This episode is kept a show about Nazis In a show about why hola hoaxers annoy me so much Let's get to the number because I was forced Because of this exchange that I had to kind of go do some is their new research being done Which is one of the other claims that the hola hoaxers make is like hey, they're shutting down the research There's no debate. This is what some countries is banned by law Well, I'm now sharing on the screen. Okay, let's see published paper Here it's published in science and advances But this study identifies an extensive phase of hyper intense killing in which 1.47 a million and a half Jews more than 25% of the Jews killed over the six Years of the World War two were murdered by the Nazi in an intense hundred day Every month surge. So that first clip was from a new Nazi movie on Netflix blood and gold Boy, I love those Nazi movies And the second was from an exchange ahead with today's guest Al Borealis from forum Borealis Who joined me to have this very very kind of intense in-depth? Multi-layered discussion about some of these issues now the conversation is Just not gonna make it on YouTube YouTube is so unfair how they censor, you know, and a lot of people still don't understand that How YouTube does this and you'll you'll go over to rumble this will be on rumble And if you want to watch the video, you know, you can go watch it on rumble and you'll be like wow I've heard, you know all of this stuff before in other places on YouTube But that's not how it works. They still give you strikes for Contemporaries like me and small people and they're just arbitrarily. I don't know who else gets it But Al talks about getting a strike too.  So a Lot of these shows that I'm gonna do are gonna wind up going straight to rumble and That's okay. That's great in the meantime I'll play a couple of clips here that I'll kind of add in and then you can just go to rumble and find the rest of The show or most people listen to the show in podcast form and there the censorship isn't so bad So for the folks watching this on YouTube here are those clips for the rest of everybody Here's the full show Okay, so where I thought we might start is Johnny Vedmore Yeah, since we both interviewed him about Johnny Vedmore is of course partner with Whitney Webb at Unlimited Hangout they've done some absolutely fantastic investigative reporting work We both Tuned into him when World Economic Forum stuff was especially heated up about a year ago. That seems to have Slipped off the radar a little bit, but don't think for a second that they've that they've led up on the agenda at all so Why don't you go back and tell folks about Why you felt like the World Economic Forum stuff was important at the time that you did it And then let's try and link that back into this conversation I want to have about Nazis and Jews because I think that jumps us right into the middle of it in some ways that You didn't fully explore on your interview with him, but I did so I'm gonna use that as kind of a battering ram to kind of pull you into this thing I mean why it's relevant why it's important doing really have to argue for that but I wanted to focus on the Nazi roots or I mean the Jewish roots too, right? Well, I think we kind of started there and worked our way back in that I'd again, but I'll try and roll it forward Yeah, I don't agree with your characterization about how the Jews are Treated throughout history. I think the Jews have a special Relationship with the Christians that's built into the stew again It's built into Pontius Pilate saying that phony scene It's just as phony as Josephus saying hey, man, you got the Messiah. That's the spacey in The next fake phony thing is Pontius Pilate saying gosh, I met with this guy Man, I'm trying to go along with you guys But this guy seems like a good guy to me this Jesus guy I wash my hands and the Jews say no, no, no, he's got to go down. Let it be on us That creates a special relationship between Christianity and Judaism and both are participating in that relationship because there is no logical reason for Judaism to survive to thrive other than as kind of the Bobo doll the kick him when he's down object of Christianity Christianity defines Judaism didn't survive What's called Judaism today isn't the same, you know Hebrew was a dead language 100 years ago They reconstructed it's like we take Latin and we implement it. You say that I mean that goes because everything We've talked about in the last hour. No, the Judaism doesn't survive when this is 2d man If you talk with experts in in in Judaism Most of the string Judy extra strains are dead What it has survived and it's called Judaism today is a small segment of the original religions a very fundamentalist Very poor representation of Judaism. There is also some mystical things that have survived like Kabul etc But basically most of Judaism is dead We have some survivors like the Hasidic Jews and other groups But anyway, you know what I realized from from it was useful for us to go back because I just realized that what happened there According to at least your take on it. It's exactly the same that happened With the Nazis after the World War two see the use And maybe this was you were misspoking but you were right because you said the Christians and the Jews were having a special relationship fact is You see your surface were operating Before they managed to hijack Christianity, but it seems that that faction that you see of your surface represented It's exact same philosophy and ideology who took over Christianity and by year three two five After the third Council in Ikea they had complete control over Christianity. That's when they flushed out All among others not just but among others in Gnostics So it seems to me that that sigh up that begun Who knows when it begun, but at least that Josephus represented that they succeeded In taking over Christianity. I think it's the same people who Paul represented Because he's he's exact same figure as Josephus. Josephus was a Jew.  He was a Roman mercenary again working for the Roman state like Josephus and Then he had this bullshit That this is my skepticism revelation on the On the path to Damascus. Oh across in the sky and now I'm suddenly Look if I was in his shoes, I would realize eventually.   How can I really stop this? Revolutionary impulse. Hmm. What if I pollute the whole thing? What if we take over the whole ideology? That's what eventually they ended up doing Paul did and that's what I think Josephus represents also in terms of the Jews, so they both have a similar function And this is very similar also, but we can talk about that later. What happened with the Nazis after the Second World War I don't know if you cross the essence of what I'm saying here well I totally understand I just I really disagree in a fundamental way, but that's okay because You know if we can't get to the point where we're in that kind of genuine disagreement, then we're probably at the Precursor of that where we're just completely talking past each other and we are not talking past each other We are basically handling the same set of facts. I love it Council in Ossia Constantine, you know all that you know sees the we could we could spend hours on that But I really want to poke you because it's the skeptical way inquiry to perpetuate doubt I you said okay, Alex, but I don't see the link and then I said well the link is right here The link is the blood liable the link is Jews are killing christian children And this is like from 1500. They're saying that and then in 1600 They're saying that and then it dies down for a little hey, we can all get along can't we here and then wait a minute I'll put a dent on that Tuleado in spain just one example of money 1492 the Complete opposite thing happened Uh, you also have it in this ancient city of what the But you're kind of you're kind of slim wait wait wait the opposite happens too. There are Oasis in europe in this period where not only are they getting along. They are directly cooperating There are schools of education muslims christians Jews even Non-abrahamic religions are represented so so if we cherry pick parts of history in europe where they have been Knocking down on jews, then we also need to Balance that with the opposite having happened Or at least balance it with other people than jews being knocked down too not just we don't we don't because what we're talking about What you tried to bring us back to and i'm gonna bring you back I'm gonna bring you back where you did is the nazis right So what i'm saying is the justification That the nazis give to the general population in germany and the world because remember At the beginning the nazis are kind of like well, what should we do with these people? Should we just ship them all out? We want to we hate them. We want to get rid of them and there's there's a lot of Well, like don't send them over here kind of thing ship them to madagascar for example And the point is the point is that i'm making is if you don't go there in terms of tracing that back To the josephus thing that i mentioned to the ponches pilot washing of your hands thing And i still want to push you on that because you go out like you know fundamentals No Crit that is you can the fundamental belief of christianity is jesus And that jesus dies on the cross This is the the fundamental point that he is rebelling for leon's christianity. Yes He is rebelling against the jews He's rebelling against the jewish priests and he goes to the roman governor says i don't see any problem with this guy I wash my hands So when when hitler reboots the blood liable And the idea that the jews are actually Kidnapping little christian kids and eating them and doing all this other He is tapping into a deep deep psychologically planted social engineering project that began 2000 years ago And so that's point number one and i'm going to slip in point number two Is the only reason that that stays alive is because judeism is dragged along In the wake of christianity. Yes christianity is fake and it's manufactured by Constantine and it's used and stuff like that But you can't have christianity go forward through all this history Without dragging judeism along and every once in a while as you point out not all the time But every once in a while you can dredge it up and use the same old thing and say gosh darn those jews and remember They killed jesus don't forget that and that's what this thing is about well Do people care that he killed jesus i mean I don't think that anything is about this i think this is one of the intellectual or theological excuses they can use And against jews because god knows catholics did it But you have to look at the pattern of how power Operates it's like saying you know what it's like saying all they're smacking down on the right wing The right wing they're smacking down on every wing that is not a part of the establishment This is like oh, we are specially chosen as suppressed people They can see say they are jesus killers, right? but At the end of the day, you should also hate italians then because The jews wouldn't be in that position if it wasn't for piloto So it doesn't make really a big sense that this is so big and who really cares Who really cares today? Yes, it's a very good excuse. So let's grant that it's an excuse But the big picture is that power does what it needs to smack down on dissent and with the nazis They didn't even need a religion thing because They were just flirting with christianity in the beginning when they needed to build up the nazi party eventually They came clean and said You know, maybe parts of catholicism was preserved because of the bayern Heavy bayern influence in the nazi philosophy But certainly very soon they smacked down on the protestant christianity. So Some of ultra conservative catholics they preserved but they had no qualms with the fact that we don't even care about Religion, especially not christianity because that's a slave religion We actually prefer islam Let's have islamic ss battalions because that religion Works very well because of its demanded submission to mold fanatical soldiers And by the way islam has also built in For historical reasons and and enmity with jews. So this is perfect for us all the time We've already have pointed out jews as our main scapegoat. So um but And then it came clean with Right the elite at least in the nazi party are more hailing to a revised Again a hijacked version, but a revised version of Norse paganism, right and occultism. So I don't think this who killed jesus is is a big deal in terms of the actual I think it's a very good excuse for whoever needs it but Having said all that I actually don't think that the jews have any Special claim and this will get you programmed banned probably from youtube They have been persecuted, but they haven't been exceptionally persecuted compared to other minorities Other than that you can say that in europe they have For certain periods because they much more than the other represented a power potential power bastion And they represented a secluding option That is dangerous for power because They couldn't control them in addition. They had very brilliant people people who were smart people people who were good at doing things that at the end of the day also can be regarded as a Threat to the powers that be so so the jews have been sitting ducks they they've secluded themselves They've been shunned They haven't done themselves any favors in terms of being sitting ducks Of course, the blame is on the people who persecute, but look if if jesus wasn't Killed by jews History would have to invent it into paraphrase I was saying you understand what I mean I do and now you're really treading into this water that I wanted to talk about because I think there is this What you're saying to me is bordering on Anti-semitic it really is just in terms of your interpretation Of that history and I'm not saying that I'm saying That's the place where it goes and so many in the Community of the conspiracy have gone. That's marijuana. It doesn't mean anything anymore Oh, let's let's listen to dr. Jason Giorgiani that my interview with him and this interview was about Image cheapening because he went alt-right He went alt-right for a very specific reason and I'll remind people of this He is a An advocate for Iran and an advocate for the Iranian people whose country was I was that persian No, he kind of corrected me in the interview and he said, okay. He said really it's not Persia is kind of the slang and it really traces back to Iran and Iranian and the origin of the word and arian Iran Well, he is a phd. So when he kind of corrects you on that stuff with a long paragraph You kind of go, okay. I learned something But here's his thing is he's like Iran has been overrun by these fundamentalist Muslims. I don't like that So politically I'm looking for a way in a way to facilitate the regime change that needs to happen And this is back a few years ago And what that leads him to he looks to the left and he goes there I'm not going to have any part of that and he looks to the right and he says Yeah, maybe I mean, maybe I could get in with trump. Maybe I could Push this agenda it fits more on that side than it does on the other side And all's I care about is a kind of regime change in Iran. So here's the interview that leads to his outright image cheapening By partnering with the hula hoaxers, which is what I want to talk about next is hula hoax denial and how it has worked into So many ways and we can't root it out and I think Kind of there's even some traces of it in in what you're saying. Maybe not maybe not. So we'll see To reach steve bannon and then influence bannon on iran policy That was the idea And in order to facilitate this It was proposed that I take arktos And fuse it with two other right wing institutions Something called red ice radio and television Which by the way used to be a paranormal broadcaster. They had nothing to do with right wing politics 10 out 10 out because here's where the thing starts sliding off the rails So Heinrich from red ice, right? I mean, I know who he is. I've listened to him for a long time And he used to be like rl back in the day used to be like rl And he would occasionally kind of slip into this, you know, kind of Hula hoaxer kind of nonsense But you could kind of forgive it because it was a very small part of the content and hey, shouldn't we be Open to research even if it's wacky research and yeah and all sorts of wacky stuff turns out to be real and stuff like that But I mean at this point now. I mean he is full full Full on Be a nazi hula hoaxer Kind of think so are are you saying I haven't I haven't spoken to him for four years.  I mean, it's the great one is how he refers to Hitler he regularly has on people who are just You know, the whole hula hoaxer thing really I guess it really tweaks me a little bit because it's anti intellectual anti History it seems like an op to me because it's just I can tell you it's not an op. Um, I knew him quite well And the more important point is that when I knew him back then he wasn't like that Okay, so Gotta remember this is 2016 and if you go back and you look at what red ice was putting out in 2016 He had only just barely started to turn in a kind of right wing political direction Most of his shows up to that point had been basically, you know co-extensive with coast-to-coast content. It was about 9 11 It was I'll stop it. I'll stop it there. You could tell me what you think of Heinrich and red ice, but I think in 2016 he was still slinging the all right, man. He was starting to sling the anti-semitism stuff pretty strong and the neo-nazi great one Then maybe poor poor Adolf Hitler is misunderstood And the place they always go to which I want to talk about a little bit if we touch on is the six million number Which is the key if ever they bring up six million like hey Maybe it's not six. Then you know, they're holahooks. You know, they're holahooks deniers No, I disagree with that But it's interesting with the red eyes. Why do you disagree? I'll tell you but is you asked me my opinion of of this and I haven't commented upon it Many people have told us after we started That they look at us as the reincarnation of it because I think they ruin their own show going all political It's true that they had an interesting show in the beginning But then you can see like you say you can see the gradual political priority Taking place, but then there's like an such Almost overnight.  So something happened there what I don't know but I agree with you that there is probably a sigh of component to the revisionism wave that went on back then it doesn't mean that Those guys are a part of that that they are deliberate If anything, I think there's stuages for it But he was Jordani was saying they are not compromised those people He may be right about that, but you may still be right about the holahooks Psyop, but look We have to be able to be nuanced We have to be able to have different thoughts in our mind It's if you're gonna play there if you say the wrong thing Then you belong to that faction Then then we back to the black and white and the smear thing like anyone is you know, it's like saying If you if you're really an anti-racist You should really smack down on people who abuse the anti-semit claim because it Voters it out and it means nothing if you for women you should really knock down on women who give fake rape Accusations because it hurts women who are actually raped you understand the philosophy here So in the same manner You you should be able to discuss the six million thing without being oh you're a denier I for my sake have seen enough historic evidence to doubt This six million thing I discussed you've looked at the wrong evidence Looked at reports before the second world war where they say six million Jews have been slaughtered Six million Jews. This number goes back in time. You can see it from newspapers. I have this.  I do somebody shows up on the forum They're usually I hate to say it but they're usually from a Scandinavian country The last guy was from Sweden and he starts spinning this stuff and their entry point in is always the six million And I had a discussion with uh, Jan Ervin a while back Who kind of became famous and it's always this very subtle kind of they don't want to come right out and do it because Oh my god, they're so persecuted for just doing research. We're just doing research Well, when someone puts out an idea that idea should be tested and when it doesn't hold up Then it should take its rightful place Not all ideas are kind of partially true equally, you know, the whole flat earth Well, I I guess I should be spherically neutral about the shape of the earth because I don't want to offend anyone Everyone's ideas are equal. So here's the thing on the six million. First of all The Nazis themselves at Nuremberg said six million that was their figure And those guys were pretty good at counting and they don't get it wrong Which Nazis were these because the problem is that the guy who was behind it, they didn't take that's number one number two At Nuremberg, they had a gun to their head number three those who were thrown to the Nuremberg process where the Nazis that They did not cooperate with the real anti-semitists where where yada, yada, it's it's no no the real anti-semitists were friends with American It's just bullshit from hola hoaxers who are trying to advance that idea the conversation that the conversation was at the Nuremberg I'm gonna share with you. I'm sharing on the screen more recent research Right and I'll comment that let me just say gearing was at the Nuremberg He said who who is a jew or not? I decide who is a jew or not He wasn't very particularly anti-semit And here's the point. Let's get let's get to the number Let's get to the number because when so I was forced Because of this exchange that I had to kind of go do some is there new research being done? Which is one of the other claims that the hola hoaxers make is like hey, they're shutting down the research No, it's very easy to find research. Here's what I found an article quanta. There's no debate This is want to find some countries is banned by law Well, uh, it this contradicts what you're saying here l because I'm now sharing on the screen published paper Here it's published in science and advances, but it's a It's a published paper and you can see the authors and their affiliations and everything else And what they show is they went back and they they're playing out the fact that they had some You know unique way of using the data say it's the data sets that already had that everybody has but a shaman a shaman was not in in in They never took him and he's allegedly the one behind it and his second in command were the dead before before the Trials so I don't see how you can say that they said it themselves, but let's see. What does it say here? It says using unusual data set originating from railway transport records This study identifies an extensive phase of hyper intense killing in which 1.47 A million and a half jews more than 25 of the jews killed over the six Years of the of world war two were murdered by the nazi in an intense 100 day Three month surge. So 1.5 million are murdered in 90 days And that is before the allies take over They're in a hurry right to they're in a hurry to get rid of all the camp jews before the allies Well, we can go in and look at but this if you go and read this article They kind of have all the the breakdown of where they got all this data. And yeah, it's six million That's the number. I didn't see that number. I saw 1.5 Which is 25 percent Actually, they say more than 25 percent of the jews killed during the six years. Well, if you read further on they have the breakdown of the whole Six years and it adds up to basically just a shade under Six million. So look, let me say this I have to say a couple of things. It's very important. Number one This area can't be discussed freely in today's climate It's no, no, no, let me let me make some important points. Number one It's banned by law. You will be arrested if you have the wrong view on this Thing in some countries in europe today Moreover, you're being censored and Guaranteed smeared if you even try to have another opinion You'll end up like the red-eyes people sitting in a basement in the complete underground Rare rare rare. That's number one. So therefore per definition, there is no clean research There is no like oh Sophisticated we are hashing it out. We're looking objectively on all this. It's too much emotional It's too emotionally loaded. It's too many agendas. There's a lot of stuff vested interests in Particular narrative. So we can't pretend that this is like any other objective Trivial thing that we can hash out with tessus antithesis synthesis. That's number one. I'm not saying there's no six million Jews I'm just saying this isn't a clean topic to pretend that we can find out I haven't even read these articles. I can't really comment upon it What I can comment upon I will and I will do it now But before I do that, I want to make my position clear here number one my grandfather And this is why you will find more Nazis in sweden than in norway my grandfather was in the resistance movement He was spreading news about what was going on. They caught him. They tortured him and removed his one of his fingers He had nightmares like all these war heroes in our country To his death.  Oh, it's just grandpa Grandpa having nightmares again. So Norwegians have no incentive to be pro-nazis historically Most people have someone in their family like me higher up who were you know Tasted nazism on their body number three Uh, it we it doesn't matter if it was six million views or four million views or one million views This is the big point. So I don't understand these people who You know, they they start with Doubting the numbers and then they and upseeking high, right? Because it doesn't matter It doesn't matter at all. All we need to know is What was this political ideology? What did it lead to? Uh, what you know, what what good is it or what bad is it? It's plenty of bad stuff You don't need the number of Jews or people dying to know this is this is a rather Non-constructive thing to be organizing Society by and that's the important thing because there are mechanisms in the nazi Philosophy and ideology that has survived. They got rid of some exotic stuff like the racial stuff, etc But it's still going super strong today and We can get more back to that. So Look, they were are suppressive. They were anti-liberty. That's all you need to know You had no freedom to If they had one You and me could not say that six million Jews died because we would have been in even more trouble than we are now if we say they didn't die, you understand? So so I don't I never understood these people who find Problems with the war propaganda and then be go full nazis because obviously after 45 The victor write the history and obviously there has been lies and propaganda exaggerations altering so facts This is what happens in in propaganda and especially after a war is won so when I see historical what looks as Propaganda and lies in the aftermath for example that Hitler died I don't become a nazi by that. I just realized. Okay. These are one of the things like the moon landing thing Of course, they were this was a big propaganda stone towards soviet union But that doesn't mean they never went to the moon. It's the nuance. You have to have the nuance. What did you say? I said listen, I get so tricked on the moon. I mean that could be like five. Yeah, I agree But it's an example of you have to have nuance. It doesn't mean either we went to the moon And it was exactly as they told us or we didn't go and everything is a lie. There are Reality somewhere in between and I think the same is here because here's why I'm I cannot say honestly hundred percent that I'm convinced it was six million Jews. Why can't I say that? Is it because I have an emotional agenda or a pull it? No, it's because I have seen And I can show you the same thing because these are Show me show me. You haven't shown me anything. I keep showing you stuff and you haven't shown If you want to come back if you want to come back and show me show me but other one I keep I will show you. I will show you the classic. This is the classic thing Look the ethos of skeptico is follow the data Look for the deception And then use dessert So the data keeps that's what I'm meaning to six million and the data is important for you to say A couple times you've tried to slide, you know, well, what difference does it really make if uh, If josephus said that and then he washed his hands and that we've always had this relationship between christianian Judaism Hell, yes, it matters. It matters because the nazis rebooted that as an as a way of persecuting the jews And now you brought up six me. Does it really matter if it's six million or five million or one mean? It does because here's the facts follow the data. Who said it at nern who said it at nernberg Right here in this article, you'll see that it's uh, no less than our friend ed elf eichmann And uh, here he says in wait a minute eichmann wasn't in nernberg. He Correct. So the conversation he had with eichmann. So it said At nernberg, but it's also said by eichmann According to the 1961 testimony of this guy who recalled how eichmann told me that according to his information Some six million jews had perished Until then four million in extermination camps and the remaining two million through shooting the operation units and other causes of disease and then In here, they also have the nernberg testimony. So in november 1945 hotel who is the guy just Mentioned testified for the prosecution at the nernberg trials. So It is Said at nernberg And no one denies it at nernberg. It's the well-known figure and if you got something else You can bring it. I do Okay, pop it up this screen Well, I don't have it readily available, but you can find it among other things in for else bookie Bring it bring it Sure, we can lay it over here in the aftermath of the show as our illustration here's the Two things that make me doubt that figure and again If even if they just caught killed one jew I would have the exact same opinion of them as if they killed six no no no a regime killing people murdering people Is a bad regime Why would the numbers matter one person's life is as much no no if if if a regime is killing Okay, where do you draw the line then is it okay to kill thousand people? Is it okay? Kill ten thousand. Where do you draw the line? It's important to understand the data and it's important to understand the deception Which you are pointing out that's not my question But here here you say it doesn't matter You say it matters. I say it doesn't matter the data the data always matters the data always matters because it A million versus six million a million versus six million Does matter and part of the reason that it matters both in terms of understanding history in the same way of understanding Whether or not josephus really wrote that understanding whether or not Pontius pilot really said that those facts matter and when christians gloss over that and like you said which is the ultimate cop out But I get it, you know who cares Who cares really well if you're christian you have to care if you're supporting in some way If you're justifying or in some way saying hey, maybe that hitler god wasn't so bad Maybe the regime wasn't bad You better get the data right and if you say he he was really really bad And we should do everything we can to make sure that that that doesn't happen And we should root out the extent to which I agree to which Henry Kissinger god bless him But he brought the fourth rite He bought the fourth rite to the us and we are living in The notification of america which we won't even get to because that's the subtle point You bet that's an interesting part. You better get those numbers Right as a starting point and you better understand the deception. You better can't get them right We're calling those numbers out as a way to not use it So you can say you can never get there, but I just showed you a study where they go from what do you make of the following then? Because you're an honest guy, so you will follow the data. Here's the data. I've seen I've seen the newspaper articles genuine You know representations from back in the day. No no not falsifications. You can pull them up yourself. Well, they say Six million Jews Terminated four million Jews terminate this is before the second world war. This goes back to Turn of 1800 1900 I discussed this with farrell and we we we kind of thought there was something ritualistic about this Well as for the number of Jews killed in the second world war or in the camps or what? Because those are two different things I've seen also newspaper articles starting with I think it was two million and then going up to four and then going up to six So I've seen different figures there and if there were six million people Died in the camp all of them weren't Jews But if there were six million Jews died in the camp then you have to throw in a few more million to account for homosexuals handicapped communists socialist union workers catholics um Gypsies etc So uh all in all millions of millions perished i'm saying from a value Vantage point it doesn't matter if it was 10 000 or six million why on earth would you follow a regime killing 10 000 why on earth would you following a regime killing 100 people You can just analyze Nazism or any kind of fascism and you can see okay, these people are not for freedom They are not gonna Truth will have no matter here because it's all about the will of whoever is in charge Like we see in today's corporatism censorship smearing uh demonization Also, it's the the the less intelligent people, you know, mediocrity is being promoted intelligent people and intelligent society is Decaying in such systems So you don't need six million jews to be against a nazi philosophy any thinking person would be against nazi philosophy But if you're into truth Then you owe it to your intellectual honesty to say hey, hey, there's something wrong with some of these most Extremely, send me the gas chamber debate. I never studied that thing So I will never I will never say that i'm convinced that Everybody was perished by gas chamber What I know is that jews and non-jews died in the camps. That's enough for me I don't care if they were gassed or they were tortured in other ways That's all we need. So this it's like a derailing of the whole point Of the discussion once people start discussing these numbers and making a lot of vest investments For whatever these numbers are it's crazy, man But if we are to discuss these numbers we have to be honest and I'm honest because I've seen Different numbers being published back in the day Um, I've not read this studies. I can't relate to that But I can relate to what the news media were propagandists back in the day said about these things. I also Have seen Newspapers going back to the late 1800s where they claim four million jews dead Six million jews dead. What on earth is this about are we saying six million jews have died like Every 20 years since the late 1800s. No, it's impossible. So something is up here. There's some kind of sigh-up There's some kind of propaganda thing There's some kind of vested interest and we are being sidetracked if we marry ourselves to the details of the propaganda And then it's an either or either you're against Nazism Or your foreign Nazism and how you approach these small snippets of propaganda points will determine that No, that's crazy man. You can be against Nazism just by a neutral Analyzing look if they never came to power, but they published what they were thinking you could still be against Nazism Because it's all there in their philosophy all fascism You can just analyze and realize you're against this and When it comes to uh, I challenge you again at what number is it okay for a regime to kill innocent people Since you say it matters It doesn't matter one person and that's enough for me.  I was just pulling up Okay, 10 000. Where is the limit if it matters how many they kill? I say one is more is one too much You say no it has to be six million. You don't yes. I really No, of course, I believe that the important. Okay. Let's take an individual at what point is an individual murderer To be punished. Is it when he kills one person? Is it when he kills 10 person? Is it when he kills 100 people? When is it okay to to murder So you're gonna you're gonna bring your evidence the latest article that I brought up said what I've heard Every scholar who's ever looked at it is the number ranges between five million and six million and most of the four four and six According to newspaper published after the world war Well, I just pulled up an article and if you read it it says that the article published right after at the Nuremberg It was the if you want it. Okay, so you kind of brought it up. But there's different newspapers. Exactly, right? So And there were no Nazi newspapers after after the they lost the war There are several ways in which historians have been able to But they do admit that there's really six million these methods That's interesting. So they do admit there were different claims Yes, there are several ways which historians have been able to derive a figure of nearly six million And the fact that these methods have not changed Since the jewish death toll was declared at the Nuremberg trials in 1945 because it was declared there The tribunal of Nuremberg declared that the number of jewish victims to be 5.7 million the tribunals calculations as well as subsequent ones first examined pre-war and post-war census to determine the population of jews in europe before and after the war Then they go on and they have a bunch of different ways of calculating it They have the meticulous records at the death camps. When is this study from? Well, this is right after this is right after at the study you're citing Nuremberg trials 1945. No, no, no, that's a source. I'm talking about the study The article the study is 2019 2019 1.5 million in a hundred days. So Yeah, it's just you know, so just to be on what i'm seeking is Again, the deceptive part of this and how it's used and how it's been used over and over again Which is this Six million figure is the nose of the camel to get people into this kind of Holo hoax denial. Hey, you don't really know anything. There's some conspiracy Well, I've seen I've seen the gas chamber as the nose of the camel. I've seen other things At least as effective Being the nose of the camel they are here's evidence for this evidence for that blah, blah, blah I never bothered to look into it So therefore I cannot you know make an opinion, but I don't again. I don't need it.  And did you know the gas chambers and they'll have and they'll call it research And if you listen if you're not tuned into this if you haven't done your own research at the end of the day You'll say gee maybe there is something to those guys Maybe there is something to flat earth. Maybe there is something to no rabies no virus And now you've quarantined yourself into this intellectual ghetto that you can't get out of But you'll find good company because it's suppressed. It shouldn't be suppressed. It should all be in the open and we should use Arguments and truths. This is a unintended consequence by dumbing down society people don't have the ability to do source criticism They don't have the ability to do proper analyze. They don't know how to do real research I remember this video. What's it called? It's about hitler um Some some jude in england took He made a propaganda movie basically and people Impressive youths watching that who doesn't know much about history They and up thinking that you know poor hitler and poor nazis um What's it called one of the most famous ones it was In youtube and millions of views. So yeah, people are not skilled enough to um, yeah, people will be uh persuaded by Whatever propaganda manipulation The techniques come their way like i'm sure the jews were when they were screaming for jesus blood uh, so this is there's nothing new in history here, but um What's interesting to discuss alex is the point you because we've we've stuck in 2d now and it Bores me deep into the soul.  We're getting somewhere because if you just realize that power Do not Is only loyal to one thing and that is power. It is to mom money. It is to its money Control brute force and it will use anything to stay authoritarian power will use anything to maintain control The only thing actually modern times threatening it as I see it is bitcoin, but that's another debate now If we realize that then we will see that uh, why the power the the the wall street fascists and the Whitewashed nazis joined forces after world war two And there the story could have ended there and you could make a natural evolution up until today But the story unfortunately didn't end there because those on the nazis sides were loyal to an exile power Symbolized through martin bowman bowman died um before You know in the early 70s and another guy took over and this faction has been very active as a part of the power system another thing happened israel became a fascist regime very early and They buried the hatchet the last person they went after was eishman after that Even the nazi hunter simon viesenthal was complaining about this after that they made a deal With the powers in argentina the exile reich if you want and that was to move now everything would was to become corporatism and If you analyze the israeli regime it is Like the south african regime was it is apartheid and it is uh heavily Fascist and authoritarian it has some semblance deal of democracy it does but it's very Root decaying Accelerated now This is also an apparent contradiction. Huh? Why could uh, how could the Jewish state which was to be a supposed to be a sanctuary for jews. How could that you know develop so close to Nazism, you know, we are the chosen people Because this is how history works It's not about the outer things. It's about the inner things. This is why christianity For example can go oh islam started as our christian sect You can have our system starting with one values, but sooner or later It's taken over and it starts expressing other values. So um today we have our Semi fascist structure taking over in the west especially in america But I would say include europe too because there's no really dissent anymore They've taken on it's the corporatism but On the value things where hitler were insisting on goose stepping and You know massuring the sizes of heads or the pigment in the eyes. So, you know stuff like that They have replaced that with a vogue thing because they can take anything if you go back to bush's uh, George bush when He was the symbolic Figurehead then it was more christian conservatism values So this authoritarian Creature can have any value system attached to it. I believe that they are using whatever is Trending in the culture But they don't really care about homosexuals. They don't really care about You know pregnant women, etc uh At the end of the day they only care about what they need to maintain the system But they use whatever is in vogue or or dominant in in the or a trend in the system So right now they're using vogue, but that vauqueness thing. I think it will die And I don't think it's a long till we see a die, but it will be completely replaced with something else Maybe the pendulum will switch back to you know The opposite that women back to The home and The man should who knows what values will be infused into it. I believe anyway politics shouldn't deal with those things I think culture should deal with those things Politics should focus on how we organize society the economics the structure, etc. But that's just me. Hey So to my point then We have the same we have the natural successes of these fascists The children and grandchildren of these people are still in power And I don't think these children and the these grandchildren believe in those old ideals anymore Because when Kissinger grew up they were actually racist the people surrounding him were the old wall street fascist people and they were horribly racist and they were Thoroughly sexist and they were thoroughly, you know, I don't always call for other religions, but they had those views They have died out, but has the system changed? On the outside.  I will say now than ever Or maybe it's not worse than ever because it was probably worse before we got the internet But we had this taste of freedom for a while and now they try to roll it back to how it was Before the internet only it's it's going to be worse because before the internet we had free press Physical press we don't have that anymore So we're stuck in fascism and we don't realize it because we're we just look at the symbolism Or what is the color of the flag? What is the, you know And what would they call it value briefing?  Is that what they call it when you?  The other one has rainbow flags and etc This is the difference. This is the difference without distinction This is what we have to understand and it's true if you go back 2000 years to the yourself first things and the Birth of christianity is true about the 1945 and the holocaust And it's not just in sim. This is the last point. I want to make in this rant. It's not just a symbolism. That's the same I mean, not the same, but the essence that's the same. It's not just Archetype or the values that is the same. It's also it's more it's worse than that. It's an historical lineage It's an actual inheritance It's the same people in power and the children of those people and you can track this historically. I've done this in many shows Plenty of researchers has done it. You can track it historically back. So you see a direct line It's not just that bankers woke up one day and now they You know agree with their forebears. It's the direct line. It's the same people. It's the same factions. It's the same values These values are anti-humanistic. They are anti-liberty And they are whole elite but that elite doesn't have to be defined religiously in terms of jew or christian It doesn't have to be defined ethnically like you know an arian or a jew or whatever if that's even a Ethnicity, you can put an or a class for that matter. So it's the elites And how they have you know the ruling philosophy and the elites and the future elites are heading all the way down To transhumanism which has been present Among all these manifestations not just the nazis So so that's my point and if you discuss it like that then we can elevate this discussion to our more three or four d level So let me ask you this as we kind of move to Kind of wrap this up So you know back to my original premise for kind of doing this show And you've been you've added a lot to it and I knew that you would because I know this is something that you've looked at from a lot of different angles different from me But to what extent the the basic premise from these johnny vedmore thing and the claus schwaab thing and his I think it's a head fake to to tie that to the nazis Unless we're going to say same values the american nazis were the nazis you know, it's henry kissinger is the next nazi that is the Paper clip that is part of this thing To what extent do Our understanding of nazis Define our understanding of jews to what extent does our understanding of jews define Our understanding of nazis. I'll let you have the floor. Okay. Look wrap it up But I do want to say thank you so much for doing this with me. Yeah, but this is it's a new bag Look man the american state was hijacked after world war two and the final Move the final step of that hijack was the assassination of jfk. By the way. Oh, I hope our fk Can make a difference but This you have to understand that this plague is still among us and it goes directly back to the nazis It does not go back to the hitler faction because hitler went rogue okay, so so they uh kind of He was authorized eventually but It goes back to the the Value system that they had it goes also back to the american fascist the waltz read fascist. Let's just call them that and these people try to fuse The tuple church ill and hitler it With the has coming to england et cetera it failed But they managed to fuse it after the war Of the fdr died or was killed and but but whatever you think up on to that point whether you think or Russelt was killed or whether you think hitler So why does it doesn't matter because you can just start there and then you can see that they fused they fused with the networks With the spy networks. They fused with the banking and the corporation system. They fused with the scientists And cia became dominated by nazis Loyal to an extraterritorial state not loyal to the president. They lost control on the american side Joseph ferrell stuff it just and i'm down with some yeah, i'm down with some of that But i mean you're kind of going to farfield because i was bringing it back to the to the jewish thing which You can't really square that you can't you can't play no no no you can't square that And that's one of the things that they go the people go with that with the breakaway civilization You can't account for you know Epstein was about and it's so interesting to hear all the people are interested now and in epstein and all the rest Anti-semitic nazis died he is masad. I mean epstein is masad at the same time He's working for the cia. So I think you know, yeah, I don't want to go there into the 2d 3d 5d Who the care isn't that's nobody we can take it 2d But the point the point is that that there is another there is another player on the field as Joseph ferrell correctly points out that has to be Kind of factored in here. We can't do it in the time. We have left. We've already gone for two and a half hours But let's not let's not factor them in. Let's just see that the cia the NATO nasa The corporations and the banking system just take those five power players among many Even you and actually we're dominated by people with the same value system both on the american side and on the excel nazi side and Included in this became the new jewish state The new jewish state which started out like a socialist project, but it soon ended up in fascist manifestation Evidence isn't there for that. You know, it's a really good book. I know if you've read it phenomena by Annie Jacobson and she traces the whole mind control thing and the whole thing to soviet Yeah, it's a sigh of the whole book is a sigh of What is that? What is sci-api about it? Which which which are for a book by the way, I just told you phenomena Oh, okay. I was referring to the one the rosswell thing Well, I don't trust her because she here's the reason First of all, you don't know that you don't know the research So but the point is if you look at phenomena, you look at the history of mk ultra You look at the history of mind control.  Which is that the consciousness is totally a byproduct of the brain and nothing happens and there is no extended realm So we need a limited hangout that rejects that idea And we also remember the one of the most compelling parts I thought of the book is at the end when she's talking about urie galler in the long history of the early Urie galler and anyone you know can go watch the videos that they did at the stanford research institute or the experiments They did with urie galler, but where she is at She's in israel with urie galler And he's going around and bending all the spoons like he does which doesn't make any sense It completely defies our understanding of science in the same way that ufos do you cannot bend spoons like that It's not a trick other people dean reyden has one on his has one on his desk of a bent spoon Not by urie galler. There's literally hundreds and hundreds of people who've attended spoon bending parties and this happens So it's real, but urie galler is there meeting with Masad intelligence Why and while annie jacobson is there at the residence of the prime minister? So it puts a different perspective No, it's not all oh these fascists are kind of teamed up Everyone has their own jersey and is playing their own game and that's back factions among the power lead Sure factions and power elites. I mean factions among The war you say power elites somebody has to run the world So that that is that is the point really that's throughout history Someone is going to grab control and run the world and it's going to be one group or another so it is Factions among the power elite. That's history. Yep. Yep Well, I mean there's no contradiction This is the problem people think is a contradiction because suddenly they say see jews Or sionists, which isn't the same thing In play some jews and some sionist in play And even the state of israel and musad in play. Of course, they have been a part of the power elite since I don't know 60s at least So that's not a contradiction As for any jacobson remember her sources are It's like this really whistleblowers versus fake windman. Whatever they call it. He's called this ukrainian guy who who did a trump gate, you know, uh, russia gate He's boosted by the by the powers that be whereas sange is working kaltra What do you know that it's not what she's reporting on m kaltra? Let me oh, let me I know it pretty well And I didn't find I know I didn't find anything that contradicted what I already knew The only thing I found is limited hangout pulling up short of in the same way that you do Which is that I'll explain it. It's a good question. But give me time to to Explain it. So what she did with the book before there is that she As soon as the book before there. Yeah, it's a pattern. It's a pattern. Let me explain First she immediately after forel's book roswell and rush She comes out and says yes, it's exactly like that only it was the soviet.  Her sources are roswell thing is silly. It doesn't matter Doesn't matter. The problem is that people can't realize that nazis Where amalgated into the american system because with the the nazis comes values And her sources are all They're lining up official people still in it's like All your reasons for doubting the tom de long thing applies to her Only you're not applying it to her then comes the next book and you will notice something Everything she writes about is already written about She's really taking stuff that is already there and then she's true That's not true with phenomena read. I'll tell you what i'm gonna even cut this out read phenomena If we can come back in and talk about it, but I don't think you I mean, what do you know about erie geller? What do I know?  Yes Yeah, i'm open to that. Yes, absolutely open to that. Yeah Yeah, I mean, are you open to that possibility that he's uh fake I remember you know what I was uh 16 years old I saw a recording of him on the region television a recording 10 year old recording or something and he Appealed to everyone at home to do Something and I did it I can't remember if there was a spoon or the clock because I've been manipulating clocks and spoon all my life I think it was the clock Of course it happened and then I realized later that it was a recording. I thought it was live You understand that's my first meeting. I think they were a geller So he so a broken clock started to work and he was there he was there like the Nexus for that Of course, it was my own But yes, yeah, so so that's my first meeting with your geller So this this foray into extended consciousness Contradicts a lot of this other stuff that you spin out there, you know, because this would immediately Yeah, because this immediately take us to non-human intelligence, right because that is the big barrier to Non-human intelligence is that consciousness can't survive death consciousness can't leave the body So we'd immediately have to look at non-human intelligence Particularly et intelligence in a completely different perspective. Now your buddy Joseph Farrell I'm always picking on is he down with that in terms of there are these extended consciousness realms where things are happening that are From a conventional scientific physics standpoint unexplainable. It is unexplainable that Urie Geller can do that that Urie Geller can Precipitate you doing that. It's it therefore takes all physics and puts physics as kind of It absolutes physics as being completely incomplete in terms of our understanding our understanding of propulsion Our understanding of how UFOs work are extending our understanding of interstellar travel All that is out the window because you made that clock move. Do you get that? Yeah, I guess you can you can Put all the look if you show me a miracle I'm not gonna change my paradigm 20 You talked to the wrong guy 99 percent will change the paradigm If I was a skeptic change it to 100 percent, but in my paradigm There's room for it's much more nuance than that. So I don't need a miracle to like oh now I change my mind There's room for many many potential nuances to either that or that so in Jacobson's case I'm sure that there's an agenda they want out, but they know already that this look at the point of a limited hangout isn't to isn't to neither to contradict the Established or to introduce a revolution It is to stifle the revolution because so many already doubt the official that we have to spin this descent So we put in something that admits that yes the official isn't true But here is how it is true. You understand so that we don't start, you know Going to and this is the same with the with the holocaust thing It's like as soon as people start doubting some of the Propaganda that was made Then oh you're supposed to be a Nazi if you don't I don't buy into that I don't buy into that either, but that's not the kind of conversation. We want to have the kind of conversation But that is what people do Right. Well, that's not us people not the two of us talking here But the other thing that I would challenge on and and we can follow up on any of these And I'll roll into the show if you want to just send me a telegram message with some of this stuff But Joseph Farrell and Roswell Nazi thing is is a non starter Once you understand that you made that clock move Because when you make that clock move now you have to incorporate in all the remote viewing stuff all the stuff outside of consciousness all the Joe mcmonichle remote viewing mars a million years ago you have to john brandenburg and the Profiles of the isotopes all that comes into play Joseph Farrell has his fingers in the dike saying look guys I'm going to give you this explanation that keeps everything in this materialist paradigm As soon as that damn breaks then the most parsimonious explanation is UFO uap non human intelligence et it just is Again, that's a black white thing. I don't buy into there's room in reality There's burden on one side or the other look someone you we agree that human beings master anti-gravity, right? I don't care who okay, so you don't think any No human in history in ancient times in this time no no deep state Nobody has ever managed to break the laws Of the physics we presented Well, if you expand it like you know like a lot of people really like Who's that guy is on Joe Rogan all the time Eric Weinstein? I do not I think he's I think there's so many Holes in his argument be super popular millions and millions views and rogan and lexfried and all the rest of that but the one thing that he says as a An elite mathematician who's plugged into physics. He goes Anti-gravity. He goes look here are the people Here's the line of published work from back in the 50s He goes. I know the line of who's connected to this technology He goes I've talked to those people They do not they say there's no there there in terms of people who are working on it He said we'd love to work on it We have this guy down here in austin texas this guy here, but I know the research It isn't there and that's another joseph feral kind of silliness.  Okay, but it's no black research in gravity Only yes covenan is but so if you take here's what you do To if you want to get as close as you could to understanding that Is you take the smartest guy in the room? And I don't think eric wincing is the smartest kind of room No, but let's let him stand in because the smartest guys are hijacked into black projects No, that's this that's his point is that we still have a basically functioning uh academia and research community that is filled with Co-conspirators and and he himself admits that now more than ever it's stifled. It's not uh Yes, but the point is we can we can trace the fingerprints of the scientist who would be involved in this Hold on. Do you understand do you understand my point? So you can follow their record of published papers You can follow the record of the research You can follow the record of their research associates and the people that work under them And you can go talk to them and you can put together a pretty good record of is there some huge Thing that is outside of that in the case. Well, you know what there wasn't enough time There isn't enough time in the day to have all that kind of stuff. Okay. Okay Let's let's move away from that approach. I have another approach that will bring back the same point Although in the fifties there were open articles about their anti-gravity research But let me ask you this are you open to the idea that there are some physical organisms humanoids? No, let's forget about biological beings as UFOs Like that they are biological or extra dimensional or time travelers all that are you open to the idea that on some other planet or or or celestial body there are beings who has Who master anti-gravity? Are you open to that idea? Sure. Okay, then I don't understand. What is the big deal with humans not mastering it? then Thanks again to alborialis from formal borealis for joining me today on skeptico boy I usually tee up a question be too many of them to do we covered so much ground and I do really respect al and where he's coming from and uh Yeah, I got a little tense there for a minute But in general, I mean you just don't find people who are willing to engage at this depth when You have some kind of differences of opinion and I really respect and appreciate that about al and I love a show I've learned so much from his show so That's off to him and I really appreciate him joining me Stay with me on skeptico. Let me hear from you Let me know what kind of shows we might do together that is you have somebody you'd love to hear on skeptico And I'd like to work with you to make that happen because I think that's fun And engaging and brings us together and kind of creates a Reality to this thing where I'm just talking into this microphone over here And then you're magically kind of listening on the other end Let's make it real. Let's close the loop Until next time take care. Bye for now


Well, good morning. This is Senate Judiciary a little bit late this morning due to floor action.  It's a fairly specific area of law that we will get into it has to do with proposals to include simulated conduct with within the definition of sexual conduct for the purposes of crimes involving sexual exploitation of children. So this is an issue that we took up last year and we're continuing our work on that on this issue we passed legislation last year regarding a specific portion of that. So Michelle go ahead if you could remind us a little bit of last year's bill as well as what's changed in this year. Sure, and is it okay if I share my screen to put the language absolutely. Okay. Senator Sears is correct so last year you passed legislation updating chapter 64, which is the title of which is the chapter on sexual exploitation of children, and that's entitled 13 and that focuses mostly on the on production and possession of child sexual exploitation materials. And so there were a number of little tweaks that you did that were upon the recommendation of the. And you passed that but there was one issue that there wasn't consensus on and that was the issue of including simulated sexual conduct involving a child and and where does that how could that fit in with this and I believe Mr Raymond had talked about certain scenarios that fell outside of the law that they couldn't prosecute and the additional language for simulated, but it just folks were in disagreement about what that language look like and so what you have now is a proposal that does incorporate simulated conduct into the definition and they there was quite a few hearings on it in the house and so we had the both the attorney general's office defender general's office and the state's attorneys as well. So discussing the language, I will cautiously say, you know they an agreement with regard to the generally with regard to the language but I'll, I'll let them speak for for themselves I think it's, I'm not saying any. Of course it but I think there was some people got to a point of being comfortable with the language and so let me put that up on the screen for you. Anybody see that. Nope. Okay, so, so you're looking at section one in the definition section that would apply to the entire title. I remember just a little refresher when we're talking about a child we're talking about someone who is under 16 years of age. And so you see subdivision to as a definition of sexual content. And then all the different things that constitute sexual conduct versus of the chapter. And you'll see the addition on the top of page two of the new subdivision G so any simulation of the conduct that's described above so it may not actually be occurring the simulation of that particular conduct of a through F. So, there's a new subdivision seven that's added here to further define simulation. So it means the explicit depiction of any conduct that's up above that we just took a look at that one, it must involve a child as defined in current law so we're talking about. A full child, a live child so we're not talking about that the, that the conduct is what simulated not the child, and then subdivision seven.  Correct. Yep. So the second is under subdivision seven a it has to create the of such conduct that's listed above. It has to on on the third has to exhibit the naked genitals buttocks or breasts below the top of the areola. So you have to have an actual child. It has to create the appearance of the prohibited conduct, and it has to exhibit nudity as, as provided there so you have to have all three things for it to fall under the definition of simulation for purposes of this chapter. Subdivision subdivision seven be simulation does not include wait a minute. Okay, it has to be both naked genitals buttocks or breasts or is it any of the yes. It could be any of them to be okay, because you just said something to the effect. Had to be all three. It could be any one of the three or all Michelle meant the first three. Okay, one, two, and three. Right, I meant the right I meant that okay child create the parents conduct and there has to be nudity involved. Okay. Okay, and subdivision seven be simulation and include paintings drawings are non visual or written descriptions of sexual conduct and subdivision seven see as I mentioned earlier simulation applies to the conduct, not to a simulated child. And then the death, and then it takes effect on July 1. I think probably what's if it works for you is that rather than going into all the details about how this came about as maybe if you hear from the witnesses and they can talk to you a little bit about their process and why they've gotten to this point here and then I'll be here to answer any questions. I think actually I'm going to jump right to Matthew Raymond I think that's what I would prefer to do who could talk about as the director of the internet crimes against Children's Task Force. Just to make sure we have time to hear from him on on the bill and I might add that the same bill has introduced by the S8 introduced by Senator Ruth Sears and Ochre is the same as HAT has introduced. So, Mr. Raymond, thank you for being with us again. Thank you for having me and thank you and the committee for its work in passing the laws last year around this and it's really been beneficial just to remind everybody. We're the Vermont internet and the commander of the internet crimes and Children's Task Force and we are primary purpose is to prevent the victimization or exploitation of children through the computers technology or the internet. We receive just in cyber clips alone which come from the National Center for Missing Exploded Children from electronic service providers that find child exploitation on their sites. We get between three and 400 complaints a year at this point. And the changes that were made last year really address helping to do those cases more effectively and protect children in Vermont better. The law. Did you just say I missed that. Between three and 400 that's just from electronic service providers that's not counting, you know referrals we get from DCF parents schools, other police agencies. But that's just just the cyber tips alone. And on top of doing the investigations of course we also do examinations of devices and kind of the third leg of our stool is education, because obviously that's the most important to us is to educate children, parents, teachers, the general public about online safety to protect our children. So, as far as the law changes the last one that we asked for corporate simulated. Unfortunately, there's many images out there they get circulated that don't. But I think everybody when they looked at it would consider child sexual abuse material, but just don't fit into the current statutory language.  But the problem is from the camera angle you can't tell if there's actually contact between the penis in the mouth. There could not be, and then that currently doesn't fit the definition, but the simulated language would draw that in as child sexual abuse material, and I would believe that everybody would agree that that is, you know, an atrocious image and should be currently fit the definitions so that that's just one example. But why that I would ask that this get passed the, I think the language that has been proposed this year is better and does take care of all the issues that were brought up last year about the concerns. You know, I have seen the movie taxi I've seen cuties and all the other ones and not this language would not apply to those movies. That wouldn't meet the statutory requirements that has laid out here, and I can answer any questions anybody has. Yeah. Unfortunately, I just lost my video. Try to bring it back. It's a very unstable broadband today. Can you has the pandemic resulted in an increase in the behavior or no, in terms of the cases that you're seeing. The first few months of the stay home stay safe procedures way back in like March or April of last year into May, we were seeing at first like the one and a half and then two and a half times increase in the number of cyber tips we were getting those months. And usually, usually those months are actually, there's kind of an ebb and flow to cyber tips usually those are down a little bit. I think it's because people are starting to get outside and you know some work, but Hello everybody and we did see a sharp rise and then and then how much was attributed after that it's hard to say because each year we're seeing just market increases each year in the cyber tips. When we first started doing cyber tips. It is increased like 219% amount of service we get currently versus in 2015 when the office took over stewardship of the ICAC. It just keeps going up each year so it's hard to, it's hard to take off how much of that is pandemic related now and how much of that is just the natural, you know, occurrence of things that has been going on and I apologize everybody can hear that that's my dog is Oh, that's fine. We're used to my dog taking over committee meetings when somebody's outside or he wants to go out or back in. We don't mind in a patch are important to have around us but sometimes they don't understand zoom meetings. I don't have any other questions for Raymond, but I appreciate your joining us. Senator Nick. I was just wondering, where were we hung up last year why didn't it pass. Why didn't we include a we passed a lot of the bill but we didn't include this because of a concern that was particularly speaking to dogs. Particularly expressed by Marshall Paul regarding movies like taxi and when those issues might have been simulated acts and would they be criminal or not. So we decided to wait until we looked at this issue again. I'm going to go take care of the dog but maybe Raymond answer the question or perhaps Marshall would like to jump in. Okay. Yeah, the line. There was language included that wasn't included last year, which includes exhibiting the nudity requirement that wasn't in the bill last year. I believe that language mirrors the New York language which actually was where taxi was filmed. So, and is predominant in actually a majority of states I believe so but the attorneys can speak better about that aspect to it rather than I can but I think that's where it was hung up last year was not including that type of language. I see. Marshall. Sure. Thank you. And good morning to the committee. That is where we were hung up last year and I agree with detective Raymond that at this point, the bill is not. You know we've addressed the two primary concerns that I had last year which were the over inclusiveness of the language, which, you know closely related was the potential unconstitutionality of that language. And I still have concerns about the language in this bill, but they are not concerns with over inclusiveness or constitutionality. It's simply that this definition of simulation is not consistent with what's done with what is. It doesn't reflect the language that's used in the case law. It's not clear. And it's just sort of a ugly way to write a definition is to include the word that you're defining in the definition, which this one does and my primary concern is with this. You know, subsection seven C, which says simulation applies to conduct not to a simulated child. Because that's where we get into that territory of using the word simulation in our definition or scope of the word simulation. We had in the house proposed some language that would have used the words that are used by the US Supreme Court and by other federal and state courts when they're considering this issue. They use the language actual child or real child. So they simply say that in order for a simulation to be prohibitable, it must essentially be the product of sexual exploitation of an actual or real child. And that's the language that I proposed in the house. That language was consistent with there had been testimony in the house from Professor Peter teach out from Vermont law school. He had proposed similar language or identified a similar concern. And that's also, you know, that's like I said that's consistent with what's used in the case law. Attorney General's office had an opposition to that language I'll let them explain their opposition to that language in part because I know I think they are going to explain it, their opposition better than I am. And frankly, I don't quite understand their opposition. But that's why we wound up with the language we wound up with. As I said, we do feel that this language is probably constitutional and not over inclusive. We still don't support the language because it's our opinion that when you are, you know, messing around with laws that are and really not just messing around with really that, you know, break the expanding the scope of laws that are, you know, carry very significant sentences, these are five year felonies 10 year felonies 15 year felonies that it's really important to do the absolute best you can to keep the law tightly reflective of the boundaries that have been set by the US Supreme Court and, you know, federal courts in our jurisdiction. And to me that means using the language that they use which is actual or real child, which in addition to being reflective of the actual case law. What I feel is that is just simply clearer because that avoids this problem of using the word simulation to define the scope of the word simulation. So that's our answer at you know we're happy to provide the same language that we had provided in the past though. You know just one other thing I'd like to add is that we've been in communication with law professor.  She is sort of the preeminent scholar there she's written the only articles that are really specifically about not just child pornography and the First Amendment, but about statutory drafting and how to draft the best child law that incorporates that, you know, covers everything that is covered by First Amendment case law, but does not cover the things that are not covered by First Amendment case law. She and I have been exchanging emails and she has not yet given me her opinion of this language. We just most recently emailed back and forth last night, and she wanted to see more of the language from the chapter. So I sent her the whole chapter and I haven't heard back yet. I'd assume that this is not going to be assuming this won't be voted on today, and that there will be an opportunity for further testimony. I'd like the opportunity to come back. Perhaps even if Professor Hessek has anything, particularly, you know, she looks at this and says, I think this is fine I think this reflects actually some case law that's out there that, you know, perhaps I didn't know about, and that, you know, this is consistent with what's done in other states, then we would probably withdraw every objection that we have to this because my objection to this is the fact that it doesn't reflect the case law and that it is inconsistent with what's done in other places around the country. And so, but if she tells me that I'm wrong about that I'm happy to withdraw that objection. It's just that there's problems in this that we hadn't identified. I'd like the opportunity for us to bring that information back to the committee, or perhaps even to bring Professor Hessek to testify. So that's what I would leave this as is, you know, for now, we certainly think that this is constitutional not over inclusive. It's a better way to do this that's more accurate, more carefully ties to the case law that's out there and to the extent that, you know, are reaching out to experts in the field leads us to a different conclusion. Over the next few days we'd certainly like the opportunity to either withdraw our objections or bring the committee some more specific information about those objections. So, so that's our duty, dog control. The good news for you is that we will not vote on the bill today. Won't even vote on the bill this week. So I suspect we'll go back to it really next week. And so, yes, we would love to hear from. What's her name again. Professor Carissa Hessek, I'm trying to remember the law school she's added to. If she's willing to testify, just let Peggy know. Absolutely. Just let us know maybe by the end of the week when we put together our agenda for next week. I'll be happy to hear from her and from you and whatever, but we will take it up again next week sometime. Okay. That's good news. Anything else for March? Any questions from Marshall? I'm sorry, I missed part of your testimony. I was taking care of the dogs. Okay. Next up is James Pepper from the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriff's. Good morning, James Pepper from the State's Attorneys and Sheriff's. The State's attorneys are very supportive of this bill.  I think that the addition of requiring nudity, actual nudity, you know, takes this squarely into the realm of a crime and not in protected speech. And, you know, just the State's attorneys just for the record don't really prosecute these crimes. These are generally handled by Matt Raymond and the Attorney General's Office, the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. So, but, you know, the mere fact, so they ask for this bill and, you know, if they're asking for it, I think it really indicates that, you know, they've had to decline prosecutions because of this simulation. I don't want to call it a loophole, but this gap in the law. And so the State's attorneys are very supportive of this language. They're very supportive. They believe that the addition of nudity is what it was an improvement over last year's bill. So they believe this, the as introduced bill is constitutional but certainly support this, this version that as passed by the House version as well. I don't have much more to add, but I think a lot of the kind of substance of the debate in the House was between the Attorney General's Office and the Defender General. Well, thank you very much and have a great day. Thank you. We'll turn right to David's chair and if we don't finish his testimony this morning, we will pick up with him next week and we'll probably hear from you next week depending on how you and Marshall and the professor. Thank you Senator from the record David chair with the Attorney General's office and you know I think a lot of the important substances already been spoken about this morning on this bill. Commander Raymond as he always does did a good job of explaining the necessity for the bill and why we're asking for it. There has this bill has been the subject of a lot of discussion already. As Marshall Paul pointed out, you know, we, we, there is agreement on the constitutionality of this but I think they're, you know, there remains a disagreement on precisely the right way to draft. We support this language. We think that this is a good way to move forward that both addresses the issues of constitutionality, while also addressing some of the concerns of our criminal division with respect to how exactly we create a definition that doesn't unintentionally make a higher barrier to prosecution than is constitutionally necessary, or then we really intend to create. I think that, you know, one of the key points of disagreement is that the, you know, there's a preference on one side to precisely imitate some of the language in the federal constitutional case law, in the federal court case law in particular by defining child or the purposes of a simulation as being an actual child and using that terminology. It's a position of our office that having that modifier to the term child could be interpreted by a Vermont court to add something in addition to what the current definition of child is which in you know it's our reading of the statute at the current definition of a child already means a real human being who is under 16 years old. Having that additional term could potentially lead a Vermont court to say, well, you know, it already meant a real human being under 16 what does this actual mean on top of that you've got to bring more facts to prove that. And, you know, that's an area of disagreement in terms of statutory interpretation. We support this language, it's our belief this language is constitutional and it doesn't add that sort of wrinkle that we are worried about how a Vermont court might interpret that wrinkle. And, you know, it's our read that a Vermont court may not necessarily feel, you know, look to the federal case law to say that that's what that must mean. And so they could do that. But they may just say, look, it's another word. We need to give that word meaning as we do in the course of statutory interpretation, because we read words not to be superfluous as a matter of standard statutory interpretation. And so we're going to require the state to bring forward another element of proof. So that's our that was our concern with adding that obviously again you know that that is an area of statutory interpretation, where we weren't in 100% agreement but we do support this language we do believe it's addresses the constitutional issues. And, you know, we're happy to continue the discussion, if we hear more from experts on the issue and see, see where that might take us but that's where we are on it and don't want to rehash the entirety of our prior discussions but I hope that gives the committee a brief overview of where we've been and where we are and and again happy to continue that discussion as needed. How many prosecutions are there in Vermont. Under this literally under these statutes. I'd actually ask Commander Raymond, if he is still on the line I don't have that number off the top of my head he is more likely to. Yeah, each year there's our rest are between 40 and 50 persons. That's helpful I understand the scale. Are any of those what we might turn the sexting. Well, no no under what you're what the what's commonly referred to as sexting so when we have underage children sexting their age counterparts. I think one of those cases for investigation at the icac because we have such a backlog of cases that involve, you know, like 40 year old men with under eight year old girls. And the reason I asked is during our conversation last week about current that we heard of cases where 15 year old asking 10 year old or whatever to send those. Yeah. We have not had cases that involve juvenile on juvenile. We've assisted local jurisdictions with handling them when they couldn't figure some stuff out. But our priorities on adults that are abusing. And generally the children are under 10. Sometimes under eight. In fact, the two real disturbing trends that came out this year that that I noticed that review all the cases and assign them are just a market increase in toddler and infant abuse in Vermont, where there's sexually assaulting infants and toddlers and sharing the videos.  And many times when we have the victims of Vermont the offenders are actually in another state, and then it works. Vice versa when there's victims in another state. The offenders are here they transfer those cases to us work with their 61 icacs across the country, and we work in concert on those type of cases, and then typically prosecute those where the offender resides. And so I have to admit that this whole conversation is making me feel queasy. But, and I hope that you throw the book at the offenders here but my question is, what happens to the children. How do we address the children. Right so the sooner the children are identified and the faster they receive services, the better the rest of their life will be. And that's pretty universally known. So we work actively to identify the children when we identify the children that are here in Vermont. Obviously, we make a report to DCF, we get services involved right away. And, and, you know, whether that child needs to be removed from their surroundings or not whether it was, you know, family member or familiar like a fender, you know, make obviously goes into all those decision making points and those cases. And then nationally, you know when we have an offender here that has victimized somebody from afar. We rely on those states to get those services to those children. And then, then there's always those children we weren't able to identify right that we see an abuse images because currently what used to be thought that there was a, you know, a small amount of child pornography circulated among, you know, a small amount of offenders. Because this is not true. We've done a better tracking and we're up to like 4.5 million hash, and I might even be more than that now. Hash value and a hash value is a digital signature of a of a of an image or video that's unique to that image or video so we know of at least, you know, four and a half million videos now that doesn't mean four and a half victims because you know it can be multiple. Unfortunately, multiple incidents for her child. So then we work all together. And with neck mix see that the child victim identification program so that we pull information about all of our series like if this child's been seen before, then they're a recognized child if they've been identified they're an identified child and if we don't we've seen this show before it's a new unknown child. And then we work together because if someone took 10 pictures of a of a child, and you put all the background pieces together we might be able to identify that child but if I only have one of them, Georgia I can't have one forward I can't get one. So that's why we work with see that to pull all that stuff and the images or videos and try to identify something in there to identify the children and then have the appropriate I can't go make the rescue of that child. Well, I really appreciate everybody's testimony this morning and we'll pick up.


I just turned 21 in October, and I'm a Libra. I grew up in kind of a bit of everywhere. My parents from the army, my dad was, so we moved to Germany for a little while, then to Wales for seven years, and then south of London. I still don't know what my parents are trying to move up. Quite musical, but in a different way than you'd expect. So there was like 90s music, so dance tracks was always a thing that would come through the floors when I was trying to sleep. When I was younger, I guess I always had this feeling that music was, you know, my calling in a way. I think when you go through transitions in your life or hard times, it just reaffirms that. And I just wanted to work as hard as possible to make sure I could do it for my whole life. I like to write everything by myself. I don't like to dilute that process. So I really focus on words or phrases that people say, and I find it's a good way of describing emotions. I like a conversational tone in my songs. It sounds so cliche. But there's a barn where I recorded, the whole album's recorded in this place near Woodstock in Palindale. And there's a barn that my producer owns that I went in, you know, every time I went to record a few more songs for the session. And I wrote Lottery, I wrote Aha, I wrote I Get No Joy, which is on the album. I think a couple more in that space. I'm more of a night owl. I can't think of one song I've ever written that's been any good I've written in the morning. I can't even think of a written in the morning. Recognition is always like a brilliant thing to have. I think what it actually allows you to do as a person and an artist is to be braver in your next choice. You know what I mean? I'm already thinking about my second album, even though I've just finished my first. I think I couldn't have maybe done that with such confidence and conviction if people like MTV hadn't come in and been like, we like what you're doing.