Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 22, 2025 - On Brand

01:15:50

Bongino, Bernie, Brexit

Al tackles Russell's coverage of Dan Bongino's insistence that Epstein did in fact unalive himself, Bernie Sanders saying he wont run for POTUS again, and Keir Starmer's new deal with the EU.Support Al on Patreon! - https://patreon.com/OnBrand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is propaganda live.
	I only suggest how to think and how to vote.
	An extraordinary cultural moment, already iconic, already iconic.
	We love you, you're welcome here.
	I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it's a bit late now.
	They don't want to have a conversation in the debate, but they're lying.
	And this is a matter now of fact and record.
	Trump is like Hitler.
	Let me count the ways.
	I'm a Nazi, actually.
	I'm a Nazi, actually, and I've kept it now until now, but this is my chance.
	God is propaganda.
	Did you guess it?
	Did you guess it?
	I feel that Christ may have had a better vision.
	Bastards, aren't they?
	I mean, you can't watch them after this without realising they're absolute bastards.
	Let's go full screen on Russell.
	This is On Brand, a podcast where we discuss the ideas and antics of one Russell Brand.
	I'm Elworth, and each week I go through an episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand in order to dissect and debunk it.
	Today we'll be covering Russell's discussion of Dan Bongino, Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis, and Brexit.
	We're all B's today, also with Bernie Sanders briefly popping up.
	But before we get into any of that, allow me to thank a new Awakening Wonder here.
	So, Robbie Wilkinson, you are now an Awakening Wonder.
	You are indeed an Awakening Wonder.
	Thank you very much, Robbie.
	And Carson Cessna, you are now an awakening wonder.
	You are indeed an awakening wonder.
	Thank you very much, Carson.
	And if anyone wants to support the show financially by becoming an awakening wonder, joining the Invisible Hand, or donating on an elevated tier, head to patreon.com slash onbrand and sign up and you will have my eternal gratitude and you'll be able to access additional content as well as a completely ad-free version of the show.
	So...
	Let's leap right into things this week, and we're going to start off on a truly awful note, as apparently Tommy Robinson is due to be released from prison within the next week or two.
	Tommy Robinson, who as far as I can tell was jailed for contempt of court.
	He was jailed really because they made that documentary that talked about the nature of grooming gangs and rape gangs in the UK.
	And even if you think that Tommy Robinson's particular brand of patriotism, nationalism, working class abrasiveness has no place on the saturated and sterile new global stage.
	There's a little thing called justice in this world and a little thing called free speech.
	And I suppose you can get rid of those concepts if you get rid of God, right?
	If nothing's sacred, nothing's safe.
	And here it is.
	Tommy Robinson.
	Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy Robinson.
	His real name's Stephen Yaxley Lennon.
	They love saying that.
	They love saying that his real name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon.
	They never miss that opportunity.
	It's like, fuck, Tommy Robinson is a good brand name.
	Don't let him have that.
	Remind people that he's called Stephen Yaxley Lennon.
	I mean...
	It is a good brand name, because it's the name of a famous football hooligan that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon then adopted for himself in an effort to appeal to working-class football hooligans.
	And hide his history of violent crime.
	He also has several other pseudonyms.
	He himself can't claim to have been working class for a long time, having raked in millions of pounds for a couple of decades by stoking violence and racism against Muslims and brown people in the UK through films and books.
	Though I use the words film and book very loosely.
	So...
	Russell just said that Tommy Robinson wasn't, in fact, imprisoned for contempt of court, but because of the last film he made, silenced.
	And well, actually, it's both.
	The charge was definitely contempt of court, to which Robinson pled guilty on all counts.
	However, these charges were brought about because of him repeatedly violating a court injunction in which it stated he wasn't allowed to repeat false and defamatory claims about a young Syrian boy.
	See, this young Syrian boy's family had previously sued Tommy Robinson to the tune of 1.5 million pounds.
	Because Tommy Robinson had repeatedly been making defamatory claims that the boy was a violent bully to hundreds of thousands of followers.
	This led to the boy being attacked, his sister being attacked, and the family having to relocate across the country.
	They're not just Syrian, but also refugees, and what a shocker, they happen to be Muslim.
	I wonder why Tommy Robinson focused on them so intently.
	And obviously, there's more to that story, but it's a lot.
	Anyway.
	Court case happened.
	Tommy Robinson is ordered to pay a bunch in damages and keep his mouth shut about the family, only he decided to ignore that, not just making public statements about the boy, but doing so in a documentary film made across three years, which was then screened in London.
	And then he fled the country to avoid the police, leading to a merry chase across Europe until he was eventually forced to return to the UK and face these contempt of court charges.
	So, um...
	Yes, he was imprisoned because of the film he made, because he repeated many lies in that film, and that landed him on the wrong side of a court injunction, hence the contempt of court charge.
	Tommy Robinson is a piece of shit beyond all reason, to the tune of being a direct inspiration for Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, and Tommy Robinson himself saying after the fact that Anders Breivik got a lot of stuff right.
	I've spoken plenty about him in the past, but Tommy Robinson is a lying scumbag that literally no one should listen to about anything unless they want advice about how to end up in prison again or how to be a massive racist.
	Ah, dear.
	Also, yeah, yeah.
	God...
	God is not big on the free speech.
	I just wanted to point that out.
	If you look at the Ten Commandments, a whole bunch of them are all about the things you can and can't say.
	So, just putting that out there.
	Anyway, from here, thankfully, Russell is about to highlight the difference between his views and Tommy Robinson's, but I don't think he pulls it off as well as he thinks he does.
	Thing is, Tommy Robinson...
	He's a working-class man from a working-class community, specifically Luton.
	Luton is one of those towns that is suffering as a result of cultural collision.
	Myself, guess what?
	This will never get reported.
	It's too complex.
	But I believe there is a way that Muslim communities and indigenous white working class communities in the UK could get along and that it's still possible to have proper migration policies and border controls and house non-Christian or non-white policies.
	I believe in that.
	I believe that different tribes of people can live together successfully.
	I also know for a stark...
	Cast iron piercing fact like a dagger in the side that people in power benefit when working class white people hate the Muslim embedded Muslim community.
	And I know there is a way for followers of the Quran and followers of the Bible and followers of the Torah to get along.
	In fact, there is no alternative.
	I'm certainly not making claims that a one world religion or a one world government Could or should work.
	That's literal antichrist conduct right there.
	But we have to find a way of a lying.
	We really do, baby.
	We really do.
	Okay, but, like, how are Muslim people, particularly those who may have been born elsewhere, supposed to ally with the likes of Tommy Robinson, who claims not to want to lead the revolution against Muslims, but against Islamist ideology?
	That's what he said.
	Which, please, differentiate those two things for me, Tommy.
	Elsewhere, Tommy Robinson has referred to all Muslims as enemy combatants.
	So, I'm just wondering, like, how do you form an alliance with someone who literally wants you dead and sees you as...
	It feels like a difficult bridge to try and gap.
	You know what I mean?
	A gap to try and bridge.
	You get my feeling.
	Otherwise, like, Russell can spin his rhetoric about everyone coming together as much as he likes, but the only people he spends his time supporting are the white nationalists and neo-Nazis.
	Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, etc, etc.
	It's a long fucking list.
	And Russell gave himself away just then by referring to Muslim people living in the UK as the embedded Muslim community.
	Like, embedded.
	Like a foreign force, a military insurgency, a people who don't belong.
	Embedded.
	Like, even in trying to preach peace and togetherness, the mask slips and his underlying racism is once again revealed.
	I don't think he needs to worry about bringing up the idea of a one-world government.
	He's coming off as pretty antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ already.
	Also, Luton is one of the more culturally diverse places in England, and it only benefits from that, with the annual Luton Carnival being an active celebration of all of the cultures making up the city.
	Plus, stories of the troubles of Luton are greatly exaggerated by the likes of Tommy Robinson.
	He complained to Jordan Peterson last year about the number of mosques in Luton.
	26!
	Heaven forfend!
	Jordan Peterson naturally sat there and went, wow, that's a lot!
	Of course...
	Tommy Robinson completely neglected to mention the fact that Luton also has around 117 Christian churches.
	So I'd hardly say they're outnumbered, are they?
	Anyway, we're going to move on to Russell reading a tweet from the, I always get a lot of joy in saying this, Deputy Director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, discussing how apparently Jeffrey Epstein did in fact commit suicide.
	Naturally, this doesn't fit with Russell's narrative, so he has to cover for it a bit, and for Bongino a bit, and pivot, and he does so in a way I didn't quite expect.
	It's too important to you to relate.
	What we're doing and the media can be a tool for that.
	But it is important to relate to what we're doing and the media can be a tool for that.
	That's why we chose a long-form interview with Maria.
	Bartiromo for our first interview.
	I hope you saw it.
	If you missed it, here are some of the questions that were asked and answered.
	Yes, we are moving FBI headquarters out of the Hoover building.
	The process has already begun.
	Stay tuned.
	I was asked about some of the details surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case.
	I reviewed the case.
	Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
	There's no evidence in the case file indicating otherwise.
	I'm not asking you to believe me or not.
	I'm telling you what exists and what doesn't.
	If new evidence surfaces, I'm happy to re-evaluate.
	Now, all right.
	Have you, by any chance, Watched the film A Few Good Men.
	I'm pressing stop very passionately over here, Isaac.
	Have you seen the film A Few Good Men?
	If you haven't, you should watch it because what it helps you to understand is law and the judiciary are a theatre and the idea of justice can become abstract if we are not devout and righteous people.
	And that the law is about what you can prove rather than about what's right.
	So I would note that even in the wording there on Gino is, yeah, you can't handle the truth.
	Actually, I can because I have to and I do.
	So that's what I've learned lately.
	In fact, that's why suffering, that's why pain, so that you can handle the truth.
	It's not good.
	The truth is not good.
	It's pretty, pretty fucking heavy and you really need God.
	Fucking heart darkness, Jess.
	Indeed, you will note now that I've told you, surely, if you didn't know already, that there is an obvious...
	There's obviously a universal law and universal truths because any movie you watch now that you know this is between...
	A protagonist who is trying to obey a code, inverted commas, a code, and an antagonist who denies the existence of that code, or at least the supremacy of that code.
	And the protagonist's code will always be about righteousness and good, therefore God.
	You could certainly collapse that idea into God.
	And the antagonist will always be saying the false idol or the self-appointed God takes supremacy, and of course a few good men.
	It fits absolutely into that paradigm.
	I mean, I don't think it fits neatly into that paradigm.
	But sure, every movie ever apparently comes back to the great dichotomy of good and evil.
	There are no stories in the middle.
	There's no story out there that's got, like, antiheroes.
	There's this...
	Nuance doesn't exist.
	The universal truth and universal law, apparently, is that every single movie comes back to a protagonist who supports a code and an antagonist who denies the existence or supremacy of that code.
	That's it.
	Nothing else.
	Film buffs, you're wrong, I'm afraid.
	Now, obviously, this is an incredibly dumb thing to say and believe, all the more so because one of Russell's favorite movies is The Godfather.
	He was there quoting it back and forth with Rob Schneider.
	Like, a film that quite famously suggests the mafia in many cases are no worse than the government, right?
	A film where the line between good and evil is significantly and intentionally blurred.
	But no, no, it's a fucking binary world we live in, apparently.
	Good lord.
	Anyway...
	Beyond Russell apparently struggling with the weight of the truth, he just said that the law is about what you can prove rather than what's right.
	Now, I would say it's about both of those things.
	The law is the set of rules we all agree to live by as a society, and if you want to hold someone accountable for breaking one of those rules, you need to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
	But let's...
	Hear him expand on this idea in this next clip while spinning a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory.
	Now, in back to Bongino's post there, asset number five, thanks very much.
	Note he's wording.
	Notice wording.
	There's no evidence in the case file indicating otherwise.
	Now, what I would decode from that is that whoever investigated the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein knew well enough not to put any evidence that indicated that it was a murder into that case file.
	And now Dan Bongino lives in another world.
	He don't live in the world I live anymore, splashing about in the sweet stream of conjecture and opinion.
	He lives in the empirical, evidence-based world of the FBI, and he has to behave in accordance with his role.
	In the same way that a judge adorns themselves with robes and sits beneath the crest of that nation in order to indicate to you clearly that they operate and speak on behalf of a higher...
	Dan Bongino now has different responsibilities, different responsibilities.
	I mean, he does.
	He's gone from spouting conspiracy theories all day in front of a camera to being the literal deputy director of the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
	Different responsibilities doesn't even begin to cover how drastic that change is.
	He'd been a pundit for fucking years as well.
	If you watch any of the, like, footage of this interview that he did or anything, he looked shell-shocked the whole time.
	You know that, like, famous footage of Trump's first term, you know, during the handover period, the transition period, and he was sat in the Oval Office with Obama, just staring into middle distance, being like, oh, fuck.
	That's the face that Dan Bongino seems to have constantly at the moment.
	God, it's fun to see.
	But anyway, Dan Bongino now lives in the empirical, evidence-based world of the FBI, and it's good to know that those are the values of the FBI these days, because their actual history suggests they haven't previously cared too much about the whole evidence thing.
	In any case, apparently whoever investigated Epstein's death knew not to include anything that would indicate murder when writing the case file.
	And yes, I'm sure it was just the one guy.
	Now, Here's the thing.
	It behooves us to be skeptical of law enforcement agencies and the government at large.
	They've given us many, many reasons to be skeptical over the last...
	Several centuries.
	And the death of Jeffrey Epstein should be no exception to that skepticism.
	We have a guy who had dirt on the world's most powerful individuals, including the current president of the United States, and who was president when he died, by the way, who he was apparently best friends with as well.
	And before he could stand trial, Epstein mysteriously manages to hang himself in a high-security prison after being on suicide watch, and all of the cameras watching his cell mysteriously malfunctioned while...
	The guards who were supposed to check on him every 30 minutes unusually fell asleep.
	Oh, and Epstein was supposed to have a cellmate, which he did, but the guy was transferred out on the night that Epstein died with no replacement.
	It's one of those things, you put it all together and it looks suspicious as fuck.
	Naturally, it's been the source of many conspiracy theories over the last six years, and one thing we can all enjoy is the fact that a chief proponent of many of those conspiracy theories has been Dan Bongino, and now the guy is having to stand there and say with a straight face, Well, there's no evidence.
	The fun never stops.
	It really doesn't.
	Ah, dear.
	Anyway, in providing cover for Bongino and the FBI, Russell lets us know that he at least seems like a really good guy.
	Look, I would say to you this.
	There's a limit to what even good men can achieve.
	In bad systems.
	Right?
	Don't you think?
	There's a limit.
	Sure.
	There's a limit.
	Is that what you would say?
	Is that what you would say?
	Trump is now fearless.
	Okay.
	Well, so me on that Bongino thing, based on my experience with Dan Bongino, he's a really good guy.
	He's a really good guy.
	So I find it hard in some ways to imagine someone more different than me, than Dan Bongino.
	Yeah.
	But I also felt...
	Respect for him when I meet him.
	And when I say respect, I don't mean fear, just because he's probably a really good fighter.
	I mean, like, no, he's decent.
	He has a decency to him.
	A decency to him.
	And if...
	What I would focus on in that post is evidence.
	Evidence.
	That's what matters in law.
	That's that we're in a really weird game now, everyone.
	We're in a really, really weird game now.
	Ah, yes.
	That weird game where evidence is required for the law to be enforced.
	That is a really weird game, isn't it?
	What's even weirder is there's an entire system based on that premise and an entire industry of lawyers who play that really weird game.
	In fact, Russell, you should know this.
	You'll be in court on criminal charges next week and you'll be playing the game too.
	Though if he thinks things being based on evidence rather than conjecture is weird, well, that isn't a very inspiring sentiment for his legal case.
	So, Dan Bongino has now gone full tilt boogie in towing the establishment line because he has to as Deputy Director of the FBI.
	What the fuck else is he gonna do?
	And accordingly, Russell is also doing his best to prop up the establishment, which we all knew was going to happen, and while the United States crumbles further, we can at least get something of a laugh out of these chuckleheads being forced repeatedly to violate everything they were ever supposed to stand for.
	It's not much, but it's something.
	Now, the next clip is a little bit long, and we get Jeffrey Sachs, an otherwise disreputable jackass, making some...
	Reasonable points about the British Empire to former state-free guest and Cypriot member of European Parliament, Phidias Panagiotou.
	And then Russell makes some incredibly ill-judged points considering who his audience are.
	What are we going to do now?
	Oh yeah, Geoffrey Sachs.
	This is good.
	This is Geoffrey Sachs talking about colonialism and imperialism and in a sense the template of...
	The template for global controls.
	Check out this.
	This is good.
	I'm looking forward to this.
	All problems in the world go back to the British.
	Wait a minute, I am British.
	That's true in Pakistan, India.
	That's true in China.
	That's true throughout the Middle East.
	That's true here in Cyprus.
	Because they were the most powerful empire for 200 years.
	And they left behind conflicts everywhere.
	You know, the disaster taking place in Palestine right now.
	One of the reasons is that between 1915 and 1917, the British promised...
	We promised the same territory to three different groups.
	So first in the McMahon communications, the British promised it to the Arabs.
	Listen, we'd love you to have this bit of territory.
	To the Arabs.
	You fight with us against the Turks, it's yours.
	Then they negotiated the Sykes-Picot Treaty to say to the French, it's yours.
	Hello, look.
	We love you.
	Love eating snails, frog legs, all of that stuff.
	Listen, we'd love you to have this territory.
	Would you mind fighting alongside us?
	The French, it's yours!
	Then, in the Balfour Declaration in 1917, they said it's a Jewish homeland.
	Look, we've read the Bible.
	Love.
	Motzo ball soup, all of that.
	You have it.
	Absolutely have it.
	You've not promised it to anyone.
	Listen, we don't want to get bogged down in conversation.
	Just take your homeland.
	Have a lovely time.
	Jewish homeland.
	So the British promised three times land that wasn't even theirs.
	And they got a lot of nerve as far as I'm concerned.
	And now you need to disentangle all of this.
	But this is where the problems originate.
	Brilliant!
	Also, the concept of owning land, as all of you Americans will know, is...
	In itself, an interesting concept.
	Who among us can claim to own land?
	What is our relationship with land?
	Where would you derive your authority over land from?
	Are there any examples of how custody of the land might be correctly marshaled and guided?
	Stewardship rather than subjugation.
	There are principles available for us, but we...
	Neglect those principles in pursuit of power.
	The British not only didn't own that land, they don't own any land.
	It's extraordinary.
	It's extraordinary the way that that entire fiasco has been brought about.
	Okay, so I have one positive thing to say about this, and that's that it's nice to hear Russell touting a perspective on Israel-Palestine that isn't explicitly Zionist.
	That is a rarity on his show, so I thought I should at least acknowledge it.
	Otherwise, what the fuck?
	Russell's audience consists almost entirely of alt-right Trumpers and a smattering of the Maha crowd.
	The people who have a very singular view on land ownership, property rights, and whether people have entered said land legally or illegally.
	Land ownership is one of their really big fucking things.
	Like, try presenting this argument to Alex Jones or any of the Infowarriors or any of Russell's own sovereign citizen adjacent audience.
	He's trying to say to those people, well, who...
	Who can really own land anyway?
	And not only that, he's saying, well, as you Americans will know, land ownership is an interesting concept.
	Now, I'm guessing he's referring to the fact that the US used to be a British colony, right?
	I think that's what he was trying to get at.
	But the first thing that sprang to my mind was the indigenous Native American tribes, which Russell then kind of invokes by saying, like, hey, are there examples of stewardship over the land rather than subjugation?
	At which point, again, I point directly to the indigenous And he says all of that while also supporting Donald Trump to his audience who support Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump's favorite president that isn't himself is Andrew Jackson.
	Andrew fucking Jackson.
	Andrew Trail of Tears Jackson.
	And all I can think in all of this is, good God, it must be nice not to know things.
	Because I was sat here wondering how the cognitive dissonance isn't tearing Russell's brain literally in half, and I realized, well, it's because he's motivated to know as little as possible about any of the things or people he supports.
	So there is every possibility that his hinting at reverence for the indigenous Americans is just a hangover from his lefty days, and he's never had to confront the idea that everything he supports now is in opposition to the words coming out of his mouth.
	Um, and as for the British owning land, uh, yeah, maybe, maybe the- The British never owned that land and should have never been able to give it to anyone.
	Maybe that's a perspective.
	Um, and, uh, also Cymru Ambyth, um, Welsh independence now.
	We remain an annexed country by law, subjugated beyond all reason.
	Um, the only reason we haven't had our independence is geographical proximity, because we're next to England, and nearly 800 years of cultural genocide.
	Anywho, let's move on to...
	Well, it's not a cheery subject, I'm afraid.
	In case anyone missed it, Joe Biden has been diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of prostate cancer, which has led to a lot of speculation about precisely when he found this news out.
	In covering this, Russell plays a clip of Trump speculating on that very subject before Russell decides to do a gross bit about Donald Trump's anus.
	Yeah.
	And we've also got...
	Some stuff on Biden's cancer.
	I don't really know how to handle this stuff around Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis because if you, like us, have for a long time understood the nature of Joe Biden's presidency, do you enjoy, let me know in the comments, do you enjoy analysing the ways in which it's now demonstrable that he was not able to preside?
	Over a nation.
	Do you enjoy, like, going, hold on a minute, that guy was, like, falling apart?
	I suppose we can do some analysis on it.
	All right, let's have a little look at it.
	I'm kind of interested.
	So first of all, this is Trump saying that he's surprised that the public weren't notified a long time ago.
	Do you want to respond to President Biden being diagnosed with cancer?
	Are you going to call your predecessor?
	I think it's very sad, actually.
	I'm surprised that it wasn't, you know, the public wasn't notified a long time ago because to get to stage nine, that's a long time.
	I just had my physical, you saw the results of that particular situation.
	That is amazing.
	I love that Trump, even when discussing Joe Biden's cancer, which he has done sensitively and diplomatically, he inadvertently strays into a boast about how he don't have cancer.
	Biomedical, on the other hand, pretty good.
	That was not inadvertent.
	My a-hole, like a little pink, lifesaver, immaculate, beautiful shape, no sign of cancer.
	I dilate.
	It drops out like a pellet.
	Beautiful, beautiful feces.
	Nothing like it.
	Dude.
	There it is, in the pool, in the toilet behind me.
	I look at it.
	It winks.
	It winks back at me.
	We wink at each other perfectly.
	It is a real wonder this guy doesn't sell out arenas with his comedy anymore, you know?
	It's just top-tier stuff.
	Now, I will say, it is amazing that Trump segued into a brag about how healthy he is, and most people would describe that as garish and inappropriate and more than a bit ghoulish.
	But to Russell, it's just funny that the sitting president is so egocentric he can't take the backseat for more than five seconds, even when someone has cancer.
	As for the sensitive discussion of Biden's cancer that Trump engaged in, that was in a Truth Social post, you know, wishing Joe Biden all the best, blah, blah, blah.
	It was another post that Donald Trump most definitely did not write himself, and you can tell.
	It is very obvious when he didn't write one himself.
	Firstly, it was much shorter than usual.
	Everything was spelled correctly.
	That helps.
	Nothing was in caps.
	That's usually the giveaway.
	There are some indicators, is all I'm saying.
	And, like, the Trump that we just saw just then, like, in front of the press right there, that's the more accurate picture.
	Like, oh, Biden has cancer?
	Well, it takes a long time to get to stage nine.
	I'm surprised the public didn't know by now.
	Also, my own physical was fantastic.
	Like, yeah, that's the guy.
	That sounds more accurate.
	Also, Russell does later on, very sincerely, I didn't leave the clip in, he does very sincerely say, Stage 9?
	How many stages of cancer are there?
	They're coming up with new ones all the time!
	As though Trump didn't just say something entirely insane.
	Like, yeah, stage 9 cancer, that's a new one.
	That's...
	You would have had to know about that for a long time, because for most people it stops after like four or five, you know?
	But okay!
	The right haven't been the only ones falling into conjecture over Biden's cancer, however, as we see from this next clip from Morning Joe.
	Okay, so here's a guy on Morning Joe saying that for Biden's cancer to be as aggressive and serious as it is now, the diagnosis must initially have been offered some time ago.
	You believe it is likely if this prostate cancer has spread to the bone that he could have had it for up to a decade, but certainly it's likely.
	Would it be fair to say it's likely to have had this for at least several years?
	Oh, more than several years.
	You don't get prostate cancer.
	I just want to stop you.
	So this is not speculation.
	If you have prostate cancer that is spread to the bone, then he most certainly, you were saying, had it when he was President of the United States.
	Oh, yeah.
	He did not develop it in the last 100, 200 days.
	He had it while he was President.
	He probably had it at the start of his...
	Yes, I don't think there's any disagreement about that.
	Okay, that's pretty interesting.
	In a sense, what this is is a reframing of the Biden presidency as they acknowledge that the cognitive decline that was clear at the time, observed at the time, noted at the time, reported on in independent media at the time was clearly The case and that they should have been reporting on it, then sort of claiming they were misled by the White House.
	Now, kind of like a sort of a picnic blanket, they're laying this oncological disaster across his deterioration so that it becomes bad taste to talk about him in terms other than sympathetic terms, the sympathy that you'd extend to anybody dying of cancer.
	How cooked does your brain have to be to hear that a man has cancer and your conclusion is, ah yes, they've only announced it now so no one can say anything bad about his presidency?
	How fucking cooked need you be to make that claim?
	As for whether Joe Biden knew about his cancer at the start of his presidency, it seems doubtful to me.
	But the problem is, it's difficult to put anything past the leadership of the Democratic Party or Joe Biden in recognizing his own failings.
	They spent years propping up a president who couldn't work after 3pm because he was too tired and needed nap time.
	The credibility of the Democratic Party as well as the credibility of the media who supported Biden so strongly has been eviscerated during that time.
	And so, hey!
	Maybe Joe Biden only found out last week.
	It's certainly possible.
	The guy we just heard talking is not Joe Biden's physician.
	That was speculation.
	And, like, Joe Biden is like a billion years old, and once you hit that age, when something comes for you, it's gonna come for you hard and fast.
	But the inescapable reality is that it's impossible to trust Joe Biden or those who've propped him up when it comes to the subject of his health or his mental acuity.
	There are legitimate grievances and ways to address them, but hot damn, the answer is not, oh, they've known for years and are just announcing it now so that saying bad things about Biden is in bad taste.
	What an unhinged fucking perspective.
	Now...
	Russell was having a bit of a rambly day on Tuesday, which is when the clips were cut, right?
	He just kept getting sidetracked and delivering sermons, only in introducing a little bit about Bernie Sanders and AOC, he sort of loses the thread and stumbles into the metaphysical.
	Certainly, if we're looking for resolution, we're going to have to, I imagine, get beyond the...
	Intransigent dichotomy of by-party domestic politics, i.e.
	Democrats v.
	Republicans, forever.
	Because it seems like the Democrat Party's kinda finished.
	Who's gonna be the next leader of the Democrat Party?
	Is it Gruesome Newsome?
	Nah, man, you don't need another slick dude like that, do you?
	A kind of a sort of joker meets Bill Clinton figure.
	Is it gonna be AOC?
	Unlikely, given that even...
	Bernie Sanders doesn't endorse her very deliberately during this conversation with Andrew Schultz, and he himself ain't going to run.
	So what's the future of that party?
	What's the future of all of these peculiar institutions?
	Don't you think when you read Trump's true social post, what he's talking about is that the lubrication between nations is trade.
	Trump sees the world in terms of trade agreements.
	That seems to be a perfectly amenable and reasonable modality for giant political entities to conduct their business within.
	I.e., Russia have resources, America have finances, Ukraine the same to a lesser degree.
	Why don't we all participate in economies and conviviality will be generated by our mutual requirements?
	Except for there is a reality beyond material reality.
	Now, it's not the role, I would contest, of politicians to manage the ethereal, sublime, and ultimate realities Govern our experience here.
	Those are spiritual realities and we have to have spiritual mediators and we have to ourselves manage our relationship with that reality.
	It's not the job of Donald Trump or anybody to deal with the way that you feel about mortality, the way that you feel about loss, the way that you feel about the inevitability of your own death.
	And the inability of the material world to fulfil you.
	That's not the job of politics.
	But it is your ultimate problem.
	Your ultimate problem is you can't cope with the fact that you're going to die one day, whoever you are.
	So there's this kind of abyss, this vortex that we're all going to have to contend with.
	And how we contend with that is going to determine and define, I would reckon.
	This peculiar dissent that we are participating in right now.
	That's where we are right now.
	And I see that parties like the Labour Party in the UK and the various neoliberal parties across Europe that are scrabbling to maintain power by manipulating, managing and denying the results of elections, these parties are going to fade away.
	They're consuming themselves.
	They're in a terrible spiral.
	Are you a Boris?
	Are you a Boris?
	What's the serpent that's devouring Santel?
	How?
	Ouroboros.
	Ouroboros.
	Of self-consumption.
	Yes!
	This is what's happening.
	So, we're in an Ouroboros, is how I was always taught to pronounce it.
	Our Rob or Ross, for those Red Dwarf fans out there.
	An Ouroboros of self-consumption, apparently, is what we're in.
	Now...
	I spend my weeks passing through whatever nonsense falls out of Russell's mouth, and even I struggled with that one, so let me try to sum up.
	So we began with, if we're looking for resolution, we have to get beyond bipartisan politics, okay?
	And it seems the Democrats are finished, according to Russell.
	What is the future of the Democratic Party, and what is the future of all institutions?
	Because it won't be Bernie Sanders.
	Okay, so that...
	That's one thought, sort of.
	Trump thinks trade is the way to see the world, and trade is the lube of the world, and wants to bring about peace through trade and mutual benefit, and apparently that's an amenable and reasonable modality for giant political entities.
	I disagree, but okay.
	But that's just the material, and it's not Trump's job to manage how we feel about mortality, loss, our own death, or the inability of the material world to fulfill us.
	And our ultimate problem is we can't cope with the fact that we're gonna die right now.
	There's a vortex we have to contend with, and how we do so will define the dissent we're all participating in right now.
	So that's another thought.
	And then, as another separate thought, centre-left parties and institutions across Europe are maintaining power by denying election results in a terrible spiral which has become an aerobarous of self-consumption, which is just saying aerobarous twice.
	In essence, Russell spent more than three minutes talking there, and I'd have gotten just as much out of it had he just shrugged and gone, me?
	Like, that is of equal value to what we just experienced.
	Oh, talk about filling time, good lord.
	Anyway, what's just, just loving the sound of his own voice, god damn.
	He does eventually get to actually playing the clip of Bernie Sanders talking about his political career and AOC with...
	Andrew Schultz of all fucking people.
	But not before Russell reminds his MAGA audience, proponents of the American empire, that, hey, nations don't last forever.
	Here, Sanders rules out a 2028 presidential run, doesn't endorse AOC.
	And the question that I suppose that I would offer to you is, does this mean that that institution...
	Is beginning to recognize its own finitude.
	These things don't last forever, you know.
	Nations don't last forever.
	Political parties don't last forever.
	The technology that we now have available means that paradigms are bursting over and being flooded out of all relevance.
	It's interesting.
	Are you going to run for president?
	Please say it.
	I'm 83 years of age, so that is...
	I think I've run my last race.
	Now, does that mean...
	Zero fair races.
	Does that mean that this oligarchy tour is you passing the baton?
	No, don't look at it like that.
	The oligarchy tour is...
	I think we're all looking at it like that.
	No, it's not a passing the baton.
	I think Alexander is great.
	But it's not my job to determine who the new leaders are.
	People have each of them.
	As I mentioned, in the House, there are a lot of great people in the Senate.
	Good people.
	And there are people who are not in office right now.
	But the oligarchy tool was an effort to say to the country that there are people all over America who are going to stand up to this oligarchy.
	They don't want a government of billionaires.
	They're going to stand up to authoritarianism.
	That's not what the Democrat Party means anymore.
	It hasn't meant that for a long, long time.
	I mean, sure, but he didn't say the Democratic Party, did he?
	He said that there are people who will stand up to the oligarchy rights, the fight oligarchy tour.
	You know, if America's political system wasn't somehow even more partisan than the UK's, I'm quite sure there would be a legitimate leftist option able to hold its own, but the US system is in need of some...
	Pretty extreme reform, and no one in charge of it wants to do that because it means breaking up the whole game they've got going on, so...
	And don't anyone bring up Jill Stein to me.
	I get enough grief dealing with one grifter every week.
	I don't need to add a second one to my plate.
	Now...
	All Bernie seems to actually say here was he's run his last race because he's 83. And let's be real, with every passing year, there is a raised probability he'll die while in office.
	As well as saying that the oligarchy tour, the fight oligarchy tour he's been on with AOC wasn't a passing of the baton, however much it might look like one.
	And I'd say regardless how he feels personally, because...
	Who knows what that sounds like?
	Bernie Sanders knows well enough not to inflame the DNC in any particular direction.
	He's played with that fire plenty of times before, and AOC gets enough shit flung at her without Bernie adding yet more to the spotlight.
	Or maybe he genuinely just doesn't want to endorse anyone as his spiritual successor, which is also fine.
	Like, it's not some great slight against her.
	AOC can stand on her own two feet.
	That has been made abundantly clear.
	And it's not like he doesn't like her.
	He literally just said, Alexandria's great.
	We've done this whole fucking tour together.
	Come on.
	So, from here we get back to Rambly Russell, thankfully in a somewhat shorter clip, where we get a little insight into his understanding of slavery in the United States.
	I suppose he's a kind of remnant of a dead rhetoric.
	But it goes beyond that.
	It goes beyond the Democrat Party.
	This is the end of the...
	We're in a post-secular age.
	For a minute, it seemed like the nation-state was the solution to kind of ideologically driven and zealous warring tribes.
	Now we've seen that that pattern is repeated.
	Have you kind of noticed, as I have done, that there seems to be some template in a nation, rather than nation, because a nation is a construct, in the kind of essence of a land?
	Here's a good example of it.
	Russia replaces its feudal system headed by a czar in order to instantiate its opposite, communism, but ends up replicating it.
	Through state-run dictatorships in which its epitome, Stalin, becomes a kind of czar.
	Len, look at monarchies like my nation where diffuse and insidious concealed powers reiterate themselves in various nefarious ways.
	Or look at your country, dependent on bonded labour.
	Then that problem becomes the problem.
	You can't have slavery anymore, mass migration.
	Can't have mass migration anymore, AI.
	Can't have that problem anymore.
	You see that it's as if there's some pull.
	And the only way...
	To overcome it is through a peculiar surrender that it doesn't seem...
	Yeah, Stalin was Georgian.
	Don't be so recalcitrant pulling the string.
	Stalin was a Russian.
	Don't just put the one thing you know in a chat.
	I know a thing.
	Contribute meaningfully to a debate.
	Russell, you're asking the rumble chat to contribute meaningfully to a debate.
	That's literally like asking a neo-Nazi to tone it down a bit.
	Either way, we end up in a flame war is what happens.
	I'm annoyed that he never finished that thought.
	Apparently what we need to do is a peculiar surrender of some kind, but he's yet to elucidate.
	So, Russian history is a...
	A bit more complicated than he made it out to be there, but in the broadest strokes possible, sure, I guess?
	Stalin was a dictator, at least.
	Whereas, like, the UK, apparently we got rid of monarchies and the repetition of history there takes place in the form of concealed powers reiterating themselves in various nefarious ways, which...
	I mean...
	Also, we still have a monarchy.
	It's still there.
	It's just mostly symbolic.
	And we still give them a shitload of money every year.
	They're still fucking there.
	Bad example.
	I'm gonna need more specifics, basically.
	There.
	But...
	And then Russell's explanation of slavery in the US.
	That's the one I find the most fascinating.
	Because to his mind, it goes slavery, then ban slavery, then mass migration.
	I'm guessing he means, like, migrant labor there?
	I think he's what he's trying to...
	Like, grasp at?
	But now, like, now we're getting rid of mass migration, right?
	Because Trump, hey!
	Right?
	Therefore, AI?
	For some reason?
	And, like, what, that will then come back around to slavery?
	Will it?
	Like, the way Russia, you know, came back to a dick?
	Is that what's gonna happen?
	Honestly, I just found this to be an exercise in how little Russell knows about anything.
	First and foremost, because if we were talking to a historian here, there would be a genuinely interesting discussion about the cycles of abusing and exploiting minorities in the United States, about how that's...
	Always happened.
	It's the foundation of the country and about how that continues to happen today.
	And let's not forget that slavery is alive and well in the US.
	It just takes place among the predominantly black and often wrongly incarcerated prison population who are then forced to work for pennies making license plates or some other shit for private companies who then profit off the slave labor.
	Like, there is so much that could be discussed here, and instead we get slavery, mass migration, AI, question mark!
	So, so many question marks.
	It's infuriating.
	All right, so so now we move on to the subject of Brexit and Russell is coming in hot Britain has been betrayed through Brexit whether you agree with Brexit or not British people voted for it Tommy Robinson the epitome of the British spirit standing in the shadows in waiting has been released at the very time that the Brexit wound has been reopened by Keir Starmer's
	Let me put it this way.
	In the age of reason...
	What you are offered is this: There is no God, so supreme authority belongs to the majority.
	And the majority is determined by the ballot box.
	Well, in a simple binary choice between shall we stay in Europe or leave Europe, the British people voted to leave Europe.
	That is clearly not what the establishment wanted or intended.
	So since then, they've been looking for ways to reverse that decision.
	And in Keir Starmer, they found that way.
	Keir Starmer has gone back to Europe and negotiated a kind of soft Brexit where the EU still has extraordinary control over the British economy, British migration, British borders.
	It is a betrayal of the very democracy that the secularists and globalists claim should replace the Do they claim that?
	Sorry.
	Also, I know you said a bunch of other stuff there, Russell, but I got kind of stuck at Tommy Robinson as the epitome of the British spirit.
	Like, ah, yes, we definitely put him in the same category as Wimbledon, Mr. Bean, Queen Elizabeth II, James Bond, and Paddington Bear.
	Good old Tommy Robinson.
	He's definitely the same things as those other things I mentioned.
	He's definitely, definitely in that category.
	Anyway...
	Keir Starmer and his government have negotiated a new deal with the EU, seemingly moving from the quote-unquote hard Brexit of Boris Johnson to a softer Brexit with a more amenable relationship.
	Russell fucking hates that because he doesn't like the EU and was perfectly happy about Brexit.
	He is among the very wealthy, so it barely affects him, so like, sure.
	Despite Russell's bluster there, the EU does not have any more power over the UK this week than it did last week, but there have been a few fresh deals that will benefit the UK, which we will get to shortly.
	First, however, let's hear his assessment of what should and shouldn't be happening.
	I don't know whether it's better to be in the EU or not be in the EU.
	How would I possibly know that?
	My sense is...
	Learning?
	Sovereignty should begin with the individual, move on to the family and the community, and from there on in, there should be confederacies and alliances that are always consensual, explicit, transparent and...
	and open.
	You aren't going to get that through the nation state.
	You're not going to, certainly not going to get it through continent-wide bureaucracies, and you will never get it with the corrupt globalist leaders that are empowered right now.
	Okay.
	So how are we gonna get it, then?
	Like, what's required?
	What do we do?
	If you're telling me there are no available options through the entire of Western democracy, I would love to know what the alternative is.
	Because you seem weirdly fine with Trump.
	Like, do we need all global leaders to be Trump?
	Because I'm quite sure that would, like, end with all of the red buttons being pushed.
	Uh, Ed, I think I blew up the world a bit, is how that would end.
	Regardless, supposedly sovereignty begins with the individual, moves on to the family and community, and then apparently confederacies and alliances, but it's not abundantly clear where the stopping point might be.
	Like, where do things get too big, you know?
	Previously, Russell has suggested a maximum of 120 people in a democracy because that's the maximum number of chimps you'll find in one group before it splits in two.
	I wish I was kidding.
	But that idea does not seem overly feasible to me.
	Hopefully we'll get more detail on that soon, though I'm not holding my breath.
	So in the meantime, let's get back to Russell looking at a news clip about the new deal with the EU.
	Let's have a look at this story.
	The UK and the EU have agreed that the Brexit reset, that's what it's being called, the Brexit reset trade deal, as Sir Keir Starmer declares, Britain is back.
	Essentially back in Europe, which no one voted for.
	Let's have a look.
	At the legacy media's reporting on this story, it's a reset of defence and trade ties.
	So again, militarism and economics are the false idols that dominate global politics.
	It marks a new era in our relationship.
	Britain struck a deal with the European Union on Monday that will see the most significant reset of defence and trade ties.
	Ursula von der Leyen, by any sensible analysis...
	Is a criminal.
	Certainly, she was engaged in what appears to be criminal or...
	How do I best describe this without the use of the word allegedly?
	Just use the word allegedly.
	Allegedly, she was communicating directly with Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, during the pandemic period and doing deals for vaccines that were not going through explicit...
	I don't know if that amounts to criminality, but certainly she has had investigations and allegations made that compare unfavorably to the very allegations that meant that Marine Le Pen can no longer run for office in France.
	It was always a matter of time before he leapt to the defence of Marine Le Pen once again.
	Firstly, Ursula von der Leyen supposedly texting the CEO of Pfizer during the pandemic is not some big smoking gun, nor is it criminal if it happened at all.
	It's a quick and effective method of communication.
	Like, if it did happen, like, it is a quick and effective method of communication, and the paperwork and red tape can be filled out later when the whole thing becomes official through EU Parliament.
	when it comes to the matter of ordering life-saving vaccines.
	Like, direct communication is more expedient in that And even then, the EU were a little bit slow off the mark in terms of their vaccine rollout.
	Plus, like, if a plague hit the US tomorrow and Trump texted a big pharma CEO for medicine, he'd be touted as, like, the savior of the nation by Russell and his ilk.
	It's absolutely absurd.
	And Russell was completely fine with, like, as a recent example, with Trump getting a fucking fighter jet or whatever, you know, the fucking jumbo jet, whatever it was, from Qatar.
	You know, I'm like, well, if your issue is things not going through the proper channels, let's examine the legacy of Donald Trump thus far, shall we?
	Oh dear.
	But yeah, if Trump did any of that, he would be a fucking hero.
	With the difference being that Trump actually is a criminal, whereas Ursula von der Leyen is not.
	Speaking of criminals, Marine Le Pen has been barred from running for public office for five years because her and her colleagues were found guilty of embezzling more than 4 million euros of European parliamentary funds through a fake job scam over a period of more than 11 years.
	I don't think that's comparable to sending Albert Baller a text about vaccines, but hey Russell, you have some very expensive legal advice, why don't you take it up with them and see what they say?
	Alright, let's hear some more of this news clip before we hear Russell's less than generous interpretation of Ursula von der Leyen's words.
	Trade ties since Brexit.
	It comes after US President Donald Trump's upending of the global order pushed the two sides to move on from their bitter divorce.
	British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the agreement a win-win.
	It gives us unprecedented access to the EU market, the best of any country outside of the EU or EFTA, all while sticking to the red lines in our manifesto about not rejoining the single market, the customs union.
	At the heart of the reset is a new defence and security pact.
	It will let Britain be part of any joint procurement and pave the way for British companies to take part in a $167 billion program to rearm Europe.
	Britain said the deal will also cut red tape for food and agricultural producers, making food cheaper, improve energy security and add about $12 billion to the economy by 2040.
	A contentious new fishing agreement was signed and a limited youth mobility scheme was outlined, while British visitors will have faster access to the EU by way of airport e-gates.
	This is the story of historical and natural partners standing side by side on the global stage.
	Remember I told you earlier about how lawyers have to tell you a story?
	What you're witnessing there is storytelling.
	Go back 10 seconds, can you, Isaac, so that when I next press play, I can see that Ursula von der Leyen moment again.
	Listen to what she says.
	This is the story of historic partners.
	Let's watch that again.
	President Ursula von der Leyen highlighted the importance of finding solutions together as allies.
	Relations were poised.
	Back to the 10 seconds earlier than that.
	Great.
	And now, play.
	He's not mad at the crew.
	Just where she says before she started speaking.
	Thank you.
	Press play.
	It's the story of historical and natural partners standing side by side on the global stage.
	EU.
	Historical and natural.
	What does she mean by natural there?
	Ah, man.
	Natural means an undeniable power in this context.
	That's what she means by natural.
	Extraordinary.
	Or it could mean geographical proximity, given that the UK is...
	In Europe, where the European Union is.
	Or it could mean that we share similar values as countries.
	Or it could mean that, hey, we fought world wars on the same side, whereas most of the countries, or opposite to some of them, and have that kind of camaraderie from previous decades of whatever, right?
	But no, no, no, it must mean undeniable power, according to Russell.
	Like, some people truly do go looking for malice.
	In the most innocuous of places, and it's more than a little bit pathetic.
	Like, sometimes words just mean what they mean.
	I have to be careful about what I claim Russell is saying or inferring or insinuating, and I do my best to ensure there's a bed of evidence to support whatever it is I'm discussing.
	This, however, is one person saying, we are natural partners, and another saying, that means undeniable power that does you...
	Bastards, I knew it!
	Like, it's a type of conspiracy-minded behaviour that I find particularly exhausting.
	Like, if you go out looking for a fight, you are sure to find one eventually, even if that's purely by being an obnoxious little shit, you know?
	So the news clip continues from here.
	On the global stage, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen highlighted the importance And if you want to talk about nature, there's a bleeding channel around Britain.
	That's pretty natural.
	Highlighted the importance of finding solutions together as allies.
	Relations were poisoned by years of post-Brexit arguments, but collaboration between Britain and European powers over Ukraine and Trump has rebuilt trust between the two sides.
	Monday's agreement was denounced by Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, whose anti-immigration reform party has seen a recent rise in popularity, putting pressure on the Labour government.
	The deal was also criticised by the opposition Conservative Party, which oversaw the 2016 Brexit vote and spent years negotiating the original divorce deal.
	A really interesting divorce, pejorative description.
	How do you imagine, let me know in the comments and chat, reform's success at the ballot box will be impacted by this agreement and the reneging on...
	Ultimately, the results of a referendum and further demonstration that there is no such thing as democracy if what you mean by democracy is the will of the people represented through the ballot box and then elected officials negotiating their will.
	If that's what you mean by democracy, there is no democracy.
	What democracy is, as Mike Benz explained to us, is a set of institutions that are controlled by the powerful.
	Then the function of the media and the incumbent powerful becomes a masquerade.
	How do we make people believe there is democracy when what there is is a kind of feudalism, a new technological feudalism?
	That's a phrase that he borrowed from Steve Bannon after having him on the show.
	Beforehand, he'd never grappled with the phrase techno-feudalism, but post-Steve Bannon won't shut the fuck up about it.
	And obviously, in case it bears mentioning, no one really needs to be listening to the junior IT guy and known anti-Semite, Mike Benz, about anything.
	It is interesting to me that Russell thinks there's no such thing as democracy and yet seems to simultaneously believe that the Brexit vote itself is sacrosanct.
	I'm not quite sure how both of those things can be true unless somehow democracy was alive and well in 2016 but has since died.
	Like, that's the only way that that's possible, you know?
	And that's without even contending with the fact that the Brexit vote was only 51% in favour of Brexit, wasn't even legally binding.
	The government never legally had to go through with Brexit at all.
	They just fucking did so anyway.
	And the big lie is told on the side of a bus by Boris Johnson, as well as campaign finance laws being broken by the Leave campaign, and a bunch of people's data being stolen and illegally used by Cambridge.
	Analytica in support of the Leave campaign, plus Russian interference.
	Like, the whole thing was fucked from top to bottom.
	As for the Reform Party's success at the ballot box, if they have success in the next election, I don't think it will have much to do with the UK's relationship with the EU.
	The fact is, migration over here only skyrocketed after Brexit, largely because of Brexit.
	It's a fact that the likes of reform are weirdly unwilling to acknowledge, but it is a fact nonetheless.
	We were supposed to take back control of our borders and migration fucking, I think it went up by like seven times, something like that.
	When it comes to the subject of how the UK feels about the EU now, which is what we're discussing, right, this great betrayal, there was a recent YouGov poll that I found useful to take the temperature on the country on this subject.
	And polling is in of itself more reliable in the UK compared to the US.
	Almost like it's easier to poll 70 million people than it is 350 million people.
	Maybe five times easier, one might suggest.
	So, on the 18th and 19th of May 2025, 2,212 adults in the UK were polled.
	When it comes to, quote, Britain having a closer relationship with the European Union without rejoining the European Union, the single market, or the customs union, unquote.
	So that's exactly what's just happened.
	Those strongly in favour amount to 23%, and those who somewhat support it are at 40%.
	Which amounts to a 66% positive response, to varying degrees of positivity.
	20% answered, don't know, and only 14% either somewhat or strongly opposed the idea.
	In essence, Keir Starmer and his government in this specific instance have carried out the will of the people.
	Though if we wanted to go further, when asked about Britain rejoining the European Union, 36% said they would strongly support it, and 17% said they'd somewhat support it, which amounts to 53% of British people being supportive of rejoining the EU.
	So really, if we are discussing the will of the people, maybe we should rejoin the EU instead of, you know, sticking to a vote that happened a decade ago.
	Just a thought.
	Just a thought.
	Otherwise...
	Only 6% of Britons strongly supported the UK's relationship with the EU, remaining the same as it has been.
	So there had to be a change in some direction, and very few people supported...
	Supported making the relationship worse as well.
	So, like, it's pretty clear-cut to me.
	The right thing has been done for the most part.
	And on an anecdotal level, like, because of Brexit, food has been inordinately expensive for several years, as well as being minimal in terms of availability.
	Like, fucking empty shelves.
	It has been shocking just how fucked we got by it on a consumer level.
	The initial aftershocks, they were thought to be pandemic-related because, you know, it all happened.
	It happened around the same glorious time for us over here, but no.
	No.
	Fucking Brexit.
	Like, just this last week, you had a food shop, a bunch of shit wasn't available.
	Like, Brexit.
	That's what's happening.
	And it's all very expensive.
	Anyway, I'll keep everyone posted if my grocery bills happen to go down.
	I know you'll all be waiting with bated breath.
	Yeah, and as for the news coverage that we were just looking at, I'm convinced that was an AI voice.
	I'm not sure where the clip is from, because Russell put up an article from Sky News, but then if Sky News ever do videos, it shows their little logo in the bottom, and this video didn't have that.
	So I'm like, I don't know where the fuck he got this, but it sounded like some AI shit to me, but the coverage itself seemed fine, so eh.
	Anyway, from here, well, we need to know what other former guests on Stay Free with Russell Brand are saying about this new Brexit deal, so let's hear from none other than George Galloway.
	Let's have a look at what George Galloway, who's a left-wing politician, has to say.
	Dear Farage, you must lead a broad movement in the country against the betrayal of Brexit.
	Many, including us, will follow.
	That is probably the most interesting thing to emerge.
	The possibility that centralized neoliberal government has become so corrupt, so disgustingly corrupt, that there exists in the United Kingdom the possibility of an alliance between what would have once been regarded as the extreme left in the form of George Galloway, who's like a trade unionist, culturally pluralist, while Catholic, and people like...
	Nigel Farage, who is a nationalist, conservative, free market economist.
	These kind of alliances are the only hope for the United Kingdom.
	Ah, yes.
	Alliances between the far-right Nigel Farage and a guy pretending not to be far-right but otherwise agreeing almost entirely with the far-right George Galloway.
	That is the only hope for the United Kingdom.
	I get the feeling Russell would say yes to my should every world leader be Donald Trump question, which...
	A little bit worrying, not gonna lie.
	Anyway, again, Russell doesn't seem to know the meaning of neoliberal.
	Happy to see that continuing.
	But I do find this focus on Nigel Farage a bit interesting.
	Everyone seems to think he'll charge back in like a white knight.
	Sorry, white knight.
	And change it all back to hard Brexit.
	And he is apparently mad about it.
	In response to the New Deal, he's accused Keir Starmer of surrendering to the EU.
	Obviously, there was a debate on what's been dubbed the Brexit Reset in Parliament, and Nigel Farage being the Member of Parliament for Clacton-on-Sea, representing the Reform Party, as well as, you know, Brexiteer-in-Chief.
	Well, he basically had a duty to show up and cause a fuss at this debate and make sure his case was heard.
	And I'm sure he would have, but he was on holiday in France instead.
	Which, yes, is in the EU as well.
	He was on holiday in the EU, is what he was doing.
	It's not.
	Terribly unusual, given his track record.
	He's shown up for only a third of votes so far, and has one of the worst attendance records in Parliament.
	Also, here's the thing.
	Parliament is in recess for 17 and a half weeks of the year.
	That's a third of the year on holiday, and these people get paid £93,000 a year salary.
	And they get a third of that year.
	To do whatever the fuck they want.
	Despite that, and being only one week away from Parliament going on recess again, Farage just had to take his little jaunt to France during term time.
	He just had to go then.
	What a shame I'm missing this key thing that people want to hear from me about.
	Sorry, I'm eating baguette.
	I'm genuinely amazed that anyone is still amazed by him.
	He's been doing a take-the-money-and-run routine for 30 years, and yet everyone still acts surprised and expects him to do things.
	Like, no, he was an MEP, like a member of European Parliament, for a long, long time, and he never showed up then either, and he just took the salary.
	And he's now getting a fucking...
	He's getting a pension for his time in the European Parliament.
	I'm like, oh my god.
	Why do you people see anything in this guy?
	Is it because he holds a pint of beer in his hand and smokes cigarettes sometimes?
	Is that why?
	I can do that.
	I can do that.
	Like, I'm less into the cigarette.
	I'll hold a pint of beer.
	I don't mind a cigar every now and then.
	Come on.
	Come on.
	Listen to me on the shit instead.
	At least we might get somewhere.
	You know what?
	Say what you want, I would at least show up for a fucking vote.
	Oh my god.
	No, I'd never want a career in politics, let's be honest.
	It seems utterly miserable unless you're a Farage type and just don't give a shit and are happy to take people's money and run.
	Oh dear.
	So...
	From here, Russell caps off the show with what it is we all need to do in order to avoid becoming slaves.
	But that's only politics.
	And politics is actually only social managerialism.
	Beyond that, there have to be ideals.
	If there is to be a nation, that nation has to have a spirit.
	And for that nation to have a spirit, it needs spiritual leaders.
	And those spiritual leaders are yet...
	And that is the crisis and the vortex we are falling into, as the mass communication age leads not to mass union, but mass endless bifurcation, dendrite ever-expanding fractures and new parties.
	It's a kind of nihilism that's emerging in this space, and that nihilism benefits these organized institutions that span continents and even the globes.
	your globe and even the globe without your participation and cooperation which is going to mean the putting aside of your tribalism is going to mean the putting aside of your primal nature the subjugation of your own nature those of you that sit in that chat objectifying and hating you are going to have to transcend that or you will become the slave That they plan for you to become.
	Wait, hang on.
	So, I need to put aside my tribalism and primal nature in order to, like, unify and stop things from fracturing into new parties and endless bifurcation, but also...
	Russell believes everyone should have maximal democracy, that democracy should be as small as possible, starting with the individual and the family, that nations shouldn't really exist on the scale that they do, and we should only be focusing on our local communities.
	So, which is it?
	Do we need to be tiny and separate, or gigantic and unified?
	Because it can't be both.
	So which of the things is it supposed to be?
	Because at the moment you're saying gigantic and unified.
	A minute ago you were saying tiny and separate.
	And at the top of the show you said, well, if I ever advocate for one world government or any kind of global thing, then that will be, you know, the literal antichrist.
	If I sound exasperated, it's because I am.
	Good lord, how anyone manages to stick with this guy endlessly contradicting himself on a daily basis is genuinely beyond me, and yet his reach only grows, and the same people who I see in the fucking chat every week, they're still there, and his subscriber count goes up every week as well.
	Like, maybe I need to start wearing sunglasses on camera and wear a shirt with no buttons on.
	Maybe, maybe, and in this instance, a denim jacket that's also not done up.
	Just...
	Ah.
	I'm not sure I'd pull it off as convincingly.
	Not that Russell does it particularly convincingly, but I don't think it would go well for me.
	Oh, dear.
	I'll think about it anyway.
	I'll be back next week with the main show.
	In the meantime, take care of yourselves and each other.
	Thank you very much.
	I love you.
	Bye.
	All right.
	I'm going to finish now because I'm hungry and I want to eat something.

▲