Russell chats to Dr Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford School of Medicine, to talk about the revelations surrounding Matt Hancock (the UK Health Minister during the pandemic) and Fauci’s current response on the Wuhan lab leak theory. Get my new stand up special ‘Brandemic’ - available NOW at brandemic.locals.com For a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here https://russellbrand.locals.com/ Come to my festival COMMUNITY - https://www.russellbrand.com/community-2023/ NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/
We need new political systems that genuinely represent ordinary Americans so that we can
overcome cultural differences.
A beacon of hope in a world of chaos.
We sat down yesterday with Russell Brand.
Fresh off the Joe Rogan podcast.
How can you have energy companies that profit when there's an energy crisis, military industrial complex that profits when it's a war, pharmaceutical companies that profit when there's a pandemic?
You're creating the necessity for ongoing crisis.
Yes.
Decentralization and meaningful attacks of systemic power are the only way that America and the world can progress.
And did he bring systemic change?
Uh, no.
Not yet.
[music]
Brought to you by Pfizer.
♪ But I'm old still, so I'm looking for the steel ♪ In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello, you awakening wonders.
Hello, you awakening wonders.
Wherever you're watching this, you might be watching it on YouTube.
You could be watching it everywhere.
I don't know how the world works.
The whole show is only available on Rumble.
There's a link in the description so you can sign up to that.
And also, you can become a member of our Locals community where you get additional content and you can watch everything ad-free.
Plus, you'll get my stand-up special, Brandemic.
An interesting look at the last couple of years of craziness.
I'm looking at the comments right now.
Look at what people are saying.
It's been a crazy time.
We've just got back from a tour of your country, America, if indeed you're in America.
to It's been insane.
We appeared on all sorts of media outlets, and obviously some of them caused a stir.
In particular, that Bill Maher appearance seems to have stirred up some conversation, which we're very, very grateful for.
We'll talk to you about that a little bit in a minute.
Let us know what you thought of it in the comments.
Remember, I can only take praise.
Just praise.
I still regret the fact that I didn't say Russiagate.
That's what I should have said.
Yeah, that was the big one.
Go on, Gareth, try and tell me something now about yourself or anything at all in life.
About me?
Yeah, go on.
Oh, well, I just have dreams sometimes.
Non-responsive!
Non-responsive!
That's what that guy says.
He did, yeah.
Non-responsive.
What does that even mean, non-responsive?
I don't even know what non-responsive is.
Hey, listen, after about 10, 20 minutes, in fact, I think we're going to stream for 30 minutes on YouTube today, but after that, we're going to be giving you some new information around the pandemic.
Chris Witte, he was the head.
He was our Fauci.
Apparently, at the beginning, he had some interesting questions about medication that Matt Hancock's leaked WhatsApp messages reveal were not communicated to the general public.
If you're an American, you won't know who Matt Hancock is, and you're bloody lucky not to know, frankly.
In our country, he was the head of the health.
He was the health minister, and he, in conjunction with Chris Witte, organized such as it was.
The response of the UK.
Well, his WhatsApp messages have been leaked and they reveal all sorts of extraordinary stuff.
We're going to be talking to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an open critic of lockdowns who called for herd immunity from the start.
We'll be talking to him.
So that will be when we click only onto Rumble.
But Let's have a look now at Chinese democracy.
Is it Chinese democracy?
Because Xi Jinping has been re-elected in his campaign to win an election against nobody at all.
That's who he was being.
You could vote for him or you could not vote at all.
I think that's in his own party.
Yeah.
Right.
I don't think that's of everyone.
I think that's within his own party.
He won unanimously though Gal.
He did win unanimously.
He beat No one at all, unanimously.
Correct.
I feel like that you wouldn't want to abstain or vote no against Xi Jinping.
No.
Because I feel like, I think he's strict.
Yeah, I reckon so.
That's the impression I'm getting.
And of almost 3,000 votes, he got them all.
Every single one of them.
Every single person.
Even, what if one person had gone, I don't like Xi Jinping.
I'm not afraid to say it.
And like, of course, many of us think that that's ridiculous and shows up up Chinese totalitarianism for the unipolar power system
that it is.
But consider the democracy so-called in our countries.
Is it meaningfully different or is it marginally different?
Is it just a better illusion?
Have a look at this moment where Joe Biden's, I mean, animatronic waxwork was revealed.
Better version of?
Yeah, I mean, obviously, if you have a look at Joe Biden's animatronic presidential representative, perhaps the first
thing you'll notice it's somewhat more cogent than the actual person in the
White House.
And with chatbot GPT advancing at the rate that it is, all you really would have to do is attach that to this animatronic presidential mannequin and improve democracy significantly.
But nevertheless, have a look at the animatronic Joe Biden.
and check him out.
Because he's got that, his chest is out.
His body language, in the primate world, you'd be attracted to that mannequin.
You could put that with Dian Fossey in the middle of one of them forests with a lot of silverback apes.
I think they'd respect that, Joe Biden.
Yeah, I see, yeah.
Do you think?
I think maybe, yeah.
Also, with all the sterm and drang around progressivism and American democracy, do you notice that sort of everyone, all of them waxworks, just looks basically the same?
I mean, you couldn't change any of them, couldn't you?
Yeah.
I mean, that's the result of like hundreds of years of democracy, is all of these guys.
None of them look that happy about it, do they?
No, the concept of suits has hardly changed as well.
They've barely changed it.
All that's happened is we've become a little more conservative around bow ties.
Neckwear has been tempered, hasn't it?
Like, no, a dress is only different.
Everyone's basically the same colour.
I mean, it's just, frankly, not enough.
No.
For hundreds of years of democracy.
Like, unless the Xi Jinping were to emerge... Xi Jinping, he wouldn't want any other animatronics, would he?
The Xi Jinping one would, like, chop them others away, wouldn't it?
Biden Jr. do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States
and I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
So help me God.
Reality though, there's no way Trump's letting Biden speak for that long is it?
No way, and he wouldn't stand up the back like that.
He'd be clambering over that geyser in front of him.
He'd be in jail.
He'd be in jail.
Show us your kid's laptop.
Let's have a look at Jill Biden answering... Is she animatronic as well?
This is real Jill.
Oh, OK.
This is the real Jill, baby.
She's responding to questions about a potential cognitive test for the elderly.
I also think that's not... Like, you should...
Skip through a cognitive test if you're in office, shouldn't you?
You shouldn't fear it.
Sure.
But even if it was for, like, people... Yeah, it shouldn't be that thing that trips you up, is it?
No!
There shouldn't be a cognitive test.
You shouldn't be tested.
People should take a good faith that as you enter your decline and dotage, that you're sharp as a tack, even if there's strong evidence to the contrary.
So here, this CNN broadcaster puts it to Jill Biden that her husband should be subject to cognition tests as he enters the winter chill of later life.
Have a look.
Haley, one of the Republican candidates, is calling for mental competency tests for those politicians over the age of 75.
What do you think about that?
It's ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous.
It's not like, oh, don't do that.
I don't want to test people's cognizance.
You do want to, don't you?
I guess so, but I thought she might have more to say than just that.
What did she say anyway?
I should give her seven more seconds.
Would your husband ever take one of those?
I mean, we haven't even discussed, we would never even discuss something like that.
He's bloody well sure, because almost every time he crops up on the TV, he can't get to the stand of his own animatronic doppelganger.
This is his latest blunder behind a podium.
Check it.
If they have to pay out $159,000 billion.
150,000, 159,000 billion.
If the animatronic one done that, you'd go, "Glads, he's full stop again, he's glitching,
he's glitching."
And the animatronic would go, "14 years and four score,"
all that thing they always say about dreams and whatever.
If they did that, you'd lop its bonce off, wouldn't you?
Yeah, they would, mate.
You'd shut down Westworld on the basis of that.
If the animatronic one had He's able to lean into the errors now.
It's sort of become part of the shtick.
It's like a cue now isn't it?
It's a cue for people to laugh at that.
We all make mistakes and there's none of us that's perfect and in a sense I am sensitive to Joe Biden as an individual and as a human being, and it's not like he should be condemned and criticized for mental decline.
It's merely an obvious emblem of the atrophying system of which he is a symbol.
Just want to talk to you guys a little bit about the tour of America.
I went on Joe Rogan.
That was a laugh.
Went on Bill Maher.
You probably saw the bit where I talked about MSNBC and all that kind of stuff.
And in Florida, which I like, it's so bloody warm and lovely there.
Isn't it?
That's where the Rumble headquarters are.
I went to the Rumble headquarters.
That was an amazing moment.
I know, I was right with you.
What about the first bit though?
I wasn't there.
That's the bit where we went to a party and there was a sort of a wall with people passing champagne through holes in a wall at us.
Yeah, I've heard about this.
That was incredible.
I'm a bit jealous.
Yeah, it was a good bit.
Donald Trump Jr.
and Kimberly, that lady.
From Fox News.
Fox News, one of the Fox Five, who's really overtly criticised me in the past.
Yeah.
So nice.
Like all of the people, like Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfield.
Friendly.
So friendly.
The main thing that's come from this visit to America and appearing in what are known as right-wing spaces, places it would have been inconceivable for me to have visited even a few years ago.
Check out the video of me outside Fox News just a few years ago, baiting the security there, baiting them.
Don't put that out, that's not helping me.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for the distraction.
Thanks guys.
You wouldn't have been able to imagine that I would go on to shows like that, but now I've gone in there and had conversations that I think are... I don't know if they're significant culturally, but I reckon they're the type of conversation that we need to have.
Essentially, the alliances can be formed by people on the periphery, regardless of what their political allegiance is.
For example, you might be super into progressivism, identity
politics, social justice, BLM.
Or you might be ultra-traditional, conservative, religious.
And you've got more in common with other people on the periphery of the cultural debate
than you do with centralized authoritarianism as represented by media power and current congressional
political power and financial power.
These kind of alliances, I believe, can meaningfully change the political discourse.
And people that say that we should remain separated from one another in ossified camps, in communicative,
are those that take advantage of the lack of communication and the lack of potential alliance.
I'm pretty different from someone like Ben Shapiro, and chatting to Ben Shapiro, I got the, well I didn't get the idea, I literally put it to him.
Ben, would you stand on a platform with people that were into like trans issues and like were literally pro-choice and stuff that Ben Shapiro, I think it's safe to say, pretty avowedly disagrees with.
If it meant that you would have the authority to run your community school system, health education independently as a part of an autonomous community, they could run their communities autonomously.
Essentially what we're talking about is the necessity for decentralisation, and I think this is the big idea that I'm interested in, and I'm largely informed if you're a regular viewer of this show, you'll know, by Martin Gurry's ideas from the book The Revolt of the Public, where he argues that since the information age utterly annihilated the pre-existing centralised media and power systems, It became necessary either to have more centralised authoritarianism or a different set of publics coagulating around different issues and ultimately creating more democracies, i.e.
devolve power wherever possible.
Of course there's complexity in that, you're not going to just wave a magic wand and suddenly create new confederacies all over the world.
It's going to be a challenging idea, but I think that ordinary people by and large
will benefit regardless of how you identify whether a traditional or progressive person.
And that's the conversation that I was trying to advance.
And that's what interests me because you can apparently have those conversations in right wing spaces,
presumably because they're anti-authoritarian, but you can't have them in neoliberal spaces.
That interests me, that does.
It fascinates me that that's where you can have the conversation.
I was also fascinated to find out that people on the avowed, committed, and determined
right were equally critical of centralized authority and centralized power.
Like Tucker Carlson said, I don't have no alliance to the Republican Party no more.
Like Steven Crowder that we spoke to to help him launch his new show on Rumble.
He was saying, I don't have no alliance.
These people are overtly and explicitly right wing.
And all of these conversations were couched in, I don't agree with you on a bunch of issues.
a bunch, it's a long, long list. But ultimately, where we are now is we're at a point where if we're
not willing to allow other people to have different views from us, then we're going to remain entrenched
and intransigent in a static situation that benefits people that are already running the system.
That was, I guess, the main take-home of that trip. Yeah, it was. And I think a lot of the
publicity around this and the kind of hit pieces that were coming out were really
misrepresenting what you were doing.
And overtly your point about going on all of these shows was to say we have things that we disagree on, points where we disagree, but through communication, through conversing, through coming up and talking through these ideas, talking through the complexity and the nuance, which obviously people don't enjoy in the public sphere anymore, certainly not in the media sphere, That we can reach conclusions, we can reach ways in which we do agree in forming alliances through this and that was present throughout all these interviews.
Wasn't it, isn't it also an issue that comes up, let me know if you agree with us, let me know in the chat right now, with what's happening with the Jan Sixth stuff and Tucker Carlson and what's happening to Matt Taibbi and Schellenberger with these congressional hearings.
Ultimately centralised power is making this claim, You, ordinary people, the public, all of us I'm putting in that category of ordinary people, i.e.
human beings with eyes and faces and feet and stuff, are unable to discern the truth for ourselves and information needs to be centrally controlled and censored in order for us to make decisions.
i.e.
with the January 6th stuff, whether you like Tucker Carlson or agree with Tucker Carlson or not, and I told him when we're in that conversation, he goes, Have you found yourself having conversations with people that you wouldn't agree with?
And I went, yeah, you.
And I told him that I didn't agree with his stance on, for example, homelessness.
And he said that he regretted some of the things that he said about homelessness.
But obviously, the information that Fox News or the footage that Fox News are releasing around January the 6th has been edited.
But the fact that that shaman dude didn't get access to it for his own legal defense is interesting.
And it's pretty clear that it's a story that's being used without endorsing any, whether you want to call it an insurrection or a protest or however you want to understand it, whatever suits you.
You know, I don't know what's best for you to describe it.
How is it being used?
Because what we're seeing again and again are crisis situations utilised to centralise power.
9-11, which obviously I acknowledge was a tragedy, was used to legitimise more surveillance.
The pandemic was used to legitimise more regulation and lockdowns.
And it seems, if Matt Hancock's WhatsApp leaks are to be believed, that even scientists, the scientists upon whose opinion we were most reliant, were being curtailed, directed and controlled.
We'll talk more about that exclusively on Rumble when we click over, because indeed, our raison d'etre For joining Rumble, it's specifically so we can have these conversations directly with you, because I think you can understand nuance.
I think you can discern for yourself what the truth is.
That you can look at me and say, oh, Russell Brand's got his own biases.
He's going to make mistakes sometimes, plainly.
Look at him.
Look at how he dresses.
He's not making a claim to know everything, and I probably know even less than I think that I know.
The amount I know about reality is negligible.
The sum total of human knowledge is negligible in the limitless expanse of all potential realities.
So the fact that different people see the world differently is something that's going to have to be understood and embraced.
On the subject of January the 6th, I think it was Daily Wire that published this, who I also had conversations with and very much enjoyed them.
January 6th was, according to White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explained that the riot of Jan 6th was a violent insurrection And in order to preserve democracy, Schumer stated Fox News should take Tucker Carlson off the air.
I think as a general rule, those that are advocating for censorship and more centralized control ought be regarded skeptically.
Skeptically.
And note how that story relates to this headline.
Congress approves a $2.1 billion emergency funding bill for Capitol Police.
So does it seem like... Let's take this line.
January 6th was completely wrong.
Let's describe it in the worst possible terms.
It was an insurrection.
It was an attempt to overthrow the brilliant and well-functioning democracy of America that doesn't need any change.
Let's take that line.
Do you feel like they have amplified its significance in order to legitimise this $2.1 billion emergency bill?
Let me know in the chat.
Let me know in the comments.
Do you think you can handle nuanced information, a diverse range of POVs on a subject like this, so that you can make your own mind up about it?
Or would you prefer that the government and the media censored it for you because you're too stupid?
I mean, it seems like a rhetorical trick to even say that because it's so bloody obvious what the answer is, isn't it?
Yeah, I think that's what it is.
I think it's the lack of nuance, isn't it?
I mean, you can think whatever you want about Tucker and Fox's reporting of the Jansic stuff recently.
You can say that they're cherry-picking information and editing stuff, and I'm sure that's true.
In the same way that maybe on the other side things were cherry-picked or, I don't know, exaggerated to paint a certain narrative in one way.
But either way you look at it, if the end result is what you get to, is an increase in laws around protest, which is definitely happening.
As Branko Markicic writes in the Jacobin from last year, I don't know if we'll get to this here, but he says, what we've got instead is one thing, the only thing that the Washington establishment and depressingly many rank and file liberals clearly still believe the country is capable of doing.
Ramping up the national security state, In response to the Capitol riot, the Capitol Police have become a national, unfoilable anti-terrorism squad.
The FBI has doubled the number of its domestic counterterror agents, and consequently its domestic terrorism caseload, an explosion of anti-protest laws, and there's talk of more security state expansion to come.
And so this is, you could argue, what they wanted to happen anyway.
A lot like we talk about the pandemic and things that occurred in the pandemic.
Did they want this to happen anyway?
Did they want the police state to increase?
Did they want more militarisation of the police?
Did they want to crack down on protest?
Is that a legitimate question?
Let us know in the chat and the comments where you fall on that issue.
Now, what I would say we have to do to be discerning and to be responsible is not go to the right extreme, particularly the I think that if you say that and you can't prove that, that plays into their hands.
What you can say is that these things advantage establishment power.
the January 6th was entirely constructed by deep state agencies. I think that if
you say that and you can't prove that, that plays into their hands. What you can
say is that these things advantage establishment power.
They legitimize extra expenditure, they legitimize extra regulation.
Now, before we click over to being exclusively on Rumble, where we'll be talking in depth about some of the revelations that Matt Hancock's text messages reveal, not to mention Robert Redfield and his eerily close to Robert Redford name, like that dude's got a bunch of revelations that are pretty fascinating as well.
I want to have a look for a moment at Matt Taibbi's Congressional hearing, because similarly, there's that air of piety and condescension and the assumption that we, the people, to quote your congressional or
constitutional document, you know, we the people, that's the three great words, we
the people, we have one common interest ultimately, we're all born, we're all gonna
die. If you have a look at that, this Congress folk person, Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, her attitude to Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger, both of
whom have been guests on the show, along with Barry Weiss, another of the
Twitterphile journalists, excellent journalists, people that, you know,
I'm sure we wouldn't agree with on everything, but that doubtlessly have incredible
integrity, work incredibly hard, the approach of this Congresswoman is so...
So reductive, so condemnatory, critical, personal.
Are you making money out of this?
What are you doing here, you so-called journalists?
So critical, so rude.
And yet, of course, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in 2016, was forced to step aside after a leak of internal Democratic Party emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton's rival Bernie Sanders.
Plotting against?
We were just simply plotting against him.
Very democratic.
These plots don't seem particularly democratic, do they?
What's interesting to me is any peripheral figure, whether they are of the left or of the right, are against centralised authoritarian agenda.
Let's have a little look at Debbie Wasserman Schultz in particular.
Talking to Matt Tybee and just note the attitude and manner and after this of course we're going to be clicking over to being exclusively on Rumble where you can watch us freely and without fear of intervention or censorship.
God knows that's why we're there and we'll be talking a little more about some of the you know the fast track vaccine stuff and all sorts of interesting things that we wouldn't talk about on this platform because of well respect for this platform's regulations and because we need to continue to broadcast on the platform.
Let's have a look at Debbie Wesserman Schultz now.
Mr. Taibbi, I want to ask about journalistic ethics and information sources.
The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics asserts that journalists should avoid political activities
that can compromise integrity or credibility.
Being a Republican witness today certainly casts a cloud over your objectivity.
Also, what's that condemnation about--
it's a two-party country, and they're trying to denounce one of the parties in a two party system.
You have to be a witness for one of them.
What have you got to be, an orb of pure consciousness speaking on behalf of the limitless love that underwrites all potential realities?
Calling now to the stand God, although God, I don't like the way that you're using the English language, that shows a whole set of biases.
deeper concern that I have relates to the ethics of how journalists receive and present certain information.
Journalists should avoid accepting spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it's likely to be slanted, incomplete, or
designed to reach a foregone easily disputed or invalid conclusion. Would you agree with
that?
I think it depends.
Really?
You wouldn't agree that a journalist should avoid spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it's likely to be slanted?
He's the one that's advocating for more censorship.
Let's not forget what this hearing is about.
It's about not allowing Twitter to censor information to prevent us receiving information and discerning for ourselves what we want to believe.
The Twitter files revealed the depth of Organisation, conversation and liaison between government agencies such as the FBI and CIA and social media platforms.
That wasn't declared.
That's not explicit.
They're supposed to be the new public spheres to use the parlance or nomenclature that most people use to describe it.
Also the condescending tone of her.
Yeah, you can't imagine us speaking to someone from the mainstream media in the same way.
And the way that they're described also as, like, so-called journalists by another congressperson.
You know, it's so... We're talking down to them and demeaning for someone who's had, like, such a long career.
I mean, both of them, they're very credible journalists.
And you can't help but think that this is a war at the same time as being a war on information.
It's a war on independent journalism at the same time.
Absolutely.
Again, referring to Martin Gurry's book, The Revolt of the Public, there is now the ability to convey counter narratives.
It's happening right now.
That's literally what we're doing.
That's literally why they are looking for new ways to censor and control emergent social media spaces, because they've already co-opted the mainstream media.
The mainstream media, who get the majority of their revenue through sponsorship and data capture, are not in a position to communicate openly with the public in the same way that democracy is unable to meaningfully represent and demonstrate the will of ordinary people because of the manner of their funding, because of the efficacy of lobbying, All of these centralised tenants of established power have been co-opted.
You know that.
You don't need me to tell you that.
This is just part of a conversation we're having.
Let me know if you agree in the chat, in the comments.
We're going to click over to rumble at 30 minutes as discussed and agreed.
So we'll go over to that.
I'll stick to time.
Absolutely.
Meanwhile I just want to run through some of the information that we were conveying when we were appearing on some of these shows.
This is some stuff that I think is valuable and in fact if you watch me on Tucker you'll see that I read it there.
In fact maybe like you know I The continual claim that I oughtn't be appearing on right-wing, allegedly right-wing spaces, I think is undermined by some of the things that I was able to say.
Can you imagine, let me know in the chat and the comments, if you think I would have been able to say this sort of stuff on CNN or MSNBC.
This is, when I was on Tucker, I read out a bunch of stats that demonstrate that both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party receive their funding in similar ways, tend to have particular voting patterns and are ultimately operating at
the behest of a one centralised system. Have a look.
Hello America. In the world of energy, you know energy, that we require to do stuff to
move things about to warm our homes, at least 100 members of Congress own fossil fuel stocks
of which 59 are Republicans and 41 are Democrats.
Oh, look, the Republicans are a bit worse.
Pharma, of the $263 million of the pharmaceutical industry spent on lobbying in 2021, it gave 61% to the Democrat Party and 39% to the Republicans.
Oh, no, the Democrat Party is a bit worse.
Wall Street.
In 2022, commercial banks spent over $30 million lobbying Congress.
61% to the Republicans and 39% to the Democrats.
Oh no, look, the Republicans are a bit worse.
Let's see what's coming next.
Nearly 20% of Congress members, 49 Democrats and 44 Republicans have been trading shares of companies in industries they are supposed to be overseeing as part of their committee assignment.
Each one of these facts indicates a potential solution to the problem that it describes.
Don't let members of Congress own stocks at all.
Pharma, do not accept lobbying money from the pharmaceutical industry.
It's a health industry.
The interest should be, as the Hippocratic Oath declares, to do no harm and, get this, maybe even help people.
And if you remove the gargantuan motivation for profit, and I'm not talking about ending trade and profit
and all of those kind of extremist arguments, I'm simply saying this is a behemoth.
This is corporate gigantism.
This is an outgrowth.
This is a tumour.
This has gone too far.
And it is possible to change it.
And people that say it's not possible to change it are invested in it staying the same.
I feel like that's an important point.
God, you've changed your tune, haven't you?
You mad fascist.
You really have changed your tune.
That's advocating for real democracy, isn't it?
It's exactly the same things that you were saying five, six, seven years ago.
Yeah, it is, isn't it?
Exactly the same.
We've been saying this stuff for ages.
Well done ignoring us.
You've made a sensible decision.
Have a look at this moment on Greg Gutfield, where Greg Gutfield talked about the tumbling IQ of the nation and it was an opportunity to talk about the research that Gareth and I did.
Well, Gareth did the research, let me be clear.
About the funding of education.
This isn't, I would say, an avowedly, using conventional terminology, left-wing point.
But again, these kind of terms, as you're saying in the comments, they're not valuable terms anymore.
These systems are falling apart.
We need a new language.
We need a new lingua franca, new axioms, a new vernacular, a new way of speaking about this stuff.
Because otherwise, if we stay in entrenched, ossified, oppositional camps, That tension allows centralised authority to continue operating in the way it is.
And just I think the general atmosphere on this show is pretty friendly.
I think it was.
I mean, you know, I guess the point of this about IQ and education was potentially to lead us into kind of culture war territory.
And what you did, or what we did, especially was to drag out of that and take it into like the fundamentals of Poverty and like how Americans are living and how American children are living and being educated and they totally allowed you to do that.
They totally did.
Actually they applauded at the end.
That's pretty good because that's a thing if I can make anything clear to you now is that you oughtn't allow them to frame the argument.
You can reject the framing.
For example if you find yourself in a contentious area Like immigration or gun control.
You can continually move the focus back to centralised authority, transnational corporations, unelected bodies able to mandate policy.
If you continue to focus on that, then these things, while very significant and important, needn't divide us.
This is what I truly believe in.
Is it possible for people that stand on traditional orthodox platforms to stand with people on progressive social justice platforms and agree to have a truce in order To change the world meaningfully.
Let's have a look at me on Greg Garfield.
And we both agree that he's using the Garfield logo.
He must be.
Let us know in the chat.
Is that a Garfield logo?
Is that what he's doing?
By the way, super friendly, super friendly guy.
Very kind.
Lovely.
Very nice.
Couldn't be kinder.
Let's have a look.
Worried about the IQ decline?
Yes I am and actually I've got a series of good points to make because education is fundamentally affected by poverty and here are some facts to help us understand this.
It won't take very long and I'm doing this because I respect you and I love you.
I'm really reading out some actual facts, okay?
I love you, if it gets boring you can obviously stop me and we could perhaps wrestle, that would be a brief...
Gotta beat her first.
I would prefer that order, Tyrus.
Work the room.
If I began wrestling with Emily, I might not get round to you.
Could we prolong this for just another couple of decades?
You are running out of time for your match.
Tyrus is waiting!
Okay, so listen to this.
According to Global Citizen, poverty is the main barrier to education in the United States.
I want to draw your collective attention to the pandemic.
I think we all understand that during the pandemic, education declined.
Now I can see that Greg's only got a one minute break, a one minute to a commercial, so I've got to wrap this up.
I have other panellists, Russell.
Huh?
I have other panellists.
Oh, thanks for coming!
Now listen, during that pandemic period, billionaires added five trillion to their fortunes.
That means that during the pandemic, a new billionaire was created every single day, while extreme poverty increased everywhere, while small businesses closed everywhere.
Now I'm going to say something on Fox News that until recently would not have been possible.
As President, Donald Trump's tax cuts helped billionaires pay less taxes than the working class in 2018.
For the first time in American history, the 400 wealthiest people paid a lower tax rate than any other group.
But check this out, Fox News viewers, because you're going to like this bit.
In October 2021, Democrats scaled back plans for a crackdown on tax cheating.
Bowing to an aggressive lobbying campaign by the banking industry, while Joe Biden told rich donors on the campaign trail that nothing would fundamentally change if he were elected president.
So like some of the great points in your monologue, other than that reference that I was a bit like Rasputin, although he was a pretty crazy sexy guy.
Yeah, so I think that those are good points, although I know the main thing you're looking at is how good your hair looked and beard.
I'm so happy with my beard on that show.
Cam, who did my hair and makeup, well done.
What a great job was done by her there.
I feel like it'd be able to go on Fox News and say that Donald Trump's policies were negative.
Yeah, look, that's the Garfield logo, by the way, guys.
I'd like to say that Donald Trump impecuniated or impugned or was negative for ordinary working people.
I think it's a pretty positive thing.
Let me know in the chat and the comments.
And also, that fact about a billionaire being created, not every day, it's actually every 30 hours.
30 hours.
I noticed you did that.
A day and a bit.
It sounded better.
Sounds better.
A billionaire a day.
It's more effective.
Now listen, we've got to leave YouTube now because we are exclusively on Rumble.
Why?
Because we can speak freely on Rumble and we've got a story that we've got to tell you.
Fauci has got this sort of magic lab leak theory about how how like it could have come from that market.
It's like they're determined to believe that that market...
Are you anti-wet markets or something?
Is that what this is really about?
But we can't do it here on YouTube if you're watching this.
There's a link in the description.
Click over to Rumble.
Join us there.
You'll be okay.
We love you there.
We welcome everybody.
You couldn't have an identity that I wouldn't love because I recognize that there's a unitary force
underneath all reality that is bringing us back together.
The separation is an illusion.
That's why conversations have to be had in a spirit of love.
Let's see what ex-CDC chief Dr. Robert Redfield claims.
We're going to leave you now on YouTube.
Join us exclusively on Rumble for the rest of this chat.
Let me know in the comments what you think of it.
Thank you.
Okay, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Robert Redfield told Lawmakers Wednesday that Fauci sidelined him from internal debates about the origin of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic, saying the former White House chief medical advisor did not appreciate Redfield support for the so-called lab leak theory.
What do you think?
This is a high up member of the CDC.
You know, it's if you're not then taking.
So we already understood from those documents and those leaked emails that were, you know, heavily redacted, that there was a conversation around the origins at the time.
And they went with only one of those, which was the most convenient.
And we know that, but now we're also finding out that people within Insight, so the scientists that we supposedly are meant to follow, did already share these opinions, but obviously weren't allowed to have them.
So they were saying follow the science, but they themselves were not following the science, they were ignoring and sidelining the science, not just in your country, the United States of America.
But also in ours.
Have a look, though, first, before we get into Chris Whitty, who was saying that he had concerns about vaccines, that vaccinating a population in the middle of a pandemic, particularly when it has a low fatality rate, was not sensible.
He was sidelined.
The WhatsApp messages leaked by from our former health secretary, Matt Hancock, reveal this.
So whether it's your country or ours, and I suspect wherever you are in the world, Centralised financial globalist forces were able to conspire, collaborate at very least, in order to get the required outcome.
And remember, as Karlyn says, you don't need a conspiracy where interests converge.
This is about nothing other than dominion and economic interests and systemic thinking.
It ain't about individuals within it.
It's not worth condemning individuals.
It won't get you in here.
But I'd love to see this thing where Fauci has a magic lab theory.
You know, just to like give, I suppose, a little counterbalance to it, like I still think it might have, they still might have been thinking we ultimately, even though there's all these other opinions, we still think collectively that this is the best way to go.
The problem with it all is that the conversations aren't allowed to happen.
That's so stupid!
People are too stupid to understand.
Do you see how often that comes up again and again?
There's an underlying belief that you're too stupid to discern information for yourself.
And I know you don't like that.
I know that the success of figures like Joe Rogan in this space is because there are conversations that people can listen.
People can make mistakes.
People make mistakes all the time.
Apologise for it, move on.
Not this ongoing piety and certainty, particularly when they're coming up with crackpot theories like the magic leak theory.
Let's have a look at Fauci espousing that.
A lab leak could be that someone was out in the wild, maybe looking for different types of viruses in bats.
You're having a day off from the lab.
What do you do to relax?
You go out into the wilds.
You're looking in a bat cave.
All of a sudden, some son of a bitch bat coughs on you.
Now, instead of becoming Batman, you get back to the lab like that song, The Monster Mash.
I was working in the lab one night.
If you're working there, he's still trying to cling on to the idea that it's the wild, blaming nature and the wet market rather than, it's clearly come from meddling in bat coronaviruses, isn't it?
Yeah, I think those scientists tend to be pretty busy.
I don't think they're like doing science one day and then going off to the jungle for like an Indiana Jones exploration the next, are they?
It's not Tarzan the Ape Man, like, working in that lab, now back to the jungle with Cheetah and Jane and stuff.
You're down that lab, you're working long shifts, that's probably why they're so knackered, spilling back coronaviruses.
We had colds at the time, we know that.
We don't feel very well, we feel weary, we're achy, we're knackered.
If only there was some immersive, mandated solution to all of this that wouldn't give
us any choice as to whether or not we take it.
Got infected, went into a lab, and was being studied in a lab, and then came out of the
lab.
But if that's the definition of a lab leak, Jim, then that still is a natural occurrence.
Oh my God!
It's the lab!
Could it be the lab?
Is it possible for it to be?
He really determined.
He's talking about that lab like it was a lab for, I don't know, something completely unrelated.
Food colouring, hair products, something like that.
They are working on bat coronaviruses, isn't it?
OK, let's have a look at this story about Chris Whitty.
He's the UK dude.
Check out these leaks from Matt Hancock's Tech Messages.
The Chief Medical Officer said, this is Chris Whitty, a Covid vaccine could not be fast-tracked because the virus had a low mortality rate in the early days of the pandemic.
Okay, so Professor Sir, how many times does this guy have to ask before Matt Hancock will listen to him?
Professor Sir Chris Witty, Professor Sir, my beautiful darling, Chris Witty told Matt
Hancock and others the disease with a mortality rate in the range of 1% would need a very
safe vaccine and that the necessary clinical trials would be a rate limiting step.
Or would it?
Or should we just roar straight ahead with that stuff?
So there you go.
All the time they were saying follow the science, they were ignoring the scientists.
Unless those scientists agreed with the broader perspectives that allowed government more
ability to regulate and lockdown, big pharma more ability to make profit.
I don't know that that looks so much like a conspiracy theory at this point.
Let me know in the chat and the comments if you agree.
Do you think it's time to bring our guest on?
We're 40 minutes into the show.
It's gotta be, hasn't it?
Let's get Dr. J. Bhattacharya onto the call.
Joining me now is Dr. J. Bhattacharya.
I hope I did your name right, mate.
Professor of Medicine Economics and Health Research Policy at Stanford University, which, last time I checked, was a hive of conspiracy theorists mostly getting together to talk about, I don't know, the reptilians and stuff like that.
But the professor has been critical of lockdowns from the start and says that the COVID dam is beginning to break.
Lord, let it burst upon us right now.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
It's great to have you here.
Oh, I've not got his audio here in the room with me.
Oh, thank you for having me.
Although I am a fringe epidemiologist, Russell, I don't know if you know, I was called that by the head of the National Institute of Health because of my ideas to, you know, get kids into school.
Weird.
Fringe idea.
Crackpot.
Conspiracy theorist.
Hey, have you been following the Matt Hancock revelations and if so, can you tell me, do you feel vindicated somewhat by the revelations and could you explain them to our audience, please?
I have been following them very, very closely.
I think they're an incredibly important story.
And, you know, the first thing about them is that, you know, we would never have known but for a journalist who decided that her obligations to the public were more important than anything else.
And, you know, it kind of reminds me of Julian Assange.
The revelations themselves, substantively, are so important.
So, for instance, one of the things that Matt Honcock said, In December 2020, was that when the variants first started coming up, was we need to use the variants to spread fear in the public.
In fact, that's a theme that runs all through the story.
Matt Hancock, of course, was the health minister of the UK.
He was advising Boris Johnson about what to do.
And the thing he emphasizes over and over again, let's use propaganda It terrifies me beyond even the details of this story that a part of the modus operandi of government is to terrify people, although it is obvious that centralized power does benefit from a terrified or at least anxious public.
What else do you think about the revelations?
The idea that Chris Whitty's observations were ignored?
Is that significant?
Yeah, so in the early days of the pandemic, it became clear, actually from some studies that I did, and others like Johnny and Edie's here at Stanford, that the mortality risk was, you know, 0.2%, 99.8% survival with, you know, of course, with older people at very high risk of dying, you know, 3, 4, 5% if they get sick, for children very, very low.
He made the reasonable observation that you have a low Mortality disease, you really should be doing studies on like high risk people.
You shouldn't be fast tracking it to force everyone to take a vaccine that, you know, in January 2020, we didn't even have.
So I think Witte was sensible.
The issue is like, why did he get sidelined?
And part of it is this fear mongering.
The idea that we're all equally at risk, even though the data show that, really, it's older people that were at highest risk from getting sick and dying from this thing.
In fact, that's the theme that runs through.
I listed a few things, Russell, if you could give me a couple seconds.
One is that, like, the public... So, if you look, the files reveal that Boris Johnson used public opinion instead of science to decide lockdown policy.
So, for instance, the second lockdown, he did because he thought public opinion was important.
What did he expect after the government spent all this time scaring the living daylights out of the public?
I mean, it's so irresponsible.
I mean, and it undermines both the government and public health authorities that went along with this.
Now, remember, I told you that's older people that are really at highest risk.
People in like, you know, care homes, for instance.
Well, Hancock was advised to test care home residents early in the pandemic because that's who's at highest risk, and he refused to do it.
They weren't following the science.
As a result, a lot of older people in the UK died that may have survived the pandemic.
Boris Johnson essentially admits that the data that led to the second lockdown are wrong.
You know, remember all those curves that they were projecting?
Say, oh yeah, if you don't lock down, millions of people will die.
That was proven false almost immediately.
Again, the theme is, let's not follow the science.
Let's have some pre-existing notion about how dangerous the disease is and adopt whatever policies we want, whether it's backed by science or not.
There's another revelation.
Nicola Sturgeon, I guess, is the Chief Minister of Scotland, right?
Nicola Sturgeon, you crackpot fringe academic over there at Stanford University.
Well, apparently, you all in England were required to mask because the folks in England didn't want to risk an argument with Nicola Sturgeon.
Not because of any scientific data, just simply to make Nicola Sturgeon happy.
Kids in the UK, this happened in the US too by the way, I'm not just simply criticizing the UK, this is a universal problem, kids in the UK were kept six feet apart from each other, not on the basis of any science at all, just because, I don't know, kids are biohazards or something?
I'm not sure what the reasoning was.
And then the key thing is that they used media to push this propaganda campaign, to push the fear.
And all of this comes out in the context of these files.
These files are like a Rosetta Stone for what went wrong during the pandemic.
It seems that Fauci is becoming more open to the potential lab leak theory.
It seems that the narrative is shifting.
It appears that overall, perhaps what happened is that centralized governmental interests and corporate pharmacological or pharmaceutical interests converged and where they arrived at was the most authoritarian and the most profitable solution.
That needn't mean that there was a conspiracy, just that there was a momentum heading in the direction of those types of outcomes.
If indeed we can regard science as a subset of corporate interest due to the type of experimentation that takes place and the kind of conclusions that are avoided, In this instance, I might point to natural immunity, vitamin D, and again, pushing the vaccines at a point where even Chris Whitty says that with that fatality rate and with highly vulnerable people ought to have been prioritised, it doesn't seem like it was a sensible solution.
What kind of changes Need to take place in the governance of the pharmaceutical industry to prevent something like this happening again, because I'm sure you're aware that there are a lot of people that feel that this situation will be used to establish a precedent not only for future pandemics, but for future policy.
Indeed, the WHO are lobbying, aren't they, for a pandemic response treaty.
That would enable them to set the terms of response for every nation on earth in the event of another pandemic.
What do you think needs to change about the regulation of the science industry or the pharmaceutical industry?
And what do you believe, Doctor, needs to change about the unelected globalist organisations like the WHO in order that people aren't needlessly subjected to this kind of thing again?
I mean, you raise a lot of good points, so let me just take a couple of them in order.
So one is the lab leak.
You know, I heard what you said about Fauci and his excuse for the lab leak.
You know, Fauci and the United States NIH sponsored projects to go into those bat caves to bring the viruses out of the bat caves and then bring them into laboratories.
So even if he's right, this was the result of a United States-sponsored project that Fauci himself signed off on.
The whole idea then, now I get to your second point about the pharmaceutical interest, the whole point of this gain-of-function kind of exercise was to identify viruses in the wild and then make vaccines that can They can protect against these, these potential pathogens.
It's very closely aligned with pharma interest.
Absolutely closely, because who makes those vaccines, who benefits from those vaccines?
Now, I have to say, I have mixed feelings.
On one hand, you kind of want to have investments in research.
And pharma can do that.
That's fine.
But it's the job of government to make sure that that is done ethically, and it doesn't become this sort of like, you know, create a billionaire a day kind of thing, as you pointed out.
It needed to be something where there's some adversarial relationship between the government and the pharmaceutical companies.
I don't think that they're all bad, the pharmaceutical companies, but the government's job is to make sure that the products that they're putting are actually safe, are actually effective.
And they did not do their job very effectively during the pandemic.
In fact, quite the opposite.
It looked to me like a lot of the decisions that the governments made were at the behest of pharmaceutical companies.
They were captured by the pharmaceutical companies rather than the other way around.
It is deeply, it's a deep problem.
And as far as the World Health Organization, they failed during this pandemic.
Russell, 100 million poor people around the world were thrown into dire poverty, less than $2 a day or less in income.
100 million people were thrown into food insecurity, starving, because of decisions made by the WHO.
They made decisions essentially that pushed lockdowns that were adopted around the world.
In Uganda, they closed schools for two years.
And as a result, You know, four and a half million Ugandan kids never came back to school.
A lot of them actually were sold into sexual slavery because their parents were so poor that they had no choice.
The WHO failed the poor people of the world, and they're going around now asking for more power in the context of another pandemic?
No, there first needs to be deep reforms.
And absolutely, there needs to be some sort of guarantee that they're going to respect human rights the next time there's a pandemic, because they sure as heck didn't this time.
I can see why you've been blacklisted by Twitter prior to Elon.
You're spitting facts all over the place.
Who knows what viruses could be entangled in the various spores of truth conveyed by you, Doctor.
Thank you so much for joining us for this show.
I hope you will join us again.
I hope that you'll keep up this truthful crusade that you appear to have embarked upon.
Has it been personally damaging, exhausting, upsetting, distressing?
It's been exhilarating, for sure.
I mean, it's been very stressful.
But on the other hand, I never would have been able to talk to you otherwise, so there are some upsides.
It's a small price to pay for a bit of a chat with a bloke in a hat.
Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you for your diligence.
Thank you for being a true servant of science and truth because Lord alone knows that is what the world needs.
I really appreciate you.
You can follow Dr Bhattacharya on Twitter for his regular updates on COVID, the pandemic and science more broadly.
I think we can all agree it's a perspective worth having and a reminder that there are valuable voices in the field of science that Or be heard.
What do you think, Gal?
That was terrifying, wasn't it?
What he said about the WHO.
I didn't like all those children having to go into the sex industry.
Well, no, that was... That's suboptimal!
Yeah, that's not exactly what you want, is it?
Why is that not?
Why have we not been told that on the mainstream news?
I know.
When you think about, like, how them Congress folk are chatting to Matt Taubi and Michael Schellenberg, a legit journalist.
When you think about how Dr Bhattacharya there, a legit scientist, is being blacklisted and kicked off of Twitter.
Think about the stuff that gets focused on.
He's starting to sort of see a bloody trend.
And their kind of point in that, that we were watching the video earlier, their point is that Ataibi and Schellenberger were cherry picking the information to kind of suit their narrative.
And they were also kind of suggesting that Elon Musk did it for them.
But I mean, cherry picking is literally like picking out... I mean... Cherries!
Delicious cherries!
The Telegraph have done... I love cherries!
They've gone through, I think it was 40,000 messages of Matt Hancock.
To reveal the kind of things that have just been revealed about the way in which, first of all, the fact that everyone seemed to communicate via WhatsApp in some kind of chatty forum between like government ministers and health ministers deciding on what should be done during lockdown.
Just chilling, just chilling with my deadly diseases.
Matt Hancock was using emojis at certain points.
You shouldn't be using emojis, Matt.
It sounds ridiculous, but it just shows the kind of cavalier attitude of people who are just making decisions for the rest of the country, not based on science.
And when they say about cherry picking, it's like, well, that's exactly what the journalists at The Telegraph have done.
That's what journalism is.
That's how you find facts out of 40,000 texts.
You need to discern the truth from the fiction.
And of course, there is a process of narrativisation.
I wouldn't be so disingenuous to claim that I am some conduit for the pure Truth of the Lord, that would be madness.
No, I don't think you should do that.
Don't make that claim.
A couple more years?
It wouldn't be true.
Come on, Gal!
Hey, you know I do stand-up comedy, did you know that?
Yes, I was aware of that.
I'm one of the stand-up comics that there is.
Yes.
My new stand-up special, Brandemic, is out today.
If you're already a member of our locals community, you already get free access, as well as the behind-the-scenes shows that me and Gal do, as well as ad-free content over on Rumble.
If you think you might be interested in a bit of my stand-up, Made some pretty interesting observations about that whip market, as a matter of fact.
Have a look at me in my stand-up special, Brandemic, which you get for free if you join up for a yearly subscription, but you can also buy it as a one-off commodity should you choose.
Have a look!
Yeah.
You know where this coronavirus come from, didn't ya?
Down the fucking wet market.
Now that's what's caused it.
No, they're down the wet market.
They're different than us over there.
They've got fucking wet markets.
What do you eat?
Domino's, Burger King, McDonald's, Fish and Chips, stuff like that?
Not these fuckers.
They're down the wet market.
Eating bats all covered in cum.
Guzzling it down.
Crunching up little bat heads with all cum coming down their neck, guzzling it, smoking a fag while squatting, eating a bat all covered.
It's going to cause a fucking pandemic, isn't it?
If you're eating a fucking bat, all smothered in cum, bat wing going in your mouth like that, down there, guzzling it down the wet market, all slop and gunk all over the floor, fucking little bat cum dribbling down you.
It's going to cause a fucking coronavirus pandemic.
That's where it's fucking come from, them dirty parts down the fucking wet market.
Yeah, but... What?
But...
What?! !
Well it's just over here the Wuhan Institute of Virology where they're doing gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses!
Someone give that guy his own show on Rumble streaming daily.
Someone create a membership community where there's a show called Stay Connected where me and Gareth talk about how we make the show as well as fielding your questions.
Someone put on a weekly meditation where we directly address what it is you're feeling.
Is it heartbreak?
Is it loneliness?
Is it despair?
Is it Not knowing how to combine your spirituality with this oppressive, depressing world that doesn't allow your spirit to flourish and thrive.
Someone create a live podcast recording that you can attend and ask direct questions to whoever we have on Eckhart Tolle, Jordan Peterson, Vandana Shiva.
Those things already exist.
Join us.
It's been done.
We created it.
Get on it.
There's a little button somewhere on the page.
You can press that and then you can just join up and get all that stuff, including that stand-up show.
I hope you enjoy it.
Some of you will like it.
Look at this.
Becca D, she says it's bloody brilliant.
This person, Zash X, much love to me.
This person, Russell, stop promoting your content while we're already consuming your content.
I made that one up because I felt that it needed to be addressed.
Nice.
Yeah, I'm self aware.
I'm self aware that much I will offer you.
56 minutes.
Now we've got a few more minutes.
Let's do some of that other stuff that we've got.
Like all of those things.
Other stuff.
Yeah, we've got some other stuff.
Like for example, to help people that can't kiss each other.
Oh, yeah.
If they are separated by geography, there's this thing.
Now you might think that's somehow disgusting, but you haven't seen it move yet.
So let's have a look at it move.
Nobody is kissing the in-person kiss goodbye, but chances are nobody has ever kissed you this way through a lip-shaped device that plugs into your phone.
The idea is to send someone a kiss long distance.
Sensors transmit pressure, movement, and temperature data that's received by another pair of lips.
So your kiss is replicated on their lips!
Similar tech for remote kissing first surfaced less than a decade ago with a kiss- Sting.
Appalling.
Awful.
Not pleasant.
It reminds me of- Where can we get them?
Where do you buy those items?
No, it's reprehensible.
Where's the, uh, this thing?
Yeah.
Let's have a look at this, because if you were watching the show prior to our trip to America, you would have seen this terrifying orifice.
Let's have a look.
[Metal screeching]
[Metal screeching]
[Metal screeching]
[Metal screeching]
[Metal screeching]
[Metal screeching]
[Metal screeching]
[Metal screeching]
I think that, that, that's reality now.
Yeah.
When I see that, I think it's sort of like, for me, it's like a unifying symbol of all of the problems in the world.
Rampant technology, dehumanisation, over-sexualisation, nihilism, a sort of uncanny loss of our connection to the sublime, all contained in that thing.
They'll put that on the phone at some point.
I've already got the top bit of it.
Go back and watch the last time we did this because the tune was better.
The last time we did it, it had an amazing noise.
We should do it for next time because I'll be doing this all the time.
We'll find that again for next time.
And let's have a look at Donald Trump telling us how he's going to save the world.
What do you do to stop the war in Ukraine?
So I would literally start calling, not from the day I took over, but from the night I won.
And I'd call two people.
You know who the two people are?
Putin, right?
You know who Putin is?
And Zelensky.
And I'd say, we're gonna meet.
We're gonna meet.
And I guarantee I could work that out.
I guarantee.
I know exactly what I'd say, by the way.
I know exactly.
I'd tell one guy this, and I'd tell one guy that, and I'd say, you better make a deal.
We would have a deal made in 24 hours.
Maybe Trump's narcissism is our route to global peace because it is a powerful force.
That level of self-belief is sort of astonishing, isn't it?
I tell one guy this, one guy that.
Yeah, I've got less faith, if I'm totally honest.
I wonder what would happen.
It's almost worth making him president again to see how he handles it.
It's worth a try, isn't it?
We're not talking about world peace, after all.
I mean, given everything we've said about systemic corruption and the inherent inability of the system to deliver to ordinary people, we cannot actively endorse Trump for president.
Sure, but why, what about... Send him there now!
You know when you do like a guest week or something, Maybe in one of Biden's holidays or when he's caught between not being able to say something.
Just send Trump in for a week.
There must be a role for Donald Trump in this world and I think his role is that.
I'd like to see what happens.
If Donald Trump is truly a man of faith then he will, I believe, agree to negotiate world peace just for the sake of it.
And he needs literally a day.
He said he only needs a day.
Tomorrow it could all be solved.
Incredible.
Oh, wouldn't that be lovely to know more war, freedom, peace for everyone.
Fantastic stuff.
All right.
Well, listen, this is our first show back.
We've been on a giddy wild ride, haven't we together?
We certainly have, yeah.
I'm still jet-lagged.
I don't know about you.
We're jet-lagged out of our mind.
We don't know what time it is.
We don't know where we are.
I hope this was a good show because we wouldn't know, would we?
Not a clue.
We're delirious.
I've got my nude feet on some sort of grounding electromat, which I think... Is that what you call it?
It's a grounding electromat.
It's a vibrating orifice made of nothing but purest silicone that's responding to the lips of a Japanese boy far away in another land, kissing me to groundedness.
Remember, join us on our community.
You can get my stand up special there right now.
I'd love to know what you think of it.
Let me know.
Here on locals or elsewhere on social media.
I'd really love to get your feedback on that.
Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
