Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 14, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:08:48

Pfizer Vs. Project Veritas - The Truth! - #080 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm going to be doing a lot of work with this, but I'm going to be doing a lot of work with this.
	I'm going to be doing a lot of work with this.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there, you awakening wonders.
	Thanks for joining us on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	We are going to go on a voyage together.
	Wherever you are watching this right now, the whole show is exclusively available only on Rumble.
	Why?
	Why?
	Because we care about freedom of speech.
	Why?
	Because we want to bring people together.
	Because we respect diversity.
	Because we respect your individual rights.
	Because we respect democracy and community.
	We even respect the great Melodies of the sky, the UFO phenomena is all around us.
	Have you seen Edward Snowden tweeting about it?
	Edward Snowden, he's a man who's experienced the deep state.
	Edward Snowden, do you remember like when that Citizen Four film came out about Snowden, the thing I loved most was he was clearly a person that had seen too much.
	Like this film, this This could be bugging us!
	Right now, they're filming us!
	Like, you could see someone who'd, like, just flipped out of the Matrix.
	You wanna talk about red pills?
	Edward Snowden, he downed the whole bottle.
	He went through an Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll-style medicinal OD.
	He has to say about this whole balloon UFO phenomena.
	And by the way, one of my personal regrets at the moment is, they've ruined UFOs for us now!
	Well, exactly!
	I love UFOs!
	You want it to be UFOs, don't you?
	I love aliens!
	I was going on about aliens, like, Ironically, like when I was a kid I used to listen to sort of David Icke stuff and it was all like extraterrestrials are real.
	Careful, you can't say that word anymore.
	No, I was a boy then, I was a youngster.
	Right.
	Like, what I was interested in is the idea that top secret information included cosmic data.
	That we are not alone in the universe.
	I used to enjoy all of that stuff so much.
	That could still be true.
	And the Eric Von Daniken stuff.
	You know, like, sort of, the Bible is accounts of interventions by mystical, transcendent, cosmological, heavenly beings.
	And, like, you know, there were depictions of, like, aircraft on the Pyramid Scariff!
	Oh no!
	Get him off topic!
	Abort!
	Don't panic!
	No, what I'm saying is that the subject of UFOs used to be fun.
	Now the government are saying that there are UFOs.
	I got off UFOs there.
	Well, that's because they're lying.
	That's why.
	I hate using those UFOs.
	And as Snowden said, it's not aliens.
	I wish it were aliens, but it's not aliens.
	It's just the old engineered panic and attractive nuisance ensuring that national security reporters get assigned to investigative balloon bullshit.
	Excuse the language, Edward.
	Rather than budgets or bombings a la Nord Stream.
	Until next time.
	We had such a great conversation yesterday, didn't we, with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who told us that actually our reporting is spot on.
	The Nord Stream pipeline bombing, if indeed it was the United States of America, serves so many purposes.
	Militarily, economically, depriving Europe of that gas means that Europe are looking for different relationships.
	Such a fantastic story.
	You also did say that one of those UFOs or unidentified objects is like a meteorological thing, didn't he?
	He said there's a meteorological centre up there in Alaska that they can't get anybody to work at because it's too cold and they've got balloons up there being operated remotely and everyone knows that they're there and no one thinks for a second that it's UFOs.
	They're simply under a lot of pressure to reduce their defence budgets.
	They're trying to get through the biggest defence budget in history so they need to escalate hysteria.
	Listen, we wouldn't normally ask for a huge budget but I've got to tell you There are aliens, okay?
	Now, give me your money!
	We're just giving you $100 billion to give to Ukraine.
	We're gonna need more.
	Plus, it seems that you've been agitating Russia into that war through NATO impeachment on previously agreed, excluded territories.
	Listen, just give us your money.
	What's next?
	China?
	As a matter of fact... Where did you find out about that?
	But the one thing they could do that's worse than antagonising Russia is antagonise China, but they're doing that as well.
	And across the course of the show, we're going to be talking about the ongoing demonisation of Russia.
	We're going to be talking about the way that the media has been amplifying the significance of James O'Keefe from Project Veritas' wrongdoing.
	I'm certainly not suggesting that he hasn't done anything wrong.
	I understand he took a pregnant lady's sandwich, didn't he?
	Apparently.
	And a bit of bullying we hear.
	That's got to stop.
	How much bullying can there be when you're taking a whole staff with you to see Oklahoma?
	I've never heard of bullying included.
	The reason Project Veritas are in the news, if you're aware, because it's not allowed to be on certain platforms, it's certainly not covered on the mainstream media, is because he did a sting operation on a former Pfizer employee who made revelations about Pfizer that are unfavourable to Pfizer and their shareholders.
	And now, mysteriously, this guy, James O'Keefe, has been sent on paid leave.
	So we wondered, how have the establishment reached Project Varites?
	Because they're sort of like an outsider organisation.
	They're somewhat radical, I believe.
	They're kind of a right wing.
	And over here, we don't care what Wing you're on.
	We just care about right and wrong, not right and left.
	So how did they get to him?
	And now we have a little bit of an understanding how Project Veritas have been pressured by the mainstream, by Big Pharma.
	Well, we don't, we don't know, but we don't know.
	But also it seems like a massive coincidence.
	If they haven't, it feels like it's a massive coincidence that this is happening at this time.
	I've been investigative journaling all day, like it's 1999.
	Well, Seymour Hersh has vouched for you.
	Seymour Hersh, he's a Pulitzer Prize winner.
	He says I'm one of the best out there.
	Now, look, if you're watching this right now on YouTube, you've got to click over and watch us on Rumble, because in a minute, we'll be exclusively on Rumble.
	And that's when we're going to be telling you about Fauci's secret meetings on natural immunity that took place during the pandemic.
	I came out of it, of course, and said natural immunity, that's not a real thing that's existed throughout human evolution.
	In fact, without which there could be no such thing as human We'll be talking about that and revealing some interesting information, but only on Rumble, so click over and join us there when you can.
	It's imperative that you do.
	But if that weren't tantalising enough, let's form, before your very eyes, a causal... Is this how you do it?
	Yeah, this is the investigative journalism.
	Yeah, I'll do it.
	You can watch me like investigative journalism right now.
	Let's form the link between Pfizer and Project Veritas.
	You might wonder, how did the mainstream, how did Big Pharma exert influence onto an outsider organisation like Project Veritas?
	Well, let's show you how that could work.
	They're a radical independent journalist, a news reporting agency, aren't they, Project Veritas?
	Or are they, Gareth?
	Who funds Project Veritas?
	Hmm, riddle me this.
	The Donors Trust gave Project Veritas a million dollars in 2020.
	The Koch Brothers, you've heard of them, are co-donors to the trust.
	They own Koch Industries.
	Hmm, hmm.
	Koch Disruptive Technology.
	Let's call it Disruptive Technologies, you nerds!
	And they invest funds in big pharma companies, including an organisation called Resilience.
	Resilience is a biopharmaceutical company that uses living organisms to create drugs.
	Why not?
	What harm could that do?
	I say, get yourself down a bat cave.
	That's where... I mean, I'm not suggesting anyone has ever done this.
	Allegedly.
	People like EcoHealth Alliance... I know, don't need that guy.
	Allegedly.
	Like the EcoHealth Alliance are hanging around in... They're in more bat caves than Bruce Wayne, then, Lord!
	Luckily we're not giving them money anymore.
	Oh no!
	Oh no we are!
	We're still giving EcoHealth Alliance.
	But them bat caves ain't gonna fund themselves.
	So Resilience is a biopharmaceutical company that uses living organisms to create drugs.
	In 2020 Pfizer also financed Resilience.
	So that's the connection between Pfizer and James O'Keefe.
	Now you'll all know that James Keefe is a man that should be forced on gardening leave.
	Paid leave.
	That's what that means, isn't it?
	Because, firstly, look, he took a sandwich from a pregnant woman because he was hungry and angry simultaneously.
	That's hangry.
	He received $20,000 to pay for staff to accompany him to Virginia when he starred in a 2021 production of Oklahoma.
	Now that, to me, seems like the sweetest little bit of corruption I've ever heard of.
	But is it any good?
	Well, let's see, because we have acquired footage Wow.
	Of James O'Keefe.
	I investigate journalists and here he is.
	Now let's have a look at James O'Keefe in Oklahoma and I'll be the first to admit it's transgressive and wrong.
	Maybe we'll see some clues.
	What further clues to investigate?
	Maybe.
	But I want you to bear in mind Pfizer's actions during the last couple of years, I want you to remember Albert Baller saying it would be unconscionable for Pfizer to profit from this two-year process, from this healthcare crisis.
	Minimal profit, he said, didn't he?
	Minimal profit.
	Now, I want you to carry all of this in your mind while looking at, uh, there's a few questions I want you to ask yourself.
	I want you to ask, I wonder how much profit they made.
	I want you to ask yourself how much money Pfizer spent on lobbying.
	I want you to consider the conditions of Pfizer's ongoing COVID vaccine trials, none of which I'm willing to talk about, not until we're exclusively in our safe place Of Rumble.
	I want you to ask yourself all those things, and if they did kind of receive public funding in so much as they partnered with BioNTech who received hundreds of millions of dollars from the German government.
	But while you're mulling over all those questions, because I know you can do numerous things simultaneously, because I believe in your intelligence.
	I believe in you.
	They may not, but we do.
	Let's have a little look at James O'Keefe performing in Oklahoma, the swine.
	Inuit, innit?
	Yeah.
	He's certainly committed to it.
	That lady, though, in the pink hat, she is not into it at all.
	She's actually on the phone, which is one of the most hurtful things you can do when someone's playing.
	Isn't it?
	He's playing that part from both his balls and his solar plexus.
	He's really Oklahoma-ing with everything he's got.
	She's on the phone.
	How would you react in that scenario?
	Stop the song.
	Right.
	I'd start saying, excuse me, excuse me, and even that's a track isn't he?
	He's not got musicians there with him.
	So like the music would be playing and stuff and it'd be weird and they'd have to sort of turn it down while James O'Keefe... I'd snatch that out of her hand like it was a sandwich and she was a pregnant lady.
	You give me that!
	Now, of course, this is an appalling performance of Oklahoma.
	Anyone can see that.
	But is it as bad as Pfizer's litany of let's call them successes over the course of the pandemic period?
	That's what that's, I guess, what we're querying.
	Because like James O'Keefe, he might only be in your mind because of that moment where he was chatting to that lad.
	Jordan who they'd honey-trapped into making some, if indeed these things are legitimate,
	some extraordinary revelations about Pfizer's ongoing practices and practices in the preceding
	couple of years. Are we able to show that while we're still on YouTube or is that a
	rumble only?
	No, we're not allowed.
	We're not allowed to show that. So if you stay with us, if you're watching this somewhere
	else, click over onto Rumble now because we want to show you, remind you of the last time
	you saw James O'Keefe. And sort of bear in mind that when he's investigative reporting,
	a very somber, serious dude.
	Yeah, I just think that it's amazing that this is the best that I could get on him.
	Like, can you imagine the effort that would have gone into, how can we bring down James O'Keefe?
	That son of a bitch!
	He's humiliated Pfizer with his sting.
	I want you to get out there and show us the filth that you've got on James O'Keefe.
	I know that guy's got skeletons in his closet.
	What has he been doing?
	Well, he once took a pregnant lady's sandwich.
	That is bad.
	Anything else?
	Yeah, look at this.
	Hey, has he got the right to use that?
	Did he license that piece of music?
	That's very expensive.
	He spent $20,000 on... The corruption level is what they're talking about.
	They're not talking about Oklahoma itself being a problem.
	They're saying he spent $20,000 on shipping out the stuff.
	Well, let's have a look at that in what I call Pfizer language.
	Pfizer earned $102 billion, I think, in 2022.
	That's $279 million a day.
	That's $11 million an hour.
	That's $194,000 per minute.
	That's $20,000 in six seconds.
	That's six seconds of Pfizer graft.
	That's $11 million an hour. That's $194,000 per minute.
	That's $20,000 in six seconds.
	That's six seconds of Pfizer graft.
	Think of all the musicals you could have done with that.
	Then we could be doing, putting on a different musical every day here
	in conjunction and cooperation with Project Veritas.
	Stay free and Veritas Presents.
	You saw it here first!
	Annie gets your gun!
	The King and I!
	Okay, so we don't need to see no more of Oklahoma.
	I'd love to see Pfizer's litany of earnings and expenditure.
	So, right, so He spent that 20 grand, he took that pregnant lady sandwich and he may have done some bullying.
	But what I'm interested in actually, if I can be serious for just a moment, is the way that the media is framing this event, neglecting and not reporting on a story that is significant.
	Many people had suspicions about Pfizer's activity and more broadly the handling of the pandemic.
	And during the period of these revelations, that story has been selected against in the news cycle.
	We've seen the Oklahoma scandal in all of its vivacity.
	Let's look at what Pfizer have been up to.
	They said they would not overcharge for that vaccine.
	Albert Baller said it would be reprehensible.
	They only make minimal profits.
	The drugmaker made $65 billion from the vaccine in 2022 and $102 billion in profit overall.
	In 2022, they Allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	Still on YouTube.
	$15 million on lobbying. They tried to conceal full vaccine safety data for 75 years. There
	have been concerns raised about the vaccine trials, including, but not only, lack of monitoring,
	poor safety protocol, mislabeled laboratory specimens, a lack of follow-up of patients
	who experienced ad...
	Allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	Still on YouTube.
	Allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	The vaccine was originally developed using $375 million, or euros, from the German government
	and 100 million euros from the EU.
	So I don't know, what do you think is a more significant story?
	Would you like to see Oklahoma again?
	I mean it was, I thought he was quite good.
	I thought he was pretty good.
	Yeah, I didn't think he was going to be as good as he was.
	Okay, listen guys, if you're watching this now on YouTube, click the link, get over and watch us on Rumble where we can give you a little more detail on some of this Extraordinary data.
	And I'd like to be reminded, before we get into Fauci's secret meetings on natural immunity, of how James O'Keefe entered into most people's consciousness via a certain meeting with this former Pfizer employee.
	Let's have a look at it.
	Goodbye, YouTube!
	Join us on Rumble.
	Hey there.
	Is this seat taken?
	You work for Pfizer.
	My question for you is...
	Is this real life?
	Is it real life?
	Can any of us make a claim to have access to the objective experience of reality when the realm of the senses is so clearly limited?
	Can any of us ever know what truth is?
	Are we living in a convergent and highly curated reality?
	A reality that is beneficial only to the most powerful interests in the world?
	Do we have a duty to awaken individually and collectively and demand democracy?
	Some say democracy is the only game in town.
	Hey, it's just us lot on Rumble now.
	We've got a great video coming up for you later, a great presentation.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	We're talking about balloons, UFOs, military expenditure.
	We're talking somewhat about the tendency to demonise and escalate the threat of external forces when you need to generate funding from your domestic population.
	A little while ago, last year, UK congressman, US congressman, excuse me, Tom Malinowski
	said that Russia ought be made a terrorist state.
	Once you start using that kind of language, maligning a nation like Russia using such
	pejorative and incendiary language, ultimately what you're calling for is an end to diplomacy.
	And many of us have been struck by the lack of calls for peace around this process.
	Let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments whether you've been kind of shocked by their removal of peace from the discourse around this conflict.
	Russia ain't a country you can just write off as a terrorist state.
	It's appalling enough when you can pass those kind of ideas using, I suppose, unconscious occidentalism around states like Iran, or whatever, or Vietnam, or... In the long history of proxy and colonial wars, it's been necessary to demonize enemies in order to continue to fund these often proven to be subsequently illegal wars.
	Iraq, for example.
	But Russia, it shouldn't happen at all, but with Russia it's implausible and impossible.
	Some kind of peace will have to be made with Russia.
	It's a superpower.
	We have a shared history, fought in numerous wars, huge population, a history of being actually quite good in wars as well.
	Pretty tenacious is how I describe Russia.
	So to start thinking that Russia can be written off as a terrorist state is Beyond naive, and it makes me question the ideology of the unipolar globalists that appear to be seizing control of the news agenda.
	Yeah, but we know what can be then achieved once you're labelled a terrorist, don't we?
	I mean, we know what happened in Iraq.
	As soon as that happened, they were able to essentially go to war with Iraq.
	But the way in which terrorism is used now as a word and the kind of shifting uses for it, I mean just the other day we actually did a presentation about the WHO and how they've stated that online anti-vaccine activism is now deadlier than global terrorism.
	So I think what they're saying about this now is that anti-vaccine activism is worse than Russia.
	So if you thought that Putin was the worst thing out there, actually now it's anti-vaccine activism.
	All dissent is being delegitimized.
	Geopolitical dissent through a conflict that has a complicated origin of mutual escalation at best and at worst the ongoing NATO agitation of Russia through encroachment on former territories that when we spoke to Seymour Hersh he told us there were not treaties but agreements to not encroach upon.
	And When it comes to using a word like terror, as Gareth just said, and as we've pointed out, what you're doing is delegitimising dissent, whether it's at the level of the nation state or the level of the individual.
	Increasingly, I think what we're seeing is the desire to surveil and control and monitor, that your freedom is inconvenient.
	Your sentience, your volition, have become enemies of this globalist project.
	And whether it's as nefarious as it sometimes feels and sounds or not, I'm unable to say.
	But I do know that what the overt and increasingly explicit desire of these globalist entities that are, broadly speaking, unelected, the WEF, the WHO, Is to maintain control, is to bypass democracy, is to be able to assert control at the level of the nation and beyond the nation.
	And in order to do that, they have to, I don't want to say create crises, but they benefit from crises and use them to implement this legislation that is favorable.
	Should we start telling you about it?
	Would you like to hear about the secret meaning of unnatural immunity before we get into the news?
	Here it is.
	Four of the highest ranking US health officials, including Andy Fauci, met in secret to discuss whether or not naturally immune people should be exempt from getting COVID-19 vaccines.
	So all of the time when people were getting, I think, kicked off of platforms like Instagram for even mentioning natural immunity.
	That hashtag was banned, wasn't it, on Instagram?
	It's really censorious and extraordinary that that kind of, that level of conversation becomes the subject of measures.
	So Draconian, let me know what you think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	The officials brought in four outside experts to discuss whether the protection gained after recovering from COVID-19, known as natural immunity, should count as one or more vaccine doses.
	There was an interest in several people in the administration in hearing basically the opinions of four immunologists in terms of what we thought about natural infection as contributing to protection against moderate to severe disease and to what extent that should influence dosing, said Dr. Paul Ofit.
	So, Seems like, I suppose, a little like a conversation we had recently regarding the origins.
	While publicly there was a lot of certainty, Privately, there was a lot of doubt and discussion.
	And I suppose what that shows is a concerted effort to manage the narrative and the conversation by excluding certain ideas, banning, censoring certain ideas.
	Yeah.
	Also, you know, Fauci came down very hard against natural immunity.
	And so I guess the other thing that this is showing is that there were experts, there were scientific experts involved in this conversation.
	that we're stating their opinions within this you know within these emails and these meetings we're saying no we really feel that natural immunity even when it was alongside of vaccines a hybrid immunity was you know extremely effective and what Fauci and Walensky of the CDC chose to do was disregard those opinions and again a little bit like we were saying earlier on about about Wuhan is that they were considering other options they were considering that it could be a lab leak but then they came out and basically flatly refused that A lot of people in our chat are saying this is peace, love, light, our immune systems are incredibly powerful and then someone's done this fan art of Gareth saying that you should take your top off and I think that's actually off topic.
	It is.
	I don't mind some of Gareth's quite Hard work!
	Sure, sure.
	Gareth's trying to explain how even hybrid immunity ought to have been a topic for discussion.
	And in fact, Gareth's not even saying anything divisive or polarising like, you know, the vaccines are dangerous or that people oughtn't take them.
	Trying to bring people together.
	And how do you treat him?
	Like a sex object!
	Is that how you repay him?
	Well it's Dr Poloffi, I thought you'd enjoy this.
	Get your top off.
	I shan't do that.
	He's the scientist that also came out and said I'm uncomfortable that we would move forward with giving millions or tens of millions of doses to people based on mouse data.
	Do you remember that person who said that?
	Well they worked on up to eight mouses.
	We did tests on eight mouses and we are very confident that this booster shot is spot on.
	How are them mouses doing?
	They're fine.
	They're having a lovely time now.
	Get your top off, only to receive a vaccine in this instance, but get your top off nevertheless.
	So yeah, I suppose the reason we're using this, so far where we are, hysteria around UFOs and balloons in order to facilitate future funding.
	Demonisation of a sovereign nation in the case of Russia.
	The ludicrous exaggeration, it seems to me, of the wrongdoings of James O'Keefe and neglecting to mention the at least advantageous position, there's that joke by the way, the advantageous position that Pfizer gleaned and gained from the horrors of the pandemic.
	This is why people are so annoyed though, Russ, because it's, you know, with Pfizer and Fauci, you know, there's a link, there's obviously plenty of links there.
	You know, with Moderna recently, there was that story, wasn't there, and I think Paul Offit was involved in commenting on that also, where Moderna basically hid the fact that the new booster doesn't work any better than the last one.
	It's appalling!
	And so when you've got, and you know we're obviously talking about Pfizer's profits and things, when you've got now evidence coming out that was saying that there were meetings between Fauci, Walensky, various other scientists, where literally they were having discussions about these things.
	They dismissed other scientific opinion.
	I guess fine if you need to go with one opinion at the end of it, but then don't go on CNN, don't go on other news shows.
	Don't censor people!
	Don't ban it!
	Exactly!
	Don't infiltrate Twitter.
	You should be saying, oh we've had this conversation already and actually these are some of the findings and actually this is some of the research that we've favoured.
	It's good that you're saying that because we were just talking about that in this top secret meeting that we've not given you the information from, leading you to perhaps presume that one of the outcomes was beneficial to pharmaceutical interests that, by the way, award incredible royalties to Fauci's organisation NIADH.
	So, in the end, you start to sense corruption because of the management of the information.
	Hey, you there, LaneViews, will you make us some mugs, please?
	Or at least designs for mugs.
	I don't expect you to do the actual ceramics and pottery.
	This is a person that's in our chat.
	You can join us on Locals, by the way, and become part of our community.
	Then we'll bother you for merch.
	Like, using our logo and maybe images of me and Gareth, could you just send some designs in the chat, please?
	We're very busy, we ain't got time.
	We're trying to bring down bloody systems of globalism, unelected bodies, usually funded by Bill Gates.
	We're going to be telling you more about that later in the week, but now in our item here's the news.
	We're going to be talking about People are now asking for funding to the Ukraine, the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, to end.
	So, we believe that the reason that we're seeing more hysteria, more weather balloons, more UFOs, amping up of agitation between the US and China, is to ensure that conditions to reduce expenditure on weapons more broadly do not become a common, dominant, or even popular mainstream narrative.
	We're going to be looking at that in depth and in a minute we're going to be talking to Michael Tracy about the
	Ukraine and perhaps the five most significant stories that you may
	have missed and pieced together a glorious narrative, investigative journalism at its best.
	But first it's time for Here's the News.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the fucking news.
	With more voices calling for an end to the Ukraine war and the profits that come with it,
	we're going to need some new enemies.
	How about China?
	And UFOs!
	Woohoo!
	We've been talking for a long while about the Ukrainian war and how the humanitarian disaster, which is doubtlessly real as all wars generate human suffering, is being used to mask different, less favourable truths, i.e.
	it's extremely profitable, black rock are gonna profit, the military-industrial complex are gonna profit.
	Those stories are actually gaining traction now, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we're responsible for that, but that means that new stories are required.
	Oh no!
	Look up there!
	What's that?
	Up, up, up in the air!
	Is it a bird?
	Is it a plane?
	Is it a reason to spend more money on the military?
	Yeah, it's a reason to spend more money on the military.
	Let's get into this story about how UFOs and increasing the threat and presence of the Chinese is being used essentially to facilitate expenditure and hysteria.
	The US military shot down another unidentified flying object over Lake Huron in Michigan on Sunday, the third in three days and the fourth overall.
	Let's have a look.
	And I don't want you thinking this newscaster looks like a sexy lady Michael Jackson.
	That's childish and it's just happening in your mind.
	Now to a developing story this morning, an unidentified flying object shot down by the US over Alaska.
	This of course follows the downing of that Chinese spy balloon last weekend.
	You'll notice that the mainstream media narrative in this instance appears to be about the generation of mystery and inquiry rather than conclusion.
	In fact, do you remember that film, Don't Look Up?
	This is the opposite of that film, Don't Look Up.
	It's called Do Look Up.
	Look up here and don't look what's going on around here.
	In the relationship between Congress and the military-industrial complex, which people in Congress own shares in companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, essentially part of this story is about a distraction.
	Andrew, before it was shot down, pilots were able to get close enough to that unknown object to see that it was unmanned and drifting in the wind.
	Drifting in the wind?
	When did the news start talking like that?
	Are you a newscaster?
	Or are you Bob Dylan?
	The answer, my friend, is drifting in the wind.
	The answer is drifting in the wind.
	And also it's passing through Congress now in new measures to escalate tensions between us and China and generate profits for Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, my friend.
	President Biden ordered the takedown that was executed by an F-22 fighter jet Friday afternoon.
	The unknown object was spotted off the coast of Alaska Thursday night at 40,000 feet in the air and floating
	northeast.
	These are the kind of things that are continually happening.
	The use of UFOs...
	UFOs though on the news, I'm not familiar with that.
	You don't remember when I grew up UFOs, there are no such thing as you could only hear about UFOs
	if you went to the more, let's face it, the darker corners of the internet,
	which from which we are now banned.
	So it's interesting to see this stuff entering into the mainstream.
	Let me know in the chat and the comments what you think they're trying to achieve.
	Is this a distraction?
	Is this an opportunity to escalate tensions and expenditure in a presumed forthcoming war between the US and China?
	How do you think this is functioning?
	One thing we know for sure is if you see it on the mainstream media, it will not be at odds.
	with the interests of the powerful.
	That's not how things work.
	We know that by now, right?
	Do you have anything further on this point?
	The Nord Stream Pipeline, people are questioning that, the amount of profits, BlackRock's role, subsequently Zelensky being used potentially as a kind of puppet figure, that what's required is a sort of a distraction and some sort of potentially successful, unequivocal success story, like shooting hot air out of the sky just so he can perch outside of a government building and literally say the word success at nothing.
	The White House says the object was about the size of a small car.
	Unmanned.
	Not an unmanned car.
	It was like a car.
	It's not actually a car.
	In other news, flying cars have been invented now.
	Ah!
	I'm panicking!
	...posed a reasonable threat to the safety of civilian flight out of an abundance of caution and at the recommendation of the Pentagon.
	President Biden ordered the military to down the object.
	I think that's about making Joe Biden look efficient and proficient.
	He ordered them to down the object.
	Ooh, no, don't down my object!
	The strike happened over frozen Arctic waters within U.S.
	territory, and military aircraft were deployed to recover the remnants.
	Officials say it's still unclear who was responsible.
	These are all visual cliches now, the Chinook, the man standing next to the flag.
	It's the imagery of war.
	Do you ever get the sense that you're being continually primed with easily observable objects into a new narrative?
	For example, you can say that we're imposing sanctions against China for the manufacture of semiconductors.
	Whoa, what does that all mean?
	That's boring.
	But a floating visual thing getting shot out of the sky, we can all, whoa, man!
	Stuff's happening.
	Also, it's like news for children.
	People don't understand that there are economic sanctions and that we're really hitting them hard in the semiconductors.
	Is there something, like, that we could do that's an easy visual representation of our authority and power?
	I don't know, could we shoot something out of the sky?
	Well, not a plane, that's like an act of war.
	How about, I don't know, a balloon?
	Is that too stupid?
	It is too stupid, but we'll do it.
	As domestic dissatisfaction with the government increases, cost of living crisis, energy crisis, people suffering, inequality, social tensions, you have to increase the external threat because otherwise the internal menace grows.
	Who do you think's your real enemy?
	Your government or China?
	Where do you think the threat's going to come from?
	Who's going to have a bigger impact on your life?
	Who's going to have a bigger impact on your economic life, your personal life, your social life?
	Is it going to be China or is it going to be your current actual government that you're paying for?
	So by escalating the idea that the Pentagon is a force for good, that military expenditure is necessary, you dampen down and quieten dissenting voices.
	Voices that are saying, hey, with this economic crisis, $100 billion going to Ukraine, shouldn't we slow down that train of expenditure flowing out of our pockets into the pockets of elites?
	No, no, because, you know, balloons.
	And if balloons ain't scary enough, what about ALF and E.T.
	and all those guys?
	They could be coming to you in a hot air balloon.
	I don't care.
	I like E.T.
	and ALF.
	But what about bad ALF?
	Like a bad elf coming to you in the night in bad E.T.
	with that glowing finger?
	Man, if that guy starts thinking cuckoo and in league with the Chinese, he'll red-finger you when the sun don't shine!
	The White House says this latest object was smaller and less mobile than the Chinese spy balloon, which could maneuver in the air.
	Oh my god!
	What is it doing?
	Maneuvering in the air!
	Ahhhh!
	Well, for God's sake, don't then start spending money on internal infrastructure!
	Jobs and houses for ordinary people!
	Spend that money up there on that maneuvering son of a bitch!
	You maneuvering son of a bitch!
	USA!
	USA!
	You've maneuvered your last maneuver, you hot-ass son of a gun!
	Pieces of that balloon were recovered off the South Carolina coast and are still being investigated.
	Look at it there behind a crime scene, like, it's not gonna do anything now.
	Oh no!
	It's come back to life!
	Like the Stay Puft man in Ghostbusters!
	Can you see the invitation to enter into an extraordinary carousel of interlocking weird narrative?
	China are spying on us.
	That's not been proven.
	There also might be UFOs.
	That's still not been proven.
	We're doing sanctions against six Chinese companies.
	You're just deciding that all this stuff is connected.
	These are events that have been continually happening.
	It isn't unlike the current conflict.
	Some people say that war began in 2014 when you did that coup.
	Other people say that war began when you reneged on the agreement between the former Soviet Union and America not to impinge on former Soviet Union territories.
	Saying it begins when Russia amassed troops on the border of Ukraine is convenient.
	Saying that this is potentially China, potentially UFOs, we don't know what it is, give us more money, we're doing sanctions against China.
	The objective comes first, then the narrative.
	Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper tells CBS News, if it is in fact Chinese, it would be a very troubling escalation, Andrea.
	Oh, that will be a troubling escalation.
	Once again, the news is doing the job of the government, of the military-industrial complex.
	Do you ever stop to think that's not what they're meant to be doing?
	We just assume.
	Well, of course, the government, the media, and the Pentagon are all in league with one another.
	We've just accepted that.
	The US military, it should be noticed, has been using the threat of UFOs to ask for more funding for years.
	Oh, so there you are.
	It's a common trope to escalate the threat of UFOs in order to get more funding.
	So if you put get more funding at the front instead of at the end, it makes more sense.
	We need to get more funding.
	Uh, China UFOs?
	Yeah, that'll do.
	Capital Alpha Partners analyst Byron Callen said on Friday the incident could limit the risk of a reduction in the defence budget for 2023-2024.
	Oh that's interesting because a lot of us were getting a bit sick and tired of this war and the way that public money was finding its way into private hands.
	I mean I know it's aid for Ukrainian people but of course that aid should go first through Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, that's the best way to get it.
	Don't just start buying them food and trying to end the war and providing shelters and No, first give the money to people that make missiles and weapons and hopefully the rest of it will all sort itself out somehow.
	Yeah, an element of fear, which is the element that's required.
	add another element to the debate over defense, he wrote.
	Yeah, an element of fear, which is the element that's required.
	Certain defense contractors may gain from the balloon incident, Callen wrote.
	One angle would be the potential for defense measures, although these may be niche programs.
	The other is if the US decides there is a balloon gap and fields its own fleet, Callen
	wrote.
	Oh no, there's a balloon gap!
	What are we gonna do?
	Put a balloon in it?
	Oh, oh, okay.
	I've done it!
	Lockheed Martin is one company that could benefit from this situation, as there may be potential to build or add surveillance to new balloon systems.
	Lockheed Martin shares were up 0.4% Friday.
	What a coincidence.
	Secretary of State Antony Blinken postponed a trip to China.
	He should probably get himself to Taiwan.
	It's been a while since we've wound him up with that little holiday.
	President Biden made a thinly veiled reference to the balloon as a national security breach in his February the 7th State of the Union address declaring, if China threatens our sovereignty, We will act to protect our country.
	We're going to give more money to defence companies.
	Hey, we need to do a select committee on China because defence spending might dip otherwise and the domestic population might start questioning the ineptitude of the incumbent government.
	So let's do this China committee to start amplifying the threat of China.
	People don't care about semiconductors.
	I still don't know what one is.
	Rather than questioning this sabre-rattling, US media have dispensed panicked spin-offs of the original story, ensuring that the balloon saga, no matter how much of the diplomatic decay ensues, lasts as long as possible.
	The media like it.
	They like a new sort of distracting story of balloons.
	Everything's balloons now, people like it, they're sending people out, they're all excited about it.
	It's all serving an existing agenda.
	NBC News, The Washington Post and CNN, among countless others, breathlessly cautioned readers that a high-altitude device hovering over the U.S.
	may have been launched by China in order to collect sensitive information.
	Local news stations marveled at its supposed dimensions.
	The size of three school buses, Reuters waxed fantastical, telling readers that a witness in Montana fought the balloon might have been a star or a UFO.
	I think a boy child.
	will be born somewhere in Michigan that will ultimately prove to be the son of God.
	Either that or it could just be a balloon.
	A Pentagon official without evidence, good start, stated in a press briefing that clearly the intent of this balloon is for surveillance.
	No evidence though.
	Clearly!
	But hedge the claim with the following.
	We assess that this balloon has limited additive value from an intelligence collection perspective, but we are taking steps, nevertheless, to protect against foreign intelligence collection of sensitive information.
	So it seems that really the balloon is the perfect metaphor for what's happening.
	It might be visual, and it might be somewhat novel, and in some ways fascinating, but it is filled with nothing.
	Nothing but hot air.
	Despite this uncertainty, US media overwhelmingly interpreted the Pentagon's conjecture as fact.
	You can see the compliance of the media in the manner of this reporting.
	That's what's interesting about it for us.
	Let me know what you think is interesting.
	Is that they don't sort of inquire about it or ridicule it or joke about it.
	They sort of do the job of carrying the momentum of the emergent message.
	And that is because they know already that their interests converge with government interests, converge with military-industrial complex interests.
	Even more than that, you will have people that own bits of all of them.
	This more than convergent, it is literally intertwined.
	Anyway, it's not like spying is just part of international espionage.
	That's what the CIA, FBI, MI5, that's what all those agencies are for.
	Yeah, but that's different.
	been going on for as long as you've had the nation-state.
	The US sent a naval destroyer past Chinese-controlled islands last year, and the Chinese military
	confronted a similar US vessel in the same location a year before.
	Yeah, but that's different.
	A boat is not so scary as a balloon.
	I'll take your point.
	When it's balloon for balloon, balloon on balloon violence, then we'll start taking
	The US military has also invested in its own spy balloon technology.
	Oh.
	In 2019, the Pentagon was testing mass surveillance balloons across the US.
	Three years later, Politico reported that the Pentagon plans to spend $27.1 million in the fiscal year 2023, adding that the balloons may help track and deter hypersonic weapons being developed by China and Russia.
	So, there you go.
	They do it as well.
	Under the U.S.
	drone program, the U.S.
	military routinely violates other countries' airspace and sovereignty.
	It's part of a routine.
	Right, up we get!
	Fly some balloons and drones across foreign territories.
	Why are you doing it?
	Oh, sorry, I always do that, sorry.
	Not by spending spy balloons.
	See?
	It's not the same.
	It's not spy balloons.
	But flying robots armed with missiles.
	Hmm.
	What would you rather have, a balloon or a flying robot armed with a missile?
	Let me just give you this mental image.
	Ding dong!
	Hi, I got a present for your child's fifth birthday.
	Oh, what is it?
	It's a flying robot armed with missiles.
	Sometimes it does this with the express permission of the country's government, and other times it does so regardless of how either a country's population or its government feels, as with Afghanistan, which Washington continues to drone bomb despite having withdrawn ground troops in 2021, or with Yemen, which has been on the receiving end of nearly 400 US airstrikes this century.
	Yeah, but it's not a balloon though, is it?
	Air strikes, where drones come down and like blow up your weddings and families and stuff like that.
	Yeah, it's not ideal, but a balloon?
	Like from the film Up?
	Or Richard Branson in the 80s?
	No, thank you!
	The US considers it its sovereign right to spy on any nation it chooses, and the average American tends more or less to see it the same way.
	This is highlighted in controversies around domestic versus foreign surveillance.
	For example, Americans were outraged over the Edward Snowden revelations, not because spy agencies were conducting surveillance, but because they were conducting surveillance on American citizens.
	It's just taken as a given that spying on foreigners is fine.
	And maybe you do feel that as a patriot.
	Maybe you think it's part of the purpose of the military and the government to protect the nation.
	And in fact, I suppose that is according to the current model.
	But knowing how you're regarded by these same forces, I think is significant.
	Joe Biden marches outside that government building, White House, wherever it is, and says, success, as if the shooting down of this surveillance tool is somehow protecting you.
	But you know who is spying on you continually?
	Joe Biden's government, in cooperation with big tech.
	You know you're being surveilled.
	You know they're looking for opportunities to justify that surveillance.
	In the same way this balloon story is ultimately being used to legitimise more expenditure on the military, they will similarly say, we have to surveil you more for your own safety, you need digital ID, social credit.
	It's the way we can protect you from a balloon or a germ or a terrorist or whatever it is that week.
	The idea that they are your friend, that they're there to protect you, has to be smashed.
	They are not your friend.
	Neither is the culture that they use to beguile you.
	These are a set of tools that are used to keep you passive, compliant and malleable.
	And when you look at the left-right debate and their media arms, you don't see enough willingness to vigorously attack all of the institutions, corporate, financial, military, government.
	All of these centralised systems are about controlling you.
	They'll surveil you when it's convenient to surveil you.
	They'll distract you when it's necessary to distract you.
	They'll extract your resources, whether that's your time, your attention, or your money, whenever they want, and they'll manage the condition so that it's not noticed, and sometimes so you'll bloody well vote for it.
	Now let's contrast all this with another news story that's getting a lot less attention.
	The U.S.
	has secured access to four additional military bases in the Philippines, a key bit of real estate which would offer a front seat to monitor the Chinese in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, writes the BBC's Rupert Wingfield Hayes.
	With the deal, Washington has stitched the gap in the arc of U.S.
	alliances stretching from South Korea and Japan in the north to Australia in the south.
	The missing link had been the Philippines, which borders two of the biggest potential flashpoints, Taiwan and the South China Sea.
	The U.S.
	empire has been surrounding China with military bases and war machinery for many years, in ways Washington would never tolerate China doing in the nations and waters surrounding the United States.
	There's no question that the U.S.
	is the aggressor in this increasingly hostile standoff between major powers.
	So what you could say is this is like Ukraine-Russia five years ago.
	So at least with our ability to access this information, we're able to assess and diagnose the problem more quickly.
	While we're thinking about balloons in the sky and UFOs and stuff, the US military are encroaching on Chinese space in a comparable way that NATO encroached on former Soviet territory 10 years ago back in 2014 and since then.
	What you have to question now is, if you are watching this from America, is are the American government acting on your behalf?
	Or on behalf of secondary interests like the military industrial complex and other financial interests, let's say just for sake of easy understanding, black rock, to give us a convenient image like a balloon that we can understand, have the image of a black rock and have the image of a missile with the word Lockheed Martin written on the side of it.
	Who do you think they're provoking China for?
	For you, do you think this means we're going, oh my God, I'm really worried about people in Delaware and Tennessee.
	What are we going to do?
	Let's get over there and build a noose right around China.
	Or are they thinking about ongoing expenditure, distracting the domestic population, pursuing geopolitical aims, which might actually bring about the demise of our entire species?
	I think that it's time for us to look at these narratives in real time.
	And so I say, what are they doing?
	What are they angling for?
	Why don't the media question it?
	Why don't the government discuss it openly?
	Why are we invited to look at the news like children?
	Balloons!
	pipes under the sea. Me, I believe change is possible and I know you believe it's
	No.
	somewhere inside you too. But that's just what I think let me know what you think
	in the chat in the comments I'll be reading those comments right now.
	Thanks for refusing Fox News videos.
	Here's the fucking news.
	At Pride folks says seriously if I were China I would be rolling on the floor at the absurdity of this war on
	weather blade.
	If I were China?
	Can't be China, PrideFault!
	Can't imagine yourself as a whole nation.
	GraffitiForensic, I see no evidence whatsoever, at all, that these objects originated from China.
	None!
	And then Jim... Well, there's a reason for that.
	There isn't any yet.
	Ah, there's no evidence at all.
	As soon as there's some evidence... And then KY Jelly says, and that's by the way a saucy name, they used my voice for the Here's the Fucking News Baby.
	We did, and that's my little daughter.
	She's one of my children that I'm getting swearing for a living.
	We've got a fantastic guest for you now.
	It's an investigative journalist, that's like me, who's written extensively about the war in Ukraine on his substack.
	He's talking to us about Russia being recast as terrorist.
	In fact, that's something he's been investigated and subject to an infamous slur as a result of those lines of inquiry.
	We're very excited to introduce on to rumble a man we know as Michael Racey Tracey.
	It's Michael Racey Tracey.
	All right, Michael.
	Well, I'm going to keep it rated PG for this particular Rumble colloquy, so I'm going to avoid getting too racy such that, I don't know, maybe there might be some new censorship stricture imposed on Rumble solely to do with preventing me from getting too racy for the daytime audience.
	Don't push this to such a limit that Rumble, that has organised itself around the principle of free speech, has to renege on that pledge because you are so disgusting in the things that you say.
	That would be funny if I'm just so repulsive that they have to totally abandon their stated sort of core principles for... Speech is wrong!
	You can't just shout fire in a crowded theater!
	Free speech is dangerous!
	It's too much free speech!
	Hey Michael, Tracy, we want to ask you first of all about the Is there a plan or movement to recast Russia as a kind of terrorist state?
	Is this something that's been ongoing?
	How's that changed since the Cold War?
	How's it changed recently?
	And was it just one lone congressperson advocating for that or was it a broader movement?
	Well, yeah, earlier you mentioned that there was this particular Democratic congressman named Tom Malinowski who was booted out of the House of Representatives actually at the midterm elections and replaced by a Republican who pledged to be even more aggressive and antagonistic toward Russia.
	So that kind of well encapsulates the bipartisan consensus on this topic.
	But I interviewed Tom Malinowski because he happened to be a sponsor of a resolution in the House calling on the State Department to formally designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, so putting Russia into the same category as Syria, Cuba, North Korea, etc., Iran, and thereby kind of formally abrogating any semblance of Official diplomatic ties that could be forged between the United States and Russia, and you'd think that would have a pretty decisive deleterious impact on brokering some sort of settlement to the war.
	And far be it for anyone to assume that this was just some sort of rogue plan on the part of one particular Democratic congressman, Last July, the U.S.
	Senate unanimously assented to a resolution that was championed by Lindsey Graham, so UberHawk of all UberHawks, former, you know, chief sort of buddy of John McCain.
	And by the way, John McCain, for all he was castigated during his lifetime as being this kind of insane hawk and outside the mainstream, believe it or not, in death, John McCain's foreign policy disposition has become strikingly kind of subsumed into just mainstream bipartisan consensus, which I think is an undercover development of this past year or so vis-a-vis Ukraine.
	But Lindsey Graham championed this resolution with a Democratic colleague, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and all 100 U.S.
	senators Ascended to it was enacted by unanimous ascent so everybody from Rand Paul to Josh Hawley to Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren anyone who you might think be might be somewhat on the margins or somewhat more of a dissenting sort of standpoint on this particular topic they all whether through overt intentionality or just omission
	assented to the enactment of this particular resolution, which would, I think it's fair
	to say, basically obliterate any hope that the United States could engage diplomatically
	with Russia in pursuit of some sort of negotiated resolution to the war.
	Now, that move actually has not been formally taken yet, despite the arded lobbying of the
	Ukraine government and Zelensky as well.
	When Zelensky was in the United States in late December for his vaunted first trip abroad
	since the war began, or at least the first trip that's been publicly reported that he's
	taken abroad since the war began, that was one of his lobbying agenda items for that
	step to be taken to basically nuke, to use a...
	Somewhat ominous pun, the diplomatic ties between the United States and Russia.
	And the United States has not, for whatever reason, formally gone there yet.
	But the Biden administration tends to be a somewhat lagging indicator in what kind of aggressive steps it's willing to accede to, whereas Congress and the media kind of are at the forefront of kind of banging on for whatever the latest threshold crossing step is.
	Thanks, Michael.
	You talked in our conversations offline about the seamless congealing of folklore and myth into conventional wisdom.
	How, I suppose, abstract ideas that are not underwritten by facts are starting to be used as platforms, foundations and arguments, I guess, for escalated activity within this conflict.
	Can you give us some examples, or did you just give us one, i.e.
	the sort of the attempt to label Russia a terrorist state?
	Are there further examples that have accrued around this conflict?
	Yeah, and there are multiple dimensions to this phenomenon, and this being the first year anniversary of the invasion starting, or we're approaching that anyway, it's a good time to reflect on how this dynamic has worked discursively.
	So when Russia first launched the invasion February 24th of last year.
	There was this instantaneous congealing of myth and folklore, as I would put it, around a sort of triumphalist narrative That showed the resilience and the resourcefulness and the heroism of Ukraine.
	And certainly in particular instances, there might have been cases that were legitimate of, you know, individual Ukrainians displaying valor of some sort.
	That's not even what I'm commenting on here, because, you know, the immediate counterargument will be, oh, you're trying to Denigrate the sacrifices of Ukrainians and cheapen their suffering?
	No, I mean, I personally went to... Why don't you care about them?
	Get a sticker up in your window.
	Well, no, I mean, actually, the reason why that rebuttal or that theoretical rebuttal is so cheap is because, you know, an actually serious sort of moral Assessment would have to take into account the genuine suffering of those Ukrainians who, through no fault of their own, actually have had their lives disrupted.
	When the war first started, I went to Poland on the border area with Ukraine and I personally, you know, without trying to get myself set up for interviews through NGOs or through some sort of fixer or through some sort of, you know, orchestrated PR initiative, I actually personally interviewed lots of, you know, mostly women with young children Who did have their lives genuinely disrupted through, uh, as a result of an aggressive military action.
	And I think there is sympathy that is justly afforded to them.
	So, you know, I think somebody who is a careful moral reasoner would have to take that into account.
	And so I'm taking that into account, but I'm also simultaneously noting that there was this onslaught of just propaganda and fabrication In service of advancing one particular triumphalist Ukraine narrative that was then arrogated for the purpose of intensifying a primarily U.S.
	military intervention.
	So I don't know if you recall, but within days of the invasion happening last February, there was this anecdote that got circulated and then just beamed across the entire information kind of landscape where Zelensky supposedly offered an evacuation route out of Ukraine by the United States, and he responded Triumphantly and boldly and audaciously by saying, I don't need ammo, I need a ride.
	And that became this rallying cry showing not just the valorous spirit of Zelensky, but of Ukraine as a whole.
	And t-shirts were immediately produced with this slogan, and it became one of the core tenets of this war mythos.
	And if you actually go and look at what that originated from, there was an AP story In late February, that was sourced to an anonymous intelligence official, so nobody was willing to put their name to the conveyance of this, you know, titanically inspiring quote.
	And that U.S.
	intelligence official is the one who relayed it, apparently, to the AP reporter.
	We still don't know who that intelligence official was, but as you might agree, U.S.
	intelligence officials have a variety of potential motives for why they would want to place information out for public consumption.
	And then by October, one of the very few instances of an actually sort of robust journalistic evaluation of the nature of the U.S.
	intervention in Ukraine was published in the New Yorker.
	And it quoted another official kind of laughingly acknowledging that that entire anecdote, including the quote itself presumably, was just a sheer fabrication for propagandistic purposes.
	Which, you know, if you're thinking about it from the standpoint of the self-interest
	of or the perceived self-interest of whoever those, you know, Ukraine government officials
	might be, you can see why they would want that information out there to kind of construct
	this affirming kind of noble narrative on their behalf, because what were they doing?
	Well, they were lobbying for more and more intense U.S.-Western military escalation.
	Remember, at that time, Zelensky, despite being crowned as this, you know, incarnation
	of Churchill and the most beloved leader that has graced the world stage since the Second
	World War, he was lobbying in March and April of last year for a no-fly zone, which even
	Joe Biden himself said if that demand were actually acquiesced to, that would instigate
	World War III, and yet we were all being told that we must be, you know, singing the praises
	of somebody whose preferred policy interventions would actually bring about the most cataclysmic
	world conflagration that anybody could ever dream of.
	So that was one element of the mythos.
	And I think, you know, on another level, you have just kind of the way that the logic around U.S.
	interventionism has been inverted to justify support for this particular U.S.
	intervention.
	Now, a lot of self-styled leftists and liberals and even leftists kind of Purport to be very well acquainted with the history of interventionist U.S.
	foreign policy.
	They'll have learned to some degree about Vietnam.
	They know about Iraq.
	Maybe there are some blind spots in their knowledge, but there are certain sort of core kind of features to what they understand to be the reality of U.S.
	Foreign policy, and it produces a rather cynical view of the utility of U.S.
	foreign policy, because number one, it tends to be predicated on state duplicity, meaning that the actual nature of the policy is not forthcomingly communicated to the public At first.
	And it tends to be accompanied by this kind of conjoining what's called mission creep in that the scope or the contours of that U.S.
	policy tend to expand and lurch out into new areas and to entail a much far greater investment of both financial resources and even human resources if it escalates to the level of an actual Intervention involving boots on the ground, so to say.
	But all that kind of got shunked into the side with regard to this particular intervention, at least as it began in February of last year, because it was seen as advancing these kind of grandiose objectives of protecting the rules-based international order, protecting international liberalism against the encroachments of, you know, right-wing connotated Global authoritarianism as personified by Putin as the chief exporter of that insidious tendency.
	It, you know, even in the US, the legacy of World War II itself was specifically invoked time and time again, almost to the point of tedium.
	No, not almost, definitely to the point of tedium, where, you know, you get, of course, the obligatory Hitler comparisons that, you know, Putin must be stopped or else he's going to do a blitzkrieg throughout all of Europe.
	But also that the U.S.
	needs to resume its role that was articulated by Franklin Roosevelt as the arsenal of democracy by furnishing armaments all across the world, including to, you know, Britain, Soviet Union, etc., in that phase before the U.S.
	formally entered the war in December of 1941.
	Nancy Pelosi went on the floor of the House of Representatives and demanded the enactment
	of the lend-lease policy for the first time since the 1940s on account of these ideological
	imperatives toward, like, protecting global liberalism from these villainous sort of,
	you know, depredations of Putin and what have you.
	I guess also Lukashenko, who we're also supposed to be terrified by.
	And so all of, you know, given these, like, ideological sort of nostrums that got so,
	you know, kind of fervently pumped out into the public consciousness.
	Any kind of analytical, objective, impartial, rationally minded assessment of the nature of this particular U.S.
	military intervention got subordinated to those wider ideological goals, such that no one really had the sense that there could be mission creep associated with this particular U.S.
	intervention.
	No one got the sense that there could be state deceit involved in the selling of the intervention, and yet we found, as could have been I think easily predicted by anybody who was trying to maintain a bit of a mooring and sort of rational Yeah, kind of assessment.
	Exactly those things have happened.
	So for one thing, I don't know if you recall, but when Biden and top administration officials were talking about the nature of U.S.
	intervention post-Russian invasion on February 24th, they were almost invariably framed in terms of sort of a very narrowly confined aid mission, almost like it was just like a strict humanitarian intervention where the aid would be mostly about, you know, blankets and, you know, you know, food and water and basic sort of nourishment for the besieged civilians.
	And they specifically use the word aid, I think.
	Because it has a particular propagandistic utility, and this doesn't get much talked about either, but when you think of aid, like if the U.S.
	is going to be providing aid to a besieged nation, what does that kind of conjure a mental image of?
	I don't know, like a first aid kit or something, right?
	Just strict sort of medical aid, whereas by June, of last year, the U.S.
	was basically agreeing to the demands of the Ukraine military to furnish them with an entirely new military in the midst of a hot war, which we are constantly reminded is the most wide-scale war in Europe since the 1940s.
	Now, is that aid as commonly understood by just the general member of the public?
	I don't think so, but that word was sort of very much fixated on, I think, for a particular
	purpose.
	And then it kind of escalated from there.
	I mean, at the beginning, the idea was just to send some aid, along with maybe some small
	arms, so the courageous Ukrainians could, you know, defend their homes, and also, you
	know, a Javelin missile here and there so they could take out an invading Russian tank.
	Then by June it was heavy artillery that the U.S. would also be sending, the HIMAR rocket
	systems, that later came, of course, the Patriot missile batteries that would then be deployed
	to Ukraine, as was announced in December by Biden.
	And it kind of culminated, at least as yet, with the U.S.
	saying, oh, by the way, we're going to send our most advanced battle tanks into Ukraine.
	That's the next iteration of this aid.
	So if that's not mission creep, if that's not in keeping with sort of the quintessential
	trajectories that you would expect of a U.S.
	foreign policy intervention, I don't know what would be.
	And yet there's just not really much popular consciousness of this very predictable cycle, because the overarching sort of ideological imperatives that have been imbued onto this particular conflict have taken such primacy.
	Michael, you extraordinary insomniac, you great river of vocabulary, you.
	What extraordinary analysis you took us there on the journey from blankets to clear escalation via that word lethal aid.
	I remember when they made that peculiar portmanteau, that new linguistic hybrid.
	And as language evolves, as censorship increases, you start to recognize how power is newly
	operating. Michael, I could listen to you all day. Sometimes I felt like I might not have a
	choice. We'd love to have you back on our show for further conversations. It would be
	brilliant to get more of your insights and I'm really excited to talk to you more. You can follow
	Michael on Substack by going to mtracey.substack.com.
	Thank you very much, Michael.
	Goodbye, mate.
	We'll see you again soon.
	That was amazing.
	Will we speak again soon?
	Yes, of course.
	Let's do it.
	And sorry if I rambled on.
	No, it's brilliant.
	Sometimes I get worked up because sometimes I feel like I'm just, I'm channeling the absolute truth of the universe directly into Rumble.
	Ah, the old absolute truth of the universe.
	Oh, someone else liked that.
	When that absolute truth comes a-knockin'.
	You've got to answer the door, baby.
	Michael, that was fantastic.
	Thank you so much.
	What a beautiful contribution.
	He was channeling, wasn't he?
	Yeah, he certainly was.
	Some of my favourite words.
	I like triumphalist quite a lot.
	I like abrogating.
	I like that being used.
	There's a depiction of you with your top off, Gal.
	Oh, wow.
	I can assure you it doesn't look anything like that.
	I like the mood.
	I've seen you naked many times and you're a fine, fine man.
	Thank you so much.
	All right, F it.
	All right, F it.
	Off topic, but here you go, ladies.
	Also, men, because what about... Sure thing.
	Sure thing.
	Men can objectify you as well.
	Of course they can.
	Anyone's free to.
	Objectify Gareth.
	I invite you to.
	Give him a good objectify.
	Don't try and make some serious point about the war.
	Look up there.
	That's what you are.
	You're sort of a topless... you look like Giroux.
	I thought it was amazing that thing because when he's talking about the mission creep it's something we've talked about the aid before isn't it the way it started off as aid and then it was lethal aid and now it's military aid and you know Biden coming on the telly you know towards the start of the war saying we're not going to go to war with Russia and then he's got the point I mean Michael's one of the things he's written is that America now controls virtually every rocket fired by Ukrainian forces at Russian targets.
	We only control virtually every rocket?
	That's unbelievable!
	Exactly, virtually every.
	What if it were every?
	That would be worse.
	Do you know what's most terrifying about this?
	Is we are right.
	You, on the basis of a lot of diligent research and aggregating a great deal of brilliant reporting and creating your own narratives.
	Me, because I've always felt, don't trust what you're told.
	Never ever trust authority under any circumstances.
	Demand individual and collective freedom.
	Stuff that I somehow picked up as a child.
	That's what's worrying.
	David Icke stuff used to watch. It was mostly him but don't talk about him even on Rumble.
	No, God bless him. I mean, you know, other than, well now, let's just, let's not get
	into it. Shall we get into it? Why don't you just take your bloody top off? Got it. Like
	a good boy. That's what we've got to do to get out of this mess now, is it? I'm afraid
	to say we're going to have to, sorry, me, there's no demand.
	You take off your top.
	Hey, on tomorrow's show, we've got Bob Roth.
	He's the man that taught me how to transcendentally meditate.
	He was a student of the Maharishi.
	He hung with the Beatles.
	He's a brilliant meditation teacher.
	Did he teach you to meditate?
	He did, yeah.
	But you don't meditate enough, do you?
	I didn't keep that up.
	I meditate all the time.
	I'm a great meditator.
	We've got to get them not meditating.
	We've got to get Leon meditating.
	Why can't we?
	In a proper cult, you'd have to meditate to be in it, wouldn't you?
	That's right, that's the only thing that we need to do now.
	Then we're a proper cult.
	To confirm our status.
	Start creating communities.
	And there's lots of other things that go on in cults.
	Yeah, but we don't do none of them.
	No, no.
	A happily married person.
	Tim Pool is on the show!
	Friday!
	Tim Pool, however, does!
	Tim Paul is a great guy.
	He doesn't need any more pressure.
	He gets swatted every half hour, doesn't he?
	Tim Paul's on this show on Friday.
	He's a great friend of the show and we're very excited to have him on.
	Sign up to Locals to see the show behind the show.
	How do we conjure up this ingenuity, this chemistry, this majesty that Pulitzer Prize winning journalists like Greenwald, like Seymour Hersh are queuing up to say is the greatest little news show on the planet.
	I'm pretty sure you just misquoted them.
	Yeah, they didn't say that.
	You get the gist.
	Oh, I see.
	You get the gist.
	This is all part of your methodology, isn't it?
	That's part of my method.
	I'm different.
	That's what me and that guy, Racy Tracy, we just channel, really, and then communicate.
	So you can join us and we'll read your comments, like we will these people.
	Check out these people that are commenting right now in our Stay Free community.
	Take your top off, show us your bum, stuff like that.
	You could be saying those kind of things.
	And also you'd get a weekly guided meditation with me.
	I'll answer your actual problems.
	Like you might have a heartbreak.
	Christ, buddy, you don't know the meaning of heartbreak.
	And I'll meditate you right through it.
	Also, I've got a stand up special coming out soon.
	You'll get access to that.
	Exclusive access.
	Okay.
	Well, we're back tomorrow with some fantastic guests and some ludicrous and outrageous fun to some challenges to mainstream narratives.
	And I would say access to realms as yet Forgone by a world that once you denied the real, real truth.
	See you tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, stay free.

▲