Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 2, 2024 - On Brand

02:09:53

OB #54 - Michael Shellenberger

"Journalist" Michael Shellenberger came on Russell's show, and we thought it was finally time to deal with him, but not before Russell covers some 'news'. Support us on Patreon! - patreon.com/OnBrand Buy a magnet! - getyourselfsomerealgold

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is propaganda live.
	I only suggest how to take him out of the boat.
	Extraordinary cultural moment.
	Already iconic.
	Already iconic.
	We love you.
	You're welcome here.
	Where did this guy come from?
	It looks like he's been doing it for ages.
	He's very confident.
	Plainly, and this is a matter now of fact and record, I'm right wing.
	I feel that Christ may have had a better vision.
	Is this misinformation or is Vivek Ramaswamy in the lavatory?
	That's sort of like a poem.
	Is this Eminem?
	Man, if we didn't come together in that stream.
	I'm assuming it was just the Pete.
	Now these are the kind of conversations I think that the legacy media can no longer compete with.
	Win win win win win win win This is On Brand, a podcast where we discuss the ideas and antics of one Russell Brand.
	I'm Al Worth, and each week I go through an episode of Brand Show with my co-host Lauren B. That's me!
	I have no idea what we're about to cover, but it's usually bad.
	It's almost invariably bad, which is why we do the good thing before the bad thing.
	Lauren, what is your good thing before the bad thing this week?
	Uh, Northwestern University, uh, encampment.
	Um, and well, it's tough because, uh, the general, you know, like college protests that are happening here are great.
	Um, but I also feel really terrible about all the students getting abused and expelled and beaten, um, by, uh, riot cops.
	So, um, That is, but anyway, so we went and visited the encampment over the weekend.
	It was in Evanston, Illinois, which is, I think, is justifiably challenging and they didn't really have the same kind of like violent interaction with law enforcement.
	But it is a traditionally, like, so Evans and Skokie, that area is traditionally a very Jewish part of Chicago and they have had some resistance with some really wild counter protesting.
	Some of it kind of organized by the ADL, which has a big presence in that area.
	The Holocaust Museum is a stone's throw from that campus, so they're doing the right thing and they're getting, you know, They're getting pushback from the community, they're still going to stay, but they're also the first college encampment that has actually entered into negotiations for disclosure and divestment, so they're the first campus where
	The faculty has come to the table and I do think that giving credit where credit's due is very, very cool.
	And I would say to anyone, I mean it's spread past America at this point, but definitely if you're close to an encampment, if you are close to a protest, go help.
	They have wishlists, they need bail funds, so specifically what they're asking for is how to help, right?
	Be there and so palestineiseverywhere.com is the list of encampments if there's one around you because they're popping up all over the place all the time and like some some of them are like groovy and fine which they all should be because they're peaceful but some of them like are getting you know kind of violent resistance both from law enforcement and from community members like at UCLA they're just being oh my god it's Uh, video this morning.
	It's really fucking ugly, uh, to follow the organizers so that you can fill requests.
	We had a ton of stuff in the house that they could use cause we have supplies for shit.
	Um, you'd be surprised what you can help with and, uh, donate to bail funds, campus bail funds.com.
	Um, and for keep talking about it and keep posting and keep, I mean, you know, it's, it's literally the least you can do is to keep informed and, um, It's really incredible to see how organized, you know, I say kids, um, and I'm trying to say students.
	It's tough because they're also so tiny and young and small.
	Um, but yeah, this is kind of like, we, we've been here.
	Um, we know what this is like and we should be aware.
	Um, you know, if you were kind of like had your, Fuck yeah!
	I'm not going to be able to do that.
	So please, please, please, you know, kind of.
	[BLANK_AUDIO]
	This is the time to pay attention and be aware.
	So that's, it's really cool what these kids are out here doing in the streets.
	And that's a big, big, big deal.
	So what's your good thing?
	Yeah, and I support all of what you've just said, incidentally, just to make that abundantly clear.
	My good thing is, honestly, I'm banging on this drum again, but we're back to modern medicine.
	This time not for me, but for my daughter, because she's got chicken pox.
	God love her.
	Um it was you know it's it's it's got it has to hit eventually um but you know always always gonna blindside you so she's um yeah she's staying with me and uh and yeah managed to managed to we we have a thing um called the common ailment scheme over here and I and and I always forget about this but like just went to the pharmacy to get some some antihistamines and some calamine lotion you know to to help ease the itching and that kind of thing and some um some you know paracetamol in liquid form etc.
	All of that was free.
	And the pharmacist was like, here you go, here's all this stuff.
	Help your kid feel better.
	I was like, oh, that's lovely.
	Great.
	Thank you.
	And because of that, she's doing much better than she was, which is great.
	So yeah, modern medicine and socialized medicine.
	Fucking wonderful.
	Apologies to all of the American listeners and listeners in countries without that, because I can't imagine being without it, because it is wonderful.
	Anyway, I would, up top, like to ask if you enjoy the show, please do leave us a 5-star review wherever you're listening.
	And also, please do share the show with your friends, your loved ones, or anyone you think might enjoy this crazy ride that we're on.
	Hey, it's a journey.
	And if anyone wants to support us in what we do, become an Awakening Wanderer, join the Invisible Hand or donate on an elevated tier, head to patreon.com slash OnBrand and you will have our eternal gratitude.
	It is this which allows us to be editorially independent and ad free.
	And as a patron, you will also get a shout out on the show and access to our patron only show OffBrand where we discuss anything but Russell Brand.
	And this week, Lauren led a dive into the show Roseanne with its cultural significance and importance and just how far the lady herself has Fallen ideologically from her heyday.
	You know, it's a little bit rough, but yeah, yeah.
	Tougher for you, I think, than me in many senses.
	Well, it's tough and it isn't.
	Because the show is there and a lot of people made the show, not just her.
	So, I mean, and I think I think celebrating something for like what it was is, I mean, especially like, I don't know.
	I think that there's still lessons that can be learned and it can still be useful.
	And there's a lot of people that are like fine.
	It's almost as unfortunate that she could have still been fine and kind of not.
	She's hoisting everybody else's legacy on her petard in addition to her own.
	I think that's the issue that really is challenging and tough.
	I mean, you know, at the end of the day, it's a fucking TV show at the end of the goddamn world.
	But yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Acknowledging that, like, even just like understanding, you know, it could be Roseanne, it could be your your uncle, you know, that's kind of going in this path.
	And it didn't have to be this way.
	So and it doesn't have to be a way for them.
	Anybody, you know, keep an eye out.
	Yep.
	Keep an eye out for the red flags.
	So yeah, head to patreon.com slash on brand to take a look at that.
	And please note that while you can easily listen to our audio version anywhere you can find podcasts, you can also watch us on YouTube or if you listen in the Spotify app, the video will come up there too.
	So this week, well, there have been a couple of things worth mentioning that have happened in Russell's content that I want to address up top because we're not going to cover them in full, but they do need mentioning.
	So firstly, Russell got baptized.
	That's been doing the rounds on social media everywhere.
	Yeah, everyone's been talking about it, and my personal opinion is big fuck, he's been on this for a while, you know, I'm like, eh, so what.
	We've been covering this a long time, but welcome to the club everyone, at least the guys mask off about it now, that's the main kind of change since we started this show.
	The main thing I wanted to address is there have been two editorials that Russell's put out this week that are issues in of themselves, but there's not that much to say about them other than, oh no.
	First, he did an editorial about abortion in which he said that, yes, it's murdering children and against the sanctity of life, which is great.
	While also making an argument for states' rights to have their own abortion laws and furthering his tiny theocratic ethnostates' ideas in the process.
	That is the new talking point that has made the rounds.
	So at least he's in on the email chain.
	At least we know that he's getting Getting the updated list of what to fucking say.
	Okay, alright, alright.
	Yeah, he's fully on board with Trump's position on it, which, great.
	The other editorial he put out that was a problem was entitled, so this is why they're replacing you with immigrant workers.
	Replacing in all caps.
	So yeah, he's leaning heavily into the Great Replacement bullshit, asserting that big corporations are bringing in low-wage workers from across the borders to destabilize the economy and effectively kill off the working class.
	Of course, all the statistics that he then cited were of legal immigrants doing work for corporations, but fuck the legal immigrants as well as the undocumented ones, according to him.
	So yeah, great.
	But consistent.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, he's on he's on track for that.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, did not shock me.
	But But also, yeah, not, not thrilled.
	But a lot of it would have just been rehashing the things that we covered in Russell and the Great Replacement Theory.
	So if you need a refresher, it's there, everybody.
	Yep.
	Anyway, as to the main content that we're going to be dealing with this week, Russell tends to get his information mostly from one of three places in terms of sources.
	Well, Four, if you count Max Blumenthal at the Grey Zone riding in as the occasional shitty fourth musketeer or d'Artagnan of the piece.
	But the other three are Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang, and, well, let's let Russell introduce the third.
	You Awakening Wonders, thank you for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand today.
	A day that will live large in the memory of all freedom lovers because we've got fantastic news.
	Finally, Rumble and Elon seem to be finding ways to work together in the principality and continent nation of Australia that are becoming peculiarly draconian.
	And we'll be addressing that Over the course of the next hour before introducing Michael Schellenberger, significant voice in the censorship industrial complex space who has educated many of us as to the threat that we currently face.
	Quiet in the gallery if you don't mind guys, bring the voices down if you don't mind so that I don't hear you, just remember that I'm very very susceptible to distraction.
	No, that I do believe.
	Although, at least he recognizes that about himself.
	I don't know that that's what that was.
	I think that was yelling at someone in his peripheral vision.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	It's like, I'm aware of you being a problem, not so much that he has a problem.
	I'm not going to give him that kind of credit.
	Why are you talking?
	I am talking.
	I'm the only one who should be talking.
	Yeah, I'm out of the crew.
	So Michael Schellenberger is the third of Russell's regular sources, and it occurred to me that we dealt with the others in earnest on the show, so I thought, he's come up, so let's put Schellenberger under the lens finally as well.
	As for the Australia thing he just mentioned, we won't really be getting into that this week because frankly it's a little bit of a non-story.
	So videos of a stabbing in Australia was circulating on X with Elon Musk opting to leave them up until threatened with legal action, at which point he decided to take them down but then said he'll challenge the Australian government in court.
	The right wing are championing this as a position in defense of free speech.
	I'd more say it's grotesque and sensationalist, but Elon's gonna Elon, and by that I mean he's gonna continue being a predictably terrible human being who does terrible things for the sake of his own ego.
	So, great.
	So we won't be really getting into that this week.
	But unlike most of the interviews we cover, Russell made the decision to cover beforehand what might generously be described as news before we get to Michael Schellenberger.
	So let's take a look at the first segment.
	If you want to become an Awakened One, use the code ISURRENDER and for the next month, you can just decide whether or not you like it there.
	Get yourself into a community in the holy name of St.
	George.
	Now, we've got to slay the dragon, don't we?
	We've got to slay the limbic system, don't we?
	We've got to overcome the lizard mind, don't we?
	We've got to overcome the serpentine demonic forces that appear to be governing the world somehow, whether it's allegorical, metaphorical or literal, we do not yet know.
	The British people, and in particular the English, are at the very forefront.
	You can rely on the English to bring about sublime realms amidst the reptilian.
	Good morning, good.
	Good morning, good.
	[MAKES ROARING SOUND]
	Tell us something your mum doesn't know.
	Yeah.
	[MAKES ROARING SOUND]
	Well, there you go.
	Happy St.
	George's Day to you all.
	Okay, I did actually quite enjoy that.
	So that was just a drunk British guy being interviewed trying to eat the microphone.
	God bless.
	Yeah, it's very stereotypical of the British public getting drunk.
	Yeah, for listeners.
	It was a young kid who was just putting the whole fuzz of the microphone in his mouth Which, listen, whom amongst us?
	There but for the grace of God, no way, right?
	We've all been there, yes.
	So yeah, this episode went out on St.
	George's Day, April 23rd, which in England is a bit of a big deal and often leads to hundreds of gammon-faced men wandering the streets dressed as crusaders in full foam armour.
	Yes, yeah, while drinking many more pints of lager than they can handle, you know.
	And it's a big deal because, you know, St.
	George's Cross is what makes up the English flag and all of that, you know, St.
	George, very big figure over here.
	So the particularly patriotic of the English take it as a good excuse to get very, very drunk.
	Now, what are you enjoying about this?
	So what I enjoy about this every year is that those very patriotic individuals are almost invariably pretty xenophobic in nature and usually not big fans of immigrants.
	St.
	George was born in Turkey.
	His parents were Turkish and Palestinian.
	St.
	George was a brown man who has gone on to shape the entire of British history and culture and these people being so delightfully oblivious to that fact, as well as why their costume as a religious crusader could be problematic, That I cannot help but laugh every single year.
	It's either that or cry anyway.
	You'll love a banker.
	You'll love a banker.
	Russell here is of course walking the fine line of celebrating St.
	George's Day while taking the piss out of the English.
	And I'm fine with at least half of that.
	So next Russell has some feelings on a famous figure.
	Do you know what I miss mostly about Michael Jackson?
	Not the music, not the movement, not the creation of the moonwalk, but Neverland, or as some people called it, sometimes land.
	That theme park has been brought back to life.
	I mean, what's going on there?
	Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch has been rebuilt and refurbished.
	It's complicated, isn't it?
	The whole myth and magic of Michael Jackson.
	Because there's a new film about him and they're going to have to resurrect the old play park, as we call it, in order to, you know, I suppose, provide sets.
	His nephew Jafar Jackson will be playing Michael Jackson.
	It's going to be an interesting one to narrativize.
	I Love, Michael Jackson.
	That's basically my position, but it seems that there's some complicated matters to contend with.
	Really?
	Whereas global politics and who should be the President of the United States is a simple one, young Skywalker.
	I think that's how I'm going to frame that.
	Donald Trump is the worst president we've ever had.
	Joe Biden is the best president we've ever had.
	I've been thinking about that for a while.
	Is it a colon?
	Is there something we're missing?
	Snail me on the rumble chat says, now Epstein Ranch.
	Oh dear, oh God.
	Dear Lord.
	Dear Lord above.
	There's no Epstein Island anymore, right?
	So get the theme park going.
	JG, the web guy, says it's going to be called Pedoland.
	These are crazy times we are living in.
	Oh, crazy times we're living in.
	That's the best way to describe a hypothetical theme park designed to lure children to molestation.
	Crazy times we're living in.
	Also, Epstein also had a ranch.
	Yeah.
	Had both.
	Yeah.
	What?
	What are we?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's kind of the issue.
	These kind of people have lots of property to do the things that they want with impunity.
	What?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	More importantly, this guy loves Michael Jackson.
	Yep, that was pretty clear.
	That was pretty clear.
	I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
	I was going to put in a joke here about him also saying how much he loves Woody Allen, but I think he actually has said that on his show about how much he loves Woody Allen.
	I couldn't find the clip, but I'm 99% sure that has happened on this show.
	I mean, it just seems like that's the point, is like, just to be a contrarian.
	Like, Maybe.
	Like a contrarian in solidarity with predators?
	A lot of solidarity.
	He is very consistent on that issue.
	Anyone who seems to be, you know, vaguely predatory, he's all on board with every single time.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, that's great.
	Anyway, what else is in the news?
	Well, this just wouldn't be Stay Free without at least a little bit of Trump talk.
	The opening statements have been issued in the... Are you allowed to, like, not say historic Trump trial?
	Are you able to say potential lawfare against an opponent of the establishment?
	Are you allowed to call it that?
	In any event, you know, you're supposed to call it historic.
	When are we going to stop saying X, formerly known as Twitter?
	That's one of the things I'll be asking as well.
	Let's have a look at the...
	Yeah, the opening statements in the Trump trial that might not be particularly historic.
	You let me know in the chat.
	Day one of the Trump trial came to an abrupt end at 1230 p.m.
	and you'll never believe why.
	An alternate juror got a toothache and had to go to the dentist.
	No judge is going to keep someone with a toothache listening to testimony.
	The trial began here at the criminal courthouse in downtown Manhattan with opening statements and Trump's attorney came out swinging.
	Todd Blanche branded porn star Stormy Daniels an opportunist and a liar, saying her false allegations she had an affair with Trump were sinister.
	Opening statements can be crucial.
	Studies show that 80% of jurors make their minds up on their verdict after hearing them.
	Stormzy!
	Why Stormzy?
	Why?
	We'll get to some impartial perspective eventually.
	We've got some great stories coming up later in the week.
	We're looking at the contentious issue of abortion and how it relates to decentralisation.
	You are going to love hearing that piece.
	I did not.
	So, not everyone might have caught this, but I guarantee British listeners and those with a love for grime rap music are giggling to themselves about now.
	See, what Russell just did was confuse the names of Stormy Daniels, the porn star who Trump paid to sleep with, And Stormzy, the big ripped black man who was also one of the most definitive grime artists of the last decade.
	Stormzy is very much not the type of person to fuck with and hates Trump.
	So this was a fun little, fun little slip for me.
	I enjoyed that.
	Also, Stormzy!
	Was that tough?
	That hard to fucking say?
	Stormzy?
	And so she was paid to not talk about it, right?
	He didn't pay to That he just got to wield his like power and, and bang her.
	Okay, okay.
	I thought he had paid to sleep with her as well.
	But yeah, okay.
	No, I mean, he, you know, money's involved, but it's a power issue from my understanding.
	So Stormy Daniels did a pretty incredible like, victory lap.
	In America, anyway, she did a tour of all, like, the really big, like, big glitzy-foo strip clubs, and one of them, some friends of ours, got some signed photos and got to hang out and do a meet-and-greet with her whenever she did that the first time around, and it was tight, and from all accounts, I didn't get to go.
	I don't think I was actually, no, I wasn't in town, but from my friends that Did get to interact with her.
	She was lovely and funny and cool.
	And she's been in like regular TV too.
	She's on an episode of Party Down.
	She's awesome.
	She's like, I mean, listen, don't make heroes out of people that are just in court cases with people you don't like.
	That's silly.
	But like for what she's doing, like they're really doing character assassination.
	And it's absurd.
	She's a professional, like a seasoned professional actress.
	It's her job and she's amazing at it.
	Like she's top of her game.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And I've never heard a legitimately bad word about her, actually.
	So, yeah, I could completely believe that she's a lovely human being.
	That tracks with everything I'm aware of.
	That's wild.
	What the news is saying?
	Also, I didn't think that was what Trump's defense argument was.
	But that's Inside Edition saying that.
	And I'm like, that's not the reports I've heard.
	Are we going to talk about that at all?
	It's just, it's not really, no.
	Yeah.
	Basically like the arguments are that like, that, um, the money that he paid doesn't matter.
	And I'm paraphrasing and it's a little confusing because also like their arguments a little confusing because they're not the best lawyers.
	Um, and they're like, listen, they're doing the job.
	Uh, Um, but that basically, like, his, like, the voters should have expected this kind of behavior from him, so it's not a big, like, basically, like, saying, oh, well, he does this kind of shit all the time, so why is he in trouble for this one?
	Which, like, maybe they feel, like, emotionally in their heart, but not, doesn't sound like a great legal argument, but granted, I mean, they could be doing, you know, I mean, that's coverage from days ago, it could be something different, and that's, and also, I don't I don't know, man.
	Inside Edition?
	Come on.
	Maybe that's what they heard.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Not in the courtroom, you know?
	But that's kind of what I heard for the defense saying, like... No, this is just this guy.
	Why is everybody freaking out about him?
	This is what you voted for!
	What's the problem?
	Right.
	Right.
	I mean, it's an argument.
	I'll say that.
	It's a perspective.
	Yeah, no, we don't really get into this because Russell's coverage of it amounts to shouting Stormzy at the top of his lungs and then he moves on.
	Oh dear.
	That's it?
	That's it.
	Pretty much.
	Well, we have a little bit more Trump talk here and Russell starts and finishes this clip in a bit of a weird place.
	But for us to get a perspective we can rely on, we need someone that always shoots from the hip, that's never afraid to lose their grip, that always relies on a little bit of lip.
	It's the clarion of truth.
	Ladies and gentlemen, Rachel Maddow.
	I was at the courthouse today in Manhattan. I was in the courtroom for opening statements for this
	first criminal trial of the former president. I can report firsthand that the courtroom
	smells like old soup and stale breath. I can report that the police officers who
	police the courtroom are working very hard and they appear to be very stressed.
	I can report that Judge Murshan is soft-spoken and has what I think would be universally... This is the news now, is it?
	This is the news.
	The sort of relaying of a subjective experience accompanied by a pastel drawing of what is apparently justice.
	This is the establishment we're supposed to be clinging to.
	This is the world that we're supposed to be supporting.
	This is the vision that they are giving us.
	Hearken to the inner voice within you that is telling you that a new power is on the rise.
	Hearken to the voice within you that tells you that they know their days have numbered, that we are on the precipice of rising up.
	This is the day.
	Surely this is the day.
	Surely Rachel Maddow is off point on some of this stuff.
	Kind of lost the thread a little bit at the end there.
	Definitely got a little riled up without necessarily knowing where he was going to land.
	So the main critique there was, oh, this is the news now, is it?
	Subjective experience and pastel drawings, because photographers aren't allowed in most courtrooms, I've got to say, I would take his critique a little bit more seriously if he didn't present every single instance of him delivering, now here's the fucking news, with a cartoon farting crow.
	It does somewhat undermine his commentary here, just a touch.
	Well, or like, it's, why?
	Who cares?
	Like, what?
	Shut up, Russell.
	I mean, and I really wanted, I found myself like, oh, I'd like to hear more of what she has to say.
	Does he play more of, Nope, that's it.
	Shut up.
	Okay, the chyron under her said, because that's what I wanted to know, is like that the prosecution, and I'm again paraphrasing, I just like caught it, is what the prosecution was doing was outlining the catch and kill process that Trump's team essentially, or like his fixers were in the process of, that Ronan Farrow wrote about when it comes to Harvey Weinstein is where those terms, catch and kill, has been popularized and why Weinstein's got convicted.
	So as far as legal precedent, boy, doesn't look great.
	And also, that's what I'd want to know about.
	Yeah.
	But I bet the room smells like old soup, too.
	I bet that's just true.
	Probably, probably.
	And yeah, we're acting as though it's completely uncommon to, you know, start a news piece or a show with perhaps the lighter bits of information before getting into the serious stuff, much like Russell himself is doing here.
	That's exactly what we're covering right now.
	Jesus Christ.
	Yeah, yeah, but instead, oh no, she's just talking about how the room smells of old soup!
	That's all these people have!
	Oh, okay.
	Then the chyron would say old soup.
	Actual.
	Yes, yes, it would.
	Yes, it would.
	However accurate that may be.
	Dear, oh dear.
	In another piece of news, a poll has stated that they're completely obvious, but I am kind of surprised that Russell is covering this.
	Hey, did you see that RFK's candidacy is more likely to be deleterious to Donald Trump than Joe Biden?
	Let's have a look at that.
	There you go.
	There's some pictures of how that works.
	And, yeah, it's the big reason is that, you know, you're more likely to vote for RFK if you're sort of predisposed to Trump than, you know, than if you were sort of a Biden person, I guess.
	But I don't know if you were.
	I try and work this out using fast food joints.
	Is KFC more damaging to Burger King or McDonald's?
	I don't know.
	I don't know how it all works.
	That much is clear.
	What Russell is covering here is a National NBC News poll showing that RFK Jr.
	supporters are more than twice as likely to otherwise be Trump supporters than Biden supporters.
	This is despite Trump, Bannon, Kirk and all these other chuckleheads saying that RFK Jr.
	is the radical left-wing candidate and is damaging to the left.
	And like, well, of course he isn't a left-wing candidate.
	We know that based on the things he says and does, and thankfully the numbers do back that up.
	But more importantly, is KFC more damaging to Burger King or McDonald's?
	That's the real question here.
	I mean, in the UK, the McDonald's, you know, they serve more chicken products than Burger King, but where do they stand on the subject of vaccine mandates?
	It's a real quandary, this one.
	Yeah.
	That analogy, like that kind of like a comparative structure is legitimately awful.
	There's, it's so completely, what?
	That's absurd.
	That's absurd.
	And I mean, as far as labeling goes and like, yeah, RFK Jr., I think they're, His affiliation with like Democrats kind of ends at the initials in his name.
	Pretty much.
	I mean, if political affiliation is genetic, then sure.
	Aside from that, yeah.
	But we need to get used to hearing it.
	I also think, I mean, this is kind of my guess as far as how, 'cause there's been a lot of kind of like
	awareness on both sides for, you know, who he's gonna, you know, Jill Stein in this contest,
	if it gets to that point.
	But like, while I think that this is probably true and just because this like instinct is confirmed
	this one poll.
	I don't care.
	I'm not going to rely on that at all.
	I think that we got burned by polls and we don't forget.
	Sure.
	Valid, yeah.
	Regardless of whether this is true or not, we still need to be very fastidious in.
	Absolutely!
	And, you know, fundamentally, RFK Jr.
	is a fucking liar who is completely full of shit.
	So, you know, and that is an even broader problem in of itself, regardless which side of the political aisle he may land.
	If that disqualifies you from being a politician, then I got bad news.
	Yeah, I think he's more full of shit than most, and I think our episode on him kind of demonstrates that.
	I think his shit is more effective than... Very effective, yeah.
	I mean, I think that's the thing, is he's got people listening, which that's the thing that we should keep our eye on and be concerned with.
	Yes, yeah, exactly.
	It's the level of influence combined with the complete lack of a basis in reality.
	It's a problem, it's a problem, and we shouldn't take our eye off the ball, even if he is more of a problem to Trump.
	Now, from here, there's a lot of the bullshit Australia talk that I mentioned earlier, and then Russell finally gets to introducing Michael Schellenberger.
	Now you know that C702 just passed in the United States of America and they amplified that power.
	You know what's going on in Brazil.
	You know what's already happened in Canada and the UK and what's being proposed in Ireland.
	All across the world, censorship is on the rise and Australia is about to fall.
	That is why it's so important that you join us here on Rumble.
	That is why it's so important that you remain informed, that you remain disobedient, that you remain willing to form alliances from With other people from the periphery, that you are not malleable, that you've not been lifed off, that you've not been neutralized, that you've not been controlled.
	You must remain awake.
	You must look for new alliances.
	Thank God that you have joined us here.
	Thank God that you are present today.
	Thanks for joining us.
	And you are gonna love this because I'm moving from this rant Into a wonderful conversation with a man who must have been sat here chewing on his knuckles because he knows a lot more about this subject than I do, considerably more.
	I mean, many of you know more, but Michael Schellenberger, the investigative journalist and editor of Public on Substack, which you should follow, worked, as you know, with Elon Musk to expose censorship on the Twitter files.
	He's the author of San Francisco, which is a good name, For his book, Why Progressives Ruin Cities.
	I can see him now.
	He's wearing a turtleneck.
	He looks sexy.
	But by God, do I miss his beard?
	It's Michael Schellenberger.
	Thank you for joining us, Michael.
	Hey, great to be with you, Russell.
	Michael, what do you feel is happening in Australia?
	How are countries as disparate and distant as Brazil and Australia operating in such extraordinary concord?
	I find myself disoriented again.
	I mean, we felt like in Brazil, you know, I was supposed to be in Brazil for five days.
	I stayed for 12 because after we released the Twitter files, Brazil, I had to stick around and do a lot of interviews.
	And I mean, we became, you know, I was traveling with a member of Congress who's also been fighting for free speech and we'd be stopped in the airport, stopped on the streets.
	People wanted to take selfies.
	It was a huge story in Brazil.
	Yeah, the Schellenberger guy.
	He's famous.
	He's huge in Brazil.
	I have it on good authority that several globalists in a hot tub really want to talk to this guy.
	He's a big deal.
	He's not bragging.
	What is the congressman?
	Also, was it news that wanted to take pictures with you?
	Would you know the difference?
	What congressman is he?
	Does he talk about it?
	Does he name them?
	I will get to the congressman a little bit later, but I do get the feeling that the congressman is probably the one that they wanted the pictures with less than Michael Sheldon.
	That's more what I'm thinking.
	Oh, honey.
	You're like an entourage, dear.
	You're holding the umbrella.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	So Schellenberger, along with Taibi and Fang, is one of the Twitter Files idiots, you know, releasing it in dribs and drabs when they feel like it, rather than just showing the rest of the world what's in these bombshell documents.
	And with that in mind, he's been doing some work in Brazil with the Twitter Files.
	Sounds important, and I would love to share with you the actual articles from Public of the important work that Schellenberger has been doing, you know, on his little substat.
	But in order to read any of those articles beyond a few paragraphs, you have to pay $20 a month, or an annual fee of $200.
	You gotta Schellenberger out some cash if you want to read that.
	Hell yes you do.
	Now, I refuse to give this man money, but thankfully he posted a long Twitter thread on Twitter slash X about what was going on.
	It's very convoluted because the evidence that Schellenberger provides is in the form of screenshots of emails Sent from Twitter's lawyer in Brazil, Rafael Batista, to the people who work for him.
	So already we're off to a bad start, because the evidence that's being laid out is one person relaying what is supposedly going on to the people who work for him, with a very obvious slant, and there is no counter-narrative or hearing out of opposition going on within this at all.
	But anyway, what appears to have happened is some users on Twitter were in contravention of Brazil's laws surrounding hate speech.
	Brazilian law enforcement reached out to Twitter requesting email address and or phone numbers for these users who were breaking the law because they were otherwise anonymous.
	Twitter's lawyer ignored those requests until he got dragged into the investigation for his refusal to comply with said investigation, at which point he still refused to share the information.
	And this then dovetailed into a significant problem with election misinformation that was happening in Brazil, which prompted several court orders and investigations into what was going on at Twitter, with Twitter's legal team complying with some of it up to a point, but ultimately still refusing to provide specific information on its users.
	And this was all being spearheaded by Brazil's Superior Electoral Court, which is their equivalent of a Supreme Court.
	Basically, this was serious shit, and at the time the side of Jair Bolsonaro were engaging in some pretty fucked up election misinformation that the courts wanted to be able to deal with so it didn't interfere with the election.
	Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but according to Schellenberger it's all terrible censorship against free speech.
	And to be to be completely clear his position is that misinformation and disinformation
	Should be allowed to remain on social media at all costs, but we will we will drill down on that a little bit later
	So that's what he's been up to anyway, he just he posted some screenshots of an email chain and that's that's
	Newsworthy Okay, all right, yep shell and burger much like Fang and Tybee
	has a tendency to talk a lot without Necessarily saying much and we'll we'll get an example of
	that here The media beat up on me for like five days.
	And then the Sunday, last Sunday, I guess a week ago Sunday that I was leaving, finally the media came out and said, hey, censorship bad.
	So I kind of left Brazil thinking, all right, we can make progress against censorship when we expose it and we make the case for free speech, allowing people to be wrong on the internet.
	And then I come back and it's like, here we go into Australia, you know, you get, and now we see Ireland is back demanding more censorship laws.
	The EU is continuing to press ahead.
	You know, obviously Scotland had happened.
	So, I mean, honestly, Russell, I am, continue to be surprised by the relentlessness with which the pro-censorship politicians continue to press this agenda.
	I don't think it's, I can't believe it's that popular.
	I really don't.
	I think that actually in Brazil we saw the president start to, you know, start to sort of back away from it.
	They've been had an uneasy relationship with it.
	I don't think people like censorship.
	I don't think the public wants censorship.
	So yeah, I start to wonder, like, who is pushing these politicians to continue to demand this?
	It appears as though the censorship industrial complex is very powerful, has huge hidden influence, Is it all coordinated at some level internationally?
	I don't know.
	I mean, literally, like last week, you may have seen they shut down a conservative gathering in Brussels.
	They sent the police in to shut a gathering down in Brussels.
	Is that all sort of coordinated at some level?
	I don't know, but it's amazing to me how relentless these guys are in demanding censorship.
	So it is worth probably pointing out that his phrase there, the censorship industrial complex, is very much, you know, it's his boogeyman, you know, it's the globalists, it's the deep state, it's all the same fucking thing.
	It's called corporations, Mike!
	Yeah, the reason that like military industrial complex, you know, like criminal, like the law enforcement industrial, like that kind of that, that language, the reason it's a problem is because it's like taxpayer funded.
	And it is this kind of Network that we pay for, but have very little control over.
	And no, this is just, they're just corporations.
	Like it's, this is not like a public service or like, this is not like a, oh my God, dude.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	Drama.
	Fucking drama.
	Drama!
	Because all these countries are passing, you know, hate speech laws and misinformation laws.
	Well, that's the, that's the, Governing?
	That's the, that's the complex at work.
	Yeah, yeah, right.
	Protecting it.
	One could argue, one could argue.
	Protecting the people, one might think.
	But hey, he finally said something, or at least mentioned something specific at the end there,
	rather than just alluding to how awful the quote unquote censorship is supposed to be.
	Now, this does come up briefly a little bit later, but that rally he mentioned was a far-right rally in Germany, organized and attended by what can accurately be described as literal Nazis.
	It was pioneered by the AFD, Alternative für Deutschland, who we mentioned in the Steve Bannon episode, whose policies and rhetoric is racist, xenophobic, and generally bigoted.
	One of their big talking points is so-called re-migration, the removal of millions of asylum seekers, non-assimilated people, and those with non-German backgrounds, even if they hold residency rights and citizenship.
	That's what they're shooting for.
	So, essentially, the illegal removal of brown people from the country, and this party is polling second across Germany, nationally.
	Worrying!
	One of the main speakers at this event was Nigel Farage, who was interrupted in his speech by the police shutting the event down.
	What a shame.
	He then took to all news outlets that were willing to listen to him, which is all of them, saying that this was a terrible day for free speech, and even if you disagree with him, he should be allowed to say what he wants.
	Again, he's saying this about a fucking Nazi rally.
	My dad- I say what I want.
	You all can't say anything about what I said, though.
	For me, not thee.
	Okay.
	Yes, your dad.
	I should be allowed to say it regardless of how hateful it might be.
	My dad told me on the basis of the statement that, you know, free speech should be allowed.
	He saw Farage being interviewed.
	He said, oh, I found myself agreeing with Nigel Farage, who he fucking hates, for the first time.
	And that is until I explained to him what the event was about.
	So remember how I mentioned I could see Farage becoming leader of the Conservatives like Steve Bannon said?
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
	This is how.
	This is exactly how.
	The thing in isolation without context sounds And then you realize he's just wanting to spew whatever hateful bile he wants without consequence.
	But by that time it's already too late and the genie's out of the bottle and oh yeah, he makes a good point, yeah.
	Oh dear.
	Okay, alright, yes.
	This is exactly what I was hoping for as far as the kind of difference in our national kind of conversation.
	That yeah, he's being subtle.
	Which also, all of these people are getting better and better.
	At saying the quiet part quiet again, so quiet you can't even hear it, until they get into a safe space like this commercial for Rumble we're watching that Russell makes all the time.
	Yes.
	Okay, fine, fine, fine, fine, fine.
	All right.
	Yeah, the commercial for Nazi YouTube.
	So speaking of genies being out of the bottle, we learn a little bit about the guy, the congressman that Schellenberger was teaming up with in Brazil.
	You know, so I mean, what happened with Brazil was, and by the way, I mean, so I mean, there's a lot to unpack with Brazil.
	But I mean, I show up in Brazil for a free speech conference.
	My Brazilian friends said, hey, can you see if there's any Twitter files?
	We found this crazy stuff.
	We published it.
	And I think the most important thing for people to realize about the Brazil case is that what the this.
	So first of all, one thing is that the censorship industrial complex is located in the judiciary.
	That's different.
	Most other countries, it's in the executive branch.
	It's in the executive branch in Britain, in the United States, and then of course it's trying to move it, they're trying to kind of outsource it, do censorship laundering through NGOs.
	But the other thing that was important about it, Russell, was that these guys would, they'd be like, they'd go, I'll give one example, this congressman who I was traveling with, who I had met as a free speech advocate in London, He said, you know, they went to the government said, oh, here's these posts, which are election misinformation.
	Well, first of all, they weren't about the elections at all.
	It was actually had to do with the Labor Department.
	It wasn't misinformation.
	They it was also they said, oh, he's misrepresenting election results.
	It was the day before the election.
	So first of all, the government was using misinformation to try to censor him.
	He never put it on Twitter.
	They went to Twitter and said, take it down.
	Twitter said, we don't have, like, he never published this on Twitter.
	And they basically said, go ahead and remove his profile anyway.
	So basically the whole thing was just pretextual to just De-personifying this member of Congress, and it wasn't just him, it was multiple members of Congress, multiple journalists, where the Supreme Court just went to all of the social media companies, not just one.
	They go to all of them and they go, take their profiles down.
	I mean, that's basically, you're destroying, you can't be a journalist or a politician if you don't have social media accounts.
	Like, it's literally impossible, like, forget about it.
	Like, this is just, I mean, everybody knows this.
	So you're basically the judiciary in a dictatorial move is deciding who can be a journalist, who can be a politician.
	It was all secret proceedings, no right of appeal.
	Yeah, so I thought it was a little bit strange that he doesn't mention the name of this congressman throughout the entire interview, despite frequently bringing him up.
	It's always just, this congressman.
	Exactly what I was asking earlier.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	This congressman that I was hanging out with could be anyone.
	Yeah, there's congressmen in Brazil.
	So the guy that Schellenberger has allied with is an alt-right rising star in Brazil by the name of Marcel Van Hattem.
	He's been an elected politician of some kind since the age of 18, he's now 38, and he's a real piece of shit.
	The reason the courts suspended and may want to shut down his social media Entirely, is because he's one of the largest propagators of misinformation and extremist ideologies in the entire country of Brazil, with his social media engagement eclipsing that of his peers.
	Now, I couldn't find the specifics of the case that Schellenberger was referring to there, because firstly, he's very vague, dancing around it.
	Secondly, Obviously, it's Brazilian news.
	A lot of it's in Portuguese.
	It's very difficult for me to find.
	But either way, take his story with a bucket load of salt.
	I do also want to point out Schellenberger's lack of understanding of Brazil's legal system.
	So Brazil has a system of civil law by and large, which does mean the law is very rigid over there.
	But the flip side of that is that it means people are more likely to be treated equally for committing the same crime,
	for instance.
	That's one of the benefits of that compared to common law.
	But in 2015, there was an expansion of this in Brazil to allow for a degree of common law influence in the judiciary,
	meaning more flexibility, specifically when it comes to the Supreme Court being able
	to overrule the lower courts with its decisions.
	Now, this ding dong here is saying, "Oh, the censorship industrial complex exists within the judiciary in Brazil,
	and this is crazy."
	But the Supreme Court of the US could effectively do the same thing if it was so inclined, and if there was a case brought forward to it, which there was in this case with the Supreme Court in Brazil.
	Schellenberger and others are calling the Supreme Court in Brazil dictators, whereas actually they're just doing their job to ensure that the law is followed and applied at the highest level.
	And if Brazilians don't like it, they can pass a law through their legislature to change that.
	That is how that system works.
	Judges will make the decisions until there is a law passed repealing those decisions.
	They will apply the law as much as they are able to, because that is their job.
	It is not some crazy dictatorship with no checks and balances.
	The law can be changed.
	And equally, it's not like the censorship industrial complex, as he calls it, exists solely in the judiciary in Brazil, and that's where it's going to be forever, because he's also called out the executive branch, the president of Brazil, for pioneering misinformation laws.
	So it's like, well, You're not even holding yourself to this… His own standard.
	Yeah, his own parameters.
	Crazy.
	Also, the other industrial complexes that I tend to complain about… I know where they are.
	I can be very specific about all the connections to a paint drying degree, right?
	To a watching grass grow degree.
	And I don't know that, I don't have confidence that they can be as specific when they are referencing the censorship industrial complex because are you just talking about Court, are you just talking about how laws work?
	Because that's also part of it.
	That's part of another industrial complex complaint.
	But you need to be specific.
	And then right, what you just said is like, okay, wait, so tell us what would be correct.
	Like if you if you're identifying this issue?
	Yeah, if you want to be specific, and if you want to talk about specific instances, and then critique, Go ahead.
	But this is just a vague like, oh, I don't know.
	It's kind of scary.
	Seems scary to me.
	That's not enough.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	Yeah.
	I completely agree.
	He also just said friends.
	My friends told me?
	Do we know who those friends are?
	No?
	Probably not?
	No.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Okay, so Bagri's really working for this interview.
	Oh, yeah.
	He dances around issues quite a lot, and it's much the same with his Twitter files.
	You're getting a very, very skewed perspective of something that is actually happening.
	It's happening, but also we're leaving out half of the facts at the very least, which is, you know, like, I would like to see the emails from the Supreme Court, for instance, to Twitter's Brazilian lawyer, but we don't get that half of the information, do we?
	Oh, and then the results, though, also.
	The context.
	We would like the context as well.
	Bridge too far?
	Yeah, okay.
	Yeah, yeah, I think so.
	Now when it comes to disinformation, Schellenberger takes issue with literally anyone taking up the fight.
	I can't imagine he would be a fan of our show, but one figure in particular sets him off in this next clip.
	And you know, when you look back, we had done something else on an early censorship program called the CTIL League, or the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, which was a U.S.
	government program created by the U.S.
	government.
	That was one of the things they put in there, was that they were going to basically demonize individuals.
	In fact, there's an article in today's New York Times about Nina Jankowicz, the woman that was behind the so-called Disinformation Governance Board, How she's now created an NGO basically to demonize people.
	I mean literally that's what they say in there.
	She's gonna go get her revenge and attack people she doesn't like and the New York Times is gonna obviously promote this.
	So you've seen it's a very creepy, dark...
	I mean, it's really dark.
	Like, these guys are basically identifying individuals.
	Obviously, you've been there.
	What did I say?
	You know, they're just going to engage in character assassination with the idea that they're going to de-platform you.
	You know, and that they're now kind of, their gloves are off, and they're now openly saying that that's what they're going to do.
	Yep, they're openly saying that Nina Jankowicz is gonna get her revenge on everyone she doesn't like.
	That's definitely what the New York Times article said.
	In case anyone missed the shitstorm it initially created, a couple of years ago a lady called Nina Jankowicz briefly led an agency at the Department of Homeland Security created to fight disinformation.
	This led to a big ol' political and legal battle over what the government's role is in policing lies and harmful content online.
	To be clear, this lady knows her stuff.
	She double-majored in Russian and political science.
	She was a Fulbright Fellow in Kiev, working with the foreign ministry in Ukraine, and has also served as a disinformation fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and as supervisor of the Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute.
	She's written books on the weaponization of disinformation and is an adjunct professor at Syracuse University.
	She also wrote a book entitled How to be a Woman Online, Surviving Abuse and Harassment, and How to Fight Back, which is apparently both harrowing and practical in its content.
	She left the platform Substack because of their inaction on curbing extremism on the site, which I respect, and she is also a former member of the wizard rock band The Moaning Myrtles.
	So far, I quite like her.
	I am going to quote from the New York Times piece Schellenberger mentioned.
	Weirdly, no talk of revenge in this, but oh well.
	Quote, now she has re-entered the fray with a new non-profit organization intended to fight what she and others have described as a coordinated campaign by conservatives and others to undermine researchers like her who study the sources of disinformation.
	Already a lightning rod for critics of her work on the subject, Ms.
	Jankowicz inaugurated the organization with a letter accusing three Republican committee chairmen in the House of Representatives of abusing their subpoena powers to silence think tanks and universities that expose the sources of disinformation.
	These tactics echo the dark days of McCarthyism but with a frightening 21st century twist, she wrote in the letter on Monday with the organization's co-founder Carlos Alvarez Aranios, a public relations consultant who was in 2020 involved in efforts to defend the integrity of the American voting system.
	The inception of the group, the American Sunlight Project, reflects how divisive the issue of identifying and combating disinformation has become as the 2024 presidential election approaches.
	It also represents a tacit admission that the informal networks formed at major universities and research organizations to address the explosion of disinformation online have failed to mount a substantial defence against a campaign, waged largely on the right, depicting their work as part of an effort to silence conservatives.
	Many of the nation's most prominent researchers, facing lawsuits, subpoenas and physical threats, have pulled back.
	More and more researchers were getting swept up by this and their institutions weren't either allowing them to respond or responding in a way that really just was not rising to meet the moment, Ms.
	Jankowicz said in an interview, and the problem with that obviously is that if we don't push back on these campaigns then that's the prevailing narrative.
	Unquote.
	So to me, it sounds like she's doing some good work to fight misinformation and also censorship here by those three Republican lawmakers there.
	You know, Schellenberger should be completely on board with those efforts, but no, no, no, it's just a project to demonize people, according to this guy.
	I mean, it's all about perspective, isn't it?
	I mean, yeah, another woman bringing up a I'd be interested to hear more about, and I guess we're not going to do that again.
	Uh-huh.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, no, no, no.
	It's just a project to demonize people.
	I'm assuming he means the sources of the misinformation that Czenkowicz tracks.
	Those are the people being demonized, presumably.
	Okay.
	The effort, the fight.
	I want to lie on the internet.
	Even, think about what you're, like, even that.
	Sir, take a second and think about what you're saying.
	You're not saying free speech.
	I want the right to lie on the internet as much as I want.
	Or I don't have to know if I want it or not because plausible deniability.
	That's it.
	That's what this whole conversation is.
	Jesus Christ.
	Well, at least their priorities are in order.
	Tight.
	His entire mantle is that, basically.
	So, Russell uses this whole thing to leap into a familiar talking point.
	This is extraordinary.
	I imagine, perhaps, that you are referring in part to some of the investigative work by Lee Fang, in which he discovered that a CIA carve-out are funding organisations within Ukraine to condemn many online voices, whether it's Jeffrey Sachs, but I was in the mix too, as pro-Putin and pro-Russian propagandists.
	It's extraordinary to hear that, as you say, Nino Jankovic has Found herself in this extraordinary position, having failed to set up a sort of censorship-friendly misinformation kind of entity in the United States of America.
	Now, it was a government official, of course, that demanded I be demonetized in the wake of significant media attacks.
	It's becoming increasingly obvious that the organization, the Trusted News Initiative,
	that includes not only legacy media outlets like the BBC and CNN and New York Times,
	but also tech giants like Alphabet, Google, are seemingly now regarding independent media
	as their true opponents rather than one another.
	The days of competing for scoops is over for a whole host of reasons
	that you understand better than I do as a journalist.
	Certainly it doesn't matter who breaks a story now, in particular, unless they're able
	to control that information and serialize it significantly.
	Oh boy, yeah, Shellenberg is nodding along with all that.
	Um, so as a reminder and to unpick what Russell was saying there, Lee Fang wrote a piece about Coda Story, who once received some unconditional funding from the NED, and because Coda Story accurately mentioned Russell as spreading pro-Russian propaganda all of twice, that's supposed to be a big government takedown in action.
	Then he mentioned, though not by name, Dame Caroline Dainage, who was not a government official in the UK at the time, nor did she demand that Russell be demonetised.
	She was asking whether TikTok and Rumble were going to demonetise him the same way that YouTube did, and she had never asked YouTube to do a damn thing because they demonetised Russell of their own accord.
	But that is all also supposed to be some big government conspiracy against him.
	Yeah, and then we go on to a thing about the Trusted News Initiative, which we've covered plenty of times, but it's a cross-organizational initiative set up to help tackle misinformation and lies across the world.
	It's got absolutely nothing to do with no longer competing for scoops.
	Yeah!
	And if it worked in any way close to how Russell says it does, then the information about his sex crimes would have
	been reported on in full by more than just the Times, the Sunday Times and Channel 4.
	That would have been much more broadly reported.
	But no, it wasn't.
	Yeah. I'm so sick.
	And like I.
	I don't have a thought or feeling necessarily about Caroline Dynage at this point.
	I'm sick of hearing her name, and it's not her fault.
	I'm sick of them saying it.
	And also, the first thing that popped in my head was like, You UK motherfuckers need to get a goddamn grip because we have politicians out here and political actors that are writing about how they murder their dogs in a book.
	Like, come on!
	Have a little bit of perspective, maybe.
	Now listen, have your complaints, by all means.
	The thing is, is you can't let up, you know, but I mean, Jesus fucking Christ.
	Like, did she write about killing a dog in her book?
	Then you can keep talking about her.
	It's just wild to me how, like, this conversation that I'm watching between Russell and Michael Schellenberger is so personal, it's this like grievance kind of like they're
	having a little grievance baby party for themselves.
	And I cannot understand, I'm so bored on a cellular level.
	My blood is bored with this conversation.
	Who is this for?
	Aside from, like, five other dudes in your stupid, weird, like, predator club?
	That's it.
	Those are the ones.
	For a person watching this show to listen to this conversation and think that it has anything to do with them, the pathological grandiosity of the listener who cares and is engaged by this is like, you know, like I've talked about it before as far as like, I think that there is an over-prescription of like narcissism, you know, like kind of throwing that word around a lot.
	But the reality of the situation, there's been books that are written on it, a lot of research, that our current media climate and social media encourages narcissistic behaviors.
	And this is one.
	Thinking that you're having this pathological grandiosity, that you're going to be... There's plenty of civil liberty violations that are happening right now in my country and across the world Absolutely will affect us individually.
	And it's not grand.
	It's something we're afraid of that is legitimately a concern that we've watched happen.
	This slow march of destroying our civil liberties and our actual fucking free speech.
	It's seriously so jarringly crazy for me to hear these two nincompoops cry in their Cheerios when kids are getting dragged in the street and, like, tased on, like, Emery, like, I don't, Emery, like, I mean, just, the, it's a lot.
	It is a lot to take.
	It's enough to make your brain short circuit a little bit, I think.
	Electrical fire, yeah.
	We're in danger.
	This is not OSHA regulated for sure.
	We're in danger of causing a whole ass fire.
	It does feel like a lot of their argument about this whole thing just amounts to meh.
	And that's pretty much it.
	That is it in terms of substance and all of it.
	And yeah, you know, and the way they mobilise their audience, you know, because the problem is that the audience Will, to a degree, be policed on social media.
	You know, if you post COVID bullshit on Facebook, there's usually a little thing underneath it saying, hey, this isn't true, for instance.
	And that is censorship, apparently.
	But yeah, unless it's kind of outright hate speech, then that's probably the most that the average person is going to, quote, suffer from any of this.
	So outrageous, because especially like now, right now, today, right now, guys, this week, you want to complain about your free speech being impinged, which it's also not because they're talking about it on the internet, and like kids are getting kicked- Millions of people.
	Kids are getting kicked out of, like, they're losing their, like, their access to food and shelter.
	They're getting expelled.
	And, like, no one is, is giving, like, I hate it that there's this whole rhetoric around, like, college kids, like, oh, they're just kids.
	And I know I say kids.
	I'm, I'm saying it in the way that kids are our future, not like they're young and dumb.
	And, Annoying maybe.
	That's an MP, not a they-P, okay?
	If I'm annoyed, that's on me.
	And honestly, I encourage everyone to take the same stance.
	It's like, if you're annoyed, check yourself, okay?
	It's what I'm doing.
	Because these kids, it's their money.
	Or it's their family's money.
	Or more likely, they're gonna be paying their tuition Global.
	is funding this shit.
	They have a say.
	They have standing.
	They're going to be paying off this education for 20 fucking years.
	They have the most to say about it.
	Oh, and if the tuition isn't what it's about, well, then why are they paying the tuition
	in the fucking first place?
	Like, it's just even getting--
	they just want their colleges to disclose where their money is going.
	That's like, that's number one, and the colleges are instead, like, fucking shooting tear gas canisters at them, where they're just telling them, this is what we're doing with your money that you will owe us for twenty years.
	Yeah, that should tell you something, shouldn't it?
	Even Crystal!
	Lie!
	Pretend that you care!
	Use them!
	Pretend that you care!
	Say anything!
	Acknowledge it!
	That's crazy to me!
	Maybe it'll happen next week.
	Maybe it'll happen next week.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Might be optimistic.
	He is jarringly quiet on the subject of the protests getting shut down, whereas you'd think that would be something he would be all over.
	But, you know, railing on every day, you know, in the land of stay free.
	But no, it doesn't seem to be a big focus.
	We're far more interested in what's going on with Trump.
	That's wild!
	Also, it's Fox News, though.
	That's true.
	Yeah.
	Fox News is doing the same thing.
	Yeah, that too.
	Yeah, I will say, you know, remove all of the reality from it, and Russell's narrative in that little clip is quite persuasive.
	If you just hear it on its own, you're like, oh yeah, that's a lot of things he just said that all seem to add up to him being attacked, you know what?
	And he's citing specific examples, oh yeah.
	You know, and it makes sense.
	It is persuasive until you peel back literally any of the layers.
	Yeah, without context, the trains running on time is a great social benefit.
	You're fucking right.
	Okay.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And obviously, none of his audience, you know, peel back any of the layers to that.
	Why do they care?
	Seriously, that's my big question today.
	How do they even see themselves in the... I don't know.
	How are they not bored?
	We'll never know.
	We'll never know.
	This is true.
	I'm certainly bored of covering the free speech bullshit.
	I don't understand how people who watch it more often than I do, because all of the people in their mediasphere are talking about it all the fucking time.
	How are they not bored by this?
	I would have switched off.
	I'd love to cover the real part, really, like the real part that's happening right now, which, yeah, I mean, he pre-records, we pre-record, so I will hold, I need to put a big asterisk on my judgment until, and also like, it's in a different country, and he's just demonstrated his inability to Even though he'll take that American money from them sponsors, but doesn't really keep his finger on the pulse of what's happening in American news all the time.
	Asterisk for me.
	Even if he does, he's heavily selective on what he's going to cover.
	So, you know, we'll keep an eye, obviously.
	I will keep you posted.
	Now, in the meantime, Russell is concerned about important figures being censored on the Internet, like you've just mentioned, the other five guys like him, and he does have some examples.
	What's terrifying to me, Michael, is precisely what you described.
	The ability to demonize, destroy, and smear individuals.
	Now, I wonder if we take a few high-profile examples of that.
	Like, you know, most liberals were excited And celebratory when Trump was booted off of Twitter.
	Most people were kind of happy when Alex Jones was the victim of lawfare and shutdown across the internet.
	And figures like David Icke are routinely censored.
	I mean, David Icke on the surface seems like one of the sillier examples in that list, until you remember that he engages in traffics in rampant anti-Semitism within his narratives, which Russell doesn't give a shit about.
	Trump getting removed from Twitter because of the whole coup thing he attempted, as well as saying the election was stolen from him.
	Yeah, you know, that was actually a pretty happy day for people who didn't want the United States government to be taken over by a fascist dictator.
	He's got to stay for such a long time!
	It's almost like he had a list of the community guidelines, and I'm giving him way too much credit for being an organized thinker in this way, but it's almost like he takes the community guidelines and checks them off like, violated that one, violated that one, violated that one, and he's still got to stay.
	How many can I do in one tweet?
	Because he wasn't president anymore, they could actually take him off of the site.
	The damage that he did was immeasurable.
	Maybe not immeasurable, honestly.
	People can measure that now.
	It's fucking wild.
	We should all be excited about that.
	Yeah.
	But also terrified because that same technology can be used against us, so being aware of both.
	Right.
	Happy days.
	And as for Alex Jones, I'm sorry, he had lawfare against him, did he?
	It's not that he committed very serious crimes, denying the deaths of children in a school shooting ever happened for years, and harassed the families to the point where they were receiving death threats from Alex's audience.
	Oh no, it's lawfare against him to shut him down.
	Go fuck yourself, Russell.
	Bitch, when he has to pay a dollar.
	As soon as Alex Jones starts paying one dollar and stops taking fucking vacations to Hawaii and claiming he needs to live on 80 grand a month.
	Okay.
	Hardship is- and I do think in general this like a wider conversation as far as like unsafety and like being unsafe or feeling discomfort are getting confused to an extreme degree that we need to have a fucking reckoning about in a in like a public conversation.
	It's pretty important and it's being kind of waylaid.
	And that's another thing.
	Like obviously, you know, we had to talk about the importance of this happening, the big
	headline problems, but keep it in your mind, everyone within the range of my voice.
	You can hear me right now.
	Just consider and find ways that you can insert this in conversations in your own life and for yourself if need be.
	I think that we all have blind spots.
	Discomfort versus unsafety.
	So you can't prioritize your discomfort over someone else's unsafe Like, the reality of their unsafety is not less important than your discomfort.
	Discomfort is not the end of the fucking world.
	Like, really.
	Absolutely.
	Mm-hmm.
	Not getting to make as much money on YouTube, not the priority.
	Not the priority.
	No, not even a little bit.
	Not even a little bit.
	You know, I still haven't watched the documentary on Alex Jones and Sandy Hook yet, the HBO one, but I hear it's a good if difficult watch.
	We haven't either.
	We haven't either.
	We're kind of so, you know.
	Yeah.
	We've seen so much of it!
	But I hear it's great, so I'll report back whenever I hear it too.
	Yeah, yeah, I need to get to it as well.
	I think I need to find slightly more nefarious means of watching it over here because of the lack of availability.
	Listen, that hasn't stopped you before, from what I understand.
	It's never stopped me even once.
	Not since I was about 14.
	So, we are going to skip ahead for a minute and we're going to have a little insight into some of Public's journalistic credentials.
	We have this new journalist that we've been working with who's the daughter of a very well-known Czech.
	She's a Czech Republic journalist.
	She's the daughter of a well-known Czech Republic dissident, an artist, not as famous as Václav Havel, but sort of, you know, a colleague of his.
	And she discovered that basically the Polish and Czech intelligence services working with EU politicians had claimed to have discovered this Russian disinformation operation that was aiming to bribe European politicians.
	Well, she went and interviewed all the people, you know, reached out to everybody that was accused.
	They all denied that they'd been bribed by the Russians.
	Yeah, so we should take their word for it, because they denied that they've been bribed by the Russians, and that must mean that that is true.
	Yeah, and to add to the evidence, I'm going to read from this piece on Public about this, from Schellenberger's substat, quote, However, following an investigation by Public, the head of the Czech intelligence agency, BIS, Michael Koudelka, on Monday admitted that his agency has no information about any bribery scheme.
	I cannot confirm anything, he said.
	Unquote.
	Smoking gun of evidence, that one.
	Um, that because the head of the Czech intelligence agency didn't share details of an ongoing investigation that may lead to a full EU investigation, by the way, that must mean there isn't actually any evidence.
	What he said was, I cannot confirm anything.
	That is, that is a, that is a no comment answer is what that is.
	That's not, that's not a, we have nothing!
	Yeah, how robust is her evidence, is what I'm curious about.
	Oh, she doesn't have any evidence whatsoever.
	This is her evidence.
	This guy saying, I can't share, I cannot confirm anything, that is the substance of her evidence.
	In reality, what happened was, to quote European Commission Vice President Vera Jirova, Russia is using dodgy outlets, pretending to be media, and using money to buy covert influence.
	So Poland's intelligence agency...
	Right now?
	To a degree!
	Poland's intelligence agency said it conducted searches in Warsaw and Tichy regions and seized amounts of £41,500 and £28,500.
	Evidence that these fake news publications were set up and paid politicians to spread misinformation ahead of the upcoming EU elections, which are in June, basically.
	So that's what Russia have apparently been up to.
	That's funny.
	It's funny to hear how other countries have laws against the thing that, like, politicians just, like, do here.
	It's really incredible.
	And I don't even know if this is necessarily, like, I don't have a one-to-one comparison.
	Obviously, I've, you know, this is the first I'm hearing of this.
	It's just always funny, because this does happen a lot, and this is specifically the venue where I have to confront other countries having different, like, electoral kind of policy, and it It doesn't cease to just blow my gourd though.
	It's just incredible.
	Yeah, they just do it.
	Yeah, we've got pretty serious laws about that.
	The EU especially are very hot on the issue because I think they acknowledge how much of a problem it is!
	Yeah, it seems like it has caused problems in the very recent past, so yeah, I don't blame them.
	I'd love to have to not have learned about the loopholes that allow our politicians to do this with, and just make mountains of money.
	Just piles and piles, like Scrooge fucking McDuck, they swim in, it's amazing.
	Okay, yep, that's it, that's all.
	Alright, let's party, let's keep going.
	Yeah, anyway, because we haven't seen, you know, all of the evidence presented from this ongoing investigation immediately up top, you know, according to Schellenberger, that means that it's all a lie and they don't actually have any evidence whatsoever because he's not seen it, so therefore it doesn't exist.
	And he expands on that point in this next clip.
	The government has presented no evidence of this conspiracy theory.
	Not to you!
	We reached out to one of the accused, a website called Voice of Europe, as being part of this conspiracy.
	There's no evidence, there's no arrests.
	It appears to be a completely invented disinformation campaign by the European Union officials, including the head of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen.
	None of whom ever, we've emailed them many times asking about this.
	Well, what's the purpose of it?
	Well, the whole point was to basically create the idea that right-wing populist parties in Europe, whatever your view is on these parties, again, but they were trying to create the view that these parties were controlled by Russia.
	What's so amazing, Russell, is that the tactics might differ from Ireland to Scotland to Czech Republic to European Union to Brazil to Canada, but the messages are the same, which is that if you're a populist, you're actually a COVID denier, you're full of hate.
	You're spreading misinformation and you somehow are working for the Russians.
	So all of the Russia hoax stuff that they did against Trump, it's not like they were like, oh, I guess we got to move on from that.
	They just keep doing it and they're doing it again in Europe.
	So.
	Now, I'm not saying that if you're a populist you must be a COVID denier full of hate, spreading misinformation, and working for Russia, but it does seem like a lot of populists seem to be COVID deniers who are full of hate, spreading misinformation, and probably working for Russia.
	So, you know.
	Pointing out the Venn diagram isn't our fault.
	It's not my fault.
	Yeah, right?
	Pointing out the Venn diagram, that's your party that you keep showing up to.
	If nothing else, get your house in order.
	That's what the responsibility, at least of the left, maybe takes a little too seriously.
	Truly, though, what I'm hearing from them is just like, I want them railroaded in a kangaroo, no arrests, kangaroo court right now!
	Railroad some people and blame them!
	Yeah, yeah.
	There have been no arrests yet, so clearly it doesn't exist.
	It's not a thing.
	It's like, okay, you haven't seen all the evidence.
	Why the fuck would they give any of it to you, Michael Schellenberger?
	And I wonder why they don't reply to your emails.
	We're adults!
	We understand how the... I mean, again, this is a tactic.
	I get it, but like, Give it a minute, right?
	I don't know, I don't have the timeline of this in my head, but still, like, arrests?
	The law, the law is famously slow, you know?
	That is, especially when it comes to things like prosecuting politicians for accepting bribes, right?
	And, and, like, the amount of- For good reason!
	Yes.
	The amount of counter evidence that Schellenberger and his team at Public have is, they asked the people involved and the people denied it.
	That is it.
	You know, they ask all the politicians, oh, did you take a bribe?
	No, I didn't.
	Well, it must be true!
	Okay.
	Complaining about short email responses is his job.
	That's amazing.
	Making just a mountain out of it.
	Out of a stupid ass pile.
	Pretty much.
	Alright, okay.
	Speaking of Venn diagrams, Nick Schellenberger makes a surprisingly apt comparison.
	Yeah, to answer your question, then you're kind of like, why are they doing it?
	Well, because Europe's having elections on June 9th, right?
	And they're worried in particular about this conservative party in Germany called AFD, which is like, if you read their information, this is a Nazi party.
	But actually, the party has a policy agenda that's very similar to the Republican Party, at least under Trump.
	And so they basically used all the exact same playbooks saying it's Russian, it's fascist, it's full of hatred.
	He just said that out loud!
	Red flag!
	Red flag!
	Listeners, I'm very proud of myself.
	I had a very bright piece of red fabric to hand in the moment.
	Didn't even plan for it.
	It's just I've been sewing a lot.
	So he just said that alternatives for Deutschland, if you read their information, are basically a Nazi party, and that their policies are basically the same as the Republican Party under Trump.
	And that's why it's fine!
	Yes, that's why it's fine!
	He's thinking there, rather than being, huh, maybe this Trump guy's a little bit of a Nazi, is, aha, these AFD people can't be Nazis because their narratives are like Trump's!
	And because the media are pointing out that they're fascist, hate-filled, and allied with Russian propaganda, that must mean that they're actually great, like Trump!
	Oh dear.
	Okay, alright, let's see what else we've got.
	That was a lot.
	Next, he speaks of how powerful his work clearly must be, how effective Michael Schellenberger can be.
	They invented they have a whole fact fake fact checking website called corrective, which has spread misinformation that we've documented.
	So, I mean, I will say, you know, we were talking about this a year ago.
	So, how have we done?
	I feel like we're catching up to them.
	You know, with this particular story, this Czech Republic-Polish-European Union-Russian disinfo story, I feel like we were able to.
	We've done, I think, three stories on it now, and they've just been quiet about it.
	And they kind of sometimes go, well, we're looking into it, and we're going to have this investigation.
	But I just get the sense that they got told out by it, on it, from us, and they're going to kind of try to move on.
	But it is just striking.
	These guys are, they're relentless.
	I mean, I feel like I'm, I feel like it's Terminator 2 and they like, you know, you feel like you just knocked the guy out and then he's like, he comes back up and he's like coming after you, chasing after you again.
	They are not giving this up.
	They're, they're really relentless in their demands to censor the entire internet everywhere in the world.
	What?
	Are they working together?
	Hard to, hard to know.
	I can't say that they are, but it's so suspicious all these things popping up at exactly the same time.
	King Michael, you're not the internet.
	You're not the, your sub stack ain't the whole internet.
	God, King Michael, in your mind, the grandiosity is like a, is a fucking lot.
	Oh yeah.
	Just, just him saying like, Oh yeah, I, I, I think cause we called them out on it.
	The, the entire EU, cause we called them out on it.
	They're just gonna, I, my sense is they're just going to let it go.
	Oh really?
	Really?
	Cause you called them out.
	Did you?
	And like, so which is it?
	Did you win the battle against the EU by calling them out, or are they getting back up and continuing the war against free speech?
	In the same conversation!
	What?
	What do you even want?
	It sounds to me like it's a continuing investigation and them not wanting to engage with shitheads like Michael, but we'll see, I guess.
	And then we finish with the insinuation that, well, it is all strange that this is all happening at the same time across the world.
	So it's some great fucking conspiracy.
	Because elections are coming back and they're actually NGOs that are protecting election fraud claims.
	Yeah!
	It's not a coincidence!
	It's very specific!
	And the entire of humanity as a species is going through all of this at the same time.
	We are in a global world now and we are all experiencing this and reacting to it at pretty much the same time because that's just the pace that we have, you know?
	That's all it is.
	That's crazy.
	Oh boy.
	Yeah.
	Next we have an important take about technology from Schellenberger.
	I feel like we're just hanging by a thread in some ways, but it's like as long as X can remain a free platform, as long as Elon Musk remains the owner of X and remains strong, I think we have a good shot at surviving this.
	I mean, you kind of look back and you go, they weren't able to stop television, radio, Telegraphs, the printing press, I mean the printing press, when they, when Gutenberg's printing press shows up and he's able to, you're able to have, I mean it's basically the exact same thing that's happening now.
	It's peer-to-peer communication, or what the New York Times calls peer-to-peer misinformation.
	You know, it was like the printing press allowed for ordinary people to talk to each other, interpret the Bible, interpret Christianity the ways they wanted to.
	It led to Protestantism and it led to, I mean, we look back now and we go, it was inevitable that the printing press was going to change things.
	But I mean, it had huge impacts.
	I mean, governments fell, there were wars and revolutions.
	Groundbreaking.
	What a groundbreaking claim.
	Hot take here from Michael Schoenberg.
	I feel so much better informed having listened to this nincompoop prattle on, and he thinks- Dude.
	Like, dude, you get to- I also was- Oh my god.
	I resent the insinuation that it was somehow peer-to-peer communication, as though everyone had their own personal printing press just in their house.
	I'm like, no, that is not the same as where we are at today.
	Publishers, predominantly churches, kind of controlled these things for a long time.
	Well, and democratization of, like, printing, like, that's part of the cool thing, I mean, and I do have a, you know, a stake in it, obviously, and I am biased.
	You know, my partner being a really talented printmaker, and me being a new printmaker who's trying really hard, I appreciate the history of printmaking as a democratization of information, a democratization of information.
	I think it's incredible And just to hear, like, I get really excited.
	Those are the conversations that I get to have with other printmakers and especially with, like, our, you know, print uncles and print dads.
	Because even though they might make weird, crazy flaming skull pictures, they have a lot of nuanced ideas and a lot of information about the history as well.
	Yeah.
	It's all of it.
	And to hear such a, like, baby brain kind of... I mean, it's fine.
	He's, you know, he's normally talking about normal things.
	Fine, fine, fine.
	But to imply that that's in any way, like, he's... I don't know.
	It's a lot.
	Well, the broader point that he's trying to make, it is very silly.
	The broader point that he's trying to make is that Twitter is like the printing press, you know, which There's an argument there.
	I'd make a different argument, frankly.
	Yes, I'd say it's a printing press of bullshit and hate.
	Social media in general having the same level of effect on society as the printing press did is an argument, that's a discussion I'd be happy to have.
	It's an Off-Braid episode I've been meaning to put together for a fucking month at this point!
	Yes, absolutely!
	So we will have that very discussion soon.
	Yes, absolutely!
	Maybe that'll shoot this up to the top of the list.
	Yeah, it is really important, but the way that he's saying it, like, peer-to-peer, yeah, rich guys with more money than sense wanting to prioritize their personal views.
	Yeah, that was what came out on top.
	So, sure.
	In that way, yeah.
	Controlling information and prioritizing a certain bias, sure.
	Yes!
	That is what happened, as a matter of fact.
	All he's really trying to achieve here is telling us how important he thinks Twitter is under Elon Musk.
	That's all we're actually getting at.
	Because it's under Elon Musk, it's as big and important as the printing press was.
	He wasn't saying this a few years ago before Elon Musk took Totally.
	Well, right.
	And that's the thing.
	He's like, Oh, it is big and important.
	Not for the reason he's saying.
	That's the thing.
	He's like, Oh, I think it's a big, important problem.
	I think it's a big, important problem as well.
	Coming from a very different direction than he is.
	Yeesh.
	Okay.
	Now, from here, so Russell moved off the main Rumbles show, so he cuts off the interview at a certain point, and then, I experienced this on the Locals channel, just kind of cuts off, you get the end credits and everything, and then he just kind of reappears!
	You're like, oh, okay, this is weird.
	The show has ended but continued And so he switches over to the locals exclusive portion and thankfully because we currently have access to the locals channel we have the rest of the interview and in the next clip Schallenberger tells us that there's something wrong with us I view the movement for free speech as a spiritual pursuit.
	I think it's for universal human betterment.
	I respect Brazil and its borders and its constitution.
	I respect all countries and their sovereignty.
	I also think all human beings have a right to speak their minds and to have access to information.
	So I do view This is a universal movement, and I think that this effort by a small, very small group of deeply uptight and neurotic and power-mad individuals to control the whole internet, it's really dark.
	It's really sinister.
	They're willing to destroy people.
	I think there's something psychopathological in that.
	I think that this idea that somebody says something that you don't agree with, whether it's about the war in Ukraine, or about COVID, or about climate change, or trans, or whatever it would be, The healthy response from a healthy individual is to say, I don't agree with that.
	I'm going to disagree with that publicly and make my views known.
	That's not what they're saying.
	Oh, is it?
	They're saying, I can't stand that so much.
	I'm full of so much hatred.
	I'm going to shut that person down.
	I think there's, if that's your instinct, there's something wrong with you.
	Like literally, I believe that there is something wrong with you in the head if your impulse is to shut other people up.
	Oh, I agree with that.
	I do agree with that.
	But that's not what's happening.
	I want to lie!
	I want to lie as much as I can!
	I'm defending our right to lie!
	I want to lie and engage in hate speech.
	With no consequences!
	Zero whatsoever.
	We have a complete minimizing of the damage that both hate speech and misinformation can cause here, and if it's trans issues I can all but guarantee that it is hate speech that we are discussing.
	Which, good luck Michael.
	And now does feel like a good time to mention that Schellenberger is a pretty ardent climate change minimizer, which is to say he doesn't deny that it's happening, he just thinks that climate change is fine.
	And is not going to fundamentally change the planet or humanity at large.
	That's the new line.
	That's what they do now.
	He's been a real activist on this for 10, 15 years.
	He's been at it for a long time with the climate change shit.
	Yes.
	Yes, he has.
	I'm very aware.
	Which I think provides kind of a lens of him not wanting to be shut down on the internet, as he puts it.
	You know, people have been dunking on this guy and the things he says for quite some time.
	Because he was still alive and fully vibes.
	He is all vibes today.
	This is vibes exclusively.
	My friends, don't worry about him.
	They go to another high school.
	The congressman, don't worry about it.
	We met at summer camp and he lives in Canada.
	Oh, sorry.
	Brazil!
	Yeah, he's from Brazil.
	Yeah, in Brazil.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	The unnamed congressman.
	Jesus Christ.
	Oh, you can't dox him.
	They have to protect your sources.
	Gotta protect your sources.
	Oh, well, that's it.
	That's it.
	Yeah, his public sub stack is really fucking bad for that, actually.
	We have covered it before, just numerous occasions where we'll be like, hey, an unnamed source that we have in this place, and yeah, okay, we don't have an editorial staff or any editorial standards, but yeah, just trust this guy.
	I don't, I think, Listeners, sound off if you have a similar experience.
	Long-time listeners, our friends, comrades, I don't know that I was as sensitive to unsvagaries.
	In a sentence structure or in a claim.
	I don't know that I was as sensitive to that before we started this podcast.
	Boy, I sure am now.
	It really is ratcheted up that kind of like, makes the back of my brain itch really hard, like wasabi style.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Come on, dog.
	I think that's a good instinct, though.
	I think, and I'm very much the same, especially if I ever catch them in the wild, especially if I start hearing them like, ding!
	I'm like, oh, no, no, something's off.
	Something's off!
	You know, which I think, yeah, that is definitely something that has developed more since doing this show.
	Instinct, great.
	Trigger, not helpful.
	That's not helpful.
	Yeah, yeah, true, true.
	Very, very true.
	So we get some questions from the locals chat here and Russell seizes upon one, well, more of a statement that he really likes.
	Now on the subject of hypnosis and dark forces, Jack Swiss in the chat, it's not a question, it's merely a statement, it's not even a statement, it's three words.
	Mass formation hypnosis.
	What do you think Jack Swiss means by this, Michael?
	Well, this is super interesting.
	So the mass formation psychosis obviously was something that was floated by, I think, was it Robert Malone on Joe Rogan?
	And I think it had a real big moment and it offered a lot of explanatory power for people.
	Of course, the media was then like, oh, that's not a thing and that doesn't exist.
	It's like, sure.
	Um, you know, one thing I know is that, uh, Nietzsche says we dream while we're awake.
	We know that people, this idea of, there's certainly some people with serious mental illness like schizophrenia, um, and you might also have psychosis induced by drugs.
	There's some people that are just seriously mentally ill, but I think that, like, there's a lot of good research that many other people engage in sort of psychotic states, you might call them dream states, And this is why you always want to stay close to the evidence, but I do think that there is a kind of, uh, a kind of, I think we also say Trump derangement syndrome, or you can see it in Brazil's Bolsonaro derangement syndrome or Brexit derangement syndrome.
	There's some of it that I do think there's a kind of trance that people get into.
	And it's on the one hand, it's very hypnotic in the sense that, you know, I want to have a conversation.
	He's going Scott Adams!
	One example.
	Wow!
	Trump is, you know, a threat to democracy.
	And I said, just go ahead and tell me exactly how that is.
	And she couldn't give me any examples.
	Well, I'm sorry that your friend couldn't make any specific examples in that moment.
	Shocking.
	But that isn't a particularly persuasive argument for Trump not being a dictator when he's literally said that he will be one.
	Just one day.
	Just for one day, it's fine.
	The point that Schellenberger is trying to make in backing up Rogan-endorsed pseudoscience is that we have all been hypnotized into being against Trump, Brexit and Bolsonaro, etc.
	And that our arguments lack any foundational merit, which is a great catch-all argument to be able to say about people you disagree with, much like calling them the devil.
	Like, oh, you're just saying that because you've been hypnotized, you know, you've got Trump derangement syndrome, right?
	It's particularly, it's pathologizing and it's infantilizing to say that you're upset and you are, I think, justifiably heated, justifiably concerned, and to not like, okay, so you don't even have to engage with the points being made, the words being said at all.
	And you're like, oh, well, this person is showing classic symptoms of Trump derangement syndrome.
	I'm sure it's going to be in the DSM if it isn't already.
	We were demonized.
	That's the issue with motherfucking tone policing is you switch the argument.
	From the content of what you're saying to the way that you're saying it, and then it's dehumanizing.
	You're demonizing someone.
	You're minimizing what they're... It's discrediting.
	I mean, listen, us female-bodied gals in the world that have had to live through this, we're familiar.
	You're being hysterical.
	And it can't be for any reason that I'm doing.
	I am not causing.
	I'm being calm.
	I'm just saying words.
	I'm allowed to say words with impunity because of my free speech.
	And if you react to what I'm saying, you're a psycho.
	He said psycho.
	He said psychotic.
	Which, I don't think these people are being psychotic!
	People are, like, very rational with, like, these research studies are, like, pretty measured, honestly.
	Also, findings that are not supporting the argument that they're making, you know?
	Like, there's evidence and research and...
	I mean, yeah, sure, there is all that, but also, you've just been hypnotized, Lauren, that's all it is!
	You're in Trump derangement syndrome, and Bolsonaro derangement syndrome, and all of these syndromes.
	That's just, that's... yeah, sorry.
	Yeah, how did hypno... how... Michael Schallenberger, explain hypnosis to me.
	Explain what you think hypnosis is to me.
	Now, let's not get into anything crazy like definitions of terms here, Lauren.
	I mean, come on.
	That's taking it a bridge too far.
	Heaven forbid I have a specific question that I want an answer to.
	Yeah.
	Oh, fuck me, right?
	Cool.
	Fuck my drag.
	In our final clip here, we get Schellenberger's argument for misinformation being allowed on social media in a slightly large nutshell.
	Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really, that's a crucial question, which is how do you break the trance?
	And so just to give the Brazil example, I mean, I was there, so I was there, I mean, I was beat, I was beat up by the media for like five days.
	I mean, it was like relentless, right?
	And I finally realized like, because I kept being like, well, here's all the censorship and we had laid out all the censorship, but really what people were, it was really the conversation that turned to, don't we need to censor?
	And I find myself on interviews, particularly with young journalists.
	I mean, Brazil, basically, it's very similar to the United States and to Europe.
	Like, when you talk to these journalists at mainstream news outlets, they're like, but we can't allow people to lie about the elections.
	We can't allow election misinformation.
	There has to be some committee that gets rid of that election misinformation.
	And I was like, no, actually, you do need to allow what you call misinformation.
	You need to allow people to criticize elections.
	I want to lie!
	Because if you don't, how do you know if the elections are stolen?
	Or how do you know if... I mean, like, that is... Imagine that.
	You have a committee of seven dudes who are going to decide that that election criticisms have to be censored.
	What's to prevent them from stealing the elections?
	All they have to do is snuff out the debate.
	So I would... The committee!
	I found myself explaining that.
	And it was one conversation.
	It was with the second biggest newspaper in Brazil.
	It's called the Estado de Sao Paulo.
	And it was two young journalists.
	They literally found like three ways to ask me that question.
	They couldn't believe that I was defending the right of people to spread misinformation.
	And I was like, look, somebody goes online and they go, the election's not on Tuesday.
	It's on Thursday.
	Okay.
	It's a lie.
	All right.
	So someone says that.
	I said, You reply and go, that's not true, you know, or we're the elections office and the elections are on Tuesday.
	Like, fine.
	You know, the other one I would do.
	Is it fine?
	I think it did have an impact on them.
	You just said it's not fine.
	I completely changed their mind in one conversation.
	But then the other one I would do is I'd always say to people,
	"Okay, so you're in favor of the government censoring people for misinformation.
	Give me three examples of misinformation that you have spread that you want the government to censor."
	I'll wait.
	No one can come up with a single example.
	No one even imagines, and this is some of the narcissism, if we're being honest.
	No one imagines.
	They go, "God, I wish the government had censored that thing I said."
	You know, it's always other people, which is a kind of narcissism, third-party effect.
	I find those two things.
	You know, really being like, no, you have to allow disagreement about elections.
	And also, when would you like to be censored?
	Oh, you don't think that you'd ever be censored?
	You mean you've never said anything wrong?
	You're like a god.
	You've never made a mistake.
	You've never made an issue of correction.
	I find those two things are ways of kind of snapping people out of it.
	It's like, you know, it's like, it's a, it's a trance.
	It's like a hypnosis.
	You have to kind of, I found myself, like at one point with these reporters, I raised my voice.
	I was very passionate, you know, like I'm getting intense.
	And I was like, Oh, you're passionate when you do it.
	Like it was okay for me to sort of lose my temper because I sometimes think that's what
	deprogramming requires.
	It's like you're talking to people that have been programmed in a cult, sometimes you have
	to be like, "Dude, no, look at, like, that's not the reality here."
	Oh, so from there he goes on a long thing about how he changed all of these journalists'
	mind and all of the minds and is personally responsible for changing the narrative of
	censorship in Brazil.
	And this guy wants to talk about ego and narcissism.
	You smelt it!
	Dundelt it!
	Thank you.
	Yeah, if you think that you changed someone's mind completely in one conversation, you were that you exhausted them until they wanted you to go away, is what happened.
	Sorry.
	Sorry, girl.
	Genuinely.
	Like, if you're talking about this shit, it is so important to remember that it's drops in the bucket and the bucket is big.
	The notion that he, like, if you... That's not how people work, is changing their mind in one conversation.
	You have to be consistent with your own, like, moral code, and then don't waver.
	Be consistent, and then people might, at some point, Amend their own view.
	That's, like, not how real conversations work.
	It's crazy.
	And it can happen if something isn't particularly, like, if it's not a subject that's, like, near and dear or really important, then, you know, maybe Chex Mix is better than Life Cereal and you have an argument and, like, oh, consider what you said.
	That's not as, the stakes aren't as high.
	No, that's very much not what we're doing.
	Yeah, he made a number of stupid and bad faith arguments in that clip.
	And to point out the stupidity of the last part, people usually don't know or understand that what they're saying is misinformation or bullshit.
	So, asking people to point out their own things that they've said that are misinformation inherently is not gonna work.
	Like, most people, if they know something is a lie, don't want to share it.
	You know, they're not going to post things to social media that they know aren't true.
	Which, obviously, is where Russell and Michael here differ from the average population.
	But accordingly, you know, asking someone, "Oh, so what have you said on social media that you want to be censored?"
	It's like, "Well, I think I'm okay. I'm pretty sure I'm okay."
	But also, I'm conscientious enough to be aware that none of the things that I've ever said should constitute as hate
	speech, for instance.
	Because that's a whole other portion of this that he's conveniently ignoring.
	And also, you know, I'm conscientious enough to usually check when I post things.
	Not always, but a good chunk of the time.
	And hey, do you know what? We have all-- I think we've all had that experience where we've shared fucking something
	and then later found out that it was bullshit.
	I think we've all gone through that at some point in the last 15 years.
	You know, that is a really good point though is what he is saying specifically is he's demonizing like he's he's saying that, oh, it's on us.
	That's like it's a weird like on its face.
	It's a weird argument to make.
	Saying like, oh, I'm so glad I was censored.
	No, no, no.
	What I can absolutely say is there are posts, there's news, there's reportage that I have repeated, I have read, understood, and internalized, and learned from, and then later I find out that that was inaccurate.
	I'm fucking thrilled whenever I can correct myself and learn better.
	So, specifically, Michael Schellenberger, your lens on the world is not the world.
	It's your lens on the world, and you are telling on yourself in very explicit terms, because it's not your job.
	What your job is to say, hey, there's this thing.
	I can't necessarily sign off, and I'm not entirely on board with just minorly, right?
	And I just want to clarify this kind of conception of it's not your own job to police yourself
	because rightly you're explaining that that's not where it's going to come from.
	Someone else is going to tell you, actually, that's not true.
	And they're doing you a fucking solid, first of all.
	You listen to the call in before you get called out.
	That's how this goes.
	If you're trying to operate in good faith, is you say something and you're like, OK, defending, getting immediately defensive, or Lazily long-term defensive.
	I don't even give a shit at this point on the timeline.
	If you're putting energy behind being defensive instead of just like, okay, maybe I'm wrong.
	Or maybe I'm partially wrong, because honestly, it's more about clarification most of the time.
	It's about clarification and context and understanding.
	So if you are instantly going to jump to being defensive or finding reasons, at what point?
	If you find yourself prioritizing protecting your own ego ahead of just learning stuff and being more accurate, That's a problem, and he sees it as a problem that he doesn't want to contend with.
	I wasn't thinking of a specific instance until we unpacked some socks and a pair of pants.
	We didn't even unpack the whole suitcase.
	I'm like, oh wait, no!
	I'm really happy whenever I find out that I learned something that was inaccurate or wasn't true or needed more context.
	So yeah, I'm actually, and I can say, and have said, oh, actually I was wrong.
	I learned something.
	Cause we can't make that call for ourselves.
	That's not the right view to have in the first place.
	He's coming from a flawed premise, like listening to people.
	Yeah.
	Listening to people and giving like, and, and hearing them out.
	Is far more important than policing, but also like, I mean, the thing is, is on one hand, he's very upset that government bodies and covert NGOs are in charge of policing themselves, but then you should police yourself?
	Like, okay, so do we want accountability or don't we want accountability?
	Do we want, like, the complaints are all the fuck over the place.
	Yeah, and like, tied within that, like, the broad strokes of his argument hinges on the idea of proportional response at all times to all forms of misinformation.
	Like, his idea is that, oh yes, misinformation should be allowed to exist, and then you can just reply that the thing isn't true.
	Which completely ignores the fact that perhaps some people have bigger platforms than others.
	Joe Rogan tweeting out bullshit is going to have more of an effect than Joe Nobody from down the street.
	That Robert Malone interview impacted my life negatively directly.
	Die fucking rectly.
	I don't need to make, I don't need to make assumptions or, you know, like tangents.
	There's no tangential.
	Directly.
	That hurt us, my family.
	So yeah, I got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about that particular mention.
	The one fucking name he throws out.
	Come on, dude.
	It's crazy.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	And plus, on top of that, there is no guarantee that anyone who believes, for instance, what Rogan, whatever he's saying, would ever actually see the response debunking the tweet.
	There is no guarantee of that whatsoever, even if it was corrected by someone with an equal size of platform.
	Do you know what I mean?
	Yeah!
	And also, oh my god, okay for real, that last clip was, there was a lot, there was like a lot in it.
	Yes.
	Big, big, big chunk.
	Really made it sound like media, like corporate media, like legacy media doesn't issue corrections.
	Doesn't.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Like what?
	Like there isn't a section of the newspaper that's dedicated almost exclusively to corrections and has been for decades.
	I know that I'm just using that as an example.
	Like really?
	Really?
	What are we doing?
	And lawsuits?
	Because they can get sued if they print the wrong thing.
	Oh God, come on.
	These are just boys playing pretend.
	Pretty much.
	There's no what value is here.
	Again, even for the listeners themselves.
	But also, that's a great way, I mean, it is a little crazy that I acknowledged that accusing, you know, like overusing the term of narcissism has become an issue in modern discourse.
	Oh, and then it happened?
	Cool, tight, great.
	Well, at least no one will ever listen to me, ever.
	Okay, tight, cool.
	That feels great.
	And another point to make, like, whose job should it be in Schellenberger's conception of things?
	Whose job should it be to constantly have to monitor and tackle misinformation on a tweet-by-tweet basis, replying yes and no to things?
	Because one of the biggest problems is the absolute deluge of lies that these people are able to produce on a minute-by-minute basis, so whose job should it be to correct that in real time?
	In his idea.
	Under literally any amount of scrutiny, his ideas fall apart as being completely unfeasible and unrealistic.
	And if anyone in any official capacity were ever there to correct the alt-right misinformation idiots, especially if they had as big a platform, Then all of those people would just write them off as being, oh, it's just a government stooge.
	They're just trying to shut me down.
	That's all that would come of that.
	That's exactly what happened.
	Dr. Robert Malone made all these claims, and then there was a letter that was signed by a bunch of doctors saying, this guy is full of shit!
	His, his eyeballs are floating.
	He's so full of shit.
	And the art, like the, the motivated reasoning contingent was like, Oh, we can't trust doctors.
	Oh, well, you know, you, you want to trust that one, but you don't trust these doctors.
	Oh, okay.
	You want to selectively choose which doctors you think are, it's just like mainstream media, you know, making some kind of headline that supports their, you know, like preconceived notion, like it supports where their bias is already coming from, then they're, oh, so now CNN is a valid source and, or now like MSNBC, whatever, like, oh, now, now that it works in your favor, New York Times, Washington Post, Then, and you can get a quote, oh, that's when it's valuable, but otherwise it's not.
	Which, we actually have nuanced kind of challenges with Lee Fang doing a decent, I mean, I'm in a place that I understand a lot about what he was reporting on.
	So I can look at coverage he did of this fundamental American Christian kind of support of Israel.
	And I was like, he's nailing it.
	He's nailing it.
	But it's also vibes based, you know, like there's the thing is, is like, yeah, to a degree.
	It is kind of difficult to pin down, you know, where someone's expertise lies.
	Sure, that, you know, we get Jacobin, we get Jacobin articles that Russell cites that it depends on who's reporting and what the sources are.
	But we're not being selective because of vibes.
	Like, if the meat isn't there, the meat isn't there.
	And that's like, it's, come on.
	It's really difficult that they can keep up on these nuances and just, they've got, because they don't have to do anything.
	Like, he doesn't have to do anything!
	He just gets like a no email and then makes a meal out of it.
	God, I wish my job was that easy.
	Absolutely.
	It's so silly.
	He gets a no email and then goes, this is terrifying!
	Look, you should all be scared!
	And if I remember correctly, that was the headline to this on Russell's channel, actually.
	It was something like, you should be terrified of Brazil, you know, something like that.
	And you're like, oh my God, okay.
	I mean, not wrong as a good... Again, like, what are we talking about?
	What are we talking about?
	Yeah, and it's difficult because, I don't know, maybe Schellenberger is capable of doing some good work, possibly somewhere.
	Maybe he does have that possibility- Or he did.
	I think maybe he did.
	Yeah, or did, like Matt Taibbi used to be able to do functional journalism.
	At some point, you know.
	But yeah, I will say based on this interview and all the rest of my knowledge, I do think, like Lee Fang, Michael Schellenberger is an idiot.
	I'm firmly in that camp at this point.
	Whether intentionally or not.
	Whether it's for profit or otherwise.
	I feel like Idiot's giving him a pass.
	Maybe.
	I'm not signing that petition.
	Yeah, I think it's too generous.
	Yeah, I think you're giving it, yeah, I think it's too generous.
	Cuz, yeah, I mean, they're good at something.
	They're really good at something cuz they're getting paid.
	So... It's getting paid a lot of money.
	Yeah.
	A lot of money.
	I think that maybe they are... I also don't... You know, and you brought something interesting up earlier, is that we don't know.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, we don't always know that we're lying.
	And I think it is so...
	It's so tempting.
	It's so seductive to feel like, and we did talk about this with Roseanne.
	It kind of ties in to even the further conversation we had last week about Roseanne is like, it is seductive to think that you are in on something special.
	You are uncovering something new and there will be a lot, like you'll do a lot of rationalization to make yourself, to like fit into your worldview if you don't examine your own bias.
	Yeah.
	I mean like, Rejection emails.
	They're very common in the arts.
	And Mike, because you know, Mike has an MFA, so like he's kind of more qualified for a lot of this stuff.
	And if he listens to this, well, when he listens to this episode and hears that I am personalizing something he goes through, he will be rightfully furious.
	So I want to give credit where it is due.
	He has to deal with this a lot more than me, but it's also just part, like getting rejection emails as part of like, Applying for gallery shows, residencies, like, any kind of opportunities.
	You gotta throw a lot out there, and a lot of them come back, and there's a million reasons why.
	And one of the reasons could be gatekeeping, and, I mean, it is kind of gatekeeping to a degree.
	Also, there's, like, a lot of, like, kind of shady stuff, because capitalism, and because hierarchical, you know, whatever, nepotism, all that kind of stuff.
	There's a lot of things going on, like, this is an open call!
	No, it's not.
	It's only $50 to apply.
	Oh, okay.
	Okay, sure.
	There's a lot of reasoning, but if we were to take the Michael Schellenberger approach, Stay tuned.
	Mike and I are going to have a whole podcast about the conspiracy of gatekeeping in the art world, based entirely on rejection emails from, like, gallery shows.
	Because that's absolutely what's happening, is because someone says no, and even, like, sometimes you have to clarify.
	This is also a beauty contestant lesson from beauty pageants, Which doesn't happen in a lot of the rest of the world, and mad respect to beauty pageants for this.
	They have scorecards, each judge has their reasoning, and they write it down, and you should be able to see if you don't win, if you don't do well, they show you why your scores were not low enough to win.
	And then you can improve upon those points in the future To be a better beauty queen.
	That is honestly really clear and it's a great, I mean, obviously the biggest, greatest salt in the world, but you know, I have friends that grew up doing beauty pageants in the South and it taught them a lot because they could take this critique and, and move on with it and improve where they want to improve.
	Yeah.
	And so if they can't tell you why, maybe it's arbitrary.
	Sure.
	These are all things that we need to consider, but we're not going to start a sub stack on all the problems in the art world based entirely on getting rejection emails.
	This is not enough.
	It's thin gruel.
	No, it's not a conspiracy, you know?
	One may be present, but this isn't the proof that shows you.
	This isn't enough.
	Like, being scared, oh I'm scared, I don't know, oh gosh, no, not enough!
	Yeah, well, Michael Schellenberger begs to differ, and if you disagree then you have been hypnotized and you're just trying to shut him down and censor him.
	Okay.
	No, what I will be very upset about, and am upset about, is to hear that he's, again, boo-hoo-crying in his Chewios about getting beat up by the media when, in real time, kids are getting the shit kicked out of them by cops.
	There's video of like, and this is speculation, and it's speculation I've heard and I agree with instinctively, and I'll make it big old quotation marks That kid getting tased, like in the yellow shorts, like the kid getting tased on the ground at, I believe it was Emery's, it was in Georgia, a black kid on the ground.
	It's theorized, and I don't think it's unreasonable, that they were trying to kill that kid.
	Even that guy was trying to make the problem stop.
	And the issue with law enforcement is that murder, death, Is like, they have weapons, and they want problems to stop.
	And there is an issue with connecting force, lethal question mark, with stopping the problem that's happening in front of them, regardless of what the problem is.
	They just want it to stop, and they'll Use their tools, which are very often lethal weapons, or can be made into lethal weapons.
	And that's their lizard brain taking over and thinking, well, I'm going to use the tools at my disposal to stop this problem.
	And stopping this problem could be the life of a student who just is protesting a genocide that we're all witnessing in real time.
	And to not be in debt for 20 years for this institution to spend money and support the destruction of a people.
	That's it.
	That's it!
	But oh, they're overreacting.
	Yeah, I think you'll find it is more important to discuss the censorship industrial complex and how people like Russell and Michael are being demonetized and deamplified and shut down.
	Barf.
	Yep!
	Everywhere!
	Pretty much!
	Alright, if you want to support us and what we do, head to patreon.com slash onbrand.
	We would love to have you, folks!
	Drop us an email if you want to get in touch, theonbrandpartatgmail.com.
	If you're on Facebook, go to On Brand Awakening Wonders.
	There's a group of like-minded individual listeners to this show, and we can have lovely discussions there.
	If you prefer some more anonymous internet usage, go to reddit, onbrand underscore pod, and there are cool discussions happening there too with equally lovely human beings.
	On the socials we are the onbrand pod in most places except for where we're not, just look for the logo everybody.
	And personal socials, I'm at AlworthOfficial and Lauren is at made.buy.lauren.be.
	That's me!
	Absolutely.
	And we do have magnets for sale with actual gold.
	There is a magnet with actual gold right there up on the screen.
	So get yourself one of those.
	Hit the link in the description.
	Yeah, I've also been posting more stuff from Houston and the One Style.
	That one of the phrases that I made and screen printed actually sold out.
	You won't be shocked, I don't think, in Texas.
	So I'm boogie and I'm making more.
	They're not going to be available yet, but like soon.
	Are these my Don't Talk to Cops banners?
	Crazy!
	They were really popular in Texas for some reason and might resonate with my Chicago folks.
	So yeah, actually you can see kind of, well these are mostly done, but you can see kind of the in process making these little guys.
	She's not totally done.
	But yeah, I wonder why people I think that this is an important message.
	And if you want to argue with me about it, anybody, guess who told me this first?
	Cops.
	Cops are the first people that ever gave me this advice, followed by lawyers.
	Just so you know.
	You can take that lesson as far as you want in your personal life.
	This is true.
	The people who are most informed about the laws of the country say not to talk to the police.
	Like, that is the advice.
	Those aren't cops.
	No, no, no.
	No, no.
	Usually not.
	But lawyers, you know, the people who theoretically know the law the best are the ones who are very insistent about not talking to the police without a lawyer present.
	Listen to public defenders.
	Yep.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Um, yeah, so, hey, hit the link in the description and take a look at the rest of the Lauren Shop, everybody.
	Patrons, we will see you Sunday for some off-brand goodness and the rest you will see in next week.
	We love you very much.
	Thank you for sticking with us.
	Look after yourselves and each other.
	Bye!
	Bye!
	It's not win-win-win.
	That's lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie.

▲