Michael Tracey (Should Russia Be A Terrorist State?)
Investigative journalist Michael Tracey chats to Russell about the recent bill calling for Russia to be labeled a terrorist state, how folklore drives narratives in conflict and the latest revelations on the war in Ukraine. You can follow Michael's work on Substack, here: https://mtracey.substack.com/ For a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here https://russellbrand.locals.com/Come to COMMUNITY festival 2023 - https://www.russellbrand.com/community-2023/NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/
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 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 phone!
This could be bugging us right now.
They're filming us like you could see someone who'd like just flipped out the Matrix.
You want to 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 loved UFOs!
You want 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, can't say that word anymore.
No, I was a boy then.
I was a youngster.
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.
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, you know, there are 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 is saying that there are UFOs.
I got off UFOs there.
Well, that's because they're lying.
That's why.
I quit 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 Actually, our reporting is spot on.
The Nord Stream Pipeline bombing, if indeed it was the United States of America, served so many purposes.
Militarily, economically, depriving Europe of that gas means that Europe are looking for different relationships.
Such a fantastic story.
He 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 a hundred billion dollars 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?
That's a matter of fact!
Where did you find out about that?
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.
And I'm certainly not suggesting that he hasn't done anything wrong.
I understand he took a pregnant lady's sandwich, didn't he?
Yes, 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, but 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 Veritas, because they're sort of like an outsider organization.
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 them?
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 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 evolution.
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 tantalizing enough, let's form Before your very eyes, a causal... Oh, is this how you do it?
Yeah, this is 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... Allegedly!
...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.
He was in that bottle a lot today.
I don't need that guy.
Allegedly.
Like the EcoHealth Alliance are hanging around him.
They're in more bat caves than Bruce Wayne, they're not!
Well 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.
Yeah.
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 he any good?
Well, let's see, because we have acquired footage Wow.
Of James O'Keefe.
I'm an investigative journalist 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.
[MUSIC]
He's really into it, isn't he?
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.
He's playing that part from both his balls and his solar plexus.
He's really Oklahoma-ing.
Yeah.
She's on the phone.
How would you react in that scenario?
Stop the song right I'd stop say excuse me excuse me and even that's a that's a track isn't he's not quite a Musician with him so like the music will be playing stuff and it'd be weird and they'd have to sort of turn it down Well James O'Keefe, I'd snatch that out of her hand like it was a sandwich and she was a pregnant lady.
Are 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... Allegedly!
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?
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, you know, 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 sombre, serious dude, Yeah, I just think it's amazing that this is the best they could get on him.
Can you imagine the effort they would have gone into?
How can we bring down James O'Keefe?
That son of a bitch!
He's humiliated Fizer 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 grand on... The corruption level is what they're talking about.
They're not talking about about Oklahoma itself being a problem, they're saying we
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. Think of all
the musicals you could have done with that. We could be 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!
Stay free with Russell Brand.
See it first on Rumble.
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 terrorists.
In fact, that's something he's been investigating 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 racey.
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 the promulgation of speech.
Free speech is wrong!
What if people...
You can't just shout fire in a crowded theatre!
Free speech is dangerous!
It's too much free speech!
Hey Michael, Racey Tracey, we want to ask you first of all about the 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 Assented to it was enacted by unanimous assent 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 weather 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
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 the border.
Yeah, right 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 and 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 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 was 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 US intelligence official is the one who related apparently to the AP reporter.
We still don't know who that intelligence official was.
But as you might I 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 US/Western military escalation.
Remember at that time, Zelensky, despite being crowned as this 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,
you know, 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 conjoining what's called mission creep in that the scope or the contours of that US policy tend to expand and lurch out into new areas and to entail a 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 shunted to 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 right-wing connotated Global authoritarianism as personified by Putin as the chief exporter of that insidious tendency.
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 get, of course, the obligatory Hitler comparisons that 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 protecting global liberalism from these villainous
depredations of Putin and what have you, I guess also Lukashenko, who we're also supposed
to be terrified by.
And so, given these ideological nostrums that got so fervently pumped out into the public
consciousness, any kind of analytical, objective, impartial, rationally minded assessment of
the nature of this particular US 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 US 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 a strict humanitarian intervention where the aid would be
mostly about blankets and 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
And this doesn't get much talked about either.
But when you think of aid, like if the US 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 defend their homes.
And also, a Javelin missile here and there so they could take out an invading Russian tank.
Then by June, it was heavy artillery that the US 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 US saying, oh, by the way,
we're gonna 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 US 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 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.
Calm.
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... I get worked up because sometimes I feel like I'm just... I'm channeling the absolute truth of the universe directly into the level.
I know someone else like that.
Ah, the old absolute truth of the universe.
I know someone else like that.
When that absolute truth comes a-knocking, you've got to answer the door, baby.
Michael, that was fantastic.
Thank you so much.
What a beautiful contribution.
He was channelling, wasn't he?
Yeah, he certainly was.
Some of my favourite words.
I liked triumphalist quite a lot.
I liked abrogating.
I liked that being used.
There's a depiction of you with your top off going.
Oh, wow.
I can assure you it doesn't look anything like that.
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... Sure thing.
Sure thing.
Men can objectify you as well.
Of course they can.
Anyone.
Anyone's free to.
Objectify Gareth.
I invite you to.
Give him a good objectify.
Don't try to 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.
That's right, I'll take that.
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 it's got the point, I mean Michael's, one of the things that 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!
It's not a proxy war!
It's only 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.
Was it that David Icke stuff you 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, no, let's just, let's not get into it.
Should 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... Sorry, mate, 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?
You did, yep.
But you don't meditate enough, do you?
I didn't keep that up, no.
I meditate all the time.
I'm a great meditator.
We should 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?
Yeah, you're 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.
Happily married person.
Tim Poole is on the show, Friday.
I thought you were going to say, Tim Poole, however, does!
Paul, the great guy.
He don'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!
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, Racey Tracey, 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.
Anyway, 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.
Very good.
Exclusive access.
Okay, well, we're back tomorrow with some fantastic guests and some ludicrous and outrageous fun.
Some challenges to mainstream narratives and, I would say, access to realms as yet Foregone by a world that wants you denied the real, real truth.
See you tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
