Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 11, 2022 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:08:36

Is Biden's Biggest Broken Promise Nuclear Annihilation!? - #033 - Stay Free with Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm going to go ahead and do that.
	I'm going to do that.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello, thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand, where we talk about the news and you and global politics and spirituality and the complexity of the world that we're living in right now and try to make, as we go along, assessments that might lead to a meaningfully different life for you.
	For me.
	For everyone.
	We're talking today about Biden's biggest broken promise.
	What is Biden's biggest broken promise?
	There's like loads of broken promises but perhaps the biggest broken promise of Biden has got to be that he said he would de-escalate nuclear tensions.
	And even though now there are murmurs of potential peace, it seems like in some ways we're closer to war than ever before. We're going to be talking about that on
	the show. We're also going to be talking to Paul Pousland about, he's a lawyer for the
	environment, but a lawyer more broadly, he's going to help us to understand the changes
	that are being made to protest laws all around the world right now. And I'm going to be
	talking about a piece of community activism that's really important to me that relates to sort
	of a scale of corruption that you'll find difficult to believe, unless you've been
	following world events and looking out of your window and you'll realize that wherever possible is
	the function of government, no matter how large or small, to extract finances and money
	from ordinary people and put it into the hands of private interests.
	It's an extraordinary pattern.
	First, at least as far as I could understand it, pointed out by Julian Assange in relation to the Afghanistan war.
	Once you understand that the function of government is to take money from public hands and place it into private hands, everything becomes simpler.
	Once you understand that the Afghanistan war was not meant to, not fought to be won, but fought to be prolonged, things get a lot simpler.
	Of course, it's Remembrance Day in our country, the UK, where we remember those that sacrificed their lives in previous military conflicts.
	People that gave their lives for something they believe in.
	And you might be like a pacifist who It's against war, but I suppose you still have to acknowledge that an incredible sacrifice was made by people fighting for something that they believe in.
	It's one of the opportunities, I suppose, to look at ways that we can form new alliances in the complexity of supporting people.
	Can you support the troops while still being a kind of a peace-loving person?
	Can you?
	Yeah, I think you can.
	I mean, ultimately, I guess it's a marker, as you say, it's a marker of respect for those soldiers, those people that lost their lives and continue to do so, you know, in ways that seem a lot more complex now.
	I mean, they were probably more complex back then even, but certainly a lot more complex now.
	And I guess maybe it even makes us ask the questions more about what people are told when they're, you know, led to believe what they're fighting for is the just cause.
	Yeah, we always believe that wars are being justly fought.
	Look at the current conflict which is always rendered as Putin is an evil imperialist expansionist force and we have to protect the people of Ukraine.
	Both of those things might be true, but is there some complexity being extracted from that conversation?
	And when you see the giddy spectacle of Sean Penn, who, in my own respect, is sort of an actor and a person who cares about the world, giving his Oscar to Zelensky, do you start to think that you're living in some kind of curious spectacle?
	How can it be true That this is like a potential nuclear conflict where an Oscar-winning actor is giving Zelensky his Oscar saying, bring it back to Malibu when you've won the war.
	When Ukraine are fighting against a country with a nuclear capacity.
	Now, Tulsi Gabbard, who came on our show as a guest, left the Democratic Party on account, in her words, of them being little more than warmongers.
	And when we're looking at something like the midterms, we always feel like, oh no, we have to have this deep, granular, academic understanding of American politics to commentate on this stuff.
	But increasingly, I feel like it's more like theatre, that it's more like a distraction.
	And I don't know how you can think anything other than that, if you look at sort of recent history and the ability of subsequent administrations To pursue an agenda that seems common to both of them, in spite of the rhetoric that leads up to elections.
	And also, when you look at the figures that are in positions of power, how can their power be real?
	I mean, look at this, for example.
	Is this Biden saying what's going to change now post the midterms?
	Let's have a look at what's going to change.
	You mentioned that Americans are frustrated.
	In fact, 75% of voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction despite the results of last night.
	What in the next two years do you intend to do differently to Change people's opinion of the direction of the country, particularly as you contemplate a run for president in 2024.
	Nothing.
	Nothing.
	75% of people are unhappy with the way things are going and they're not going to do anything.
	That doesn't seem like the right approach.
	Doesn't seem like the right approach, does it, when obviously, you know, it's strange coming off the back of, I mean, obviously the midterms was not the red wave that was predicted.
	And a lot of people are saying that kind of Biden got away with one, but to kind of say
	we're not going to make any changes.
	I think in the extended versions, he says, because people need to see what we're planning
	to do, you know, that this is a long term thing rather than that we've achieved our
	goals after two years.
	But nevertheless, again, it's the wrong word to use.
	Don't use nothing.
	Just go in with weight, you know?
	Don't say nothing as the first word.
	Unless you've inspired so much confidence in people with your record, with pledges that have been made, promises that have been kept and continually reliable and understandable announcements.
	Let's have a look at what I think.
	I don't know if this is a different interview.
	Here he goes again.
	No, no, I'm just saying.
	I just found it interesting that Biden's being an extremist.
	Biden's been a pucker copper.
	Biden's been a copper popper.
	I know exactly what Joe Biden was saying and what Joe Biden meant.
	If you're watching us on YouTube right now, go over and watch us on Rumble, where Stay Free with Russell Brand is uncensored.
	We don't use the lack of censorship to say mean stuff.
	We use it to tell the truth about mainstream media news, the movement of establishment power, what we're calling corporatocracy.
	Corporatocracy is a new word.
	Corporatoxis.
	Corporatoxis.
	Like Biden.
	Apocalypto.
	The new Biden.
	So if you stay with us, because when we're on YouTube we have to be extra careful, not
	because we want to say anything that's mental or hateful, but because we want to tell the
	truth and there are certain things that you can only say on a free speech platform like
	Rumble.
	If you're on YouTube now, join us over on Rumble.
	Straight away, click right over.
	Info for free on Rumble.
	Don't I say that Joe Biden shouldn't use terms like apocalyptic?
	Like I guess he said Biden's being apocalyptic.
	Yeah.
	Is that what he was going to say?
	I think he was being asked about China's nuclear weapons and Russia's nuclear weapons at the same time.
	And he was like, yeah, and they call me apocalyptic.
	Apocalyptic ain't an easy word to say.
	No.
	And Biden finds a lot of words quite difficult.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	And he is going to run in 2024.
	He's been quite positive about it.
	Why is everyone so flirty and sexy about running?
	Everyone's always like, I'm going to make an announcement.
	Why is it so sort of saucy, like it's a new Marvel phase?
	I mean, it's weird, isn't it?
	Do you think it's just a way of gaining more news, kind of the banality of news, that it becomes not about what's actually real and what's happening and what they're really doing, it's just teasing people as to whether they're going to run or not?
	I do a bit, because this is why I think it.
	Because now we're starting to hear murmurs of a potential peace deal.
	We started to hear murmurs of a potential peace deal after these things had happened.
	The midterm elections, i.e.
	the Democrats had the advantage of going into the midterms in a state of war, which does peculiar things to people's ability to think rationally.
	I think when there's the sense of war and fear That people tend to be, I don't know, more conservative.
	And in this sense, conservatism means staying with what you've got rather than risking change.
	I also think it's interesting that the UK and US have just done a deal for gas, where previously those kind of economic relationships were held between the United Kingdom and Russia.
	So you could say, to a degree, some of the American agenda in that war may have been met.
	Although I know that wars are more complex than that.
	And also, in the words of the great clans of Game of Thrones, winter is a-coming.
	So, the narrative around war, the necessity for war, and the obligation to create peace, appears to be altering in accordance with a tune that ain't immediately evident.
	So, the reason I mention this now is, when people are talking about, will I run, won't I run, shouldn't the business of government be entirely pragmatic?
	Shouldn't it be entirely pragmatic?
	We're going to do this.
	This is what we're doing.
	This is what you elected us for, so this is what we're going to do.
	It should be about mandates and pledges and promises, not bizarre titillation and sort of odd flirting.
	No, especially when it comes to peace.
	I mean, if they're saying we want peace now versus peace a couple of weeks ago wasn't a good idea, Why are we going to be, is anyone going to talk to us about why peace now can be facilitated but it couldn't do before?
	It does seem odd.
	Why peace now?
	Look, and also, of course, we're some way from actual peace in our item.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news, which we'll be doing in a moment.
	We're talking about of all the pledges that Biden made and broke, perhaps the most significant one was his promise to de-escalate global tensions.
	And perhaps we are on the brink of a potential nuclear Armageddon.
	And even if War is blessedly averted between Russia and Ukraine, or whatever proxy interests are at play via NATO and all sorts of military aid.
	There's a curious story that the US had to deploy nuclear-capable B-52s to Australia, provoking China.
	Why would you provoke China?
	Well, I mean, that's the thing that people are saying is now the U.S.
	moving on to China.
	Leave China alone!
	A dangerous escalation, the United States reportedly preparing to deploy up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to northern Australia, whether they would be close enough to strike China.
	It apparently sends a strong message to adversaries about our ability to project lethal air power, the US Air Force said.
	Becca Wasser, a senior fellow at the Center for New American Security, told ABC that having bombers that could range and potentially attack mainland China could be very important in sending a signal to China that any of its actions over Taiwan could also expand further.
	Let's put that map up that you've just put up, young Putin.
	I'd like to see that.
	I'd like our viewers to see that.
	Now, already, this language, sending China a signal that any of its actions over Taiwan... I mean, if you change China for Russia and Taiwan to Ukraine, it's sort of almost the exact same storyline.
	It's like the new Star Wars movies.
	They're just reboots of stories we've seen before, less good.
	And it seems, though, that There is more jeopardy.
	Like, every time that America enhances or retreads this kind of, oh, there's a baddie over here that we have to step in and intervene with, which did it, I don't know, like, I know a lot of you guys are American.
	Is that the role you want your country to have in the world?
	Do you want, let me know in the comments, let me know in the chat, do you want America to sort of get involved, like, right, don't worry, we're coming in, we're stepping in, is that what you want?
	Or do you want a sort of a more, I don't know, nationally confined attitude to power and also do you think
	it's for you like Like are we all of a sudden got some bad shits going on in
	Taiwan We can have to step in but then would you rather just deal
	with stuff that's going on in America like or do you feel like like in a minute?
	Are we gonna see stuff on the news going look it's our obligation the Chinese fucking with people in Taiwan. It's
	terribly negligent We can't
	Defend for himself. That was what Nancy Pelosi's trip was all about wasn't it? I see her going over there irritating
	people Didn't the Chinese say, don't do this, you're going to wind us up?
	Yeah, they were a bit like how Putin said, really don't encroach on our territory.
	What are you doing?
	You're encroaching.
	We're coming.
	We're going to have a little look around.
	Stop!
	Leave me alone!
	I feel like I want things to calm right down.
	Well, I think people do, yeah.
	And if we could be confident in the idea that the US isn't just doing this for, or is just doing this for heroic reasons, then maybe we'd let them get on with it.
	But I think we'd know that that's not the case.
	Do you think that these various American proxy wars are for the benefit of humankind, for the benefit of ordinary Americans, and are they genuinely humanitarian projects?
	Or could there be some other motivation to do with, I don't know, the profits of the military-industrial complex, a sort of an attempt to create a unipolar world where there is no threat from China or Russia?
	You know when people say, oh, in Russia you wouldn't even be allowed to be on Rumble.
	Well, actually quite a lot of things aren't allowed to be on Rumble in France or England.
	Like in Russia, you won't be allowed to have a show like this.
	And I sort of think, yeah, that's fair enough.
	But that doesn't mean I'm not in Russia.
	I don't know what to do with Russia.
	I don't agree with oppression anywhere.
	It's a strange argument.
	We will be talking about protest a bit later.
	And apparently our protest laws in this country are going to be worse than in Russia.
	Our UK protest laws are about to be made, what, more draconian?
	Yes, than in Russia.
	So that argument, they're going to have to stop using it for certain things now.
	You actually would be able to protest like that in Russia, but it would be colder.
	Oh God, it would.
	And it wouldn't be as good on the telly.
	You wouldn't have as many shows.
	What, you think that you're getting Disney Plus over there?
	No, no, I do like Disney Plus.
	You're quite right.
	It's going to start being about various streaming services that I can access.
	Oh man, I don't know.
	Well, we're talking to Paul Pousland about protest laws in particular.
	Paul Pousland is a barrister who represents environmental causes and we're going to be talking increasingly about new ways that we can address those ideas because sometimes we get a little confused about environmentalism and environmental protest.
	Sometimes it's a bit annoying, isn't it, when they block roads and stuff like that?
	You're annoyed by them sometimes, aren't you?
	I do.
	Because I support their cause, but I feel like there might be different ways of doing the protest.
	Not suggesting I know more than environmental campaigners who are dedicated.
	I'm not saying that.
	What I'm detecting, just by looking around, is that ordinary, let's call it for the sake of simplicity, working people Thanks for blocking them, 25!
	Those are the people that you really want on side.
	If you can find a way of getting them on side, I think that would be super cool.
	I'm not saying I've got a solution to it, or that I'm criticising their agenda.
	Well, these people won't be able to do that soon anyway.
	Thank God for that!
	I mean, maybe that's what it is.
	Maybe they're being encouraged.
	I heard that.
	I heard this.
	I don't know if it's true.
	So please fact check this, young Putin, by God.
	Not that you're the right person.
	Good job we're not on YouTube anymore.
	We're not on YouTube.
	I'm just going to say it with confidence.
	Go with it, Ross.
	I am!
	Go with your gut!
	Your guts is what's required for news broadcasting these days.
	Never got us into any trouble before.
	I heard Just Stop Oil is funded by the Gettys.
	Or the Getty Foundation.
	So, there you go.
	But I guess the... I mean, you know, it's like saying... Who made some of their money from oil?
	Well, yeah, they did.
	A hell of a lot of their money from oil.
	I guess the line of thinking there is, if they're funding protests like this, that eventually lead to new protest laws, shutting down protests, then these things, although a temporary blip, will be kind of annihilated from any future potential.
	So that the idea of protest through these kind of things occurring, the idea of protest in this country will then be wiped out altogether.
	I guess that's the conspiracy at the heart of that, right?
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	I liked that.
	That made sense as an argument.
	Right.
	That they're supporting something that's going to ultimately lead to harsher measures being made.
	Is that Zoella Braverman, who's our Home Secretary, spelt Braverman, but doesn't seem all that brave, does it, to do that?
	Also, your name doesn't have to actually describe you as an adjective.
	No, it doesn't.
	It doesn't have to do that.
	Yeah.
	Although it's good when it does a bit.
	Trump.
	Johnson.
	Yeah.
	Like that.
	Trust.
	Yeah.
	Soonak.
	Soonak.
	Rishi Soonak.
	Seems like it's a fast-moving thing to me, a Rishi Soonak, if I was to see it on a matapir.
	Look, I've got some avenues if you're interested.
	There's a student who threw eggs at Prince Charles.
	Well, this comes back to... King Charles!
	King Charles now.
	Sort it out.
	He's a king.
	This comes back to the environment.
	He was an environmental protester.
	Well, I say that's a better protest.
	I'm not bothered by him doing it.
	Although, when you see it, have a look at this clip, because I feel a bit sorry for King Charles.
	I know he's super rich and he's a king and everything, but when you see an egg being thrown at him, it's the way he ignores it.
	I know, I know, I know.
	It's the way he ignores it.
	It makes me feel sort of sad.
	Grandad sad.
	I feel sad because I think that... Do you feel grandad sad?
	I feel grandad sad that he thinks, oh, people don't really like me, do they?
	I don't want him feeling that because actually I shook his hand once when I was a celebrity.
	I'm surprised you got your hand around it.
	Because he's got the old saucy sausage fingers.
	They're like baguettes, aren't they?
	They're like flash baguettes.
	Because you have to use two hands.
	Oh, your highness.
	Oh, that's not going to be enough.
	You're going to need two for that.
	It's a two-hander!
	King Charlie, you got yourself a two-hander there, mate!
	So yeah, I wrapped my two palms around him.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And it was sort of, you know, how he is.
	Sort of like he's got something on his mind.
	It's as if he wants you to go over there and talk about stuff, innit?
	Yeah.
	Like, pretty sure... We can't go over there.
	Young Putin's pulled up here.
	Oh my word.
	And that's actually... I'd say that's a medical matter.
	It must be.
	That's a medical matter.
	That's no laughing matter.
	They've expanded girth-wise, but they seem to have shrunk length-wise.
	That's what the problem is.
	They're like little carrots now.
	Charlie, King Charlie, you're all girth and no length!
	But some people prefer that, I've heard.
	That ring on the pinky finger, these days are numbered, I'd say.
	Oh yeah, that's going to have to go, isn't it?
	Sword off!
	I say lube that up and whip it off lively I mean even the fingernails put them back up on there even the fingernails are under threat I'd say I think it's only a matter of time before this sweltering blubber consumes the nails themselves yeah it looks like one of them there isn't a nail but maybe that's that's just that's just that's one's heading into what's he got there he's got himself a little keyring he's clinging on to that for dear life this is why he's Right, so we feel sorry for him.
	Come back to us now.
	We feel sad about that.
	And when I shook his hand, he was a bit wristy-clicky.
	And I don't want to criticise him because I actually know people... Do you know this about me?
	I know people who know King Charles.
	Oh yeah?
	That's right.
	Because my wife, she went to what is called a good school.
	So the kids at her school... And you didn't!
	I went to a normal school.
	With an accent!
	I went to a normal school in this place called Grey's.
	My wife, she went to school with Beatrice and Eugenie, who are princesses, and also she got a goldfish once from Princess Diana.
	How's your response?
	I don't know.
	I met Diana once.
	Where did you meet Diana?
	She came to our school.
	And you had Diana.
	And Danny Minogue.
	Danny Minogue and Diana.
	Was it the same day?
	Get Danny Minogue out!
	Diana's on her way!
	What kind of Centre for Excellence in Hull were you at?
	It was a massive day.
	It was probably the biggest day in Hull I've ever known.
	All the flags out.
	It was unbelievable.
	Can you remember it?
	Can you actually remember the feeling?
	Can you remember what she's wearing and all that?
	I'm not sure if I can remember it or not.
	How old were you?
	I was young, I was maybe like five or six.
	That's too young isn't it really?
	You can't really... I remember all the flags and stuff though.
	You can remember what, bunting?
	There was a lot of bunting going around, yeah.
	It was a really happy occasion.
	Of course it is, Diana.
	I mean, like for me, Diana, I see her as separate from everything else.
	She was just a nanny, she was sort of bashful.
	Let's face it, she's kind of sexy.
	Yes.
	And what's that other thing she's done?
	She sort of nosed stuff up a bit, didn't she?
	Oh yeah.
	She made it all go a bit wrong and a bit wonky.
	Yeah.
	Gave weird interviews.
	There's three of us in the movie.
	And that looking up under... Remember, she was wearing masks even before it was fashionable.
	Yeah.
	Even before Covid, she was wearing that little blue mask and she was sort of looking up like that.
	She was stopping the spread, wasn't she?
	In some way she was causing the spread, baby.
	Sometimes I like to think I'm the new Diana.
	Okay.
	But I'm not.
	Oh, am I?
	I don't think so.
	There's no one saying it except me.
	I'm trying to get that idea started that I might be the new Diana.
	Anyway, let's have a look at this protest and see how you feel about luck.
	I mean, in a way, when someone throws an egg at Charles, he could bat it away with his great big batting hands, couldn't he?
	Was that an egg to go with those sausages?
	Someone give me a baguette!
	Place it between those peps and give it a bite!
	It's a breakfast in a bun!
	Now let's see how you feel about poor old King Charlie.
	Try to see the pathos and the heartbreak of this.
	Forget for a moment that he may be the pinnacle of a hierarchical structure that normalises poverty and a kind of modern feudalism.
	Think about his little face.
	Let's have a look.
	Aww.
	Aww.
	It's upsetting.
	I paused it and look what it done.
	It went all over the gaff.
	It upset him, didn't it, that?
	Although he did dodge them.
	Did he?
	Yeah, he dodged them.
	He didn't get hit by any of them.
	I don't know that he dodged them though, Gal.
	They just missed him.
	Got it.
	Greg, you're on, son!
	You don't think he's kind of the new Neo?
	He's not like Neo, like going backwards, like that.
	You don't think?
	He is the one.
	Bloody poor old Morpheus got himself in a bit of a jam.
	I don't know.
	Okay, the thing is we've gone back to the video.
	Can you spool forward through that poo in because I just want to see the end of this tragic little event.
	It's the ignoring it.
	It's the ignoring it that breaks the heart.
	I think that's been reset.
	It's reset.
	So now it's like it's little red things.
	They're irrelevant.
	It's like a crime scene.
	Let's let you know how it is.
	So I don't press the wrong button.
	This is what they should have for Joe Biden to start a nuclear war.
	We've taped off all other buttons.
	So I can only press this one.
	But this button, it's got all sorts of powers.
	That would be way beyond pause.
	Radical rethink on that thing.
	Before we go to here's the news, no here's the effing news, there's just one story.
	KFC offering a bargain bucket on Kristallnacht in Germany.
	Now I don't think, firstly... Cheesy chicken is what it is.
	Don't celebrate Kristallnacht at all.
	It was a terrible occasion.
	It was a racist discrimination against the Jewish people of Germany.
	It was wrong in every conceivable way.
	There's no way that cheesy chicken is what we should be doing to honour that.
	No, it's not a commemoration, is it?
	I mean, there is a difference.
	Sometimes you think there isn't a difference with anything.
	What do you mean?
	Well, like a poppy.
	I guess what you're doing, you're choosing to commemorate the memory of those soldiers with that poppy.
	To honour the people, the men and women that gave their lives in the world wars, particularly that one against Hitler, I'm having some cheesy chicken.
	Now like it's even worse when it's something I think that's more drilled down into Kristallnacht which is I suppose it's weird isn't it because it's more bespoke because it was a sort of a sort of a racist attack on the Jewish people of It's a memorial day for Kristallnacht.
	thing I don't think like I'd like to say does anyone speak German it says
	Guten Tag and die Reichsgrummnacht. It's Memorial Day for Kristallnacht.
	Treat yourself with more tender cheese on your crispy chicken now at KFC
	I mean, that's just crazy.
	So what I was saying, I mean, first of all, the tabloid bill called the mistake tasteless, which is, in my mind, a tasteless pun.
	Although the crispy chicken might be delicious.
	Yeah.
	This isn't to say it's not a good dish, although I actually, as a vegan person, don't think there should be chickens killed anyhow.
	Well, certainly not in the way that KFC do it.
	Don't kill them like that, and then don't tie it to Kristallnacht.
	I mean, what's... Well, unless that's the... I don't know.
	Think of the things.
	9-11, that's a thing where you don't offer sort of treats on 9-11.
	It's solemn.
	It's a solemn time for, I think, for reflection.
	Does it kind of tie in terms of like, I mean, it's amazing what's used.
	I mean, we're going to be talking about COP 27 in a bit.
	We're talking about the greenwashing of these companies.
	Yeah, that's mean, isn't it?
	In a way, this is...
	Any excuse now for consumerism is used.
	Any meaningless gesture that they can form something around.
	Everything about commodity.
	Everything about commerce.
	Kristallnacht!
	Want some crispy chicken?
	So that's either someone's idea.
	That's either a boardroom idea.
	Whose idea is this?
	Or that's just one person's idea.
	The one thing that has been speculated, and this gets them off the hook, is that the message was computer generated.
	But if that is the case, then we're in trouble as well, aren't we?
	It's like Skynet.
	The computers eventually decided that it was best to celebrate Kristallnacht with crispy cheese chicken.
	And then the people were so bloody stupid eating crispy cheese chicken on Kristallnacht that they might as well annihilate humankind.
	I mean, that's actually the worst of all three.
	The first two, you kind of go, well, sack them or whatever.
	But that's pretty frightening.
	If you have to call someone in your office and say, it's a human, presumably, rather than AI, in which case, what's the point?
	But you say, what were you thinking, mate, when it came to the Kristallnacht cheesy crispy chicken idea there?
	Why were you thinking that was a good idea?
	What can they possibly say?
	The worst thing I could say is... I didn't know what Kristallnacht was.
	That, or I was under pressure, you set unrealistic targets.
	You set unrealistic targets?
	This cheesy chicken is disgusting!
	No one even likes cheesy chicken!
	People don't want cheese on chicken!
	Who thought of it?
	Cheese doesn't work on everything, most things yes, but...
	You can't just put cheese on something like a car or a man.
	Cheese has got limits!
	Respect the limits of cheese!
	Even if you can't respect Kristallnacht as an occasion that was in a sense the ignition of a disgusting slur on humankind.
	Least respect, don't put cheese on every single bloody thing you see in this world.
	Not everything can be solved by cheese.
	Now listen, we began this show talking about World War 3 and how possibly to avert it through creating conditions of solidarity and love between all the people of the world and being willing to get past some of our prejudices and zany old crazy ideas about judgment of one another.
	So now we're doing uh it's time for us to do our item here's the news now here's the effing no here's the effing news in which we look at Biden's broken promises in particular his pledge not to exacerbate nuclear tensions with countries that can sort of respond I mean if you're going to bother so if you're going to threaten someone don't threaten someone with nuclear weapons keep watching let me know exactly what you think about this and let me know in the chat whether you think we've made the most relevant points here's the news no here's the effing news Here's the fucking news!
	While we're distracted by the midterms, could the biggest of Biden's broken pledges lead to global annihilation?
	While I enjoy a festival of democracy as much as the next man, things on the news, polls, speeches, all that stuff, I'm also a little bit interested in global annihilation and whether or not either party, whether they retain or gain control of the house, will lead us into nuclear Armageddon seems to me to be a priority worth discussing.
	You'll all recall that Joe Biden confidently claimed, We will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine.
	It's not that long ago that he said that, particularly not in the scope of Joe Biden's endless Benjamin Button, but in the proper direction, life.
	Direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War 3.
	Okay, direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War 3.
	Something we must strive to prevent.
	There it is, straight from Joe Biden's mouth, that tensions between NATO and Russia ultimately means World War 3.
	I'm sure you'd agree that there are some tensions between NATO and Russia, aren't there?
	This is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?
	I also want to be clear, though.
	He's always saying that he wants to be clear, and I want him to be clear, and he so seldom is.
	We'll defend every single inch of NATO territory.
	It's widely acknowledged that US and NATO officers are now fully involved in Ukraine's operational planning, aided by a broad range of US intelligence gathering and analysis to exploit Russia's military vulnerabilities, while Ukrainian forces are armed with US and NATO weapons and trained up to the standards of other NATO countries.
	Yeah, but other than training them up to our standards, helping them in the planning and arming them, we're completely neutral!
	Other than that... This is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?
	On October 5th, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia's Security Council, recognized that Russia is now fighting NATO in Ukraine.
	Meanwhile, President Putin has reminded the world that Russia has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them, when the very existence of the state is put under threat, as Russia's official nuclear weapons doctrine declared in June 2020.
	So Putin said that Russia will respond with nuclear capacity if the state is put under threat.
	And remember, in our interview with Jeffrey Sachs, he explained events all the way back really to sort of 2001, but with particular emphasis on events in 2009 and 2014, remember Obama's heckle, that have led us to this position.
	Almost like Putin was warning where this continued escalation might lead.
	But don't take Putin's word for it.
	Joe Biden said the same thing.
	Continuing NATO infringement or backing NATO militarily or exacerbating the situation would in effect be World War 3.
	It seems likely that under that doctrine, Russia's leaders would interpret losing a war to the United States and NATO on their own borders as meeting the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.
	Is it possible that something this obvious could be missed by the finest military minds in history?
	The greatest military machine the world has ever known?
	The richest military industrial complex that humankind ever dreamed of?
	Could they miss something as vital as an explicit warning that were they to use a land war that was non-nuclear to NATO that they would consider and in fact enact a nuclear war could they have missed what seems to me to be a more important detail than Ron DeSantis and Fetterman doing better than expected and it really not making that much difference certainly compared to nuclear annihilation.
	Hey Fetterman you overcame the odds!
	Hey DeSantis you're new Trump!
	Oh, what's that?
	Everything being destroyed?
	Oh yeah, that's put it into some new perspective.
	President Biden acknowledged on October the 6th that Putin is not joking.
	Yes, I'd agree with that.
	He doesn't seem to be a person who prioritises humour.
	Even when he's doing that sort of handshake that seems a bit stupid and funny, he seems like a person who's quite serious.
	Or when he's sort of glumly watching nuclear experiments being carried out, like missiles being launched.
	Bored!
	The same way that I might pretend to be interested in a school sports day and that it would be difficult for Russia to use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.
	Yeah, the tactic of a nuclear weapon does have a bit of a downside in that it destroys the thing we live on.
	Biden assessed the danger of full-scale nuclear war higher than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
	Yet, despite voicing the possibility of an existential threat to our survival, Biden was not issuing a public warning to the American people and the world, nor announcing any change in US policy.
	Bizarrely, the president was instead discussing the prospect of nuclear war with his political party's financial backers during an election fundraiser at the home of media mogul James Murdoch, with surprised corporate media reporters listening in.
	This is a bit strange.
	He seems to be saying that there's going to be a nuclear war.
	What a scoop!
	In an NPR report about the danger of nuclear war over Ukraine, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear weapons expert at Harvard University, estimated the chance of Russia using a nuclear weapon at 10-20%.
	I like those odds!
	Now we've gone from ruling out direct US and NATO involvement in the war, to US involvement in all aspects of the war, except for the bleeding and dying, with an estimated 10-20% chance of nuclear war.
	Seems like we're exacerbating a potentially dangerous situation.
	Ban made that estimate shortly before the sabotage of the Kurd Strait bridge to Crimea.
	What odds will he project a few months from now if both sides keep matching each other's escalations with further escalation?
	Well, I'm not a betting man or a bookie, but I imagine that the odds are increasing, decreasing.
	I told you I'm not a bookie.
	It's getting worse.
	The unsolvable dilemma facing Western leaders is that this is a no-win situation.
	How can they militarily defeat Russia when it possesses 6,000 nuclear warheads and its military doctrine explicitly states that it will use them before it will accept an existential military defeat?
	This is one of those times where perhaps the sort of naivety and innocence of the uninformed is somewhat useful.
	You could get distracted and sidetracked by all of the analysis of the midterms.
	Hmm, that was surprising.
	Maybe this is because this.
	Oh, people care more about that than we thought.
	Hmm, but what about this?
	And what does it mean?
	And should he run in 2024?
	And what about that?
	Also though, haven't Russia got 6,000 nuclear warheads and haven't they said that they will not accept a military defeat?
	Yeah, I know, but isn't it cool that Ron DeSantis, is he better than Trump or is he worse than Trump?
	And what about Federman?
	Hmm?
	And Biden, should he run in 20- Is it possible that Joe Biden thinks I'm going to just die at the same time as everybody now?
	When it looked like I was racing towards the grave, off stage, likely to be there before most of you, it seems there's going to be a dead tie.
	And yet that is what the intensifying Western role in Ukraine now explicitly aims to achieve.
	This leaves US and NATO policy, and thus our very existence, hanging by a thin thread.
	The hope that Putin is bluffing, despite explicit warnings that he is not.
	CIA Director William Burns, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, and the Director of the DIA, Defence Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Scott Beria, have all warned that we should not take this danger lightly.
	On May 23rd, the very day that Congress passed a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine, including $24 billion in new military spending, the contradictions and dangers of the new US-NATO war policy in Ukraine finally spurred a critical response from the New York Times editorial board.
	A Times editorial titled, the Ukraine war is getting complicated.
	It's not getting complicated, it's getting simple.
	If you carry on, you're going to destroy the planet.
	The Ukraine war is getting complicated and America is not ready, asking serious probing questions about the new US policy.
	Sometimes we are, in our ignorance, incapable of addressing the complexity of the new financial globalist agenda, the various subcommittees and sub-agendas, and how vague and misleading the bureaucratic language can be.
	But occasionally, obvious things start to emerge, like That is a global superpower with a nuclear capacity and for like half a century the Cold War was determined by our knowledge that they could destroy the planet and they could destroy the planet.
	So should we come to some sort of truce?
	As Jeffrey Sachs explained in our conversation, that truce has been broken again and again and again.
	Not by Russia!
	Spoiler alert, which is a phrase that I don't like using.
	So something that could be portrayed as vague and complex, oh geopolitics, it's so complicated, so many interests, is actually quite simple.
	If you keep antagonizing Russia, even if it's through the humanitarian support of the Ukraine, which is obviously sort of necessary and you shouldn't abandon people, You ought consider, and weigh that up against, potential annihilation for everybody.
	A week later, Biden replied to the Times in an op-ed titled, What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine.
	Biden wrote, We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia.
	The United States will not try to bring about Putin's ouster in Moscow.
	But he went on to pledge virtually unlimited US support for Ukraine, and he did not answer the more difficult questions the Times asked about the US endgame in Ukraine.
	The limits to US involvement in the war or how much more devastation Ukraine could sustain.
	So again, we blindly and blithely fall into accepting rhetoric and spectacle instead of acknowledging that there is a clear problem emerging.
	We're avoiding that simply by pointing to the necessity to support in Ukraine and Putin is bad and the midterms weren't as red as they might have been.
	I'll tell you what will soon be red.
	Everything!
	As the war escalates and the danger of nuclear war increases, these questions remain unanswered.
	Calls for a speedy end to the war echoed around the UN General Assembly in New York in September, where 66 countries representing most of the world's population urgently called on all sides to restart peace talks.
	Peace talks, which were apparently interrupted by Boris Johnson when he was on a sort of peace mission, peculiarly.
	The greatest danger we face is that their calls will be ignored and that the US military-industrial complex overpaid minions will keep finding ways to incrementally turn up the pressure on Russia, calling its bluff and ignoring its red lines, as they have since 1991, until they cross the most critical red line of all.
	And that's all of our lives, is that red line, in case you think politics is complicated.
	So, while there's no doubt a thrill to be sought and found in following the midterms, the surprises, the chills, the spills, ought we not also focus on creating global peace?
	At the time of COP 27, when we're talking about environmental disaster, climate change proven scientifically, the problems of COP 27 being sponsored by some of the world's biggest polluters, we could Consider also a more immediate and imminent threat.
	Escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia, if it is, as many people now believe, essentially a proxy war between the US and Russia, in spite of Biden's pledges, could mean the end of the world for all of us.
	And I think that's a little bit more important than which colour those houses are.
	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.
	I'll see you in a minute.
	Thank you for viewing Fox News.
	Good day.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news.
	Three.
	See?
	Lots of people in the chat saying things like, uh, no one Fs with a Biden.
	Some people simply applauding.
	Thanks for contributing.
	Part of me thinks the rich are too happy robbing us to destroy the planet.
	Perhaps it's all just bluffing.
	Who said that?
	That was Talvez316.
	We want to draw your attention to this news story as we introduce our guest.
	Biden under pressure to address Egyptian rights abuses at COP27.
	Human rights activists say that Egypt's government is using COP27 climate summit to launder its human rights record, while also Paul Pousland, lawyer for the environment, dressed in your barrister garb, simultaneously arresting and imprisoning protesters that are protesting against environmental damage.
	Is COP 27 in your opinion, Paul?
	And welcome to the show and thank you for being here and you look magnificent.
	Are events like COP 27 greenwash spectaculars or does anything positive come from it?
	And isn't there a fundamental hypocrisy in arresting and imprisoning environmental protesters at an event that is supposed to be drawing attention to the threats and dangers of climate change?
	Yes, and I think one of my favourite graphs is the graph of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going up every year with the different years of the different COPs and the fact that every single year as it goes up there's another COP, there's another COP, there's another COP.
	I think the failure of COP is shown by the fact that it hasn't done anything to change it.
	Why do they do it then?
	I think a mixture of wanting to be seen to do something, but to me it's also why grassroots and direct action and activism is so important to make the change that we need.
	We need grassroots action.
	We need to be directly involved in protest ourselves.
	Everyone does.
	We've all got to do it.
	Firstly, Ash Ella on our Stay Free AF community says, oh my god, Paul's my neighbour.
	That's the first thing.
	So there's someone that lives near you watching you right now.
	It's a female and I don't think you need to be concerned at this stage.
	Someone else is saying, where is your curly wig?
	Is there a reason you're not wearing your curly wig right now?
	Because you are a proper actual barrister.
	Because I'm not actually allowed to by the Bar Standards Board.
	They would strike me off if I wore it when I'm not in court.
	So this is as close as I can get, which is part of the outfit, but I'm not allowed.
	And to be honest, I look creepy in it.
	It's really weird.
	Does it smell funny, those kind of wigs?
	Yeah, it's like horse hair, and it's weird.
	And to be honest, even if I could wear it, I'm not sure I would.
	I don't think you want that, like me sitting like a weirdo in your studio.
	More of a weirdo.
	You're a delightful, if unusual, man, and I would welcome you in any wig.
	Any variety of weeks.
	So Paul, your answer to the inefficiency of an event like COP 27 is to ensure that protest and activism is something that we're all directly engaged with, but across the world in the United States of America and in our country, Laws are being currently passed to inhibit our ability to protest.
	Gareth, I think you've got some information on that, which I imagine you're going to put to Paul right now.
	Paul's going to help us to understand it from a legal perspective, and perhaps some other perspectives that I can't even begin to contemplate.
	Well, I guess what it's... I mean, I know Suella Braverman, who's our Home Secretary, and she was... I think she talked about these climate protesters at the moment as being guardian-eating tofu a guardian reading tofu eater, because you wouldn't eat the
	guardian.
	So she's been very disparaging.
	She's been very disparaging and kind of polarizing in how she speaks about these protesters.
	But ultimately, what's happening is through these protest laws that are being brought
	in and these amendments that are being brought in that are going to do things like include
	like 24-7 GPS monitoring, restricted internet use, basically being able to give, create
	injunctions that are deemed to people that are deemed likely to protest before they've
	even protested in the first place.
	Um...
	Could that just be a way of shutting down protest across the board?
	The way in which people like this are being demonised for you could say you know that what they're doing does create a lot of problems for everyday people but the way in which this is then utilised by government and by the media to then with the end result being that protest as a whole gets shut down.
	Do you think that's a kind of tactic that governments are employing at the moment to kind of demonise a A class or a group of people that then has the ability to kind of shock protest down across the board.
	That's definitely a tattoo, and they're trying to shut it down.
	Whether they can or will is another matter we can discuss.
	But I think we need to go back a stage and say why they're doing it.
	And the fact is that the fossil fuel industry is one of, if not the most, richest and powerful industry that has ever existed.
	And we need to end that industry in order to continue with our civilisation and indeed with life on Earth as we know it.
	And of course an industry that rich and powerful is going to do whatever it can to stop those who are trying to stop it.
	And we see its tentacles going out all over the place, so it'll influence governments through politics, through think tanks, and it will also try and buy the laws.
	In England we've got these things called injunctions, where oil companies are going to the court and basically spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to buy their own laws to get rid of protesters that ordinary people don't have.
	By their own laws, what do you mean?
	Well, so an injunction is a civil remedy where basically it says, normally if I come in your garden and trespass, in England that's not a criminal offence, but the oil companies... Can you write that down?
	It's really useful, and with Right to Roam stuff it's really useful to know, but the oil companies come and say, well actually we don't like people coming in our forecourts and protesting, so here's a couple of hundred grand to the High Court, and then it transforms that via an injunction to mean that people can be put in prison for up to two years and have their houses taken off them in costs.
	So they're trying to inhibit and control protest from every conceivable angle.
	And to get laws for themselves that are better than everyone else has.
	Normally, if you want the law changed, if you don't want people going in your garden, you have to go to Parliament and make a case for it, that we have to democratically change that law.
	But it's not good enough for the oil companies.
	They're too rich and they're too powerful, so they want their own laws.
	And then they buy the services of people in my profession who are Who like that amount of money.
	I like it there.
	Did you see how Paul used his legal mind?
	He used his legal mind!
	I was very carefully thinking what I should say there.
	He looked up that way.
	That's legal mind.
	Who like earning large amounts of money to do that bidding for them and I think it's fundamentally undemocratic.
	But also what's interesting is we see states like the UK, they're not like Egypt who just imprisons environmental protesters, they also like to do it more subtly.
	So there's different ways they do that in the UK.
	Allocation of resources.
	So there's all these different laws, but which ones are the police actually upholding?
	Like when I got burgled, the police didn't come.
	When my bike gets stolen, the police don't come.
	I stopped someone being mugged and the police didn't come.
	But for environmental protesters, for an old granny sitting in the road, they're like, send the vans, send loads of them.
	No, not at all, Paul.
	Firstly, I want to show you that graph that you referred to, so everyone can have a little look at it.
	There's that graph that Paul referred to.
	That's the power of COP 27 there, marching those emissions right up.
	And also young Putin has pulled something up.
	While we're looking at Biden under pressure to address Egyptian rights abuses, there you go, we're not lying to you guys, what I want to say, Paul, is a lot of people feel that Climate change is as a result of cosmological factors that it occurs over millennia isn't affected by human activity that's sort of one thing which I guess you know that there's a significant science to suggest that that isn't true but of course they will point to different factors etc.
	But what I suppose I'm personally interested in is how the climate change movement often finds itself at odds with ordinary people.
	How often the edicts of apparently sort of climate-oriented legislation messes up, for example, the farmers with the recent emissions laws leading to those protests in New Zealand.
	When the climate change agenda is addressed through law, it never seems to address these Great colossi, the energy giants, or the 100 biggest polluting companies in the world, which, as I understand, contributes to 70% of global pollution, but it always ends up hurting ordinary people, farmers.
	It always seems to land on the individual.
	Why is this?
	And why can't the climate change movement... Do you think that the climate change movement could adjust the nature of their protests so it seems that the targets Are big corporations, rather than normal people on the M25, like me the other day, being inconvenienced?
	Well that's quite interesting because Just Stop Oil did in fact spend weeks blockading oil refineries.
	They actually went onto oil refineries and climbed up into the silos and stopped.
	They dug tunnels under the roads outside oil refineries and put themselves where lorries going over them to try and stop it.
	But of course, a couple of things.
	A, they were largely ignored and B, the oil companies went and got an injunction to stop As I mentioned earlier.
	So they had to change their tactics.
	I guess the problem is also, yes those emissions are caused by a hundred companies, but also those companies aren't just burning the oil for the fun of it.
	They're burning the oil and making these emissions to underpin our lifestyles.
	But the problem is, we've been sold a lifestyle, and people pretend they want a lifestyle because the media have told them they want it, that actually is fundamentally at odds with the continuation of life on earth effectively.
	I see, so you're saying that at the level of the individual there's a necessity for
	a kind of cultural, from the way you're saying it mate, it sounds like a spiritual change,
	a different manner of living that's more in harmony with nature, that we begin to recognise
	that these trinkets and commodities aren't actually making us happy, that we're imprisoned,
	enshrined in plastic, meaningless distraction, and that we could alter our approach to reality
	entirely, we could pivot somehow.
	The example I always use is that when I cycle in London, and there's obviously a lot of
	anger between cyclists and drivers, and driving in London is really harmful, it's killing
	people with air pollution and also causing carbon emissions, but what I find really interesting
	is none of the people that I see driving in London, not a single one, ever looks like
	they're having a good time.
	Like if we're going to have a party and destroy the livable earth as we know it, at least
	enjoy it.
	I resent their miserableness.
	Actually, people don't seem to enjoy this Earth destruction.
	It's not working.
	Our way of life isn't working.
	And also, I'd say, in relation to climate, I agree with the general science opinion on climate.
	But actually, crucially, you don't have to to become an activist for the Earth.
	Because everybody can see that life on Earth is diminishing and dying, and you don't have to believe in climate science.
	You can, okay, deforestation, go and plant some trees.
	Our water crisis, go and stop the water companies putting sewage in our river.
	You can see those things, you don't have to argue them.
	There's something that everyone can do.
	Just go outside, see the different crises and the death and dying that's happening, and choose which one you want to change.
	Paul, I was supporting a campaign the other day.
	These mermaids, they call themselves, they're swimmers against sewage.
	They are campaigning against... I was on the panel with one talking about it, yeah.
	Was you, mate?
	Yeah.
	You know, I'm sure obviously you know more than I do about this subject, but let me do that thing I always do where I tell experts stuff that they know more about than I do.
	Go ahead.
	It's something I do every day.
	Thames water are dumping tons and tons of human faeces in the river Thames and this is not necessary.
	And in my river that I live on.
	What one do you live on?
	It's called the Roding in East London.
	Where your dad grew up, in Barking?
	I live in Barking on the River Odin, which is a tributary of the Thames, and Thames Water are dumping tonnes of sewage into our river.
	Is it true that this is an unnecessary process that could be eliminated if they were to spend money on infrastructure?
	Yeah, what we see, and again this is the kind of typical late capitalism example, is water companies are paid to treat the sewage, but what they do is they literally take that money and give it to their shareholders and then break the law.
	That should be illegal!
	It is illegal!
	So the serious film where I live is completely illegal and Thames Water is like, ha ha ha, we're just making too much money to obey the law so we'll just keep breaking it, pay the fines and carry on doing it.
	It's basically like a criminal gang but because they're in suits we somehow think it's acceptable.
	Is it true that Thames Water is owned by a Canadian company, a Kuwaiti company, a Chinese company?
	Loads of them, who knows?
	So why is that?
	Why is it that, why is Thames Water not nationalised, collectivised and run by people directly affected by it?
	Why can't we break this model?
	Why can't we change it?
	So you've made a few points here.
	One, you agree that COP27 is like a phony, empty gesture that actually doesn't really meaningfully contribute to saving the planet.
	that on infrastructure to shareholders and then just break the law because the
	regulators, the Environment Agency in the UK and I think it's the equivalent in
	America just aren't doing their job or largely because they've been underfunded.
	So you've made a few points here. One, you agree that COP 27 is like a phony
	empty gesture that actually doesn't really meaningfully contribute to saving
	the planet but whether or not you believe in climate change science you
	ought to dedicate yourself to the preservation and love of the planet that
	you live on and that you're connected to. But people that live in these lifestyles
	that are supported, like I'm going to include myself in this, that are supported by fossil
	fuels and consumption are generally not happy and that radical changes need to
	take place at the level of the individual.
	A meaningful protest will have to engage all of us and how do we get involved and how should we get involved and what kind of things do you suggest, mate?
	Whichever way speaks to you.
	So for instance, like, I really agree with a lot of climate protests and including Just Stop Oil, but I can't get arrested because of my job.
	But then one day I was like, actually, you know what, there is still some stuff I can do.
	So I just went and put a placard and sat outside the main area where barristers go for their lunch and all the judges and just sat there on the steps with a sign saying, we must act in the climate crisis.
	Did you wear that outfit?
	I did.
	I had the wig with me as well, but not on because I wasn't allowed it.
	And there's something everybody can do and you don't have to get arrested, but even just actions like going out and planting trees, like making a direct change, everyone can and should get involved in what is the fight of our lifetimes, which is to save our Earth.
	Of course the counter-argument is that when activism is cellular and localised it's very difficult to confront the kind of hegemonic and global powers that perhaps hide behind futile gestures like COP27.
	So how do we act locally but collaborate?
	Please do not sneeze on the street!
	You need to mix between the two.
	My activism is a mixture of hyper-local and also on a much more national level.
	I do work on my river to plant trees and to stop Thames Water putting sewage in, but I also support national campaigns to change the law so water companies can't do that.
	Similarly with climate, I'm working within my profession and saying actually our profession needs to stop taking money from the fossil fuel industry and facilitating it.
	I went rowing on the river.
	on the national level going on protests and organising on a wider level.
	You need to constantly mix between those two. But the two things,
	they do feed one into another. When someone starts taking care of their
	local river that they love, they suddenly notice the problems and
	they're like, wait a second, we need to change the law on this.
	And so they usually just feed one into the other.
	I went rowing on the river Wye and like I see a couple, it was shallow
	and there were dead fish floating on their side.
	It made me feel pretty bad.
	It made me have a visceral, it had a visceral impact on me.
	And when I was told that like the Thames that I swim in that they're needlessly dumping poo in there just because it's cheaper than spending the money that they've been granted to treat it in the manner they are legally obliged to do.
	Infuriates me and it's clear to me that it's as a result of a sort of a mindset of profiteering that has perhaps seduced all of us but is obviously more impactful when conducted at a global level by powerful monopolies that aren't even from the country that they're operating in and polluting.
	Paul, we've got a I'm going to let you go now because we're about to talk about local activism right in the community that I'm from.
	Can you tell us where we can follow you and find you and all that?
	Obviously one person lives next door to you.
	My Twitter where I do most stuff is at Paul Powersland, which I think is hopefully written on the screen because my surname is a nightmare to spell.
	And my organisation that I set up is Lawyers for Nature, trying to get rights for the natural world and to protect environmental activists.
	Thanks for being such a beautiful person.
	Come on our show again and continue to educate us in the manner that you have done so far.
	And if you're not going to wear the proper wig, just wear any wig.
	I'll bring it with me and you can take it and wear it yourself.
	Am I allowed to wear it?
	I mean, if you take it off me without my permission and do so, then yeah, sure.
	Haha, finally!
	Just this!
	Always finding a loophole, isn't it?
	Thanks Paul Palsen there.
	You should find Paul and follow Paul and support his suggestion that we do stuff.
	Here we go.
	Thames water find for £4 million after 30 hour waterfall of sewage discharge.
	Don't go chasing waterfalls.
	Please stick to the rivers and lakes that you're used to, even if they're made of human excretion.
	But that doesn't hurt them, does it?
	£4 million.
	I mean, when we were talking about the profits of, I think it was around £2 billion that we were talking about the other day, £4 million is doing absolutely nothing.
	It's not.
	It's zero.
	It's zilch.
	And you'll be astonished that even in local issues that you might imagine would take place below a financial threshold of concern, these matters have spiralled out of control.
	I'm from a place called Gray's.
	It's a little town in the borough of Furrock, which means four oak.
	The oak of four.
	You know, Chris Hemsworth?
	That's what it means.
	Anyway, the theatre, the Thameside Theatre there, which is a valuable community resource that houses a library, is perhaps soon to be shut down or sold as a result of underfunding.
	On Zoom with us right now are Sam and Neil, who run the campaign to To save the Thamesside Theatre and Library and to have it handed over into community ownership in exemplifying what Paul Palsland has just told us.
	That local action is the solution to global problems in some cases.
	Sam, Neil, thanks for joining us.
	Are you there?
	Yes, hi.
	How are you, Russell?
	I'm going to have to put on headphones so I can hear you properly.
	Hello.
	Now, we're certainly not going to be making you co-hosts.
	That's the last thing, so you can take that off the screen.
	I've got one co-host and he's sneezing all the way through it.
	Can you tell us, Sam, will you tell us, mate, What is going on in Gray's with the Thameside Theatre and does it lead to sort of broader political issues of potential corruption and high expenditure, mate?
	And tell us in a way that you're comfortable with and I'll step in when necessary.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah.
	I mean, back in July last year, 2021, the council put the Thameside complex as a whole onto a disposal list and they decided that they were going to Get rid of it.
	Within a period of three or four months they were going to sell it off.
	It contains the theatre, the museum and the library and they wanted to get rid of it.
	So there our campaign started.
	Well I think it should be a heritage site for a number of reasons.
	Once I performed there as a boy, that in itself should be the demand.
	Do you not have a plaque?
	Should be a blue plaque and also an accompanying brown plaque because I once did a follow-through fart in the museum there as a boy and you know when you've done that in public you think, oh no, oh no.
	Now Thames Water would put that straight into the bloody river!
	But I kept it in my own undercarriage.
	Now, when you were investigating this peculiar closure of the Thamesside Library, which is a necessary public amenity, presumably it's being closed because of lack of funds for the council.
	Why ain't the council got no money?
	Well, they said at the time of closing it that it was unfit for purpose and surplus to requirements, whatever that means.
	But actually, they were at that time, we realised, trying to fill A 34 million pound hole in their budget over the next two years.
	That's how we started because we realised just be honest with us it's fit for purpose and it's definitely not surplus requirements you're trying to fill this hole.
	Which they obviously said, no, that's not true.
	It's just not any good.
	We're going to get rid of it.
	And then obviously, as you dig deeper, you realise there's a lot more rustle, as you know.
	Yeah, I heard that they're £834 million in debt.
	And like, sort of, there's been some really curious deals by Furrock Council.
	And I know that you're perhaps not in a position to talk about this, but they involve billions and solar panels and all sorts of complexity, contradictions, and in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, potentially corruption.
	And that's why on the 5th of December, we are doing a community event.
	You know we do these big festivals and stuff.
	We're doing one at the Thameside Theatre.
	A day of celebration and fun and obedient, humorous, good conduct, where I think Brad Evans, our philosopher friend, will be there.
	If you want to join us, there's a link in the description of your rumble chat, or if you're a member of the Stay Free AF community, there's a link there.
	You can come and see us.
	Any money we raise, we give to, of course, good causes, and our intention is to support Sam and Neil's You've had a go.
	You've got show posters in the background.
	You're clearly an exhibitionist.
	Whereas look at Neil.
	Who does he love?
	Dogs.
	bit Neil because you, Sam you've been talking too much to be honest you're hogging it.
	You've had a go, you've had a go, you've got show posters in the background, you're clearly
	an exhibitionist, whereas look at Neil, who does he love?
	Dogs, animals.
	He's one of your...
	Look at that, animals.
	He's one of your own, look.
	So, Neil, can you tell us, mate, what you want this theatre, which already should be a heritage site, on the basis of me performing and doing that follow-through for The Sharp there.
	What is it you think it should be handed over as a community trust asset?
	Is that correct?
	And what does that mean, even?
	That's right.
	It could be something called a community asset transfer.
	For us, this is about people-powered services.
	I'm sure your friends in America will understand they don't like the state having control of stuff.
	We believe that we can do this better, better than the council.
	The council is just too big an organisation, as you say.
	There's all sorts of strange stuff that's been happening there.
	But for us, what we're saying is work together with us and we can make it far more financially viable than they could.
	And turn the building over into the control of people.
	So I run something called a social enterprise.
	It's a community interest company, which means we have an asset lock.
	So if you give us something like that, we can hold it for the people forever, rather than let capitalist people take control and make lots of money out of it.
	Well done.
	I mean, I've heard that Furrock Council, which is the place I'm from, place where I was born, is £1.5 billion in debt.
	How does this relatively small council get so heavily in debt?
	Cause for great investigation there.
	Is it all the plucks?
	Oh wait, this just in.
	Mostly that statues and plaques commemorating the fact that money, money well spent.
	Who needs libraries when you could have a Saddam Hussein style statue of me up in the town.
	I need it to be of solid gold.
	They had to keep redoing the trials a bit.
	No, he's done another one.
	Right, we've got to pack out that pouch at the back.
	Do another!
	So listen, we're going to be going over to the Stay Free AF community in a moment, but I'd love your support.
	Because as Paul just said, and as we continually say on this show, the only way we can really fight centralised power is through community empowered activism.
	Think about the things in your own life that you care about.
	We'll support you in that.
	You support us in this.
	Can you retweet my little post if you follow me at Rusty Rockets?
	I've done a little post, if you could retweet that.
	And if you want to join us on December 5th for a live event, a celebration of this place where I'm from, where there'll be, well, who's going to be there?
	Brad Evans, Radhika Das.
	We're going to have lots of celebratory, community-minded activity in Awakening.
	And me and Paul Foot will reenact the bizarre set of crises that have led us to this condition.
	As well as you'll have the chance to walk around the town where I'm from.
	You'll see the police station, Gray's police station, where I was arrested and held for possession of controlled substances as a younger man.
	You'll see the magistrate court, where I stood and went, I'm sorry, I won't do this again!
	You'll see the library, where I done a follow-through farm.
	You'll see the trousers with the stains.
	Those trousers they're still in there next to a Neanderthal man who actually was more sophisticated than I was as it turns out.
	So there's a community event.
	Remember we've done that lovely event on Hay on Wire.
	We're doing another festival next year with Wim Hof and Vandana Shiva and other great educators.
	But Sam and Neil will be there with us on the 5th of December to tell us in more detail why it's so important that we control community assets like the Thameside Theatre and Library.
	When I chatted to Sam before, say what you said, Sam, that was your wish for what it could become, the Thameside Theatre.
	Well, why not another Barbican?
	And actually, since we had that conversation, because the Thameside is a brutalist architecture building, and then I did a little research after our chat, and actually we were the first Barbican because we opened in 1972.
	It's 50 years old, but actually the Barbican opened in 1982, so we were there first!
	Keep us!
	You need us!
	The Barbican is a centre of culture in the middle of London, where they put on things like Royal Ballet and Shakespeare and all that kind of stuff.
	When Sam said that, it could be like a little Barbican.
	I almost laughed myself, and do you know why I laughed?
	Because I've been trained, educated, conditioned to think that ordinary people don't deserve culture, that ordinary people don't deserve books, that art is something that's for a certain class of people.
	This issue is about something fundamental.
	Who has the right to control their lives?
	Who has the right to beauty?
	Who has the right to education?
	It may be a small issue in a small town, even though I would argue that £1.5 billion Ain't a small amount of money.
	But I think that this is an opportunity for people to come together to confront corruption.
	Where do you think this £1.5 million that's missing has gone?
	Billion!
	How much?
	Billion?
	Oh that's even worse!
	They're out of control!
	The figures are going through the roof!
	I need you to join me that day.
	There's a link in the description to get your tickets.
	We'll talk about it in more detail.
	Sam, Neil, will you stay with us because we've created a little slideshow where you can talk us through the whole story on Stay Free AF.
	On the show tomorrow... No, there is no show tomorrow because it's the weekend.
	It's Saturday, isn't it?
	Saturday.
	We don't do a show.
	Join us next week for our... Who's on?
	We'll be talking Bill Gates.
	That's what we'll be talking.
	We've got a great show for you on Monday.
	You do not want to miss Monday's show.
	We're going to be talking to... We're not going to be talking to Bill Gates.
	We keep ringing him and he never answers.
	He doesn't answer.
	But we've got... You know, like, some agricultural groups wrote to Bill Gates saying, you're not telling the truth, Bill, about this attempt to control all of the farming in the continent of Africa.
	You know, to criticise Bill Gates is sometimes regarded as a conspiracy.
	But in actuality, Bill Gates is talking about a lot of stuff that you don't understand.
	And I don't mind that.
	Because I do myself.
	But what I don't do is try to dominate the agricultural industry and farmer to its detriment.
	But I will once we get our hands on that theatre.
	The next thing is the continent of Africa and all of its agriculture.
	Sam and Neil, you're going to stay with us, aren't you?
	And you lot, the rest of us are watching this right now.
	Please join us on Monday's show when we'll be talking about Bill Gates and farming.
	And who's our guest girl?
	Tim Schwab.
	Tim Schwab's coming on.
	He's an expert.
	It's not Klaus Schwab.
	In fact, this person couldn't be any less like Klaus Schwab.
	Klaus Schwab, you will know nothing and you'll be happy.
	Tim Schwab, you'll know everything and you'll be a bit pissed off because he's going to tell you the truth.
	I will see you next week.
	If you're a member of the Stay Free AF community, which you can easily be by clicking a link and paying a few quid, you can join us for this conversation as well as getting unprecedented access to me, a man who once did a follow through fart in a little theatre in Grey's and is now determined to fight back.
	See you in a couple of minutes.
	If you're on, stay free AF.
	See you next week if you're not.
	Stay free.

▲