Speaker 1: This is Buck's first thoughts. The news you need to
Speaker 1: get for your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart app before wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. It's good to say the truth starting to
Speaker 1: trickle out, not just about the lab leake theory, but
Speaker 1: also about doctor Fouci himself, a conniving, sniveling on the
Speaker 1: one hand, on the other hand, both side of his
Speaker 1: mouth talking democrat. That's who doctor Fouci is. That's what
Speaker 1: we've been subjected to for over a year. And finally
Speaker 1: people understand why I have found this guy to be
Speaker 1: such an odious little lab coat tyrant. And the more
Speaker 1: we dig into this and hear his babbling, nonsensical explanations,
Speaker 1: the more clear it is. Some of us were right
Speaker 1: all along. We knew who the doctor was. But I'll
Speaker 1: dive more into this in a moment. I want to
Speaker 1: make sure that you are protecting your online privacy because
Speaker 1: true online privacy is actually a thing of the past. Now.
Speaker 1: Your online data always seems to be under the magnifying
Speaker 1: class by big tech. There's anxiety of not having control
Speaker 1: of your online data while it's being manipulated and sold
Speaker 1: to advertisers. But now there's a new way with the
Speaker 1: ultimate privacy and cybersecurity communications tool in your hands, introducing
Speaker 1: Secure in instant messaging and email platform hosted in Switzerland,
Speaker 1: protecting your data with the strictest privacy laws in the world.
Speaker 1: Secure is spelled sek you are and uses proprietary encryption technologies,
Speaker 1: an independent platform, and Swiss privacy laws to ensure complete
Speaker 1: privacy and security of your data on desktop and in transit.
Speaker 1: This is secure and private instant messaging and email. It
Speaker 1: assures your conversations, messages, and data are kept completely safe
Speaker 1: and private. Secure does not mine your data and is
Speaker 1: not subjected to the Cloud Act. Take back your freedom,
Speaker 1: privacy and online secure with Secure by going to secure
Speaker 1: That's seku are dot com. Spelling is very important here
Speaker 1: Secure se k you are dot com. Make sure you
Speaker 1: use the coupon codebuck for one week free and twenty
Speaker 1: five percent off. Use that coupon code buck Go to
Speaker 1: secure sekure dot com. Regain your privacy online for your data,
Speaker 1: for your emails. Is it because China is so opaque?
Speaker 1: Is it because who was not sharing information? Why is
Speaker 1: this so difficult? There are several reasons Willie Wine's difficult.
Speaker 1: I think one of the things is that we need
Speaker 1: better access to all the information. I mean, it's obviously
Speaker 1: in China's interest to find out exactly what it is,
Speaker 1: and the is of the natural theory would be defined
Speaker 1: that link, So you have to keep looking for it.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously you want openness and cooperation. One of
Speaker 1: the ways you can get it is don't be accusatory.
Speaker 1: Try to get both a forensic, a scientific and an
Speaker 1: investigational approach. I think the accusatory part about it is
Speaker 1: only going to get them to pull back even more.
Speaker 1: We've got to do it in a combination of diplomacy,
Speaker 1: scientific forensic investigation, and do it in a way that
Speaker 1: the people of good faith, not who want to do blame,
Speaker 1: but people in good faith are really trying to find
Speaker 1: out what the origin is. Who we're seeing a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, I didn't even want to describe it,
Speaker 1: a lot of pointing of fingers and things like that.
Speaker 1: Keep an open mind and go after the truth. Go
Speaker 1: after the truth. He says, as if the Chinese Communist
Speaker 1: Party could give a fauci about the truth. Give me
Speaker 1: a break, friends, This is absurd, absurd, but he's a bureaucrat,
Speaker 1: he's a democrat, he's a collectivist, and he does not
Speaker 1: want people to start asking questions. That's been the case
Speaker 1: all along. Don't you see the pattern here, There's a
Speaker 1: very clear theme. Doctor Anthony Fauci has no interest whatsoever
Speaker 1: in being questioned. He is interested in giving pronouncements, and
Speaker 1: the moment anybody has a second of doubt, he just
Speaker 1: falls back on the science, as if that explains the
Speaker 1: whole situation, as if there's no doubt in science. This
Speaker 1: whole process, the scientific method, inquiry based upon fact and
Speaker 1: reason and experiment and data, has been corrupted during this
Speaker 1: pandemic by bureaucrats acting as monarchs, telling us what we
Speaker 1: can and cannot do, where we can and can't go,
Speaker 1: who we can see, how we can live, how we
Speaker 1: can breathe. And now finally we're seeing yet another instance
Speaker 1: of how the Fauciites were wrong, and worse than being wrong,
Speaker 1: they faked certainty and lied lied to the public about
Speaker 1: the degree of their knowledge and how right they were.
Speaker 1: Fauci won't criticize China. Why because he's somebody who believes
Speaker 1: that the scientific community is effectively a global government of
Speaker 1: source the scientific community has the say in this. They determine,
Speaker 1: not even your own government determines. They determine the expert
Speaker 1: consensus what happens in the midst of a global pandemic.
Speaker 1: And they are beyond reproach. In fact, they are above
Speaker 1: criticism because that's how important they are, how right, how smart, brilliant,
Speaker 1: even the fauciite consensus makers are. They were wrong on
Speaker 1: pretty much everything, friends everything. They were wrong on masks,
Speaker 1: by their own admission, because at least at first they
Speaker 1: said masks are dumb and don't protect you cloth masks
Speaker 1: are a joke, essentially, and then they changed on that.
Speaker 1: So they were definitely wrong. It's just a question of
Speaker 1: how many times they were wrong about school closures. They
Speaker 1: were wrong about the effects of lockdowns. They were wrong
Speaker 1: about expanding fourteen days to slow the spread to fourteen months,
Speaker 1: basically to slow the spread. The whole thing was a debacle,
Speaker 1: and the very origins of the story itself, as you see,
Speaker 1: were rife with lies and fraud and the instinct to suppress,
Speaker 1: to shut down free inquiry, and to pretend that this
Speaker 1: was effectively a settled issue. They loved this notion of
Speaker 1: the settled science. But what we see is that the
Speaker 1: same apparatus of suppression that insisted the lab leak theory
Speaker 1: was a conspiracy theory have spent over a year shutting
Speaker 1: down honest debate about masks and lockdown effectiveness. What's the
Speaker 1: lesson we take from this? Authoritarian censorship is a bad idea,
Speaker 1: even when its proponents wear lab coats. It's essential. And
Speaker 1: what we're also taking from this is that Faucci was
Speaker 1: a bigger fraud as pandemic hero than Cuomo or Newsom
Speaker 1: or any of the idiot Democrat governors who thought that
Speaker 1: by basically telling you to lock yourself in a closet
Speaker 1: and wrap five plastic bags around your head because of
Speaker 1: the virus the science, they were heroes for that, but
Speaker 1: we know that they're morons. Fauci was supposed to be
Speaker 1: better than that. Give it time, everybody will see the truth,
Speaker 1: though some will never accept it. Fauci is awful. Fauci
Speaker 1: is the worst of all the people that abused the
Speaker 1: public's mind. Of all the people that created mass panic
Speaker 1: and anxiety, unnecessarily, none none were as pervasive as the
Speaker 1: constant presence on your TV screen, The constantly quoted in
Speaker 1: the media, doctor Fauci. How many little lab code authoritarians
Speaker 1: work at the NIH, how many work at the CDC?
Speaker 1: A lot? So why is it the only one you've
Speaker 1: really heard of or the only one you've ever seen,
Speaker 1: is this little Anthony Fauci character. Because he was elevated
Speaker 1: into something much more than just a bureaucrat who's supposed
Speaker 1: to be reporting on numbers and advising politicians. He became
Speaker 1: a symbol, a symbol for the lockdowners, a saint of sorts,
Speaker 1: although I'm sure that many of the people we're talking
Speaker 1: about here object to the very notion of saints. He
Speaker 1: was elevated as the great king of the Lockdowners. And
Speaker 1: now we see that it was all a mess, a fraud.
Speaker 1: These emails are exposing more and more of who doctor
Speaker 1: Fauci really is, and now people are talking about a
Speaker 1: cover up. Now you are seeing that there was gain
Speaker 1: of function, research being done, that this is a real thing,
Speaker 1: that it's not a conspiracy theory, and that there were
Speaker 1: only and this is according to a piece in Vanity Fair,
Speaker 1: three places in the world, one I believe in Houston,
Speaker 1: the Carolinas, and one in China, the Wuhan Institute of
Speaker 1: Virology that we're doing a kind of research on bat
Speaker 1: coronaviruses that could have led to an outbreak. And we
Speaker 1: find out that while in the early day of this pandemic,
Speaker 1: we were told that it was a biosafety level four facility,
Speaker 1: right the highest. In fact, the Wuhan Institute of Virology
Speaker 1: had several wings that were about a dentist office level
Speaker 1: of viral protection and viral safety protocols. Virus protocols. That's
Speaker 1: important for us to know, isn't it. That's important for
Speaker 1: us to see, And yet that information was hidden the
Speaker 1: bureaucrats in the global health bureaucracy. These are really just
Speaker 1: un people in lab coats. That really makes it clear, right,
Speaker 1: these are un bureaucrats who work for you know, whether
Speaker 1: it's the World Health Organization or even our own CDC.
Speaker 1: They are collectivist bureaucrats, and they knew they had to
Speaker 1: do a lot of what we call CYA. The young
Speaker 1: ones in the audience, you can ask your parents to
Speaker 1: explain that one to you. I can't. I don't want
Speaker 1: to say that one of the air CYA cover your something.
Speaker 1: That's what they were doing make sure the public couldn't
Speaker 1: figure out the real origins of this virus, and to
Speaker 1: think that it came from a bad and then there
Speaker 1: was an intermediary species. Okay, maybe that's still true, but
Speaker 1: they certainly did not know that to be true, and
Speaker 1: they pretended they did because they didn't even want the
Speaker 1: possibility to be out there that this came from research
Speaker 1: that was funded in part by US dollars. If you
Speaker 1: give money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, you are
Speaker 1: funding the Wuhan Institute. That money is going into the
Speaker 1: pockets of the people making decisions there. It doesn't really
Speaker 1: made matter. Money is fungible, right, it doesn't really matter
Speaker 1: if you were funding directly that research or something else.
Speaker 1: I would not give money to plan Parenthood, even though
Speaker 1: they say that they send people for outsourced mamograms or something, right,
Speaker 1: because I don't want to fund Planned Parenthood. I think
Speaker 1: it should be defunded. Whole other conversation. But they funded
Speaker 1: the Wuhan Institute of Virology through a third party. US
Speaker 1: dollars went to somebody, Peter Dajak. This guy very involved
Speaker 1: in the early days of the messaging campaign around all this,
Speaker 1: and it starts to stink to high heavens. Friends, It
Speaker 1: smells like cover up. It smells like information operation, not
Speaker 1: just against the American people, against the world. Think of
Speaker 1: what the implications are here, Yes, for the Chinese Communist Party,
Speaker 1: but for the global scientific community, think about what this
Speaker 1: would mean. A lot of people will go to pretty
Speaker 1: extreme lengths to make sure that the truth about this
Speaker 1: is whatever they want it to be. Our perception of
Speaker 1: truth is whatever they decide it must be. Can't you
Speaker 1: see how Fauci was doing just that in the early days.
Speaker 1: The emails paint a disturbing picture, a disturbing picture of
Speaker 1: doctor Fauchi from the very beginning, worrying that he had
Speaker 1: been funding gain a function research and he knows it
Speaker 1: to this day, but hasn't admitted. We have to get
Speaker 1: Democrat counterparts that will actually use the committee hearings to
Speaker 1: investigate this. But so far it's been such a partisan
Speaker 1: support for doctor Fauchi that he can do no wrong.
Speaker 1: But really there's a lot of evidence that he has
Speaker 1: a great deal of conflict of interest and that if
Speaker 1: it turns out this virus came from the Wuhan lab,
Speaker 1: which it looks like it did, that there's a great
Speaker 1: deal of culpability, and that He was a big supporter
Speaker 1: of the funding, but he also was a big supporters
Speaker 1: to this day of saying we can trust the Chinese
Speaker 1: on this, we can trust the Chinese scientists, And I
Speaker 1: think that's quite naive and really should preclude him from
Speaker 1: the position that he's in. Senator rand Paul has been
Speaker 1: correct time and again, and doctor Fauchi has been wrong
Speaker 1: over and over again. That's the conclusion we should all
Speaker 1: draw from what has happened over the course of this pandemic.
Speaker 1: That's what the facts actually show us concern about gain
Speaker 1: of function research funding. Now, I understand there will be
Speaker 1: people who say, well, it was an accident. Even if
Speaker 1: US taxpayer dollars were used at the Wuhan Institute of
Speaker 1: Virology and specifically allowed for and it was only a
Speaker 1: six hundred thousand dollars but allowed for some greater degree
Speaker 1: of gain of function research, I'll say, well, it was
Speaker 1: an accident, and I'd point out, okay, would we have
Speaker 1: listened to the global health bureaucracy about this? Would anybody
Speaker 1: have wanted to hear a damn thing that the little
Speaker 1: lab coat tyrant Fouci had to say? The stalinist smurf
Speaker 1: of the nih. Would anybody have wanted to listen to
Speaker 1: a thing he had to say about this if we
Speaker 1: had known that we were only deally with the virus
Speaker 1: in the first place because of global health community bureaucrat
Speaker 1: collaboration funded in part by US taxpayer dollars. Think about this.
Speaker 1: If Fauci appeared on TV every night where your mask
Speaker 1: I saw your groceries, you know we're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: hit a surge and then a plateau, and then a
Speaker 1: surge and then maybe another plateau. Would would you have
Speaker 1: listened to this guy? Would you have wanted to hear
Speaker 1: what he had to say at all? If you had
Speaker 1: known that he and his bureaucracy were involved in funding
Speaker 1: the kind of research that led to this outbreak in
Speaker 1: the first place. I think the answers no. I think
Speaker 1: we all would have been saying, what the heck is
Speaker 1: going on here? And now you're gonna put yourself in
Speaker 1: this high and mighty position of telling us, all all
Speaker 1: of us in America, how to live our lives down
Speaker 1: to my new details. Well, can you hug your relatives?
Speaker 1: Can you go out into a public playground. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of stuff that the faucciites were making determinations about
Speaker 1: and yet the very beginnings of this virus, not only
Speaker 1: were they trying to hide it from us, but they
Speaker 1: also may have been covering up some degree of complicity
Speaker 1: in the outbreak in the first place. That is stunning,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Well, it's stunning to normal people, to people
Speaker 1: that think that wearing three masks while they go jogging alone,
Speaker 1: even after being vaccinated, is a mark of intelligence, instead
Speaker 1: of the exact opposite of that. Faucci is someone that
Speaker 1: they will They'll never give up that he was great.
Speaker 1: They'll never admit that this guy was a fraud, because
Speaker 1: what would that say about their judgment. I mean, what
Speaker 1: would it say about Nicole Wallace's intelligence Over at MSNBC, Well,
Speaker 1: does anybody really have any questions about that? Here's what
Speaker 1: she says about doctor Fauci's emails. Here's her take on it,
Speaker 1: play ten. And that's what I was trying to do,
Speaker 1: is to always tell the truth on the basis of
Speaker 1: what the data is. And it was never deliberately something
Speaker 1: against the president. In fact, he spoke about my emails.
Speaker 1: You look at my emails. I never in the email
Speaker 1: said anything derogatory about President Trump. Well, the true margot
Speaker 1: someone is if they look good even when their personal
Speaker 1: emails come out. So you fast the test that very
Speaker 1: feel us with food fast. Oh my gosh, doctor Facci,
Speaker 1: you're just so amazing. Oh my gosh, you're a amazing
Speaker 1: you just like like our superhero fighting the virus. It's
Speaker 1: like so good, unbelievable. Oh did did Fauci really? Did he?
Speaker 1: Did he really tell the truth in the beginning? What
Speaker 1: is it about this guy that makes libs all sit
Speaker 1: around and and just gleam with pride, with They really
Speaker 1: look at this guy as though he's like the dad
Speaker 1: they never had, or maybe the grandpa they never had.
Speaker 1: And I just don't get it. I can't imagine going
Speaker 1: through life thinking that this this guy who's been working
Speaker 1: for a health bureauxy for so many decades. Have any
Speaker 1: of these people ever showed up at a public hospital.
Speaker 1: Have they ever dealt with, you know, the bureaucrats who
Speaker 1: are making decisions in these places. You really, you really
Speaker 1: think they're they're heroes and they always have your best
Speaker 1: interests at heart. Album man, I a lot a lot
Speaker 1: of cost cutting measures, a lot of you know, go
Speaker 1: wait in the emergency room for eight hours while you're bleeding.
Speaker 1: You know, sorry, too bad. But they believe that doctor
Speaker 1: Fauci was unnecessary a savior. Actually, in all of this
Speaker 1: he has been elevated to religious icon status, and he
Speaker 1: is a tiny golden calf. Oh and the little golden
Speaker 1: calf when he would bleat, often said the wrong thing.
Speaker 1: But there were things he wouldn't say either, which I
Speaker 1: think is so interesting. You will recall that he is
Speaker 1: now claiming that he had no problem with Trump. He
Speaker 1: was never an issue for the White House. It was
Speaker 1: never political for him. The former White House Chief of
Speaker 1: Staff under President Trump, Mark Meadows, brought this up recently.
Speaker 1: This was somebody who was working with and dealing with
Speaker 1: Fauci every day. Here he is play nine. Well, I
Speaker 1: can tell you that what needs to happen is Ranking
Speaker 1: Member Jordan and his cynic counterparts need to have another
Speaker 1: hearing where they actually bring back in doctor Fauci to
Speaker 1: look at some of these key questions. Part of the
Speaker 1: troubling thing that we're seeing with these emails that are
Speaker 1: coming out is not only do they seem to correspond
Speaker 1: with what President Trump said and what Secretary Pompeo said
Speaker 1: in terms of the origins of the virus. But it
Speaker 1: indicates that Fauci had knowledge, or at least a suspicion
Speaker 1: of things not happening in an evolutionary manner very early on,
Speaker 1: and he didn't share that with the task force. That's
Speaker 1: very troubling and something that we do need to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom up. Why wouldn't he share that suspicion
Speaker 1: with the task force? Gee, I wonder why if you
Speaker 1: listen to this show, you're somebody who likes real questions
Speaker 1: asked and you want real answers. That has been the
Speaker 1: opposite of what we've gotten from ninety five percent of
Speaker 1: the corporate media in this country, of all media in
Speaker 1: this country, they have just been little parrots, squawk squawk,
Speaker 1: parrots of the consensus. Ah, Foucci want a cracker. That's right,
Speaker 1: Foucci does want a cracker. Well, you know what I mean. Fouci,
Speaker 1: he's just always looking for a pad on the head,
Speaker 1: always looking for some one to tell him how great
Speaker 1: he is. Vanity friends from the Lab Code Tyrant was
Speaker 1: a major component of the information operation that the American
Speaker 1: people were subjected to for the last fifteen sixteen months.
Speaker 1: That is what has really gone on here. Now that
Speaker 1: we've hit the unofficial kick off to summer, the months
Speaker 1: ahead are always a great reminder of how lucky we
Speaker 1: are to be Americans. From time with friends and family,
Speaker 1: backyard barbecues, road trips, ball games, hitting the beach or
Speaker 1: the lake, you name it. It's also a great time
Speaker 1: to show how proud we are to be Americans. And
Speaker 1: part of the way we do that is by flying
Speaker 1: the American flag in front of our homes. And not
Speaker 1: just any American flag. I recommend one that you can
Speaker 1: rest assured won't tangle around a pole or get mildewed,
Speaker 1: torn or shredded quickly. That's why you have to check
Speaker 1: out my friends at Allegiance Flags. Supply they make the
Speaker 1: highest quality American flags and accessories, and by the way,
Speaker 1: they do it right here in America. Go to show
Speaker 1: Allegiance dot com and enter promo code buck for ten
Speaker 1: percent off your order. Check out not just the options
Speaker 1: they have for your home, but for any of you
Speaker 1: boat owners out there, but for any of you boat
Speaker 1: owners out there getting ready to put the boat back
Speaker 1: on the lake this weekend. They have everything you need
Speaker 1: for your boat. Doc Again, go to show Allegiance dot com.
Speaker 1: That website is show allegiance dot com and enter promo
Speaker 1: code buck for ten percent off your order and get
Speaker 1: yours in time for Flag Day on June fourteenth. That
Speaker 1: show allegiance dot com. Enter promo code buck for ten
Speaker 1: percent off. And let's fly the American flag with pride
Speaker 1: everywhere this summer. Make sure it's the right kind of flag,
Speaker 1: the one that won't get torn, mildewed, or tangled up.
Speaker 1: Show allegiance dot com use promo code buck for ten
Speaker 1: percent off. Let's get into a deep dive here about
Speaker 1: the possible cover up of the origins of COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: and where we stand with the lab leak thesis. No
Speaker 1: longer right to call this a conspiracy theory. It was
Speaker 1: never right to call it a conspiracy theory. Our friend
Speaker 1: Jordan shack Tell, who's an investigative journalist, is with us
Speaker 1: right now. He has been a critic of fauci, of
Speaker 1: lockdowns of masks all along, so we greatly appreciate him
Speaker 1: for that. Jordan. People should support your work on this.
Speaker 1: Where do they go? You can find me at Docia
Speaker 1: dot substack dot com. Now tell us, tell us what
Speaker 1: is most striking to you about where we stand right
Speaker 1: now with the release of these emails. What is important
Speaker 1: for everybody to take away from this. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of emails out there from doctor Fauci. Yeah, because the
Speaker 1: lab leak stuff and the gain of function stuff has
Speaker 1: been in the news so much. It was interesting to
Speaker 1: see the sense of urgency coming from the upper echelons
Speaker 1: of the US government health bureaucracy, with the National Institutes
Speaker 1: of Health and then Fauci's and I AID whenever this
Speaker 1: issue came up. It seems like they wanted to have
Speaker 1: an immediate phone call um, whether it was with you
Speaker 1: supposed journalists in the corporate press, or you had Fauci's
Speaker 1: top colleagues and executives. And what seems like they weren't
Speaker 1: dismissing that the lab bleak thesis whatsoever. They were just
Speaker 1: trying to seemingly coordinate their messaging over the Lablak thesis.
Speaker 1: And then you know, around the same time frame. What
Speaker 1: was interesting is that Fauci had publications out and as
Speaker 1: colleagues had public public publications um completely dismissing lab leak
Speaker 1: as if this was not even a possibility. But the
Speaker 1: emails said a very different thing. So what do you,
Speaker 1: what does the evidence tell us right now about what's
Speaker 1: what's most likely to have occurred here, and also the
Speaker 1: degree of of culpability of the of the Wuhan Institute
Speaker 1: of Virology. When where does the data to borrow from?
Speaker 1: Fauci point us right now, it seems it's not only
Speaker 1: the Wuhan Institute of Virology and you know, the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party, but there's also a significant piece that's missing
Speaker 1: with concerning the US government's health institutions, collaboration and funding
Speaker 1: of these agencies. And you know, whether or not it
Speaker 1: happens with the endorsement of a particular presidential administration remains
Speaker 1: pretty much unknown. You know, this gain of function stuff
Speaker 1: is so weird because they put a pause to it
Speaker 1: and then they resumed it, and then they were talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, these these bat viruses, and it's just very
Speaker 1: strange that the timeline that you see here, and it
Speaker 1: just leads to a lot more questions about what exactly
Speaker 1: was going on there on the US side of things,
Speaker 1: because I think we're never going to get the answers
Speaker 1: from the Chinese Communists. You know, they're never gonna tell
Speaker 1: us directly the truth of the matter. But we do
Speaker 1: have other, you know, processes in the United States which
Speaker 1: we can at least hold these bureaucrats to account. How
Speaker 1: do you think we can get accountability here, Jordan? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Fauci is running around saying, let's not point
Speaker 1: fingers at China, and now people are saying, well, it's
Speaker 1: not just China we're concerned about here, but either's some
Speaker 1: that are saying that he has misled to the point
Speaker 1: of perhaps even perjuring himself when he's talked before Congress.
Speaker 1: What do you think the accountability mechanisms can do here?
Speaker 1: And how do we go forward given what we found out?
Speaker 1: That's the interesting thing, and I think all the signs
Speaker 1: are pointing to in early not an early retirement for Fauci,
Speaker 1: because he's been a government bureaucrat for an amazing fifty
Speaker 1: six years. But there has to be some kind of
Speaker 1: accountability mechanisms. You can hope that, you know, at least
Speaker 1: GOP legislators can really push this issue hard and hopefully
Speaker 1: find at least some purple state dams to agree to
Speaker 1: attempt to hold these people accountable. Start holding hearings, start
Speaker 1: asking these people under oath, you know what they met
Speaker 1: when they were talking about these emails, and of course
Speaker 1: these emails were under freedom of information acts. So hopefully,
Speaker 1: you know, these these people that represent US in Congress
Speaker 1: can get additional emails about this issue and continue to
Speaker 1: you know, do what they can to get more information
Speaker 1: to the public. But the last thing I want right now, actually,
Speaker 1: even though I've been you know, trying to get Faucci
Speaker 1: sidelined and to retire for for eighteen months because of
Speaker 1: his gross incompetence, I think Faucci especially needs to be
Speaker 1: held accountable. What do you think are the one of
Speaker 1: the greatest sins that Faucci has created here? There's so
Speaker 1: many things, um, it seems the common theme in the
Speaker 1: in the emails was that Faucci was trying to protect
Speaker 1: the bureaucracy from any critiques or even just he wanted
Speaker 1: to project this sense onto the nation that he was
Speaker 1: kind of like this all knowing scientists, you know, this
Speaker 1: the foremost infectious disease expert that we kept hearing the
Speaker 1: corporate press echoing and over again to try to sell that,
Speaker 1: you know, the US response to COVID nineteen was based
Speaker 1: on science, whether it was social distancing masks, all these closures,
Speaker 1: and the reality was that there was never any evidence
Speaker 1: for any of this stuff. But Fauci was more um,
Speaker 1: you know, as a as a really as a politician.
Speaker 1: He understood the power of crafting a narrative that works,
Speaker 1: and he used the media to his benefit to craft
Speaker 1: these narratives. But largely every single thing, um, it seemed,
Speaker 1: every single thing was a lie and it was based
Speaker 1: it was based on nothing, you know, this six foot
Speaker 1: social distancing, and a lot of us, you know, you
Speaker 1: included especially, have been saying this for a while, like,
Speaker 1: where is the evidence. I'm not relying on Fauci's credentials,
Speaker 1: where's the evidence? And you know, the emails kind of
Speaker 1: go to show that they didn't really they were really
Speaker 1: too concerned with evidence. They were just more concerned with
Speaker 1: being in a position of authority. It seems to me,
Speaker 1: Jordan them that that a lot of this was pushed
Speaker 1: by we we have these you know, large, expensive, cumbersome
Speaker 1: health bureaucracies here in America and a lot of places
Speaker 1: around the world, and here we are. This was the
Speaker 1: their moment, so to speak, right, this is what we
Speaker 1: have them for. And really, at the beginning of this pandemic,
Speaker 1: if they had told us the truth. It was going
Speaker 1: to be we don't really know how to stop this
Speaker 1: from spreading. A lot of you are going to get it,
Speaker 1: and it's going to take us at least a year
Speaker 1: to get a vaccine out there and start getting the
Speaker 1: people's arms. So do your best. I mean that was
Speaker 1: actually where they were. But they came up with this
Speaker 1: whole framework of mask six foot six feet of distancing lights,
Speaker 1: all your groceries, you know, all these things we were
Speaker 1: being told. It's it feels like they just came up
Speaker 1: with a plan so they could have a plan. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it seemed like they came up with a plan so
Speaker 1: they could be seen and perceived as doing something you know,
Speaker 1: morally and scientifically appropriate. And for actually it paid off.
Speaker 1: Like Faucci won a one million dollar prize, he got
Speaker 1: a book deal, he had a Disney crew following him
Speaker 1: around shooting a documentary. I don't even know if the
Speaker 1: White House knew about that, which is kind of fascinating.
Speaker 1: But Faucci, he won the battle for you know, public
Speaker 1: of public perception. The problem was just that the science
Speaker 1: wasn't on his side, and he ended up screwing over
Speaker 1: you know, the entire country, and I think his decisions
Speaker 1: impacted not only the United States but the entire world
Speaker 1: who looked to him for guidance. And he was really basically,
Speaker 1: you know, the equivalent of a quack quack doctor at
Speaker 1: the entire time. We're speaking to Jordan Shacktel, investigative journalist
Speaker 1: who's been covering COVID from I mean, I think I
Speaker 1: would say a contrarian perspective is fair. And I've been
Speaker 1: doing the same thing Jordan, because to go against the
Speaker 1: consensus in any way, you're considered some kind of you know,
Speaker 1: radical contrarian on all this stuff. So I have to
Speaker 1: wonder what is the role of Peter Dajak. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure I'm saying his name right, But this guy, Peter
Speaker 1: Dajac and all this, who was the one who directed
Speaker 1: some of the funding to the Wouhan Institute of Virology.
Speaker 1: What do we know about this guy? Yeah, so it
Speaker 1: seems like he was running some kind of like middleman
Speaker 1: operation between the US government. He actually I've never interacted
Speaker 1: with this guy in social media and he's blocked me
Speaker 1: and like every single platform says like, oh, that's kind
Speaker 1: of weird. But he seemed to be the intermediary between
Speaker 1: the Chinese communists and the US health bureaucracy, especially when
Speaker 1: it came to like funding this kind of this sketchy research,
Speaker 1: they preferred not to do it directly. So he was
Speaker 1: like this like black market type situation, NGO, very sketchy.
Speaker 1: There's so much sketchy stuff going on in that in
Speaker 1: that world. Even though you know these government health institutions
Speaker 1: have a history of dangerous and reckless behavior, they seem to,
Speaker 1: you know, try to find cutouts to avoid congressional scrutiny.
Speaker 1: And he seemed to be an integral player in that mess.
Speaker 1: Of all the decisions Jordan that have come down from
Speaker 1: the health bureaucrats during this in retrospect, I mean, which
Speaker 1: is the one that you find the most egregious, Whether
Speaker 1: it's the suppression of the lab leak theory, the enormous
Speaker 1: about face on masks, the lockdown mantra, all this stuff,
Speaker 1: which is the one that, for you is just the
Speaker 1: most inexplicable and destructive. Yeah, it just had to be
Speaker 1: the lockdowns and the messaging about the lockdowns and the
Speaker 1: confidence they expressed when they were really just weighing it
Speaker 1: the entire time. And that's you know, the most discippointing
Speaker 1: thing is how much damage they did to our global
Speaker 1: society because they expressed false confidence and really had no
Speaker 1: idea what was going on. I mean, we've been talking
Speaker 1: about this for so long that the lockdowns had never
Speaker 1: been tried before on this scale in human history, and
Speaker 1: it was all based on a you know, Chinese communist
Speaker 1: model out of Wuhan, China, and it was so destructive
Speaker 1: and countries are still attempting lockdowns to this day. Australia
Speaker 1: just went into another lockdown. It's just the lockdowns I
Speaker 1: think have been by far the most damaging because it
Speaker 1: shuts down the economy, it creates, you know, a paranoid society,
Speaker 1: and it's going to take so many years to recover
Speaker 1: from that that, Yeah, it's got to be the lockdowns.
Speaker 1: Do you think we're ever going to really find out
Speaker 1: what happened with this virus in the early days? I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think where we're going to find out where
Speaker 1: it really came from and what the Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: did to make sure that the world didn't know where
Speaker 1: it started. I hope so. And the role of social
Speaker 1: media in censoring these voices who were trying to talk
Speaker 1: about this. You know, there was a lot of legitimate
Speaker 1: expert virologists and you know, other scientists in biological fields
Speaker 1: who are trying to identify, you know, if any of
Speaker 1: this stuff was genetically engineered and whatnot. And I think
Speaker 1: it's time to you know, get these people back into
Speaker 1: the spot. Like. Unfortunately, you know, these these Facebook, Twitter,
Speaker 1: Instagram folks basically like censored these people out of the
Speaker 1: conversation and marginalize them completely. So we need to, you know,
Speaker 1: elevate the voices of actual experts who can get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of this stuff. Jordan Shack tell everybody he's
Speaker 1: been on this for the whole time, from begin one
Speaker 1: of the few voices willing to be brave on this,
Speaker 1: because if you wanted to be correct, you had to
Speaker 1: be willing to go against the Fauci consensus. Go to
Speaker 1: substack dot dot sia dot com for Jordan's latest Jordan,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, man, appreciate it. Thanks book. There was
Speaker 1: an email on April sixteenth, an email exchange between you
Speaker 1: and NIH director Francis Collins. The email sent to you said,
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory gains MOMENTU and this again was the idea
Speaker 1: of the lab league. Those emails though, as you can
Speaker 1: see on the screen, or I can see on the screen,
Speaker 1: was all redacted between you and Francis Collins. Do you
Speaker 1: have to remember? Do you remember, John? They only took
Speaker 1: about ten thousand emails from me. Of course I remember,
Speaker 1: I remember all ten thousand of them. Give me a
Speaker 1: break to be clear. You're saying you don't remember, you
Speaker 1: can't tell us. But what was in the body of that.
Speaker 1: I don't remember what's in that redacted? But there I mean,
Speaker 1: the idea I think is quite far fetched that the
Speaker 1: Chinese deliberately engineered something so that they could kill themselves
Speaker 1: as well as other people. I think that's a bit
Speaker 1: far out, John, That's not what most of the people
Speaker 1: who are pushing the lab leak theory believe happened. But see,
Speaker 1: this is a version of what we've seen before from Fauci.
Speaker 1: Avoid the avoid the main argument by by attacking these
Speaker 1: diversionary arguments. It's not that the Chinese intentionally released this
Speaker 1: virus in their own population first and then hope that
Speaker 1: because China has a billion people, they were going to
Speaker 1: come out ahead of the rest of the world, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's actually not the argument Now some people
Speaker 1: may be arguing that, but what many of us are
Speaker 1: saying is China was involved in doing this kind of research.
Speaker 1: It was a place that the facilities, as we know,
Speaker 1: had already had leaks in the past four leaks. I
Speaker 1: believe that after the Stars scare, where you had about
Speaker 1: seven hundred plus people die globally, but that was if
Speaker 1: you got stars, you were in very very dire situation
Speaker 1: of the much much higher mortality than what you had
Speaker 1: from COVID nineteen. But the Stars situation created this sense
Speaker 1: of urgency for the need to study these kinds of viruses.
Speaker 1: And so what we're saying is that they were studying
Speaker 1: it and then it got out and there was gain
Speaker 1: and function research going on. So they weren't just they
Speaker 1: didn't just collect viruses and look at them and try
Speaker 1: to understand them. They collected viruses and were toying with them,
Speaker 1: changing them, and then one of those viruses that does
Speaker 1: occur naturally in nature got out of the lab and
Speaker 1: then spread all over the world and killed millions of people.
Speaker 1: That's the basis of the theory. But see what Fauci
Speaker 1: wants to do is tell everybody, oh, they're just these
Speaker 1: crazy people out there who were talking nonsense. There's just
Speaker 1: all this absurd stuff. Why should anything really in these
Speaker 1: emails be redacted? Think about that for a moment. This
Speaker 1: isn't this isn't the CIA. They're not worried about sources
Speaker 1: and methods. Why are there redactions in these emails from
Speaker 1: the the nih you know, head of NAIAD, the National
Speaker 1: Institive alergye Infectious Disease, which is under the umbrella of
Speaker 1: the National Institute of Health. M Well, Fauci's just full
Speaker 1: of it. He's skating all over the place here, trying to,
Speaker 1: as you know, I always say, evade accountability. Here he
Speaker 1: is on something near and dear to my heart. It's
Speaker 1: all talk about masks in these emails, and how Matt
Speaker 1: basically mocking the notion that masks are going to save
Speaker 1: you from COVID. I mean it's really not. It's just
Speaker 1: which we all know, right, masks they don't really do anything.
Speaker 1: Can we finally? I love that we can finally say
Speaker 1: that without everyone freaking out. I mean we said they
Speaker 1: don't do anything. You know, you may you may prevent
Speaker 1: yourself from you know, getting wet if you go out
Speaker 1: in the rain by holding a coke can over your head.
Speaker 1: But is that an effective means of stopping you from
Speaker 1: getting wet in a rainstorm? But right, I mean, at
Speaker 1: some point it's just it's just dumb. It doesn't work
Speaker 1: well enough for anyone to care. I think that's where
Speaker 1: we are with cloth masks against this aerosolized virus. But
Speaker 1: here's Bouchy on that point, specifically Play twelve. Well, you know, John,
Speaker 1: let's get real here. If you look at scientific information
Speaker 1: as it accumulates what is going on in January and February,
Speaker 1: what you know as a fact, as data guides what
Speaker 1: you tell people and your policies. If March April may occur,
Speaker 1: you accumulate a lot more information, and you modify and
Speaker 1: adjust your opinion and your recommendation based on the current
Speaker 1: science and current data. So, of course, if we knew
Speaker 1: back then that a substantial amount of transmission was asymptomatic people,
Speaker 1: if we knew then that the data show that masks
Speaker 1: outside of a hospital setting are actually do work when
Speaker 1: we didn't know it. Then if we realize all of
Speaker 1: those things back then, of course, asking a question, would
Speaker 1: you have done something different if you know what you
Speaker 1: know now? Of course, people would have done that. That's
Speaker 1: so obvious. Where's that data? Fouch on the masks working
Speaker 1: outside of a hospital setting? Where where's that data? Oh?
Speaker 1: You mean the lab studies with spray bottles? Yeah, laughable garbage.
Speaker 1: Criticizing such things as the sixteen nineteen project, you know,
Speaker 1: which tends to put that in date as something uniquely American.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of slavery going on around the
Speaker 1: world in the early sixteen hundreds. We fought the Civil
Speaker 1: War in order to put our original sin behind us.
Speaker 1: We passed the Voting Rights Act in nineteen sixty five
Speaker 1: in order to further enfranchise minorities in our country. It's
Speaker 1: been a long arc of trying to improve race relations
Speaker 1: in this country. But I think trying to come completely
Speaker 1: denigrade and downgrade American historical moments like seventeen seventy six,
Speaker 1: seventeen eighty seven, nineteen sixty five critical moments is a mistake.
Speaker 1: But I don't think the government's any better at prescribing
Speaker 1: what ought to be taught than the universities themselves. But
Speaker 1: they ought to be open to criticism about what they're doing.
Speaker 1: So what exactly is Mitch McConnell saying about the solution.
Speaker 1: Here he identifies when it comes to critical race theory,
Speaker 1: much of the problem correctly. He understands that CRT seeks
Speaker 1: to minimize, you know, the same way they accuse people
Speaker 1: of minimizing the role of slavery in America from its origins,
Speaker 1: and the sixteen nineteen Project does exactly that. We can say, well,
Speaker 1: the other side minimizes that we had a civil war
Speaker 1: in this country, a brutal, bloody civil war or that
Speaker 1: killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, wounded many times more
Speaker 1: than that, grievously wounded, people lost eyes, legs, arms, and
Speaker 1: we fought a war to end slavery in this country.
Speaker 1: And then after that went through a century or so
Speaker 1: of continued effort to make real the promise of equality
Speaker 1: fought for by the Union in the Civil War. And
Speaker 1: we're just told that by cr team at the sixty
Speaker 1: nineteen project not enough, not enough, not even close, not acceptable.
Speaker 1: America's a racist, bad place. Really. Mitch McConnell pointed out
Speaker 1: that there was a lot of slavery going on in
Speaker 1: the world of the sixteen hundreds. That's true. In fact,
Speaker 1: one of the places with the longest reach when it
Speaker 1: came to the slave trade were the Barbary states of
Speaker 1: North Africa. This is something that is often not taught
Speaker 1: at all in schools. In fact, talk about something that's
Speaker 1: that is edited out of basic history for people. We
Speaker 1: fought our first foreign war against the Barbary pirates right
Speaker 1: to the shores of Tripoli because President Jefferson had had
Speaker 1: enough of our people, Americans being enslaved by Muslim Arabs
Speaker 1: in North Africa, taken off of ships, the men worked
Speaker 1: to death and the women used in sexual slavery for
Speaker 1: harems of wealthy Muslim Arabs in places like Tripoli and
Speaker 1: what is presently today Algeria and Tunisia and Morocco. Right
Speaker 1: that was going on for hundreds of years. Straight up slavery,
Speaker 1: the Muslim slave trade of European Christians and American Christians
Speaker 1: was what was happening. And they went as far as
Speaker 1: These slaving raids or slave raids went as far as Iceland, Ireland,
Speaker 1: all up and down the coasts of Italy and Spain.
Speaker 1: They would seize white Christians and put them into into slavery,
Speaker 1: and in fact, they often were worked in minds in
Speaker 1: North Africa until they died. And they died rapidly because
Speaker 1: of the absolutely horrific conditions, and the women were taken
Speaker 1: in prize for sexual slavery in the Harems. That's what
Speaker 1: was going on for hundreds of years. Friends. You don't
Speaker 1: often hear about this, do you. This is not something
Speaker 1: that's really taught very much, but it's true. All throughout
Speaker 1: the sixteen hundreds, all throughout the seventeen hundreds, this was reality.
Speaker 1: And the Ottoman Empire, which is often talked about by
Speaker 1: leftist historians as this, you know, great and sophisticated and powerful.
Speaker 1: It was powerful, and it did end up accumulating a
Speaker 1: lot of other cultures knowledge and advancements. You'd call it
Speaker 1: cultural appropriation if you want, including the Byzantine Empire, the
Speaker 1: Eastern Orthodox Christian Empire that came before it. But the
Speaker 1: Ottoman Empire was built as a slave empire. Does anybody
Speaker 1: want to try to go back in history and look
Speaker 1: at this and come to a different conclusion, I welcome
Speaker 1: them to try. Massive slave trade from the Muslim Ottomans.
Speaker 1: The slave trade existed in Sub Saharan Africa at the
Speaker 1: time of the Transatlantic slave trade, and in fact, as
Speaker 1: we know, the white slave traders who would show up
Speaker 1: along the West African coast of what is today the
Speaker 1: coast of Well coast of West African, including places like
Speaker 1: night Jeria and and some of the smaller African states
Speaker 1: alongside it. They would use the existing slave network inside
Speaker 1: of Africa, where tribes would enslave other tribes and then
Speaker 1: they would be sold to the white Transatlantic slave traders
Speaker 1: in what is unquestionably a horrific, inhumane, deeply immoral practice.
Speaker 1: Many well, I can't even tell you the numbers, there'd
Speaker 1: be estimates, but large percentage of those those enslaved Africans
Speaker 1: died in that in transit, held in just the most
Speaker 1: disgraceful conditions imaginable. So this is just to say that
Speaker 1: these are horrific things. They should not have been done,
Speaker 1: but human beings have been terrible to each other for
Speaker 1: a long time. This is not new and this is
Speaker 1: not unique to America. So if we're really going to
Speaker 1: talk about this, if we're going to discuss the history
Speaker 1: of slavery and depression, let's really discuss it through history
Speaker 1: and all over the world, the Aztec Empire, you'll often
Speaker 1: hear about how the conquest of the America's involved the
Speaker 1: terrible treatment of the indigenous population here, right, and now
Speaker 1: you have this new new term that is meant to
Speaker 1: bring greater attention to indigenous populations bipoc, right, black indigenous
Speaker 1: people and people of color. Well, the indigenous population of
Speaker 1: the Americas was when you're talking about the Aztec Empire,
Speaker 1: for example, they were not only engaged in massive slavery,
Speaker 1: enslaving tribes and treating people like property, but also massive
Speaker 1: human sacrifice. So we're going to talk about morality. You
Speaker 1: start to look at what's going on here in places.
Speaker 1: And remember we're talking about fifteen hundreds, talking about sixteen hundreds,
Speaker 1: We're talking about periods of time here that are roughly equivalent.
Speaker 1: You could go back into slavery in the Bible and
Speaker 1: the Jews in Egypt, and right, there's a reason why
Speaker 1: throughout history when you look for slavery you find the
Speaker 1: Roman Empire built on slavery. This, you know, human oppression
Speaker 1: of other humans has been a constant in this country.
Speaker 1: We actually had, thanks to the Constitution or the Declaration
Speaker 1: of independence, thanks to the basic framework of our government,
Speaker 1: we had the beginnings of the end of human bondage
Speaker 1: and slavery put in place here. It wasn't as fast
Speaker 1: as we wanted it to be. It wasn't as fast
Speaker 1: as it should have been, right, And that's it's understandable
Speaker 1: that we can go back and say that we wish
Speaker 1: this had moved along much more quickly than it did.
Speaker 1: But to ignore that process and to pretend that there
Speaker 1: haven't been tremendous sacrifices made by many people outside of
Speaker 1: the minority community. Isn't it fascinating how you never get
Speaker 1: to say in this country, you're told, under critical race
Speaker 1: theory and the sixteen nineteen Project view of America, you're
Speaker 1: told that there's a degree of guilt that you have
Speaker 1: just by nature of being white. Right, if you're white,
Speaker 1: you're part of the oppressive class in America. This is
Speaker 1: central to critical race theory. This is central to the
Speaker 1: teachings of the deconstructionists like Derita, these far left intellectuals.
Speaker 1: I mean, really, if you go back and see you
Speaker 1: can trace critical race theory to those who believe in
Speaker 1: who are putting forward moral relativism and the fashionable Marxist
Speaker 1: philosophies of European professors and European intellectuals from the nineteen
Speaker 1: sixties and the nineteen seventies. That's where we get all
Speaker 1: this critical race theory teaching. It's really the beginnings of
Speaker 1: the origins of it, and then critical race theory just
Speaker 1: tries to codify it into law. Critical race theory takes
Speaker 1: it a step further and says, well, we're going to
Speaker 1: explicitly pursue political power as a component of this, and
Speaker 1: that that's where we currently are. But you'll notice that
Speaker 1: it's it's never something you can say, well, you know
Speaker 1: my ancestors, my ancestors fought in the Union. You know
Speaker 1: I lost, and some of my some of my ancestors
Speaker 1: died fighting to end slavery. So do I get if
Speaker 1: I get the downside of being white in America today
Speaker 1: under the description of race relations forwarded by critical race theory,
Speaker 1: Do I get to make a case that, well, my ancestors, actually,
Speaker 1: some of them gave their lives fighting against the practice
Speaker 1: of slavery? Does that know? No, of course, And then
Speaker 1: you get into why am I even being held to
Speaker 1: any standard based upon my ancestors. You should not hold
Speaker 1: the son guilty for the sins of the father. You
Speaker 1: certainly shouldn't hold somebody guilty for the sins of their
Speaker 1: great great great grandfathers and yet to crt grapple with
Speaker 1: any of this. No, it is racial Marxism. It is
Speaker 1: meant to tear this country apart and elevate the few
Speaker 1: at the expense of the many, elevate those who run
Speaker 1: the apparatus under the pretense that they're helping those who
Speaker 1: are oppressed, but really they just want to be the
Speaker 1: ones doing the oppressing. Right Otherwise, explain to me what
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and all these prominent Democrats,
Speaker 1: what do they think they're really accomplishing with this the end,
Speaker 1: it's just about power. It's certainly not about an accurate
Speaker 1: reading of history. That's fine, I'm all for an accurate
Speaker 1: reading of history. I'm not for the politicized, an exaggerated
Speaker 1: version of specific points in history meant to justify abuse
Speaker 1: of constitutional rights and equality under the law today