Facebook ABANDONS Phony Fact Checking!
01:00:40 Share

Hi, I'm Chris Gethard, and I'm very excited to tell you about Beautiful Anonymous, a podcast where I talk to random people on the phone. I tweet out a phone number. Thousands of people try to call. You talk to one of them. They stay anonymous. I can't hang up. That's all the rules. I never know what's going to happen. We get serious ones. I've talked with meth dealers on their way to prison. I've talked to people who survived mass shootings.

crazy funny ones i talked to a guy with a goose laugh somebody who dresses up as a pirate on the weekends i never know what's gonna happen it's a great show subscribe today beautiful anonymous come see us on tour in los angeles honolulu dallas texas baltimore atlantic city cohoes new york and providence rhode island go to jimmy door.com for a link for tickets and only there

Establishment media sucks. All gas lighting, so good luck. Bullshit we can't afford. Why he's fomenting this? Watch and see at medium speeds. And jumps to medium and hits them head on. It's the Jimmy Dore Show. All right, Russell Dabula here with Mr. Keaton Weiss filling in for Jimmy Dore, who picked the right time to get out of town, I must say.

Yes. Timing is impeccable. All right. So as you might have heard, big changes at Facebook. If like me, you have a lot of leftover liberal deadwood in your social media, the meltdown has been remarkable. It's really been remarkable people begging for censorship. So Mark Zuckerberg put out a statement almost looking human. They put a lot of blush on him. I understand.

They have a new blood-like fluid that they can pump into these androids to make them look almost lifelike. He almost looks human here.

Translation. This is from Raziel. He's pretty funny. Facebook is in hemorrhagic shock from all the people leaving because of our shitty censorship policies. And we're trying to stop the bleeding too little too late. Well, we shall see. We shall see. I've already seen some libs being like, well, I'm out of here. You can find me on blue sky. Yeah, I saw one of them.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So let's just take a look. I want to talk about something important today because it's time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram. I started building social media to give people a voice. I gave a speech at Georgetown five years ago about the importance of protecting free expression. And I still believe this today, but a lot has happened over the last several years. There's been widespread debate about potential harms from online content. Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more.

A lot of this is clearly political, but there's also a lot of legitimately bad stuff out there. Drugs, terrorism, child exploitation. These are things that we take very seriously and I want to make sure that we handle responsibly. So we built a lot of complex systems to moderate content. But the problem with complex systems is they make mistakes. Even if they accidentally censor just 1% of posts, that's millions of people. And we've reached a point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship.

The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech. So we're gonna get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms. More specifically, here's what we're gonna do. First, we're gonna get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X starting in the US.

After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth. But the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S. So over the next couple of months, we're going to phase in a more comprehensive community notes system. Second, we're going to simplify our...

Okay, so don't forget, and I'm sure anybody who's a regular viewer of The Jimmy Dore Show does not need to be reminded that the intention behind this fact checking was always highly political. It was always from a political angle. They were thrilled about Obama's, we'll see this a little later. Well, they were thrilled about Obama's team using Facebook as part of their election strategy.

It wasn't a problem until they felt that Trump had benefited from using Facebook as a political strategy. During COVID, you couldn't say anything about a lab leak. You could not say anything about a lab leak. So it went well beyond fact checking, which...

with Facebook they specifically Facebook and companies like Facebook specifically have a carve out section 230 that uh keeps them from being liable for content published on their platforms under the presumption that they are not doing journalism now at that point why do you need to fact check that's like fact checking people debating in a park

If it's a town square, why would you need to fact check it? I don't even understand why people feel like you would go to social media and assume what you read there is true. Well, I don't understand if liberals are so smart. I mean, if they're so smart, what do they need the fact checkers for? Don't they know everything already? Don't they know what's true and what's not true? Can't they figure it out? Well, they behave like they do. That's for sure. Yeah.

God forbid people hear opinions and have to figure it out for themselves because that's what we're really talking about here. We don't even impose standards like that on newspapers. If newspapers get something factually incorrect,

It's up to them. Print or retraction. Don't. I mean, unless it's some kind of libelous claim, there's no basis for a lawsuit. If a newspaper is wrong, the whole the whole weekly world news couldn't be published if that were the standard. Right. Of course. Content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.

What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it's gone too far. So I want to make sure that people can share their beliefs and experiences on our platforms. Third, we're changing how we enforce our policies to reduce the mistakes that account for the vast majority of censorship on our platforms. We used to have filters that scanned for any policy violation.

Now we're going to focus those filters on tackling illegal and high severity violations. And for lower severity violations, we're going to rely on someone reporting an issue before we take action. The problem is that the filters make mistakes and they take down a lot of content that they shouldn't. So by dialing them back, we're going to dramatically reduce the amount of censorship on our platforms. We're also going to tune our content filters to require much higher confidence before taking down content. The reality is that this is a trade-off.

It means we're going to catch less bad stuff, but we'll also reduce the number of innocent people's posts and accounts that we accidentally take down. Fourth, we're bringing back civic content. For a while, the community asked to see less politics because it was making people stressed, so we stopped recommending these posts. But it feels like we're in a new era now, and we're starting to get feedback that people want to see this content again. So we're going to start phasing this back into Facebook, Instagram, and threads while working to keep the communities friendly and positive.

Fifth, we're going to move our trust and safety and content moderation teams out of California. And our US-based content review is going to be based in Texas. As we work to promote free expression, I think that will help us build trust to do this work in places where there is less concern about the bias of our teams. Finally, we're going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more. The US has the strongest constitutional protections for free expression in the world.

Europe has an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative there. Latin American countries have secret courts that can order companies to quietly take things down. China has censored our apps from even working in the country. The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government. And that's why it's been so difficult over the past four years when even the US government has pushed for censorship. By going after us and other American companies, it has emboldened other governments to go even further.

But now we have the opportunity to restore free expression, and I am excited to take it. It'll take time to get this right, and these are complex systems, they're never going to be perfect. There's also a lot of illegal stuff that we still need to work very hard to remove. But the bottom line is that after years of having our content moderation work focus primarily on removing content, it is time to focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our systems, and getting back to our roots about giving people voice. I'm looking forward to this next chapter. Stay good out there, and more to come soon.

Okay. All right. Lieutenant Commander Data has come a long way. Okay. So, hey, that is good. Schellenberger, Taibbi have been raising the alarms about how they have been trying to impose a censorship regime in countries that have less robust policies.

free speech protections that we have in the United States as a means of forcing platforms in the United States to adopt those same policies rather than to have different policies for each country they operate in. The fact that the election of Trump seems to have encouraged people like Zuckerberg, who, to be fair, along with his fellow social media platform owners, I think at that time, Dorsey, too, they all got dragged in front of Congress.

After Trump won and really intimidated into adopting these policies that ideologically I don't think they ever wanted to.

I think they're kind of techno libertarian in that way. They were perfectly happy to just leave people to have their conversations within certain boundaries, obviously human trafficking, things like that, which is what he's talking about. He's talking about going back to a sensible model. Now, of course, given that Trump and his entire team are a bunch of APAC owned maniacs, we'll see.

If this follows through for very long after they take over, or if it's just a matter of being allowed to misgender people, but it's a, it's a promising trend. Hey, as much as we have criticisms of Elon, and we're going to have some pretty serious criticisms later in the show, uh,

Fact is, I'm able to put up my Israel content there and criticisms of Israel. Some of it goes viral. I can't say it's all shadow banned or suppressed. Certainly much better than what you might have had under Dorsey in that regard. So we'll see what happens on Facebook.

On the platform that we're on, hey, we're filling in for Jimmy. I, you know, I'll keep it inside the lines here. But YouTube's one of the worst. You can't, you can't even really engage with people in the comments section on YouTube. Like, it's actually a very good example.

of what he's talking about that the AI gets it wrong. Like you can't say anything. Like some sometimes you'll get comments taken down there, where it's just like, what? What did I say? Like you give someone a recipe and get it taken down like it's it that that's when you've got the AI cranked up to 11.

So, and you know, one part of the one, one way they sort of get around that is they don't necessarily. So for those who leave comment sections on videos, they don't necessarily delete them. What they'll do is they'll hold them for review. So they will hold it for review so that the, the channel admins have to go through and read them and say, okay, is this good or bad? Well,

which a channel like ours on the dude incidents, we don't have the time or resources to check those. I don't even know that's happening. This one with a million and a half subs, like there's no way you can go through all these comments and man, I mean, forget it. There's just, it's impossible. So yeah, look, social media. I mean, and Facebook in terms of the Israel issue, easily the worst Instagram, Facebook notorious for censoring content, critical content.

of Israel. In terms of just the overall trend here, yeah, they're... Look, Facebook's motto was move fast, break things. That's the way these tech guys think. They don't want to make extra work for themselves. It is not in their interest to create 100 pages of guidelines and rules and terms and then have people or robots enforce them. That's more work. Look at how Mark Zuckerberg dresses. He dresses...

He dresses like he's worth $50. They like working off a laptop in their penthouses in sweatshirts and shorts and getting filthy rich doing almost nothing. So all of this enforcement and censorship, it's more work for them. They don't want to do it. They did it because the Democratic Party. Don't forget, they dragged Mark Zuckerberg to Congress. Yeah. Brought him to jail.

And that's why I say, like, you're seeing a lot of these headlines about, oh, Zuckerberg's giving in. Yeah, yes, in a sense. But really, if anything, I think it's a relief for him. He's doing what he wanted to do. Now he doesn't have the Democrats forcing him to do. It was with the censorship that he was actually being forced to bend the knee.

Right.

I'd be surprised if they didn't loosen up a little bit and maybe we'll never have it back the way that it was 10 years ago where you could really put anything up there within reason, but a little more reasonable than what it is now where we have to really walk on eggshells when we do segments. So let's take a quick look at some of the details here and some of the delicious lib meltdown.

Meta is getting rid of fact checkers and look at how they frame it in CNN. Zuckerberg acknowledged more harmful content will appear on the platforms now. Now you just heard the video. Is that really the takeaway from what he said? He said very reasonably, hey, you know, nothing's going to be perfect. And yeah, no, he admits there's going to be more harmful content. You're going to find more recipes with soybean oil now. Yeah.

Not with RFK on the job. Meta's newly appointed chief of global affairs, Joel Kaplan, told Fox on Tuesday that Meta's partnerships with third-party fact-checkers were well-intentioned at the outset, but there's just been too much political bias in what they choose to fact-check and how.

The announcement comes amid a broader apparent ideological shift to the right within Meta's top ranks, and as Zuckerberg seeks to improve his relationship with Trump before the president-elect takes office later this month. Just one day earlier, Meta announced Trump ally and UFC CEO Dana White would join its board, along with two other new directors. That's almost more significant.

Meta has also said it will donate $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund and that Zuckerberg wants to take an active role in tech policy discussions. Everyone wants a seat at that table, man. Kaplan, a prominent Republican who was elevated to the company's top policy job last week, acknowledged that the Tuesday announcement is directly related to the changing administration.

The Real Facebook Oversight Board, an outside accountability organization whose name is a play on the company's official group comprised of academics, lawyers, and civil rights advocates, including early Facebook investor Roger McNamee, said the policy changes represent Meta going, FULL MAGA!

Meta's announcement today is a retreat from any sane and safe approach to content moderation, the group said in a statement, calling the changes political pandering. Although Meta's fact-checking partners repeatedly said they checked claims from both the right and left, Trump supporters and other conservatives have long claimed that the system restricted their voices.

But now Zuckerberg is following in the footsteps of fellow social media leader Musk, who, after acquiring X, then known as Twitter, in 2022, dismantled the company's fact-checking teams and made user-generated context labels called Community Notes the platform's only method of correcting false claims.

Um, so this is Zuckerberg, uh, on the Joe Rogan show talking about how they wound up creating this fact checking regime does not sound like the real motive was checking facts so much as it was getting the FBI office back. Uh, let's take a look.

The background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us, some folks on our team. It was like, hey, just so you know, like you should be on high alert. There was we thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump of that's similar to that. So just be vigilant.

I don't want our company to decide what's misinformation and what's not. So we work with third parties and basically let different organizations do that.

All right. So let me translate that for you. Basically, what that means is they got Democrat Party aligned hall monitors and paid them because really this was all about keeping the Democratic Party establishment, which was in power at the time and had the ability to really screw his company. Keep them happy. OK, you want me to hire your friends to fact check my platform? Fine.

Up to 45% of their total revenue was coming from Facebook for these fact-checking companies. That's why you're seeing a meltdown, just like with the DEI departments that are getting dismantled. This is their income. This is their livelihood. You're taking away their grift now.

So cue liberal meltdown. I knew era of lies. Mark Zuckerberg has just ushered in an extinction level event for truth on social media, which again, I don't understand why you go to social media for that.

I do not go to social media to find out what the truth is, unless I want to do a lot of digging around and then I'm going to be selective in whose voice I pay attention to. Why does everybody need to be wrapped in bubble wrap? Like what you can be exposed to opinions you don't like. So here's public citizen. Actually, ironically, this was posted on X.

Meta is ending its fact-checking program. Let's be real. This is Meta shamelessly saying that the truth doesn't matter. Mark our words. Facebook and Instagram users are about to see a lot more dangerous misinformation in their feeds. Oh, dear. Someone get me the smelling salts.

This is Kara Swisher. She's a technology reporter. Toxic floods of lies. This is in response to Brian Stelter reporting on this. Toxic floods of lies on social media platforms like Facebook have destroyed trust, not fact checkers. Let me reiterate. Mark Zuckerberg has never cared about that and never will.

Well, you're right. You're right. And you know, it's funny, you guys were very excited about the fact that Twitter was a public platform that Jack Dorsey could manage as he would. And then as soon as that Elon applied that same standard, all of a sudden, the unaccountability of billionaires owning these platforms became a problem. It wasn't a problem when you liked the billionaire.

Now you may remember scary Poppins here, AKA Nina Jankowicz, who the Biden administration in their wisdom was actually going to make the disinformation czar until Republican politicians and the press got ahold of it. Now she's making loot with her own misinformation company, disinformation company, uh, in case you don't remember.

This is when she was in government. She put this out. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah. They were going to make her the misinformation czar.

Let's be clear. The fact checkers have not been politically biased, as Zuck suggests, but have been perceived as such because of politically motivated efforts to smear them. One that Zuck is now participating in and capitulating to. Zuck's announcement is a full bending of the knee to Trump and an attempt to catch up to Musk in his race to the bottom.

The implications are going to be widespread. Fact checking was not a panacea to disinformation on Facebook, but it was an important part of moderation.

Bumpers are fully off the lane now. P.S. Fact checks don't suppress speech. Fact checks are actually more speech. Now, it's amazing to me that none of these people understand the core principle who watches the watchman, who fact checks the fact checkers.

Well, actually, community notes are more speech. And that's what Facebook is going to start doing now. They're going to go to a community notes model just like X has, where if somebody posts something that's not true and enough people put in a note, then it displays it underneath. That's more speech, right? Having a select few determine what is true and false, that's not really more speech because they have disproportionate influence over the average user.

More speech means everyone gets to talk. That's what it is. The other thing, obviously, I mean, obviously there was a political bias to the fact checkers. It's absurd to even indulge that as if, you know what she said there. Well, it wasn't biased at all. I mean, that's just absurd. But even if I were to grant you that there was no bias,

That's not even really the main point. The main point is, what do you need them for? What do you need them for? The only reason you would need fact checkers, even if they were completely on the straight and narrow, is if you do not trust the public to express opinions on the platform. And they do not. At which point, what's the point of the platform? The whole point of social media is that everyone gets a voice. So if you are skeptical of that to the point where you feel you need to anoint someone

a select few to supervise them, well, then you just shouldn't have the platform. Or you could just say, all right, cat photos and family photos only. Nothing else. Nothing else is allowed. Which, hey, the marketplace created a place for you, blue sky. Nobody's there. All of you censorious prigs can go over there

and cry about people using the R slur. This was just a headline in Rolling Stone. The return of the R word is a dark statement about the moment that we're living in. Man, if that's what's keeping you up nights, you know, there are a lot of people who wish they had your problems, buddy. So Taibbi, of course, weighed in on this in his inimitable fashion.

By looking at the talk about prigs, you can't find any bigger prigs than the people in the New York Times comment section.

So a little comment here in his outlet, racket news. And he showed how none of these media outlets had a problem with Obama using Facebook. They celebrated it. Obama, Facebook and the power of friendship. The 2012 data election. Look at all these headlines from all these outlets that are horrified now at Mark Zuckerberg's announcement. Obama, Facebook in 2012. They were so happy about it.

This is Taibbi. In his video yesterday, Zuckerberg cited press pressure as part of the reason for proposed changes. Quote, after Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy, he said.

Meta tried to address such concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth, he said. But fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S. Now, this is this is really the kicker here. As they're talking about misinformation, they spread misinformation, as Taibbi points out.

One would think that legacy media outlets covering Zuckerberg's video address might mention this. No luck. Neither the Washington Post nor the Times mentioned the legacy media comments. Both papers readers, in other words, were served a curated version of reality that snipped out uncomfortable details. And God, do they wish the whole world could be like that.

A sample of the yuppie authoritarian fare in both papers' comment sections, complaining about loosened restraints and begging for more whip cracking. So just a couple of samples he threw in here.

But you don't have free speech. And this is still Taibbi. Five years ago, people argued against the First Amendment in code, usually by campaigning against disinformation. After all, who's against the idea of free speech? But Times readers have reached the stage of being outraged that a private platform that doesn't have to endorse civil liberties does. So this is Mark in the Mist from Seattle.

I am hoping that a torrent of lawsuits as a consequence of the damage of Facebook's policies will force them to adhere to their terms of service. One forgets that one actually has no freedom of speech on a private platform.

The fact that they continually fail to enforce their TOS should result in massive consequences. Sadly, we know that the power of Mehta's legal department dwarfs those of the average citizen. Thus, the rich and powerful escape consequences. What an inversion of the vision of power. Oh, yeah.

The Jimmy Stewart ask every man fighting for more censorship against the corrupt cabal that wants to give him his freedom of speech. This is Keith Zuckerberg is confusing Facebook with the public square where free speech prevails. He owns a private company and is under no obligation to allow anyone to publish information that may harm public health or safety. Okay.

Okay, but it is very much a public square, right? It very much functions as that. It specifically has a carve-out in law distinguishing it from newspapers. So it is just amazing to see all of these people who would consider themselves liberal who have, and Taibbi is right, it's really the frog in the pot of boiling water.

gradually their media and their leaders introduced the idea that too much speech is dangerous. You know, in the words of Francisco Franco, too much democracy is like too much oxygen or it'll kill you. They, they gradually got that idea in their head. And originally because classically freedom of speech was such a liberal red line,

Right. You absolutely had to defend. I'll fight to I may disagree with what you say. I'll fight to the death for your right to say it. Gradually, gradually, they got they got their minds right to the point that they will literally fight against freedom of speech on the most bizarre grounds. So it's a private platform. He has no obligation to allow freedom of speech. Well, why does that imply that he shouldn't?

Well, exactly. That's a conversation that they don't want to have. That's what makes them such cowards. And they think they're so smart, right? They're so self-satisfied. Zuckerberg is confusing Facebook with the public square where free speech prevails. He owns a private company and is under no obligation to allow anyone to publish information. Okay, he's under no obligation to uphold free speech. We understand that. But we think that he should.

Even though he's under no obligation. Right. And why don't you? And why don't you? Because we're against censorship. And you believe that he shouldn't uphold free speech because you like censorship. Right. They hide behind this distinction that they think makes them such geniuses. Well, it's a private company, so it's not technically violating your free speech. They hide behind that because they don't want to admit that actually they don't like free speech. Right. They like censorship. Because they don't like the public.

Exactly. So whenever one of these people says that to you, well, they're a private company, they're under no obligation, you simply say, yes, I understand that. But don't you think they should uphold free speech principles anyway?

Just cut right through it. Just roll right over because they have no answer to that. That's why they make this private company excuse. They make the excuse because they don't want to out. All of a sudden, they're libertarians. Anti free speech. They don't want to out themselves in that way, but they are. So just steamroll right over that point and say, yes, we understand your point. You're not a genius for making it. Doesn't take a smart person to make that point. Anybody can make that point. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Sorry. Now let's get to the substance of this.

Do you like censorship or not? Because they do. And we don't. And it's as simple as that. Well, they, they fundamentally don't believe in democracy and everything that, everything else proceeds from there. The Trump election broke their brains. It is, it is a political movement of censorious hall monitors. These are all, these are all the kids who brought an apple to the teacher and

And that's the political party that they're attracted to as grownups.

The idea that they're not going to be given a cookie and an apple juice and get to take a nap on their desk and have the teacher tell them for the rest of their lives exactly what's safe and what's not safe and what they're supposed to believe. That is inherently horrifying to them. These are people who want to be coddled, taken care of, told what to do, told what to think. They don't have an original thought in their head.

And that's why everything they say reads as if it came right out of a New York Times op-ed. Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member. We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show. You can do it by going to JimmyDoreComedy.com, clicking on Join Premium.

It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards. Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member, and if you haven't, you're missing out. We give you lots of bonus content. Thanks for your support. All right, this is Russell Dabula with Keaton Weiss filling in for Jimmy Dore. So Israel, you know, we're told it's a very complicated situation, and

But if you look at what the Israelis themselves say about their views about the Palestinians, they seem remarkably unconflicted about what's going on. So this has been going around the internets. Regular, everyday, peace-loving Israeli women were asked if they knew the number of children killed in Gaza. Here we go. How many civilians have been killed in Gaza, from what you know?

Do you know how many victims of crime were killed in Gaza? No, a year ago, sorry And you don't want to answer that? No, thanks Can I ask why? Because I don't think there is anyone who has been killed in 6 years Do you know how many victims of crime were killed in Gaza?

Okay, so I don't care. There are no innocents there. Who gives a shit? Who cares? So, you know, they don't seem all that conflicted. Now, there's just a little clip from two nice Jewish boys here. We're just going to look at a little of this. Then I'm going to show you the Israeli idea of comedy.

There's two nice Jewish boys. Imagine a genocide button and just how hard most Jewish Israelis would smash it if they had the chance, if it would kill all Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank in an instant. All right, let's let's see. This went viral a few months listening to our words and saying, how could they be advocating to, you know, to massive bombing, indiscriminate bombing, you know?

How could they talk about killing children? We're not advocating to target children, but forgive us if we don't give a shit. If everybody there dies. It's just the way we feel. It's just the way Israelis feel. Yeah. Okay. So this is somebody most of you probably haven't seen. If you watch our show, I featured him a couple times. This is what comedy would have been like if the Nazis had won the war.

This, you want to get an idea of a culture. There's no better way to understand a culture than to look at its comedy, to look at what it thinks is funny.

So apparently Israelis think genocide is hilarious. This guy's name is Yohei Sponder. He tours. He just had a very successful tour in America. He performed here in New York at a very Libby kind of nightclub, City Winery, very beloved of the liberal class, sold out shows there. Very successful tour. So let's see what their idea of comedy is.

Someone blames us for genocide. And we're not. We know we're not. And I'm thinking about it. You know, I had a girlfriend that she always blamed me that I'm cheating on her. And at one point I said, listen, I can't be blamed for something that I didn't do. I hate to f*** someone just for...

What I'm trying to say, guys, stop pushing it. We have the tools for genocide. We have.

You don't want to do it? I don't think Israelis per se can do genocide just because we're very bad with trains. You know, we have to do this. Very bad. Look, the train to Jerusalem, 15 years. Come on. You know? We're going to have Palestinians like, get us already! Get us! I would love to wait!

Hilarious, hilarious that genocide going on right next door. So there's a Khaleesi showing she's got a great account. So threat of statements made by Israeli officials indicating their intent to exterminate Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as a whole. Okay, Tally Goldtieff, member of the Israeli Knesset.

Without hunger and thirst among the Gazan population, we will not succeed in recruiting collaborators. We will not succeed in recruiting intelligence or in bribing people with food, drink, medicine in order to obtain intelligence.

Yoav Kish, Israel's education minister. Those are animals. They have no right to exist. I am not debating the way it will happen, but they need to be exterminated. This attack is not enough. There should be more. There should be no limits to the response. I said it a million times. Until we see hundreds of thousands fleeing Gaza, we, the IDF, has not achieved its mission.

Yoav Galant, Israel's defense minister. I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly. This is Nassim Vaturi, deputy speaker of Israel's Knesset.

If you want to know why all these Israelis have these made up Star Wars names, it's because their names are Eastern European names. They made these names up. These are not like family names. Erase Gaza. Nothing else will satisfy us. It is not acceptable that we maintain a terrorist authority next to Israel. Don't leave a child there. Expel everyone.

Isaac Herzog, Israel's president. It's an entire nation out there that's responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it's absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime. By the way, Hamas was funded by Israel and Netanyahu. Right.

May Golan, Israel's minister for the advancement of the status of women. All right. You want to see a very extreme example of how the woke rhetoric is a smokescreen for horrors? I don't care about Gaza. I literally don't care at all. They can go out and swim in the sea. I want to see dead bodies of terrorists around Gaza. Now, presumably there are women in Gaza, and she must know that.

Minister for the Advancement of the Status of Women. She's even got the shriek of the hair dye and everything. She's very woke. Plus, they're not allowed to go out and swim in the sea, are they? If they go too far out to the sea, they get shot. If they go too far out, they'll blow you up. It's like escape from New York. Yeah, so they're not allowed to just go swim in the sea. Alma Cohen, member of Israeli Knesset.

Destroy a neighborhood in Gaza every day the abductees are in their hands. If we blink, we run out of global credit.

Every day that the abductees are with them, a neighborhood must be destroyed of its inhabitants. Now, are these really just the ravings of outliers? Well, no. I mean, it seems like they're describing policy because that's exactly what they've been doing. We just covered a story that Israel's Knesset just voted to end UNRWA's operations in Gaza and the West Bank.

millions of Palestinians are entirely dependent on UNRWA for their survival, for their medical care, for their education. And guess who that's going to fall to if UNRWA is not allowed to do it? Israel. We've seen how Israel has met its obligations under international law regarding allowing food aid to go to the Palestinians. This is a true war of extermination.

Everything that Israel is doing is aimed at pushing the Palestinians into neighboring countries and killing them. They are creating greater Israel. We have been saying this for a very long time. In the end, they're saying, you know what?

In 100 years, we'll let a Palestinian do a land acknowledgement dance at our concerts. We'll talk about how bad we feel. But at that point, what's done is done. We'll have the land. Mission accomplished.

Yeah, and I expect that process to accelerate now under Trump. And I'm not saying that it would have been better under Kamala Harris. I think it would have been slower. I think she would have nudged Israel. Come on, you got to let more aid in. I can't let my good, nice, liberal constituents think that I'm intentionally allowing you to exterminate these people. You're going to have to slow it down a little bit, let some aid in, make it look like you're trying to

Trump has no obligation to do that, feels no obligation to do that. Right. Which is why I say, you know, this could get much, much uglier than even it's been so far in a very short period of time. Well, you can see you can see already. And I agree with you. It just would have been slower under Harris. You could see already as soon as he won the election.

Any pretense, what little pretense they might have been trying to put forward that they're not committing a genocide, that they're not exterminating these people like insects, like vermin, that they're not. That's not what their war aims are. Went out the window. They just started. I don't know that they would have taken that vote on Unruh.

If Harris had won because that party feels a need to have some plausible deniability about their support for genocide with Trump. That's a full steam ahead. Well, when you interview the rank and file, I mean, this is the philosophy of the state. This is the philosophy of the people. They are. This is why I said. And, you know, yeah.

I don't take any of it back. They are psychologically broken people. There is something in a person that is just broken. Yes. That you can ask them, well, do you know or care how many children have been killed?

No, who gives a shit? I mean, they're not working in you. And I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that, you know, a lot of Israelis feel wrongfully a sense of generational shame that their ancestors were not able to resist the Nazis. Not saying they should feel that shame. They were overpowered. Obviously, there's only so much you can do. But, yeah.

I think that is part of their real contempt for anything they perceive as weakness. That's why they're not funny. They're not funny because in order for people to be funny, they have to be able to laugh at themselves. If you can't laugh at yourself, you can't possibly be funny. You have to have a sense of humor about yourself before you can be funny about anything else. And now that they not have a sense of humor about themselves, they have a hatred for

for people who do, especially for Jews who do. That's why they have a special contempt for nice, funny, friendly, self-deprecating Jews like Russell and myself. They actually call us Holocaust Jews, not just self-hating Jews, Holocaust Jews. You're a Jew with a fetish for your own victimhood. That's how they see it. That's because they're fucked up, because they have a psychological break. There's something in them that feels tremendous shame

for the failures of their people to fight. And so how do they compensate? By fighting. They are now, they compensate for that failure by asserting their worth through conquest and bloodshed and violence. It is a broken society of broken people.

Yeah. It's also, you know, for Jews, the Holocaust is the central origin story that they're raised on, even if you're not Israeli. I mean, any I know it's like that in America. Sure. It's like that for Jews pretty much anywhere in the world. You're raised with that.

So now you take that and you connect it to these people who had nothing to do with that. Right. That you really perpetrated very similar crimes against what was done to you. You can't. You can't.

And I acknowledge that, right? It messes up the whole story of the triumphant Jew, the Exodus story, right? The Jews who were down and out and had come out of these camps triumphing over what are racist Arabs, right? They're supposed to be an extension of the Nazis.

So if you raise your children to see them that way, they're an extension of the Nazis. What's not justified in these people's minds? We were nice to these Nazis. We didn't kill them. We didn't exterminate them. And look at the thanks we got. That's how that's how they see it. Welcome to the Jimmy Dore show. Everyone, Keaton Weiss and Russell Dabula filling in for Jimmy this week.

All right, folks, should we begin this segment with a moment of silent prayer? I think we probably should since this is a January 6th related segment. We are broadcasting live on the four year anniversary of this horrible day.

Now, most people, most people of sane mind have moved on from January 6, 2021. But Ford Fisher, a filmmaker, put out a video thread. He found some people who have not yet moved on. So in his video thread, protesters gathered in Washington, D.C. today. So this was January 3rd. This was the Friday prior to demand Congress reject protests.

the January 6th certification of Donald Trump as the winner of the presidential race. That's correct. So this was a seven-part video thread. I edited together what I thought were the highlights of these seven video posts. So we're not going to watch all of them in their entirety, but I did cut together what I think

Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

We've all gathered here today for the same reason, to demand that Congress uphold the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically Section 3, that states that an insurrectionist cannot be president.

And if you have any doubt that this guy is an insurrectionist, you should come out of the cave that you live in and get a supercomputer in your pocket like we all have. Because all the information is out there and it's undeniable. Please hear me out, Democrats. Please stop blaming each other and saying we went too far left or we should have done this or we got to be Joe Rogan. No, you don't.

We lost, and I'm using air quotes because I don't believe it. That's up to you if you do. We lost the election because a foreign adversary spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on bot farms to bombard half the

the country with Russian disinformation and they beat it into their heads to the point that Americans started to parrot it from Joe Rogan to Tim Pool. So I'm asking Democrats stop blaming your fellow Americans and start blaming Russia.

When Trump won, I have a MAG. My wife is MAG. I divorced my wife. Meanwhile, I'm going to be living out of a trailer and stay within about four hours of DC. And as John Lewis would say, I'm going to get into control. So the rest of my years. Sorry, I know. Yeah, you're full of shit, man. Christopher Guest made this.

this is not real i divorced my wife and now i'm living in a trailer outside of dc like this is totally stylistically this is total spinal tap yeah this will be a smile at that divorce my wife is mega i divorced her now i'm living in a trailer uh and as john lewis said i'm gonna get into good trouble wow wow oh boy oh boy all right we're living in a van down by the river it's

...

These boys at 18 could give their lives to save the world from fascism. At my age, 66, if need be, I'll give my life to do what I can to save this country. I'm hoping that Congress will look at this and take a deep look and know that

that this is not what the people want. And that this is not going to do us any good having people like this in office. This is not what America stands for and that we need to save our democracy.

What would you say to the people who voted for Trump and then kind of say like, but we won the election? What to say to them? There's not much that you can say to them. We will never cease calling January 6th an insurrection. We will never cease calling Donald Trump an insurrection. We will never cease in claiming

that Donald Trump, an insurrectionist, is not qualified to be President of the United States on December 23rd. He's qualified. Because we can never cease to call what happened on January 6th wrong and join those who want to say let's forgive and forget and call it right. Thank you very much.

I've already been. I met with Adam Schiff in person yesterday. And I want to let you know that we've been in touch with Padilla's office. Okay, let's pause one more time. Okay, so we're taking that at face value if we believe him. And we don't have any reason to not believe him. He says, I met with Adam Schiff.

Today or yesterday? Let me see. Let me see. Today or yesterday? I've already been. I met with Adam Schiff in person yesterday. If Joe Biden met with the only thing AOC can do is make me a martini bitch guy, then I believe this guy met with Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff taking meetings with these people? I met with Adam Schiff yesterday. Wow.

I've already been. I met with Adam Schiff in person yesterday. And I want to let you know that we've been in touch with Padilla's office. Nobody's buying the die job. We're calling them. We're emailing them. We have copies of the petition, which was filed with the Secretary of the Senate. And we have a Q&A about that petition here. We have our urgent message that we just put out this morning to try and...

disqualify from seating in the 119th Congress. At least those most egregious, if we can't dismiss all 130, because anyone who voted for the false electors and voted to not honor the electoral college that was duly elected, duly appointed back in January 2021, aided the insurrection. And they also should not be seated, all 130 of them. So they basically, so this guy wants to

decertify the election victories of anyone who backed Donald Trump over his 2020 claims of fraud. Not just disqualify Trump, but disqualify everyone who backed it. They love that idea. To the Democratic Party establishment at home watching, thinking that your money, your elitism will protect you, your podcast with Kellyanne Conway will protect you, those of you watching at home,

Somebody better send this to you. I'll send it to you. But I wanted to tell you, dictatorship comes for everyone eventually. It's you. It's a matter of time. And one consistent thing about dictatorships, they always, every single one of them, without an exception, come with mass graves. Every single dictatorship comes with mass graves. So you, who are fooling yourself into a false sense of normalcy,

You have blood on your hands. Break the silence. Stand up to the US Constitution. You've kicked the can down the road. You keep putting it on the American people to stop him. We're now trying to stop him. So where are you?

Where are you? Thank you all for being on your way. So this is the audience Don Lemon is going for. And that's about the size of it. That's about the size of it. That's right. So, you know, you thought that the people for whom MSNBC is not sufficiently Trump deranged. Yeah.

I mean, you thought the libs were taking this lion down for the most part they are. But wow, you found a crop out there for whom January 6th still fresh in their minds. That was quite the action, quite the action that they put together. But look, the size of this crowd, the

The just, I mean, like you said, that one guy, man, I left my wife and now I'm living in a trailer. I'm going to be close for the next four years. Jesus Christ. I'm going to be close. He's going to be keeping an eye on them. Yeah. Could be keeping an eye on the fascists from my trailer. I hear there's some guy living in a trailer. He's watching me. He comes by the fence every day. It's freaking me out.

I can't sleep. I can't focus. Exactly. Yeah, I mean, look, the size of this gathering does reflect the change in the culture from 2020. But even, I mean, obviously, just when you contrast this transition and now we're in the month of January, you know, at this time in 2016, you had the Women's March was already planned. Right.

Right. But then you had that series of subsequent marches. You had the what did you have? You had the President's Day march with the Not My President rally in New York. And they had, I think, one big one in D.C. And you had all these sort of spinoff marches, the science march, the climate march. They had they had marches and marches.

demonstrations scheduled all throughout the first few months of 2017 uh in protest of trump taking office uh you really see none of that you still live in new york they have pretty much been uh broke yes i was still in new york at the time did you did you see those protests outside trump tower

What's that? The protests outside Trump Tower. Well, Trump got elected. Yeah, well, they had protests outside the tower, but I'm talking about all the time. All the time. Yeah, exactly. All the time. And this time when he won, I was going to go cover protests that weren't protests to cover. Yeah. Yeah. That's about it.

it. That's about it. So quite the display there. So credit to Ford Fisher for going out and finding that. But yeah, you could just see, I mean, that is about the level of engagement that you're seeing from the libs right now. And that just shows you what a different cultural moment it really is between now and then. I mean, it's

it's night and day you know to a certain extent like we were predicting this major meltdown had trump won and we really didn't get a meltdown we really just got a fizzling out uh you know we really just got a sigh of resignation um and that continues uh into into january and i suspect it will continue through inauguration day there are some uh organizations that are planning protests uh on january

20th around cities and things like that. Some of them from organizations we like, like the People's Forum, like protesting the genocide when he inherits the genocide. I'm obviously all for that. But this kind of stuff, he stole the election and he's a disgrace to democracy. Yeah, exactly. That you're just not seeing much except for this display, whatever this was. But that was quite a piece of footage.

i sent you over you know we've seen a few of these now we always assume that you have to be very smart to get a law degree and uh you know in many cases that seems to be true but if sunny hostin could get a law degree you don't have to be that smart she's on the view today say oh january 6th is among the most horrible things that have ever happened in this country like the holocaust

Right. Germany wasn't right. Wrong country. Point taken, but still a very bad comparison. Right. A bad point. Even if it had happened here. Right. Yeah. Yeah. No, no. And it's OK. I guess this could give you some faith in humanity that most people realized at this point that this didn't work.

And they have enough self-respect to shut up about this now. But these are the ones who are left. That's right. The guy living in the van down by the river. Exactly. Always be a few. Remember that. You can always get an audience, folks. It's never totally hopeless for you, no matter what your cause. Hey, become a premium member. Go to JimmyDoreComedy.com. Sign up. It's the most affordable premium program in the business. Freak out. Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't.

Don't freak out. Don't freak out. All the voices performed today are by the one and only, the inimitable Mike McRae. He can be found at MikeMcRae.com. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not. That's it for this week. You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me. Don't freak out. Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't freak out. Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't.

Do not freak out.