Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 14, 2022 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:04:22

Putin’s Death - Is THIS How The War Could End? - #046 - Stay Free with Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You You
	You China
	You Brought to you by
	This video In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there you Awakening Wonders.
	Thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brown.
	We've got a fantastic show for you today.
	We're asking, what's worse and what's more likely to ruin your little old life?
	Big tech tyranny or old school tyranny with old baddie Darth Vader, nasty figures like that.
	We're going to give you all the latest on the Ron DeSantis story, though if you're watching us on YouTube, we'll probably do that after we exclusively on rumble because there's layers of complexity that might
	be difficult for us to talk about while we're on a sensorial platform. Of course DeSantis has
	started a statewide jury about misrepresentation on vaccines. Also in our video Here's the News, no here's
	the effing news where we take a deep dive in a matter such as this we're looking at the potentially
	misleading claims that were made by Pfizer CEO Albert Buller who I believe wishes he was a
	little bit taller.
	Is that true?
	He does wish he was just a little bit taller.
	And what better guest could we have on our show today than our fellow Rumble host, Glenn Greenwald.
	Glenn Greenwald is going to be talking to us, well at least I'm going to be asking him about Feeling like a political vagrant, feeling like you don't got no home in this world no more because you want to be a righteous person who loves all humanity but you're continually condemned as a conspiracy theorist and a fascist.
	We also want to talk to you about the propaganda around the Ukraine war.
	And can a fella get a decent bit of objective news in this crazy little world?
	Hit rumble right now.
	Let us know your comments.
	If you've got any questions for us or for Glenn Greenwell, post them in the chat and we will get round to them.
	First of all though, in honour of the story of David Letterman interviewing Zelensky in an underground station in Ukraine, of course the big take home from that story has been that Putin, if he were to die, Which surely he will any day now, because hardly half an hour passes without hearing of some new Putin ailment.
	Every single day of the week, oh, he's got a liver complaint, oh, he shat himself down in the trouser.
	Like, if Putin were to die, the war would be over, which I think is a reductive approach to a conflict which has a deep and complex history that is being ignored in order, I think, to Negate American imperialist involvement and conceal NATO's broader agenda.
	But let me know what you think in the comments and the chat.
	Most of the things that come out of the Letterman interview that you'll be interested in, I reckon, are this.
	Ukraine's president said that he believes Russia's invasion of his country would stop if Vladimir Putin, their president, were to die suddenly.
	Vladimir Zelensky was being interviewed by David Letterman on a subway platform in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, for Letterman's show, which is on the telly, of course.
	Letterman asked Zelensky, let's just say that Putin got a really bad cold and died.
	Well, I mean, really bad cold.
	Locked down the whole country.
	If anyone gets a bad cold, the only thing to do, the sensible thing to do, the judicious and prudent thing to do, is to lock down the whole country.
	Vaccine for that?
	Oh!
	Well, hopefully they've been tested for transmission.
	I have no opinion on that while we're on YouTube, but by Jove, you should see me opine once we cross that line, baby, like a man in a body warmer and a fancy hat, spouting off stuff that's based on hunches.
	Not just hunches, though.
	Diligent research from some of the finest minds in all England, and therefore the world.
	Let me know in the chat.
	I mean, we are an intelligent nation, some say.
	Not so good at World Cups, but when it comes to the cerebral matters, by God, Yeah, Letman goes, what if Putin got a bad cold and died or accidentally fell out of a window?
	Would this continue?
	Zelensky responded, no, there would be no war.
	There wouldn't be.
	So therefore, we were asking you and are inquiring, has everything become propagandized now?
	Is it impossible for the mainstream media to carry a complex narrative and invite us to ourselves investigate and examine the difficult and complex and occasionally contradictory nature of truth?
	We're certainly not saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is anything other than monstrous, or that Putin is anything other than a tyrant.
	We simply are inviting you to look at the conditions that may have led to this conflict and potential beneficiaries within the military-industrial complex.
	So, in honour of Letterman, who's a person we admire, we have created the top five questions that Letterman didn't ask Zelensky!
	Let's have a look.
	At five, does this war in actual fact date back to 2014 when the maiden coup financed by the United States displaced pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and installed a new US-friendly president?
	At four, did Boris Johnson's reported visit to Ukraine pressure you to end peace talks with Russia after Putin had said the terms you'd put forward to Russia were grounds on which he could negotiate?
	Would love to see that question asked.
	That would have been a good question to see asked.
	At three, is Putin solely to blame for the Western energy crisis when the nine largest energy utility companies in the U.S.
	raked in nearly $14 billion in combined profits during the first three quarters of this year and dished out roughly $11 billion to their wealthy shareholders?
	What do you think, Vladimir?
	Could you give us an answer on that?
	Or is that a train going by?
	Ah, this is so edgy!
	At two, does the $60 billion of aid and weapons given to Ukraine by the US government point to a proxy war with Russia or just a corrupt profiteering military-industrial complex that will receive over half of the new $850 billion Pentagon budget?
	That's a good question there.
	I call that a checkmate question.
	Because either one there, he's got to say, oh, you're bad either way.
	But, at number one, the number one question that we would like to see, Lem and Ossolensky, is, are you not a bit worried there might be a nuclear war and we'll all die as a result of this potential profiteering?
	Not to say, of course, that Russia aren't involved in an egregious war against the innocent people of Ukraine.
	It's just we deserve complex reporting, not old-school propaganda that says stuff like, have you seen the Russians?
	All their weapons are so crap, they're using guns from Dad's army from, what's it called, the American equivalent?
	Hannigan's heroes, Hogan's heroes.
	You know, they're trying to sort of render Russia through the old school Cold War lens.
	And in fact, if we were to look at old school Cold War Russia and the pledges that were made by Reagan and Gorbachev, i.e.
	that NATO wouldn't infringe by one inch on the former borders of the Soviet Union, then seven nations, including Belarus, et cetera, went right the way up to the Black Sea, in some way increasing tensions.
	If we were to get over that amnesia, an amnesia that our media continually tries to seduce us into, then perhaps we wouldn't be in this chaos.
	But here we are, a story that says, burning through ammo.
	Russia are using 40-year-old rounds.
	A US official said, oh, I'll get you, you varmint!
	Okay, we will get to you!
	Oh no, even my hat's a little bit pro-Russian, isn't it?
	I'm starting to realise now.
	First of all, I was like a hillbilly because I didn't have no sleeves, but now I reckon I'm a hill commie, is what I actually am.
	But look at some of the weapons that Russia are using.
	They've got these hypersonic missiles, which I think I heard it just recently from the producer of the show, actually, go on a trip around the world before exploding on their targets, which is nice.
	If you look at this from the missile's perspective, it's nice that it gets a little round-the-world trip, like a backpacker, before annihilating an innocent population.
	Yeah, this was a test last year done by China.
	I don't know, you've got a sting for that.
	Actually, wait a sec, China.
	How you say that properly.
	In which the hypersonic missile flew around the world once before hitting its target just to kind of show off how good it was.
	I could do this all day!
	And then when it accidentally broke Lois Lane's heart it flew backwards around the world and went back in time and kicked bloody General Zod right up his ball bag.
	Don't worry though, Ukraine have got their own missiles.
	Pentagon announced the US Army had awarded a 1.2 billion dollar contract to Raytheon, those guys, to produce six national advanced surface-to-air missile systems in support of efforts in Ukraine.
	So it looks like they've both got pretty good missiles.
	Right, so that's why question one that we wanted Letterman to post as Zelensky becomes relevant, argue not worried that this could escalate into a terrible, terrifying war that will needlessly claim even more lives if a diplomatic solution is taken off the table.
	And in spite of all these stories of the rickety, old, old-school, Beverly-Oobleys weapons that the Russians are meant to be using, look at this bad boy they're firing off into space.
	What do you budget?
	I told you Crimea is ours!
	I mean, we can smile about it now, but at a video with someone swearing.
	Yeah.
	Total annihilation.
	Actually, you can't use that kind of language while you're annihilating an Afghani wedding.
	Let's keep it clean, shall we?
	Some of the people at that wedding were children.
	The last thing they want to hear before they turn to ashes like some biblical yarn is you cursing in an ancient dialect.
	We're not laughing at children.
	No, yeah, well, I don't know, in case a stupid person is accidentally watching this, we're of course laughing at the ludicrous manner in which the media renders these stories, extracting the complexity because they want us dumb, screen-staring numb fools, incapable of making decisions for ourselves.
	That's what we're offering you here on this channel.
	Let us know in the comments and the chat how you feel about the propagandization of all media, that nothing is plain, that nothing is clear.
	I want to talk to you now.
	Gareth, I hope this is alright with you.
	After all, we are creative partners on this show.
	It's down to us together to create a show that's worthy of Glenn Greenwald, that's worthy of our community, of people that are trying to awaken spiritually, that are trying to run their own lives, that want to transcend the conflict-driven narratives that are causing needless rifts throughout our culture and community.
	Glenn's joining us in just a minute and in a sec we're going to talk about the Ron DeSantis story.
	He's suggesting that there ought be a statewide investigation into mRNA vaccines and we're really interested in the way that these stories around the pandemic are getting narrativized continuously even now.
	Vice recently done a story about how if you're not vaccinated you're also a bad driver.
	Yeah.
	Which sort of seems like borderline racism type story, doesn't it?
	You've not been vaccinated and you're a bad driver, here is that story.
	Covid vaccines, let's have a look at that story.
	Covid vaccine refusers have 72% higher risk of a serious traffic crash, study shows.
	People who refuse to get the Covid vaccine are far more likely to get in a traffic crash requiring hospitalisation, a recently published study.
	...found adding evidence to the theory, the theory that anti-vaxxers often demonstrate other kinds of dangerous anti-social behaviour.
	That's not a theory.
	That's not a theory.
	That's not like relativity or evolution, is it?
	Like, wait a second, wait a minute, if I could just get the flux capacitor!
	That's just like a prejudicial assumption.
	What about those Chinese protesters?
	What about them?
	Listen, if you're watching us on YouTube right now, we are going to have to leave you.
	But you can join us on Rumble right now and enjoy our content in full for free.
	We're going to be chatting to Glenn Greenwald in just a minute and we're moving on to the Ron DeSantis story.
	But because the platform YouTube, I'm sorry to say, does have a history of censoring some stories, particularly around this subject, we have to be careful.
	We want to tell you the truth.
	We believe you can handle the truth.
	We believe it is our sworn duty to connect through truth and find new ways, new alliances, new allegiances that go beyond the condemnation of individuals on the basis of culture, but we can only do that on Rumble.
	So YouTube, goodbye for now, you glorious awakening wonders.
	Rumble.
	Let's get a bit... Let's relax a little bit.
	I mean, you can see I'm being pretty uptight.
	Shall we take our tops off?
	Let's take our tops off.
	I've got no trousers on under this table and there's not a law in the land that could make me wear trousers when I don't want to, Gareth.
	It's simply... We're not in China.
	We're not in bloody China.
	China.
	There you go, that's one of the things we can do.
	So, yeah, don't you think, Gal, that this shows the tendency to narrativise the data that they were collecting and collating, which, by the way, they said they were never going to use again under any circumstances, cross my heart and hope to die.
	Now we're seeing them sort of like, ah, not only was it bad that you're an anti-vaxxer, even though we never tested for transmission, so it was your business and your business only.
	That's what it should have been from the get-go.
	If you want to get a vaccine, get a vaccine.
	We reckon it helps you.
	100% it helps you.
	90% it helps you, 80% it helps you, 70% it helps you.
	You know, it's just you.
	It's just a personal decision.
	But what was, stop the spread, help the little old ladies.
	Do you remember that stuff?
	You're being gaslit right now.
	You're being told that that didn't happen.
	Well, I've got this little thing called my Rememberer.
	And I used my rememberer to remember the things that were in the news a couple of months ago, like, hey, these anti-lockdown protesters are anti-vax morons and conspiracy theorists.
	These ones in China, brave heroes standing up against totalitarianism.
	Am I right, Gareth, or am I mad with a mental illness?
	Well, I think that both of those things are true at the same time.
	I think this is a way of just Continuing this categorization of people that I thought the idea was, I mean Joe Biden said himself, the pandemic's over.
	So why are these categories being sustained?
	It feels like the only reason would be to sustain these kind of narratives.
	I'm going to say something Gareth now that's so clever.
	I think it's, there's a real danger that it might arouse you even sexually.
	Oh god.
	James Baldwin, the brilliant writer and intellectual and advocate for civil rights in the 1960s, a figure along the lines of King and Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, an advocate for the rights of black Americans, said that the creation of the category of the negro, and of course used the cruel N word also, indicates a culture that is incapable of
	carrying its own shadow, incapable of taking responsibility for its own malfeasance.
	I wonder if the creation of these categories of the condemnable other,
	now that the liberal establishment has elected to align itself with sort of woke identity politics,
	the issues around which, by the way, I'm in support of, I think that people should be happy who the hell they are
	and there shouldn't be racial discrimination or discrimination on the basis of
	people's sexuality.
	Do you think that they now have to create sort of apparently scientifically underwritten categories to sort of purge, dirge and damn?
	Yeah, I mean, it's how we, how the keepers divided, isn't it?
	I mean, we were looking at data even around the time that you had people like Don Lemon going on CNN.
	Don Lemon!
	You know, saying that we shouldn't, you know, we shouldn't forgive people and we need to like discard people who are unvaccinated now.
	And actually, when we looked at the data, a lot of the people, whilst there was a lot of people not taking it out of Mistrust of government, mistrust of authority.
	There were people also from minorities who were not taking it for on religious grounds or all sorts of reasons.
	There was diverse and varying reasons why people didn't want to take the vaccine.
	And you get a headline like this, which does the complete opposite.
	It reduces it to something like you said, calling them Nazis or whatever else it is they're saying.
	Do you remember when they said that people should be denied health treatment?
	Unvaccinated people shouldn't be given... That happened in Canada, yeah.
	in health care Canada.
	Old Trudeau thinks that a haircut is will do instead of a spirit like instead of morals you can have a bouffant of some description.
	This is an interesting advance this story.
	Ron DeSantis has said that he's going to hold a statewide jury investigation into the efficacy of and I suppose broadly the effectiveness of mRNA So the reason I think this is a fascinating story is because it's the first time a mainstream, although divisive, political figure has ever said, we're going to investigate the vaccines themselves.
	Not the lockdowns, not the measures around it, not the mask work or not mask wear, not is it legal, which it bloody well isn't, to prevent people from leaving their homes.
	Not that this is expedited the advance of technological dictatorship.
	Just outright come out and said, The vaccines themselves should be investigated.
	Now, me, and I can say this on this platform, the very fact that Pfizer were keen to boot the results 75 years into the future makes me think there's stuff in there they don't want you to know.
	I mean, like, I don't know if that makes me a conspiracy theorist.
	Let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments.
	I bet a lot of you love Ron DeSantis.
	Tell me if you're into what he's doing or tell me if you think that he's a sort of a political huckster using this for Personal gain.
	Do you think that this indicates that the story now has real political weight?
	You know, I really want to know what you think.
	This show isn't just about what we think.
	It's mainly about that because we have to do all the work.
	But it's also about what you think.
	And I think that this really could represent a sort of turning point in the narrative around vaccines.
	I think when, you know, we've got an item later in the show, a presentation, as you called it yesterday,
	about Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, who literally now has been,
	it's been kind of proven that some of the things, the statements that he made on interviews on the BBC,
	for example, in this country, about the efficacy of child vaccines
	and the necessity for them, have now been proven to be irresponsible.
	And that's something that's kind of been upheld.
	You know, when you've got a situation like that, and a CEO of a company like Pfizer,
	with so much, the amount of influence that they've had, you can see how this kind of thing is inevitable in a way,
	because now you're starting to see more and more things be revealed.
	Yeah.
	So yeah I'm not surprised it's happening.
	Some people just have a weariness.
	Let me know at home if you feel the same way.
	When you're talking to people like this they go, oh do you know that they never tested for transmission?
	You know that there's an investigation now?
	You know that they've booted it 75 years in the future?
	You know that with children's vaccines they've said it was 100% effective then 90% effective and ultimately down to about 12% effective when natural immunity is 75% effective?
	You know it used to be illegal to, or banned at least, talking about natural immunity.
	That hashtag got wiped.
	We now know about the level of government and in particular CDC involvement with social media platforms.
	The people that said that you were an outsider and a conspiracy theorist, are they acknowledging at least those changes?
	Let me know in the comments.
	Let me know in the chat where you stand on that stuff.
	And, um, should we have a look at what Ron DeSantis says?
	Because we have got a great presentation later, Gareth.
	I'm very excited for people to see this presentation we've done about Albert Bourne.
	Yeah, I think the main thing about this video, well, one of the things, is how mental the set is that he's in.
	You'll see it.
	Where is he?
	Where is he?
	In Tron?
	Like, Ron, I call him Tron DeSantis because he's clearly in the future.
	Let's have a look at him.
	So today, I'm announcing a petition with the Supreme Court of Florida to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate any and all wrongdoing in Florida with respect to COVID-19 vaccines.
	And we anticipate that we will get the approval for that.
	That will be something that will be impaneled most likely in the Clapping.
	They love it.
	The people on the set, they love it.
	Yeah.
	This is a political turning point.
	Do you think this is a turning point, you guys, in the chat, in the comments?
	Does this make you appreciate Ron DeSantis more?
	Does this make you think that the Republican Party have more validity than the Democrat Party?
	I don't know which way you're going to go on that particular line of inquiry.
	Does this mean now that it's OK to openly question vaccine efficacy?
	Because let me tell you, at the other place, YouTube, where we've got the six million awakening wonders, you cannot, for example... What are some of the things we can't say that they're... Well, I mean, really, it's... The guidelines are set to WHO guidelines.
	That's the thing.
	They're still kowtowing to the WHO, not like Ron DeSantis, who's broadcasting live from the future.
	I like that set, Gareth.
	I'm getting ideas.
	Oh, God.
	Yep.
	We can't afford that much LED.
	I want that much LED.
	That's as good as possible.
	I need to have a big telly wall, like a big giant Gesu.
	I want a big giant digital Gesu behind me.
	Right.
	OK, well, while you let us know in the comments and chat and hit rumble, for God's sake, hit rumble.
	Don't neglect to do that.
	And also hit us up with your questions for Glenn Greenwald.
	We're going to give you our presentation on Pfizer CEO Albert Baller's claims around vaccine efficacy and how it's being increasingly revealed that they were indeed misleading in our presentation that I like to call it.
	I mean, I don't know if it's just me.
	I like to call it.
	Here's the news.
	No.
	Here's the epic news.
	Please!
	Won't somebody vaccinate our children?
	There are marginal benefits and considerable profits but mostly marginal benefits.
	You know that child vaccines do have an impact, but the nature of that impact has been discussed, debated, criticized, and at points dismissed.
	Albert Baller, wish I was a bit taller, CEO of Pfizer, he was very, very keen for everyone to take vaccines.
	Not what you thought for money.
	No, he wants to help people.
	He likes helping people so much that he just became CEO of Pfizer.
	Just, he was obsessed with helping.
	Let's have a look at the way that the reporting on the efficacy of vaccines has changed in the last two years.
	surprising stuff. 100%.
	Good, that's good.
	100%.
	Might as well take it.
	If something's 100% effective, take it!
	100%!
	100%!
	Gotta get them vaccines down your kid's neck.
	If something's 100% effective, get my children, where are my children?
	Why am I not vaccinated?
	Get them in here now!
	Ah, it's 99% effective.
	That's still, that's almost, that's just 1%.
	Less than 100!
	Still effective!
	Still effective, innit?
	99% chance you're gonna take that.
	You're gonna take that to any casino in the world, ain't ya?
	Right, 97, okay, 97, 98, still nearly 99, nearly 100%, nearly.
	98, no, so it's still nearly 99, nearly 100%, nearly.
	♪♪ That's 89%, 96, like 89, still very high.
	♪♪ Okay, okay, it's more or less, we're pretty sure that is
	effective.
	Like, at some point you start to think, what kind of profit's involved?
	Oh, the profit?
	That's 100% effective.
	That percentage ain't changed.
	That's three quarters, roughly three quarters effective, three quarters effective.
	It's over 50% effective.
	Take two of them, be around a hundred!
	🎵 It's nearly 50% effect!
	Why would you not take something that's nearly 50%?
	50% if you've got a 50-50 chance of an airplane not crashing if you're anything like me you're on that flight
	You might be getting a holiday Is nearly one-third effective
	You might need a booster.
	You might need another shot.
	We've got to make sure we clarify that with people.
	It has nothing to do whether or not it's effective.
	You can't just take one vaccine, hope it'll be 100% effective.
	You did say it was 100% effective.
	We said a lot of things.
	We know it's highly effective.
	You've got to trust Fauci.
	He didn't get where he is today by telling lies.
	comments? yeah listen these vaccines...
	Talk to your doctor.
	You've banned that.
	Oh.
	Highly effective.
	🎵 So there you go, the narrative has altered somewhat over
	the past couple of years, but how did we get here?
	And how is it that child vaccines are still being pushed after an obvious transition in the appreciation of their efficacy?
	Pfizer's CEO, Albert Baller, has been rapped by the UK's pharmaceutical watchdog for making misleading statements about children's vaccines.
	I mean, he did say they are anything from 100% effective to actually bad for you, so at least some of those statements were true.
	Dr Albert Baller used an interview with the BBC last December to claim that there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits completely are in favour of vaccinating youngsters aged 5 to 11 against Covid-19.
	You can't use your own mind as a reference point for something that's apparently objective.
	Hold on a minute.
	You're gonna need the absolute truth on this.
	Let me go in my mind.
	Money, money, greed, life of indoctrination, part of the system.
	Do as you're fucking told.
	He argued that Covid in schools is thriving.
	Adding, this is disturbing.
	Significantly the educational system and there are kids that will have severe symptoms.
	Oh my god, my kids!
	I love my kids!
	Well, give them a vaccine!
	What percent effective are they?
	They're literally every percent effective.
	Don't watch this video.
	Or at least, just watch the first bit.
	The interview was published on December 2nd before the vaccine had been approved by Britain's medical regulator for this age group.
	Why would they approve it when there is so much inquiry?
	Could there be any other agenda?
	Let me know in the comments.
	Let me know in the chat.
	Shortly after the article's publication, a complaint was submitted to the pharmaceutical watchdog, the Prescription Medicine's Code of Practice Authority, PMCPA, alleging that Dr. Baller's remarks about the children's vaccine were disgracefully misleading and extremely promotional in nature.
	Oh, wow, what, like, their preference that you take the vaccine's not because the vaccine's beneficial, but because the vaccine's profitable.
	Wow, was anybody saying that for Oh yeah, those people were all banned from saying that, almost like the promotion was being promoted over actual science and news.
	But that's weird, because I remember everyone saying, follow the science.
	What do we do now with the science?
	Could you stop following it?
	Stop following the science now!
	Leave the science alone!
	The science might be a paedophile!
	What?!
	Is it also disgracefully misleading?
	Are you misleading us?
	Is there any grace in it?
	No.
	There is simply no evidence that healthy school children in the UK are at significant risk from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and to imply that they are is disgracefully misleading they said.
	Didn't, like, lots of us say, oh, look, blessedly, seems that kids are okay.
	Old people and sick people, shit, what a nightmare.
	It seems to be having a terrible impact on them.
	I guess there's a conversation around whether or not these medications are effective for them.
	Let's have a sensible conversation.
	Probably not if people are invested heavily in the arts of being, yes, take the vaccine, because they'll probably say everyone should take the vaccine.
	And God, if the government sort of get out of control, they'll start locking people in their houses if they don't take them and looking for new reasons.
	Listen, Just because I wear stupid hats, it doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
	I'm actually paying close attention to what's going on, and I know you are as well.
	Let me know in the comments, let me know in the chat if you're noticing how we're cycling through these stories, how you're being asked to ignore information that just a couple of months ago you weren't even allowed to or permitted to say.
	So what does that tell us about the future?
	What it tells us about the present is stay awake, stay focused.
	If there's no evidence that children should take vaccines, then the children shouldn't take vaccines.
	So why are that board recommending it?
	I suppose what they're saying is it's not dangerous, but they've created so much fear that at this point, people are going to be sort of led, biased.
	We've been so conditioned, indoctrinated.
	I'd have to say lied to.
	But at this point, many people are understandably reluctant to say, I'm not fucking vaccinating my kids.
	It's unnecessary.
	It's pointless.
	Natural immunity is sufficient.
	We're not allowed to say that.
	There are still elements of this story that can't be discussed on this platform.
	That's why we're over on Rumble.
	Join us there every day.
	In September 2021, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, JCVI, had advised against a mass rollout for children aged 12 to 15, saying the margin of benefit was considered too small and citing the low risk to healthy children.
	But less than a fortnight later, ministers gave the green light for youngsters to be given a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech jab.
	Now, you have to question whether that was for economic reasons or health reasons, don't you?
	Then you have to question the whole thing.
	I mean, let's not get into conspiracy theories.
	What's the point?
	You don't need to.
	You can just look at the evidence with your own eyes.
	You can just see what's been happening and then determine for yourself, oh, these people, what have they got at heart?
	Our best interests or profit.
	So you can look at Pfizer's profits this year and Moderna's and Johnson and Johnson's.
	And then you can look at the efficacy of the vaccines and where it's been pushed potentially needlessly.
	And then you can use your own mind.
	I don't care what you think.
	You're welcome here regardless.
	I just want to give you the information.
	A code of practice panel convened by the PMCPA found that Pfizer had breached the code in a number of different ways.
	There's a code, they're just breaching it from every angle.
	Including misleading the public, making unsubstantiated claims and by failing to present information in a factual and balanced way.
	The information was not factual, that means it was lies.
	It wasn't balanced, that means they skewed it in one direction.
	The claims are unsubstantiated and they misled people.
	They shouldn't be allowed to do that job anymore.
	Imagine if we did this.
	We're not allowed to do this on fucking YouTube.
	You get strikes if you make a marginal error.
	We're not actually making medicine and suggesting the government mandate it to people.
	Oh my god, what's happening?
	Pfizer appealed against the findings.
	Hey, how dare you say we're imbalanced and lying?
	Superman is my dad, and he'll duff you up if you say that.
	I've got a speaking cock, and my cock wasn't saying anything at this point.
	Appealed against the findings, arguing these remarks were based on up-to-date scientific evidence.
	That's like a marketer.
	Up-to-date scientific evidence?
	What kind of speak can I like and rely on this?
	And could be substantiated by the publicly available independent benefit risk assessments.
	Well, I wonder where they're fucking funded.
	Earlier in November an appeal board met to consider the arguments, the breaches of the code relating to misleading the public, making unsubstantiated claims and the lack of balance were upheld.
	Oh, so they definitely did do that.
	You talk about there's a great story and we don't have time to get into it.
	Here is Baller getting his balls licked on the television in what passes for news on the mainstream.
	That's why you have to turn on the notification bell and subscribe otherwise this is the shit they'll feed you.
	When you found out the efficacy of the vaccine you gather everybody on a Sunday morning and you guys would have been happy it was 50 to 70 percent effective and it was.
	95.6%.
	We were so happy.
	So happy it was 95.6% effective.
	Sadly, the more we trialed it, it went to 92, 91, 80, 76, 50.
	Potentially dangerous.
	But for that bit at the beginning, we were so happy.
	And that's the bit that we put on the news.
	95.6.
	Alright, I'm a Pfizer girl, just saying.
	I'm not just saying that because you're here.
	It's not a football team.
	It's not a band.
	It's not a country.
	It's a business, and a very, very profitable one that's been given considerable support by the media and the government.
	We're back 740 with In Depth today, and this morning we're focusing on COVID and kids.
	OK, according to an alarming new study conducted by New York State, Pfizer's vaccine, while 48% effective... Oh, it was 48%, I thought it was 96%.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	All The Today Show has to do is become The Yesterday Show, then it's a conspiracy theory show.
	That reducing hospitalizations in kids 5 to 11 is not very effective in preventing infection.
	Yeah, in fact, in December and January, it dropped sharply.
	Oh, dropped sharply.
	Or maybe the information we were given in the first place, when it was convenient, wasn't fucking true.
	From 68% to just 12%.
	12%?
	I wouldn't bother doing anything that was 12% effective.
	That's the effectiveness against infection.
	So what does it all mean for your kids, your family?
	It's a considerable drop, isn't it?
	To go from 96% to 12%.
	How do you do that?
	How do you follow the science and end up there?
	Let me know in the comments.
	Let me know in the chat.
	A spokesperson for Pfizer said they are committed to the highest level of integrity in any interaction with the public.
	That's weird though, isn't it?
	Because it's simply not true!
	It's been proven twice that it's a lie!
	In the UK, we have always endeavoured to follow the principles and letter of our industry code of practice throughout.
	Does that code of practice make a profit at all and any cost?
	Yeah!
	I didn't know you worked for Pfizer.
	Do you notice whether in politics or in commerce people just say what you want to hear?
	It doesn't matter if it's true or not because no one's got any values or principles.
	Ah, we'll make that Saudi Arabia, we'll make them pariahs.
	Right, you've won the election.
	Yeah, can we have some oil please to run some weapons?
	Right, we care about nothing except integrity.
	It'll be terrible to make a profit from this vaccine.
	Have you made a profit from this vaccine?
	Yeah, biggest profit ever actually.
	But what about that thing you said?
	Don't matter.
	Throughout the pandemic, our communications have been focused on providing clarity regarding the progress of our science and supporting transparent scientific exchange in the interests of public health.
	What about that thing that's being kicked off into 75 years in the future?
	And when you get to 75 years in the future, you will have clarity and transparency.
	That's after your 150th booster.
	12% effective!
	In the US, Sludge has revealed that in 2021, as Americans consumed record amounts of vaccines, the drug industry's chief lobbying group surpassed $609 million in revenues, a new record.
	In February, Pfizer forecast that its revenue this year will grow to a total between $98 billion and $102 billion, the highest estimate the 173-year-old pharmaceutical company has ever given for annual sales.
	What a coincidence!
	While they've been helping us with all of their scrutiny and scruples, they've actually earned money.
	So good news all around, really.
	In summer 2020, as Covid vaccines moved ahead at warp speed, the companies behind them promised they wouldn't make much money on them.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca both promised to sell their vaccines on a non-profit basis.
	Johnson & Johnson even committed to charging a single price worldwide, rather than charging countries like the United States more.
	Pfizer chairman Albert Baller was also emphatic.
	His company was developing a Covid vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money, he told Time magazine in July 2020, when it was convenient to do so and it wouldn't be held to that statement in later years.
	This is not business as usually said.
	If you were calculating return on investment, we would never do these things.
	Biggest profit ever!
	Biggest profit ever!
	We were discussing that back in March, what that means to human lives, to the economy of the world.
	And our economy?
	Biggest profits ever!
	Biggest profits ever!
	So it was a must that we take those measures.
	Well thanks for that Albert.
	Thus Pfizer would not overcharge for the mRNA vaccine it was developing with the German
	company BioNTech, Baller said.
	We are going to charge governments a very, very nominal value, he said.
	Because Pfizer would charge so little, it believed governments should give it shots
	free of charge to all citizens, he said.
	Asked directly if Pfizer intended to profit, Baller said, we will make a very, very marginal
	profit at this stage.
	Only if the margin is all the way around the universe and back to the other side of the margin, because it's the biggest margin they've ever bloody had.
	So what do you think about follow the science now?
	What do you think about the efficacy of these vaccines now?
	What do you think about these shifting statistics?
	What do you think About the censorship.
	What do you think about the inability of your government to say, hey, how about a massive windfall tax on those profits?
	What do you think about proper regulations of businesses like that?
	That they ought to, particularly in a health crisis, be held to the promises and pledges they made when they knew it was the right thing to say.
	Shouldn't you stick to those promises when it's the right thing to do?
	Have you noticed there's a cost of living crisis going on right now?
	And yet there's money swirling around in big pharma companies, big tech companies, energy companies.
	What a crazy coincidence.
	If only There was something that could be done.
	Maybe vote for the other party.
	Perhaps they'll do something.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the comments.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	I'll see you in a second.
	Is it me or does the future feel more insecure and uncertain?
	Wars, pandemics, lies, trickery.
	My cats keep having kittens.
	The last one's personal.
	For those who are in the United States, there is a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg.
	American Hartford Gold make it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.
	With one phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside a qualifying retirement account like your IRA or 401k.
	American Hartford Gold is the highest-rated firm in the US with an A-plus rating from the BBB and thousands of satisfied clients.
	Right now, they will give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
	This offer is only for US customers.
	Call 866-505-8315.
	That's 866-505-8315.
	Or simply text BRAND to 99-88-99.
	8315 that's 866 505 8315 or simply text brand to 99 88 99 get up to $5,000 of silver and
	protect your future in this crazy crazy world with some solid precious metals literally made in stars
	wow look glenn Glenn Greenwald is here.
	Glenn Greenwald is actually here.
	Hello, Glenn.
	How are you?
	I'm doing well, Russell.
	Thrilled to be with you.
	Came to bring some order and structure to your show again, and I'm happy to do that.
	Well, at least you know how challenging it is.
	Yes, I was yelling at you right before the show that you did not sufficiently warn me about how difficult it is to produce a daily one-hour live program, which we began doing with our own show this Monday, and it is indeed quite difficult, though most people probably don't want to hear our whining about it.
	It's just, if you care about your audience and you care about the quality of the show, it is a heavy burden, but it's also fun.
	Seems to be one you're bearing quite well, not just because of meditation, but because of a lifetime of investigative journalistic skill and deep integrity.
	We're going to just take a little look, Glenn, if it's okay with you, at your debut show and your conversation with Matt Tobey.
	A brief clip.
	Let's have a look at that.
	Matt, thank you so much for joining us on our debut show and congratulations on breaking such a big story.
	Thanks for being with us.
	Firstly, Glenn, I like the way that you establish rapport with Matt there.
	Like, you know, we're journalists, you know the power of breaking such a big story.
	I bet Matt Taibbi thought, hmm, it's like when he broke Snowden.
	I bet Taibbi got a real kick out of that when you gave him that kudos.
	Mostly though, I want to ask, how come you're going for the standing up vibes?
	I mean, the idea really is to, in one sense, make interviews more personal.
	Like right now, even though you and I are talking, I'm staring at a camera.
	I can't actually see you.
	So part of the idea was to let me look at the guests, have the guests be able to look at me, or at least see me looking at them.
	But also, I think, particularly for adversarial interviews, it makes it The dynamic much better when you're actually confronting the person in a normal way that human beings are speaking.
	We're still working with it because you can see, you'll see the screen of the guest is much lower than me.
	So I look like this giant towering over the person looking down at them, which might have subconsciously been the goal, but we're going to fix that and bring it to a more even playing field.
	That was the idea.
	This is a show where you admonish pipsqueaks that aren't fit to lace your boots.
	Glenn, one of the main things I wanted to ask you, because whilst there are clear and evident distinctions between us in terms of not least your professional excellence and integrity, one thing that I think we perhaps share is a sense that I for most of my life felt that I was a broadly speaking left oriented socially liberal progressive person who believed that anti-establishment discourse was the function of the left.
	Do you feel somehow like a vagrant now on what has shifted significantly in the last five years to mean that figures like yourself Chris Hedges and you know I could go on Noam Chomsky have become sort of casually labeled fascists in spite of a backstory that You know, it's bizarre, whenever people say, oh, you've become this far right fascist, I show them things I've said, tweets and other things, not from, you know, 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, but in the last two years, things like,
	I think Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister of the UK would be one of the most important and encouraging political developments in decades.
	I interviewed Ivo Morales shortly after he was the victim of a military coup in Bolivia.
	I went to Mexico City, did one of the first interviews, and heaped praise on him and talked about the dangers of this coup.
	Obviously I've had a long time relationship with Lula da Silva here in Brazil.
	I encourage people to support AOC and her 2018 campaign.
	So occasionally I show this to people and say, please fucking reconcile, you know, my gushing support for people like Jeremy Corbyn, Ivo Morales, Lula da Silva, you know, even AOC, not all people for whom I harbor some criticism and critiques, none of them is perfect, but all people whom I've supported pretty fervently in very recent history, and of course no one can do that.
	And I think that's because, and I just did a show on this last night, actually, when
	the Washington Post decided to label Barry Weiss and Matt Taibbi, the two journalists
	principally responsible for this new Twitter files story, as, quote, conservative journalists,
	even though you'd be very hard-pressed to find a single belief of either of them that
	could be reasonably described as conservative.
	I mean, Barry Weiss is a fanatical supporter of Israel, but so is virtually every member
	of the Democratic Party.
	But it has become, these labels, kind of like a coercive weapon, where the minute you step
	out of line in any way and you question establishment orthodoxy, you suddenly get labeled as a far-right
	extremist or a fascist.
	And that's because, Russell, I think what has most changed And of course no one on the left likes to acknowledge this because they don't want to think of themselves this way, is that in many ways liberal left orthodoxy has become the hegemonic dominant ideology of many centers of power, of academia, of media, of Hollywood and increasingly even
	The U.S.
	security state, which saw Donald Trump as a grave menace and therefore aligned the CIA and the NSA and the FBI with Democrats and liberals and even some leftists.
	And this shift in terms of who actually commands institutions of authority, who likes them and who distrusts them, is really the radical change.
	And it's kind of happened around us while we've stayed in the same place.
	And is it because this is evidently at odds with the core principles of just a decade or two ago that there has to be this emphatic focus on, for example, identity, politics and civil and cultural issues in order to maintain at least the appearance of difference when, broadly speaking, the heart of these political establishments is being co-opted by economic interests?
	And does it mean this necessity for the extraction of critical thinking, because there is a requirement now, for truly sanitized and a unilateral media news message but even that there's been this odd merging of propaganda news and entertainment of which Letterman's interview with Zelensky could be seen as just the latest example a kind of puff piece and I almost feel fearful of bringing up the subject Glenn because I feel like what I'm saying is that oh Zelensky's not a hero or
	The suffering of Ukrainian people is not important, or that Putin's not a tyrant, or Russia's actions aren't egregious, when all I'm simply trying to do is say that there are numerous factors that are being extracted from the story, and I'm not comfortable with that, and I'm afraid, particularly as it seems like this conflict could have dire global consequences.
	Yeah, I think there's a lot going on there.
	You know, I think, first of all, identity politics is absolutely this incredibly potent tool of perpetuating the status quo while glorifying its guardians as somehow revolutionary.
	You know, the emergence, for example, of Hakeem Jeffries The black New York Democrat to the position of House leadership was celebrated as this generational change because he's younger than Nancy Pelosi as the first ever black leader, which is true of political party.
	But in every single sense, Hakeem Jeffries is the living, breathing embodiment of the sleazy corporatist politics that dominates both parties.
	He's funded by special interests.
	He hates the squad and the left and anything populist or anti-establishment.
	It was AOC in 2018, one of the things she said that convinced me to think that she was going to be a positive force is when I asked her about identity politics, she describes such people as Trojan horses.
	People who are there to kind of put a black or a brown or a gay or a female face on status quo institutions.
	The first time I ever noticed this was when the GCHQ, the British version of the NSA, Actually draped itself in the colors of the rainbow flag.
	They lit their UFO style building up in the rainbow flag and said, look, we love LGBTs and liberals applauded, even though it's still the most pernicious surveillance agency in the West.
	So that's part of it is it's extremely easy.
	To have this kind of diversity where you celebrate the first black board of director of the Raytheon or the first female head of derivatives at Goldman Sachs, and you're casting the appearance that something has changed when in reality it's the most superficial way of changing it.
	And it's very easy to do that kind of politics because it's much easier than changing the institutions themselves.
	The second thing I think is that Donald Trump really became this kind of scapegoat for every major problem in the West.
	He wasn't presented as what I think he is, which is the byproduct of, or a symptom of, or a reflection of long-standing systemic problems.
	He was presented as the author or the cause, like the singular evil, and that had the effect of whitewashing everything that came before him.
	So you have all these Bush-Cheney warmongers and war criminals, Who used to be hated, now they dislike Donald Trump, and suddenly they're all embraced because if you believe Donald Trump is the new Hitler, it kind of makes sense to say that's the only question that matters, and if you're against Donald Trump, you're on the side of good, and if you in any way question the narrative against him, then you must be a Trump supporter and therefore on the side of bad.
	And then finally, I do think institutions of authority have really sharpened their propaganda skills.
	I mean, if you go back before the Russian invasion, Ukraine, you will find every major outlet in the West
	warning that Ukraine is dominated by neo-Nazi militias, not just a couple here and there, but
	dominated by them, that Zelensky is a corrupt figure who was put into power by corrupt
	Ukrainian billionaires. And the entire narrative changed overnight, where not only did that not
	get said anymore, if you said any of that, you got instantly deemed to be a Russian agent or a Kremlin
	propagandist. I was actually put on a formal list by the Ukrainian government for questioning
	some of these narratives, even though questioning the most dangerous war we've had since the
	Cuban Missile Crisis, which is what Joe Biden called it, where you have the United States and
	Russia, the two largest nuclear powers on the planet, on opposite sides of a proxy war. You're
	going to get a lot of hate speech.
	You have to question that, but there is no questioning allowed.
	Zelensky's like this Marvel, you know, film hero, this kind of embodiment of pure good.
	And so I think the propaganda has become much more sophisticated.
	And as you said, unified across politics, entertainment and media in a way that I think is very alarming.
	I'm reminded of a Albert Maisel's quote that tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance therefore this propagandist machine is going to be about simplification it cannot accommodate complexity because complexity will always reveal what's actually happening that the establishment as you have described has become is now the orthodox liberal establishment and their Interest, therefore, traditionally aligned with the kind of financial and economic interest that we've always understood to be represented on a global level.
	Do you think, Glenn, that the Trump era is over and is now sort of that that kind of populist appeal is migrating to DeSantis?
	Do you think that DeSantis' statewide investigation into the efficacy of mRNA vaccines is a pivotal moment?
	And do you and which of those two So, very sort of competent orators and libertarian figures,
	do you think represents the future of that side of American politics?
	What interested me most about Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, and I emphasize campaign because
	in many ways the government itself didn't follow through on a lot of this, often despite
	It sort of ignored Trump or overrode his will.
	But the 2016 iteration of Trump was not just an attack on Democratic Party politics, but even more so Republican orthodoxy.
	The foreign policy of Dick Cheney and George Bush and neocons.
	You know, Trump was questioning the viability of NATO.
	Um, why we're always in these regime change wars, why we're not using our resources to take care of our own people.
	At one point, he even said the United States should be more neutral when it comes to Israel and Palestine, the ultimate heresy.
	He questioned the CIA and the FBI.
	He really went to war with them.
	And then even on the economic level, you know, he said cutting taxes for corporations and for the wealthy, you know, is not something I intend to do.
	I want to protect Social Security.
	I want to raise taxes on the wealthy.
	This was the Steve Bannon design plan.
	And it scared the shit out of neoliberal establishment orders in the West.
	When you question NATO, when you question global trade, when you question neoliberal economics, when you question endless war and imperialism, that's what turned the establishment so against Trump.
	So, of course, Ron DeSantis wants to copy some of this.
	I think he's adopted some of the stylistic successes of Trump, this kind of, like, very aggressive defiance toward the media that, of course, all of us love to watch because we all hate the media.
	He is adopting and commandeering some of these cultural war issues in a very shrewd way.
	But if you look at Ron DeSantis' record when he was in the House of Representatives, and even the things he said while he's governor, he looks a lot to me like this more traditional kind of Republican You know, more like a Mike Pompeo who kind of cleverly insinuated himself into the Trump world but doesn't really believe in or embrace any of those heterodox populist views that made Donald Trump so frightening to the establishment.
	Whether, you know, we haven't heard from DeSantis for a while on foreign policy because he's been, you know, governor of Florida and it makes sense that we shouldn't.
	My guess though is he's much more of a traditional Republican than Trump is, and the establishment will be much more comfortable with Iran DeSantis than with Donald Trump, but they'll try and sell DeSantis as kind of a more responsible version of Trump to get Trump supporters on board, but in reality it will be the GOP establishment retaking power in the party.
	If this kind of populist rhetoric, adopted by the right but abandoned in government, is so effective in corralling an electoral support, why does the Democrat Party not use it?
	Is it because, as you've just explained, they've been co-opted by economic and financial interests?
	And does that therefore mean that there is room for a political movement that tries at least to legitimately deliver on the mandate that these populist figures keep garnering?
	Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, one of the most significant political figures in the last, say, 50 years in Western politics was Bill Clinton.
	I mean, I kind of see, like, his mirror image being Tony Blair, in that they took the Democratic Party, the Labor Party, and very consciously remade it into a party that was in bed with financial elites in particular, but also foreign policy elites as well.
	And if you look at Obama, who was the Democratic president after Bill Clinton, he was very much in that tradition as well.
	And for a while they continued to try and maintain this, you know, branding that the Democratic Party is, you know, the party of the common person, the working class person, you know, and you can fool people for a while with that stuff.
	But for, you know, I think what really opened people's eyes, the way like I think the Iraq war did a lot for people of our age, I think the 2008 financial crisis was the thing that opened a lot of people's eyes when they
	saw President Obama rush to protect the very Wall Street barons who caused the
	crisis in the first place and pretty much allowed everyone else to suffer. Their
	homes were foreclosed and masked, they lost all their jobs. And that I think is when people
	started realizing the Democratic Party is this very kind of like cosmopolitan, elite-based
	party run by people who went to Harvard and Princeton and Yale to work in all of the sort
	of dominant media circles.
	And their cultural views are very anathema to huge numbers of working people who might otherwise support the Democratic Party.
	And that's what gave Trump that opening.
	Go back and watch what he was saying in 2016.
	You know, he was saying Washington is corrupt.
	I know this because I used to go and give checks to politicians and I got whatever I wanted as a result.
	You know, and I think The fact that there are millions of people, Russell, millions, who twice voted for Obama and then voted for Trump is something that makes no sense to elite journalists who only see the world through this Democratic versus Republican lens.
	They think that's either a byproduct of stupidity or ignorance or just incoherence, but it's so clear why it happened.
	It's because Obama presented himself as an outsider to the establishment, and then so did Trump, and that's what people's politics are, is anti-establishment more than anything else.
	If this is the beginning of a truly anti-establishment era, and that is the one thing, of course, that the establishment cannot afford to gain momentum, does that mean that new technology, new platforms like these ones, have an obligation to get beyond critiques and analysis and into the business of genuine political movements?
	Do you also think, Glenn, that there are peculiar, almost Freudian slips in real time occurring when figures of evident senility are
	in presidential power mimicking almost history where a King George the
	Third's decline into madness brought about the advent of contemporary democracy.
	Do you think that what is truly required is an anti-establishment trans-political
	movement that embraces the best of libertarianism, the best of the social
	justice movement, the best of the temporal popularity gained by figures
	like Corbyn and Sanders, whether you have strong views on...
	Do you think that the time is now, or is the system so elegantly made that true independent anti-establishment politics will always be neutered and will inevitably fail?
	No, I'm not pessimistic about that in any way.
	I do think you've described the war perfectly, and there is a war.
	Establishments do not give up power easily.
	They attempt to crush or destroy anything that becomes a formidable force against them.
	That's what censorship is about online.
	They're trying to silence people who are emerging as true threats to their hegemonic control over the flow of information.
	They're trying to attack platforms like Rumble as this like sewer of right-wing disinformation.
	European Union states like France and Germany are threatening to remove Rumble.
	In fact, in France, you can't get Rumble right now because they refuse France's order to de-platform RT.
	So you see this kind of competing war taking place.
	I think part of what we're doing at the risk of glorifying what it is,
	I think it's not what we're doing.
	It's the fact that, you know, we are able to find such large audiences even though we have no major corporations behind us.
	I mean, our shows, you know, are quickly surpassing cable shows because people no longer trust that part of the corporate media.
	They know that they're getting lied to.
	They know what those corporate media Institutions are designed to do and that are not in their interest, they're seeking alternatives.
	And I think when you do something like decide to go exclusively on a platform like Rumble that has proven its willingness to defy censorship orders, to platform people who are otherwise persona non grata in other media institutions, that is a political act.
	What you're essentially saying is I'm going to use the influence I have to allow there to be spaces on the internet that still are immune to the dictates and decrees of establishment power about who and cannot be heard.
	I'm going to strengthen these platforms on purpose because I believe this is where anti-establishment politics can take root.
	I also think that a lot of people are coming to see the uselessness of these old traditional right versus left,
	liberal versus conservative, even democratic versus Republican labels
	that are really meant to keep us divided and hating one another, hating your neighbor,
	hating your colleague, hating your coworker, instead of directing it at the actual centers of power.
	And it's the reason why I know it's true for my audience, I'm sure it's true for yours,
	that probably a third of your audience are probably leftist,
	a third of your audience are probably conservatives, a third of your audience just doesn't know
	what label applies to them.
	And that is this kind of almost de facto discovery that we have so much more in common
	across these ideological barriers that they try and keep us divided by
	than we have differences.
	And that's what I find most encouraging.
	But don't genuine dissidents, when we move beyond the stage of rhetoric and critique and move into action, face very real threats?
	when the establishment's agenda is legitimately challenged, there are means available that make genuinely challenging
	movements difficult to start.
	After 2008, we did see, like in Europe, the rise of Syriza on Podemos that were ultimately
	co-opted and neutered by larger bureaucratic powers.
	The populism of Trump, as you said, ultimately in government was not effective in the manner
	effective in the manner that it declared it would be whilst campaigning and the
	that it declared it would be whilst campaigning.
	And the same could be true of a neoliberal establishment leader
	same could be true of a neoliberal establishment leader like Biden, even
	like Biden.
	Even with the modest claims they made, once again in a more typical fashion,
	with the modest claims they made, once again in a more typical fashion, they
	they were subsumed into neutrality in government.
	were subsumed into neutrality in government. I suppose what I'm asking you
	I suppose what I'm asking you, Glenn, is how do we transition from places of broadcast analysis
	Glenn is how do we transition from places of broadcast analysis and
	rabble-rousing into genuine movements for change and is that even wise given
	that your involvement with figures that have legitimately genuinely challenged
	the state and including your investigative journalist work, there
	are real threats I suppose what I'm saying and how do you reckon that would pan out?
	You know I guess I really genuinely am optimistic and maybe some people would
	consider it naive but I don't about the capacity of human reason.
	I believe in human reason.
	I believe in the ability to be an effective communicator and to disseminate information and analysis to people that can Make them change how they perceive the world to kind of liberate them from captivity to this framework that has been imposed upon them really almost in some senses from childhood and you know none of us is immune to this and you know the ability to communicate the flow of information is a very powerful tool that is why Russell
	You know, so many establishment institutions are now so devoted to censoring it because they recognize how powerful that tool is in their hands.
	If you can control the flow of information that populations receive and the information they don't receive, you can essentially make them think whatever you want and therefore do whatever you want.
	So the act of Providing them alternatives to saying, here's a different way of looking at this.
	Here's information that they don't want you to see.
	Here are the actual ways of understanding what's happening.
	It is a political act by its very nature.
	If it weren't, I wouldn't bother with it.
	Like, why would I wake up every day and want to do something that really was just about talking that had no consequence?
	If you're a kind of impotent and ineffective, you know, fake dissident, then they'll either ignore you or co-opt you, right?
	Like, that's the reason why AOC or Bernie Sanders, for all the claims that they're some kind of, like, great—you can never even conceive that those kind of people would ever get banned from Twitter or Facebook.
	Those are not the dissidents.
	And you know that because they're not a threat to anyone.
	They're not getting attacked by anyone.
	You know, the way you know that you're being threatening is when they come after you.
	You know, when I did the Snowden reporting, the reason I knew that it was so damaging was they tried to do everything they could to intimidate us, to threaten us with arrest.
	When I did the Brazil reporting, I knew it was destabilizing the Bolsonaro government because they tried to prosecute me for it.
	When I see people getting censored, when I see platforms like Rumble being attacked in multiple ways, that's the testament To its efficacy.
	And so, yeah, I'm really optimistic, Russell, about the ability to build these spaces because it's not just about talking, it's about moving hearts and minds.
	And, you know, we don't need us to say that.
	Just look at the way it's being attacked.
	That's the proof of how effective and threatening it is.
	There you have it.
	The power is yours.
	The power has always been yours.
	And for now, the best thing we can do is to continue to support these platforms, continue to participate in this conversation, and to refuse to be kowtowed or distracted by the glamour, knowing that whatever they offer us now Next, when it comes to the crunch, like Blair in Iraq, when it comes to the crunch with Obama and the crisis, they will return to type.
	The system only presents alternatives that are phony.
	It will never give you viable alternatives.
	And the attacks that these platforms and our movement faces is proof in itself of its legitimacy.
	Glenn, thank you so much for joining us and for giving us your time.
	Thank you so much for Giving this platform the credibility that your excellence no doubt gives it.
	Glenn's show is on weeknights at 7 p.m.
	ET, 4 p.m.
	PT, midnight here in the UK GMT.
	Glenn will be towering and admonishing pipsqueak critics on a screen night after night on a set.
	You're gonna be one of them Russell.
	I'm gonna have you like very diminished and really low down and being able to talk that way.
	Thank you for having me and keep up the great work.
	I want to be projected onto the ceiling with sort of angel wings.
	We'll work on that for you.
	Bless you, Glenn.
	Thank you so much for joining us, and good luck with the show.
	You can watch Glenn tonight, of course, and every day on Rumble.
	We're going to be over on Locals now, talking about Ron DeSantis, a little more tech.
	We're going to be watching some clips of Stevo, who's joining us tomorrow.
	Also tomorrow, if you're a member of our Stay Free AF community on Locals, you can join me for a very, I'm going to call it, intimate conversation with Tim Robbins.
	Yes, Tim Robbins, the Shawshank Redeemer himself, the player with an ER, will be here talking to me about neoliberalism and perhaps the kind of political vagrancy that Glenn and I were just discussing.
	The show continues, but it continues over on Locals.
	So if you're on Locals now, stay with us.
	If you're not on Locals now, join us there for more hillbilly rebellions, for more true dissidents.
	And remember, every day you can watch us first and in full on Stay Free AF.
	Join us over on Stay Free AF right now.
	Until then, stay free.
	See you tomorrow, but not for more of the same, for more of a difference.

▲