Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 10, 2022 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:13:58

Global Farmer Protests - Great Reset Resisters? - #032 - Stay Free with Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm going to go ahead and get that.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello and welcome to Stay Free with Russell Bram.
	We've got a fantastic show for you today.
	We're going to be talking about the American midterms, but also from a slightly surprising perspective.
	And this is that perspective.
	All right, we all know the results.
	We know the results.
	Boring!
	Can't keep going on about the results.
	We've got to look at whether the American political machine can deliver real change.
	Forget about your tribal affiliations and instead focus on whether or not you are seeing any real change in your actual lives.
	Are these political systems able to deliver change?
	It only seems like a matter of days ago that we were looking at the grandstanding and posturing of the great figures of either party.
	I'll tell you how we know they're out of ideas, because they're reaching back, retrospectively, through their retrospeculars, into the past, right?
	Whether it's the Democrats trotting out Barack Obama to sort of present a more liberal and accessible facet or aspect of their party, Or the Republicans turning again to Donald Trump, or even more significantly, Ron DeSantis, the new hope of the Grand Old Party, publicising and promoting himself in a way like he's a Calvin Klein model.
	That's what I'm going for.
	So we're going to be looking at some of those promotional materials and asking, ah, sweet lady, liberty, democracy, whither do they lie?
	Like, you know, what are you really, democracy, is what I'm trying to say.
	And also, I'm going to be talking to you about some activism and campaigns that I'm personally interested in, notably the, like, the water where I live, that's water in your accent, I live near the River Thames and the water authority that used that River Thames to get water to distribute dumped loads and loads of poo in there.
	Much too!
	Exactly!
	It has poo in it!
	Filby One!
	Too much poo in it!
	Yeah, drain the swamp, drain the River Thames of human feces.
	That's what needs to happen.
	So I'm going to be talking about that activism campaign and I want to point out how local issues point to global matters and how by awakening locally we can change the world.
	Not just a local matter, Russ.
	How do you mean?
	A new study based on localised surveys of waterways across the United States found that more than 80% of streams, canals, creeks and rivers in the country contain detectable levels of toxic forever chemicals.
	That scientists warn can cause an array of damaging harm to people, communities and wildlife.
	I don't like the phrase toxic forever chemicals.
	Do you like that, you guys in the chat?
	Because when I think of like forever, I like to think of a forever friend.
	Like we're forever friends.
	I'm your toxic forever chemical.
	I'm going to be getting right down there in your DNA.
	And what really fascinated me about attending this protest was that in an area of our country, it's known as Henley, which is regarded as conservative, that's sort of the centre-right party, people are sort of demanding that the municipal water authorities, which are foreign-owned, owned by Qatari governments and Canadian businesses, I've got the information on that right in front of me, I think, like it's owned by Currently the largest shareholders are an Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, they own loads.
	Canadian Pensions Group, they own loads.
	Kemble Water Holdings, that's who owns it.
	China Investment Corporation.
	China?
	Oh man, I've never reached for the Donald Trump China with more enthusiasm.
	It's extraordinary that what you consider to be your country is already being colonised by foreign financial interests and you consider the amount of rhetoric around immigration, which I know to a lot of you is an important issue.
	But when it comes to foreign money, owning your country, owning your water, what's the significance of a midterm election if no matter who you vote for, your country, your land, your farms, your water, are going to end up owned by foreign interests, by large corporations.
	And forget foreign, because even if it's domestic, it's ultimately corporate interests that don't care about ordinary people and the lives of ordinary people.
	For now, let's enjoy a little bit of bipartisan propaganda.
	A little bit later, we'll tell you more about how local activism is going to change the world.
	But for now, let's look at some of the stuff that's been going on.
	What's this Trump-Ohio-Hunter Biden moment?
	Well, it's just a comical moment that Trump continues to deliver.
	This time referencing the Hunter Biden laptop situation.
	I just thought you'd enjoy it.
	I will enjoy it because I like it when Trump's up on his high horse.
	As you know I don't believe in either American political party or any political parties I don't think.
	I think there are some good politicians like around in the world who really sort of care.
	I wouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.
	It's the system isn't it?
	It's the bloody system what's broken!
	Same as with the dumping the poo in the waterways.
	That's the system.
	I do enjoy watching Donald Trump digging people out, railing on people, wailing on people.
	What do they say in the United States of America?
	Railing, wailing.
	You're watching me through the phone.
	Here I am, look.
	So let's have a look.
	We can watch this together.
	Come on, just snuggle down on my shoulder like a parrot and let's see what Donald Trump's got to say about the laptop.
	Oh, is it me that has to press it?
	I'll play it.
	Go on then, young Putin.
	But it was the laptop from hell And they said it was Russia disinformation.
	No, it wasn't.
	It was from Hunter.
	Like he would look at the laptop.
	That'd be baffled by it.
	Does he mean just the sort of economic and political information, like sort of like the Ukrainian energy stuff and the Chinese energy stuff?
	Or does he mean like the other stuff?
	The sort of stuff that's about private life?
	I don't know.
	Because I think he would understand both.
	Yeah, because Joe Biden's been around.
	One thing you can say about him is he's got experience.
	He's been alive so long.
	He's like Mephistopheles.
	He's like Nosferatu.
	He's ageless.
	Yeah, he's basically making a reference to his mental capacity, isn't he?
	He's basically saying stuff on a laptop.
	He's going to be baffled by that.
	You give him a laptop and you think it's like a metal sandwich with a television in it.
	What's this?
	What's happened to my grilled cheese?
	It's looking back at me!
	Where's this grilled cheese sandwich?
	Got my sign fucking in it!
	We're allowed to say that.
	Can do.
	Say that on Rumble.
	It's not live on YouTube.
	Not live on YouTube.
	We're allowed to make little jokes like that there.
	We're allowed to have a little bit of fun.
	Sorry about the swearing.
	It was just clean fun, wasn't it?
	Keep going?
	Don, if that ever happens to you, if you ever have a laptop...
	Like that.
	That's his little laptop, the little one.
	Oh man, that's so funny.
	Firstly, his way of talking, it's a funny way to talk.
	It's like he's got a funny cadence and a funny rhythm.
	I think his lads decided to save him.
	I think his lads decided to save him.
	That's so funny, because he sounds like an actual little boy.
	I don't know how, like, if I had to choose a side, I'm to the, I don't know, left?
	I'm beyond, I don't think the categories of left and right matter anymore.
	That's what Brad Evans said.
	I don't know why I'm doing this.
	No, I know, because, I mean, the camera's there.
	The camera, for God's sake.
	I've started to prioritise them because they're here now and I love them.
	Thanks, guys.
	Oh, what are you doing with some Sellotape?
	Putin, where are you going?
	Oh, you're giving me something to lean on.
	Lean on me when you're not strong.
	That's pretty good.
	That was lovely, thank you for that.
	You guys stay there.
	You stop right in there and I'll talk to you, the people that are watching this show on a variety of other media.
	What is it that I'm excited about now?
	It's loud being inside a stage.
	How can you not see, if you're a centre-left person, that that's well funny to use your child in such an amusing, irreverent, sort of weird way?
	If you have a laptop like that, That's extraordinary.
	That's comedically very sophisticated, I think.
	I swear, I'll never speak to you again.
	That's well funny because I feel like some comedians on the left really dissed him, made jokes about his kid and stuff like that.
	He's fascinating.
	I can see why people find that appealing.
	The only way that you would be able to oppose that level of oratory skill, I think, would be pure authenticity.
	Look, all we care about is challenging big corporations and ensuring that life for ordinary Americans improves.
	I know Donald Trump's appealing and he's sort of funny and everything, but I've got to tell you, that he's not going to do anything to meaningfully change
	the life of ordinary Americans.
	Ultimately he's going to facilitate the military-industrial complex,
	even though, yes, I acknowledge that Trump didn't declare any new wars,
	but he did carry on with the droning.
	He's not going to help the lives of...
	If you want to own your own property, if you want to have your own job,
	if you want to have your own time, because of the constraints of the system,
	he's not going to be able to do anything there.
	But we are going to. We're going to change the system.
	That's the only possible way of changing...
	Yeah, you can't fight with inauthentic rhetoric of your own, can you?
	Because people see through it.
	And so they go, well, I prefer the version that's funny.
	At least this is funny.
	You know, in a sense, you can't blame people.
	You know, life is hard.
	People going through hardships.
	You know, the country and the world's gone mad.
	Well, at least there's someone funny talking about his son and his laptop.
	So funny.
	Is it nearly over?
	No, it's a bit more.
	Eric, that intrudes you, just so you know.
	Yeah, yeah.
	That includes you.
	Why did you go to the small one first?
	I know!
	Because you could have started with Eric.
	Because Eric's more appropriate because it's all business deals and crack and sex workers.
	Oh my god, that's so funny.
	So I also imagine that little lad's up there in a sort of a little version of that coat and everything.
	Do we still know how little he is?
	Oh right, he might be older now.
	I don't know, I mean they do grow, don't they?
	They grow, I've got kids, I've seen them, they're bigger than they were.
	16 years old.
	16 now?
	The little one's 16!
	Wow.
	No, the little ones.
	Does he still wear that little bow tie and stuff?
	Nah, let's see him now.
	I want to see him right now.
	I thought that the little ones, only little, like a little mini Trump.
	I mean, he was that.
	It's just Wednesday last time we saw him.
	Ages ago, because I don't, Bob, I don't look at stuff like that.
	No.
	That's extraordinary.
	Have you got him?
	Have you got him young Putin?
	He's empowering these QAnon wackos.
	He's empowering these QAnon wackos who literally want to start a second civil war.
	He's empowering that, but McCuriosity says, he's... hold on, I just want to respond to this.
	He said, like, get the image, pull it up. So, McCuriosity says he's empowering these QAnon wackos
	who literally want to start a second civil war. Now, listen, I would say perhaps what you're saying is correct,
	but what is the liberal opposite of that? You know, I don't think you could say that about Trump without saying
	that Joe Biden saying that, you know, the MAGA movement are evil is similar invective.
	Do you disagree?
	Let me know in the comments, let me know in the chat.
	Because I'm not a pro-Trump person.
	And as for QAnon wackos, I feel that this is why you have to decentralise.
	Like, whether it's on religious grounds, ideological grounds, sexual grounds, civil grounds.
	People are different now.
	No one wants to have a centralised system where they go, oh, we're all this.
	No one wants it anymore.
	It's over.
	As Gareth will point out to you, how do you organise a health service?
	How do you organise a military?
	How do you organise roads?
	I don't know yet, but it seems like there is a necessity for some degree of centralisation when it comes to providing municipal facility.
	But the government should become non-ideological.
	They should become absolutely practical.
	Yeah, also I don't think your point was condoning Trump or saying he's the ant.
	I mean, you literally specified now.
	Yeah, I don't condone that.
	The point is to try and understand why this is popular.
	Why has Trump risen to the place he has?
	Is he an anomaly or is he a product of a system?
	You know, it's about looking at not just Trump, but how Trump got there.
	How did we get to a point where Trump is now?
	If you don't try and at least understand those things, you're not going to learn anything anyway, are you?
	Yeah, thank you.
	No worries, I'm sticking up for you there, but I noticed you were looking at comments instead.
	No, no, I like your sticking up.
	I was listening, I can do two things at once.
	You should, you should, if you knew, I can't, what?
	And then someone said here, ask about what Moses did in the desert.
	That's a reference to the Jordan Peterson show that's going out right now.
	Oh, shit.
	I just blew my own mind.
	He's in a vortex.
	That's a reference to our interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson and it's a fantastic conversation and that's available on Rumble too.
	Is there any more from... Oh no, we're having a look at Little Lad.
	Yeah.
	Right, let's have a look at Little Lad right now.
	That's him when he was little.
	He's called Baron.
	Baron, and he's... He's 16.
	He's 16 there.
	Alright, he's 16 now.
	Can I see what he's like?
	He's really tall, actually.
	Oh, look at him!
	He's bigger than both of them put together.
	Yeah, that's Barron Trump.
	Okay, so he's sort of an adult.
	He's a little adult.
	Fair enough.
	Okay, well, it's fairly relevant.
	It's probably the perfect time to start addressing the laptop issue, aside from the financial improprieties.
	Absolutely.
	He's basically having the talk, isn't he?
	Just in public.
	Yeah, yeah, but I swear I'll never talk to you again.
	Brilliant.
	Okay, is that the end of that?
	Yeah, I think that is the end of that.
	Do you want to look at Joe Biden on a stage or do you want to get into some data?
	Yeah, what on?
	Well, whatever you'd like.
	We can talk about some financial aspects of the midterms.
	Let's just have a look at Biden staggering on a stage and then let's have a look at Joe Biden.
	Then let's look at some facts around the midterms, donors and lobbying and the impossibility of this system ever delivering real change for you.
	But before that, once again, the cadaverous but potentially good-hearted Joe Biden.
	NOS4A2 in about on a stage.
	Soon to be at COP27 so we've got that to look forward to as well.
	We want to talk about COP27 as well because do these events, these global events that are apparently talking about the environment, do anything to improve the lives of ordinary people and do they do anything to meaningfully impact the ecological disaster that is their entire raison d'etre?
	Do all the changes that they're suggesting and indeed implementing make any difference?
	Or do they ultimately end up penalising and persecuting ordinary people rather than the giant corporations that create 70% of the world's pollution?
	Are we going to be talking about the New Zealand farmers today?
	Yeah, we can talk about that also.
	Is that our video?
	That is, yeah.
	Is that playing out in this stream?
	It is.
	Oh, you're going to love this.
	We talked to you a little bit about it the other day, but now we're going to show you, I think, in this stream, yeah?
	We're going to show you how the New Zealand farmers are standing up to their government who are imposing new regulations, apparently in order to help the climate and help the planet, but actually it looks like it could be the Great Reset.
	So we're saying, are these New Zealand farmers climate change resistors or Great Reset opponents?
	Resistors.
	Send me a better subtitle for that because I don't know how to fuck that up.
	No, it's fine.
	I feel like it should be.
	Are they climate change deniers or great reset resistors?
	Yeah, that's a better way of queuing that up.
	Let's have a look at Biden having a stagger about.
	10, 12, 15, whoops, stepping on them.
	There's a... that's black, anyway.
	LAUGHTER Whoa, stepping on her! That's black!
	It's black, we don't know what he's talking about.
	Yeah, because obviously, whatever that was, it would have voted for him, for sure, because if you don't vote for Joe Biden, you ain't black.
	And that was black.
	So ergo, by the maths of Biden's mind, that's a Biden voter right there, certainly in terms of the palette of Well, we were talking earlier about, you know, ultimately how these midterms are funded and how they're lobbied for, how these parties make their money.
	in the context rather of donors and lobbying. What do you want to point out Gail?
	Well we were talking earlier about you know ultimately how these midterms are
	funded and how they're lobbied for, how these parties make their money. We've
	talked already about how 10 billion dollars is being spent on these midterms
	most ever and the 50 biggest donors have collectively pumped at least 1.1
	billion of that to both sides.
	So billionaire investors, from shipping magnates to casino moguls, they skew mainly to Republican, but they also affiliate with both parties.
	So I think in terms of percentages, billionaires make up 20% of total Republican donations compared with 14.5% of democratic donations so you know there's about 5% in it it's pretty much you are getting huge billionaire donors
	Who you would imagine have some influence on what these parties then go on to do, massively funding to both sides.
	A significant portion of their donations come from billionaires.
	10% of the total donations constitute donations that are made to both parties.
	So there's a significant amount of investment that can cater for and handle either potential outcome.
	What I've been doing lately is I've just been trying to myself curate and understand how much evidence there is that suggests that the movements of democracy that consume so much newspaper ink, that devour our screens, that take up our time, how much of meaningful power movements Happened regardless of which party is in administration.
	And a good way of understanding that is our interview with Jeffrey Sachs where it just spells out that the military industrial complex can pursue their agenda unimpeded regardless of who you vote for.
	And I feel that probably if you were able to look at the financial sector, and this is just a snapshot of that, you know, 1.1 billion interpolitical committees and groups competing on both sides, they affiliate with both sides, 20% of total Republican donations are from billionaires, 14% of Democrat donations.
	That's one sort of class or group, a very small group of people, providing a disproportionate amount of the funding in order to exert influence.
	Yeah, on top of that, just to jump in, Federal Lobbying is on track to spend record amounts in 2022, receiving over two billion during the first two quarters of the year.
	That is Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America were in the top four.
	We imagine that's going to contain many of those big pharma companies that we talk about so often.
	Meta and Amazon also remained in the top 10.
	Big banks are also donating millions on behalf of both the Republican and Democratic candidates that they
	would believe help them slash regulations and preserve predatory practices. So a time again when
	Americans are suffering, banks are lobbying both parties to receive favorable regulation.
	So you know, it's not it's not going to help, is it the ordinary person?
	The point of democracy is not to provide alternatives, it's to preserve the system. And the system
	is a financial one, a corporate one. And you can just hear from these examples, what the
	limitations of potential democratic change would be. And I suppose what we have to appreciate
	and act upon is that once you've heard that and start to understand it, you have to kind
	of demand real alternatives. I think part of that is through ongoing personal awakening.
	Like, learning to sort of chew through that data and respond to it, and then not get distracted.
	Like, whether you're a person that considers yourself to be on the left, ah, QAnon, Trump, Trump, QAnon, and then if you're a person that considers yourself to be on the right, ah, SJWs, ah, like, you have to find out whether, no, hold on, whilst these issues I feel important.
	I know there's something more important that is less easy to identify and it's the movement of financial and corporate power and the way that that, in alliance with the state, are able to continue to pursue an agenda regardless of what seems to happen politically.
	I do have to keep saying it.
	Alright, so Sri, is it time for us to look now at these farmer protests in New Zealand and how it, in a sense, demonstrates how ordinary people are standing up against the Great Reset Agenda?
	Yeah, we can do.
	This is, yeah, just another example of farmers, although you'll see actually from the video that they do look, they're pretty well behaved farmers.
	They're not like riots, these things.
	Yeah.
	They're just like addressing each other very civilly.
	They're very sort of civil farmers trying to organise together.
	And what I'm starting to notice is that all over the world there are protests that amount to anti-globalist movements.
	And even the two protests that I've been involved in myself at a national, even a local level, both point to the same problem.
	Where it's this Thames water protest where I live, which shows what happens when water authorities become privatised, then owned by foreign interests.
	This demonstrates the principle of corporate ownership and a lack of community involvement in management of their own facilities.
	Or there's a whole other protest I'm going to talk to you about in more detail.
	Shall we have a look at these?
	Let's have a look now at the farm protests in New Zealand and see how you can track the Great Reset Agenda playing out on a national level.
	Look at how it relates to Bill Gates' acquisition of farmland, the use of heritage laws.
	These are sacred sites.
	How it destabilises economies and disempowers ordinary people.
	It's a fantastic item.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Thanks for watching Zik Fox's latest video.
	No, here's the fucking news.
	New Zealander farmers are up in arms protesting against new laws.
	But are they climate change deniers or Great Reset resistors?
	Farmers in New Zealand are protesting and that protest is in some way being portrayed as being anti-ecological, i.e.
	these farmers don't want to take the necessary measures to make their farms safe.
	Ah, you bastards!
	But here's another way of looking at it, that New Zealand is pursuing a great reset agenda In order to bankrupt farmers and take their land.
	Now that sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
	So stay to the end of the video because we are going to unpack that for you properly.
	It's not a coincidence that farmers all over the world are protesting.
	Sri Lanka, Netherlands, Germany, our country, the UK.
	And neither is it a coincidence that in your country, the United States of America, Bill Gates has become the largest farmland owner in the world.
	Well, that's a weird coincidence.
	Almost as if there's one centralised organisation distilling, distributing and disseminating ideologies and edicts in order to what?
	Is it to save the planet?
	Well, you ask yourself.
	The big corporations in the world, what do they mostly care about?
	Is it saving the planet?
	Is that why 70% of the world's pollution is done by 100 of the world's biggest corporations?
	Yeah, oh no, that doesn't quite make sense, does it?
	Let's have a look at a few more details from this story.
	In a world first, New Zealand appears set to introduce a scheme that will require farmers to pay for their agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
	Is this why a climate change agenda is being pushed everywhere?
	And remember, I might differ from you guys there because I believe we should be looking after the planet.
	We should revere it.
	We should respect it.
	Whether or not you think man-made climate change is a thing or it's happening because of solar flares or cosmological reasons or epochal events that aren't affected by man or human kind, I respect your opinion.
	My opinion is We should prioritise this planet.
	We should love and revere this planet.
	We are not separate from it.
	We've become consumed in demented humanism and materialism, forgetting who we are and forgetting where we're from.
	The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is she a good person?
	Or is she Lady Trudeau?
	Jacinda Ardern said that it would give the country's biggest export market a competitive advantage globally while putting the country on track to meet its 2013 methane reduction target.
	Seems like reducing methane is a good goal.
	Seems like respecting the planet is a good goal.
	Are there going to be any side effects of this?
	Are any farmers, for example, going to lose their livelihood?
	Are they going to lose their land?
	Is this connected to these agricultural protests and even the trucker protests that we're seeing across the world, i.e.
	Individual, apparently, nations setting out laws and regulations that are ultimately negative to the lives of ordinary people.
	Is there a trend developing?
	And if there is, is it because of a centralised ideology?
	Let's keep asking the questions, let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments what you think.
	No other country in the world has yet developed a system for pricing and reducing agricultural emissions, so our farmers are set to benefit from being first movers.
	Yeah!
	We're the first movers!
	We're gonna be nice and poor first!
	Having all of our farms closed down or being forced to sell our products at an increased price and call them premium.
	You know, like whenever you try and buy anything organic, you have to pay through the ass for the bloody stuff.
	Well, they're suggesting that, not suggesting it, legislating for that to an entire community of farmers.
	What's that likely to do?
	Bankrupt farmers.
	Now, you guys remember this.
	I'm a vegan.
	Didn't I mention it?
	So I'm not like, hey, let's all have livestock everywhere.
	That's not my approach.
	But also what I believe in is your freedom to decide what to do with your life without intervention of a national government, let alone unelected global bodies.
	But the industry, which altogether farms 10 million beef and dairy cattle and 26 million sheep compared to New Zealand's population of 5 million human people, Well, what have we seen when the manufacturing jobs all closed down?
	What happened then?
	Did it reduce the emissions, or did it see a boom in the Chinese and Indian subcontinent, if that's the right way to describe it, economies?
	Did it mean that all that manufacture moved elsewhere, bankrupting and annihilating a class of working people?
	Oh look, another class of people being annihilated now.
	Rural working people.
	As stated on the WEF website, the UN's Global Roadmap sets out milestones the world must reach to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
	Also a goal set at COP26.
	So there you go, a UN Global Roadmap on the WEF website.
	Now I'm not talking about conspiracy theory stuff here.
	I'm saying when they get together with the big tech giants and the big corporate folk and the state officials, they set an agenda That infiltrates democratic policy.
	But net zero is not the same as zero emissions.
	That's an interesting revelation.
	Net zero is not the same as zero emissions.
	While the latter is what all companies should be aiming for in order to meet our climate goals, the former simply makes it look like you've achieved the latter through the use of accounting tricks.
	This is why some people are attacking the climate change movement and others even what is referred to as the woke agenda.
	Not because there aren't some brilliant principles being relayed.
	Equality between all people.
	Respect and love of the planet, but because big corporations and big government are using those ideas to break down the lives and lifestyles and working lives of ordinary people.
	Companies can continue polluting as usual while sticking to their net zero pledges as long as they include carbon negative activities on their balance sheet.
	The problem is that there's very little regulation or standardization as to what constitutes a carbon negative activity.
	I notice that when it comes to regulating farmers, they come up with very stringent, strict, unavoidable, undemocratic regulations.
	But when it comes to regulating big business, just do what you can, you guys.
	I mean, I'm being silly, but it seems the farmers are getting very stringent regulation, ordinary working people, big businesses who are producing the pollution that's meant to be the bloody problem anyway.
	Hey, just try your best.
	Like they're a school bully with a rich dad.
	Many net zero policies rely on purchasing carbon offsets, essentially buying up a load of land in usually developing countries, which will supposedly absorb the carbon from your other activities.
	Not only are carbon offsets based on some fairly sketchy science, Oh, I thought we were following the science.
	I thought the scientists were agreed on climate change.
	But this sketchy science seems to work as well here.
	But they are often procuring land by grabbing it from indigenous communities who have a much better track record as stewards of vital ecosystems than polluting corporations.
	We could let the Dakota people, who have lived in harmony with the land for thousands and thousands of years, continue to be the custodians.
	But I think these guys at ExxonMobil have got some great ideas.
	Now, Groundswell NZ, an activist group in New Zealand, had this to say.
	On the West Coast, over 1,500 property owners have received letters from local authorities informing them that their properties are now subject to restrictions on development.
	This affects lands with features relating to historic heritage, sites and areas of significance to Maori, ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity, natural character in the margins of water, activities on the surface of water, and designations.
	These restrictions are turning any land that has cultural, historical, natural value into a liability.
	So, ultimately, they're creating new regulations and legislations that allow them to diminish the value and ability to work on heritage sites.
	This piece is from Nick Estes.
	Bill Gates is the largest private owner of farmland in the US.
	A 2018 purchase of 14,500 acres of prime eastern Washington farmland, which is traditional Yekima territory for $171 million, helped him get that title.
	So Bill Gates is buying up indigenous land.
	I suppose all land is indigenous land, ultimately.
	But I wonder if Bill Gates was in any way assisted by regulations and restrictions that came from elsewhere.
	It's an interesting question.
	Let me know in the chat.
	Let me know in the comments.
	Let me know generally.
	Do you think these farmers have a point?
	Do you think they are climate change deniers?
	Oh, we hate climate change.
	Who cares about this planet that we till and make our living from?
	Or do you think that they object to these regulations being introduced without time for them to adjust their business model and, in my opinion, with an intention to bankrupt them and take their land?
	That's just my opinion based on some of the facts we've been reading today.
	In total, Gates owns approximately 242,000 acres of farmland, with assets totalling more than $690 million.
	To put that in perspective, that's nearly the size of Hong Kong, and twice the acreage of the lower Boral Sioux tribe.
	A white man owns more farmland than my entire native nation.
	So that's Nick Estes, a Native American person, pointing out that Bill Gates has acquired huge swathes of farmland.
	What is Bill Gates' intention?
	How has he been aided in this endeavour?
	They came in droves, driving off the paddocks and into the city.
	descending on central Auckland with a clear message.
	Stop the planned agricultural emissions tax and undo the legislation.
	Oh you out of control climate denier.
	You've seen these protests all over the world.
	In Sri Lanka, people invading that palace.
	In India, farm protests going on for ages.
	In Germany, in the Netherlands.
	And I know in our country, the UK, people are pretty pissed off.
	And I bet wherever you are too, people are getting sick and tired of these regulations suddenly appearing that seem to benefit a particular set of society, a particular Telling the government they've had enough.
	the elites draw rather than ordinary people as we said earlier in the video. How come
	they don't regulate the corporations when it comes to the carbon offsetting but they
	regulate the farmers when it comes to the reduction of the methane? Who does that benefit?
	Who do you think had their hand in the lobbying, the control, the turning up at WEF me's? Do
	you think a lot of farmers are turning up at the WEF when it's 50 grand for a ticket?
	Telling the government they've had enough.
	Well guess what? We're not going to take it.
	You're a monster!
	We're not gonna take it.
	Ah, because you're a Nazi?
	Well, mostly because I'm a farmer.
	A Nazi farmer?
	Well, not really.
	I love my animals, and I love people in general.
	Mmm, sounds Nazi.
	In Palmerston North, they paraded their prized machinery... We love this machinery!
	...bringing dogs...
	Good protest.
	And unconventional props.
	That's menacing.
	That's a bit menacing.
	Farmers worry the proposed emissions tax will rip the guts out of rural New Zealand.
	Of course it will.
	That's the point of it.
	My focus is on working constructively with our food producers to get the best possible outcome for them and for New Zealand.
	There she is, old lady Trudeau.
	It appears that the agenda of the New Zealand government aligns nicely with unelected globalist bodies.
	At the moment, the COP27's on, But COP26, where these ideas are often discussed and disseminated, doesn't appear to have the impact that they claim they intend to, i.e.
	helping the planet, helping ordinary people.
	Perhaps because real change will be at the odds of their sponsors.
	For example, Unilever, one of the world's largest polluters, which produces enough plastic to cover 11 football pitches per day.
	If you're serious about changing the world, don't take money from Unilever.
	Microsoft, Oh, Microsoft.
	Who is it that used to run Microsoft?
	I've heard his name somewhere.
	Microsoft is famous for its questionable work practices.
	In environmental terms, the company makes the bold statement of intent to be carbon neutral by 2025.
	But its collaboration with major extractors throws this usefulness of this label into doubt.
	In Texas, for example, Microsoft helps extract more than 50,000 barrels of oil per day from the Permian Basin.
	Isn't this exactly what we've come to expect from these globalist organizations?
	You!
	Farmers, cut down on your emissions!
	We though, we're sponsored by Microsoft!
	Oi!
	Carry on extracting 50,000 barrels of oil a day!
	Or at least assisting in that process through technological support.
	I know global economics is complex.
	I know we live in a challenging world.
	I'm also beginning to think that globalist edicts are achieved undemocratically and distributed at a national level without consultation from the people that they will ultimately affect.
	I believe these farmers are fighting for the right to continue to earn a living.
	I don't think they're climate change deniers, I think they're farmers.
	And I think it's the obligation of ordinary people, regardless of our feelings about the environment, to support them.
	Perhaps that's just another way that we can come together and confront real power where it matters.
	Because it's not ordinary farmers that are buying up hundreds and thousands of acres of land.
	It's not ordinary farmers that are producing 70% of the world's pollution.
	It's corporate interests masked by foundations, regulations, legislations, and unelected globalist bodies.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	Let me know what you think in the comments below.
	I'll see you in a second.
	Do you think there that you've ever seen the issue better presented?
	I don't think so.
	What a great job I've just done in doing that.
	Gareth, how do you think this relates to...
	Gareth, I think this relates to COP27.
	I have not thought of this.
	You won't have done because I'm an investigative reporter and you're a slouch!
	While I'm investigative reporting, I investigate things, then I report on them, I investigate it, then I report on it, you're slouching around.
	Just tell me now if my hunch that COP27 is significant here is correct.
	Well so yeah, we've got the moment, we've got COP 27 going on, Biden will be there in a few days, Rishi's gone, Pinch Charles has not gone, we don't know why.
	He's not allowed to go because he's a king and someone said be nice to Gareth, Alex Overton.
	I will be nice, I love Gareth, I love him.
	Yeah, he's not allowed to be political basically, that's the thing now, as a king.
	It's meant to though, because being a king is political.
	I don't want to be political but what about this thing where you're on top of a pyramid of power sort of with a gold hat on your head and we have to all give you money and it doesn't matter who you vote for you carry on being king.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So what is, we're looking into COP 27, what they achieved, this is obviously the 27th of these, they've been going on since 1995 or 1992, potentially was the first one, I know that my maths should do that better, but I think it's 1995.
	Anyway, just so you know, in that time, global emissions have gone up, I think by 90% so We're not at a stage where these COP events seem to be actually doing anything.
	So since 1992, when the Earth Summit laid out the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, carbon emissions have consistently risen.
	The only year this was not true was 2020, when the pandemic shut down large swathes of the global economy.
	This reduction was reversed in 2021.
	The system isn't working and the failure of climate policy is a prime example.
	So I guess what we're saying about this is not necessarily, you know, It's difficult.
	Climate change is one of those divisive subjects that people are varying opinions on for good reasons.
	But when you look at an event like COP 27 and all the previous 26 COPs, it's very difficult to escape the idea that this is just another example.
	Like we talk about the WF of greenwashing, of billionaire washing, not boshing, like in the same way... You could bosh it, then wash it.
	You could bosh it and then wash it.
	So an example of that being, A sponsorship deal between this year's UN Climate Conference and Coca-Cola, which has been described as the world's top polluter, has been branded a greenwash by campaigners.
	Coca-Cola produces 120 billion throwaway plastic bottles a year.
	99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels, worsening both The plastic and climate crisis.
	So again, if you are, in a sense, you can take the issue away from it, but you can look at these as being greenwashing events, as being just examples of mass hypocrisy.
	Simply because they accept the sponsorship of companies whose actual policies and behaviour contributes to the problem that they claim that they're addressing.
	Well, again, like government, I mean, just going back to the subject we were talking about before, if you have a system in which these political parties can take massive donations from companies like Meta and Amazon and all these kind of things, Big Pharma, how likely is it that anything's going to be done to actually make a difference with those companies?
	And when we get to a statistic like we've talked about before, whereby rather than the ordinary person not doing their recycling or getting in their car and going on a slightly longer journey than someone else, the 70%, 71% of the world's pollution is caused by 100 companies, then, you know, you can't make sense of it in that way.
	Yeah, I suppose it makes you wonder, what would you really do if the goal was to reduce pollution?
	Right.
	What would be your objective?
	What would you focus on?
	Is it that you would accept money from, right, there's Coca-Cola, they're the main sponsor, but did you just say they're also the world's worst polluter?
	Polluter, yeah.
	The fact that no one's gone, we probably can't accept money from them.
	Look, you're the world's worst polluter.
	Can you stop polluting as much?
	Then we'll accept your money.
	Can we give you a bit of money to sponsor the event and then just carry on polluting as before?
	Yes, you can carry on polluting as before if you give us some money.
	So then is our function to reduce pollution or to sort of help people pretend that they're going to do something about pollution?
	Yeah, and then when it comes back to these farmers who are being punished, as I said at the start, one of the stated goals of these COP events is reducing global emissions, this net zero thing that we talked about in the item, where net zero is just another example of essentially a land grab, a way of buying up swathes of land and just dumping all your pollution on them essentially.
	You should have a look at what young Putin is putting up there.
	That's just for reference.
	Coke, world's worst polluter again.
	Now tell me, Gareth, specifically what you mean when you say that net zero isn't about reducing pollution, but it's about the appearance of reducing pollution and how it creates opportunities for land grabs.
	Because there's some complexity there, but some significance and it's worth unpacking.
	Yeah, okay.
	So again, WEF, UN, COP27, all talking about net zero, have done for the last few years.
	But net zero is not the same as zero emissions.
	So while the latter is what all companies, you know, potentially you could say should be aiming for, the former simply makes it look like you've achieved the latter through the use of accounting tricks.
	So companies continue polluting As usual, while sticking to their net zero pledges, as long as they include carbon negative activities on their balance sheet.
	So to explain that, the problem is that there's very little regulation and standardization as to what constitutes a carbon negative activity.
	Many net zero policies rely on purchasing carbon offsets, essentially buying up a load of land in a usually developing country, which will supposedly absorb the carbon from your other activities.
	So you go on polluting as much as possible because you've bought up this land that doesn't pollute.
	Oh, I see, so you've sort of increased the amount of land average.
	Exactly.
	We've got all that land that's not polluting.
	Absolutely.
	But what you're essentially doing at the same time is acquiring land.
	So while we're talking about these New Zealand farmers, where these government initiatives to lower emissions actually ends up, you know, Bankrupting farmers that then that land potentially then gets sold on to billionaires such as Bill Gates.
	You've got the same kind of thing going on here and another form of through methods of supposedly good intentions you end up with a situation where you're almost forcing these massive polluting companies into land grabbing from across the world.
	You know, so essentially you'll get land across the world owned by the worst companies in the world.
	What a brilliant solution that this is.
	And at the same time, you've got companies like Coca-Cola sponsoring that event.
	So it's not like, that's why I say like, you can kind of remove the issue from it.
	We all want the planet to survive.
	We all want, you know, good things for the planet.
	Of course.
	Yeah, sorry.
	A lot of people say that are cynical about climate change, aren't they?
	A lot of people say, well, no, it's about climate change is not being caused by human activity.
	And in a sense, I like to circumvent that argument by saying that we ought to live respectfully and in accordance with our planet and not generate regulations that clearly create pollution and are detrimental to the planet, even if it's not in a sort of a cosmological scale.
	According to that argument, it's plainly disrespectful.
	But when you bring up the techniques that are used to allow them to continue to generate pollution in order to pursue profit, well, this is the bit from Global Witness that I like.
	Uh, companies can continue polluting as usual while sticking to their net zero pledges as long as they include carbon negative activities.
	The problem is there's very little regulation or standardization as to what constitutes carbon negative activity.
	There's no regulation or standardisation.
	So they can sort of just say stuff is without demonstrating it.
	And that, the whole climate change movement, is of course what it adheres to is,
	this is based on science.
	And I'm kind of like not a climate change denier.
	I think that, yeah, companies shouldn't be disrespectfully polluting and tainting our waterways, our air.
	Should live in harmony with the planet.
	We should prioritise that above profit.
	But when they say they're pursuing the science and look, shit like this will be offered up as,
	look at the kind of solutions that are coming out of COP 27.
	That's not scientific.
	There's no regulation or standardisation.
	Many net zero policies rely on purchasing carbon offsets, which Gareth just sort of described to you.
	Yeah, I suppose that's what shows the duplicity and disingenuity of those arguments.
	That's what I think a lot of people who are now critical of what used to be regarded as centre-left neoliberalism, and again, I just don't think we're drawing from a big enough palette when we're having these conversations about what constitutes real democratic change, what they're criticising is, hold on a minute, they're just saying they care about the environment, but they're just creating more problems for farmers, as we demonstrated in Here's the News there, Or they're doing unscientific accountancy tricks in order to appear more green.
	How's that even achieving anything in accordance with their own stated agenda?
	That's hypocrisy.
	That's lies.
	It's not true.
	Yeah.
	And at the same time, you know, with this land, when we kind of go back to the land grab element of it, what's happening with this land as well that these companies are buying, it's obviously it's often owned by indigenous peoples.
	You're taking land away from indigenous communities that know how to use that land better.
	So when we're talking about someone like Vandana Shiva, what she'll say is, rather than these farming techniques
	of great big corporations, and you've got Bill Gates coming and imposing his ideas on countries
	with these modern farming techniques, she says, this is about the indigenous relationship
	with the land.
	And if you then buy all that land off people, essentially so you can offset your carbon emissions,
	You're literally taking that land away from the very people who know how to use it best.
	Vandana Shiva says it's neo-colonialism, don't she?
	She says it's just a new way of assuming that there's a set or group of people and interests that know better than you or, in this case, farmers in New Zealand or indigenous people wherever that land's been bought up.
	It's like, again, it's sort of a centralising force.
	That's why this, again and again, I'm returning to this idea of decentralisation, that we have to form new confederacies New alliances in order to confront centralised power, which we won't be able to do if we're spending all our time sort of arguing about sort of what we call and what you call hot button topics.
	Yeah, and then you get to the point, you know, you might as well have this COP 27 event and it could be literally a 20 minute meeting and then everyone can go on in their private jets again.
	Right.
	That 400 private jets that have flown across to wherever, Egypt, where apparently domestic climate activists have already been locked up, by the way.
	So it's the perfect place for a climate event.
	In reality, they're locking up people that actually care about the issue.
	They're flying there on private jets.
	It would take 20 minutes for them to just go there and go, listen, we're going to pretend we care about the environment now, only in ways that don't cost any money.
	Or say, right, these 100 companies who are producing 71%, right, well, we're going to do this to you until you... If we actually care about it, then we're going to make sure that you are fined record amounts of money.
	Taxed record amounts of money until you reduce your emissions, if you really care.
	Whereas what actually happens is that those companies such as ExxonMobil, who are at the moment getting record profits, 20 billion in a quarter, as much as Apple.
	In a cost of living crisis, where energy bills are soaring!
	They get tax subsidies from the American government.
	No, Gary!
	They do, they do.
	Shell, ExxonMobil, all those companies get... So essentially the American taxpayer is subsidising these companies that are making massive profits.
	So it's not like, oh, they're big polluters because they're big companies and they got to that position through Moxie and Endeavor.
	They're getting tax subsidies in addition to profits.
	Can you see that there is no difference between the left and the right?
	Can you see there's no difference between the trucker protest, the agriculture protest, the just stop oil protest, that we're all on the same side?
	That is the great revelation.
	We're all on the same side.
	Yeah, again, it's like you can take the issue out of it.
	In a sense, it's kind of heartwarming.
	It's heartwarming in a sense, because, you know, Greta Thunberg, or Thunberg as she's talked about, is obviously vilified in certain areas of society and, you know, other people love her.
	And deified in others.
	But essentially, when she described this as a greenwashing event, she is right.
	And in a sense, you can kind of say, well, maybe that's the unifying point, pointing out the hypocrisy.
	At the heart of all of this, the fact that you are, whatever side you are coming from, or whichever side you think is right, you are being ripped off on a massive scale.
	You're being ripped off on a massive scale.
	COP 27, as the New Zealand farmer protest show, and as the information we've just shared, demonstrates is a greenwashing event.
	And whether you consider yourself to be on the left or the right, you can surely see that.
	Fantastic stuff, Gareth, fantastic stuff.
	Can I talk about my... young Putin's pulled something up there with his usual enthusiasm.
	Did you want to say anything else before we move on?
	What are you pointing out?
	The point I raised with Gareth earlier is like, you know, everyone's saying how ironic it is that all these world leaders are flying private jets.
	And, I mean, the argument could be, oh, they can't facilitate such a massive travel of all these important people without those private jets because of security reasons.
	But we know that's wrong.
	I liked to hear at the Queen's funeral when we made them go on a bus.
	They hated that.
	I wouldn't have gone on that bus.
	I'd have been sat at the front.
	I'd have gone there.
	Baron would have carried me.
	He's eight foot tall now.
	Baron would have carried me on an electric skateboard.
	But that's the point, is that they could all just hop on commercial planes.
	Yeah!
	Why not?
	Do it on the phone!
	COP27's pointless!
	But not Bill Gates though, because he loves his private jet.
	He loves it, it's his guilty pleasure.
	It's his guilty pleasure.
	My guilty pleasure is a private jet.
	Can't just go in economy.
	Vetoed!
	Ashela on the chat is saying she wants you to talk about this, Gareth, about the Cherokee Nation trying to get a seat, I think, in Congress.
	Two centuries after the pledge was made, the Cherokee Nation is trying to revive one of the few concessions its ancestors were able to secure in the Treaty of New Echota.
	The promise of congressional representation.
	So many of my predecessors were trying to rebuild the nation or keep us from dissolving in the face
	of great oppression and great obstacles, says Principal Chief Chuck Koskin Jr. who holds the
	same leadership title tracing back to Ross. So I suppose, yeah, there's many issues coalesce here
	that include the interests of people on the apparent left and people on the apparent right.
	Generally speaking, indigenous politics has been regarded as a sort of a left-wing issue.
	The ability to have decent energy bills to pay a reasonable price for utilities has sometimes been regarded as a right-wing issue, but right at the heart of the issue you find the same interests.
	It seems to me that we can do something important here.
	We can call out the hypocrisy of an event like COP27, support Greta Thunberg, support the rights of people that are regarded as like sort of maggot nut cases.
	That's not how I regard them.
	I regard everybody from an open-hearted position of love that some might call naive and others might regard as really cool, so that we can all come together in order to confront where real power is, not getting distracted by these sort of superficial differences.
	Yeah, it's interesting the indigenous land that we talked about.
	We'll look into that, definitely.
	But one of the ways I think we mentioned before about how Bill Gates got his hand on all this farmland was buying traditional Ukema territory land.
	That's how he got to this position of owning the most farmland in America.
	Maybe we should ask him, I'd like to say to Bill Gates, what do you think you want it for?
	What's your game, mate?
	You know, is this all that, like, eat bugs and fake meat stuff?
	It might be that.
	I mean, you know, there's a theory that, and it's probably not a theory at all, that at this time of economic crashing, that land doesn't go down in value or will potentially go up in value.
	It might be for the same reason that you see apparently he's got bunkers underneath all these properties.
	Who knows?
	So that's something we'll investigate further.
	Why is Bill Gates buying up all this farmland?
	We know it.
	We've known it for a while.
	We don't want to fall into hopeless conspiracy theory, but I'd like to just understand it, wouldn't you?
	It's kind of interesting.
	Now, can I tell you about what I've been doing with my life?
	I went down to support a campaign to stop Thames Water dumping poo in the River Thames because I consider rivers to be sacred.
	It offends me on a gut level, a spiritual level, to dump Human feces in a river.
	And they talk about it in a kind of clinical, clerical way if you look at Thames Water's website.
	This is just a necessary thing when rainfall reaches this level.
	And Thames Water present themselves, by the way, as like, we're your friends, Thames Water.
	But Thames Water's not like a bunch of water sprites and fairies distributing municipal facilities to the folk of the Thames region.
	It's a massive Canadian investment firm.
	It's an investment firm from Abu Dhabi.
	The illusion of your heritage is eroding.
	You look around you at the countryside and you think you own it.
	You don't own it.
	It's already been like whether it's Russian oligarchy owning territory in London or sort of Arabian enterprises owning water facilities in the UK.
	It's a preposterous illusion that we're engaging in because, bless us, we don't think straight.
	We don't think about what's the bureaucratic undergirding of what appears to be our land.
	I don't think you should be able to call yourself Thames Water, the River Thames, if you are owned by a Chinese investment corporation, the Kuwait Investment Authority.
	You should have to change the name of it.
	We're now a Chinese, Kuwaiti investment firm, and if that's getting the xenophobia going, we're dumping your shit back in the water and getting you to drink it!
	So if that's not irritating enough.
	So I'll just tell you a few facts about this.
	I went there to support my next door neighbour, Dick.
	So when you go down to support this thing, the Henley Mermaids are doing it.
	Can you post a link in the chat for people, for the Henley Mermaids?
	Right, and what they are is they're people that swim in that river.
	And I swim in the River Thames, actually, in a sort of a Wim Hof way.
	In fact, I've gotten in that river with Wim Hof.
	I thought you were going to say, in fact, one of us, I suppose, was down to me.
	Actually, I panicked with Wim Hof.
	He made me take a real in-breath, and I relaxed my bottom, and there it was.
	So like, yeah, I would never poo.
	I have weed in there.
	But I've never pooed.
	I think we all appreciate...
	Fuck you ate the investment fund! One little wee!
	And my wee, I don't know if you've ever seen it, but it's actually almost clear.
	It's lovely stuff.
	Fair enough.
	Mine is.
	Like, where's that card from that coffee shop that I said leave on this desk?
	Go get it if it's not there please someone.
	Like, yeah, so I've been in, I love that river, I go in that river,
	and when my next door neighbour Dick said, will you go down and support this protest,
	I met a bunch of people that were able to articulate to me in a way that was really brilliant and inspiring what this
	protest was about.
	It ultimately ended up being people in Henley, now you might not know this, but Henley is where Boris Johnson, who until recently was the Prime Minister of our country, you know we like to have a new one every couple of weeks, Till recently he was the Prime Minister and he was the MP for Henley for a long, long time.
	So what I'm telling you is it's a conservative, sort of traditional, sort of right-wing place.
	Although increasingly I think those labels don't mean anything.
	And what these people were demanding is that Thames Water, if not be totally renationalised, become beholden to the community.
	That the community should run Thames Water because, ultimately, if it wasn't a for-profit endeavour, but was instead there to serve people, it would be run with different principles.
	It's the same when Gareth's talking about COP27 and the polluters.
	If COP27 is sponsored by organisations that ultimately seek to profit, then, of course, they're going to do what's necessary, thank you, to generate profit.
	That's what you're going to find in that situation.
	You have to extract the profit motive from it, otherwise things won't be run
	in accordance with higher principles.
	You've got to let go of like, when anti-capitalist rhetoric comes out my mouth,
	I'm not talking about don't run a coffee shop or a business or even, you know, become super successful and rich.
	I'm not that ambitious.
	What I'm saying is don't have models that are propped up in extraordinary ways,
	where they don't even fulfill their basic function.
	Like this Thames Water, for example, they're, right, God, my God, look at the words.
	They dumped untreated effluent into the River Thames for 68,000 hours.
	Two billion litres in two days.
	Oh God!
	We swim in there!
	That's incredible!
	And they paid shareholders 37 million last year and 1.6 billion over the last 12 years.
	What came out of it that this is the Thames water owned by Abu Dhabi Investment, China Investment Corporation, Kuwait Investment Authority aren't paying for vital repairs which means that water is being wasted on an extraordinary scale and that also It's not necessary to dump human feces in the water.
	It's profitable.
	They could spend money to create proper sewage treatment plants, but they can't do that because the model won't allow it.
	They have to deliver for their shareholders.
	They have to.
	So it's the model.
	It's the system that's broken.
	So whatever it is you look at, whether it's COP27 on a global scale, or Thames War on a very local scale, in, ultimately, a conservative, or let's call it for simplicity's sake, a right-wing area, the model isn't working.
	People want change.
	People are ready for change.
	Now, if you can focus on, well, wherever you are, and whether or not you're an ultra-advanced progressive person when it comes to lifestyle matters, or a very traditional person, wouldn't you like to be in control of your community facilities?
	Don't you think there should be a people's assembly that has a part to play in how it's run?
	Because if you were in control of how your water, your electricity, your basic, what have come to be regarded as basic human rights as a result of incredible progressive endeavour, much of which was delivered by a kind of capitalist ingenuity, but that has now, let's face it, gotten out of control.
	And ultimately needs to bloody well change in the same way that the feudal system only got so far and democracies came in.
	Can't you see we're at a new point in human history now where genuinely new ideas are required.
	Where it's not enough to vacillate mildly between left and right and red and blue while delivering the same results.
	Whether it's a local issue, like Thames water dumping human feces into water, or a global issue, like where COP27 are ultimately a greenwash propaganda wing of global corporations, sponsored by the very corporations that are most responsible.
	Real change is required.
	That's why I want to encourage you to engage in these kind of local actions.
	That's why later this week we'll be talking to some of the activists from that Thames water protest, so that we can advance and explore genuinely new ideas.
	So you don't just vote for someone who's like, oh, we're going to do the same thing.
	Well, we'll write them a letter.
	No one's doing anything.
	And no one is going to.
	Only you.
	It has to become a visceral, personal, spiritual commitment from every individual to change the world.
	Yeah, maybe this can be a global movement.
	I mean, going back to that start I said at the start was 80% of streams, canals and creeks and rivers in the United States, 80% contain detectable levels of toxic forever chemicals.
	There's obviously a problem.
	It's getting there somehow.
	And chances are someone's making a good profit out of it.
	Yeah, when you discover that you're sort of swimming in human feces so that someone else can make money, or you're having to shut your farm down so someone else can make money, and they're always pretending it's for the same reason that they're helping you in some sort of way, it gets on my bloody nerves.
	I saw a blood moon.
	Nice one, Lady Pam.
	Now let's have a, um, can we have a look at me protesting that day to see if you think anything's funny about it, Gareth, or if I...
	The only way I can imagine there ever being a solution is if communities were directly involved in the governance of their facilities.
	Why should Thameswater be extracting profit by pumping in excrement?
	I think he'll be the person we'll be asking to come on as a guest. Let's have a look at this.
	The only way I can imagine there ever being a solution is if communities were directly involved in the governance of
	their facilities.
	Why should Thames Water be extracting profit by pumping in excrement? What kind of model is that?
	Yay!
	Did you like...
	Was it a big enough round of applause?
	No.
	No, it wasn't.
	I deserved more and I expected more.
	It was tepid.
	It was as tepid as the brown water that I stepped out of.
	I was very disappointed by that round of applause, Gal.
	Frankly, we weren't worth clambering up on that part of the show.
	No, no.
	I was on the same bill as the Mayor.
	Oh, yeah.
	She was there in a sort of proper golden Mayor necklace.
	I liked her.
	She's called Michelle.
	And the vicar, who was called Jeremy, and he was wearing a black cape.
	Right, a cape.
	It was a cape, and it was bonded.
	I bet you can find a photograph of it like in the Henley Gazette.
	He was wearing like a back Batman's cape.
	Oh, cool. Windrush.
	That's the other organization.
	Excuse me, that's how we should, yeah, we should get them up as well.
	Windrush, they were the other people that were protesting that day.
	And a geezer from there, I think he was called Ash, really, he's the one that explained to me.
	He started saying that what it is, is that it would cost this much money to repair the pipes correctly, this is what should be done, it's owned by all these foreign interests.
	I was going, does it sound like it should be re-nationalised?
	He goes, well you can't say re-nationalised in Hindley because it sounds like too much of a socialist thing.
	Although, didn't you say that Joe Biden's even talking about socialism now?
	Yeah, well, no.
	Joe Biden's talking about how the Democrats aren't socialist.
	They're not socialist.
	Very keen to.
	Socialism's a dirty word.
	No one wants Maoism.
	No one wants Stalinism.
	No one wants the state to be so powerful that your individual liberty is impeded.
	But we do need to explore genuine alternatives to this kind of late capitalist corporatist model where the media lie to you, where big pharma profit from you, where big energy lies to you and robs you and the state don't do anything about it.
	Something's got to change.
	Like, we can't trust these old ideas.
	I think the myth is over now, isn't it?
	That corporate capitalism, in terms of the kind of levels that we're seeing now, is working.
	No one's arguing that anymore.
	The whole trickle-down economics idea It's not trickling down.
	The only thing that's trickling down is your own shit trickling down the river when you're trying to live a nice lifestyle.
	So this is that Giza ash that runs that thing called Windrush.
	Polluters must be held to account.
	Let's get him in the week to talk about that.
	Our next exclusive interview is with Michael Singer on November the 15th.
	You can watch it first and in full.
	7am PT, 11 ET, 3 GMT.
	I don't know what any of those things mean.
	I don't know what any of it means.
	Now a lot of people on the right are excited about Ron DeSantis.
	A lot of people that I respect think that Ron DeSantis is the future of the party.
	Not Trump, however.
	He thinks of him as Ron DeSanctimonious.
	You said earlier that it's sort of a hagiography.
	It's beyond propaganda.
	It's sort of like a joyfully self-indulgent piece.
	People were saying that it's God created DeSantis on the 8th day kind of thing.
	That it was that level.
	Because I know a lot of you like Ron DeSantis because I think a lot of you like what he did to Disney.
	I think some of you agree with him saying that teaching practices in Florida need to be controlled.
	I know there's some things I agree with on the pandemic.
	I believe that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe and be who they want to be and the government shouldn't be telling you what to do and that big corporations shouldn't be marauding all over our lives.
	So let's have a look at this and see what you think of it.
	Is it engaging propaganda or is it...
	Well, let's see what it is.
	It's definitely a different take to Trump, how Trump would go.
	Because Trump, I like the bombast.
	I've gotten used to it.
	I enjoy it.
	It's funny.
	What's Ron DeSantis saying?
	And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, I need a protector.
	So God made a fighter.
	Is it like a joke to say that?
	To say that he's the guy on the eighth day?
	I don't know.
	Because you can't say that, firstly, they're in an eighth day.
	No.
	That's actually, ironically, that's sacrilegious to suggest that the whole template of all scriptural study was wrong.
	That's blasphemous to say that.
	That's the first mistake.
	Right, what you've done there is you've offended Christians.
	God said I need somebody willing to get up before God.
	Is that him talking?
	No, I don't think so.
	Someone else saying that.
	And also, is it a bit of a joke?
	Maybe it is.
	Maybe it's a bit of a joke.
	So what he's saying is that that's presidential, isn't it?
	He's saying, look, you know, that's a great haircut, lovely teeth, young family.
	Beautiful family.
	Yeah, OK.
	So, so far, what's being suggested is this is a person being groomed for more than simply governor of Florida.
	Absolutely.
	But at the moment, is this for anything other than Governor Fraud?
	No, there's no announcement.
	When they're doing those polls, best polls, best polls ever, they're just speculative.
	Like it wouldn't be Liz Cheney.
	No, absolutely not.
	Oh, she's a good leader.
	When I used to read her stories, she was fearless.
	Mike Pence.
	Mike Pence?
	No, Mike Pence is doing better than I expected.
	Um, but like, Ron DeSantis, uh, like, this is, is this the future?
	I know a lot of you guys, I know a lot of you like him, but let's see why.
	His family could buy, travel thousands of miles for no other reason than to serve the people.
	To save their jobs, their livelihoods, their liberty, their happiness.
	I sort of like what he's doing in that.
	I'm just very affected by this kind of propaganda, aren't you?
	You just like a promo, basically.
	I like promo.
	Like, I nearly bought a Coke when I saw they were sponsoring COP 27, even though they're the world's biggest polluters.
	Oh yeah, I know, I like Coke.
	They're the world's biggest polluters and they're sponsoring an anti-pollution event.
	Mmm, delicious though, isn't it?
	Makes you feel upbeat.
	I'm feeling younger by the second.
	Yeah, I'm very susceptible to propaganda.
	Too susceptible.
	That's why I like Rhonda Santis.
	So God made a fighter.
	Keep talking about God's direct involvement in Ron DeSantis.
	It's curious, isn't it?
	Imagine saying that about yourself.
	Maybe you like Ron DeSantis, and I'm not saying you shouldn't.
	I don't mind what you believe politically.
	I love you.
	If you believe in God, you would say God encompasses all reality, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.
	So he created everything, that's all cool.
	Specifically created Ron DeSantis.
	Like he took a bit of extra time.
	Okay, there's the Amazon.
	We're going to need someone a bit like Trump.
	Done Saturn, done Mercury, but a bit like Trump now, but maybe a bit less Trump-y.
	But still Trump-ish, but not quite so Trump-y.
	It's DeSantis.
	It's gonna take a whole extra day, and I'm gonna have to mess with my accepted conditions of what a calendar is, but it's gonna be worth it when I get DeSantis.
	God made a fighter.
	God said I need someone to be strong.
	Advocate truth in the midst of hysteria.
	Someone who challenges conventional wisdom and isn't afraid to defend what he knows to be right and just.
	So God made a fighter.
	God said, I need somebody who will take the arrows, stand firm in the wake of unrelenting attacks, look a mother in the eyes and tell her that her child will be in school.
	Your child will be in school.
	Your child will be... That's less intensity, I think, because that's where they sort of should be.
	I know it's probably a reference to something that went on... The pandemic, although I think he did keep kids out of schools during the pandemic.
	I think that's one of the things that is levelled at him.
	Is it, at the end of this we'll say, I'm Rhonda Santis and I approve this message?
	Because, like, honestly, no matter what my agenda, if someone showed me, like, this video and it was about me, I'd go... It's too much.
	It's too much!
	Even though... Few less gods?
	Can you, like, I can't take, I can't claim that God was so directly involved in me looking a mum in the eyes and saying, I will keep that score.
	It seems like I'm too into myself.
	It lacks the essential value of humility.
	So I love what you've done, and I'm actually very flattered by this.
	If they show me a work, do.
	If, like, say, if you went for your birthday raffle... Is this you telling me, basically, to make one of these?
	Will you make one of these for me?
	I'm going to pretend not to approve it, but then I will post it.
	It'll be up and down all of our platforms.
	On the ninth day, after he'd done quite a lot of work on Ron DeSantis, God created Russell Brand, with some bits he didn't need for Ron DeSantis.
	Actually, he's a British guy, so he had unusual sort of teeth and face.
	He's a bit narcissistic, but he was trying his best.
	God's really done... He's tried... Look, he put a lot of effort into Ron DeSantis.
	Here's that Russell on the ninth day, no extra cost.
	We're gonna put him in with... If you get Ron DeSantis, Russell's coming for free.
	He looked people in the eye, and actually too much in the eye.
	It's pretty intense, his stare in the eye.
	I actually, as God, made a mistake with the eye contact thing.
	I should have given him a squint or an eye patch or something.
	Or, I don't know, some way of not looking in people's eyes quite so much.
	It's annoying.
	Keep her job, go to church, eat dinner with friends.
	And hold the hand of an aging parent.
	They're all things that anyone could do.
	Eat dinner with friends, hold hands.
	I know it's also a reference to the pandemic and stuff, but it's curious in retrospect to politicise that as something that God would have to invest someone with.
	And then, put your shoes on one at a time, sit with your back straight, order a Slurpee, look off into the distance, question what it's all about.
	Is that a seagull?
	I like seagulls.
	All on the eighth day.
	I like the way he says, aging relative.
	Like, as if some of the relatives aren't aging.
	These young relatives of mine, they're gonna have to get by without a handhold.
	Perhaps a playful punch in the arm, as is the custom for a younger relative.
	Oh God, made a fighter.
	God said I need a family man.
	A man who would laugh, and then sigh.
	Ha ha!
	He's getting too specific!
	He's a family man!
	Ha ha ha!
	It's a funny man who laughs then sighs.
	What's the matter, Ron?
	You were fine literally a second ago.
	Well, I don't know.
	I was thinking some pretty pleasurable stuff and then I realized I'm gonna die one day because of the aging relative and stuff.
	So weird to laugh so much.
	Too specific.
	And then reply with smiling eyes.
	Actually, we do need Russell Brand after all.
	Get Russell Brand.
	Actually, the stuff I did on the ninth day, it initially looked like a mistake, but compared to some of this laughing, sighing, monomaniacal mood swing shit that Ron's doing, let's give Russell another chance.
	She wants to spend her life doing what Dad does.
	Touch you on the hand, go to the hospital.
	Stand up for justice!
	I mean, look, I'm not anti-Ron DeSantis, by the way, and for all we know, he didn't have anything to do with the construction of that, but I feel like he maybe signed it off.
	Yeah, I think it's from his campaign team.
	Right, campaign team sat Ron down and went, look, we've made this, Ron, and Ron didn't go, stop!
	Imagine getting signed off.
	Do you like it, Ron?
	So is that a yes?
	So Ron, I'm gonna take that as you like it.
	Is that a happy sigh?
	The laugh, was that a maniac's laugh or a laugh of approval?
	Stop smiling with the eyes, Ron!
	Ron, what are the thumbs here?
	No, Ron!
	RON!
	I wanted a unilateral president!
	A man who would certain, not a man who's smiling, laughing, sighing with his eyes.
	He sighed with his eyes.
	He twitched in the ear.
	Then he did a grin with the tip of his dick.
	Ron DeSantis!
	Oh God, made a fighter.
	He's fighting a variety of mad impulses.
	Must be exhausting.
	Never stop fighting freedom.
	Never.
	What about when you've got it?
	Keep on!
	You could get some more freedom.
	Also, look at the bottom.
	Paid by Ron DeSantis.
	So he actually, not only was he involved, he actually said, right Ron, do you like this video?
	I do, I do.
	So is that a yes?
	Sir, are you willing to pay?
	Yes, I am.
	Will you write me a cheque?
	No, I'm not.
	I won't give you a single penny, but Ron, you're writing a cheque.
	I don't like it.
	I think it's too grandiose, and I think it makes it look like I think I was sent here by God on an extra day.
	I love it.
	There you go.
	Here's your cheque.
	See you next week.
	I'll see you next week on Octo Day.
	Which is between Sunday and Monday, a new day that was created just for me.
	So that's Ron DeSantis right there, a man who's happy signing that off.
	I'm not anti-Ron DeSantis, I'm not like Trump calling him Ron DeSanctimonious, although after that it does seem like a nickname that might stick.
	Well, it's been a fantastic show with a lot of ups and downs, hasn't it?
	So has.
	Join us tomorrow when we're going to have more fantastic content for you, wrapping up a wonderful week of incredible guests and extraordinary events.
	I think mostly what we learned is whether it's at a global level or a local level or an individual level, awakening is required if we're ever going to subvert these systems that appear to dominate us.
	Stay free.

▲