Andrew, Lewis, and the hosts dissect the "new world order" (NWO) narrative through gender debates—Katanji Brown Jackson’s evasive testimony, Starmer’s legal dodges, and Sunak deferring to Boris Johnson—while criticizing redefined sports categories like Emily Bridges’ 2021 transition. They link Bristol’s sexual harassment sign to ideological manipulation, question Trudeau’s incel terror report, and mock Jon Stewart’s divisive rhetoric. Hollywood’s Oscars are framed as elite-driven identity politics, ignoring systemic failures in cities like Detroit while amplifying Will Smith’s slap as racialized outrage. Ukraine’s war ties to WEF agendas—Zelensky’s green push amid conflict, neo-Nazi Azov battalions, and delayed media scrutiny—suggest deeper geopolitical motives over surface-level narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
We're across the pond with myself, Andrew, and Lewis.
Don't call me Blackpool Brackpool.
How are you, Lewis?
I'm not too bad, mate.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
Thank you for asking.
So much British and English content to get to today.
I'm excited because it's more of your accent and we can talk about all the chavs and all the scouse that we want to.
So if you want to chat with us on Rumble Rants, Odyssey Hyper Chats, and Super U shouts, you can pay for a chat and we will respond to them in kind.
It can be a question, concern, comment, link, description, everything you might want to say to us.
Criticisms, even, but I know you wouldn't dare, Rebel News audience.
So you can go on Rumble Super U Odyssey.
We also are streaming on Getter and YouTube, but YouTube doesn't really like us, so we can't take the chats there.
And if things get too spicy regarding elections of Christmas past, Lewis, or COVID stuff, and I'm sure there's maybe you can't say stuff about Will Smith now, but we'll get to you on the other platforms if we need to.
And every day you can find it on rebelnews.com slash livestreams.
Lewis, let's get to some English stuff right now.
And what's been happening around the world is ever since the Supreme Court nominee Katanji Brown Jackson, I believe, might be Brown Jackson, couldn't answer this question about what a woman is.
People have been taking that and running with it.
And now it's become sort of this meme where we're asking politicians, not we, but people around the world are asking politicians, media members, if they can define what a woman is, if a woman can have a penis, if a man can be pregnant, all this sort of stuff.
So this happened recently on an English, I don't know if it was a podcast or a radio show.
You want to explain to people what we're about to watch?
Absolutely.
So Talk Radio, an English-styled radio show with lots of different hosts from all over the spectrum, have been talking or asking politicians whether they think a woman can have a penis.
So they've, of course, asked the Labour leader, the leader of the opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, that same question.
And shock horror, he can't even answer it himself.
So of course, I believe we have the video to play.
I mean, this may surprise you, but we've actually been asking a poll today.
Can a woman have a penis, believe it or not?
And it says 70% of people say yes, 28.4% say no.
You won't answer the question and you want to leave this country.
Well, so are you saying, yes, a woman can have a penis?
I've explained, and I'm quite sure the listeners have heard what I've said, because I think that the reason that so many people in your poll have said what they have is because they don't, because they get away...
But do you agree with them?
Wait a minute!
They get away from the one sentence, one word answers.
They understand that people are complex, and that they are different, and that actually, you know, the people answering your poll have shown a humanity, which, to be honest, you know, these sort of soundbites railroad theory.
But your colleague Siobhan Madonna, a long-serving Labour MP from Mitcham and Morden, I think it is, when asked, can a woman have a penis, she said, no, I don't think so.
Why can't you?
I've given you, I think, what I hope is a thoughtful and a complete answer.
Not a complete, and it's up to your listeners to decide whether or not I have given a full answer.
I can give you a legal definition.
I can give you a biological definition.
And I have told you about a woman who I believe, you know, may have had a penis, but I really don't want to look up Eskirt and ask her one way or the other in any way she has.
No, and I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like to do that either.
No, I'm just saying that, you know.
Emily, your leader made this an issue, and all I'm trying to do is see how that goes because some of your colleagues are prepared to answer it.
Our listeners have answered it, and I accept you don't want to give a yes or no.
Imagine, Lewis, that somebody said, is football or soccer played on a pitch or on grass?
And your answer was, well, you know, many people have said that the playing surface of football can come in many different shapes and forms.
People have given their opinion on whether or not that's true.
And I think I've given you a great answer.
It's pretty obvious when somebody just can't say the answer because they don't want to be on camera giving the answer.
Am I wrong?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
No, you're completely right.
Of course, that was Emily Thornbury and a member of parliament as well.
And I believe on the Labour side.
But yeah, we're seeing this trend all around.
And it's not just in the US, but the UK.
They've asked Rishi Sunak, our Chancellor of Exchequer, the same question.
He just said, Boris gave a great answer.
So I'm going to refer to his answer.
And then I think they pressed him and said, well, what was the answer?
What was it that you agree with?
And shock horror.
The whole thing.
You couldn't even answer that.
The whole thing.
So it seems that both sides are having trouble even defining what a woman is.
And I mean, there's more pressing matters, to be honest, than squabbling around with this silly topic.
But it's quite worrying that these are supposed to be representative of the people of the UK or England or whoever.
And they can't even define this simple question.
They can't even say, let's say, adult human-female.
There you go.
I've just defined it to you in three words.
But they can't even say that on camera because whether it be to votes, whether it be to pandering, whether it be to lots of many things.
But we are seeing this trend, not just only in the US or Canada, but in the UK as well.
I'm confident that if the NDP, Canada's version of the Labour Party, was asked that, they would say, yes, a woman can have a penis.
And to be fair to the Supreme Court candidate, who I'm not a fan of, she did after Tucker Carlson talked about how she could say she is a woman and I'm a woman and I have daughters.
Of course, I know what they are.
She did end up saying almost that exact same thing the next day, but it was too late.
The meme is out there and you can't really walk that back once it's out there.
And having just given her credit, I'd also like to encourage anybody to go look at her sentencing record that senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley have exposed.
And we don't even need to talk about it, but people need to go look at that because it's insane.
Moving on to some more issues of, I guess, transgenderism, which, like I mentioned last week, Lewis, this is the height of resistance for this, of women having to go against men, people having to admit what they think of biology and what sex at birth is.
There is now stories coming out about the, is it a cycling league or is it the British cycling team?
Top female cyclists are too scared to speak out over a trans rival racing them and dame Laura Kenney.
Now, side note, sidebar here, what is a dame?
Don't ask me this.
That's the female version of a Duke, maybe?
I don't know.
Yes, yes.
Okay, the national championship.
See how brilliant I am, Lewis?
A month after she was in mail events, as her mother claims she will get police protection for the race.
I mean, that's probably not necessary at all.
Emily Bridges began hormone therapy in 2021 and can now compete as a woman.
I want to know how old Emily Bridges is.
If we can scroll it down, does it say?
I'm not sure the exact age 21.
Okay, so maybe if uh maybe if he or she, maybe if Emily was 12, then they maybe can be pre-pubescent, even though I don't agree with that.
So we can see he's from 1973 in this photo, uh, possibly starred in the movie Daisy and Confused.
But regardless, um, Emily is now racing against women, and like I mentioned before we went on uh screen, Lewis, uh, larger heart, bigger lung capacity, uh, stronger legs, more bone density.
This is a very physical sport, whether you're a fan of it or not, and most people are not.
This is why when Lance Armstrong was racing, they had the most intense doping of any sport, even further than professional fighting.
They go down to lactic acid in your blood, they go down to different proteins in your blood, they go they go down to the uh and then EPO is a thing that most people focus on and testosterone replacement.
It's so complex, the doping and cycling, because it's so competitive and so strenuous on your body because you're riding a bike for hours on end, and there's just no question.
And I was trying to figure out which sport men don't have an advantage of physically over women or any sport in general where they could compete evenly.
We came up with darts, and I just can't comprehend if you take a 21-year-old man versus a 21-year-old woman in a sport like this, I can't comprehend how anyone can say it's still fair.
Yeah, well, you have to just think: why do we separate sports between sexes?
Like, why do we do that?
And you just have to try and define that in order to figure out your answer.
On top of this, with that being said, I think I watched you, you might have seen recently Steven Crowder's edition of Change My Mind, where he spoke to people and asked them to, of course, speak about sports and biological women competing against biological men, sorry, competing against biological women, things like that.
It's a subject that's quite new to a lot of people.
So, of course, this is going to make it round to lots of different people.
And like you mentioned, there are physical attributes between men and women that are different.
We shouldn't be afraid to say that.
This shouldn't be a controversial thing.
There is a reason why we split the categories between sexes in sports.
And let me ask you, Andrew, as well.
What is the purpose of high-thletic sport?
What's the reason?
Why do they do it?
Why do they do sport?
Why do we enjoy it as well?
There's many reasons.
And I know I saw the same thing.
The reason is to win and to take the culmination of all your hard work and say, and have a result of all your hard work in a physical manner because it's the most basic thing you can do.
You can study for something and become the best at that.
But when it comes down to our physicality, it's the most natural thing you can train for and see results in.
Just like you get on a treadmill, you run, and you will see, as long as you're not eating like me, you will see the weight come off.
You'll lift weights and you'll see the results of that.
So that's what I think it is.
Yeah, well, there you have it.
So there's nothing more really to add.
Producer Olivia, can you please look up women's national team defeated by 14-year-olds?
That happens in soccer.
That happens in hockey as well.
And as I'm saying, you take 21-year-old women, national soccer players or national hockey players, and for the purposes of even play, they have to go down to 14-year-olds for athletic ability, and they still even lose.
I know this happened in Australia.
I know that the women's hockey team here in Canada will play 13 and 14-year-olds because they're the same size as them in that case many times in many instances.
FC Dallas, which is an American soccer team at the professional level, let's say it's around an English championship league for the English viewers.
They lost to 15-year-olds there.
And it's happened in many other sports.
This is why they play against them.
And the women themselves will tell you, and you can ask them.
I've spoken to some of them.
They know that the guys are better than them.
They aren't going to pretend.
They would rather be beaten by these younger men, these younger gentlemen, and have it make them perform better than to just go around and clean the clocks of girls that are younger for them.
Of course, the 21-year-old girls, Australian women's national team lose 7-0 to 15-year-olds.
Of course, the women who are in their 20s and early 30s probably could go and completely crush the 20-year-old or the under-18 girls' teams, but that doesn't make you better.
The way you get better is by playing against people who are better than you.
That's how you get better in sports, and that's how you elevate your game.
So these girls know they shouldn't be ashamed by it.
I'm sure it's fun for them to face such tough competition, and it makes them better.
And they're not going to enjoy you coming over them and pitying them and saying, oh, you can't beat these people, so we'll just make it easier for you.
And they're certainly not going to enjoy guys coming over and beating them.
I'm waiting, Lewis.
I'm waiting for the first retired NBA player to play in the WNBA.
The women in that league will not allow it.
They're tough women.
But I'm waiting for something like this to happen where it's so dominant in a sport where it can be individual and it's a super highly sought-after sport like football, like hockey, basketball, or baseball.
And let's just see it.
Let's see the college male athlete just hitting home runs and crushing the pitchers in the women's college.
Let's see the hockey player, you know, skating circles around the women and crushing them into the boards.
Let's see it.
If that's what it's going to take for people to wake up and realize that your feelings in this don't really matter, then I'm willing to see it.
As much as I want these women to progress and succeed, if they're not all willing to stand up for it the way that some people on Leah Thomas' team have, and one of them spoke to Steven Crowder, the girl who was in competition against him, who lost their spot in the finals, and even some of these cyclists, if they're not all willing to speak up because they're too afraid, then you're going to lose your own spaces.
You're going to lose your own change room.
97% Statistic Controversy00:15:17
You're going to lose your own leagues.
And what else are we willing to take away from women before the women actually care themselves?
I'm sure it's tons of them out there, but in a public sphere, you're going to have to stand up to the bullies at some point.
And unfortunately, these bullies are men, and these are the people that are supposed to be protecting them.
But the Leah Thomases and this cyclist, they care more about, you know, going and getting attention for the thing that they're doing because they're told it's brave of them.
They care more about that.
And we're supposed to care more about that, according to the media, about this one person's feelings versus the probably hundreds of women in that field who get the short end of the stick on this scenario, Lewis.
Yes.
Well, I just love progressivism.
I just love this just so much.
And it's clearly working.
It's clearly working so well.
So let's just carry it on so it gets to a point where, you know, women don't actually play any sports anymore.
And it's just constant.
They just, they don't need to sign up anymore because it would just be lower league biological men that are just competing against biological women.
So, you know, yeah.
And yeah, to me, that smells like misogyny, personally, because if you hate women so much, you don't want to see them do well.
You don't want to have their own categories.
You don't want to see them progress in their own style of sports or whatever they decide to do.
So, well, it's weird how the horseshoe comes around, isn't it?
Like, we are so against all this stuff, all the social justice, and then it comes to a point where the social justice actually then meets up with the conservative thinking where it's like, oh, no, wait, do actually have to protect women and uh and be against what is supposed to be protecting women which is the feminism and i know in england the damage has already been done I know in England there's like 12 or 13 tiers of soccer leagues that you have to progress through.
You could take the bottom of that league and still beat the women's Premier League teams.
And that's not disrespectful.
That's just the truth, according to all this evidence we have.
And I want to transition this to the signs that are being put up.
Is this all across England or was this in one city?
And this is the problem here, Lewis, is that on one hand, you've got progressivism, you know, shutting women down and taking opportunities away from them.
And then the other side, you have them patronizing it.
And it comes with these signs that we're seeing in England.
You want to explain where this is?
So this is in, this has been put up, sources say around Bristol, where the council have put up this sign to educate men on unwanted sexual harassment.
And of course, they've got a list there which is considered that.
And it has a statistic on the side, which will read.
So it says, if it's unwanted, it's not okay.
And this includes flirting, cat calling, paying compliments, hugging, jokes, touching, a little kiss, right?
Yeah, I didn't realize paying compliments was now considered that, which was very strange.
There's a lot of things.
I mean, it's very strange.
There's no nuance with this at all.
I think that's the core of the issue is there's no nuance with it.
So, yeah, I mean, you guys make your own mind up.
Do you think asking a woman out for a drink is considered sexual harassment?
Do you think making jokes is considered sexual harassment?
I mean, yeah, I'll leave that up to the viewers.
Jokes can go too far sometimes.
My problem is that what these types of people are trying to do, and whether it comes from a place where we are trying to actually protect people and make them feel comfortable, or if it comes from a place where we want to muddy the waters, the result is you're conflating words with actual violence.
And that's where the problem arises.
And that's what people want so that you can't, certain people, of course, want so that you can't criticize their ideology.
If words all of a sudden are the same as violence, well, then you can't criticize my bill.
You can't criticize my legislation.
You can't criticize my political ideology in any way, or else you're committing an act of violence against me, which therefore should get you arrested or fined.
And we can pull up something that's with Marcus Rashford if we want to cue that up for after.
But let's first bring that graphic back up and let's see some of the things we are conflating with actual violence.
And of course, we don't want any women to have unwanted anything, just like men don't want unwanted anything.
But the threat of violence does exist when we're talking about most women compared to men.
So flurry and cat calling, if the person doesn't want it, okay, go away, stop doing this.
And then you're harassing them if you're not.
But a compliment, that's not the same as touching.
No, it's not.
Taking a photo whilst creepy is not an assault like grinding on somebody is.
Asking for a person's number is not groping and grabbing.
But you see what I mean here?
We're listing things that are verbal, which is cat call, flirting, joke, staring, which is non-verbal, which is a really weird one.
I don't know how you're going to parse that out, or else you have people watching anybody who's staring.
You have these things which are non-crimes.
They're annoying.
They may be unwanted, but they are things that are just said.
And we're conflating them with grabbing and grinding and all this gross stuff that only a creepy guy in the streets of Bristol would do.
No fairy goes.
There's no nuance.
There's no nuance.
And that's the crux of the issue.
And with that statistic as well, I think we have that original article that's been amended.
So if we go back onto that graphic quickly, just so I can get my trail of thought back.
So it says on the side, I think it says, oh gosh, could you zoom in?
Would that be okay?
Just to the black text on the left.
Thank you so much.
High quality.
It says 90%.
Yeah, 97% of women in the UK have been sexually harassed.
If your words or actions are making someone feel uncomfortable.
So this statistic, 97% of women in the UK, has actually, that's been amended by the same publication who put that out.
And this was amended over a year ago.
I don't know.
I think I sent that through to you guys if we could pull it up.
But just for clarification, because personally, and I think for anyone, if you're going around touting a statistic like that, 97% of the whole of the UK women being sexually harassed.
I mean, that's a very, very, well, I want to say, a very, very damning statistic.
That's very intense.
So it actually says four-fifths of young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds.
And if we scroll all the way down to the bottom, just for clarification, keep going, keep going, keep going.
Oh, no, sorry, go back up.
Apologies.
It should be a red sort of dot.
There is an article.
This article.
So if you want to read that out, Andrew, for me, would that be all right?
Yes, this article was amended on March 24th, 2021, due to incorrect information.
The UK survey found that 97% of women.
So basically, they reduced the numbers from 97 and 80% to 86 and 71%, respectively, and they updated the headline.
So the problem here is not, oh, that's such a low number, because 86% of women being sexually harassed is insane.
It's an insane number.
If that's actually a problem, then we've got a big problem over hands in our society and we're starting to reflect countries that we mock for having these problems.
But the problem in lies here, Louis, that the same people conducting this study are the same people, if I'm not mistaken, putting out these signs conflating, you know, staring at somebody with grinding on them.
And this is just not the same.
And so if you're categorizing a person staring or whistling from across the street as sexual harassment, then of course the numbers are going to be high.
And of course these things are going to be unwanted, but to conflate words with actual assault is not the same thing.
You cannot, just like Will Smith, he can yell from his seat at Chris Rock if he wants to, but you can't just take it upon yourself to touch somebody.
That's not how the law works.
And they're trying to conflate these things so that for a greater cause, which in the end is patronizing women and saying you're too stupid to know the difference here, but we're patronizing people and we're trying to conflate things so that you cannot criticize them.
They're going after the most vulnerable thing here, which is a woman's safety and her ability to feel safe walking through her own city streets.
We're taking advantage of that idea and manipulating people based on their emotions so that they can then say, see, words are violence.
See, looking at a person is a threat.
Whistling from across the street is an assault on somebody and you should be criminalized for it.
It basically turns you into authoritarian regime where you have police coming and correcting your behavior on the streets, like in an Iran, like in China.
And that's just not a place we want to live.
We also don't want to live in a place where you can sexually harass women.
But if, you know, waving from across the street becomes sexual harassment, then I guess we've gotten to a place where we're more like China than Saudi Arabia.
So it's like you're picking from two terrible regimes and coming with your result here.
And all of it, in the end, I think, damages women, undermines women who have faced sexual assault and sexual harassment, and puts, you know, people who are offended by guy waving across the street on the same level, which it is not.
And if we recall from years ago, Lewis, there was that video, girl walking down the street, getting cat called in New York City.
Didn't account for the fact that it's New York City and didn't account for the fact that it took them like a day and a half to get all this footage compiled.
So I think it's bad for women when you, you know, basically try to hold their hand, no pun intended, through this process where you're making it, you're putting them out there to be ridiculed when you say when you equate these things, just like you're putting them out there to be embarrassed in the sporting examples we've talked about lately.
But let's move on from this.
I wish we had a camera on producer Olivia to get her opinions that we asked her about earlier, which were good ones.
But let's go the other way and let's start talking about men and then be fair.
Incels, Lewis, is a great takeaway.
There's an article that came out from our friends at True North, which is, you know, Canada's only hope along with rebel news in terms of conservative or at least reasonable news that you can actually trust from.
My big brother Andrew Lawton over there.
Lifting COVID restrictions could lead to incel terror attack wave, says researcher.
Now, are we giving too much credence to the researcher?
Maybe I would say yes, unless they're already being propped up or a notable person.
Let's read on.
Researcher by the Trudeau government, see, there you go.
So we can trust True North.
And I haven't read this article before.
So a researcher hired by the Trudeau government to produce a report on incel terrorism has told the Canadian press that lifting 19 restrictions could lead to a wave of incel terror attacks.
Keeping in mind, there's only ever been one in Canada.
Couple in the United States, if I'm not mistaken.
Obviously a bad thing, but the term incel is short for involuntary celibate and often used where to describe online subculture made of predominantly men.
I'd like to know if anyone's found the female incel message word, a man who feels sexually rejected by women.
So obviously, if you're an actual incel, you know, there's words you can use to describe them.
Less than 1% of them are going to be these insane people.
But to say that COVID-19 restrictions are the reason why incels commit terrorist attacks doesn't make any sense because the incel terrorist attacks that have actually happened were not under COVID restrictions.
So I don't understand.
Like they weren't after any restrictions were lifted.
I don't understand how this could accelerate it.
So we're supposed to now stay inside for all of time, Lewis, or else we're going to risk terrorist attacks.
I don't understand.
Well, the stereotypical incel is the guy that sits on his computer all day and doesn't go out to speak to women, is misogynistic, is just, you know, doesn't have any interest in going outside.
So why would lifting the restrictions all of a sudden make incels want to go outside?
Yeah, when people are at a high level of fear about going outside, all of a sudden the people who are already afraid of public interaction or interaction with women are now going to go out and have an increased chance of that.
It doesn't make sense to me.
I think this is an overall attack on men.
Again, I wouldn't say this just in any regular time, but it's the Trudeau government putting out a thing where they say men are dangerous.
Even nerdy men who spend time online are dangerous, even though it's the tiniest of fraction.
You could find a lot more terrorism in different ideologies at a much higher rate, Louis Brackpool.
I won't name any of them, but you can imagine what one, two, or three of them are.
And now we're saying we need to look out for incel terrorism when I can think of off the top of my head, I think three, maybe two that have happened in all time.
But of course, we're going to start broadening the definition of that to include anybody who espouses right-ring views, anybody who espouses views that aren't aligned with the government.
That's what an incel will become.
I'm sure of it.
In the terms of the government, they'll have a little document that goes out that says anybody who's on, you know, YouTube who doesn't follow the Young Turks is an incel.
Anybody who's on Rumble or Getter or Trump's platform, they're going to categorize them as that.
Anybody with fringe views, so it could be whatever they want, Lewis.
I don't know how much time we want to spend on that.
It's stupid.
No, there's nothing else to really say about that, to be honest.
If only Seinfeld existed today, we'd have an incel episode.
Probably.
Jon Stewart, and we're going to get into some celebrity stuff right here for the misunderstood fans of the audience.
That's Catherine and Natasha's weekly show.
Jon Stewart, whom I thought had retired.
It turns out Apple can throw a trillion dollars at you and you'll come out of retirement to make your own show again because they probably really need subscriptions.
I don't know how you get Apple TV.
Does it come with an Apple podcast subscription, maybe?
I don't know.
I don't know anything that's on there.
But Jon Stewart is a new Apple TV show, and he's got a nice little segment on there about how white people are terrible.
And he's really, it's like, Jon Stewart, we will give you a trillion dollars, but you must become a cog in the machine.
You must push for the establishment.
So let's play that clip if we have it right now.
People's Rhetoric Struggles00:13:16
And thus, the problem with white people.
I'm just going to.
I'm just going to stop for a second and pose so you can get your memes out.
Okay, there we go.
Get a good picture for you, clickbaits.
For however sincerely we want to reckon and listen, the truth is America has always prioritized white comfort over black survival.
Black people always went so hard for equality that they've been irreparably set back in the pursuit of equity.
And any real attempt to repair a ton of that damage reparation sets off white people's coming for our shit alarm, which we would know ourselves had we actually been listening.
My feeling is white people have a very, very serious problem.
And they should start thinking about what they can do about it.
Take me out of it.
Understood.
And that's his promo, too.
Understood.
I will listen to whatever you say.
Of course, Lewis, what we're not saying is that Jon Stewart's a Democrat, and Democrats are in power now.
They were in power for eight years under Obama.
They're in power for eight years under Bill Clinton.
They're in power for many times in history where they could have gone through with their reparations, and they didn't.
So, the problem you have is Republicans don't talk about it because they don't want to, and Democrats talk about it as if they don't have the ability to do so.
So, if you've wanted to do this over the past 30 years, you could have, but you didn't.
Why?
Because Democrats are the historically racist party.
So, they like to tell people, black people specifically, how bad the system is against them, how Hollywood doesn't represent them, how the government doesn't care about them, and how they actually want to lessen their ability to strive.
And guess what?
That's true for the Democrats because they don't do any of this stuff.
So, on one hand, they're saying, Oh, this, this, and this is bad while they're all in control of it.
The Oscars so white was the thing.
Well, guess who controls the Oscars?
The Hollywood elite.
So, why don't they want it in there?
Guess who controls the casting?
The Hollywood elite.
So, people are starting to finally, and celebrities are finally starting to speak out against this poison in Hollywood.
And I'm sure it's not going to affect Jon Stewart because he's got his contract signed.
But to say, here's a clip from a lady and be like, understood, commandant, it's stupid.
And why won't you call out, why won't you say Joe Biden, why don't you do this?
Why didn't you say Barack Obama, who's in power for eight years, why didn't you do this?
It's them complaining about themselves and being like, it's somebody else who's doing it to us.
It's somebody else who's treating us poorly.
You've voted for the same mayor in the same Democratic Party in Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, let's see, Baltimore, Atlanta.
Did I say St. Louis, Los Angeles?
You've voted for the same party for 30, 40, 50 years, and nothing's changed.
What's the problem?
It must be somebody else.
We're telling you guys, just vote for us and we'll solve everything.
But actually, it's us.
So we could go into more of a history lesson, Lewis.
But I think it's just extremely, again, and that seems to be the theme of today.
You know, characterizing people in a certain way when actually you're hurting them.
What's the word I'm looking for here?
You're setting them back while telling them that you're actually lifting them up is the thing.
And what's the word I'm looking for that's slipping my mind here?
You're ridiculing them.
You're setting them back, Lewis Brack.
You're the British guy.
Help me out with my vocabulary.
Sorry, mate.
I just love watching you struggle like that.
Bless you.
Well, here's the thing.
Whilst you try and remember the name and then you'll shout at me during what I'm about to say, which is absolutely acceptable.
Yeah, it's just more divisive language, really.
Rhetoric, identity, patronizing.
Patronizing.
Yeah, there we go.
Basically.
Yeah, so it's the same rhetoric that's happening.
And we're seeing it, of course, with the Hollywood elites as well.
I mean, you briefly mentioned that.
And, you know, they're all, you know, well, they're all singing from the same choir over there, basically.
And we don't really need to delve into that too much because we know.
And nobody cares about Hollywood unless, of course, some big drama happens.
And then all of a sudden, the ratings go back up.
But in terms of this, yeah, it's classic rhetoric, classic Democrat rhetoric that, you know, very patronizing towards the, well, all races, basically.
And using people as political pets.
And I think that's really, really horrible.
It's very divisive.
And it's not about the individual anymore.
It's about, you know, who you are in terms of your race, sexual orientation, gender.
That's, you know, that's how they'll use it against and weaponize against their own talking points.
And, you know, we see it time and time again.
And we see it with the massive with the big elites as well.
They've used it for years.
And it's all part of, you know, the NWO.
That's how that's how they want to do it.
So, yeah, that begs the question to the live stream.
Are you ready for the NWO?
I'm ready.
And this is something Alex Jones used to talk about in the early 2000s.
And we never thought these phrases would actually be used.
It turned into Great Reset.
It turned into what's the other one Justin Trudeau says slipping my mind.
But there is a clip at some conference that just happened about are we ready for the new world order?
And of course, Australians politicians said it last year.
And it's becoming more and more frequent.
And it's like nobody's voting them out, so it's going to keep happening.
Let's show the clip.
And the title of this session: Are we ready for a new world order?
Order.
Are we ready?
World order.
And of course, Justin Trudeau is locking step with Zelensky now, saying, Hey, we're in a war, but we could do things for the environment.
And then Trudeau goes on to brag about carbon tax and everything.
That's the thing about Zelensky and this whole Ukraine thing, and how, you know, it's obviously falling off the news cycle because he's had chances to end the war, have a ceasefire.
He's not getting help from NATO.
So that's another reason why you probably shouldn't have your people keep battling all the Azov and neo-Nazi battalion footage that comes out because they're on the front lines.
BBC tried to run water for them last week and say, carry water for them last week and say, oh, it's only like a thousand guys that are in the National Guard that are neo-Nazis.
But they're the ones on the front lines.
And the reason they've kept them around, despite their horrible views, is because they're very fierce fighters.
Surprise, surprise, they want to kill people.
And they're also fighting Chechen Muslims, which is some sort of ideological battle, as you can imagine, as well, literally.
And so they're the ones that put out all the footage because they're on the front lines.
And then people like BBC get caught putting out footage by neo-Nazis, which is something that you've put out.
And now, so everything's winding down, it seems a bit in terms of the media coverage.
It's still out there, of course.
It's pushed by Twitter every day.
But in terms of it being tip of the tongue for everybody, I think it's wound down a bit.
And now you have Zelensky, I think, showing his cards about being a person that the U.S. government is really in love with, saying, now is time for green energy and everything.
And they use the we must get away from Russian oil to push the green energy thing.
Almost as if Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia don't all sell lots of oil.
You also have the Emirates and Qatar and everybody in the Gulf region producing oil.
So whether you agree with it politically or not, there are other people to get oil from other than Russia.
And to say that all of a sudden now Ukraine has to get all their energy from green energy is pretty convenient timing.
You know what?
Times are tough, Lewis.
We're in a war.
We're losing people.
Russia's rolling through.
Terrible Putin.
And Putin is terrible for that.
I'm not going to pretend that he isn't.
Putin's rolling through and doing all this stuff.
But you know what, Lewis?
It's time we buy electric cars.
It's time we just let Elon dump a factory here.
It's time we start a carbon tax.
Like, this is what it is.
Like, in the middle of a war, you're just like, let's change all of our energy sectors.
Like, do you think that they're rolling in lithium batteries for their tanks?
Like, is that what people think is happening?
Now, this is the time, now that our country is in shambles, to spend hundreds of billions of dollars repurposing our systems of energy.
That's why people don't trust this.
That's why Justin Trudeau comes out and says, I know this is not the time, but it wasn't time for climate during lockdowns either.
So they literally are just trying to do what I call the exchange my billionaires for your billionaires because your billionaires are more right-wing in the oil sector for my green energy billionaires, which are like Al Gore and the Obamas and all these people who want to push it.
So you might say it is what it is, but at the same time, it's very hard to believe that you care and that you're not a puppet for somebody when you're just like, let's spend all of our money now during a war to change the green energy, which guess what?
Your jets aren't powered by, your tanks aren't powered by, your personnel carriers and your trucks.
None of this is powered by that.
Your guns aren't electric either.
They take, guess what?
Gasoline-powered guns is where we're you had to think about that one.
You had to think about it.
Just put a put a tube going into your gas tank and you've got a gas-powered gun.
It exists in a video game somewhere, Lewis.
Are we beating a dead horse, Lewis, if we say they're throwing it in our faces now?
Well, they've been doing it since the very beginning.
I mean, I'm pretty sure there was an article out there that said, you know, just a slight nuclear war would help the environment because it's basically culling people, which is absolutely awful and very, obviously poor taste.
I don't know if we can find that article.
But yeah, it was shocking to see.
But we're seeing a lot of this.
The green rhetoric has been going on for ages.
Obviously, we know it's part of the great reset and the WEF and what they espouse.
So it's no surprise to me that Zelensky, who is part of the WEF, is of course spouting the green agenda already, which is very surprising.
I think there's other things that should be on his mind at the minute, but to go around and make speeches about how everyone should turn green is pretty weird, okay?
And it's only going to fuel people to not trust him for that.
So for the people who really, really do trust Zelensky and he's, you know, a complete saint, yeah, I mean, to be fair, their minds aren't going to be swayed either way.
I think that's going to probably reinforce their view of Zelensky.
But like I've said in the past, I'm not on a side at all.
I think my interests are over here in the UK personally.
That's, of course, yeah, go ahead.
I was just going to say, and you know, war is obviously terrible.
And, you know, everyone stands by the innocent people of all sides of conflict because it is an ugly and horrible thing to go through.
But yeah, that doesn't necessarily need to be said.
I think that's governed by fear on my part, to be honest.
Because we're so used to seeing on social media, like, oh, if you don't, if you, oh, so what?
So you don't care about the innocents then?
And it's like, come on, man.
Like, no, everyone cares about innocent lives.
Do you know what I mean?
The people that get wrapped up into this nonsense are the ones we should be showing support for, not elites, not politicians, not governments.
Do you know what I mean?
Suddenly we trust governments now.
I didn't realize that.
So, yeah, it's very strange how people or people's rhetorics are really starting to do a full circle here.
Well, I think as the sole creator of rebel news in the UK, you get a lot of unwarranted hate, which of course comes without watching any of your material.
But it's sad, and I was thinking the same thing that we do have to say, of course, we don't support Russia, you know, coming in and taking land.
It's sad that we have to say, of course, we don't support women being harassed.
Because as soon as we don't say that, then the 99% of media that is hyper-left-wing and just, you know, they can't find anything about us to hate.
Like, there is someone wrote an article the other day that was like, why Jesus wouldn't want you to watch rebel news and got so many things with the company completely wrong.
They can't focus on any content.
They just have this image of their mind of what they want it to be.
Stephan's Take On Media Context00:13:16
And they will take things out of context, just like they do with Joe Rogan.
Not saying either of us are big as Joe Rogan.
Physically, we might be taller, but it's sorry to add the article, Jesus doesn't want to.
What does it even say in there?
Something rage.
Addictive rage kills the spirit.
She doesn't have access to Rebel News Plus.
My show has zero anger in it.
Your videos are reports.
Where is this coming from?
It's the, unfortunately, this is an old woman's idea of what she thinks that people should be afraid of because she watches CBC all the time.
And it's just easy and like a desperate attempt.
I'm glad we didn't have it up there for too long because it's a desperate attempt to signal to people where your ideology is.
And I'm reminded of yesterday, I was watching some Gordon Ramsey, as you know I always do, Lewis.
Absolutely.
And they were talking about Michelin star restaurants.
And I said, does Toronto have any Michelin star restaurants?
So I look up an article in Blog TO.
And the first thing they talk about is how wonderfully diverse the city is and how wonderful it is to have so much diversity.
And I'm just like, you're writing this article about restaurants.
And yes, there's diversity in food, but it's like you had to write in your article your signal out to the progressive world that you are one of them.
And that's when it starts to really appear to be as a cult when you have to inject these things on things that don't have anything to do with it.
You could just say Toronto has many different restaurants from different backgrounds and they're delicious and everything.
Oh, there we go.
And I read it and I was like, I turn to my girlfriend and I'm just like, why is this in this article?
Long story short, we don't have Michelin star restaurants and people go to other places and think it's amazing.
It's no secret that people in Toronto have an intimate relationship with local restaurants and the city's diverse population is best reflected in the amount of choice available come mealtime.
So the diverse population is reflected.
How about there's food from all different backgrounds and they're all delicious?
But no, Toronto doesn't have Michelin stars and that's why Lewis.
Do we have any NWA, NWO related super chats or NWA-related paid chats?
Either one.
Anything to throw up here?
Let's do some here to give people more chance to talk about different topics after.
Let's throw some up.
Kushi1124.
Hello, Rebel dudes.
Not sure about the truth of this.
However, I read that women were prevented slash prohibited from protesting.
Perhaps why they haven't come forwarded.
That was a story.
I believe I know exactly what you're talking about.
Leah Thomas's coach told the team not to make comments.
That was a claim made by people.
I'm not sure if it's true.
One person who is allegedly from the team came out and told Breitbart that he, Leah Thomas, coordinated with the other transgender athlete to throw the race, which was the only other race Leah Thomas has lost, by the way, against the other transgender athlete.
And then another person, Steven Crowder, said, spoke to them in a direct message.
So I believe that's the story you're talking about there.
Yeah, I think it's, I think there was a few swimmers that came forward to speak about it, but they had to have their faces blurred.
They said they don't want they want to remain anonymous because they're afraid of college against it.
Because they go to college and people are going to ruin it.
Yeah, basically, yeah, because we all know what universities and colleges are like nowadays.
Your scholarship has been revoked for not believing in science, is what it would come down to.
For, you know, for having wrongthink.
That's right.
Any more?
Let's say the angry one.
Alberta separatist.
There's where your anger is coming from.
Alberta won't separate.
Start focusing on the topic of your damn live feed, Lewis.
If you're going to talk about trans women, then change the damn title so I know to bother watching your live feeds.
It should say so I know not to bother.
Stay on topic, not pop culture BS, or people will stop watching your live feeds.
Turns out you're not only watching, but also paying.
We did get to the topic, but you know.
It's all linked.
I would say to you.
I'm pretty sure it's all linked.
Too bad.
Maybe if you ask politely, I wouldn't be saying too bad.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Politely.
I'll read the next one politely.
Actually, you read the next one, Lewis, because you can't help but be polite.
Oh, same guy.
Go ahead.
Oh, so Alberta Separatist once again says, WTF, does trans woman at incel have to do with New World Order?
Stay on topic or change the topic of your live feed.
Well, like we said, it all connects.
It all connects because it goes into the elites, Hollywood, what they want you to think, what you should think, wrong think.
You should be focusing on this, that, and the other.
I mean, what's there more to say?
It all connects.
Plus, we don't just don't want to hammer at NWO topics consistently for an hour.
Gosh, I'd go mad, I think.
So you've got to connect it all.
No, you can't.
It must be only the one topic.
It must be the only one thing.
I mean, you could.
You must think like this.
You must only talk about this.
yeah sounds a bit like uh maybe start your own podcast alberta separatist maybe Maybe start a podcast called Let's Separate Alberta.
See where that gets you.
And then we'll come on your show and we'll say, excuse me, you're not talking about Alberta separatism enough right now.
And we do have more NWO stuff coming and not just the wrestling group.
So stay mad.
Stay glad.
We love you anyways.
Yeah, we do.
I want to show this clip of Stephen Colbert because Peter Doocy from Fox News was asking Joe Biden about all the things he's walked back.
He talked about how when he was talking to the American soldiers, he said they would be going to Ukraine.
Then Joe Biden actually says, no, I was talking about Poland when they were going to be training them, even though he said, watch out for people standing in front of tanks in Ukraine.
Then he asked him about how he said he would respond in kind to bioweapons.
He asked him about several things.
And then I guess Stephen Colbert, who is at this point, Lewis, sadly to say, propagator in chief in terms of late night TV, like nobody goes harder than him.
Jamie Campbell's a close second, but let's show this clip so everybody gets the context here.
Yesterday, President Biden held a press conference and he was asked a ridiculous question by a ridiculous man, Fox News reporter, and that one kid in high school who wears a suit to gym class, Peter Doocy.
Jimmy, drop the deuce.
When you said a chemical weapon use by Russia would trigger a response in kind.
It will trigger a significant response.
What does that mean?
I'm not going to tell you.
Why would I tell you?
You got to be silly.
Remember.
Yes.
Remember how on last night's show I said that slapping is never ever the answer?
I'll have to file a one-time exemption on behalf of the President of the United States.
And Doocey did not stop there.
The world wants to know.
The world wants to know a lot of things.
I'm not telling them what the response would be.
Then Russia knows the response.
All right, I'm going to take two more questions.
Peter Doocy, Fox News, I've got two more questions.
First, what are the exact locations of all of America's troops?
And can you give me the nuclear launch codes?
Just tell me, is one of them?
Can I buy a volume, Mr. President?
I'd like to solve the puzzle.
Another feather in your hand.
Thank you.
So we're pretending here that he's not asking because he said in kind, which would mean respond with chemical weapons.
And of course, he can't mention anything about that because he mentioned it accidentally.
And now we're supposed to believe that the chemical weapons facilities don't exist, even though the government admitted that there's biomedical research facilities that we don't want the Russians to get a hold of because they could use it against us.
So we're just parsing words there.
So Stephen Colbert comes up there and he pretends as if he doesn't know why he's asking the question.
And his audience apparently is just as off the mark as he is.
Well, we know that he's basically part of the establishment and the media class and he's, you know, parroting one side.
Can you imagine if that was a right-wing talk host and they said, let's say it was Trump and a reporter asked some silly question or something and the right-wing host said about, do you know what, we should exempt slapping for this particular reporter.
Can you imagine the news, the articles the next day, the hounding?
Oh, gosh, the debate would be on for weeks and weeks and weeks.
Give him the best slap ever.
He's never.
Can you imagine?
And not to mention, like this, they really want to excuse this Will Smith thing.
They really want to say it's okay.
Again, it comes back to wanting to control the language.
And when Chris Rock makes a joke that you don't like, for some reason, the establishment wants it to be okay to, because they want to silence any criticism.
Again, they want to silence Chris Rock for making a joke that they don't like.
We know that they don't like comedy.
They know they don't like jokes if it's something they disagree with ideology.
And I wanted to throw, because I think Stephen Colbert at the end there, like you said, he's justifying something even as a joke that if it went to the other side, it wouldn't be taken as a joke.
It'd be a Trump comedian says that Trump should be allowed to beat people.
Host says, Fox News host says that violence against reporters is okay.
And then CNN says they're threatening our lives, man.
So I wanted to show this a clip from producer of Entourage.
He's got a new show coming up named Doug Ellen.
And I think he gave the very best take on Hollywood and on Will Smith from this whole incident.
We don't want to keep going over the Will Smith stuff, but I think this is the very best take you're going to find anywhere else.
Can we play that?
Why do you think Will Smith got the pass he did?
I think they knew.
I mean, he was already, it was a foregone conclusion that he was winning the Academy Award.
He's the biggest star in the room.
You think they knew and that's why they let him stay?
I think they were probably.
And again, I'm not condoning any of their behavior.
I think they were so stunned by what happened, nobody knew what the hell to do.
But I think that if it was a cinematographer or a makeup artist, they would have arrested them immediately or taken them out of there.
And I think his speech was even worse.
Like, the speech was worse than the slap, this gaslighting bullshit about, you know, I'm a protector of people and a lover of people.
Chris Rock was standing with his hands behind his back and a guy twice his size slaps him across the face at the Oscars.
And, you know, what was tragic to me about it is Chris Love made this amazing speech about a movie that is so much more important than the King Richard movie.
That movie, Summer Soul, is a really important documentary, and Quest Love gave a great speech that nobody was listening to.
The guy from Coda, who's the first or second deaf person to win an Oscar, nobody's thinking about that.
Everybody's about this, and I think it's really sad, and it's a classic narcissist who made the entire event about himself rather than everybody else.
See, that's what I'm saying, Lewis.
Sorry, go ahead.
I was going to say, I have a different approach.
I don't care what Hollywood has to say.
That's what they all do to each other.
That's the thing.
They preach all this stuff, and the theme of today's show is patronizing people.
We're celebrating or paying all this attention as put on Will Smith slapping somebody, then faking an apology, not mentioning him afterwards.
Whereas the very next award that Chris Rock was presenting was about a documentary about a black music festival that happened at the same time as Woodstock and therefore got no attention.
It was completely overshadowed and I had never heard of it.
And they're giving out an award for this, you know, all-black music festival.
And Tiffany Hash, a comedian, comes out and say, Will Smith is protecting the black family.
But at the same time, you're denigrating people who are actually doing real stuff and not going on stage slapping people.
So it's the same thing over and over again.
We're supposed to be the ones protecting you.
We care about everything, but we're going to focus on the guy slapping the comedian whose hands are behind his back instead of the documentary about the black history that has been overshadowed.
So they can't get anything right.
And then the award for Will Smith is what?
A story about the Serena and Venus Williams sisters who are tennis stars, whose father was their coach.
And like, that's super important.
Like, all of a sudden, that's the most important thing, more important than actual black culture.
They have no idea what they're talking about, Lewis.
They keep going in this circle where it's like, everybody care about us, but we're not going to care about ourselves because why?
Because Hollywood doesn't actually care about you.
The elites don't actually care about you, Lewis.
Protecting Our Money00:04:49
Well, exactly.
And for the people, of course, from both sides who believe it's either real or fake, because you know what Hollywood is like.
I totally understand that viewpoint completely.
It sets a bad precedent if it is fake, okay?
Because it says, let's just go and assault comedians for making jokes, basically, about a haircut.
That's what it boils down to.
So it sets a bad precedent.
And we know that, of course, Hollywood is not and does not have a great track record of looking after people.
So, so, and they do not have your best interests at heart.
So, for people who are accepting of this behavior, you need to really reassess because you can't go to comedy clubs and slap or hit comedians if you do not like the joke or if you are on the receiving end of a joke or someone you know is on the receiving end of a joke.
A joke is a joke.
It's not meant to be serious.
And if you even put the Oscars or Hollywood or any of those lot in some sort of moral high ground, you really need to get your head checked because there is not, those are not on, those people are not on your side.
Those people do not care for your best interests.
They are narcissistic parasites, basically, is what they are, Hollywood.
So, yeah, that's my take on it.
And I'm going to leave that there.
Tell me how you really feel, Lewis Brackpool.
Probably says we have a bit more New World Order stuff to get to, and then we'll read any remaining chats and then we'll take off.
You want to throw that up, good madam, in the studio?
What underpins a world order is always the financial system.
I was very privileged.
My father was an advisor to Nixon when they came off the gold standard in 71.
And so I was brought up with a kind of inside view of how very important the financial structure is to absolutely everything else.
And what we're seeing in the world today, I think, is we're on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I'll say this boldly, we're about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one.
And the new one, Bitcoin, what we call blockchain.
Oh, I'm so surprised.
Having an almost perfect record.
Every single transaction that happens in the economy.
So the woman admitting that her father helped take them off the gold standard and into the central banking system is now warning you that we can't go off the central banking system to crypto because that's too dangerous.
Even though her grandfather changed the monetary system to the, I don't know, I'm going to say worldly renowned is one of the biggest problems in the world, the central banking system, and the center of so many conspiracies.
But we must be one that we're going to have to change accounting and we're going to have to change our monetary system.
How about we just have all of it?
How about we just have fiat?
How about you buy your gold and your silver and you can pay for that if you want, which I'm pretty sure you can.
Have your NFTs.
Have your Bitcoin and your Ethereum.
Check out my Bitcoin and Ethereum wallet on my Twitter page if you want to donate to me.
Quick plug.
And it's like, we're not supposed to realize that you have a horse in the race here because you're fully admitting it.
And you see the chic there just be like, hmm, she's making some good points.
We could be making a lot more money if we just ban the other systems.
He wasn't rubbing his chin.
There's so much prejudice against cash.
So much prejudice against it.
They don't like it because guess what?
If me and you, Andrew, went to a bar and we paid in cash, the state wouldn't know that we'd do it.
So no wonder they want to really get rid of that.
So yeah, I thought that this was all conspiratorial, but they're all sitting on stage.
You know, what were the conspiracy 20 years ago?
Basically.
Alex Jones was right.
This doesn't shock me whatsoever what we're witnessing.
And we owe a lot of people an apology.
It's hilarious that she'll just sit there and be like, yeah, my grandfather helped take away the gold standard, and that was good, but let's take away any other form of monetary systems, and that's also good.
Basically saying we need to protect our money here, people.
We can't have people just running about investing in things.
And we're going to get screwed by this.
The world is going to separate into China, India, and Russia, it seems like.
And then we're going to have this line down the middle where the West has to obey their masters.
And then probably the Middle East and Saudis and Qataris are going to be like, we'll deal with anybody because that's what usually seems to happen.
As bad as those governments are, they tend to get away with doing whatever they want because they're not accountable for any of their actions because they've got such a strong hold on their country and their regime.
AI And Inequality00:03:52
Lewis Brackpool, you've been wonderful as always.
Thank you for accepting my clips of Austin Powers trying to maneuver through the hallway.
And we've got some chats to do before we leave, I think, is what I heard.
Let's do it.
Awesome.
Hope it's not Scottish separatists 345.
Pamela for Freedom says, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Elon Musk will be in Vancouver April 10th to 14th for TED Talks.
Come out and protest.
Well, we don't protest as news people, but we can send Dre Humphrey, the people's reporter, to cover the event, Dre Humphrey, if you're watching.
On AI as well, which would be, you know, I mean, we know that Elon Musk wants to put microchips in people's brains.
I mean, he's done it to a pig, and that's been a successful trial.
So, apparently so.
It can go on Facebook and do mean tweets.
So, there's a pig just posting selfies of itself.
A pig discovering the world of social media and then people make fun of it and hurt its feelings and stuff.
Basically, mean tweets from a pig.
That would be specifically hurtful.
You get a lot of death threats.
GME Linda G60, I'm going to go with.
Love the Rebel News.
Thank you all from Texas.
Freedom for Texas.
Thank you.
Love Texas.
Much kinder to us in Texas, it seems, than Alberta.
It's because you're British, Luce.
I think that's why the Albertans hate you.
Probably.
Specifically, you, not me.
Yeah.
Is that it for those?
That's it.
No, go ahead, Lewis.
Albertadon says, if Bruce Willis thought his wife was insulted and slapped a black comedian, would the Hollywood elite have been so quick to make this go away?
It's a good point.
Well, it was black on black, though.
So, if Bruce Willis slapped Ricky Gervais, I don't think they would care.
I would say they say Ricky Gervais deserved it, I think, because he's mean.
I think we'll see a different sort of coverage and different angles.
I mean, we've already seen that a lot of publications have already made this about race, which is exhausting.
And they've said that, I think I read a Guardian article saying white outrage against Will Smith slapping is the bastion of inequality or something like that.
I don't know if that's worth bringing up, but yeah, people have tried to already make it about race.
I'm just, yeah, here it is.
White outrage about the white is rooted in anti-blackness.
It's inequality in plain sight.
So, just so for a white person to be like, look, what Will Smith has done is really wrong and he should be punished, that's white outrage, apparently, and it's rooted in anti-black inequality.
If the comedian was Cat Williams, who has been arrested for slapping somebody at a grocery store, I would have liked to see what he did.
Cat Williams wouldn't have taken it.
Cat Williams would have fought Will Smith, even if it's a losing battle.
Shout out to Cat Williams.
Pamela for Freedom says, Pfizer sponsors the award ceremony, and they are coming out with an alopecia medication.
And now Alopecia Awareness is on a high, perhaps performance to heighten the medication sales.
I mean, anything possible, Lewis.
Yeah, that's it.
Do you know what?
I didn't think of it like that in a way to, because we know that Pfizer sponsors the Oscars, of course.
We saw it.
And is it biotech or something?
BioNTech.
Is that really the focus?
Her Alopecia is probably like the fourth layer down.
First, it's Will Smith, Chris Rock, the jokes.
And then Alopecia Awareness, I think, comes in a fourth or fifth place.
Pavement On The Side00:04:52
It wouldn't surprise me, put it that way, if we find out in 10 years' time, because they suppress everything.
So in 10 years' time, we'll revisit that comment.
We will.
There's that Twitter page where it's like, remind me of this in 10 years or something, when Twitter is run by brains just hooked up to a system.
Go ahead, Lewis.
Cool.
Twink says, hey, guys, the whole you twinks.
I think it's right next, maybe.
Twin X twinks.
I've just said it.
I've seen it.
Sorry.
Apologies if I've gotten that wrong.
Hey, guys, the whole Ukraine war is part of the WEF agenda to reduce pop.
Both Zelensky and Putin are WEF.
China's attack on Taiwan next.
Why do you think the US and other Westerners did NADA in early days?
Andrew, what's your take on that?
My take is that there's a different, like, whether they're part of the World Economic Forum or not, I don't think this is to set up anything else other than their dealings in the Ukraine.
I think the Bidens have a lot to hide in Ukraine.
Sure.
And look how long it took for people to start saying in mainstream media that they do have neo-Nazi battalions, which is a thing.
Of course, you don't want to take Putin's word for it.
He has been on the WF thing as well.
He's talked about the new industrial revolution.
Can't trust any of them, I'm saying.
So it's only a distraction if you buy into it.
And I'm happy to see people now taking the Lewis Brackpool approach: we have more important things to worry about here, or else we have to start focusing on Yemen, start focusing on Syria.
And to an extent we do, but making that the thing where we put the flags at our names, you know, that's different than actually a few news stories coming out from, you know, Yemeni sources or something like that.
Sure.
I think it's a very nuanced subject, and to pin it down to just one thing, it could be an element.
It could be.
Very, very much could be.
And I mean, with the green agenda thing coming out from Zelensky, I mean, the motion is there.
Yeah.
So, you know, it's definitely not to rule it out as such, but I think it's a very nuanced issue that we should explore all avenues in terms of just focusing on that particular subject.
But as I said, you know, there is motions in play.
There is a lot of things that don't add up.
There's a lot of things that are very, very strange about this war, which is why I take a step back.
I look at both sides.
And of course, I do not attend to any side.
Do they have avenues in England?
Or do we just have ways and courts?
Ways.
Ways and no sidewalks as well.
Paths and all that.
Where you're supposed to walk on the pavement.
With the cars?
Where the car is so small that they don't.
Cars don't go on pavements, mate.
What is pavement to you?
When a road gets paved, what does that mean?
What?
No, it's a different, that's a different adjective or like a different way.
I'm not saying it.
But no, you've got a pavement on the side, and then you've got the main road.
We call them a sidewalks.
Sidewalk.
All right, bruv.
You go over here with your sidewalks and your boy scrub.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's pavement, mate.
It's a bit of pavement on the side.
You pave a road.
You pave a driveway.
What do you call a driveway?
Yeah, sure.
A car park?
Where do you park your car in front of your house?
It's called a driveway.
Yeah, drive, your driveway, yeah.
In your garage or your garage?
Garage.
Yeah, that's right.
Any more super chats before we go down this English accent hole?
One more.
Cash is cash.
Twink/slash twin X.
I agree.
Making producer Efron enraged at the talk about fiat talk.
Producer Efron is our way to the Krypton universe.
He's going to take us to the promised land.
He loves us very much.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Louis Brackpool on Twitter.
Verified, so he's more important than all of us.
Every Wednesday, we'll be talking across the pond.
Thanks to everybody on Rumble Super, you Odyssey Getter.
YouTube.
Am I forgetting any of them?
I think I'm good, she says.
Thank you, Louis Brackpool.
Thank you to all of our lovers and haters out there and the British viewers, of course.
Let's play some Liam Gallagher on our way out here as our traditional Wednesday outro of British music.
Take us home.
Yeah, why not?
Oasis guy.
Hey, there, did you know?
Oh, it has to be like this.
It has to be this cinematic symbology or symbolism of Oasis.
The ballad of the blue-eyed boy, it says.
That's so cringy.
I love this stuff.
Or like, what if we do this music video in the middle of the field?
Goodbye to Oasis00:00:26
Three chairs.
Alright, goodbye Lewis.
I can't take this.
Goodbye.
You weren't good, he said.
With a smoke ring round your heads, you would see me on the other side.