Who Missed the Boat? Bret Speaks with Maajid Nawaz
Bret speaks with Maajid Nawaz was the founding chairman of Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank that sought to challenge the narratives of Islamist extremists and, until January 2022, was the host of an LBC radio show on Saturdays and Sundays.https://twitter.com/MaajidNawazhttps://odysee.com/@MaajidNawaz*****Find Bret Weinstein on Twitter: @BretWeinstein, and on Patreon.https://www.patreon.com/bretweinsteinPlease subscribe to this channel for more long form content like this, and subscrib...
They had posited themselves as being ready for that moment and there was something akin to a system failure that happened in that group of friends to a point where you can now count on one hand with fingers spare who actually addressed the COVID stuff.
And it's not a personal thing for me.
It's a disappointing thing for me, because it's the kind of moment where, at the moment we needed it the most, it needed to have happened.
There is no more important moment than this Death Star.
Right, this has been.
And I'm going to say something, and I'm going to repeat this.
I love you all.
These friends know who I'm talking about.
You missed the fucking boat.
And they might think I'm stupid.
Nah, man.
They missed the boat.
you didn't.
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I'm I, of course, am Dr. Brett Weinstein, and I am a lucky person.
I am sitting today with Majid Nawaz, one of the world's most courageous and interesting people.
I love you, bro.
I've got to say this officially on your podcast, man.
I texted it to you the other day, but...
I love you, too.
I love you, too, and I really appreciate what you've been up to.
I know how incredibly difficult it is.
Obviously, I've been involved in the same battle.
You have been exposed to some particularly brutal criticism in that process, and you got unceremoniously thrown out of your profession, your source of income, by an employer with whom you had a contract that they violated.
Prematurely ended, yeah.
Well, that's subject to legal action.
I can't really go into the details there, but the summary is fair.
I was in chronological order.
The moment happened when I publicly said I was no longer going to take a booster.
Uh, and I gave my reasoning, I've mentioned this to you in private before, but the reasoning is as follows.
It's quite clear for me and I don't see anybody, how anybody could find a problem with the reasoning as I laid out on my social feeds, but also the history is all there to check.
You know, I was injected in prison.
Now, I'm a prisoner of conscience, so by definition, anything done to me in prison is against my will.
I don't know what they injected with me till this day.
So I took a stance, having voluntarily taken two jabs at the early stages, finally when the 40-year-olds were allowed to take it.
Because for me, not that I trusted it or anything, but for me, being jabbed my whole life by systems.
A friend of mine once said, it's like, you know, when somebody's a rape victim and their definition of normal is fluctuates.
I mean, for me, it was just like, oh, let me get it out of the way.
I did it.
And I did it.
And I thought, you know what?
Fine.
But I'm never going to surrender the idea that lockdowns were ever justified.
This was before the mandates began.
And then I went along and my critique and my concern was only with lockdowns.
And then suddenly you start learning that people are saying no jab, no job.
And then they say there's a booster shot that you have to take, combined with no jab, no job, and you're in a situation now, because the very definition of coercion isn't, I put a gun to your head.
When it comes to medical procedures, I don't need a gun to your head.
Coercion, look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Bioethics.
I think it's Article 6, if memory serves me correctly.
And you look at the definition of consent in there, and there's absolutely, it states this explicitly, that no negative repercussion Should come at you for you refusing consent.
That's what it means for you to own your own consent, that you're not punished for exercising it.
Otherwise, that's not consent.
By definition, that's coercion.
So, no jab, no job for me became a crime against humanity.
And so, the word I used was deliberately in that context.
I said, I'm a conscientious objector to vaccine mandates and will not be taking one myself.
And that was, you know, It reminded me what they then did to me.
I mean, it began a media campaign.
I was called, as you mentioned, I was called all sorts of things and it ended with, it ended and culminated with, in chronological order, a premature termination of my contract on the largest commercial radio station in the UK with a show that on the weekends was getting over half a million listeners regularly during a lunchtime slot on Saturdays and Sundays and all of it was live.
It was a beautiful relationship with the public that was terminated prematurely over a moral objection.
Now that in hindsight, those people should be ashamed.
Those people that came for me at that moment in hindsight, why should they be ashamed?
Because We've now learned from the vaccine data, you go from, let's start in chronological order of the way in which the dominoes fell.
Let's start with AstraZeneca.
April last year, when AstraZeneca themselves and the BBC reports this, admitted that under 30s should not take their vaccine because of blood clots.
Fine, everyone started taking Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Pfizer.
A week later, AstraZeneca said, uh-oh, under 40s shouldn't take it either.
This is last year, right?
This year, April, Moderna has to recall thousands and thousands of vials of their vaccine because, direct quote, foreign contaminant is in the vials, right?
After that, this month, Johnson & Johnson gets restricted by the CDC because another thing, blood clots, the same thing keeps popping up again and again, blood clots.
The only one left then became Pfizer.
And as we know from the data that's just been dumped, because a judge had to order them to release the data, as opposed to them wanting to after 75 years, that data tells us that over 1,200 people died in the first three months of their trial.
Now, what I want to know is, I don't say that that's a causal link.
There's a correlation there.
What I want to know is how can you define consent if I'm not informed of that correlation?
Yeah, and, you know, it is not only coercive, it is a clear violation of Nuremberg, right?
There are many things about... That's why I said crime against humanity.
It is a crime against humanity, and I would point out that there are several insidious features here.
So, on the one hand, you have a so-called vaccine, and you and I have just been at a conference where many people made the point that actually that definition is being so loosely used here that it's counterproductive.
But these so-called vaccines are mysterious in their content, and the idea that people have in any way the information with which to make an informed choice is preposterous.
But the other thing is that because of these mandates, you have a violation of the idea that you are obligated to reject immoral orders.
Right?
Many people administered these shots to people who they knew did not have the information to make an informed consent.
And anybody who didn't administer the shots, who was in those positions, was very likely to lose their jobs.
That is entirely disturbing.
It's two violations of Nuremberg, right?
It's the immoral orders portion and the informed consent portion.
And then the consequence of it I find even more terrifying.
But I'm going to add a point if I may, yeah?
Sure.
So the violation isn't just by those that perpetrated it.
And I believe you.
This is Nuremberg level.
This is why I used the words crime against humanity and I said I became a conscientious objector because this is war crime level stuff.
And it's not just the perpetrators.
When you start talking on that level, and I'm, believe me, I think we're there, right?
When you start talking on that level, anybody that propagated, defended, supported, I Was Following Orders no longer cuts it when you're on that level of a crime.
It doesn't cut it.
So anyone that was out there after being told this is the problem and began hunting those that were unvaccinated through their media representations, supporting things such as lockdown only for the unvaccinated, supporting things like telling the unvaccinated they cannot work.
Right?
That's a participation in the crime and those people are also responsible and it will not cut it to say I was following orders.
Yes, the coercion was insidious and it was extremely broad.
It came in every form from interrupting your capacity to earn to your social group being manipulated into pressuring, right?
And it's Truly frightening in its own right.
But I'm concerned, actually, about what happens one step down the road.
Because what I saw was what appears to me to be a very clever move on the part of whatever this force is that is doing these things.
In which, in one fell swoop, they managed to remove all the people who were likely to object.
Right?
On the basis that those people were going to object to their own injections of a substance that they didn't know much about.
That those people would eliminate themselves from the ranks of our security services, of our military, of our universities.
And the problem is that that leaves all of the institutions in basically staffed by people who don't know that they are obligated to reject immoral orders, right?
That's a genius level move.
And what it does is it sets us up for the next tragedy of history.
And I don't know what that tragedy of history is going to look like, but I do know that we just got a lot more likely to see it. - So I tweeted something, Relate to what you're just saying, if I can read it.
And then just, I think, because it links to this point, and then I can just tell you what I was thinking when I said this.
I put this out yesterday.
So, the optimum way to win this war against humanity is to convince humans they are not being warred upon.
Premium meat is Wagyu.
The cow is pampered until it is slaughtered.
If you see but cannot perceive, step aside so that those of us who are awake may fight this enemy for you.
I believe the situation is that serious.
And what you just said there about staffing institutions with people that no longer have the capacity to make moral judgments and justify their actions by following orders, you've got a situation that, how you create those people, we have to be aware that we're witnessing the creation of that class.
And so the cultural debates that are happening in society at the moment, Part of the, I'm going to summarise it in my opinion, part of how I see it is the deliberate encouraging of narcissism in society so that everybody is atomised, right?
It destroys community and if you destroy community there's no way because a big part of those moral judgements come from community.
Now I don't care what form that community looks like, it's why I'm not anti-theist.
This is why I'm not anti-religion.
That community could be a mosque.
It could be a synagogue.
It could be a church.
Equally, it could be a yoga center.
Equally, it could be a Sikh temple or a Hindu temple.
It doesn't have to be religious at all.
It could be the local humanist chapter.
But that sense of communities where people share moral reflections and then find solidarity in the community's mores, yeah?
That they go about sort of then openly Having the courage to speak about.
That's how you get people that speak because they feel they have a moral sort of fabric supporting them coming from their community.
If you don't have that, if you're atomized, if you're living in a shoebox in a city, you don't have the courage to speak about anything because you're not connected to anything in the first place.
The whole idea of speaking up seems a very abstract notion for somebody that is living in the equivalent of a chicken in a cage, right?
Which is the kind of architecture that's now being encouraged and the kind of architecture I've grown up through London living in.
And I think that, so back to that point about staffing these institutions, we have to look, people in your position who look at things from a bird's eye perspective, My view would be that we have to look culturally at the entire scene and note across, in an interdisciplinary way, where certain behaviour patterns are encouraging this problem of people becoming unable or incapable of making moral decisions for the betterment of humanity.
And if that means, as Roger Scruton used to do, talking about architecture, but if that means, you know, talking about holistic lifestyles, or if it means having this kind of more sort of intellectual conversation, but ultimately we've got to be aware of where this is happening in multiple sectors because it's an all a society problem in my view, you know, and we've just witnessed how where there's an all a society failure.
Look what just happened.
I mean, I'm hoping people agree with us by now.
It was a failure.
Well, you know, some do, and some don't yet have ears to hear or So what do you think is going on there?
I think a number of things are going on.
I mean, I would say you're correct that a kind of narcissism has been encouraged.
I would also point to solipsism and maybe most critically, sophistry.
Many of the arguments that we are up against are So obviously wrong, but so difficult to dismantle that anyway, we spin our wheels explaining things that shouldn't need any explanation at all.
On your point about community, I would point out that there's another feature of this as well, which is Things that have nothing to do with the failure we've just seen have disconnected people from each other and not just in sort of a vague way.
The fact that many things downstream of birth control and technological aspects of dating and changes in the mores surrounding sex and romance have caused people not to prioritize the finding of a mate.
See, I had to come back around to this, what you're saying.
I agree with you.
But I had to come back around to it because after my divorce, when I got out of prison, my marriage broke up.
And I don't know how much of it is what normally happens to a guy that's heartbroken or how much of it was my fault, but there was a journey I had to make to get back to this point.
And sorry to interrupt you, but I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point, actually.
And people don't realise the value of it.
This episode is brought to you by American Hartford Gold.
Inflation is at its highest level in 40 years.
Interest rates are skyrocketing.
We are caught between runaway inflation and a recession.
Our retirement accounts are in real danger.
If you want to protect your future, call American Hartford Gold and let them show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by diversifying your portfolio with physical gold and silver.
They make it easy, but you will need a phone.
All it takes to get started is a short call and they'll have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k.
They are the highest rated firm in the country with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied customers.
Call them now.
They will give you up to $1,500 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
Call American Hartford Gold at 866-828-1117.
That's 866-828-1117.
866-828-1117. That's 866-828-1117.
Or text Dark Horse to 998899. - The value is almost indescribable And I know that, you know, as much as I have placed a value on this since I was very young, I didn't understand the full value until I saw what they did to us during COVID.
Right.
Because.
So you've also recently had a reinforcement of this for yourself.
Absolutely.
I mean, I had an intuitive sense of how important this was, and it had been important in my life in many different ways.
However, what I didn't understand was that the chances that you were going to hang on to your sanity if you and your partner were watching the same movie, right?
I don't care how many people swear that you've lost your mind.
If somebody that you know well can sit down and look you in the eye and say, you know what?
I don't know what they're talking about, but I see it too, right?
What you're saying is not crazy.
Here's the part I don't agree with, right?
They'll tell you what they don't agree with, but the reality check being a primary feature of your life was one of the things that made it possible to not be sucked into this intense gravitational well that was set up by the mainstream narrative.
And it really couldn't have been more important, and what's more, I don't know whether you've had this experience.
Among the most common things that people say to me, and this has not been years, this has been six months, among the most common things that people say to me when they stop me on the street is, Keep going.
You are keeping me sane.
And I will say something like, thank you very much.
That means a lot to me.
And they'll say, no, no, you're not getting it.
You're keeping me sane, right?
There are people who are watching us who are being told.
An entirely fictional story, and then to hear, I think it amounts to this, somebody who is decent and clearly not trying to mislead them, smart enough to sort through things, and ready to say out loud what they think, is a very rare phenomenon.
And so, just even, I think the point is, you could probably predict How likely somebody is to have not been drawn into the nonsense just based on the quality of the reality checks in their life.
Almost nobody who didn't have a reality check.
So I'm going to pull you up on this then.
Let's test it, yeah?
So you and I both remember each other through these last two years.
Yes.
And we exchanged texts and we were like encouraging and this and we're here for each other.
And I appreciate you came on my show before I was let go of.
When you were doing your Ivermectin stuff, I was keen to support that.
Yeah.
And it was for that reason I got you on, but also retweeting your comments on it and stuff.
So, we remember those days, yeah?
But, let's go before and after those days.
So, would you have predicted before that all happened that I would have been the one in the UK speaking to you about this stuff?
No.
Right, so how does that marry with what you just said?
Well, um... Because I know most people wouldn't have predicted this.
Look, first of all, there are some things about you that are different, and I'm a huge believer that the The most underrated phenomenon from the point of view of understanding adults is childhood, right?
Developmental experience is everything.
And I don't mean childhood like, you know, really young.
But I mean what you've been through, shapes which you are capable of seeing, what you're willing to endure.
You spoke about this on the way up, right?
Yeah.
You have been through incredible hardship.
And you've been through incredible hardship and you've come out the other side and Frankly, I think it builds a strength of character that just doesn't exist in most of the people that we would hope would have it.
And so what I really think is that many of the COVID narratives were covered in a layer of sophistry that was supposed to keep you away.
And the sophistry wasn't good enough on its own to do it, but the sophistry coupled with... So you're saying experience gives you a bullshit detector?
Well, in your case, I think what it did is it gave you courage.
And the point is, most people actively broke their own understanding.
You couldn't drag them to the truth because they instinctively knew that if they saw the truth, it was going to unleash a world of hell for them.
And frankly, they weren't wrong.
You're saying there's a psychological barrier there?
I'm saying that you and I both know that there was nothing fun about having whatever it is that was distributing that awful narrative target you.
Yeah.
It was awful.
And so the point is, okay, it was awful, but what choice do I have is something most people don't say to themselves.
What they do is they find reasons not to be saying the kinds of things that make that happen.
And so I think, um, you know, What you went through gave you room that others couldn't find.
Yeah.
But then, when you, so, to pick up further, because we got, sort of, when we even raised this on the way up before we sat down, this is what I said.
I said to you, fine, you may have learned the alphabet first, but once I say to you, okay, look, A, B, C, D, E, F, and then I'm showing it to you, what's precluding somebody at that stage learning the alphabet with you?
Is that the psychological barrier?
Well, I really think it's fear.
I really think it's fear.
Yeah, and... It's fear that, so, It's intellectual capability and fear.
How related are they?
Because I think they're more related than most people realize.
Well, here's what I've seen.
In academia, before any of this COVID stuff happened, I was already, you know, for obvious reasons, I'm quite disappointed with the Academy, and basically, I concluded a couple things.
One, we are in an epidemic of cowardice, right?
The amount of cowardice is incredible, right?
Things people used to endure regularly, people are just completely unwilling to face.
But the second thing is, academia selects for it.
Right?
If you have a mentality where, you know, you want to be in the ivory tower and you don't want to get your hands dirty, right?
And you like, you know, jousting in that particular, you know, gentlemanly way, then the Academy might be where you land.
And what that means is that when the Academy falls apart, when the Academy forgets how to think, right?
The number of people who will stand up and say, sorry, I'm not going along with that.
Is tiny, right?
And we saw this at Evergreen, which was five years ago, yesterday, Evergreen melted down.
Five years ago, yesterday, May 23rd.
So Rachel told me that on the way to see you guys in Bath, and she was like, do remember, it's five years, because Heather apparently wrote about it and said she's going offline for a bit.
Yeah.
Because Rachel follows Heather's substack, I should say, for the record.
Right, everybody should follow Heather's substack.
Hi, Heather!
But the point is, the The pattern at Evergreen was very clear, right?
Some people in a crisis will disappoint you, right?
We saw that a bunch with people we had called friends, with all of our colleagues, with a couple of exceptions, right?
Literally the entire faculty failed the assignment.
And then we saw people do the other thing.
We saw people we didn't know had incredible courage who stood up and, you know, said the truth.
And it was really important.
But the distinction, the fact that the people who surprised us in the pleasant direction weren't on the faculty, was very conspicuous.
And I think it's about a failure.
The Academy attracts people who are, frankly, risk-averse, and it makes them a hazard.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And linking that back to the point about encouraging narcissism, you can imagine how in an atomized society, fear would increase, anxiety, linked to fear, would increase, and courage would decrease, because I look at it this way, if you've got nothing to fight for, now loving relationships, so a whole bunch of people woke up when they said, with these mandates, that they were coming for the kids, for example, yeah?
You notice parents suddenly thinking, what the, and then mother's groups started emerging, and then nurses started speaking up, because they've all got kids.
So if you don't have loving relationships, so like, I've often posted online, and I'm very open, by the way, as you know, and anything you hear me say publicly, I'll say privately, That's why my show, sorry, is literally on a decentralized platform, encouraging decentralized funding.
It's a substack in this.
That's how I want to live.
I want people to know where I'm coming from.
Open source.
Yeah, open source, yeah.
So, how do we get to that?
What was I saying?
We were talking about the cowardice in the economy.
Right.
Was working in a comfy, cushy role, yeah?
On a national mainstream... Why am I prepared to shipwreck that, yeah?
Because I'm reading in the press, they're coming for my five-year-old.
Now, there's nothing worse.
So, I've often posted, that's how I got to it, what I post.
I'm open, right?
So, I often posted that meme of Rambo 1, First Blood with Sylvester Stallone.
And you know where it says, with the text on the meme, and it says, wait until those who just wanted to be left alone.
Right.
Yeah.
Have to come.
Right.
So I saw myself as just having a cushy life.
You come for my kid.
Right.
Sorry.
Now I'm just going to have to fight every single one of you at once at the same time.
Yeah.
And I don't give a fuck.
Right.
Because you're saying you're going to inject my kid against my without my consent, because it's somehow an illness that has been proven as a matter of parliamentary record in Hansard has an infection fatality rate of 0.096 percent, which is comparable to the flu.
And you're telling me you can inject our children at five years old without our say so.
So what you do there, the value of a loving relationship is it provides that courage without even needing it.
Right.
Now, if you can atomise society and if you can make people live in these shoeboxes, back to that whole Roger Scruton philosophy, yeah?
It's really important because you're concerned about, say, courage, and I'm, say, concerned about, say, family or, say, community.
It's all the same thing because I believe they're interrelated, right?
Some of the bravest warriors, what are they fighting for?
Not money.
Yeah, you find you could this concept of the kamikaze right the concepts of the Shaheed put aside the one that kills civilians with them because it's Happens even without civilian targets because that's where it's originally come from.
It's common and military context Just the concept I'm talking about the raw concepts of it They're never fighting for money, you know Unless it's for money because when they die it's gonna go to their kids who are starving in the gutter In other words, they're not fighting for money, right?
They're fighting for love.
And actually radicalization often begins with that.
You know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It's always a nice emotion that begins with a concern, a love, yeah?
And so I think if you atomize people, you can do two things.
You can remove anything worth fighting for from their lives, but also Any emotions they do have, it's a lot easier then to steer those and get to that point where the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
Because whatever good intentions they have left, those good intentions exist in isolation.
It's so much easier to hijack an isolated person's good intentions than it is to hijack somebody who's embedded.
In loving relationships because they always have other people to think about.
So their ideas are harder to hijack because they don't exist in isolation.
They exist for other people to care for.
So I can't just come and take you because anything I say, she's going to be good for you.
You're going to also evaluate whether it's good for Heather and for your kids and for your community, you know?
Yeah.
So, um, one of my, One of the insights in evolutionary space that I think needs to be explored is lineage.
So there's a debate in my field about whether individual selection and kin selection are the way to think about it, or what's called group selection.
Group selection is nonsense.
The real deal is lineage, right?
And that's what you're talking about.
You're talking about something that, you know, you are a temporary manifestation of something durable, and that is why people will actually willingly die for a cause in general, is that that cause is central to the well-being of their lineage going forward.
So this is vital stuff, which raises an important question, right?
We can see A radical failure.
Imagine you take away the desire for that lineage in the first place.
Chemically, chemically, you know.
Right.
This is what's going on, dude.
It's not, it's all, you know, I join the dots in this way, right?
So this whole thing about experimenting on kids with these puberty blockers.
Yeah.
And that's exactly where I'm going.
Go for it.
Go for it.
Sorry, man.
No, no, no.
I mean, we're, we see the same picture, which is that across the board there, look, a parent who is told, You know what we've just discovered?
That there aren't boys and girls that, you know, sexuality is not binary and that, you know, you can be born in the wrong body happens all the time and when that happens we have no obligation but to go at you, no alternative but to go at you with, you know, surgery and pharmaceuticals, right?
The proper answer to that is go fuck yourself, right?
That is not a reasonable approach.
That is my child.
Let's put it this way.
Let's put it in the real terms.
There is a reason that we universally despise child molesters.
That nothing is so reliably going to raise in us our anger as the idea of a child molester.
Why?
Because a child molester takes somebody who has done nothing wrong and maims them.
Psychologically maims them in a way that they never escape, right?
So the point is, look, anybody who's going to maim your child, you are allowed to have, frankly... Strong views about.
You are allowed to defend that person.
Yeah.
And in the strongest possible terms, right?
Now, the fact that the person who is going to maim your child is a doctor doesn't much matter.
The fact that they have the backing of some academics who claim to have discovered that sex doesn't exist, Dude, this is the thing, this is why it's white.
Look, sorry, I'm not getting undressed, but we've shown you this before, right?
Oh, sorry, but we can, we can, we can just do this and you can refit me once I've done it.
Yeah, sorry about that.
So we'll just keep to let it roll.
It's cool, man.
It's natural.
Right.
So, uh, Basically, yeah, don't panic, Producer Man.
Let it be natural.
So, I'll fit this back on, you know, in a second, but you know where I'm going with this because this is important for people considering what we've just come through.
So, as you can see, right?
See that, right?
That scar there happened to me.
I was born in Britain.
My mom is an immigrant from Pakistan.
And she, from the age of zero to three, took me to Pakistan.
And at some point, somebody put something in my arm.
Now, I don't know about you, yeah?
But injection shouldn't look like that by the age of 44.
Now, to this day, I don't know what that is, but I'd probably find out.
However, it's certainly not something that isn't given today because I don't see kids with that kind of scar on their arms anymore.
Now, that was done in Pakistan.
Now, you know, you will remember on Rogan, I spoke about the fact, it is now an undeniable, indisputable fact that the CIA ran fake hepatitis B vaccine programs in Pakistan because they formally apologised for it.
So, It's important I say this, because sometimes people are like, Magid, you're one of the most prominent vocal critics of the mandates, yet you're double jabbed.
People need to understand, I have, people have been jabbing me all my life without me knowing what the fuck they've been putting into me, including in jail.
So when I was asked to take two jabs, for me it was no big deal, because I've already got half, I don't know what's in my body, there's another one here.
That's the one.
I don't know what was put inside me, right?
In prison.
The dude next door to me in the cell died of Hepatitis B. And he was my friend.
His name was Hisham.
And he dropped dead in his cell.
We all started rioting that night, right?
I don't know what was put in me, but it was around the same time.
So...
You mentioned Hepatitis B and he died in it and I know what happened in Pakistan with these fake Hepatitis B vaccine.
Now this kind of behaviour is a scar.
It is not just a physical scar, right?
So you talk about maiming children.
So imagine you've gone through that and you're an adult and then somebody says they're going to start doing that to your kid over my dead fucking body.
Right.
That's it.
The point is, look, a parent is built, right, to be a wall to prevent people from harming that child.
And the idea that we are now seeing this failure Across the board, right?
How many parents have revealed that they are actually going to tolerate this nonsense?
It's incredible.
It's a total failure of the understanding of what the role of parent is.
And so, you know, we see that With respect to the mandates, we see that with respect to this sudden shift in our sense about trans and what it obligates parents to do.
And, you know, of course, I'm not uncompassionate about the fact there are trans people.
It's not an easy way to be.
And frankly, the earlier that they can access help, the better.
I only talk about the children.
Don't put these chemicals into children.
Let them grow up and make their own minds up.
They might be gay.
They might be lesbian.
We don't know.
Let them grow up first.
Right.
You know, I think on the adults debate, I don't disagree with you.
Yeah.
But my main concern, because they were doing it here at the Tavistock Clinic without parental consent on pre-pubescent kids.
You're talking about... It's been stopped now.
You're talking about the vaccine mandate.
No, I'm talking about the... You're talking about the puberty blockers.
Yeah.
It's a total failure of one's obligation as a parent.
And that indicates something about the level of coherence of our own understanding of what we're supposed to be doing on this planet.
So...
No, but I want to bring you back to this, right?
So, this is obvious, what we've just spoken about should be obvious, and yet there are men, and I use that word on purpose, right?
There are men who do have kids and have partners who are living in the same society as us, who are being told the same thing, that their kids will be injected without their consent, and these men didn't discover a problem.
in that happening, yeah?
And I'm still trying to work out why, if I've taught you ABC, I can see why you didn't first learn ABC, especially if you're coming from a different language, and ABC is a new language for you, and I'll help you learn it.
But once I've taught you that, what is it?
Why, because if the most base instinct is that we can identify this protection of the lineage, What fails in the circuitry of that person if you hit the thing that should be the one thing they're alive for, if you strip it down to its bare essentials, right?
And that still hasn't shocked them.
What's going on there in your view?
I think it is a failure of heuristics.
So the mind cannot process everything as it is and make decisions.
It's too much, right?
So what we do is we make useful simplifications in order to do the job.
And in fact, you know, you can see this at a neurological level in your visual system, right?
If you were to process each, you know, firing of a receptor in your eye and try to make sense of how the room was based on all that individual data, you'd never be able to process it, you know, fast enough to walk down the stairs.
So what we do is we have little rules of thumb built into our visual system that radically simplify the job of figuring out where the objects are.
We perceive edges, for example, right?
Edges are very easy to see because the chromatism changes.
So we have all of these simplifications and most of the time...
It works so beautifully.
But, you know, we've all been fascinated by optical illusions.
Optical illusions are just things that hover between two interpretations so that your mind flips back and forth trying to figure out which one it is, right?
And so the point is, If your experience has been, look, there are a bunch of vaccines, and I take them, and I don't really know much about their safety, but I'm told they're safe enough.
In fact, I'm told they're very safe.
And what's more, I'm told that I'm much safer having them than not having them.
And so far, it's been okay.
And then somebody says oh my god there's a terrifying disease and we have one of these vaccines and you're gonna have to take it and it's really safe and effective.
The point is it hits you at well you know I've never questioned a vaccine before and now suddenly I'm being told I definitely need this one and it's more important than usual and what do I know?
And I think you know what Heather and I were saying was People misunderstood because the delivery mechanism was a syringe.
They thought this was a variation on a theme that they had already made the call about.
And so what alarmed Heather and me was we could look at the novelty of what was in that vaccine.
Do you know, perhaps the preparation you're making there, talking, you're alluding to when they've already made a call on something.
Think back to the whole Wakefield saga, yeah?
And the MMR.
So I remember because my eldest son, I have two boys and the one from the previous marriage I referenced, he's now 21.
So he's the baby back then that we had to make that decision about MMR.
And after much research we did.
But we really did pause on that at the time.
I was still an Islamist, right?
And so we were having all these debates as Islamists and so we didn't trust the system.
I really had to look into it and then made the decision, OK, I'll do it.
But it took us a couple of months, both me and my then wife, to actually say we're going to do that.
But then, of course, I don't need to tell the rest of the story.
The whole scandal then that happened and obviously Wakefield got struck off and now, you know, others speak in his defence.
I don't want to get into that debate, but I do want to say that That that debate happening, I almost, I think, that the way in which it was concluded in the public perception acted as that rehearsal that you've just, I think, alluded to.
I don't know what you think.
Oh, I think this absolutely happened.
And I also think that they have overplayed their hand here because they have revealed what they are willing to do and to lie about.
And it now has many people.
I mean, look, my kids are Fully vaccinated up until the point that we're talking about COVID, right?
We vaccinated them with everything.
Now, look, I was a biologist then too, and as is Heather, and our decision was very, very clear, right?
It makes sense to delay these things as long as possible.
Why?
Because if they're going to harm you, the amount of harm they will do will be reduced the more of your development has already been completed normally, right?
So, we delayed every vaccine to the reasonable point that you could delay it, right?
So, what that tells you... So, what about the MMR?
Did I make the right decision?
I mean, not that you're a... I mean, I shouldn't be asking you to watch this, but in your opinion, not the right... We don't want to give medical advice.
Would you repeat what I just said?
Would you do that?
Well, here's where I am now, and this is what's going to get us in trouble, okay?
Now, having seen what they did over COVID, having learned what I have about vaccines, I now do not trust the system that produces them.
Yeah, this is where you and I agree.
Right.
I'm still an enthusiast about vaccination, but I am livid that we don't have a system that can be trusted to produce them and that I can look at and say, that's safe enough, not so much on that one.
Can I reference where this came up in the conference we were just at?
So for some of your audience who may not know, but you introduced it anyway, we were just at the World Health Council Conference in Bath, UK, which is why you're in my beautiful city, London.
Welcome.
We're in the East End, and I hope you have had a great time in this city.
I have.
I know you've been busy as well, which your audience is going to love, but we were there and a debate ensued.
I don't think I want to mention names.
I don't know, because was it filmed?
If it's filmed, I can mention names, right?
It was filmed.
I'm not comfortable about it.
So Del Bigtree was there and Gervain Den Bosch were there.
And a debate ensued between those two in the opening session that I was chairing and you were present.
And in essence, to summarise it, and I believe this is when you raised the point, and I had a chat with Rachel, my missus, and said I agreed with your point, and this was the point that Del was saying like, you know, The data that the FDA, the CDC, whichever one he was referencing, haven't released the data that is urgently needed on this stuff, the vaccines, before they start rolling them out.
And if that data is released and it becomes transparent that they cause more harm than good, if that data shows that, and it's an if, we have to put the if underlined there, yeah?
And what he referenced was, for example, autism combined with allergies.
Now, one thing that this Dutch Does touch a raw nerve with me is that I'm 44 years old.
I remember as a child never having, there was no such thing as people dying from eating peanuts.
Yeah.
Right?
So I don't know, don't, unless I'm like, something's wrong with my memory, but people try and gaslight me on this stuff, but I do not recall people dying from eating peanuts.
Now the problem, part of the problem is, as all referenced in 1984, who knows what the truth is anymore, right?
But, but I, you know, I don't remember that being a problem until suddenly it was a problem.
We can certainly say that the problem of serious food allergies has grown and has not been satisfactorily explained.
Yeah, it could be GM crops.
I'm not saying what's causing, I'm saying Del's point was combine all of that data together, so you get where I'm going with this, yeah?
And he's saying if that data aggregated demonstrates that these things are causing more harm, vaccines are causing more harm than good, he said to Gert, would you then, as a vaccinologist, accept the fact that these shouldn't be rolled out?
And Gert's response was, You know, you don't know what you're talking about, basically.
I'm a vaccinologist and that's not how it works, right?
Now, I don't want to get into his technical garden because what interests me was your point.
And you then piped up and you said, guys, guys, guys, you're not getting it.
This data is not going to be released because, and this I remember is what you said, the quote, right?
You said, because every single one of our institutions has been corrupted.
And this is to your systemic floor point.
That's what I believe.
That's where we are.
So that even if it was doing good, if it's coming from voices that you no longer trust, you can't recognize good if you don't trust the person speaking to you about it.
Right.
Full stop.
You know, this is true.
And I will say from the beginning, my sense with the entire COVID fiasco was that it reveals just how rotten in our system has become.
And so, while I thought it was very important to talk about all of the issues around COVID, and while I was well positioned to do that as a biologist who was capable of, you know, learning the relevant vaccine information, the epidemiological information, and could use my toolkit as an evolutionist,
The key thing that I thought was important was once you understand what happened over the lab leak, once you understand what happened over repurposed drugs and early treatment, and once you understand what happened with the claim that the COVID vaccines were safe and effective, I'm going to add Care Homes and Remdesivir and Midazolam to that list.
You can add that to the list.
That's going to be my next episode.
That's my next episode, by the way, on this show, Midazolam.
You must watch it.
It's, dude, shocking.
Please watch it, yeah?
Believe me.
I'll send you that link for episode 4, 5, 5.
This is 6, so I'll send it to you.
And by the way, it's the tip of the iceberg.
Well, that's the thing.
This is a hell of an iceberg.
So I would also add escaped variants to the list.
But anyway, even just the three, right?
Lab leak, early treatment, vaccine safety and effectiveness.
Once you understand how wrong what you were told was on all three of those fronts, then you know something.
What you know is You know university science has failed, you know the public health apparatus has failed, you know that journalism has failed, right?
Politics has failed?
Right.
And so, once you know that, it's actually very terrifying, right?
How much danger would we be in if we didn't have any of those things looking out for us?
Well, that's how much danger we're in.
This is where, you know, I added to the conversation and said, we're at war, Brett.
Ideological war.
I don't mean I'm going to go and shoot people.
I mean, this is an ideological war on the minds of our population using all of the institutions of society.
And if we've got to recognize that first and foremost, because it's not about data.
If the system's failed, the right data in the wrong hands is still a problem.
Because they can weaponize correct information.
Happens all the time, yeah?
I'll give you an example.
The invasion of Iraq is wrong.
Now, I'm talking about propaganda warfare, yeah?
The invasion of Iraq is wrong.
But guess who believes that?
Green activists believe that.
Socialists believe that.
Jihadists believe that.
ISIS believes that.
Al-Qaeda believes that.
Right?
The correct stance can be weaponized to kill civilians just as easy as it can to have sit-in protests.
So when you talk about propaganda warfare, part of the problem is the conversation they're having about provide the data.
It's why I said, and I sat on that table when I said, we're at war.
I wasn't actually making Del's point, I was making my own point.
Even though it sounded like I'm agreeing with Del, because he was saying it, but...
Well, he was alluding to it, I was saying it.
But my point is that if you recognise that, then even having, making sure that through public accountability, transparency, the correct institutions are forced to acknowledge the correct data like Pfizer did, has that changed anything with the problem that we're in?
Just the fact that the judge ordered Pfizer's data to be released?
You know, I mean, it's incremental change, but if you want to weaponize correct information, you can.
Now, what we've really got to start addressing is the failure of these institutions.
And that touches on the failure of our collective consciousness to be able to imagine a future beyond technocracy.
I agree.
I do want to come back.
This is a Death Star moment problem here.
This is a Death Star moment.
It's also, as much as I know that anybody who invokes it is going to be accused of alarmism or something, it's also a storm in the cockpit moment, right?
I really believe that and I'm happy to defend that belief.
It's not hyperbole.
But we, I mean, China is an example of how it can, I mean, this is, I don't, I mean, hyperbole, we've gone beyond that, Brett.
Look, you saw the videos with the lockdown in China, right?
You saw, yeah?
Now, the data, there's been a hack today and more data has come out about the Uyghur concentration camps.
Anyone that now says this is hyperbole, try it with me, I'll accuse you of defending genocide.
Yeah.
Basically.
Well, it makes sense to me.
I want to come back to what happened at this conference, because there are a couple of features, you know, people are going to weaponize this against us.
Even just discussing the possibility that this is not a clear-cut issue is heresy.
So, on the panel, which you were hosting, Garrett VandenBosch was on it, I was on it, and Robert Malone was on it, along with a number of other people.
And the three of us, so that's two vaccinologists and an evolutionary biologist, were pushing back on where Dell was trying to take us.
And Dell's point was, if the net effect of these vaccines is negative, we agree they shouldn't be used.
Garrett Vandenbosch's point I think was too subtle for people to understand it and it is crucial to be in this discussion.
His point was we have a mechanism.
Let's take the measles vaccine.
If the measles vaccine is creating immunity then what we have is a population with a large number of people who have been immunized.
We're above herd immunity and that's why we don't have lots of measles.
Now the problem is new people are constantly being born and that Increases the number of people who have not been vaccinated.
Now, what we do is we have a vaccine schedule and we vaccinate them.
And according to Dell, they shouldn't be vaccinated.
And according to Garrett, well, if you don't vaccinate them, what will happen is eventually you will get to the point that there are enough, you know, naive people that you will get an outbreak.
And his point is, look, Dell, You are taking on the responsibility, or maybe you're failing to take on the responsibility, of all of the people who might die in that circumstance.
And Gert's point was, you can't put a number on that figure because it's exponential as the generation grows, and so you can't even possibly begin to work the comparison out, because Dell's like, what if we had the data?
I don't think so.
Gert's like, you can't compare them because you don't know how many people are going to be suffering in the future.
The problem is, There are certain things we can measure, right?
We should be measuring all-cause mortality, and we should say, what is the net effect of this vaccine?
But Garrett's point, which I think is excellent, is you can't know the net effect because all-cause mortality doesn't capture the benefit of all of the people who didn't get the disease because you were a bug.
You can't, well, you can estimate it.
There are things you can do, but you can't measure it correctly.
You could do that, but then you're going to accuse it being modeling and no one likes the modeling.
Right.
Yeah, yeah.
It's a very good point, by the way.
Well, it's a very good point.
The reason I didn't summarize it is because your point is what actually, I think, deals with it anyway without having to get into the science.
Right, which is that we're in an information environment where we're not going to be able to know, even if they hand us the data, we don't know what it means because there's too much corruption.
No, but also that, yeah, too much corruption means that even the correct data will not be utilised.
I mean, look at your ive-electing thing.
The data is there now, right?
Look at lockdowns.
The data is out there, but they are deliberately not allowing the public to become aware of the fact that these things fail, even though the data is there for the public to see.
Who goes and looks up the science behind lockdowns?
What we need is the front pages.
That won't happen.
And so if the institutions aren't for the people, it doesn't matter if Dell gets his data.
Right.
Yes, exactly.
And that's why I mean by we're at ideological war.
Well, so they're not playing by the rules.
No, they're not playing by the rules.
And they are also they have put us in grave danger because it is not like the people who are structuring the narrative and denying us access to information are good at managing things.
Right.
They're obviously terrible at it.
And What?
So the point is, nobody is looking out for us, right?
They are as deluded as we are confused, and it leaves us in terrible jeopardy.
There's a problem, though, when this happens, Brett.
Because the more you keep a lid on something, it's a pressure cooker moment, right?
Now, you and I are having this lovely genteel conversation, but there are people out there that aren't as genteel noticing things that we're noticing, just because they're not living on the system.
By definition, they're the underworld, right?
Yeah.
And in moments like this, if you keep trying to keep a lid on the truth, things blow over because at the same time you're expecting people to behave the same way.
Bring me your child so I can jab them.
Everyone knows it's not good and you're still telling everyone it is and your front pages aren't expert.
That incrementally grows to a point where if the democratic institutions are no longer serving the people, what do people do?
There's going to be riots with the food shortages.
Well, what they're doing is they are creating... Look, if you don't have somewhere to go to sort out what makes sense, what's the best we can... Given that the official sources are clearly not informing us, what can we piece together?
If you don't know where to go or who to trust to start piecing things together, then your only line of defense is some kind of radical cynicism where you just don't trust anything, right?
Because if it's a garbage environment where, you know, the noise is outcompeting the Yeah.
And then what grows in that environment?
Right.
What grows in that environment?
Now, dude, I've been trying to raise the alarm.
I mean, who else other than me to talk about the dangers of rising extremism, yeah?
The problem is, again, you've got a scenario here where now I'm the The way in which people are shutting down something, it's like Robert Malone knows mRNA technology because he fucking invented it and holds one of the inventors of it and holds the patents on it, right?
So if I am speaking to Robert Malone about mRNA technology and he says something and then, ah, you don't know what you're talking about, which is what that Muppet in Vice News basically wrote, yeah?
Yeah.
Right?
And it's like, hold on a minute.
So, back to the thing.
You're talking about evolutionary biology and I, who've never gone beyond GCSEs in biology, right?
Sit there and, ah, Brett, man, you don't know what you're talking about.
You know, what is wrong with people?
So, we're talking about a scenario.
I'm talking now here, back to that point where it's like, if you can recognise what's going on, right?
This is the moment we're in, right?
And there are people raising the alarm.
So, why I'm saying all this.
Extremism is, I know it inside out.
OK, it's why fucking prime ministers called upon me to speak to them about it, right?
Tony Blair, David Cameron, President Bush sat there like this talking to them about extremism.
And look, that's not because I was born into the right family and because I have wealth, right?
They were obviously not calling me because I'm their uncle's cousin's niece, right?
They're asking upon me because I had something to say on the topic.
I still have something to say in the topic.
It's a problem.
It's going to rise because of this that you've just identified.
They're not listening.
Right.
If they're not going to listen to Robert Malone on vaccine technology, they're not going to listen to me on my analysis of the dangers of rising extremism.
What is going on?
Well, that's it.
I keep, you know, every time I stumble onto the same set of things from some new angle, it's the what the fuck is going on moment, right?
It's like, how crazy would you have to be to run these risks?
Now, now, now, add to that, right?
So, this is what, when I say we're at war, this is what I mean.
So, the only thing that makes sense is in a war you do not listen to your good people that understand what they're talking about because everything is weaponised.
Well, they have specifically and viciously marginalised all of the people who are trying to... For the common good.
Which is a war excuse.
I mean, look, let's be honest.
We don't know why they did it.
They could be insane and arrogant at a level that is hard to imagine, or they could be up to something we don't understand.
We don't know.
Jack Posobiec just went to WEF Davos, right?
I know you've seen his Twitter account, Jack Posobiec.
He's a former US Navy interloper.
And WEF has a police force.
Obviously, they're local police with patches, but they have a WEF patch on them.
They just arrested Jack.
It is likely to get a lot worse.
if summit is happening and they've got their own global police force in the form of co-opted local police serving as WEF police, arresting journalists.
Now, do you take the view I do that this is going to get a lot worse before we start seeing anything start getting better?
It is likely to get a lot worse.
I will say, and among the things I probably shouldn't say into a camera is this.
I think we shocked them over the course of this COVID madness.
And Now, I don't know about you, you know, you're sitting here now independent.
You had a job with a very large audience and, you know, basically everything taken care of except you delivering the content.
And I will say, This change.
Your set is a marvelous upgrade.
Your last set was a crime against humanity.
This is my producer, Hayden, and it's her work, man.
Yeah, well this is much lovelier, much easier on the eyes and all.
But nonetheless, those of us who did the job, who actually chased this stuff down and talked about what it was, I believe we had a very big impact on how many people were fooled.
And it doesn't mean that most people weren't, but the number of people... So they didn't see us coming, you think?
Well, here's my model.
We're up against something and I just for shorthand call it Goliath, okay?
I call it the Death Star.
The Death Star, alright.
Well, Goliath is going to be some fraction conspiracy and if you think it's not a conspiracy then you don't understand that, you know, a boardroom that is trying to make a profit on pharmaceuticals has a fiduciary obligation to conspire on the behalf of its shareholders.
We don't understand that Senator Palpatine was really Emperor Palpatine, you know?
So, anyway, so there's some fraction of, you know, I guess maybe if I say collusion that means it's inherently illegal, but whatever.
People conspire on their own behalf.
And then there's some fraction of it which is an emergent property, right?
It's an emergent property of the system in the way information flows.
Here's the reason that that's important.
We don't know what the admixture is.
It could be mostly emergent.
It could be mostly conspiratorial.
We can't tell.
But the part that's emergent is Effectively an adaptation, right?
It's evolved.
And here's what's important about that.
An evolved entity is not good at fighting things that it's never fought before, right?
And that means that that is A, where you should always... That's why guerrilla warfare succeeds.
Right.
So this thing is very powerful, but It is inept at fighting things it doesn't understand.
You know what it doesn't understand?
It doesn't understand Joe Rogan.
Right?
Maybe it does now.
But the point is, a massive number of people having a conversation that isn't on television That, you know, can go on an hour, two hours, three hours at a time, that involves people who have, you know, escaped academia and are capable of speaking directly to the underlying biology, people who have escaped extremism and can speak to the psychological dynamics in play.
They weren't counting on a high-quality conversation to break out anywhere and to reach lots of people who were trying to figure out for themselves what the hell was going on, right?
So, I do think The cost was incredibly high, right?
You got bounced out of your secure position.
Heather and I certainly got bounced out of ours.
And, you know, even worse than that, worse than, you know, losing half our income to YouTube's arbitrary censorship garbage was the slander that has been directed at us and has directed us still, right?
My Wikipedia page is a monstrosity.
And, you know, it means that, you know, YouTube got in the way of our ability to earn.
And then our ability to earn outside of YouTube is compromised by the fact that people who might want to advertise on our channel are going to go there and they're going to think, what the hell is this?
So anyway, they made a lot of it was not a battle that did not inflict a lot of damage on us.
But I believe that our successes are something that we should note because we're going to have to learn for the next round.
So they didn't see us coming.
I agree 100% with that.
Now we are seen.
Yep.
So when I said guerrilla warfare is why it works, I said, Well, it's an irritant because it works up until a point, right?
Until the attack walkers come along, right?
And then you're like on this little Jedi bike and the attack AT-AT walkers are coming with their four legs and their laser beams and they're shooting at you from above.
So we've got a problem here because, you know, we are still As good as we just did, we are still massively outmanned.
Oh, believe me, this is why I'm distressed, because we did not cross the threshold we needed to get over.
The threshold was agreement on Lab leak.
Early treatment.
Vaccine safety defect.
Once we get those, then the point is there's an obvious conversation that has to happen.
How did that occur?
Right?
And we didn't get there.
I'll tell you what we are.
We're Rocky 1.
We've still got to beat Apollo in Rocky 2.
All right.
Yeah.
Well, all right.
That's sort of hopeful, because as I recall, it's been a long time.
Yeah, he wins in the end.
Until they start making Rocky 6, 7, 8, 9, they just get silly.
Yeah, but one and two were great films and it's a great film anyway, but I think I give these film analogies because not everybody people sometimes think serious topics it's it's good to keep it like you know light for people to understand as well and I think that that gives hope because yeah there's a We are out, man.
There's a huge, huge problem out there, which is far bigger than you can take and I can take on our own or even combined, right?
We have found each other.
That's another good point, though, right?
As in, we already knew each other, but within who we knew, we then found each other within Within a group of people that was already pretty damn good, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, so that's an advantage.
Because again, back to the relational thing, there's nothing more powerful than a relationship that is based on an ideal as opposed to material value that can expire.
You know?
I think that's true.
I think we need to learn some of the lessons, you know.
You mentioned a point about collaboration or... Confederation.
Yeah, confederation.
Yeah, talk about that bit.
Well, I mean, I think we are all of the people who do have good instincts about seeing through the nonsense all have a the same fatal flaw, really, which is that they tend to be more lone wolf, right?
The way you end up with enough independence of mind to spot the nonsense is something that causes you to be a little less, you know, team Oriented.
Team oriented.
And the problem is that we need to make teams that work.
And so we don't have that skill set in high enough concentration.
So that's an issue that we need to address.
That's a difficult combination to find, by the way.
Because by definition, what you just said.
Right.
Well.
Self-selecting.
Right.
You know, I do think actually, and this goes in a very different direction, but there's sort of an ongoing conversation about important, what I would call, myths, right?
These are stories that resonate sometimes over thousands of years that are really important.
But I think it is also interesting to watch the ways in which they change, right?
My little toolkit says you can't write a myth, you can write a story, and if it is sufficiently important and useful, it will evolve into a myth.
It will be changed over time and it will be altered until it is distilled down to something really resonant, right?
And what I wanted to point to is that our myths are evolving, right?
There is a sort of hero's journey, right?
But there are also lots of versions of the hero's journey that do involve weird superheroes that come together with different skill sets.
And then, Paul, why is it good?
Well they're never fully the same and they are, you know, so it is, you know, asymmetrical partnerships and all of this.
So that's interesting.
We can also look at, you know, the Matrix is obviously not the first update of Plato's Cave, but it's the same basic idea and, you know, it has Another dynamic too, right?
You know, Plato's Cave does not end well, right?
The Matrix is a different story, and I'm going to pretend that there are no sequels.
I haven't even seen them because I know they're no good, but the Matrix... Apparently, the one that was just made, I haven't even seen that one, but I have seen the other sequels, and yes, just watch number one.
Yeah.
Apparently, this one that was just made, it was made by the people that didn't like the fact that The Matrix became a Red Pill reference, so they in the studio insisted that the original writers come back, and the original writers didn't want to do it.
The trans twins, right?
They didn't want to do it.
This is a story around this, right?
And they didn't want to do it.
And then the studio said, well, we're going to make it with or without you.
So you come back and write this.
So then they came back voluntarily, but it was going to be done if they didn't.
So they had to come back.
So I think what you're telling me is that The agents got control of the studio and the reason that the initial sequels weren't any good was that those were written in order to defend the whatever it is that makes the Matrix, right?
Okay, that makes sense.
But okay, so you know, look.
The story is all, by the way, so you just touched on something, I don't know if you realized it, but this remake, this one, they've just, it is all about that, going into that story and then like, it's like, oh, really?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's like, you know, like, um, uh, Adaptation.
Yeah.
It's like that kind of, and, and also Nick Cage's recent one, um, the beautiful, what was it called?
Nick Cage, Nick Cage's recent film, um, The Wonderful Burden of Fame or something.
You'll see it.
It's a title like that, which is riffing off of Beautiful Mind, a previous film.
So it's a similar adaptation story plot.
And so I think the latest Matrix has done the same thing.
I think they think it's intelligent filmmaking if they do that.
Let's hope they're right.
Because I haven't seen it, I'm not going to give a judgment later.
Yeah, yeah.
No, let's not review it if we haven't seen it.
That would be somehow wrong.
But, you know, look, we have discovered that we are in something matrix-like, right?
The information environment is so polluted that We have to figure out, you know, how to shut down the Matrix and see the world for what it is and, you know, and grapple with the terror that comes from recognizing just how captured the system has become.
But we also do have stories that, you know, that properly, if you look at them right, that warn us.
And we also have old stories, you know, we have-- - They are so important, these stories. - Right, and we have Orwell, and you know, and not just Orwell, we have, you know, we have Brave New World, we have Catch-22, we have Brazil.
Lots of these things have something to tell us, and there are lots of people who are now awake, don't know what to do, but the real question is, can we level up faster than the other thing, that the thing that we're up against levels up against us?
- Yeah, so let's drill down on this on an ideological perspective, yeah?
So, so, so, if you look at our existence and society, so we are outlived, as you correctly pointed out, by myths that survive not just us, but through lineage survive generations, and so the myths by myths that survive not just us, but through lineage survive generations, and so And they serve us by giving us a sense of anchorage or perspective in our position vis-a-vis those myths.
And that is a large part of who we are, right?
You can't divorce us from those myths, even if you try and rebel against them.
Like, look at the neo-anti-theist movement, right?
You're trying to rebel against something in an anti-theist way, which I don't subscribe to, in an anti-theist way that is still defining yourself against the very myth that brought you to this point.
You can't divorce yourself from those myths, no matter how much you try, because we are all a product of these sort of overarching narratives that create the very You know, a corporation is an entity, even though sort of physical thing, because it's a fiction that everyone agrees on, like money.
Yeah, these are fictions that everyone agree on.
And so culture defining myths are like those.
They are things that everybody's agreed on, but have been passed on through generations.
So like corporations have their own life.
So important.
What they lead to Those myths is to constructing the fundamental social contracts that we find ourselves in over time with a delayed reaction.
That's how they manifest.
So we only have law because of the religious myths that we adopted in the Abrahamic faiths, right?
And, you know, don't need me to tell you that.
So, if that holds, right, then we need to discover, and this is beyond what Jordan talks about, right, we need to discover which, I mean I suppose he talks a lot about this, but also I mean beyond it in a political sense, not just in a philosophical sense that I think he addresses it, we need to discover which myths are valuable to the Problem we're in right now, right?
And those myths, I think, need to be recognised as part of the antidote to this problem.
And the stronger the lessons or the moral sort of teachings that those myths are portraying, the stronger those lessons become in us as a collective, the more likely it is that whatever comes next will be a reflection Of that, as opposed to what we're worried about.
But it has to come down, again, to our collective response in a long-term context.
This isn't going to be fixed by you and me, even with what we have left in our lives, doing the best we can.
We're not going to end this problem.
We're only going to make a small dent in a direction that will be a battle between two opposing directions that will continue way after we're dead.
Well, I think there is truth in that.
I do think we have a short-term problem that we have to solve.
The system is so out of control and the things, the power of the technologies under its management are so great that effectively we have to figure out how to get it to behave rationally very short-term.
I don't think we can solve this over the course of generations, though there are parts of it that will have to be.
This will be a tweak, yeah?
On this current problem we have.
But this problem, as you look back to history, has occurred many times.
Yep.
But yes, we have to fix the one we're in.
We have to fix the one we're in, and like never before, because we've never been a threat to ourselves in this way before.
That's a new problem.
I will say that one of my, it's a gentle disagreement that I have with Jordan, or maybe it's just a slightly different emphasis, is that Jordan sees the timelessness of these myths.
And I don't doubt that there's something that is timeless-ish in some of these myths.
But what I think he misses is that because the myths are products of evolution, they too are limited to the context that formed them.
Right?
And some of them are no longer, they may have been timeless for a long period of time, if that's a reasonable way to say it.
Well, they are, but the point is you have to beware.
If your myth was evolved in an environment that was very different than the one you're in, there's nothing that says it will be relevant to the one you're in.
It could even be the inverse of relevant.
It could steer you in the wrong direction.
We have to have a mechanism for at least being aware when our myths have left us without the right tools.
For example, I used to say that if God was writing today, then the first commandment would be, thou shalt not enrich uranium.
Right?
But it's not in there.
He didn't mention uranium.
So we don't know what to do about it.
We don't know how to feel about it.
You know, look, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
There's history, there's traditions that got us to where we are, right?
They're not up-to-date enough to get us through what we've got coming and that leaves us to trying to navigate it consciously and it's too difficult.
This is a... I don't even know if I want to say it because it's so scary.
Because I agree with everything you just said, by the way.
And as you know, my work on my side of my community's myths reflects the fact that I believe certain things need to be adapted to the situation we find ourselves in today.
And that was everything I was doing up until COVID.
We're in a very scary position intellectually, because if what you just said stands, I think it does.
Old myths are not going to address the acuteness of the very specific problem we're facing right now, which is also terminal, potentially, yeah?
So it's an acute and potentially terminal problem that needs an immediate fix, not some long-term multi-generational myth conversation.
We've got to fix this right now.
And those long-term multi-generational myths, though they exist, Even if we were to be able to draw upon them, weren't constructed, or weren't a product of this specific problem they're facing, they were products of a lesser problem that was similar.
Yeah.
But this is a big bad monster, that's why I call it a Death Star moment.
Yeah?
Right?
So the scariest situation is this, so I'll finish this thought.
Considering how big this problem is, we have to create or adapt a new myth today to deal with this.
Building perhaps on everything in the past.
That's the scary part.
That's the scary part.
Well, right.
And I'm afraid that we may also be in another bind here.
So if you take my premise that you can't write a myth, you can write a narrative and then evolution will shape it into a myth.
If it's good.
Take The Fellowship of the Ring.
The Fellowship of the Ring is a good hero's journey story that's been updated for the sort of team mentality that one would need on a world that's been scaled up, right?
The villains are scaled up.
The heroes are scaled up.
The problem is...
Effectively, it's digitally rendered, right?
It's printed.
Every copy is identical.
And so the substance on which evolution should act isn't really there.
What's worse for something like Star Wars, or the Matrix, or any one of the others, those things are compromised.
Because I may think the Matrix is right on target with respect to much of its message.
Film 1.
Yeah, Film 1.
It takes Plato's cave and makes it vibrant and updates it for modern sensibilities and for the modern predicament.
But!
It's not art.
It's a hybrid between art, the artistic vision of the Wachowskis, I guess, and the market and what it demands.
And the problem is... The market won.
By two and three.
It certainly did win in the end, although we can just purge those sequels and say, well, the first film was pretty damn good.
But the problem is...
I don't really trust the market to tell me anything about wisdom.
That's not what the market does.
That's right.
Right?
And so the point is, if my wisdom that I want to hand off to my kids is like, hey, let's watch The Matrix because it has... We wouldn't be sitting here if we thought that because it's not a popular position we're in.
Right, so the point is, look, we have plugged our myth creation apparatus into the market.
Wow, that was dumb.
There are a lot of things you just, you don't want to plug sex and romance into the market.
You don't want to plug your art and myth generation.
What I'm referencing is these myths that have come over generations.
There's some good there.
What the scary part is, I'm saying, is the task has befallen our generation, not you and me, because who are we?
Right.
Gen X and, so Gen X up, because beyond Gen X, people don't, so Gen, maybe, what's after X?
Gen X, sorry, is it Millennials?
Millennials.
The Millennials, the older side of Millennials still do remember the days before mobile phones, just about.
But you need that.
Why do you need that?
Because you can't understand how to defeat what we're facing if you don't remember what it was like before the thing existed.
Because our task is to find an equilibrium.
You can't get the yin and yang if you don't have half of the story.
Yeah, you've been tweeting about this.
I saw you tweeted your BMX bike.
This is not a boomer analysis.
This is something else.
Right.
Now, I would point out, you know, it's fun to rag on the boomers.
I like it.
No, that's not what I'm interested in.
Right, right.
Me either.
Because I think you might be a boomer, though.
Oh my God, Steve!
What is that, man?
What are you saying that's offensive?
I'm not trying to be offensive!
Do you agree that you need that sense of pre-mobile phones, pre-internet, to know how to find equilibrium?
You need a lot of these things.
The fact, you know, your point about the BMX, your first tweet that I saw at least, was about the Relationship to the world that those things gave us, right?
We disappeared for hour upon hour.
Our parents didn't know where we were.
We weren't at home.
We were off doing things.
Some of the things we were doing we shouldn't have done.
Sometimes we got hurt, right?
But the point is it created an entirely different mentality and Kids don't have it.
Especially if the vibrant part of your world is coming through screens, right?
You've been hobbled because, you know, the fact is it doesn't have a normal physics to it.
So here's the scary part.
So where I was going with that, I'm glad you followed that actually, because this is the point that builds on it.
So, it becomes the duty of everybody that remembers the world before mobile phones, and I mean in their consciousness, not just, oh, I was three years old and my dad told me there was no mobile phones.
Nah, man, you've got to be the guy that had to use the payphone and didn't have the change.
You had to go into the shop and ask for a note to be broken up because you had to call somebody or reverse collect calls.
You've got to be the guy that remembers what it was like before mobile phones and the internet, right?
That's a certain age group.
Let's call them 14 and above for argument's sake.
Sorry, forgive me for the arbitrariness.
If you're 39 and a half and you remember those days, you're included, right?
That group of people, whoever they are, whichever arbitrary age is the cutoff point, the burden is on that group of people, and let's say arbitrarily Gen X upwards and Elder Millennials upwards, the burden is on that group of people to synthesise, not these marketed myths, to synthesise the actual myths that come through, that are multi-generational, because they have wisdom.
in them and they're not driven by the market many of them were word of mouth through lineage right and that's in particular that's how for example i know about a sufi chains in sufism and you have to have a teacher who has a teacher who has a teacher and it has to be traced back right right
so so we those who remember before and after the internet have a responsibility to find the best of these proper wise myths and and adapt them to the problem that acute problem that you identify that is unique and is terminal potentially.
That's the scary part because not only is that such a huge burden, it's also almost impossible to do because myths actually, as you say, they are A product of evolution over years, right?
And so how do you do that?
Well, luckily for us, we're not starting, we're not reinventing, we've got some existing material.
The danger, the difficulty is the adaptation of that existing material to face this very acute danger we're facing.
But you can't do it without the myths.
Because you're not powerful enough, and I'm not powerful enough, that entire generation isn't powerful enough that we're going to need to do that task.
Right.
But they can't even do it unless they utilise these myths.
Because we're all bigger, even the current Everyone alive today is still not as big as these myths are.
They will be multi-generational.
All right.
So I've just realized something.
Yeah.
Is that scary?
It's terrifying.
Yeah.
Here is the equally terrifying extension to it, I think.
Let's step back to what happened during COVID.
Yeah.
One of the things that happened that was very conspicuous was the relationship between doctors and patients and doctors and other doctors suddenly radically shifted.
There was a distant voice that told you what the conclusion was and what it implied about how to treat your patients and then it came at you and it ruined you if you didn't listen.
So the point is, doctors have a horizontal relationship with each other and they have a relationship with their patients.
And that whole thing bubbles along and it does whatever it does until something decides that, you know what?
Suddenly the CDC is everybody's boss.
Right?
And to the extent that you weren't listening to the CDC, it whispered in the ear of your pharmacist and said, don't fill those prescriptions.
Don't fill them.
All right.
A radical shift to a centralization.
You don't realize it because the staffing of your medical building didn't change.
There was a radical shift which was the way in which a tiny, incorrect, centralizing force was distributing the same wrong information to everybody simultaneously and insisting that they listen to it and act on it as if it was right.
Okay?
Now, think about social media.
We feel like we have all of these horizontal relationships with other people, right?
And we do.
But there's a ghost in the machine, right?
We don't know what the algorithms are.
We don't know when they change.
We don't know what they want.
We don't know how actively we can be individually targeted.
We don't know any of the things we would like to know.
And so what I see is The impression that we have about, yeah, we're connected with lots and lots of people and we're interacting and we're, you know, it's like a hive mind.
No, it's not a hive mind.
It's something very susceptible to, imagine that hypnosis came from within and not from outside.
Like you can note the guy outside who's trying to hypnotize you with the watch, but if that guy comes in, you know, through the brainstem, You're not going to spot it.
And so, I mean, part of the, whatever you want to call it, I would say, the clear collective psychosis that has accompanied the phenomena of the last couple of years is partially downstream of this.
Yeah.
And this brings me to, without being rude about anyone, but a conversation about our friends.
Okay.
Because what was meant to happen In the good old days before the world went shit.
It's always been bad for a while for me at least but still you know you know what I'm referring to in the last two years here what should happen is there was a group of people that should have been like a team.
Yeah, and should have mobilized the world, right?
Out of those group people that I'm thinking of, you can count on one hand the number of people that did actually start doing anything.
Right.
And at the very least, the ones who didn't should have said, I don't understand why people that I know full well are careful and well-intentioned have reached a conclusion I can't understand.
That is not a reason to demonize them.
That is a reason to become very interested in Somebody has to be wrong.
Who is it?
Let's figure it out.
And of all the people you've been speaking to here in London while you've been here for Dark Horse, by the way, congratulations, man.
Great podcast.
Thank you.
It's important to say that because Robert Malone said to me, he was like, I went on Dark Horse and that's how I ended up on Rogan.
You've been a springboard for many people and without that platform, people like Malone's voice wouldn't have been heard.
So that has to be acknowledged on this platform, yeah?
Now, Sorry, the reason I mention this is...
That thing that should have happened, the group of friends we have now, out of all the people you've interviewed while you're here, if I can be so bold as to say that you and I share a group of friends more so than the other people you're speaking to, including the people you've recently met, because you and I were friends before this COVID stuff happened, and we're speaking about other stuff that we felt was as important that we were addressing then, right?
Without recapping history.
So we've got a shared group of friends, and it might be why, you know, this is such a relaxing, lovely, enjoyable conversation.
I've dined with you and your wife.
You've met my wife.
And my wife, as I say, follows my substack and your wife's substack.
And that's pretty much the only substack she reads, because she's in a different world.
She's an artist, a musician, and so on.
So we've got this group of friends that we're close to, that I love still.
And that's why I don't want to name names, and I'm not bitching on anyone here, yeah?
Because I love them still, and I've in fact made a point, because I knew, by the way, you don't know this, they know this, the people like you all know I did this, right?
The minute COVID started, I started texting my friends, I love you, it's been nice, I'm going on a bit of a journey, you might not, and I hinted, you know, I'm not going to paraphrase what I said to different people, you might not understand what's about to happen.
Because I knew this would happen.
I've lived this all my life with people not knowing why I've taken the stances I've taken, including my ex-family on the extremism debate.
I know what happens when you do this, which is why perhaps I saw it coming a lot faster.
So I messaged those people that I'm referencing as our common friends.
I love you.
Randomly, without solicitation, so they know no matter what happens, even if they don't agree with me, I'm not going to take it personally.
Just don't also do the same and start attacking me.
I'm your friend.
Now the reason I'm mentioning all this is we've got to a point where I believe there's been a failure of people that have a responsibility, back to the burden I just mentioned, right?
There's only a certain group of people that can bear that burden for the entire generation that needs to move collectively to take our traditional myths into the next phase beyond this Death Star moment, right?
The responsibility to help Gen X upwards With the elder millennials included.
Carry that burden lies on a certain group of people that had posited themselves up until this moment as being ready for that burden.
Right?
Including the fanfare in the bullshit media articles.
They had posited themselves as being ready for that moment.
And there was something akin to a system failure.
that happened in that group of friends to a point where you can now count on one hand with fingers spare who actually address the COVID stuff.
And it's not a personal thing for me.
It's a disappointing thing for me because it's the kind of moment where at the moment we needed it the most, it needed to have happened.
There is no more important moment than this Death Star moment.
Right.
This has been... And I'm going to say something, and I'm going to repeat this.
I love you all.
These friends know who I'm talking about.
You missed the fucking boat.
And they might think I'm stupid.
Nah, man.
They missed the boat.
You didn't.
No, I didn't.
They missed the boat, Brett.
And I'm not being, I don't mean to be dismissive of anything.
They missed, there is a moment here they have missed that they have not begun to fathom and I don't mean to be patronizing.
Because these are smart fucking people.
I think we have to figure out what the best way forward is and I'm going to suggest something.
So, first of all, they did miss the boat, but it's not completely gone yet, for the following reason.
Fine, give a rope a jump on board, man!
Here's where I think we are.
Lab leak?
Come on.
We all know what happened, right?
This is clearly a modified virus.
This is clearly a self-inflicted wound inflicted on humanity.
Vaccine safety and effectiveness.
Reasonable people can disagree over the net impact of these injections, but the idea that they were ever understood to be safe and effective is obviously preposterous.
You don't even need that, Brett.
You know what?
For the people I'm talking about, the minute it was mandated, your alarm bell should have stopped.
Yeah, but still.
Okay, they told us they were safe and effective.
We all know about myocarditis, right?
We all know that they did not properly risk stratify by age or any of those things.
They put people at risk.
Were they safe?
No.
Were they safe enough?
We can argue, but were they safe?
No.
If you ever said they were safe, you were wrong.
Were they effective?
Well, look at how many boosters you're being told they got.
These are very, very weak vaccines.
Not safe, not effective, have not controlled the pandemic.
That's two out of three, right?
You were right on two out of three.
Now, the sticky wicket is Ivermectin, and we can argue about why that is.
And that was your main, one of your main points, wasn't it?
Well, and lots of people have the sense, right, what people say about me on Twitter.
Maybe they're sockpocket fans.
They're wrong because it hasn't been disproven.
Right.
And quite the opposite.
They don't realize how wrong they are.
Right.
In fact, they come at me and they say, Brett can't even admit that he got Ivermectin wrong.
And it's like, I don't know what the hell you're paying attention to.
You are still paying attention to propaganda.
But here's the point.
This is the system failure I'm talking about, Brett, because the people you're talking about, I know them, you know them.
What the fuck is going on?
Right.
But here's the point.
They're not stupid people.
Right, but what they need to do is go back and track their own thought process, right?
If you thought, well, I don't know what to think about LabLeak, it is kind of suspicious that it was in Wuhan, but the vaccine seemed like a really good idea, well, okay.
Now what you've discovered is that we were prescient on these two things, and maybe you think we were wrong on ivermectin, and maybe you think we're morally defective and can't admit it, or maybe we're right and you just haven't seen past the propaganda.
But if we got two out of three right, and you got them wrong, Aren't you interested in whether or not you might have the other one wrong too?
And here's my point.
I have a policy from after Evergreen.
People come up to me periodically and they say, This is not that common, but it happens periodically.
They say, I am so sorry.
I misunderstood Evergreen.
I thought you were a jerk.
I thought those students had a point.
It took me a long time to understand what happened, and I feel so bad.
And I always say, look, you do not owe me an apology, so long as at the point that you did realize what happened, you did the right thing.
So I had a recent chat, sit down with James Delingpole on a Delingpod, and it was a live audience, it was quite a nice gathering and stuff, and we had a chat like this, but it was more formal, I was in a three-piece.
Sorry, Brett, didn't dress up for you.
But you're in my studio though, so it's more like a homely discussion.
Somebody tweeted me, and it was like, they quoted a clip from the thing, and it was like, I misunderstood Magic all the way up until this event.
That event was two weeks ago, right?
And so there is a lot of this happening, but they're not the friends that I'm talking about.
Now, what I'm trying to work out is we need them.
They need to know.
We need you guys, man.
It's not like I'm trying to say you're a bunch of morons and we don't want to know you.
No, you know Brett and you know me, right?
That's why I'm not naming names, but you know who I'm talking to.
We need them speaking, casual speaking, because we can't do it without them.
And we need to learn the lesson of what happened.
How do we become divided over this?
It's possible to be analytically divided.
But by the way, I've never criticised any of them in public.
Right.
That's not my thing, man.
You mentioned this to me the other day.
I don't do that, man.
Even if you disagree with me vehemently, I never go for you like that if you're my friend.
I'll leave you alone until you realise it for yourself.
I think I've been very gentle.
I have responded publicly because, in some cases, the attacks have been quite... Obviously, I'm talking about friends, though, right?
Obviously, I do speak in public about people, yeah?
No, of course.
Of course.
But even some of our friends have said some things that were pretty aggressive and very personal.
Yeah, about you.
Right.
Yeah.
But, nonetheless, here's where we are.
It's clear that we were right about LabLeak, okay?
And this isn't bad patting!
Guys, look at the... They can read!
This isn't you just back-slapping and saying, I was right when you're not.
You were right!
Right, and early, and we withstood all the garbage.
I mean, this Together trial, they come at you on the Together trial without even making... I don't know if you've... You've obviously spoken about this on Dark Horse, but I just want to say for the record, systemic failures of research methodology in that trial that appear to be deliberate.
Yes, it is.
You can't cite that at Brett when it comes to Ivermectin.
It's an outright fraud, right?
And we can establish it.
And the thing is, if you don't know what we're talking about, ask us.
We'll show you.
It's very clear.
But nonetheless, here's where we are.
Two out of three of these things have become clear enough that you know that what you were being told at the beginning by people like us was actually right.
Right?
This is not safe.
They've told you it's safe.
Safe means they know it doesn't do harm.
They were wrong.
They told you it was highly effective and now they're telling you you need your fourth booster.
They were wrong about that too.
So, because Ivermectin is the sticky wicket, this does give an opportunity for our friends who got this wrong to actually step up at a moment that it still matters.
Right?
And the thing is... Yeah, so there's an incentive there.
You're still a hero.
Well, yeah, I don't even... Fuck this hero shit.
You know, I'll say it because clearly some people are driven by it.
Right, but nonetheless, the point is, look, there's still good to be done, right?
You can still see what happened.
This is a perfect place to learn what the propaganda looks like because the propaganda is still live on that one.
And if they don't?
Well, look, we can't do it without them.
Yeah, well, we will have to.
Yeah, we will have to.
But what we need is a group that doesn't fragment over Trump or Ivermectin or... So my formula for this, and that's why you see me comfortably in all circles, is when you're looking at things in a macro perspective.
So if I've got a Trump supporter sitting in front of me that is opposed to COVID mandates, And I've got a Corbyn supporter who I opposed vehemently.
And obviously I'm not a Trump fan.
I say obviously, I get accused of all sorts of things, right?
But basically, I defend Trump where he's done, where people have... So recently I tweeted out the Wall Street Journal article because it turns out Hillary Clinton's own dude, Mook, campaign chief, Robin Mook?
Mook.
Yeah, that's his name.
Anyway, turns out he confesses, yeah, Hillary gave the order to make up this Russia collusion stuff.
And then the Wall Street Journal, right?
So I'm going to defend the truth.
It's not defending Trump, right?
Likewise, Corbyn, I opposed him vehemently in this country.
He knows because he lives there.
Yeah, I was one of the most vocal voices.
But if he's going to say something right, I'll say credit where credit is due.
So what we got to do, I just didn't think he needed to be PM.
And anyway, the system's corrupt, so why was he trying to be PM?
That's a different story.
But what we've got to do is be able to speak across the board to people on where the agreement matters.
If this is a Death Star moment, then it doesn't matter how you vote.
It matters that you're trying to stop technocratic slavery taking over, and that isn't hyperbole.
As I say, look to China and see what's happening right now, yeah?
Not just the Uyghur side of things, but the Shanghai lockdown and what was going on there with the videos.
So, what matters to me more is not how somebody votes, yeah?
Yeah.
To a certain extent, some issues still matter there.
Like, I don't believe in, you know, that even there, there are some, well, let's not go into them, it'd be a distraction, but there are some points there we still need to feel through.
But in essence, we've got this bigger problem here, yeah?
Now, we've got friends that should understand that point.
So, it's why I'm on good terms all the way through from Rubin to Sam Harris.
I've got no bad beef with any of them on a personal level, yeah?
Even though, clearly, they're on different ends of the Trump spectrum, because you mentioned Trump.
That's why I give that example.
And I could text both of them tomorrow.
In fact, Sam and I texted through the pandemic and Ruben and I texted through the pandemic, right?
So there's no bad beef there with me and anyone there out of our friends.
But we've got friends that have these different positions.
The difficulty is unless you see it as a Death Star moment, you're not going to be willing to transcend these differences because You think they're the biggest differences that are defining the future of humanity at the moment.
You have to be able to see it as a Death Star moment to realize they are quite insignificant compared to the risk of what we're facing at the moment.
I would say they are symptomatic.
Yeah.
If you understand Trump as a symptom, you won't go crazy over it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And the fact that super smart friends of ours are not seeing that.
I mean, the only reason you'd think Trump is the biggest thing we need to be discussing right now is if your ceiling of, if your bird's eye perspective, sorry, isn't flying where the eagle soars, but it's flying where the blooming penguin is.
Yeah.
Honestly.
Yeah.
I don't mean to be insulting, yeah, but we've got bigger problems.
So how do we get that?
Well, this goes back to my principle.
I will embrace anybody who does the right thing upon the recognition that they misunderstood the thing and have taken time to update.
That's fine by me, we're square, if that's what you do.
If you don't, then I'm sorry, but you're not running the IDW protocol and there is no point in trying to interact.
That's finished, man.
I mean, that grouping is not going to... We've got to... Because... The thing is, I'm a believer... So far it was a cohesive group in the first place.
I'm a believer in the protocol.
And, you know, it's a prototype.
It needs an update.
But nonetheless, a lot of people miss it.
I miss it.
I'm going to say something as well, though.
Again, this is not to take away any of the love I feel from anyone, yeah?
Yeah.
But the silence is also not acceptable.
Not just the open disagreement, which you've had to face, because I've, thankfully, people know me and they know I haven't attacked anyone on this stuff, even if they, out of our friends circles, obviously.
Public figures I criticise all the time, it's my job.
But if you're a public figure and my friend, then you're friend first.
That's how I feel.
Right?
So I don't go for them publicly.
They're always going to be friends first, even though people don't treat me like that, I don't care, they're my principals.
So, but the thing is that even if you haven't, you face some of that criticism, but even the ones who haven't criticized, I think the silence itself, such is the gravity of the moment we're in that you must not be silent.
And that requires unpacking.
And the only way you get that is you understand what the gravity of the moment we're in, which is you get, right?
You understand where we are.
Yes.
Well, I think we have to leave plenty of room, all the room in the world, for agnosticism.
It's one thing to say, I don't know what to think about this.
It's very, very confusing.
That's different.
Right.
Of course, that's a natural place to land.
But, you know, the silence and hoping it will go away has been very destructive.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, unfortunately, I think we're out of time, which means we'll have to do this again.
Man, listen, we can, because one of the things I'm going to do, can I just end on this point, yeah?
So, the show that you see there, Radical, it's more of an interview show for some of the big topics on what we just touched on, right?
So, for example, I had on, one of the episodes coming out will be with Mike Eden, who is the senior most person at Pfizer on respiratory illnesses around the world, talking to me about everything we've discussed, why everything was wrong, right?
So, that's a more, you're the expert, tell me, yeah?
It's another show I'll be starting soon.
No one has heard this yet.
You're hearing it first on your podcast.
It'll be a second show I'm going to kick off, which is a live show, whereas the interview show is currently pre-recorded.
We'll get that live soon, but at the moment that's pre-recorded.
This new one, which give me a month or so, it'll roll out, is a live format show, which will be more like a sit down conversation, but more lifestyle topics.
And that lifestyle topics will include politics.
Yeah.
So, but I'm saying it's more relaxed like this kind of chat than what I'm currently doing.
What I'm currently doing is because we're addressing like, you know, care home deaths and, you know, victims whose husbands have died or wives have died.
It's a, it's a heavy conversation.
Whereas this is, you know, you can have a more of a coffee house conversation.
That's what we're going to be starting.
And the reason I'm telling you that is that's what you, you want to continue the conversation.
You're welcome to join me on that one.
And part two can be on, on that format.
Would love to.
Does it have a name?
Are you... Not yet.
That's how new it is.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But the name's the last... I mean, that's easy to fix.
The key thing is it's going to happen soon, and because it's live streaming, we don't need anything.
We're just going to be sitting here like this.
We'll put an iPod there, put the phone, and just start, you know?
My buddy, brother, long-term friend, you know, say he's my brother of mine, you know, Usman Raja, who's also... I train MMA with him.
He came up through the UK bare knuckle fist fighting scene in the old days before UFC so in the pit fights and then he became one of the top coaches in the country so he and I basically he's going to be joining me and it'll be that's why I say wellness health lifestyle because what we touched on at the beginning When I said that, you know, whether it's architecture, everything touches on this.
We've got to start pushing back against the encouraged narcissism and try and encourage community as much as possible.
Anyway, so that's the show.
Awesome.
Well, let me say this.
I said this to Tess Laurie a couple days ago.
Nobody wants to live in a foxhole, but the company in this foxhole has been spectacular.
And I just want to say it's been an honor to share a foxhole with you.
Absolutely, man.
Absolutely.
And honestly, it's been, it's why I'm so happy that we finally got to sat down because it's been a journey through COVID and you've had it hard, man.
