hannah Polling who received, I think it was 9 doses at once at 19 months of age and regressed into autism, diagnosed autism And her father happened to be a neurologist and WHO recognize that it was the vaccine that caused her regression into autism. And this is really interesting to her.

Her doctor happened to be a doctor named Andrew Zimmerman, who is an expert in autism, a renowned expert in autism and someone who the government had used as a witness during these the ICP cases. And so he had testified on behalf of the government in in cases before the vaccine was sometimes called the vaccine court. So he was an expert witness for the government. Problem is that he turned around and agreed that yes, the receipt, the receipt of those 9 doses at once caused Hannah's

autism. And in fact, the government itself acknowledged this in the case that it was that the the receipt of those vaccines because Hannah had a mitochondrial disorder, mitochondrial dysfunction. And so I mean, if you don't, if you're, if you have a mitochondria dysfunction that can cause all kinds of problem with your cellular metabolism, including, for example, like a lesser ability to detox. Not everyone is at the same risk of having adverse events or negative impact of vaccinations.

But essentially what what the vaccines caused with kind of pulling was they cause a high fever, brain inflammation, which led to brain injury, which manifested as symptoms of autism. And the government acknowledged this in the case. And the CDC director at the time and Julia Gerberting or Julie Gerberting went on CNN and said, yeah, we all know sometimes vaccines can cause fever and then fever can cause other problems. And sometimes that can manifest as autism, like symptoms.

And she was saying, like, symptoms similar to autism, but she really meant autism because autism is diagnosed again, based on its symptoms. So she was effectively acknowledging that, yeah, it was the vaccines that caused Hannah Polling's autism. So just so people know, this is actually something that is well known, but it's one of those open secrets, shall we say, much like Zelensky not holding his

elections and conscripting men. We all know it, but we just don't talk about it. Here's CBS News, September 10th of 2010. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Polling will receive more than $1.5 million for her life, care, lost earnings, and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million

over the child's lifetime. CBS News So realize we're not just quoting Alex Jones here. Other things that I actually want to share. Robert F Kennedy Junior has promoted the Children's Health defense and he collects peer reviewed published research showing adverse effects of mercury. And what he's done is he's collected the abstracts from hundreds of papers over the year. I actually had to upload them into two sections, the World Mercury Project as well.

I will keep these links in the description below. But it's just incredible to know that there is actually there are mainstream scientists who are actually going after this. It's just such a well kept secret. I'm sorry to interrupt you. It's just hard to structure this conversation, so I want to make sure I get that. Again, that's a great point. We should come back to that. So I'm glad you brought that up. We should, we should come back

to the point of mercury. But just to kind of wrap up, I want to also make a point. So that was a case of the government admitting that, yes, vaccines can and do cause autism in, in this case with a child who had a mitochondrial disorder. So coming back to the studies, because of course, we're all told, oh, study after study after study has proven that that vaccines do not cause autism. There is no association. But here's the problem with

those studies. None of them were designed to consider a subpopulation of genetically or in, in children with a genetic or environmentally cause susceptibility. So it's not the case that every child would have like an equal risk of, of, of having an adverse reaction to vaccination manifesting as symptoms of

autism. And so you really have to design a study specifically to test the hypothesis that vaccines administered according to the CDC's routine childhood schedule can can increase the risk of developing autism among genetically susceptible children. Or, or again, it could be an environmental environmentally caused susceptibility. And they haven't done that. They didn't design the studies to do that.

And you look at the CD, you go to the CDCS web page where it says vaccines do not cause autism. And interestingly, it they'll cite the Institute of Medicine, which didn't draw that conclusion. They did did conclude that that the evidence favors rejection of the hypothesis, but they also pointed out that the studies hadn't been done to test the hypothesis that vaccines could increase the risk of autism among genetically susceptible children. So the studies hadn't been done.

That's what the IOM really said, the Institute of Medicine, and but that's what the CDC quotes to support its claim that vaccines do not cause autism. So you see this sleight of hand here. You see the problem with this?

And then of course, if you look at every single one of the CDC studies that it did itself purporting to prove that that vaccines do not cause autism, again, these are not, again, they're not randomized controlled trials of any kind, that they're observational studies that are essentially designed. The CDC had designed the studies to find no association, and you can design a study to find no

association. Here's one really good way to do it. There's something called a healthy user bias or healthy vaccinee bias in this case, which is there was a 2015 study actually that of course then all the media headlines reported on this study as once again that once again a study finding that there's no association between MMR vaccine and autism even among genetically susceptible

children. But again, that was just a major deception because what that study actually found was not that children who who received the vaccine were at no more risk for autism than children who didn't. Rather, what they found that children who were at higher risk of autism, there was a lower vaccination rate among that subpopulation of children. So what happens is you have parents who are who, for example, they might have an

older sibling. And then, and this is specifically what they looked at in this study, they were looking at children. They defined genetic susceptibility as a child who had an older sibling with autism. And So what would happen is parents would have a first child who probably was vaccinated, developed autism, and then with a second child or younger sibling, they, because of the experience with the first child,

they would skip the MMR shot. And So what happens is you have, you have this pooling of genetically susceptible individuals into the unvaccinated cohort. And so the, the, the logical conclusion from that study should have been, well, we've discovered that there's a, there's a healthy user bias. And so studies that examine the studies need to be designed to test the hypothesis that vaccines can contribute to the development of autism and genetically susceptible children.

And those studies need to be able to control for this healthy user bias. But of course, that's not what they do. They just throw up their hands and say, oh, another study that proves that vaccines don't cause autism. You see the deception here, they're, they're, and then they can literally design studies not to find an association because now they're aware of, of these types of biases in the study. And so they, they design more and more studies that, that don't control for this type of

problem. And they, they produce the results that they want. And then they, they, they say that, well, oh, look, we, we, we've proven that vaccines don't cause autism. And of course, observational studies, they talk about observational studies. If it produces the desired result somehow, that's proof.

It's scientific proof. But any time an observational study finds an association between vaccination and harm, then they always focus on the methodological flaws because of course, every study is imperfect. And so they always focus on, oh, that study was flawed. But anytime the study produces the result they want, do you ever hear them talking about all the flaws in the study?

Of course not. And so there's just this institutionalized bias and institutionalized fraud essentially in the, in the, in the public messaging, it's, it's fraudulent. And so there's a lot of problems there. And this goes back to Mercury. So let's let's, that's a good segue there.

So to come back to the point of Mercury, because what happened with the mercury, the reason why they removed the mercury around the turn of the century is because the CDC had been continually adding throughout the late 80s and 90s, continually adding more vaccines to the schedule that contain mercury without anyone in government. Considering that the potential health harms arising from the cumulative doses of mercury that children were receiving from the

CDC schedule. And when they finally got around to doing the calculation, which happened by accident because Congress had just tasked the FDA with, with querying the industry to determine because of the concerns about mercury toxicity and, and the problems, the health harms on the population from, from mercury exposure. They, the FDA was tasked with querying the industry about like what are all the mercury containing products on the market?

And so that the lists they got back from the manufacturers in, in the industry included vaccines. And so they finally got around, this was like 19 to 98, I think they finally got around to doing the calculations with the, with the childhood schedule and they determined that the the CDC schedule was exposing infants, you know, six months and under to cumulative levels of mercury in excess of the government's own safety guidelines. So you don't hear that.

You don't hear that that's the reason why mercury was removed from the vaccines. In fact, if you go to the CD CS website again and they say, well, you know, mercury was removed and they don't talk about that whole history, you completely whitewash it and they just say that it was done not because there was any evidence of harm, but simply out of an abundance of caution. That's what the CDC says.

And of course, the mainstream media run with that that whole propaganda narrative which completely whitewashes how the the CDC was responsible for for. Massively overdosing children with mercury, which is of course a known neurotoxin. In fact, again, you can return to the CDCS own own sources and they'll say that, you know, the mercury in vaccines is safe and they'll cite like the Institute of Medicine.

And you go to the Institute of Medicine report and you read the hundreds of pages for yourself and you find out that the Institute of Medicine acknowledges that yeah, mercury is a quote known neurotoxin. That quote accumulates in the brain and quote can cause neurological harm. Just. Such a huge deception. But I had always heard, I don't know if this is like real advice that's given to pregnant women, but the whole thing was no drinking alcohol, no smoking crack, no drinking coffee, and

no eating fish. The reason fish is on there as somewhat of an outlier is there's a large amount of mercury, which is OK for adults, but children are especially susceptible. Is this literally the same type of mercury or is it like just the same word that has different meanings? Like fat in foods does not correlate to fat on your body? Are they literally referring to mercury That's both in fish and in these vaccines? The mercury, the form of mercury in fish is called methyl

mercury. The form of mercury in vaccines is called ethyl mercury. So they're two different forms. They're both known neurotoxins. But this is this is another, another, another deception of the of the CDC is because the CDC will say, Oh, well, yeah, the mercury that you get exposed to from fish is that's toxic. But the, the mercury in vaccines is, is safe and non-toxic. Why?

Well, they say that, well, because the, the body rapidly eliminates ethyl mercury, unlike methyl mercury, which will accumulate. And so let's say, well, yeah, you get a, you get a, a small dose of the, the ethyl mercury in, in the, in the vaccine, but it's harmless because the body just rapidly eliminates it. But that, that's again, that's

just a fraudulent claim. And there was a study in 2005 showing that comparing it that actually criticized the, the, the regulatory establishment, the FDA, because when they're, they're talking about the safety levels and risk with vaccines, they actually use the safety guidelines for methyl mercury. Why? Because they've never established safety guidelines for exposure to ethyl mercury. And so the authors of the study in 2005 were, were criticizing

the FDA for that. And incidentally, the study that I'm referring to, the 2005 study, FDA researchers themselves have described as the best study for a comparison of toxicology between methyl mercury and ethyl mercury. So this is this is a very well done study. And what the study actually found was that yes, ethyl mercury is more readily eliminated from the blood than methyl mercury, but it it's more cumulative in the brain, it accumulates in the brain at a higher rate than methyl mercury.

It does and. So. The claim that, well, ethyl mercury is safe because it's rapidly eliminated from the, from the body. This the main study that they, they look at to support that claim. Just looked at blood levels and they didn't ask, they didn't ask the question, well, where did the mercury go? Where did it go? Well, guess what? It accumulates in tissues and organs, including the brain. And so it's just not the case that the, the mercury is rapidly eliminated from the body.

Some of it remains in the body and it become, it becomes part of the, the, the body burden of toxicity. And of course, and it's the same study, the 2005 study I'm talking about that did this comparison of methyl mercury and ethyl mercury and accumulation. They also expressed great concern about this accumulation of ethyl mercury in the brain.

And it breaks down from an organic form of mercury to inorganic form, which is one of the reasons why ethyl mercury accumulates more than methyl mercury, because it breaks down into inorganic mercury faster or more readily. And so they expressed concern about this mercury accumulating in the brain of children precisely because it's it's known to cause an active inflammation state like this chronic inflammation in the brain, which is known to be

associated with autism and. You know, intriguingly, this this is this. Is one of the studies that the CDC cites. Believe this or not, this is one of the studies that the CDC site sites to support its claim that vaccines do not cause autism. So. It is really difficult for me. To, you know, even start on this path of understanding the terms, understanding what they mean.

What I just went by when I decided not to get the vaccine is I look at the people promoting it and they have the worst reputations known to medicine. Anyone advocating mask mandates, lockdowns, it was very clear that there was no correlation between states that lock down and had mask mandates versus states that didn't. They had the companies had complete liability. You couldn't sue them, so they had no incentive to provide a

good quality product. You had the state engage in a mass media propaganda campaign, you had a lot of employers mandating it. So again, they know our products going to be consumed whether people really want it or not. Very little incentive for them to provide a good quality product or service. You also had them saying there are no long term side effects when this thing is like six

months or a year old. They then announced that we actually have the vaccine like 24 to 48 hours after it's announced that Biden actually won. Whereas if they would have, you know, kept you up to date and said we're getting really close, then Trump, of course, would have claimed that Operation Warp Speed did this correctly. And then finally, the blatant lack of focusing on any alternatives. It was locked down. Wear a mask until the vaccine comes out.

It's like, is there nothing I can do in the meantime? Is there any correlation between people that are obese and people who die from COVID? Could have maybe that? How about the ketogenic diet which like 10s of thousands of people have lost more than £100 on? Or the carnivore diet? Is there anything we can do? Is there any credence to the hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin or going outside or walking? Is there anything we can do in

the meantime? Nope. Lock down and wait for Pfizer to tell you that it's OK to come out. We have one more topic. So anything else we should know about vaccines? I'm happy to hear if you want to mention measles, polio, or just any false narratives in general that people have about vaccines or the medical industrial complex.

Yeah, sure. We can talk about each of those at. Great length, but that would just kind of take a broader view here and and just point out how you know, what parents have really been demanding is a study comparing long term health outcomes between children who follow the CDC schedule and completely unvaccinated children. And of course, the CDC has refused to do this type of study. But independent researchers? Have forged ahead in that.

Area and I cover this in my book The War on Informed Consent. And the best of those studies is 1 by Doctor Paul Thomas, who, who I wrote the book about because the book is about his persecution by the Oregon Medical Board. But of course it, it provides all the context and the historical context of the vaccine program and the, you know, it gets into the legal immunity and, and, and the history with the, the mercury and it provides all that

context. But it, it really is a story of how the, the government has been #1 going after parents and trying to eliminate their ability to exercise informed consent by eliminating, you know, like what they call, you know, philosophical or religious exemptions and allowing medical exemptions, but only medical exemptions like in the state of California determined, you know, that are essentially once determined by the CDC, if the CDC has a, has a

contraindication to a vaccine. In other words, if you're a certain person who has a certain condition or something, and they, they actually advise, well, you shouldn't get this vaccine. But it's, it's almost as though you practically have to have already, you know, had a very severe injury from a vaccine to be able to get a medical exemption in some states. And so they go after the parents to try to eliminate their ability to, to exercise choice.

You couple this with the, you know, the, the, the mandates in the, in the school system, but then they're also going after doctors because there would be doctors who would essentially facilitate people's ability to exercise informed consent by writing medical exemptions for them. And so in numerous states, they threaten doctors with de

licensure. And that's what happened to Doctor Paul Thomas. And so I explained his story in there because it's just it's, it's a really it's it really epitomizes the title of the book, the war on informed consent and how the government is really trying to eliminate people's ability to exercise free will and choice when it comes to this pharmaceutical products. And so the big picture view is this, it's that the government won't do a study of comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated

children. But Doctor Paul Thomas did that. In fact, he did it because the the Oregon Medical Board, which was persecuting him, demanded that he produce peer reviewed evidence to support his alternative approach. His alternative approach being to respect parents informed consent and provide them with the information that they needed to be able to make their own choice as opposed to. Just pushing them. To do what the CDC recommends. So that's his alternative approach, right?

And so this threatened the public health establishment in in Oregon. And so the Oregon Medical Board demanded that he produce peer reviewed evidence to support his approach, which, which was ironic because of course the CDC couldn't be, couldn't do that. The CDC could not produce a study comparing, you know, health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children because it doesn't do

that. And so Doctor Paul Thomas teamed up with Doctor James Lyons Weiler and they did that study losing his patients data and they compared his completely unvaccinated patients with the variably vaccinated patients. And I say variably vaccinated because this wasn't the CDC versus unvaccinated study, because the patients in in his practice, they they all had their own schedules. The parents would make their own choices.

Sometimes they would skip a shot, sometimes they would delay it, you know, So it was an totally individualized approach. And so they did the unvaccinated versus variably vaccinated study and the outcome showed very clearly and just unambiguously that the his completely unvaccinated patients were the by far the healthiest children in his practice and that. Study was. Actually retracted later, which isn't in my book because it didn't happen at the time, but

it was later retracted. But the reason for the retraction was completely political. They did not identify any flaws or problems with the study that would have legitimized the retraction. It was it was. It was actually retracted based on an anonymously written letter that complained about the methodology on the grounds that the, the, the claim was that, well, the study's not showing that unvaccinated children are really healthy or really they're just as sick as all the

vaccinated kids. It's just that their parents don't care about their health enough to go in and, and see the doctors. And so they're just not getting diagnosed. That's the, that's the argument, which of course, that's not a reason to retract a study. You could express a concern about a methodology from that, but that's not like that's not a reason to, it was not a legitimate reason to eat a hypothetical selection bias,

basically. Well, there's a hypothetical selection biases in, in any observational study. That's not a reason for retraction. Right. And so the irony of that was that actually in the study, they actually did a test to kind of rule that out because they looked at, well, child visits and incidents of fever. And so they, they and they compared the two and they showed that.

Yeah. Among, among children, among the vaccinated children, Yeah. The office visits for fever was much was much higher, which is expected because of course vaccines can cause fevers, whereas the incidence of well child visits was the same between the two groups. So it wasn't the case that the the parents of unvaccinated children were not bringing them in to see the doctor. They were just as just as routinely for routine visits.

They just weren't coming in for sicknesses and illnesses and disorders. And then and then James Lyons. Weiler. After that, published a second study. After the retraction, published a second study doing more detailed analysis using Doctor Thomas's patient data, showing clearly that it was not a selection bias, where it's just that that they unvaccinated kids were just as sick and had just as many illnesses and chronic diseases and things, but they just weren't being diagnosed.

That wasn't the case at all. If anything, they were actually going in in for routine visits more consistently than the vaccinated kids were. And so it's just it, it just wasn't the case at all. And so the study was wrongly retracted is, is my point. And I just want to bring that up because, you know, if you go and you read my book and you look at the study now, it'll say no, that that, that it's been

retracted. So it's really important, I think to, to kind of follow up on that and explain that to people about how that's, and, and this is another example of just the bias. And there's, there's bias even getting anything critical of vaccines published in the 1st place. And then even if it does manage to get published, you know, if you, if it's, you just got a much higher chance of, of being attacked and criticized.

Again, there's this, there's this institutionalized bias where if it produces the right findings, it's, it's scientific proof. But if it, if it calls into question CDC's practices, oh, then it's a flawed study. And, and so this is what happened with with that case. So the point being that the scientific evidence indicates that completely unvaccinated children are healthier. And the government and industry do not want you to know this.

And they want you to go on vaccinating children according to the CDC schedule. They want you to get your COVID shot. They want you to get your flu shot every year, but that the science does not support these practices. In fact, you'd look into the flu shot, for example, Here's an example. New York Times will say, oh, a 2010 Cochrane review, which is a systematic review and meta analysis looking at a broad body of, of studies on on the flu shots.

New York Times saying, you know, the the the systematic review found that flu shots confer a great public health benefit. So go out and get your flu shot when you go up and go and look up the study. And actually what the the Cochrane review authors found was that the fundamental assumptions underlying the CD CS flu shot recommendation are unsupported by scientific evidence.

The findings of their, of their review call into question the CD CS recommendation for everyone to get a flu shot every year. Oh, and by the way, the CDC is more interested in sustaining and, and supporting its policy than it is in the science which is, which is demonstrated by the fact that it, it systematically mischaracterizes the science. That's what the review actually said. And here it is.

Here's the New York Times saying, well, this study show that the flu shot converts a really great public health benefit, so go get your flu shot. I mean, it's like literally like what the media and the government say that science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different irreconcilable things. And so that is the key final point I just want to make there on that topic and I think one of the. Great lessons.

We can learn from, I sort of learned this from Thomas Sowell. A lot of people in response to Thomas Sowell said, well, you can look at the income of minorities after the Civil Rights Act and they increased, so therefore the Civil Rights Act was a good thing, Sowell said. The goal when you're trying to find the effects of a policy, you don't look at when the policy was enacted and what

happened afterwards. You also have to look at what was happening previously, what was the previous trend before the policy. They do not do this when it comes to polio. They don't do it with measles, nor do they ever look for alternative explanations As for example, increase in access to Purell or other ways that the human beings are using products and services in a more clean manner that could make society healthier overall. They just assume it was introduced.

We got this result. Therefore there's a causal connection between the two. So keep that methodology in mind whenever on that point and I'm going to give you the. Last word on this because I. On that point, again with the vaccines. We're, we're supposed to believe this myth that the reason for, you know, the, the dramatic decline of infectious disease mortality that we saw in the 20th century was because of vaccines.

Actually 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality occurred before there were any vaccines that could possibly help to explain it. And that's straight out of the journal Pediatrics, which is the AA PS journal, the American Academy of Pediatrics. So just looking at the historical data, 90% of the decline occurred was not due to vaccines. And So what was it due to?

It was due to an it's factors related to an increasing standard of liver living, better nutrition, refrigeration, better sanitation, less crowding, etcetera, etcetera. And so there's just this myth about the the effects of vaccination on our health. And I'm absolutely convinced that that one of one of the factors, of course, there's many factors. There's all kinds of environmental toxins and pollutants and things that are affecting people's health. Diet is a big problem.

All the chemicals in our foods is a big problem. But there's no doubt in my mind that vaccinations are greatly contributing to the epic epidemics of chronic diseases in this country. There's no doubt whatsoever. The sciences, it's just there. I mean, it's really clear and the mechanisms are there. They're known. And yet you're not allowed to talk about it.

You're not allowed to think it. You're not allowed to question it. So it's, it's a really, we're supposed to believe in the myth, just like we're supposed to believe that the World War 2 ended the Great Depression and so on and so forth. There's all these myths and it, it, it's true with vaccines too. We're supposed to believe all these myths and not look at the science and not do our own research and not think for ourselves.

But I really encourage people to, to do what I did, which I, you know, just for my story and why I got into the vaccines in the 1st place when my son, when my wife became pregnant and my son was born in 2012, you know, prior to his birth and after his birth, I was just, I wanted to be able to make decisions reasonably about vaccinations. And so I started digging into the literature. And so that's kind of how I came

by my knowledge. And then after a while I realized, like, man, I've got this knowledge. Like, I can't keep it to myself. I have to, I have to share what I know because it's so alarming, it's so shocking, it's so frightening and it's and it's people need to know.

This information, and so that's kind of why I shifted my focus from foreign policy to the vaccine issue for many years, and which of course put me in a really good place to be able to start, you know, from like from the beginning, I was speaking out against the lockdowns. I was speaking out against the coerced mass vaccination, mass vaccination end game. I was speaking out against the lies about the inadequacy of

natural immunity, the CDC's lie. I debunked the CDC's lie that the vaccines conferred superior immunity. And so I was kind of on top of that right from the start because I, I was already so familiar and used to digging into the scientific literature on these types of issues that I was able to kind of jump right onto that and, and hopefully be effective in in conveying a counter message to all the

mainstream propaganda. You wrote a book titled Obstacle to. Peace, the US role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, published in 2016. I'd like to go in reverse chronological order. Let's look at this document, our narrative Operation Al Aqsa Flood, published by the Hamas media office. What can we learn from this document with regard to what happened on October 7th and what the motive was? Was it anti-Semitism and hatred for the Jewish race or religion?

Or was this in response to something else? Please let us know. Yeah. Al Aqsa Flood. The operation was. Aimed, it had a limited aim to essentially shatter the status quo, the status quo of occupation and oppression. The status quo where the Palestinians living in Gaza, we're living under conditions that even before the the blockade of 2006 that the national security of those Israeli National Security Council had your island had described in 2004 as a giant or a huge concentration camp.

So that was Gaza. Gaza was a huge concentration camp. And then in 2006, of course, you had Hamas winning elections and coming to power in the Palestinian Authority, in the Palestinian government and and it you had a coup. This is getting into the past history, but this is just to understand what the context is for for October 7th. Can can we break that down? You said there's. A blockade now? A blockade. From what I understand, if China blockades Taiwan, that's an act of war.

So you're saying there's been a 20 year declaration of war against the people of Gaza with this blockade? Walk us through what this blockade is. Yeah. So it was a, it was an act of. Punishment. After Hamas won elections, the parliamentary elections in 2006. And so you had a Hamas LED government in power in the occupied territories.

And so the US government colluded with Israel and Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, to essentially try to overthrow the Hamas LED government. Hamas, there was a counter coup, which of course is, is what you always hear of the media will always say that Hamas came to power in a violent coup. Well, actually, no, it was, it was a counter coup to try to stop the, the, the violence coup against it. And the result of that was Fatah was expelled from Gaza.

And so This is why you have this division between the West Bank and Gaza where the PA rules in, in the West Bank still under Mahmoud Abbas, whose term ended in like 2009. He's not a legitimate leader by any means. And then you have the the Hamas as the governing authority in in Gaza. And so Israel's further response to that that outcome was to place to escalate the blockade of Gaza because Gaza has been under a blockade since 1967.

But they escalated the blockade into a state of pretty much total siege where, you know, they're blocking very, it was very limited goods and services allowed into Gaza, extreme limitations on the movement of people in and out of Gaza. This included controlling Gaza's land crossings, its airspace and its territorial waters. You saw in 2010, there was the Freedom Flotilla trying to get aid into Gaza and break the blockade. And it was attacked by Israeli

forces and international waters. And I think it was 9 peace activists were killed. So you have incidents like this. So that this is what I mean by by a blockade. So it, the blockade has been in place. I mean, Israel has controlled Gaza's land, crossings, airspace and territorial waters since 1967, since the occupation began. However, in 2006, in 2007, it escalated that blockade into a state of siege.

And the purpose of the siege was explained by Dove Weisglass, who is Ariel Sharon senior advisor, who described it as he said, it's it's like an appointment with a dietitian. Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but they won't die.

And this was confirmed. The purpose was confirmed by the US State Department and embassy cables explaining that, yeah, Israeli economic officers have confirmed to embassy officials on numerous occasions that the purpose is to keep Gaza on the edge of humanitarian catastrophe without quite pushing it over the edge. So that was Gaza before 10/7. So that's how we can verify whether or.

Not look, we have to reluctantly have this blockade or else they're going to ship in rockets from Iran and Hezbollah and they're going to kill Israeli civilians. That's your way of verifying whether their actions are consistent with their alleged intentions is because of those quotes. Are there any goods that are not allowed into Gaza that we can say? How can you possibly explain that this is protecting Israelis from rockets? Any specific goods?

Back then, yes, I think. Like pre, pre 10/7, you mean? Yes. Yeah. So yeah. At one point, the Israeli human rights organization Geisha had published a list of prohibited items, and it included things like A4 paper, pencils, chocolate. You know, of course concrete. Concrete is a dual use item, right?

Hamas could use concrete to build tunnels, but of course Palestinians also needed concrete to rebuild from Operation Cast Lead and Operation Pillar of Defense and, and all these Israeli operations that were characterized by what the Israeli military establishment described as the Dahia doctrine, which was a policy and an explicit policy of using deliberate, this deliberately disproportionate force, disproportionate force being a subcategory of

indiscriminate attacks under international law. It's a war crime. And so each of those operations was was characterized by deliberate war crimes by the Israeli Defense Forces. So I met an. IDF soldier. On an airplane and I asked him, is the term mowing the lawn or mowing the grass? Is that something you guys really say? And he had a smile on his face. He goes, it is weird to hear someone say that in English in America. But yeah, more or less that's that's what we call it.

He had said that the reason we have to mow the lawn in Gaza and not in the West Bank is Gaza's where the Rockets are coming from. So walk us through Operation Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense. Is this Israel defending itself from Hamas unprovoked attacks? What's the real story? No, in fact, you. Know well even before. That So going back to 2005, you have this, this myth this, this and this ties right into your question, but it's important

context for your question. You have this Zionist propaganda claim that, well, look what happened in 2005. Israel withdrew from Gaza. It ended the occupation of Gaza and all we got in return was thousands of rockets. Well, that's that's just entirely untrue, starting with the claim that Israel ended its occupation in 2005. It's true that it did withdraw settlers and military forces from Gaza, but of course, its occupation continued it under

international law. It remained the occupying power by virtue of its control over the territory, including its land crossings. You know, the Armistice line, fence crossings. People call it a border. It's not a border. The control over its territorial waters, its airspace and, and, and continued administrative functions that Israel performs in in the Gaza Strip. So the occupation was never ended. In fact, it was escalated into a state of total siege as I've

already explained. And, and repeatedly it was Israel that violated ceasefires, including before Operation Cast Lead, which was from December, December 28th, memory serves, December 27th, 2008 to January 18th, 2009. And before that, there had been a ceasefire in place starting from June 16th or June 19th, forget the exact dates. There was a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that was honored uncontroversially, it was honored by Hamas. It was violated by Israel. And this is completely

uncontroversial. It's just, that's just the documentary record. It's just one of those clear cut instances where sometimes violence begins and it's kind of like, well, all right, there's always a tit to tit for tat somewhere. And you can kind of just keep going back And it's like, well, Israel did this, but no, Hamas did that and then Israel did that. And you know, you can kind of keep going back with these back and forth kind of tit for tat responses.

But in this case, it was absolutely clear cut and unambiguous. There was a ceasefire. Hamas honored it. Israel violated it. It was very, and, and that's admitted by even the Israeli, Israeli military establishment. And so Israel was the one who violated that ceasefire. And of course, of course, we're always supposed to believe that, that it's always Hamas violating ceasefires and, and, and unprovoked ways of launching

rockets. And you look at the new, the mainstream media reporting on that in New York Times, of course, the New York Times reported Israel's violation of the ceasefire on the day it happened, which was November 4th. And actually there had been violations before November 4th in 2008, but the major one occurred on November 4th with an Israeli incursion into Gaza that killed, I think, 4 Hamas members. And that's when the ceasefire basically ended.

And from that point on, from from November 4th until December 27th in 2008, you had this tit, tit for tat violence, the return to rocket fire from Hamas and other armed groups and Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza. But Israel had been threatening an invasion before the the ceasefire was implemented. And I actually predicted that the the ceasefire would end with Israeli provocations to create a pretext for its plan, its pre planned operation in Gaza, which is exactly what happened.

So actually had called that. Correctly. And so that that was the situation with Operation cast LED and then you had of course, again, as I mentioned, it was characterized by indiscriminate attacks. One more thing on cast. LED Before we move to Pillar of Defense, Norman Finkelstein has theorized that it is not a coincidence that November 4th of 2008 happened to be the day of

the US presidential election. Do you think that this was actually provoked by the IDF knowing that world attention was on whether or not America's going to get its first black president or are the dates just a coincidence? I I don't think it's coincidence that. Israel launched that strike in Gaza on November 4th. No, I don't think that was. I think that was deliberate. And then also launching the operation right around Christmas time and when, when people's attention, nobody was paying

attention. And, and then you had, you know, the New York Times facilitating it and the US government facilitating it. For example, as I was saying, the New York Times reported Israel's violation on November 4th, but then subsequently it would report that the ceasefire broke down without specifying. That it Well, it broke down because Israel. Violated it, right.

And then after a couple weeks, I think it was within three weeks of the, of that ceasefire violation, The New York Times would just characterize the violence as that Israel, when Israel began its operation, The New York Times would characterize the violence as well. Israel began its operation after Hamas had been incessantly firing rockets into Israel without even a mention of the ceasefire. Like the ceasefire was just wiped from history entirely. Well, why?

Well, because it was Israel that had violated it. So that's the nature of the US media reporting, facilitating this operation by manufacturing consent for it. So either people weren't paying attention because of the election or Christmas. And then even when people were paying attention, they're getting a completely false narrative by the government and the and the media that served to manufacture consent for it. So Operation Pillar. Of defense, this is 2014. Pillar defense was.

Was that 2014? There's two operations. I confuse their names. One was in Israel. They called it pillar of cloud, like the cloud that Moses, but but for Western audiences they called it. Yeah, Pillar of defense, Right. And then and then protective edge was 20. I think protective edge was 2014, correct me if I'm wrong. So pillar. Pillar of Defense was the 2012 war if I'm not mistaken. Pillar of cloud. It says 2012, so I think defense would have been 2014. Yeah, yeah.

I tend to get those confused sometimes, but that one was it was a lesser operation then then operation cast LED was. It didn't involve such a full scale like ground invasion, but but again, you know, we had the the way it was characterized in Western media was again, Israel is just responding to rocket attacks. But of course you can go back into the history and this one is a bit more muddied because it

wasn't such a clear cut. It wasn't the case where you had just a ceasefire and then it was just violated by one party. There was all kinds of provocations and and acts of violence in both sides that led up to that. But they tended, the media tended to pick a specific incident, right. It's like, Oh, well, Hamas attacked a Jeep and blew up a Jeep with mines and killed a couple of Israeli soldiers or something.

And so they would pick a specific instance of Hamas, you know, perpetrating some act of violence, you know, against Israeli soldiers or something. But then you can go back and it's like, well, wait a minute. Right before that incident with the Jeep, there was an Israeli incursion, a strike that killed children playing soccer in Gaza. So why why isn't that the start

of it, right? And so it was this was the situation in in 2012 where you had, you know, this violence back and forth and but of course, it was always just landed on Hamas rocket, rocket attacks. And so that one also involved, you know, was also characterized by war crimes and air strikes targeting the civilian

infrastructure. But then again, it in 2014 was kind of them again, the more major operation where the the level of destruction and the deaths exceeded operation cast LED even where it was just massive destruction and targeting of civilian infrastructure. And again, just implementation of the Dahi adoption, which is so-called because in the 2006 Lebanon war, Israel had flattened the district of Beirut known as the Dahiya district.

And so that's where they get the name of the Dahia doctrine that they implemented in 2008, cast lead, which again was the policy of deliberate use of disproportionate force, in other words, deliberate war crimes. And so, and this ties into the whole, you know, that the propaganda claim that was Palestinian civilians only ever died in these operations because Hamas was using them as human Shields.

But this depends on a use of the term human Shields that bears no relationship to its definition under international law, which can be found in the Protocol, one additional to the Geneva Conventions, and instead. It's a euphemism. Meaning any Palestinians killed in Gaza by virtue of their being in Gaza. That's what a human shield is, because they've designated Gaza. As a military zone, essentially.

Essentially Gaza. Is Gaza is a military target And so anyone in Gaza is a military target by virtue of being there. And so that's what that's what a human shield is, which of course that's not the meaning of a human shield on international

law. And not only that, but but in case after case, you had Israel deliberately targeting hospitals, ambulances, UN schools being used as shelters to shelter civilians who had been told to flee their homes without any possible military justification as confirmed by numerous international investigations. You had Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, numerous

UN bodies doing investigations. You had the, the UN fact finding mission headed up by Richard Goldstone in the case of Operation Cast Lead, you just all these investigations coming back with nothing in terms of, you know, Israel claiming that they had military justification for these attacks. And you're looking at at specific attacks and just finding absolutely no military justification whatsoever. And this includes looking at Israel's own evidence.

Of course, you know, here's what Israel claimed and here's the supposed evidence for it. And yet Israel's Israel's claims were completely baseless in in every case. In fact, there wasn't an Operation Cast Lead, which is the one I've investigated most deeply and closely. Like reading every single. One of those.

Reports on it and just consuming everything I could read about it. There wasn't a single documented instance of a Palestinian civilian being killed and Operation Cast Lead because they were being used by Hamas as a human shield. Not a single documented instance, whereas there were documented instances of Israeli soldiers be using Palestinian civilians as human Shields and the. Israelis have like.

An explicit policy, according to Haaretz, of killing Israelis if they get captured so they can't be used as leverage, called the Hannibal Doctrine. This was fascinating to read about. You mentioned the UN building that was even in Lebanon in 2006. The second Khana massacre, if I'm not mistaken, was at a United Nations shelter. Possibly. I don't. I don't recall. Exactly on that one, but Israel targets UN shelters routinely in its operation. So it's it's not only since 10/7

that it's been doing that. So, so is the goal to get. This population so terrified that they just leave, Is that the goal of targeting, you know, what could appear to be just random acts of terrorism in prior operations like. Cast lead and and protective edge. The the goal was to punish the civilian population essentially for having Hamas as its as its leadership. The goal in Israel's current military operation in Gaza is

different. The goal with its current operation is to eliminate the Palestinians in Gaza as a people. So the goal in this case is genocide. And this was this is. More common than people understand, Winston Churchill wrote a book titled The World Crisis, 1911 to 1918, where he was First Lord of the Admiralty during the First World War. And he said the policy of the British blockade was to starve all men, women and children wounded and sound into submission. That is literally a quote from

his own book. That's the policy. They never worried about getting Kaiser Wilhelm, who was in the Netherlands and living in a mansion. It was the civilian population. So the statist hero Winston Churchill engaged in this. It looks like this is what we're seeing in Gaza today. When it comes to the rise of Hamas in Gaza, Connor Freeman and Scott Horton have published a number of quotes which indicate that there was a policy of both parties in Israel supporting Hamas.

What can we learn from this? And is there an innocent explanation that they were allowing money to come in so they could have a Singapore on the Mediterranean Sea? What? What is this? Is it true? What was the goal? Yeah, it's absolutely true and completely uncontroversial.

I mean, if you if you read the Israeli media, well, the Israeli media after 10/7 were themselves routinely pointing out the fact that Netanyahu had maintained a policy of utilizing Hamas as a strategic ally for the purpose of blocking any movement toward peace negotiations with the Palestinians. There's no question about that. That was his policy. It's just open and acknowledge that that's the case. And so that that Netanyahu had maintained that policy ever

since he came into office. But it actually predates Netanyahu. I mean, if you go back to Hamas's origin, it was founded in 1987, published its charter in 1988, which happens to be the year that the PLO issued its declaration of Palestinian statehood, while also officially. Accepting.

The two state solution, the PLO had it had had been accepting the two state solution since really the mid 70s, but officially accepted it in 1988. And so the PLO was a threat to Hamas. I'm sorry to to Israel it, it posed a threat of peace because if you know, up until then, Israel had been able to use Palestinian terrorism as as a means of saying, look, we don't have a peace partner.

And and so Israel really needed terrorism to be able to maintain his policy because without the terrorism, you know, it, it, it couldn't say, Oh well, because that was a justification for his continued occupation for, you know, for his policy positions

in terms of negotiations. And so when the PLO, when Yasser Arafat officially accepted the the two state solution, meaning officially accepting a resolution 242 which called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories to withdraw to the Armistice lines in 1949 or sometimes called the 1967 lines or the green line. These are all synonymous. And that's what 242 called on Israel to do to withdraw to to the positions that held pre June 5th, 1967.

And by so I could by accepting that, by accepting the by accepting of a Palestinian state alongside Israel and just 22% of the Palestinians former homeland from which they were ethnically cleansed for the Jewish state to come into existence, which was already a major concession on the part of the Palestinian leadership. But by doing that, they were threatening the occupation regime because of course, Israel wants the land it doesn't want to withdraw from from that

territory. And so from the beginning, Israel utilized Hamas as a counterforce to undermine the PLO. And, and this included at at least tacitly, if not actually directly supporting Hamas against the against the Arafat's PLO. So that policy was there kind of from the start. And of course, it wasn't always a situation where Hamas was like a clearly some kind of asset of Israel, any or anything like that. That's not what I'm claiming.

But under Netanyahu, it was just absolutely explicit and went right back to we're going to use Hamas deliberately, strategically. As long as Hamas is in power, the the leadership is divided between the West Bank and Gaza. They have no united leadership. That's good for us because how can we have negotiations when they don't even have a united leadership to negotiate with? How can we negotiate with a terrorist organization that fires rockets at Israel?

So Netanyahu needed Hamas in in Gaza and so he he maintained that policy. And and so this and this LED into the the intelligence failures that led Hamas to be so successful, you know, in its narrow definition of success on 10/7, because Hamas didn't expect to be able to so easily cross through the the border fence and raid, you know, Cuba seem in Israel, Israeli towns and military bases in Israel. They didn't expect to to to achieve that to the extent that

they did. And, and the reason, one of the reasons why that they were the Israel military just was so slow to respond on that day was they did have foreknowledge of Hamas's operation. There's no question about that. And I have a lot of readers who who are convinced that Israel deliberately let it happen and I keep trying to explain it.

I don't accept that because actually I'm absolutely convinced that Netanyahu this is it was absolutely a blowback for Netanyahu himself, which again, he was roundly criticized in Israel after 10 seven precisely because of having maintained this policy of using Hamas as a strategic ally. And so it was part of that they, they had really just, you know, blinded themselves as far as Netanyahu is concerned, the the Palestinians were contained, the Palestinians were were kept in

the the concentration camp. They were locked up there and Hamas was contained in the concentration camp. And they have their useful tool, Abbas. And in the West Bank, you know who who's doing what the is enforcing the P as role of essentially serving the P as role under the Oslo Accords of essentially serving as Israel's collaborator and enforcing its occupation regime. They're continuing their land grabbing and settlement construction in the illegal wall in the West Bank.

Things are going great there. So everything's going well. And so Netanyahu had shifted resources, moving soldiers away from the Gaza fence into the West Bank to protect radical, violent settlers and expand settlements. And it really was just a focus on the West Bank, which really was a continuation of Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, which, by the way, that's where the 2005 withdrawal came in.

It was part of Ariel Sharon's, what he called the disengagement plan, which was basically kind of, there were a couple purposes there. One was to create the political cover to be able to carry out this expansion of settlements in the West Bank. It's saying, oh, look out of the goodness of our hearts, we're just going to withdraw from Gaza while at the same time, you know, escalating the illegal settlement activities in in the West Bank. So that that was the disengagement plan plan.

And the other purpose of the the so-called disengagement plan, as again explained by Errol Sharon's top advisor, Dov Weisglass was as he described at the formaldehyde to essentially to, you know, so that the peace process, describing the the peace process, it was the formaldehyde necessary to, you know, keep the peace process dead essentially is what he was trying to say. He described it as formaldehyde.

So it was the means by which they could make sure that there was going to be no peace negotiations with the Palestinians. So that was area of Sharon's policy. And Netanyahu basically just continued that and then escalated it and increased it. And so he had the shifting away of resources and they just

refused. You know, you had you had lower level intelligence analysts in the, in the Israeli armed forces who were warning about activities of Hamas in Gaza and, and, you know, exercises that Hamas was doing, for example, I think it was called. Operation Jericho Wall comes to mind, and that was reported by the New York Times. They basically had this information beforehand. Yeah, they did. So they knew about it.

And you? Had intelligence analysts like reporting these activities and saying, I think something's coming, this is not normal. Or the chatter that they were receiving, like there's something coming and there's something big coming. And they were trying to warn

higher level officials. But the top leadership in the military intelligence establishment, you know, in accordance with Netanyahu's policy, were just blinding themselves to it. And they just refused to listen to it because they, they had convinced themselves that Hamas was contained in the concentration camp and they, they were able to focus without worry on, on, on land grabbing in the West Bank and essentially annexing more West Bank territory. And that was really just their,

their worldview. And so when the status quo was shattered on 10/7, which was the aim of Al Aqsa Flood, as I mentioned, I really think they had deliberately blinded themselves to the threat as opposed to, you know, people again, have a lot of readers who who are convinced that they deliberately allowed it to happen. But that doesn't actually make any sense at all for Israel to have done that well when you look.

At Ring doorbell cameras or SimpliSafe home security systems, before a person is able to ring the doorbell, the camera turns on when someone's 10 feet away, starts recording, and alerts the homeowner on their phone immediately. So the fact that the IDF with all its billions of dollars, with its Iron Dome had such a slow response time and when they did respond, they enacted the Hannibal Doctrine.

I I'm open to the idea that it was just incompetence to the level of the focus was on expanding settlements in the West Bank. I I just don't have of again, there was the Jericho wall warnings. James Corbett has made the case that is Egyptian intelligence warned Israel ahead of time. Now for people who are having trouble saying why would some regime go through all this effort to just block the existence of a state?

Are they just pure evil? Realize President Abraham Lincoln was willing to have 600 thousand Americans killed to make sure the South didn't have its own country. So it's very plausible that they don't want another rival state on their border. This is actually very common. Just imagine if test Texas wanted to secede today. Would Joe Biden just be like, I'm sorry I didn't do a good enough job running the government? You guys are afraid to go. They would send in the tanks.

Eric Swalwell likes to threaten us with nuclear weapons every few months already if we dare to say that we'd like to secede. So this is very common. And one note on concentration camps that term. The earliest example I could find of concentration camp is with regard to the Bohr War of 1899 to 19 O2 in South Africa, where the British Empire is refusing for the South African Republic and the Free Orange State to secede from the British Empire and they basically

established concentration camps. The Spanish also did this in Cuba. People think that what Guerra Island was referring to was he was admitting that it's just like Auschwitz and Tri Blanca and Sobibor and Belzec. Those are death camps. What this is, is what are you meaning when you say concentration camp? Well, you know, you've, you've heard guys that.

Described as the the world. 'S largest open air prison but account concentration camp is basically just meaning a an area where people are rounded up and locked in and not allowed to leave and whatever gets in or out is restricted and dependent on the occupying power to determine. And so, yeah, it wasn't a death camp. And, and that's the thing when I describe it as a concentration camp and, and again, not my words, I'm I'm quoting Gira Island's description of it when I use that term.

What was his title in the. Israel. He was the head of the national security. Council in Israel, Yeah, at the time he's quoting a position, a man in a position. Not to know what he's actually talking about, not just some rando. You've referred to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

According to Doctor Walter Block, these Palestinians who emigrate, who emigrated during the Nakba in 1948, we're told by surrounding Arab nations for those Palestinians to evacuate because we're going to push the Jews into the ocean, bomb them out of existence and then you can come back. So he says that this was an emigration. A lot of people say this, whereas you say it was an ethnic cleansing. You mentioned Ergon, Stern and

Hagana gangs previously. Walk us through who these groups are and what the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was. Sure. Well, one claim that. Bloch makes is that, which is again, just a common propaganda claim that you hear from Israeli apologists is that the, the Arabs only arrived in recent history. And in fact, Palestine was essentially unpopulated until the Jews arrived and they developed an economy there and only then that Arabs en masse immigrate into Palestine, which

is a hoax claim. It's the same hoax claim that Joan Peters wrote in her book from Time immemorial, which Norman Finkelstein debunked. And, and I when, when block makes this claim, I've debunked that myself. I mean, you can go back and it's, it's just completely untrue. Go back and read the, the, the primary source materials from the Mandate era. Arabs were the majority. They always were.

The Jews were a minority. Most of the increase in the Jewish population throughout the Mandate era was from due to immigration, whereas most of the increase in the Palestinian population was natural increase. There's very little immigration of Arabs into Palestine at the time. There was some, but they claim that that that's how the the Arab population arrived was through some. The mass immigration is completely false. It's totally a historical, it's a hoax claim.

So there's one hoax claim that Walter Block makes, which incidentally, he makes in a paper that was peer reviewed in some journal, which just goes to show how worthless, you know, the idea of peer review is a lot of times. But but so then, so that's as far as the population is concerned. And so, and then he piggybacks off of that whole Coke's claim to say that what happened in 1948 was not ethnic cleansing. You know, people just laughed.

They were told to leave. They were ordered to leave by the Arab leadership. But you know, again, there's an impeccable source debunking that claim, which is the IDF itself. So after it was originally the, the, the Haganah was the the Israeli military paramilitary organization that after May 14th, 1948, when the Zionists unilaterally declared the existence of the State of Israel, it became the Israeli

Defense Forces, the IDF. And so the IDF had an intelligence agency and they assessed the causes of the flight of Arabs from the territory that they called Israel because, you know, they had.

Again unilaterally declared. The existence of this Jewish state and they detailed the causes of the flight and they explained right in this document, in this intelligence document that, yeah, it was mainly because of our military operations coupled with the operations of the of the Zionist terrorist organizations, which the first do is the dissenters. So this would have been groups like.

Ergon with I know the bombing of King David was in 1936, but Daryasin was in 1948. Around this time, April 1948, yeah. Yeah, Daryasin was an example where the Stern game, I I believe it was, was the the leading group in that, in that operation where they invaded this village. I think around 100 people were killed in the village, mostly civilians. It was, it was a massacre and that caused terror among neighboring villages that had caused this flight.

The the IDF, you know, the Hagenaw was, was deliberately using terror as a strategy to frighten people into fleeing the villages, you know, with explosions, bombs.

They, I mean, they weren't necessarily doing what the Ergun or Leahy were, were doing that the, the Zionist terrorist organizations, you know, they weren't necessarily deliberately attacking civilians and killing them, although that happened too, but not to the extent, but, you know, just just the shell shock they would use or they would plant rumors of, you know, there's going to be another massacre in this in this

village. And so they would, they would use fear as a means to drive Palestinians from their homes and from their villages. And the the Palestinians have been essentially disarmed during the the Arab revolt from the from 1936 to 1939 under British guns because of course the whole British the British occupation, the purpose of which was to deny the Palestinians their exercise of the right to self

determination. And reneging on the British promise to support Arab independence after the war, after World War One. Promising getting Arab support for World War One by promising to support their independence from Ottoman rule and then reneging on that promise when it came to the Palestinians in order to facilitate the Zionist settler colonial project to reconstitute Palestine into a.

Demographically, Jewish state. And so British policy really facilitated the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. And it was ethnic cleansing. They didn't just up and leave. They weren't ordered to do so. And coming back to that intelligence document, yeah, they, they, they said that, yeah, there were some cases in which, you know, Arab leaders would, would tell people to flee the village or something. But this, this did this accounted for like 5% of, of the

flight or something like that. It was just a kind of a, a marginal influence on, on the flight and, and, and more so than that, Arab, the Arab leadership was actually trying to persuade people to go back to their homes and back to their village and trying to, to send, you know, male youths back to

the front lines. And, and this is again right in that the IDF's own intelligence document saying that, you know, the Arab leadership wasn't, wasn't telling people to flee and get out of the way so we can commit mass genocide against the Jews in, in the new state of Israel. No, they were saying, no, you guys have to go back to your villages, go back home, don't flee. Like go back, go back. And that's actually what the Arab leadership was doing at the time.

So this claim that they all fled because they were told to, because the Arabs were launching a war, you know, genocidal war to destroy the state of Israel. Well, that's also another myth. It isn't true that the Arab states invaded Israel in 1948. And the simple reason I can say that is because no state of Israel legitimately existed, because there was no such thing as a legally defined entity known as the State of Israel. The idea that the UN created Israel ties into this.

That's a myth. The UN did not create Israel. UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which is the infamous Partition Plan resolution, neither Partition Palestine nor conferred any legal authority to the Zionist leadership for their unilateral declaration of May 14th. At the time of that declaration, Jews owned about 7% of the land in Palestine, Arabs owned more land in every single district, and of course Arabs were the majority.

The Partition plan was wholly inequitable that the Arabs were perfectly reasonable to reject it because it was an absolute. It was absolutely prejudicial against their rights, so of course they rejected it. They were right to do so. And then? The Zionists unilaterally.

Declared their state. And by that time, by the time that Israel did that, I'm sorry, by the time the Zionists declared Israel in May 1948, already a quarter million Arabs had already been ethnically counted from their homes. And So what the Arab, the neighboring Arab states did, they didn't launch a war against Israel to wipe it off the map.

No, they intervened into Palestine to try to prevent the ethnic cleansing and try to at least to some extent stop it from happening, which they did with very limited success. It was mostly a failure. Jordan managed to hang on to the West Bank and in Egypt hold on to the tiny Gaza Strip.

And so until 1967 the West Bank was administered by Jordan and and Egypt administered Gaza. And it was until and then it was after the 1967 war and occupation and passage of Resolution 242 that this idea of the two state solution premise on those what people call borders, you know, kind of was developed where the idea was, well, there should be there

should be two states. But again, when the Palestinian leadership accepted the two state solution and the idea of a Palestinian state in just 22% of their former homeland, that was that was a major concession on the part of the Palestinians. And you hear about Israel making enormous concessions to the Palestinians and the Palestinians have been offered a state time and time again. And the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

This is all of this is just hoaxes, Zionist propaganda narratives that bear no relationship to reality because in every single instance, you know, Camp David is the example that most often comes up. The supposedly generous offer consisted of more ultimatums for the Palestinians to surrender even more of their land and give up more of their own right of of

their rights. And the idea being that so this gets into resolution 2 for two and what the two state solution is. So the two state solution in favor of in favor of which, you know, there is an international consensus with, you know, Israel and the US mainly in a couple of, you know, Pacific island countries.

Dissenting from the two state solution is premised on the applicability of international law to the conflict, including implementation of Resolution 242 calling in Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories as the International Court of Justice just affirmed a couple months ago. Whereas the this is another big deception where the, the, the peace process, the so-called peace process was premised on a rejection of the applicability of international law to the

conflict. And so this is this is the deception. Will they say that? Well. Israel accepts the two state solution. Well, no, it doesn't, because Israel has always rejected resolution 242 and instead Israel has its own unilateral interpretation of UN of resolution 2242 whereby it doesn't have to withdraw from the occupied territories. They can keep some of that territory until there's a final peace agreement.

But that's completely incompatible with the principle of international law emphasized in in the preambleer section of 242, that the the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. And so there's no such thing under international law as this idea that, well, that the Palestinians are not allowed to exercise their right to self determination until their occupier agrees to allow it.

It's completely incompatible with the requirements of international law, as again, the ICJ just affirmed a few months back where it ruled that Israel's occupation itself is illegal. Not just that numerous aspects of its occupation like the settlement regime and the wall that it built there and, and the system, the systematic discrimination against Palestinians and the, the limit the, the, the limitations on Palestinians movement and

inhibition of their economy. Not just all of that is illegal, but the occupation itself is fundamentally illegal because it constitutes a violation of the Palestinians right to self determination. But anyhow, this was always the sleight of hand that they used to sustain this so-called peace process, which was really always just the means by which Israel and the US blocked implementation of the two state

solution. It was never aimed at implementing the two state solution, just the opposite. So that was the deception when you refer to. Settlements in either the West Bank or Gaza pre 2005. Let's keep it to the West Bank, please. The word settlement settling doesn't doesn't sound bad at all. What are these settlements and what is the problem with them? Is it any different in principle than me organizing a white only Country Club that doesn't

violate anyone's rights? What's it What's the principal difference, if any? Well, back in the in the. Mandate area. They they would have been called colonies. You had the Jewish. Colonization association and. So on back during the Mandate era, so there it was. It's a settler. Zionism was a settler colonial project. And so the what people call settlements in the West Bank are

established illegally. So Israel is the occupying power is prohibited from from treating that land as its own and, and building, you know, moving its citizens into that territory and essentially and applying its jurisdiction prejudicially, you know, in favor of its own citizens in that territory while treating the Palestinians, not just a second class citizens, but is is just, is essentially well, as international human

rights organizations. And the ICJ pointed out it's it's an apartheid regime because you, and so do you, have a number of different crimes against humanity that Israel perpetrates against the Palestinians. You had the ethnic cleansing of 1948. You had another ethnic cleansing in 1967 when another 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from the West Bank.

And since 1967, Israel has been perpetrating the crime of apartheid with its systematic discrimination against Palestinians in the West Bank. And so it's just it it the case is the reality is that Israel controls all of the territory between the river and the sea, so including Gaza in the West Bank. And yet it applies 2 separate sets of laws to to the depending on whether the person is a Jewish, is Jewish or an Israeli citizen or is a Palestinian.

And so the the land that these settlements though that there are. Like Jewish towns in Arizona and New York where it's 100% Jewish and it's Orthodox so you can immediately tell it. Is the claim that the settlements are bad because they're Jewish only or are they literally stealing houses and property? Well they would. They're stealing the. Land and if the. House is in, in the, the housing developments are typically just built on top of the land.

But of course, the Palestinians are denied use of the land. So Israel just goes and confiscates land and they build settlements on the territory. And Palestinians are like, they're required to get permission from Israel to, to build water cisterns and sheds and, and, and often times Israel will not allow them to do that or, and then if they build it, the Israel, Israeli soldiers will come and destroy it.

And yet the Israeli settlers, they go and, and they just, they, they build their housing developments and they build little villages and, and, and even even to the extent that there are certain settlements that are illegal even under Israeli law, but it just happens with impunity. And of course, there's violent settler attacks against Palestinians in the vicinity of of Jewish settlements.

And it really is a policy of denying Palestinians the use of their own land so that it can be confiscated by Israelis. And then Israeli law is applied there in terms of jurisdiction so that Israeli settlers living in the occupied West Bank are treated as Israeli citizens and the law applies to them as Israeli citizens, where again, it's a completely different standard for the Palestinians living in the West Bank.

And so these are, you know, among the reasons why, you know, over the years, increasingly it's become to be acknowledged as an apartheid regime. Human Rights Watch, Beth Salem, Israeli human rights organization as well Beth Salem, Geisha Yechdin are are human rights groups in Israel that have described it as an apartheid regime. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UN bodies.

And then just again, just a few months ago, the International Court of Justice weighed in on this ruling that not only in 2004 the ICJ had already ruled that Israel's settlement regime and the wall it was building the West Bank were a violation of international law. This time it went even further and said that the the occupation itself is illegal and amounted to the crime of sorry, not genocide, crime of apartheid

under international law. And this is a separate case, by the way, at the ICJ from South Africa's accusation of genocide. So there are two cases there. And so it's it's an apartheid regime. The reason I asked about what the settlements. Are if it's people voluntarily just associating among themselves or if it's actual theft of property? This video went viral. I want to know if you could analyze it and walk us through. It's only two minutes long. Thank you, Jacob.

You know this is not. Your house. Yes, but if I go, you don't go back. So what's the problem? Why are you yelling at me? I didn't do this. I didn't do this, but you used to yell at me, but I didn't do this. You are stealing my house. And if I don't steal it, someone else is going to steal it. So that was my. Understanding of what the problem with the settlements was because of its voluntary segregation.

I don't really have any problem with that in Arizona, New York or Palestine. It doesn't look like that's what's going on here. Is this common or is this some anomaly that the anti semites are putting on Twitter? No, I don't, I don't think. It's an anomaly. This is, this is the situation. It's not voluntary as far as the Palestinians are concerned. The Palestinians of course, have been protesting this since the occupation began.

And of course that the settlement regime began as soon as Israel had occupied the West Bank in 1967, began immediately following that war. And again, it's, it's, you know, it, libertarians can look at the issues of property rights. And Walter Block has made this argument that you know, well that the land all belonged to the Jews. So he's using this collectivist notion. He, he, he calls that a libertarian argument and the libertarian position on, on Palestine.

But really it's it's completely anti libertarian on his face because he's using a collectivist idea of land ownership, which we reject. And so I don't want to make the counter mistake of saying, well, it's Palestinian land by virtue of being described as the West Bank and being described under international law as occupied Palestinian territory, because we don't deal with collective ideas of land ownership.

But at the same time, we recognize that states, even though we might object to the existence of a state, it's good that the states do have this thing called international law where they engage, basically engage in contracts with each other and say, well, listen, you know, we have wars with each other sometimes. But let's, let's not be too hard

on our citizen populations. Let's agree to our civilian populations, you know, let's, let's agree to, to tamp down, you know, our activities in war and, and establish this thing called international humanitarian law and, and try to protect civilians during war time. And let's punish war criminals who violate these types of things. I mean, this is a good thing. I mean, the international law is a good thing, even if you object to the existence of states. And so Israel is a party to

international law. It's a party to the UN Charter, Israeli Security Council resolutions aren't binding on Israel. And so speaking in in, I'm speaking in terms of this framework where you have a situation where Israel has occupied the West Bank and since the occupation began has been illegally building Israeli settlements there, again, denying Palestinians the use of

that land. And so it yeah, this is not something that is, that's anything to do with just voluntary exchanges or, or just the implementation of property rights. You know that they that the Israeli Jews living in these settlements don't have legal right to those homes. And those settlements? We're not talking about voluntary exchanges.

And original appropriation, we're talking about state sponsored theft and then a court system which has a a blatant double standard for just acquisition of property. That makes a lot of sense. We've gone over time. Thank you so much for coming on. I just want to try and steal, man, what someone in favor of Israel in general might say I'm going to Gish gallop you, so get ready.

You might have to jot a couple of these down, but I want to give you the answer, the claims, and I want to see how you respond. All right, so let's start with what would you do if rockets were raining down on Sydney, New York, London and Paris, The attacks of October 7th totaling 1200 people in a small state of Israel. The equivalent would be 36,000 Americans killed, say by Mexico. What do we do? Sit back and do nothing? After all, Israel is a microscopic state.

All we're asking for is one state for our people who, after centuries of pogroms and expulsions and a near loss of our entire population in Europe during the Second World War, we just want one tiny state. The Arabs have 57 majority states that they can all go to. I'm very sorry about the Nakba and the mowings of the lawn. All states are started on conquest, as was America, as was Pakistan in 1947 when the British pulled out. A million people died.

We're very sorry about these Israeli atrocities. All else equal, a Zionist monopoly on violence in this area is preferable to a Hamas monopoly on violence or a Palestinian Palestinian Authority monopoly on violence. Freeing Palestine is not going to happen. Just when Israel pulls out, they'll be under a different tyranny of Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, or the EA.

Therefore, all else equal, we should support Israel, who is, by other standards in the Middle East, more democratic, more free, respects, more property rights, as more civilized and more technologically advanced. What, if anything, is wrong with the flawless logic? I just gifted you you with pretty much everything. Where to start? So of course, the conflict didn't begin on October 7th. There's context. To Operation AL.

Aqsa Flood and the, you know, the atrocious violence by Hamas, which we can all agree to condemn. But the problem is you have Israeli apologists trying to justify Israeli crimes. I'm not sitting here trying to defend Hamas crimes or Palestinian crimes against Israelis. I condemn terrorism. I condemn attacks on Israeli civilians. And so it's it's these Israeli. Hypocrites, you know.

Or the Israeli apologists who are engaging in this hypocrisy of condemning one side's crimes while trying to justify the others. And so they'll they'll try to portray Israel's actions in Gaza since October 7th as an act of self-defense. Well, I'm sorry, the genocide is not self-defense. Genocide is not self-defense by definition. And so this is not an act of

Israel's operation. Operation Swords of Iron, as it's called, is not an operation that is in in the legitimate exercise of the right to self-defense. It is deliberately targeting. The civilian population for death and destruction and deliberately targeting the civilian infrastructure of Gaza to render Gaza uninhabitable. All right, so that's that's not self-defense, that's a crime against humanity. As far as well that the Jews only have this tiny little piece of land called Israel.

And it look at all the land that the Arabs have and, you know, well, why can't the Palestinians just go live in some other Arab country? Well, you know, as though Palestinians shouldn't don't, you know, don't have any kind of particular connection to their homes and their homeland.

Palestinians happen to be descended from Canaanites who, of course, inhabited the land before there ever was an ancient state, an ancient Kingdom of Israel or an ancient Kingdom of Judah. So they have just as much ancient historical connection to the land as the Jewish people do. In fact, the Jewish, the Jewish people are also descended from Canaanites. They weren't, they weren't the biblical narrative is fictional. They weren't, they weren't outsiders.

They were not foreigners to Canaan. They, they're from Canaan. They're, they were Canaanite tribes as well. And in fact, today the distinction between Canaanite tribes and Israelis isn't based on like genetic distance, but rather just the Israel Israelites cultural identity being distinct from the of the tribes surrounding them in that area. But anyhow, the Palestinians, point being, Palestinians also have an ancient historical connection to the land.

The idea that they should just up and leave, which is what would be required of them if going again back to the mandate era, because it was an era of Palestine, wasn't it was it was characterized by its Arab population. You know, it was in Arab territory. Jews were a small minority there, you know, and there was an indigenous Jewish population. But again, it's just a small

minority population. And Palestine was viewed as a as a, you know, you have this claim that, well, you know, if, if Israel were just to stop, end its occupation and allow the Palestinians their freedom, well, the Palestinians was just attack Israel and destroy Israel and fire rockets and commit all this terrorism. And it would, you know, Israel has to defend itself. And so Israel can't end its occupation and that can't end its its oppression.

And so that attributes the cause of the conflict as being inherent Arab hatred of Jews, inherent Arab anti-Semitism. But in fact Arabs and Jews had friendly relations in Palestine until the Zionist movement and the and until the the British enforced settler colonial project to reconstitute Arab Palestine into a demographically Jewish state. In fact Palestine was seen as essentially as a refuge for Jews relative a safe place for them to live.

Relative to many other places around the world, and particularly Europe with its rampant anti-Semitism, Palestine was a refuge. So it's just not the case that the problem is inherent Arab hatred of Jews. The problem is Zionism. Hamas in a 2017 policy document, going back to the question you had asked earlier about what is, what is Hamas's beef with with Israel? Is that they just hate Jews or is there some other problem?

In a 2017 policy document, they explicitly stated that we, we do not have a problem with Israelis because they're Jewish, because of their race or their ethnicity or their religion. The problem is Zionism. The problem is that you, you, these foreigners, these European Jews, came into Palestine, immigrated here, and kicked us out violently. And so Israel was created through the use of force through force of arms and mass expulsion of the Palestinians.

So this idea that, well, you know, why can't Israel, Israel's just have this piece of land? You know, they look at it, it's just this tiny little piece of land. And look at all the other Arab states in the region. So why do they, why do they need even more land? Well, you know, again, property rights, individual rights, there's homesteading. The, the Palestinians have a right to, to live in, in their homeland. They had a right to their their homes, if that's where they want

to be, they have that right. They have a right of return under international law. The Palestinians who are expelled in the ethnic cleansing. So it's just a matter of fundamental human rights and just respecting the human rights and the idea that the Palestinians should just accept this idea that they're not allowed to exercise their rights. Of course, it's just fundamentally hypocritical.

And, and that is essentially what these arguments are saying, these Zionist arguments that you're, you're still manning here, you know, this idea that, and also the idea that Israel, well, Israel is the Middle East only democracy. So we have to support Israel because it's the Middle East only democracy. Well, again, Israel is an apartheid regime from the river to the sea.

And it's one thing looking at the occupied territories, but there's this claim that well within Israel itself, within Israel proper, even though Israel also doesn't have legally recognized borders, it at least along the Armistice lines with the West Bank and Gaza. But it all that also happens to be untrue. It's not true that Arabs have equal rights within Israel proper.

There's systematic discrimination of Arabs within Israel. In fact, one of the most common claims you hear is that, Oh, well, you know, Arab citizens of Israel can vote, they can participate in the Knesset, you know, they can participate in the, in the government, which is true. But there's a precondition for their their ability to run for office, which is that they have to accept Israel's character. And this is under law.

This is under Israeli law, they have to accept Israel's character as a quote, Jewish and democratic state.

But what does that mean? Well, that was the meaning of that was really explicitly defined in the 2018 Jewish nation state law, which explicitly defines the exercise of self determination in the territory under Israel's control as a right exclusive to Jews. So it's a Jewish supremacist state both within Israel property proper and of course it's an apartheid regime considering Israel's control of all of the territory between the river and the sea. So if I miss anything there, remind me.

But those would be my responses to all of those arguments. Essentially trying to defend Israel's systematic violation of the Palestinians fundamental human rights since before even Israel existed with the the the the British belligerent occupation that facilitated the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948. The 1967 war in which there was another the the Naxa in 1948 was the Nakba as it's described the

catastrophe. There was the Naxa in 1967, which was the set back in which 300,000 additional Palestinians were expelled. There's been an the ongoing occupation, settlement regime, apartheid regime ongoing since then. And now, since 10/10 seven, a third crime against humanity has been occurring, which is the crime of a genocide and how? Do you?

Differentiate a genocide from a war to eradicate Hamas that inevitably involves civilians, giving the high concentration of people in Gaza 2 miles wide, 25 miles long. How can we differentiate that? Yeah, the the. Distinction there would be what the target is. So if Israel were targeting military targets, you know, be military personnel or military locations, you know, you can have international law doesn't prohibit civilian deaths.

There's what's called the principle of proportionality. The the the civilian deaths cannot be in excess of what is considered reasonable in terms of proportionality to the military advantage gained. But but it's just not the case. That Israel is. Targeting military targets. It's it's systematically targeting the civilian population and the civilian infrastructure.

And again, as I've described, while there are instances in which, you know, like, for example, Operation Cast LED Hamas by virtue of Palestine, of Gaza being so densely populated, you know, there were times where Hamas would fire rockets, for example, from nearby residential buildings or something like this. So that that occurs. But it's simply not the case that, you know, you have a situation where Israel is systematically targeting the

school system, for example. And there's just no evidence that that these schools at the time are being used for any military purposes whatsoever. It it's just it under, by definition, these are civilian targets. And so Israel is targeting civilians and civilian locations. It's not targeting military targets. And so that's the distinction. And of course, Israel did that as well during Operation Castle.

And it deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and it deliberately punished civilians with again, deliberately disproportionate use of force or indiscriminate attacks. The difference here is the scale. And in that situation, you know, there were the, the goal was to punish the civilian population, same as with the the siege, the blockade of Gaza. The goal was to punish the civilian population. As I described.

They wanted to keep Gaza on the edge of a humanitarian crisis without quite pushing it over the edge. Well, that's, that's changed now that the goal has been starvation of the population. Now they're no longer counting calories as Israel was doing at one point, counting the calculating how many calories they needed to, you know, how much food they needed to, to allow in to Gaza based on a calculation of the number of calories that were required for

people to maintain sustenance. But now it's just out, it's an outright policy of using, utilizing starvation as a method of war. So there's a distinction in that regard as well. So it has to do with the targets, what is being targeted? Is it military that's being targeted? Is it Hamas that's being targeted? No, Look at the look at the numbers people say, oh, well, Palestinian civilians only die because they're being used by Hamas as a human shield.

Well, again, the entire population is a human shield by virtue of this euphemistic definition whereby, you know, a human shield is anyone who dies in Gaza by definition. That's the the euphemism. And so you look at the proportion if, if Israel were targeting Hamas, you, you might expect a certain level of, you know, to, to use the military euphemism, collateral damage from from those attacks, but what you wouldn't expect. Is for the proportion.

Of women and children killed to be roughly equivalent to the proportion of women and children in the Gaza population. And that's what we see. You would expect to see that. You would expect to see the. Proportion of women and children killed to be roughly equivalent to the proportion of women and children in the population if Israel were engaging in indiscriminate attacks. And that's precisely what we see. Why? Because Israel is engaging in indiscriminate, disproportionate

warfare deliberately. And was this the evidence that South Africa? Brought to the ICJ. Or was it this and quotes from Israeli officials? Yes, the the the case. That South Africa brought was absolutely incredible and it was heroic really for South Africa to do that, to take that action to, to bring that case to the ICJ. And they wrote a very detailed application to the ICJ accusing Israel of the crime of genocide.

And you're just going right down the list and including, I think it was 8 pages of just quotes from Israeli policy makers and officials and leaders where they were just openly expressing genocidal intent, which of course, to prove the crime of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention requires intent. And so the intent is was there from the beginning. Their intentions have been absolutely clear to render Gaza

uninhabitable. They're destroying, just systematically destroying, agricultural land, greenhouses, water treatment facilities, targeting bakeries, you name it. The hospital system, the medical system has been under target, under attack systematically. The school, the education system, cultural centers and locations. It is. They're trying to destroy the Palestinians as a people. That is the crime of genocide.

And so that that really is there's a distinction between legitimate military targets and collateral, you know, quote UN quote collateral damage happening and war crimes. There's a distinction there. And there's a distinction between war crimes and crimes against humanity, among which is the crime of genocide, which has to do with the scale and the

intention. So war crimes can be committed, you know, in individual actions that result in in civilians being killed disproportionately or indiscriminately, that's one thing. But when you have it on a population level where they're targeting the entire population this way, so it's not just this or that attack that that constitutes a war crime, that the operation itself is targeting the entire population of Gaza and that that.

So that's the distinction there between just regular war crimes and the crime of genocide. Thank you to everyone for watching Keith Knight. Don't. Tread on anyone in the Libertarian Institute. Thank you to my colleague at the Libertarian Institute, Jeremy R Hammond, Research Fellow. Check us out at libertarianinstitute.org. Jeremy, thanks so much for your time, brother. Thanks, Keith. Appreciate it.