Transcript [00:02] Hey everyone. So, if you watch this [00:04] channel regularly, you know that I read [00:06] Iranian regime media every single day. [00:10] And there are still people who ask in [00:11] the comments, they'll be like, "Why are [00:12] you reading that propaganda?" So, let me [00:14] just explain it for the I don't know [00:17] thousandth time. When you read the media [00:20] of a country that has freedom of the [00:22] press, you don't know what the [00:24] government is thinking. But when you [00:26] read regime media from a totalitarian [00:28] regime where there is no freedom of the [00:30] press, you know that the media you're [00:32] reading is a press release, you know [00:34] that it is propaganda. And then you read [00:37] it critically and you look carefully at [00:40] it. So I've said this before, I don't [00:42] believe a word of what they write, but [00:45] if you know how to read it, it tells you [00:47] things. It tells you what they want the [00:48] world to believe. It sometimes tells you [00:51] what they're actually worried about. you [00:53] get a sense of where they are. It's like [00:55] taking their temperature, but you have [00:57] to know how to read it carefully. So, [00:59] today, what I want to do is a little [01:00] different. I'm not just going to cover a [01:02] news item. I'm not going to just cover a [01:04] story. But the purpose of this video is [01:07] to show you three different stories, [01:10] three different pieces of Iranian regime [01:12] propaganda, all published on the same [01:14] day. They're all from today. So, this is [01:16] a news update of sorts. They're all on [01:19] the same site, WANA. that is our [01:21] favorite Iranian English language regime [01:24] outlet. [01:26] And these three stories are basically a [01:29] master class. And we're going to use [01:31] that to [01:33] learn how to read Iranian regime media [01:35] or look at certain patterns. We're going [01:37] to look at three different propaganda [01:39] techniques, three different tricks that [01:42] they that they pull in these three [01:44] stories. And I'm going to read every one [01:46] of them to you in full. They're all [01:47] short. Um, but and and also you have to [01:51] read them in full to get the whole point [01:52] of this. Now, there's also very long [01:54] propaganda pieces which I'm not going to [01:55] read in full, but I'm taking these three [01:57] stories. We're going to look at them and [01:59] we're going to see three different uh [02:02] games that the Iranians play with their [02:04] propaganda. Okay, let's start with the [02:07] one that is really easy to tell that [02:11] it's fake. Um, and let's pull it up on [02:13] screen. The first item is [02:17] where is it? Here we go. [02:20] IRGC statement. Two non-compliant oil [02:24] tankers disabled by mines in straight of [02:27] Hormuz. [02:29] Ahu. So what happened here? The public [02:32] relations office of the Islamic [02:34] Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a [02:36] statement announcing that two [02:37] non-compliant oil tankers caught fire [02:40] and were rendered immobile after [02:42] striking naval mines in the straight of [02:44] Hormuz. H didn't the Americans say that [02:47] they had gotten rid of all the mines? [02:48] Aha, there are still mines. According to [02:51] the IRGC statement, the vessels were [02:53] turned over to American personnel after [02:55] their crews were disembarked at the [02:58] instigation of the US military in an [03:01] effort to traverse an unauthorized [03:04] maritime route. [03:07] Meaning, I'm not even sure what that [03:08] word salad means, that the Americans [03:10] sent the boats through. It's unclear, [03:12] [snorts] [03:13] but let's go on. The statement condemned [03:15] recent US strikes targeting civilian [03:18] locations, including a wedding ceremony, [03:20] irrelevant to this incident, [03:22] characterizing the action as an attempt [03:24] to intimidate the Iranian public. The [03:26] IRGC asserted that such actions would [03:29] not weaken its control over the straight [03:30] of Hormuz, which they still assert that [03:33] they control. The IRGC reiterated that [03:35] its naval forces had previously issued [03:37] warnings regarding the hazards of [03:39] navigating through the mine channels. It [03:41] added that additional punitive measures [03:43] would soon be enforced against maritime [03:45] companies that violate established legal [03:47] roots and place their vessels at the [03:49] disposal of foreign powers. That is the [03:52] piece. So what do we notice here? [03:56] Um [03:58] so this is going to sound familiar if [04:00] you watch me every day. If you watch the [04:01] videos of the last few days, this is the [04:04] exact same claim that I called out. I [04:06] think it was yesterday or two days ago. [04:08] Two days ago, right? Was it yesterday or [04:10] two days? I think it was two days ago. I [04:12] called out this exact same claim. There [04:15] was a uh there was a a story two days [04:17] ago of an of a ship that caught fire [04:20] because it hit a mine in the street of [04:22] Hormuz. And it just happened to be [04:23] conveniently the morning after the [04:26] United States struck the Iranian [04:28] positions on Larak Island where they [04:30] were trying to put more mines in the [04:33] street of Hormuz. And then after I said [04:36] in that video, if you watched it a [04:37] couple days ago, I said, "I believe that [04:39] this incident is false." And then what [04:42] happened? Sentcom [04:45] confirmed that it was false. That's [04:48] right. Sentcom put out a statement [04:49] saying it was false. Now, I'm not saying [04:51] that just to pat myself on the back, but [04:53] let me explain why. Notice what's in [04:56] this story and what is not. It says that [04:58] there are two tankers, that they're on [04:59] fire, that they're disabled, and that [05:01] they hit mines. [05:03] And then this weird line about the crews [05:05] disembarking at the instigation of the [05:06] Americans. [05:08] And it also includes a warning from the [05:11] IRGC about punitive measures, [05:14] punishment against ships that don't use [05:16] their established legal roots. So here's [05:18] what's not in the story, which is what [05:21] led me with the previous one to say that [05:22] this is false. There's no names of the [05:24] ships. There's no It doesn't say what [05:27] flags the ships were sailing under. [05:29] Every ship has a flag on it of a state [05:31] that it's associated with. No mention of [05:33] that. Usually that's in these stories [05:35] when they're real. No coordinates of [05:37] where it happened. No timestamps. No UK [05:39] MTO. That's the that's the the UK [05:42] maritime trade operations, the [05:43] independent uh body that logs basically [05:47] every incident that happens in the [05:48] water. So there's no UK MTO report. They [05:51] when these incidents are real, they they [05:53] tend to be cited. And these are all the [05:55] things that I noticed about the story [05:56] two days ago. And that's what led me to [05:58] say this never happened. Okay. Now, [06:03] this is the exact same claim, [06:06] right? The previous one was August 31st. [06:09] IRGC claimed a tanker hit mines. SenCom [06:12] said, quote, "No ships have hit mines in [06:14] the street of Hormuz." [06:18] That's the one I called false. Okay, but [06:20] this goes back further. They've done [06:22] this before. On July 18th, same thing [06:25] again. two tankers have hit mines [06:28] according to the Iranians and sentcom's [06:30] response [06:32] quote like most IRGC claims this is [06:34] false. So this is at least the third [06:37] time in the last 6 weeks that the [06:40] Iranians have run the exact same play. [06:42] They claim a ship hit a mine [06:45] and is on fire, [06:48] but they give no information about it [06:50] and it turns out to be false. [06:53] Okay. [06:55] Uh, so as of when I'm recording this, I [06:57] don't know whether Sentcom has put out a [06:59] statement about this one, about this [07:01] story, but based on the pattern, no ship [07:03] names, no coordinates, no UK MTO report, [07:06] same script as July 18th, same script as [07:08] August 31st, I'm calling this one the [07:11] same way right now. This didn't happen. [07:13] Okay? And we'll watch what happens over [07:15] the next few days. We'll see if Sencom [07:16] says anything. Now, why do they keep [07:18] doing this if it keeps getting debunked? [07:20] because debunking takes a news cycle and [07:24] the claim itself is still effective. You [07:26] see, in the meantime, they're asserting [07:29] that ships are are hitting mines. And if [07:33] you own a ship, if you're a shipping [07:36] company and you're worried about where [07:38] you're going to send your ships and [07:39] you're worried about insurance and [07:40] you're worried about damages and you're [07:41] worried about this very expensive cargo, [07:44] if there's any chance that there's going [07:46] to be a problem there, there might be [07:48] mines in the street of Hormuz, you you [07:50] might get a little skittish about [07:51] sending them through. [07:54] That's why they do this. So even if it's [07:57] going to get retracted or debunked later [07:58] on, they still gain from it. They they [08:00] gain from the headlines constantly. Oh, [08:02] there ships being hit. There's ships [08:03] hitting mines. That's the whole trick. [08:05] Okay. [08:09] All right. Now, on to the second story. [08:12] Okay. This next one's shorter and [08:15] honestly, this one is downright uh [08:17] funny. Okay. This is like this is [08:19] actually like a piece of comedy. Um [08:24] this is a weird one. Hold on. What's the [08:26] headlines? Let's make sure the headlines [08:28] visible. There you go. New strategy will [08:30] shatter enemies foundation. So what's [08:32] this about? This is Mosen Riza. He's the [08:36] secretary of Iran's Supreme National [08:38] Security Council. So he's like that [08:41] makes him like it's like the secretary [08:43] of defense or secretary of war. Like [08:44] he's the top guy. He's a very senior [08:46] figure. He's not a nobody. And let me [08:49] read you the whole story. It's very [08:51] short and it kind of speaks for itself. [08:55] It's two paragraphs. The Secretary of [08:57] Iran's Supreme National Security [08:58] Council, referring to the ongoing [09:01] confrontation with the enemy, said Iran [09:03] is adopting a new approach across the [09:06] military, diplomatic, and economic [09:08] fronts, which he said would ultimately [09:10] lead to the other side's defeat. [09:13] Oo, are you scared? In a message, he [09:16] said, "With all this flailing, you will [09:18] not only fail to escape the hell you [09:20] have created for yourselves, but you [09:22] will soon see that Iran's new strategy, [09:25] the new strategy on the battlefield, in [09:27] diplomacy, and in confronting the [09:29] economic blockade will shatter your [09:31] foundations." Oo. Oo. Tough talk. Tough [09:36] talk from Mosen Razi. [09:39] With all this flailing, you will not [09:41] only fail to escape the hell you have [09:43] created for yourselves, but you will see [09:45] that the new strategy will shatter your [09:48] foundations. That that's the whole [09:50] article. This new strategy across [09:52] military, diplomatic, and economic [09:53] fronts will shatter your foundations. [09:56] And there's not one single sentence [10:00] anywhere in the piece that tells you [10:01] what the strategy actually is. No [10:04] capabilities are mentioned, no plans are [10:06] mentioned, and no specifics of any kind. [10:08] It's just pure trash talk, like chest [10:11] thumping trash talk dressed up as a [10:13] headline. Right. This is this is a [10:15] domestic facing move. A lot of the stuff [10:17] on WAN appears in Persian and then is [10:19] translated. Not all of it. Um it it's [10:23] there to make Iranians reading WANA feel [10:25] like their leadership has a secret plan [10:27] and has the upper hand and we're not [10:29] backing down, but it doesn't commit to [10:31] anything specific. Okay. So, so those [10:34] are the two uh appetizers of this video. [10:36] Okay. Now, let's get to the main course. [10:38] Okay, the main article we're going to [10:40] really dissect. This next one's a little [10:42] bit longer, and it's genuinely, I got to [10:44] say, one of the stranger pieces of [10:47] Iranian regime uh media messaging that [10:50] I've read in a while. It's really weird, [10:53] and it deserves a full breakdown. But [10:55] before we get to that, uh I just want to [10:57] um I want to remind everyone that the [11:00] high holidays are quickly approaching [11:03] and there are many people in Israel, [11:05] families that are struggling and uh it's [11:08] a very expensive time of year with all [11:10] of the festivals and uh a lot of there [11:12] are people there are families in this [11:14] country that are struggling and will not [11:16] be able to really make festive meals uh [11:19] for their families. So, Israel 365 [11:22] charity is putting together these food [11:24] packages, these very large food packages [11:27] that are going to be delivered to the [11:29] doorstep of needy families in Israel. [11:31] There are als there's also going to be a [11:33] deluxe uh festival dinner for some of [11:37] the families in Jerusalem that we're [11:39] also putting together. Uh and uh this is [11:41] a very important initiative. a big part [11:43] of our celebration of our rejoicing on [11:45] the festivals must must include taking [11:49] care of those needy people. So just add [11:51] this to your shopping list as it were [11:53] for the festivals. Um and uh and you [11:56] know go to uh the link in the [11:59] description of this video to donate to [12:00] this campaign if this speaks to you. [12:02] Whatever you could give helps. I [12:04] understand that not everyone can give. [12:05] If you can give, please put this on your [12:07] list. And if you want to, if you feel [12:09] grateful at all for the videos that I [12:11] make and you want to thank me, this is a [12:12] good way to do it. Go to, so go to uh, [12:14] you know, help out the Israel 365 [12:16] charity team so we can make this [12:18] festival uh, a joyous one for needy [12:21] families. Okay, let's get to this last [12:23] story and this is I'm telling you this [12:25] is a bizarre news item. [12:28] Okay, so the headline here is Bagayi. [12:30] Bagayi is the foreign ministry [12:32] spokesman. [12:34] So So what's his statement? US denial of [12:38] strike on wedding ceremony in Sir is a [12:41] blatant lie. Okay, so the headline is [12:44] that well here's the background. There [12:47] was a US air strike the other day, [12:49] yesterday I think, near Kuhistak in Sir [12:53] in Iran. It hit what the Iranians say [12:57] was a wedding. [12:59] Sentcom spokesman Tim Hawkins made a [13:01] general statement something to the [13:02] effect of the US military doesn't target [13:05] civilians unlike the IRGC and Bagayi the [13:09] Iranian foreign ministry spokesman is [13:12] responding to the American denial that a [13:15] wedding was hit. [13:17] So let's read exactly what he said and [13:19] I'm going to stop along the way in this [13:20] one because there's a lot going on in [13:22] this piece. Okay, so let's hit it. Here [13:25] we go. Esma Begayi, spokesperson for the [13:29] Iran for Iran's foreign ministry, has [13:31] rejected claims by Tim Hawkins, [13:33] spokesperson for the US Central Command, [13:35] regarding the reported strike on a [13:37] wedding ceremony in Sir, dismissing the [13:40] US assertion that its military does not [13:42] target civilians as a blatant lie. [13:47] Okay. Americans are accused of hitting a [13:49] wedding. Americans deny it. And this is [13:52] Ezme B saying, "Your denial is a lie." [13:55] Hawkins had claimed in response to [13:58] reports about the strike on the wedding [14:00] ceremony in Sir that the US military [14:02] does not target civilians. Bagayi in a [14:04] post on X challenged the claim by [14:07] pointing to the record of US military [14:09] operations. He cited several US attacks [14:12] in Afghanistan and Iraq including [14:15] Kakarak in 2002, [14:19] Mukarib in 2004 and Debbala and Wetbagu [14:23] in 2008. Okay, so the most recent one is [14:27] 18 years ago. Anyway, he cited these [14:30] three saying that these attacks resulted [14:33] in the deaths of large numbers of [14:34] civilians including women and children. [14:37] Let's pause there for a little bit of [14:39] comment. [14:42] Uh here I want to give him credit. These [14:45] are actual events. It's nice that these [14:47] incidents are actual real incidents as [14:49] compared to some other things we've seen [14:51] in this video. Kakarak Mukuribal Wbaktu. [14:55] These are actual documented incidents [14:57] from Afghanistan and Iraq where US [14:59] strikes killed civilians at wedding [15:00] parties. That's a historical record that [15:03] is not Iranian invention. So, this part [15:06] of Bagay's argument is is correctly [15:09] sourced. Keep that in mind because it [15:11] makes what comes next in this article so [15:13] much stranger. I mean, just be ready for [15:16] this. It is really weird. I hope you [15:18] haven't turned the I hope you're not [15:19] turning off the video yet because what's [15:20] coming next is bizarre. Okay, here we [15:22] go. Here's the next uh here's the next [15:25] paragraph. You're going to love this. [15:29] Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson [15:31] also pointed to the portrayal in the US [15:34] television series Homeland of a US drone [15:39] strike on a wedding ceremony in [15:41] Pakistan. According to Beay, the episode [15:45] depicted an attack in which around 40 [15:47] civilians were killed. Bagayi further [15:50] criticized Sencom's position, arguing [15:52] that even US media productions [15:56] Homeland have portrayed a history of [15:59] such attacks, making the claim by the [16:02] Sentcom spokesperson difficult to [16:05] accept. We'll read the last few [16:07] sentences in a minute, but let's just [16:08] first unpack what just happened here. He [16:11] brings up a Showtime TV series, a [16:14] fictional Showtime TV series called [16:17] Homeland. [16:19] Okay. And what he's referring to is, I [16:22] looked into this because I didn't watch [16:24] this series, but season 4 of Homeland [16:28] opens up with a CIA drone strike on a [16:32] suspected terrorist meeting in Islamabad [16:35] that instead hits a wedding and kills [16:37] around 40 people. And the whole season's [16:40] plot is about the cover up. [16:44] Okay, that's a real episode. He's not [16:45] wrong about the show, but what he's [16:48] doing is bizarre. Okay, a scripted [16:50] fictional showtime drama is not evidence [16:54] of anything the actual US military has [16:56] done. It proves nothing. And this [16:59] foreign ministry spokesman, Bagayi, he [17:01] he knows enough Western pop culture to [17:04] say to point at homeland [17:07] and and what's he doing? So this is the [17:10] WANA English language edition. So this [17:12] isn't necessarily for the domestic [17:14] audience in Iran, this article. It's [17:17] probably aimed at the Western [17:18] international readers. And for that [17:20] audience, here's what he's saying. He's [17:22] saying even your own television [17:24] production [17:25] industry admits that things like this [17:28] happen. [17:30] And somehow that is supposed to convince [17:32] us [17:34] that the claim that the strike yesterday [17:39] hit a wedding [17:41] is real and that the denial by the [17:44] Americans saying we don't target [17:46] civilians is false because Showtime ran [17:50] this Showtime had this incident in their [17:52] series. [17:54] Okay, this is totally bizarre. What he I [17:57] mean I guess you could spin it this way. [17:58] He's saying if you're claiming that the [18:01] Americans don't target civilians, even [18:04] your own storytellers in your society [18:08] say that this stuff happens. I guess [18:11] that's what he's doing here. It's very [18:13] strange. And you know, I think it's more [18:17] likely that [18:20] claiming that this strike yesterday that [18:22] was supposed to be hitting, think about [18:24] it. It's the exact the the plot of [18:26] Homeland, [18:28] they're trying to claim that that plot [18:30] happened in actuality yesterday that the [18:32] Americans meant to hit some military [18:34] site and instead they hit a wedding. [18:36] Maybe maybe the Iranians watched [18:38] Homeland and they came up with this with [18:41] this fabrication that the Americans hit [18:44] a wedding yesterday from Homeland. I [18:46] don't know. It's Is this bizarre? This [18:49] is crazy. Here's the irony, though. I [18:51] mean, Homeland I started looking into [18:53] Homeland because again, I didn't watch [18:54] the show and I started reading up on it [18:56] because I was reading the Brownian state [18:58] media this morning and I hit the story [19:00] and I was just like, what on earth is [19:01] this? [19:03] So Homeland apparently was attacked [19:06] as racist [19:08] uh and as Islamophobic. [19:11] So Iranian state media is citing as a [19:14] moral indictment of America a show that [19:17] a huge chunk of Western critics actually [19:21] identified as security state mythmaking. [19:24] Right. And and he and he he found this [19:27] plot point that helps his argument. I [19:29] don't know. It's it's it's weird. Do I [19:31] have to explain why this is weird? It's [19:33] weird. Okay, let's let's read the [19:34] closing lines of this article because [19:36] they're actually al they're also doing [19:37] something bizarre. He concluded by [19:40] stressing that the Sir incident is not a [19:43] fabricated narrative or media story and [19:45] that its victims were real civilians who [19:48] lost their lives in the attack. What is [19:51] this? [19:53] What What on earth is this? [19:56] Let's follow this. Okay. The Americans [19:58] carry out an air strike. The Iranians [20:00] claim that it hit a wedding. The [20:02] Americans say, "No, it didn't. We don't [20:04] target civilians." He then says, "Yes, [20:07] you do because you did in Iraq and [20:09] Afghanistan 20 years ago, and Homeland [20:13] depicted you doing so and this incident [20:16] actually happened." [20:18] The punchline of the story is an [20:20] insistence that it's actually real. Very [20:22] weird closing line, [20:25] right? It's real civilians. [20:28] Now, if we go back to what SenCom [20:31] actually said, [20:33] because I pulled the statement, what did [20:34] Hawkins say from SenCom? He said that [20:37] the KUSak strike happened. It wasn't [20:40] staged. He he he [20:44] just he said it didn't hit a wedding. [20:48] He all he said was that the US does not [20:50] target civilians and that they were [20:53] hitting IRGC capabilities linked to [20:55] threats against US forces and commercial [20:58] shipping. That's what he said. [21:00] Nobody accused no one accused the [21:03] Iranians of making up the air strikes. [21:06] So this closing line is saying like if [21:09] you think we're lying, we're really [21:11] telling the truth. You know, it's a [21:13] really strange thing to say. Like if if [21:14] you're trying if you're asserting [21:15] something is true and you include at the [21:18] end of your assertion that pe that don't [21:21] say we're liars because it's really true [21:23] like it's it it sounds like they're [21:25] protesting a little too much. It's like [21:26] a rebuttal before you're accused. It's [21:29] weird. Anyway, uh this type of this move [21:34] of sort of insisting that something is [21:38] true that they've made up [21:43] like the Americans didn't mention a [21:44] wedding. They didn't say, "Oh, no. We [21:46] didn't hit a wedding." They didn't even [21:47] they didn't even say that. They just [21:49] said, "This is what we hit. This is what [21:51] we struck." But this is a move that the [21:53] Iranians make all the time where this [21:55] fabrication versus reality framing. So, [21:58] for example, there was a headline last [22:00] year that I I I I dug up. Um, I [22:04] remembered it. So, it was it was also a [22:06] strange word salad of a headline. The [22:08] truth behind the quote attributed to [22:12] Sahed Katib Zad [22:15] media fabrication or reality because [22:18] there was like a quote attributed to [22:19] this guy and there was some question [22:20] about it. So they did a whole story [22:23] insisting that it was real. [22:26] And then they have fake news and the [22:28] illusion of imminent war against Iran. [22:30] That's like a from last year also. They [22:33] they do this all the time. They have [22:34] these news stories that are about [22:36] insisting that something is real that [22:39] other people claim is fake or vice [22:43] versa. [22:45] It it's it's very strange. You know, [22:47] they they always talk about how the [22:49] media war is part of is an extension of [22:51] the war on the battlefield, and that's [22:53] how they see all this stuff. Anyway, [22:56] I kind of got whiplash reading this [22:58] piece top to bottom, right? Because he [23:00] he he he pulls in a fictional homeland [23:04] series [23:05] as like evidence that the Americans [23:07] target civilians and then insisting that [23:11] this is a real incident even though it's [23:13] not a real incident. So it's like [23:16] [laughter] right it's a bizarre it's a [23:17] bizarre story. Um [23:21] anyway and also the number of casualties [23:23] that they mentioned for this event [23:24] there's different numbers popping up in [23:26] different Iran Iranian media outlets. Uh [23:29] I'm not going to get into that but [23:30] that's also there's inconsistencies. So [23:32] that's your front page of WANA from [23:35] today just from today. And what did we [23:39] see in this video? We saw a fact that is [23:41] fabricate that is most likely fabricated [23:44] of two ships hitting mines. There's no [23:45] mines in the straight. Straight are [23:47] open. The Iranians need the world to [23:49] believe they're closed and that there's [23:50] still mines. It's false. I'm confident [23:53] it's false. I'd bet I I I'd bet my house [23:58] that no that no tankers hit mines. Okay, [24:01] that's number one. And then we saw a [24:03] that threat from Resa that was just this [24:06] empty threat that had nothing behind it [24:08] at all. So it can never be disproven [24:10] because he didn't say what they were [24:11] going to do. And then we have this [24:15] rebuttal [24:17] to the American spokesman denying that [24:20] they targeted civilians that used a [24:23] fictional TV show as part of its [24:27] rebuttal. So these are three completely [24:29] different techniques. Um and look, this [24:33] is why we read Iran Iranian state media. [24:35] You can see what's going on. So So [24:36] what's the punch line of all this? Like [24:37] where are they right now? This is all [24:38] from today. What I'm seeing just from [24:42] reading their stuff every single day is [24:43] that they're in a state of panic. That [24:46] they're they're [24:48] they don't know what to do with [24:49] themselves. They're grasping at straws. [24:51] They're making up stories all the time [24:52] now. Um and you know, they're making up [24:55] that Americans targeted civilians. [24:57] They're making up that that ships were [24:59] hit in the straight moose. And they [25:00] weren't making everything up two months [25:01] ago. They actually were hitting some [25:04] ships. And there would be stories with [25:05] UKMTO information with, you know, with [25:08] names, but I think they're just they're [25:11] just at the end of the rope. So, they're [25:13] grasping at straws and just making [25:15] things up to, you know, to, you know, to [25:18] still talk tough. Anyway, that's my take [25:21] on it. I hope you found this video [25:22] entertaining and interesting and useful [25:24] in some way. [25:26] And, uh, please make sure to help out [25:28] with the charity campaign for the high [25:30] holidays. So, click the link in the [25:32] description of this video to do that. [25:34] It' be much appreciated. And God bless [25:37] you. Thanks for watching.
