Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 14, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:09:49

Banking Meltdown – 2008 Crisis All Over Again? - #090 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, you can see the difference.
	you you
	Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
	Thanks for joining us on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	Wherever you're watching this now, the whole show is available exclusively on Rumble.
	For the first 30 minutes, we will be broadcasting anywhere that will have us, but after that, we've got some fantastic stuff for you that simply cannot be said out loud on heavily regulated platforms.
	Some things need a lot of regulation.
	For example, the banking system might benefit from some regulation, but broadcasting Why?
	The only regulation required is your own principles and your own morality.
	Where do you stand on the subject of free speech?
	If you stand alongside us, believing that free speech will lead to open conversation, deeper communication, new connections, and ultimately, revolution, then you can join us on Rumble, and even join our Locals community, where you get access to a whole bunch of stuff, including my stand-up special, Brandemic, available now.
	Super funny, you can buy it for a one-off price of $20, or you can become a An annual member and get all sorts of content for us.
	Unless, of course, you're worried that we're about to have a global financial collapse.
	Is the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank the inaugure, the impreture of 2008 Part 2?
	Because you remember how they dealt with...
	Can't happen again, can it?
	Surely they learned their lesson.
	Surely you couldn't get the very same people that were involved in clearing up that mess as the very people that created it.
	Surely you wouldn't get people to introduce regulation, then reverse that regulation.
	That would be absolutely crazy.
	We'll be talking to Ryan Grimm.
	From the intercept about the banking collapse and where it's likely to lead us all.
	Then, once we're exclusively on Rumble, we'll be talking about all sorts of crazy stuff from Pfizer and January 6, all sorts of things that you're going to absolutely love.
	I'll be talking about my appearances on Fox News, meeting Tucker Carlson, all of that stuff in our presentation.
	Here's the news now, here's the effing news.
	For a while, shall we just revel in the simplicity of the wonderful world of entertainment?
	It was the Oscars.
	Do you care about the Oscars anymore?
	Do you care?
	Did you ever care?
	I think there will always be a bit of me that cares.
	A little bit.
	It's nice, isn't it?
	Do you think me not caring about the Oscars is spite and malice?
	Because I never got one, or the only time I was near one was when I was giving it to another person.
	Did you want to give it to them?
	I wanted to keep that but I thought I can't in good faith keep this Oscar for best short film as I haven't made any short films at all.
	Lots of short films.
	Well actually don't you think that those films we make every day where we do our level best to expose hypocrisy and corruption and bring people together in spite of cultural differences are worthy of an Oscar?
	Well the Academy do not think And that's why I'll be boycotting the Oscars, not that they've noticed.
	Hugh Grant though, fellow Englishman and wryly intelligent Brit, was at the Oscars and of course he's... You can see that what's happened to Hugh Grant is he's stopped caring about things like this.
	He has become weary, hasn't he?
	Yeah, he's sort of, I'd say it's like Neo.
	He's sort of woken up and he finds himself still at the Oscars, obligated, I imagine, to attend due to his commitments to certain projects that he's attached to and starring in.
	But while there he's thinking, oh, don't make me do this.
	And that's really plain when you see him talking to this attractive journalist.
	Have a look.
	What are you most excited to see tonight?
	To see?
	Yeah, well, I know that you probably watched a few of The spirit of the chat, has he?
	Sorry, he's become a curmudgeon, hasn't he?
	He doesn't even accept the premise.
	The movies, are you excited to see anybody win?
	Do you have your hopes up for anyone?
	Are they up, the old hopes?
	Down or normal?
	You can just see that Hugh Grant is not connected to this scenario at all.
	Not, no one in particular.
	I don't care.
	I don't care about the Oscars.
	I've woken up in the bubble.
	What are you wearing tonight then?
	Just my suit.
	Your suit?
	Who made your suit?
	You didn't make it.
	I can't remember.
	My tailor.
	That's okay.
	Shout out to the tailor.
	So tell me, what does it feel like to be in Glass Onion?
	It was such an amazing time.
	What does it feel like?
	Because what could you possibly say in response to the question?
	What does it feel like?
	While you're being in Glass Onion, it feels like, wow man, I'm in Glass Onion.
	I'm enjoying myself.
	It's amazing because she's gone from, how do you feel about what you're about to see?
	And he's not giving her anything.
	And then she's gone straight to, what are you wearing?
	Which is obviously a standard question at these award ceremonies.
	It's kind of amazing that that's the second or often first question at most award ceremonies.
	What are you wearing?
	Do some promotion please!
	It's because it's pageantry I suppose.
	People talk about nihilism and materialism and the meaninglessness of our contemporary culture predicated as it is on consumerism and commodification but we still intuitively reach for meaning and purpose and some There's a sort of set of signals that indicate to us that life is not just an empty, occasionally stirred morass of nothingness.
	And the Oscars, like, they were setting up for Oscars when we were recently in Los Angeles.
	That's right.
	They shut down all of Hollywood Boulevard.
	There's scaffold being erected.
	There are billboards slung up.
	And, of course, we're all aware of this, aren't we?
	We're telling you nothing new.
	There's a financial crisis apparently being precipitated.
	There's a geopolitical disaster already happening for the people of Ukraine, Elsewhere, a slow creep towards war with China.
	The conditions of the pandemic being lived out, explored.
	Is it leading to more centralisation of authority?
	Are we being communicated to correctly and openly around that and a whole host of subjects?
	Are we being bludgeoned with lies?
	And obviously, Hugh Grant, who I know a little bit, not very well, but he's a very intelligent person who's having to answer questions about his clothes.
	And not to discredit the other person, she's just doing what her job is.
	Isn't it like, don't you think, tell me in the comments in the chat if you feel the same whether you're watching this on YouTube or if you're watching this with us now on Rumbles or our membership platform Locals.
	Do you find it harder and harder to participate?
	Like, when I see stuff like this I'm like, oh god is this still going on?
	Is this still happening?
	And of course there was a time where I craved it, like I really wanted to be involved in that.
	I remember standing backstage, there I am, look, without a beard.
	Of course one of our mates says that when I don't have a beard I look like when Darth Vader takes his helmet off.
	Like, standing there backstage and seeing all their moscas lined up together.
	It's weird to see a coveted item abundant.
	That's the idea that motivates Andy Warhol, isn't it?
	If you endlessly repeat Marilyn Monroe or Elvis, you recognise everything has become commodity.
	Or if you reify a can of soup, you sort of say, oh, everything could be celebrated as a work of art.
	And for me now, I don't know about you guys, I start to feel like, is this still happening?
	I mean, I do care about football though, so I am still engaged in cultural ephemera.
	And I know Brilliant films are still made and beautiful artifacts emerge continually from the culture.
	But I do feel that Terence McKenna's edict, the culture is not your friend, holds true.
	That primarily these festivals, these ceremonies serve as a kind of way of regalvanizing your interest in stuff that you sort of shouldn't really care about.
	Yeah, because it always does come back to the same thing.
	What are you wearing?
	Like it's a kind of reset of Dumbness.
	As you are aware, we are all dying.
	What are you wearing while you are dying right now?
	At the end of it, Hugh Grant, like, so if you could see he's sort of got this almost ennui and despair.
	If you want to click over and watch us on Rumble right now you really ought because the second half of this we're talking about January 6th and the media's misrepresentation of it and the sort of Tucker Carlson controversy And how January 6th is being used.
	We'll also be talking about some of Pfizer's new post-pandemic deals and what the conditions and potential mendacity around those things are.
	Of course, on YouTube, we are curtailed by guidelines, which I'm sure they put in place for the best of reasons.
	But over on Rumble, we are free to speak as we would, as our consciences would have us.
	Let's see how Hugh Grant wraps up this debacle.
	I really loved it.
	I love a thriller.
	How fun is it to shoot something like that?
	Well, I'm barely in it.
	I'm in it for about three seconds.
	Yeah, but still you showed up and you had fun, right?
	Uh, almost.
	Okay.
	Oh God, I mean, like he has, he's actually unable to participate in this.
	I would say if I was working with or for Hugh Grant, I'd say, Hugh, you're not going to the Oscars no more.
	You don't like it.
	You shouldn't be forced to go.
	I don't even think you like being in Glass Onion very much.
	You're actually not doing us any favours here.
	Although he is really good in films these days.
	He's really good in that one with Wishaw.
	He's really good in Paddington.
	I think he's a brilliant actor but he doesn't like the Oscars.
	That's how I used to feel at those Oscars.
	And things like that only went once.
	That's how I used to feel about those things, sort of bewildered and overwhelmed.
	And like, this isn't... Is this right?
	Is this life?
	Is this what's happening?
	Remember, even when it was things like the British Comedy Awards, you'd say, you don't know how to organise your face when you're sat on a table waiting for a... And the nominees for Best New Comedian, Russell Brand, some other people.
	I won it.
	Some other people.
	I don't know what to do with my face, like, during it.
	I've never been comfortable with that stuff, but let's just see that despair on Hugh Grant's face before clicking over into a financial crisis that might be a repeat of 2008 in which, of course, quantitative easing was introduced to bail out the big banks, even though Biden's saying taxpayer money won't be used.
	Is that true?
	Ultimately, let's see.
	But first, let's look at Hugh Grant experiencing despair at the Oscars.
	OK.
	Well, thank you so much.
	It was nice to talk to you.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Back to you, guys.
	That bit at the end is my favourite bit.
	Yeah.
	OK.
	I hope he's all right.
	I mean, he is OK, isn't he?
	He's having a career renaissance.
	Oh, yeah.
	He's brilliant in film, so that's good news in some regard, I suppose.
	Now, let's have a look at the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank.
	The Silicon Valley Bank has collapsed.
	There's a number of reasons for this, like there's been a 4.5% increase in interest rates, so bonds that they bought are now less valuable and stuff like that.
	You know, Gareth and I, you may not know this, we're not financial experts, but sadly, neither are the people that are organising these bailouts.
	They're usually lobbyists.
	This story shows you everything you need to know about the symbiosis between Wall Street and Washington.
	It tells you a lot about the lobbying industry.
	It tells you a lot about the lack of lessons learned from 2008.
	It tells you a lot about how convergent interests around both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party ultimately align when it comes to the big issues like finances.
	And it shows you how the media will always lean into partisanship.
	Do you think I've done the story justice there, mate?
	You're right.
	I mean, the kind of reporting of it, whether you look at the right or the left, you know, from the right, it's focusing on like woke issues, which I don't think has anything to do with deregulation of the banking industry.
	From the left, it's all about blaming Trump when actually what we know is the kind of deregulation of the regulations that were meant to be put up in 2008 to protect ordinary Americans were then, you know, watered down in 2018.
	Only for medium-sized banks.
	Correct.
	Medium-sized banks was never the problem.
	Stadium banks, they were called.
	They were alright.
	It's those two big banks.
	The two big to fail banks that did fail, they were bad.
	But medium-sized banks that you make stadiums with, they need to be deregulated.
	And as a result of lobbying, they were.
	And now, look what's happening.
	Shall we have a look at the mainstream media reports on this story?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	We'll see how, you know, biased they are.
	Ultimately, what we always talk about is how reductive the mainstream media are.
	And this is exactly what they do here.
	It's the Republicans' fault because, of course, it's, I think, MSNBC's.
	We've met a man who I believe is called Chris Hayes.
	I get that impression.
	I don't know why.
	I mean, I'm an investigative journalist.
	See if you pick up on it.
	Five years ago, when Republicans were last in control of the House of Representatives, they used the opportunity to roll back banking regulations put into place after the 2008 financial crisis.
	So it's Donald Trump's fault.
	There he is, being jostled by sort of, I don't know, Congress folk, lobbyists, bankers, whoever the hell those people are.
	But let's have a look at the banking crisis timeline.
	Let's see how this unfolded.
	Check it out.
	Let's have a look at that on the screen now.
	Thank you.
	Now, in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was brought in, but I need that full screen to read it, please, if you don't mind.
	The Dodd-Frank Act brought in by the Congressmen Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd was designed to tighten banking regulations to prevent another 2008 crash.
	It was supposed to prevent risky investments.
	Note the names Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
	Try and remember them just for a few seconds.
	In 2015, Greg Becker, Silicon Valley Bank's president, submitted a statement to a Senate panel pushing legislators to exempt more banks Including his own from new regulations.
	I'm here mostly on behalf of banks in general, but also the bank that I work at passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
	A couple of months later, SVB added the former Obama Treasury Department official Mary Miller to its board.
	Noting she had previously helped oversee financial regulatory reforms.
	So that whole revolving door idea that many of us think is significant when it comes to politics and finance is exemplified here in this story.
	In 2015, Democrat Congressman Barney Frank.
	Oh, I remember Barney Frank!
	What, from the Dodd-Frank Act a second ago?
	That's him, that's him.
	Oh, he's cropped up again!
	Well, he knows the most about regulation, Russ.
	Oddly, he was pushed to ease banking regulations after joining the Signature Bank board.
	I mean, it's another one of those stories that shows you that how you intuitively think these things work is exactly how these things work.
	Over at Signature Bank or SVB or whatever bank they go, I know how to get past some of these regulations.
	Why don't we get hold of one of the Congress people that drafted the bill and get them to lobby on our behalf and say, you know, I know I drew up this regulation, but I was in a... I was much too regulatory that day.
	I was really regulate... I was regulating everything.
	I wouldn't let the dog out of the house.
	I told my wife, put a longer skirt on.
	I regulated the hell out of my kids.
	And do you know what?
	I thought, I wish I could turn back the clock.
	Thankfully, I can.
	Let's deregulate stadium banks or medium-sized banks.
	These kind of banks that are failing right now.
	That's old Barney Frank for you.
	Barney Frank, apparently available for a million dollars.
	That's an allegation.
	I can't prove that.
	No, you can prove that.
	Oh, I can prove that, yeah.
	He was paid a million dollars.
	He got paid a million dollars.
	Strike that from the record.
	In 2018, the Trump administration, remember, bipartisan, everyone's involved, began to repeal the act.
	Regulations for smaller banks were removed and lower capital for loans were required.
	So you just saw the mainstream news saying, oh, it's Trump.
	We saw him.
	Just like Trump to be John.
	Yes, 50 Republicans and 17 Democrats.
	Then in 2021, the Biden administration came in, the regulations Trump had changed remained
	the same.
	We beat Pharma this year, all of the excitement, all of the Sturm und Drang.
	Yeah, 50 Republicans and 17 Democrats.
	So you know, it was a bipartisan effort to deregulate what we were told was put in place
	to protect ordinary Americans.
	And now, not Obama, but Biden himself is saying that taxpayers won't be footing the bill.
	But a lot of financial experts are saying that that's not strictly true.
	That's strictly true, that tangentially they ultimately will be the final point on our
	little financial timeline.
	And why don't you take a screenshot of this and you can do your own TV show to your pals.
	Joe Biden has reassured Americans that, oh yeah, Gal just did that bit.
	So let's check it out.
	Let's have a look at Joe Biden now, looking all presidential and stuff.
	Oh yeah, look, here's a bunch of people that voted for both Trump and Obama.
	We know about all that kind of stuff, don't we?
	So ultimately, it's the same sort of system, same sort of results.
	And man, you know, even if you're a person that dislikes right-wing politics for your own reasons, or you dislike left-wing politics for your own reasons, you have to acknowledge That there's a symbiosis and a kind of flow between these administrations that Obama's actions in 2008 contributed to the election of Trump because of the alliance for the same financial interests that ultimately benefit whoever is in government.
	Here's Biden trying to make it clear that we will not see 2008 part two and that taxpayers won't foot the bill but some experts even as this story breaks are saying that's Simply not true.
	And we'll tell you a little more about that after we watch the man himself.
	Let's go.
	I want to briefly speak about what's happening in Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.
	Today, thanks to the quick action of my administration over the past few days.
	It's been so quick.
	Lightning!
	Whoosh!
	There it goes.
	Yeah.
	Making quick actions.
	Let's see what these quick actions are.
	Americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe.
	Your deposits will be there when you need them.
	No losses, and this is an important point, no losses will be borne by the taxpayers.
	Let me repeat that.
	No losses will be borne by the taxpayers.
	Now, what I take that to mean, and let me know in the chat in the comments if you think this means I've become cynical and jaded.
	What I reckon that means is they now recognise that people don't like bailing out big banks after 2008, so you have to explicitly say we won't be doing that.
	But he uses the language, the nomenclature, taxpayer.
	So you won't be, via an over-observable tax, be foot in the bill.
	But Gail, do you want to read what them experts are saying?
	Because it seems like there are tangential, indirect ways through banking fees that will likely end up with ordinary Americans that mean that you will ultimately foot the bill, simply because the bill's too big to be paid for by this fund that they're saying is going to pay it.
	Yeah, so finance officials have said that covering depositor losses from the bank failures will be met in part by the deposit insurance fund held by the FDIC, the government corporation that supplies deposit insurance to depositors in U.S.
	commercial banks and savings banks.
	Susan Streeter, though, who is head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdowne, said the wider banking system will bear the brunt of the bailout of banking customers.
	Yeah, because you know, I've noticed that there's not a tendency to pass on costs.
	the deposit insurance fund. If that happens it will get harder to argue that the non-bailout bailout
	will not ultimately fall on US taxpayers. Yeah because you know I've noticed that there's not
	a tendency to pass on costs. Like for example during this energy crisis you'll have noticed
	that your energy bills stayed consistently low throughout it and energy companies profits
	they didn't increase either. Oh no what actually happened was is their profits radically increased
	and your bills went up so that's extraordinary. Let's have a look at what...
	What happened?
	This is a weird thing.
	They've been printing money.
	Some of this is about inflation, the recent increase in inflation.
	And I'll be honest with you, I don't know much about finance and stuff.
	I'm just trying to learn along with you.
	And in a minute, we've got a guest on the show, Ryan Grimm, who's going to teach us a whole lot more about this subversive, sly banker bailout on the lowdown.
	But have a look at this graph.
	Look at this.
	In 2020, look at that sharp increase of the number of US dollars in circulation.
	And if you want to amuse yourself for a moment, you'll note that it's like a phallus suddenly emerging.
	Like, if that was in a physical landscape, that, if you were like, you know, you're walking along, it's 1970, 80, 90, it's increasing a bit there, 2000, even 2010 and around the sharp increases of cash in circulation around the financial crisis.
	Nothing compared to this 2020 sharp incline like that.
	Don't you feel that that's going to have some fundamental economic repercussions?
	I mean, I'm not an economist, but I know that when you see something like that on a graph, it's not good news, is it?
	No, I also worry, you know, there was obviously a lot of talk about how in the Obama years, Wall Street really went for Obama.
	You know, they put a lot of money into Obama's campaign.
	They liked him.
	The same has happened with Biden.
	They like him.
	It was with the Republicans between those two.
	But I just think any, you know, any government that's in power who's taking so much money from the financial industry and Wall Street, are they ultimately going to punish the banks in the way that Biden's talking about?
	Let me know in the chat and the comments.
	If your funding comes from the banks, how likely are you to punish the banks?
	Do you think there's a relationship between the way that the Democrat Party is funded and the way that the Democrat Party governs?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Let me know in the comments.
	We'll read those out in a minute.
	If you're watching this on YouTube, Join us on Rumble as soon as you can.
	We're going to give you a great conversation right now.
	I hope it's great.
	I mean, I'm going to do my level best with someone from The Intercept.
	And remember, the back half of this show, where we're talking about January the 6th and some of the peculiarities around this reporting and the way it's being utilized to introduce legislation and different types of regulation, will be discussed in the back half of this show tonight, as well as us looking at Pfizer's brilliant new, not at all heartbreaking, potentially evil scheme to keep those profits up now that the pandemic... Is it OK to say that the pandemic Careful.
	Steady, baby!
	Steady!
	Now, an actual journalist from the reputable organisation The Intercept, writer of Bad News on Substack and host of CounterPoints.
	Or is that on Breaking Point?
	It certainly is.
	I love this guy.
	This is Ryan Grimm.
	Welcome to the show, Ryan.
	Hello, thanks for coming, mate.
	Yeah, thanks for having me here.
	Why don't you get yourself some earpods, mate?
	Them type of headphones, people don't wear them no more.
	What are you, from the old days?
	I can't lose these because they're just stuck right in here.
	They're always going to be here.
	Ryan, it's not my business to ensure that you keep up with the mindless consumerism that drives us through life.
	Now, Ryan, can you please tell me what's going on in this banker crisis?
	Was you listening to me and Gareth for just then?
	Do you think we did a good job of it?
	And what are you going to add to it, please?
	Yeah, that sounded pretty good.
	I think what I would add to it is the stick side of it.
	Like, what does the government need to do to these bankers in order to... because they talk about this moral hazard.
	And so they say, well, if you bail people out, then they're just going to be reckless and, you know, they're going to keep doing this just the way, you know, they did it in 2008, they did in the 1930s.
	If there's no penalties, then what's going on?
	But the question is, are we really going to make the depositors suffer the penalties?
	I might be fine with that if you're depositors who have millions of dollars and you're in a risky bank like Silicon Valley Bank.
	But just realistically, from a political perspective, we're always going to make depositors whole.
	So if we're going to make depositors whole, then thinking through this, how do we, you know, monkey
	around with this moral hazard? And to me, it would be, not only do you wipe out all the shareholders
	of Silicon Valley Bank, not only do all the executives get fired, you also do something like
	bankrupt the executives. So if you say, look, if you run a bank into the ground to the point where it's
	going to cost taxpayers, and ultimately it's going to be taxpayers. Taxpayers, you know, millions
	of dollars.
	We're going to you first before we hit up the rest of society.
	Then I think you would have executives who all of a sudden are a lot more cautious About the bets that they're making in the way that they're running the bank.
	The other thing I would, and we could talk about this too, is this wild text chain among all of these tech founders and funders.
	Did you see this?
	This guy talked about there were 200 founders who were in this text chain, who on Thursday started saying, hey, maybe we should all take our money out of Silicon Valley Bank.
	And if you really were scared that the bank was going to collapse, What you would do is you would go to the bank and you would take your money out.
	You wouldn't text 200 of your richest friends and suggest, hey, maybe we should all take our money all at the same time out of this bank.
	That makes absolutely no sense if your goal is self-preservation of your own wealth.
	If you think the bank's going to collapse, You call the bank, say, here's my wire instructions, get my money out of that bank.
	What they did is they created a bank run with that text chain.
	And then you have to ask, why did they do that?
	Please, speculatively, and I know it's purely speculation, Ryan, why would you do that?
	Is it because you know that if the bank collapses, you're going to be bailed out and ultimately it's going to be more beneficial than taking the money out in the first place?
	Yeah, so one of the theories that's going around is that this entire tech economy requires low interest rates and massive amounts of quantitative easing.
	That chart that you showed, that money flows into asset prices, houses, that's why housing prices are going crazy, rents are going crazy, but really what it funnels is into big tech.
	Without the quantitative easing the last decade, you don't have this big tech explosion over the last decade.
	Now that they're starting to turn that spigot down, you're seeing all of these tech companies lay everybody off.
	You're seeing everything collapse.
	So the speculation is, what could these tech bros do that would get the Fed's attention?
	That would say, look, if you keep jacking up interest rates, you're going to blow the economy up.
	You're going to cause real problems here.
	And what could they do?
	Well, they could blow up a tiny little bank.
	I love this thing.
	It's my new thing.
	It's so that I don't have to sort of step over, you know, it can be embarrassing on Zoom calls.
	So like one of the phrases we've picked up in this space, Ryan, is it's not a bug, it's a feature.
	That things that sometimes appear like aberrations or anomalies or flaws are actually design features of the system.
	This is obviously speculative, but it appears that the military-industrial complex requires ongoing military conflict in order to underwrite its model.
	And what you've just articulately explained to us and to our community is that the big tech model requires quantitative easing and and in order that this is like a sort of warning shot you're saying this is a sort of a dialogue being played potentially I know you're you know you're not Nostradamus or whatever or some sort of soothsayer but but potentially this is part of a kind of dialogue taking place between the state treasury
	And the banking system that's letting them know that there are ways of precipitating financial disaster unless there's compliance and favourable legislation and regulation.
	Yeah, nice little economy you've got going here.
	Shame if there was a bank run and a bunch of contagion that just wiped it out.
	So yeah, so now the New York Times is reporting just now that the FBI, Department of Justice are going to look into the causes of this meltdown.
	And the 2018 rollback, the executives who cashed out a bunch of bonuses, that's all going to get looked at.
	You know, to me, they ought to actually look at that text chain.
	You got 200 people, you got 200 phone numbers, call those folks in.
	Maybe it was completely innocent.
	Ask them, you know, why did you tell your closest 200 friends to take their money out of here?
	Why didn't you just take your own money out?
	At the same time, Peter Thiel's, what's it called, his founder's firm, they did a call on that day where they called money in, like on that very day.
	That required then a bunch of their partners or urged a bunch of their partners to pull money out as well.
	You say, why did you do this?
	Just total coincidence?
	What did this have anything to do with this?
	I think these are reasonable questions that investigators ought to be asking because the other explanations just don't make a lot of sense.
	It's extraordinary that you say that.
	So it's unlikely that the investigation will look into these aspects of the case.
	What about Biden's public claim, overt, obvious and plain, that the consequences of a failed capitalist venture are bankruptcy?
	Like you said, the bankers involved are unlikely to face bankruptcy.
	You said that should be the first step and that the consequences of those actions should be felt.
	Is this something where the right people will pay the price?
	Or will this ultimately, as them experts in the Guardian said, ultimately end up being the bill being footed by taxpayers, if not directly through taxation, but likely through bank fees and stuff, simply because there isn't enough money in that fund that they keep banging on about to cover a loss of this scale?
	If it goes the way it went in 2008, then the bankers will just be fine and they'll move on to other banks and nothing will get clawed back.
	If you remember, AIG was paying out massive bonuses just months after their collapse that precipitated a global financial crisis.
	And now the politics have changed.
	You're seeing a lot more anger about this.
	And you're going to see, I think because of alternative media, you'll see the mainstream media also being unable to kind of move away from it as quickly as they might otherwise want to.
	So we are in a slightly different place 15 years later than we were then.
	And I think no politician wants to be on the side of bailouts.
	And that's why you're seeing Biden, you know, do all of these semantics and gymnastics to try to say that actually, well, of course, this isn't a bailout.
	Fascinating.
	If both parties are pro-deregulation, and that is ultimately the way that it went when there was the opportunity to maintain regulation or decrease it, as has happened, and you see reductive reporting from both sides, i.e.
	MSNBC, this is all about Trump, without saying, but we could say that the quantity of E's in the decisions made by Obama in 2008, when you have this kind of in systemic environment. How, how, Ryan, will there ever be
	disruption of these systems?
	If you have a systemic problem of this nature, how can you alter it without significantly
	altering the system, please?
	I don't, I don't know that you can, because you also saw this with the, the train derailment
	The media ignored it for a very long time until they could find something that they could pin on Trump.
	They're like, oh, wait, Trump did some deregulatory stuff when he was in office around railroads.
	Then we had a train disaster.
	Boom, OK, now we can cover this story.
	Then you've got other reporters saying, well, wait, the Obama administration also did this stuff.
	The Biden administration is currently in office, but it feels like without that hook, you know, that the media doesn't know how to get into it.
	And so now they've discovered this 2018 deregulatory action, which Trump took, which Trump should be criticized for.
	But the media should note, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done.
	They could only do it because they had the willing participation.
	Of plenty of Democrats.
	Now, it's also fair to say 50 Republicans is a lot more than 17 Democrats, but in the end, it doesn't matter to people that the law, because the law got passed.
	That's right, and it seems to continually lead us, Ryan, to the obvious conclusion that neither party can meaningfully intercede when it comes to improving the lives of ordinary people, introducing the type of regulation, legislation, movement, systems, ideas that would alter significantly the lives of most folk.
	that there's generally a consensus and a willingness within the media to keep the conversation
	framed in a particular way, within Congress or the Senate to keep the legislation framed
	in a particular way. So it does seem now, I mean I know we're sort of straying from
	the territory of your expertise, I mean I'm assuming that we are, but it does seem now
	that what's required is new political alliances and significant systemic change and neither
	party is offering that, right? Yeah and for a long time, to me the way that you could
	most effectively influence politics was by kind of playing inside the Democratic primary,
	inside the Democratic party in primaries, like the way that say Bernie Sanders challenged
	Hillary Clinton in 2016, ran again in 2020.
	and by that way influence the party.
	But I now think that that opportunity exists in both parties.
	And I think that, you know, regular people who consider themselves to be either independents or Republicans, but they are independents, but they vote in Republican primaries, you know, have an opportunity to influence the Republican Party too, and say, look, you voted for this.
	Roll back in 2018.
	I'm going to support a candidate that didn't do that.
	None of that is going to work, though, unless you get some type of reform to the way that campaigns are financed.
	To me, it's got to come from kind of matching funds from the government, because the way the Supreme Court is now, they're not going to let you kind of cap spending or cap the amount of giving.
	And so all you can do is kind of equalize things.
	There was a bill that said that there would be a way that you would get a six to one match.
	If you if you have 50 bucks that actually becomes 300 bucks and that you can give it then to a couple of your
	candidates of your choosing. So unless you can like match corporations
	you're never going to match them dollar for dollar. But if you can
	keep regular people in the game then I think they're going to win because they have the more popular position.
	Like a corporation needs 10 times the amount of money in order to get its unpopular position across the finish line.
	The problem now is that they have 20 times, 30 times, 40 times more.
	If you can get it down to 10 to 1, then at least it's a fair fight.
	OK, Ryan, that is somewhat promising, although I still prefer a revolution.
	Ryan, thanks for joining us.
	Ryan Grimm is a reporter for The Intercept, writer of Bad News on Substack, you can follow him there, and host of CounterPoints.
	Ryan, thanks so much for joining us, that was a fantastic conversation.
	Now, we're going to slink Offer YouTube right now for regulatory reasons.
	The irony.
	Some spaces need regulation.
	Some people need, some places need less regulation.
	Some places need trust, faith, that content creators are speaking honestly and openly.
	We're not trying to lobby government to be fair though.
	I am.
	I'm lobbying for radical change in every conceivable area.
	So if you're watching us now on YouTube, we're about to slip off exclusively onto Rumble because we're going to be talking about Pfizer's latest sly little move.
	And I mean, sly, I suppose, is Allegedly!
	He might not be sly, maybe it's just simple good business.
	We've got a fantastic story, then we're going to be moving on to January 6th, so if you're watching us anywhere else, join us exclusively on Rumble right now and I'll tell you how you can watch my stand-up special, Brandemic, which is a real ball-breaker, a glorious thing.
	I'll tell you more about that as well, so join us on Rumble now.
	Pfizer CEO Albert Baller, heard of that guy?
	He's not going to like your stand-up special.
	No he won't!
	There's a real one in the eye for Albert Baller in there.
	Now one of the things, this is some bad news, since the end of the pandemic, if indeed it's ended, things ain't been going quite as well for Pfizer because they were dead, by coincidence, By coincidence alone, they did really well.
	One of the inadvertent side effects of there being that terrible pandemic that ruined your life, ruined your kids' education, locked you up in your home was good.
	It's not all bad.
	Pfizer did very well.
	Sadly, now people aren't gripped by continual perpetual terror locked in their homes.
	It has had a negative impact on Pfizer stock prices.
	But the good news is this.
	Cancer.
	Cancer is the good news.
	Cancer is good news.
	People get cancer.
	Perhaps because they're stressed.
	Perhaps because they're eating bad food.
	Perhaps because they're living spellbound in a terrible illusion.
	Baller has spotted that and he's found a way.
	Perhaps because they don't do any exercise.
	Could that help?
	What contributed to that?
	Were you locked in your home lately, unable to do even the merest amount of exercise?
	The good news is, your cancer is Baller's dollar bills.
	So Pfizer CEO says it will be able to deliver Segan's cancer therapy at a scale not seen before, with a $43 billion deal.
	Of course they're going to sell that as old whoop-dee-doo.
	We're all going to get access to this new cancer drug.
	Pfizer CEO Albert Baller said that the pharmaceutical giant will be able to deliver Segan's cancer therapy to the world at a scale that's not been seen before.
	Well, you've had some practice.
	delivering medicines at scale.
	Also for a price that's not been seen before I would imagine.
	It's gonna be a little bit more pricey.
	And you'll be taking this cancer medication whether you want it or not.
	How about that? What about...
	Hey, what would be a good idea?
	Why wait till people have got cancer?
	Get everyone to take it.
	What if they don't want to take it?
	Make them take it!
	That's what I say!
	Look at you, you've been off YouTube for about a minute.
	Freedom, baby!
	This is the sweet sounds of freedom!
	Glory in here!
	Glory in the sweet sounds of freedom!
	Segan is a leading developer of a medicine called antibody drug conjugates, which are designed to directly kill cancer cells and spare healthy ones.
	Thanks.
	Baller called ADCs one of the greatest technologies to battle cancer and likened them to mRNA for vaccines.
	Okay.
	Well, luckily, there's no problems there.
	For example, myocarditis, pericarditis, people in their thirties dropping dead.
	Don't roll your eyes at me!
	You've been aired!
	You've been aired by the system!
	In other news, the Queen... Was she a lizard?
	Will we ever know for sure?
	Let's have a look at Albert Baller cropping up on the mainstream media on a puff piece, presenting like this financial news about how he's going to profit, trying to dress it up like we live to help people who've got cancer.
	They've probably really taken to task, I would imagine, though.
	Right, this is the mainstream media.
	I think they'll be saying, you know how with the vaccine that you profited a hundred billion last year, you know how you're talking about putting it up by 10,000% of what it costs?
	Well, people aren't being forced to take it, so we've got to raise the price.
	Would you do the same thing with this life-saving cancer drug?
	No!
	It was so unsuccessful for us, these near-mandated medicines, where like 34,000 nurses in New York lost their jobs.
	We've really learned a lesson.
	So this is just voluntary.
	We make drugs now for love.
	Love drugs.
	Let's have a look at the mainstream media coaxing Albert Baller to near-ejaculation over his profiteering from cancer.
	Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, joins us now.
	Albert, great to see you this morning.
	It's like as if she's meeting George Clooney, isn't it?
	Or like Matthew McConaughey.
	It's like, Albert, look at him!
	She's more enthusiastic than Hugh Grant at the Oscars.
	I'd like Hugh Grant to interview.
	Yeah.
	OK, Albert, so it seems I've got to ask you some questions.
	Where have you got all this money from, you bastard?
	Are you going to give people any of their money back, you swine?
	That's what you want.
	Hugh Grant on the bloody news.
	There's not this darling, grinning, innocent, lovely woman who's obviously an expression of the limitless light of the Lord trying to do her best in the dog-eat-dog world of CNBC.
	Uh-oh, I pressed the wrong button, guys!
	Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, joins us now.
	Albert, great to see you this morning.
	$43 billion, a huge price tag.
	Tell us why CGen is worth it for Pfizer.
	It's funny, isn't it?
	Because it's prioritising the money, but this is cancer.
	Like, who in the world don't know someone that's got cancer or is already dead because of cancer?
	It's not like a jolly subject.
	This is where I think, like our chat with Ryan there, when you recognise, oh no, the
	system is really rigged in order to cause all sorts of problems, you can sort of see
	it even if you don't understand it.
	Same with the pharmaceutical industry, I don't think anyone begrudges people making a profit
	out of entrepreneurship and ingenuity, even though there's certainly an argument that
	there might be a better way of organising society in reality, of course there are, but
	even if we just say let's have a slightly more reasonable reform system, the idea that
	people are grinning from ear to ear about cancer...
	This is corporatist propaganda.
	This is when we talk about the mainstream media, when we get criticised for going on Fox or going on and having discussions about how both sides are as bad as each other, when the mainstream or from the left criticise about that and then they get on Albert Baller to basically give him some propaganda, give him a puff piece.
	They've done it all the way through the pandemic, now they're going to do it about Him making probably massive profits off people having cancer.
	It's quite incredible.
	They do the same things with the military industrial complex.
	And yet, apparently we're the conspiracy theorists.
	The conspiracy theory is this.
	Let us plainly state it.
	That the media operate in conjunction with corporate interests to present an agenda that's favourable to their profits and dominion in a light that is appealing to ordinary people.
	So that we don't rise up in angry unison against their agenda of corruption and division.
	That's the conspiracy theory.
	Let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments if it makes sense to you.
	But meanwhile, let's see the mainstream media massaging Albert Baller into a few more billions from your cancer.
	Okay, Meg, very nice to see you.
	But cancer... Don't flirt!
	Don't flirt about cancer money!
	...is one of the biggest therapeutic areas, and... You mean the Pope?
	That's when I met the Pope!
	Would you like another jab?
	How about another boost?
	How about another boost?
	I'm okay, I've been praying!
	You'll pray for this one, baby!
	Right now, one in three people in the world are going to have cancer in their lifetime.
	We're hoping to make it one in two!
	Your cancer is our money!
	If we keep you anxious and distressed the whole time, look at the line getting higher and higher!
	Look at the numbers, they're green now!
	You see that, isn't it, Gal?
	It's like Pfizer's profits, oh look, they're going down almost at the exact same time that it was near mandated that you have to take their products.
	And then who's this little guy, Segan?
	They seem to be on the climb.
	Why don't we piggyback to a new dimension on their profits?
	With the banking crisis we're told all of this financial industry is really complicated and we won't understand it and that's why quantitative easing we had to do it and that's why you had to foot the bill for all of it but actually you look at that graph and it's pretty simple Pfizer's profits are going right down because people don't want to take the vaccine anymore so we need to get this cancer drug which their profits are going right up And what about the argument that you continually made, and I know that David Sirota at The Lever made, that Pfizer are presented as this sort of bunch of geniuses, people getting tattoos and buying jackets with Pfizer on it, but all they'd done was bought up BioNTech, developed the vaccine, using taxpayer money in Germany, and now they're buying up this cancer drug, not with the goal of helping people with cancer get better, but with the goal of increasing profit.
	Well, the point is, Hopefully it will.
	Hopefully it will help people with cancer and that's a great thing if it helps people with cancer but if the byproduct of that is that they're charging exorbitant rates for this cancer treatment and people can't afford to get it or are basically for the rest of their lives tied to a drug that they can't afford.
	And they're monopolizing and managing profits and prices through their practices.
	I would go so far as to say, and let me know if you agree with this in the chat and the comments, particularly if you're on Locals, if you're a member of Locals, I see your comments first, that you getting better from cancer is an inadvertent side effect of their business practice, not the focus of their business practice.
	Look at the opioid crisis.
	They will make decisions that lead Directly to your death, if there's a profit in it.
	That's just based on the opioid crisis, that comment, and even for me on Rumble, where I'm free.
	By coincidence, a couple of years ago, dear old Jill Biden cropped up on your TV set saying that cancer was... Look at that, and they're even using the words there, cancer moonshot.
	Which is a phrase they introduced during the pandemic to say, somehow, maybe, maybe if all the stars align, we'll make a hundred billion dollars from you being locked in your home with a disease with a very low fatality rate that Matt Hancock's text reveal That even Chris Whitty, who was the scientific advisor and leader in our country, he's our version of Fauci.
	Even that dude was saying, oh, I'm not sure you need to vaccinate a population for something with such a low mortality rate.
	So the moonshot they're talking about is the moonshot of taking public money and putting it into private hands.
	And if you, when you run out of pandemic, you better jump aboard that cancer train, baby, because cancer ain't going anywhere as long as you live in a culture that essentially causes you cancer.
	Let's have a look at Jill Biden's new initiative to massage cancer policies into the public consciousness.
	Check it.
	Budget that Joe released.
	He is investing in cancer research and prevention.
	So nice. And there's someone in a white coat, there's a woman of colour, being all friendly and stuff.
	And I don't know, man, aren't you tired of this?
	Don't you want to be told the truth?
	Aren't you ready for the truth?
	Aren't you ready for nuanced reporting?
	Aren't you ready to participate in a truly democratic conversation?
	Aren't you ready for politicians that represent your interests and stand up to corporate interests?
	Are you ready? Are you?
	Because, baby, I'm ready.
	If you want to be part of our growing community, join us right now on Locals.
	Do not delay. For the small annual fee, you'll get all of our content, additional ad free content, as well as my
	stand up special Brandemic, which you will enjoy as I skewer some of these corporate
	interests.
	Time now, though, for a little look at the type of alliances that we are trying to cultivate.
	While we were in your country, America, we met people from, as Gareth said, right, apparently so-called right wing news
	organisations.
	Now, the idea of me going on Fox a little while ago, and I asked you guys if you thought I should go on Fox, it would
	have been unimaginable, inconceivable.
	And yet I went on Fox. I've got to say, Greg Gutfield, bloody lovely.
	Tucker Carlson, I can't see Tucker Carlson's face now without feeling my heart swell with love.
	You know, people say, like, oh, Tucker Carlson, like he's a white supremacist, and obviously white supremacy is wrong.
	I don't feel like Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist.
	People right now are saying he's reporting on January 6th.
	He's irresponsible.
	I feel that people should be able to deal with the facts for themselves.
	It's possible to go, no, I don't agree with that.
	You've edited that footage to make it look not as bad.
	What about that when they're smashing up them windows?
	You're an adult, right?
	You can have that conversation.
	You can decide for yourself whether or not January 6th is being used to amplify regulatory measures.
	Can you decide that for yourself?
	Or would you like some corrupt person to come on your TV set and blag you?
	I don't know.
	It's up to you.
	Let us know in the chat.
	When we went on Tucker, What I was able to do, and one of the things that I was most pleased with, is like, because I've chatted to my mates, they're conventional dems, you know, like Shepard Fairey and that.
	Yeah.
	Also, it's kind of possible, like, Tucker can have, he's allowed to have views that are different from yours as well.
	I think that is the point.
	It's allowed!
	That's called democracy, isn't it?
	I mean, one of the things that we kept pushing when we were on these conversations with, like, Ben Shapiro, who I actually think he's a good guy.
	Like, he's got a different perspective than me, but I think he's acting in good faith.
	This is what I believe, and I think this might be the secret.
	This might be the main thing we can offer together.
	Let me know in the chat and the comments if you agree.
	I said to Ben, would you stand on a platform with people from Black Lives Matter, with people like trans rights activists, the people that on your show you continually are in adversity with, Would you stand on a platform with them to confront centralised power?
	He said, yes, of course.
	I said to Tucker Carlson, I'm not at ease with some of the stuff you said about homeless people because I feel like that's condemning the most vulnerable people in society.
	And Tucker Carlson's response was brilliant.
	So have a look at this.
	You're going to love this.
	This is our conversations with Tucker, with Greg, and my humble attempt to try to create new conversations that prevent us just being entrenched in ossified oppositional positions that won't allow us ever to advance.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	News to do.
	No, here's the fucking news.
	I went on Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfield's Fox News show, leading the neoliberal establishment to attack me for being
	a right-wing conspiracy theorist.
	But is it necessary to have new conversations?
	And who is it that's interested in censorship now?
	Is it the left or is it the right?
	The controversy was stirred up by my appearance on shows like Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfield,
	I spoke to Ben Shapiro, also numerous right-wing commentators.
	You'll remember if you're my age that right-wing just used to be one of the things that a person could be and wasn't automatically associated with things like Fascism and racism and all the ideas I think fundamentally we're agreed are bad ideas wherever we stand politically.
	So what is the agenda of the neoliberal establishment media?
	What do they want spoken about?
	What do they not want spoken about?
	Because let me tell you up front, What I learned from my conversations with figures from the conservative right, let's call them, is that there is a new willingness to form new alliances in order to be able to attack centralized establishment authoritarian power, i.e.
	explicitly people that are conservative and right-wing are willing to have a truce with and alliances with people that are really progressive.
	They are in fact willing To accept that the only way forward for us is to have more democratic power and autonomy in our communities and that the price for having autonomy and authority in your own community, and I mean power that's achieved democratically, is to allow other people to have their own power and authority in their own communities.
	However, Centralised power wants, of course, a centralised, authoritative, institutionalised power to dictate what is possible and benefits from ongoing cultural conflagration.
	The reason I go on these various shows is in order to have conversations like this because I believe change is possible.
	And before I show you these clips, bear in mind that just a few short years ago, I did this at Fox News.
	This is private property.
	This bit here?
	Yes.
	Whose property is it?
	The building.
	Who's the building belong to?
	It doesn't matter.
	No, it does matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	I'll just say it then.
	You want to get arrested?
	We were booked on to Sean Hannity's show.
	Okay.
	So, here are some of the moments from the conversations I had and I want you to ask yourself these questions and let me know in the chat and comments what you think.
	I've got a wig outside.
	Why?
	Because that's what we want you to do.
	So here are some of the moments from the conversations I had and I want you to ask yourself these
	questions and let me know in the chat and comments what you think.
	Do these conversations improve the chances of us forming new power structures and new
	systems?
	Who is it that seems to be benefiting from the ongoing culture war?
	And let me know in the chat and the comments, because I'm interested in what you think, and I believe you can handle nuanced thinking.
	Let's have a look, first of all, at my appearance on Tucker Carlson on Fox News.
	In this conversation, both Tucker Carlson and I came to it knowing that we would disagree, presumably, about a lot of issues.
	That I, broadly speaking, belong to what you might call the cultural left.
	We were surprised in fact about how many things we agreed upon, I suppose because we both agree with individual and community freedom.
	There were moments where I gently and respectfully confronted Tucker Carlson around some of the issues where I explicitly disagree with him.
	For example the way he's spoken about homelessness in the past, perhaps identity issues, issues of sexuality, and I was surprised in fact about how Little Tucker Carlson really cared about regulating the private life of other people.
	But what I would say is that what inspired me about this conversation is both Tucker Carlson and I are absolutely disenchanted with establishment power, whether it's on the left or the right, that neither of those terms mean anything anymore, that authority and government power has been co-opted by financial interests to such a degree that no one is voting for anything meaningful anymore.
	Have a look.
	These are the facts I was going to tell you about, if I may.
	I hope you will!
	I certainly shall do my best.
	I wanted to do it down the barrel.
	Did you see that?
	Did you see the presumptiveness of me there, Tucker?
	To turn straight ahead for my single.
	A single that frankly wasn't there.
	Because this is Tucker Carlson today.
	Let's get a nice little shot of Mr. Brand.
	Thank you.
	Look, he directs from the floor.
	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.
	If you've seen any of the criticism in the neoliberal media, you might think, well, what was it about?
	Because these are not right-wing talking points.
	and 39% to the Democrats.
	Oh no, look, the Republicans are a bit worse.
	If you've seen any of the criticism in the neoliberal media, you might think, well, what was it about?
	Because these are not right-wing talking points.
	This is anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian, anti-financial corruption rhetoric
	that everyone should be interested in.
	So it makes me think that the voices that are attacking me are, whether unconsciously or not,
	supporting establishment power.
	Let me know in the comments, let me know in the chat.
	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.
	A lot of my time spent thinking, I wish I could pull that necklace back in front.
	There's a pendant there and it's gone off to the... Wait a minute.
	Oh no.
	It's swung to the right!
	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.
	You will notice that.
	In defence, military contractors have spent $2.5 billion on lobbying over the past two decades.
	They split their checks more or less evenly between the Democrat and Republican candidates.
	Almost as if they've anticipated the possibility that either of those parties could get into power.
	Oh no!
	We've spent all our money on the Republican parties!
	What if the Democrat party get into power?
	Should we give them some money as well?
	Oh yeah!
	That means whoever gets in, our outcomes will be served.
	That's not right-wing rhetoric, except unless you feel that what right-wing means ultimately is a position that's anti-government and anti-establishment.
	And I know some of you do.
	I know that that's exactly what many of you feel.
	Let me know in the chat and the comments.
	But what I'm interested in Our systems of organisation that are beneficial to the people that they purport to serve and are accessible to the people that they purport to serve.
	Do you not think it's possible when you see things like Uber and all of these new tech apps that ultimately aggregate various powers, whether it's a car or a house, centralise it and allow it to be distributed, meaning things are possible now that just didn't used to be possible.
	Don't you think that could be applied elsewhere to political power?
	That you could have systems where you vote for how utilities are run, systems where you vote for how resources are spent?
	Oh no, that would mean you wouldn't need people hundreds of miles away or thousands of miles away, in the case of the United States of America, that are lobbyable, biasable, corruptible, making decisions with your money when they're getting paid from elsewhere.
	That would be a terrible system.
	180 Democrats and 149 Republicans joined forces to pass last year's record $839 billion National Defense Authorization Act.
	The Pentagon spent $14 trillion after 9-11.
	55% of it went to for-profit defense contractors.
	Over half Of the 14 trillion spent by the Pentagon went to for-profit defence contractors.
	That doesn't mean that everything they do at Northrop Grumman, who I think make amazing telescopes, or Lockheed Martin, who I'm sure do incredible stuff, is nefarious.
	But it does mean it's worthy of investigation, and these are facts that are significant in the way that your country is organised, in the way that your media reports on stories, and the way that all of us live our life.
	Because, of course, those tax dollars are yours.
	That's your money that's being described in those enormous figures.
	Now, of course, at the moment, Tucker Carlson is particularly embroiled in controversy around January 6th and the revelation that his interpretation of those tapes demonstrates that there are questions to be asked around the way the situation was placed.
	And we're going to do a video on that tomorrow because, believe you me, the Capitol Police are getting some new funding that's pretty interesting.
	And it's a complicated issue and there are many, many perspectives on it.
	But you, I'm sure, like me, would agree that to be able to say that kind of stuff on a mainstream channel is helpful and advances the conversation, and is generally, I would say, conciliatory in tone.
	Elsewhere in the chat, I explicitly say that I believe people should be able to identify however they want, express themselves however they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else, obvious kind of stuff like that.
	And I specifically spoke to Tucker around the issue of homelessness.
	The only thing that I've ever seen, sir, that I would call you up on is when I've seen you talking about homelessness, and I feel that when talking about the subject of destitution and people that live in poverty, that the basis for that conversation should be love, and also for all of the displaced people in the world, that the foundational principle should be love.
	I'm not claiming that I'm able to maintain that line when something offends me for some cultural or personal reason, but I know that this is what I aspire to.
	I agree with that, and I...
	I feel that drug addicts living outside are used as political pawns to destabilize society.
	I feel like they're not treated on purpose.
	The mentally ill live outside and die outside and are left to do that because it's useful for the people in power to draw attention away from their own misdeeds.
	And I'm angry about it, but I'm not angry at the fentanyl addict.
	I'm angry at the industry that's grown up around him that doesn't treat any of his needs, that leaves him to die alone, and that becomes rich doing so.
	And that the politicians who posture about his death, when they could have prevented it.
	And unfortunately I get so overheated, I get so pissed, that in many cases I have allowed myself to sound like I'm mad at the junkie, when I'm certainly not.
	As a sober person I have Deep empathy for anyone who's lost an addiction, particularly on the street.
	So there we go.
	Tucker Carlson, who on a personal level was extremely kind and beautiful to me and I think he's a good person and I don't believe that he is a negative influence in American cultural life.
	I believe that you have to accept that people have different perspectives on cultural issues and if you don't the alternative is some form of tyranny and hopefully it's the form of tyranny that you happen to agree with and I don't think that's the answer because It's a big old world out there, and people do human different.
	So I think that, broadly speaking, that was a positive conversation, and generally speaking, we need more conversations like it.
	And by God, I've been having them, because I also went on Greg Gutfeld's show, which I didn't know is the highest-rated late-night show on television.
	Not Kimmel or any of those others, it's this one.
	So I went on there to talk about similar issues, which of course, I suppose, makes me a right-wing conspiracy theorist.
	And like all good right-wing conspiracy theorists, I went on Fox News and said this.
	Are you 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.
	Here, Greg Gutfield was talking about IQs dropping in America for the first time in, I don't know, 50 years ever, one of those things.
	And I used the opportunity to talk about education and the connection between education and poverty and the necessity to invest in education.
	Have a look.
	OK, 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 thing 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.
	Right-wing fascists, come on.
	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, you made the point that it's the two-party system itself,
	and in particular the manner in which it is funded, that prevents meaningful change for ordinary people.
	And this education problem, while the jokes you made were about the culture, Kardashians, etc.
	Really, education, if the state has a duty at all, is the cultivation of young Americans, is the protection of young Americans.
	This would be my point, Greg Gutfeld.
	Very good, very good.
	I belong to self-organizing, anarchic, mutual support groups that help people with various addiction issues.
	In those groups, we say, look for the similarities and not for the differences.
	Do you think that might be something that's applicable in culture more broadly?
	That we should look for the areas where we agree with one another rather than focusing on the disagreements?
	Where there are disagreements, perhaps what we have to have is autonomy.
	You want to live a traditional lifestyle?
	You go for it.
	You want to live a progressive lifestyle?
	You go for it.
	The state should be minimally involved in people's lives.
	Minimally might mean you need support with education, you might need military support.
	These are things that we can vote on.
	Wouldn't you prefer to be voting in systems where your politicians haven't already been co-opted?
	Let me know in the comments.
	Are you willing to allow other people to live how they want to if they allow you to live how you want to?
	Do you think centralised authority might benefit from continually stoking differences, creating conflict between ordinary people who have far more in common with one another than they'll ever have with the establishment and institutions that govern their lives?
	Do you think a better world is possible if we reach out our hand in friendship to people that we don't agree with?
	Or do you think we should be doubling down on differences, throwing stones, arguing and bickering?
	Can you imagine me having a conversation like that on MSNBC or CNN?
	It's experience, it's just sort of taking it all in.
	You are talking about me as if I'm not here.
	And as if I'm an extraterrestrial.
	Doesn't that seem like a reason to go on Fox News and discuss that stuff?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Let me know in the comments what you think.
	So the establishment media can do as many hit pieces on me as they want to.
	I'm going to continue to reach out and have conversations with people from across the political spectrum because one thing I've noticed that they believe and I don't believe is they think you're stupid.
	They think you can't handle nuance.
	They think you can't handle complicated conversations about the balance between power And duty, and authority, and largesse, and licentiousness, and morality, and ethics, and all of the complexity there entails.
	I believe you can handle it.
	I believe you can handle the truth.
	I believe that collectively we have a greater intelligence than any aristocracy.
	I believe in true democracy.
	I believe that if we have conversations like this, we will come to peaceful conclusions that meaningfully change the trajectory of the planet.
	That's what I believe.
	That human beings are fundamentally beautiful.
	There's a bit of good in the worst of us and a bit of bad in the best of us.
	And together we can create something beautiful.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the comments in the chat.
	I'll see you in just a few seconds.
	Thanks for refusing Fox News.
	I'm done.
	No.
	He's the fucking loser.
	So many comments from you guys.
	Thank you for contributing to the conversation.
	Amy Bugavila, the lines are blurred now.
	Highlander79, Russell has to go through the BBC, they play ball different over there.
	Kelly P, Russell I'm learning so much about how to have respectful conversations with diverse people.
	Then she says a compliment I won't read out loud otherwise it looks like I just used the comments to... Yeah.
	Imagine if I... We'll discover that you actually wrote it.
	Oh, Russell!
	I am so... I mean, you are so great!
	Oh, sorry, I don't know who wrote that.
	Yeah, loads of you.
	Some great stuff.
	Some people saying, like, that Tucker was charming there, but they don't trust him.
	Other people saying they love Tucker.
	Me and Gareth were chatting about it, and we were saying, like, oh, maybe what it is is, like, the right or the Republicans.
	Let me know if you agree with this.
	benefit from voter apathy and disinterestedness in partisan politics, so ultimately if everyone thinks, oh the whole system's corrupt and stop voting, old people will still vote because they love it, and right-wing politicians will get in.
	But hey man, you know, you can't make an omelette without, well, shitting in the woods.
	I can't remember the details.
	There's something that has to happen for an omelette to happen.
	I can't remember.
	It's complicated stuff.
	Have you ever made an omelette?
	It's not very nice.
	It smelled disgusting.
	And it had a stool in the middle of it, Gareth!
	A stool, I tell thee!
	Anyway, loads of lovely comments.
	And if you wanna get involved in these comments, join our locals community.
	You can join it for free, but if you become a member, you get ad-free content.
	Imagine that.
	What a glorious thing that is.
	Also, you get the weekly show, Stay Connected, where me and Gareth show you how we make this show and respond As well as getting my new stand-up, Brandemic.
	Have a look at a little clip of that.
	It's only a minute long.
	It's pretty funny, I think.
	Yeah, I remember this bit.
	You'll love this.
	Have a look at a clip from my stand-up show right now.
	Remember the feeling you had, cos I fucking do, the first time you saw people queuing up outside a supermarket?
	I see people queuing up outside a supermarket, and I thought, fuck off!
	There is no way that I will ever queue up outside a supermarket!
	Like it's a nightclub!
	It's not like Phil will be roving a geezer in a stab fest!
	And I'm not joking!
	The supermarket!
	I won't do it.
	But I fucking did.
	I stood there like an obedient prisoner of the state on my little fucking sticker circle.
	And waited till the person on that sticker had moved along.
	Then I took my turn nicely.
	Like Twister for wankers.
	LAUGHTER APPLAUSE
	CHEERING You can buy that for a one-off fee of $20 on Locals right
	now or for $50 you get access to everything.
	Just want to reassure people who might buy it, though, there's not a countdown clock in the corner for the whole way through.
	Right, no, because that undermines me, that countdown.
	It does a little bit, doesn't it?
	Like, when's this guy going to shut up in 46 minutes and 32 seconds?
	That's when he's going to shut up.
	Also, if you join us on Locals, check this out.
	You're gonna love this.
	We're having a podcast with Graham Hancock, the amateur Egyptologist and studier of arcane systems.
	Right-wing conspiracy theorist.
	Also that, like everyone.
	I don't know how he's a right-wing conspiracy theorist.
	I think his wife's, like, a black woman.
	I feel like he's a pretty cool guy, as a matter of fact.
	I've never heard him do or say anything right-wing.
	He's the most dangerous man on television, apparently, I think, according to The Guardian.
	What is he... What's the problem?
	Like, also, what, like...
	All he's saying is there might have been earlier civilizations.
	He's challenging the archaeological convention.
	You are able to just go, no, I don't agree with that.
	You can just go, no, I think the archaeological conventions are fine.
	It's not like saying, I'll kill you if you don't agree that archaeological conventions must be challenged.
	Anyway, if you want to come and see me actually in real life, chat to Graham Hancock.
	We're going to give away a few sets of tickets, but only to people that are on local.
	So join it now.
	If you're already a Locals member, you'll be able to watch it stream online Or win these tickets and actually come here to Stay Free HQ and join us, be among us.
	Imagine seeing Gareth in the flesh, stroking him.
	Some of the other people back there that are working so hard to create this content.
	You can look at them, study them, prod them.
	You can even use my Please Can I Talk Now stick to poke at them, to goad them, to goad them into violence and see how they respond under pressure.
	I try every day to give them a little bit of pressure just to see how they cope.
	Join my community, sign up to Locals, there's a red button if you're watching on a laptop, on a phone it's a bit different, but you know, join up, you understand tech, right?
	You're watching this now.
	On the show, tomorrow, we've got a city trader turned inequality campaigner by the name of Gary Stevenson.
	I've seen this guy on Instagram talking about how the system works, he'll love it, he's just talking about the corruption of it.
	Sort of an extemporisation on Assange's edict that the function of government is to take public money and to put it into private hands.
	He explains how it works.
	Like, as Seinfeld famously says, it's like someone who's read the inside of the Monopoly lid, you know, and so knows what community chest means.
	What is community chest?
	Does anyone really know?
	So, join us on the show tomorrow.
	Well done today, Gareth.
	Great show.
	Thank you so much.
	You did really well.
	That's enough out of you, thanks.
	I've got to talk now.
	Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, stay free.
	Many switch it, switch on, switch off.

▲