All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
59:54
HERE WE GO | Trump For World Peace?! - #092 - Stay Free With Russell Brand
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm going to go ahead and mute.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
If you haven't been told today that you're loved, let me do it now.
We love you.
I love you.
Gareth loves you.
The whole Stay Free team loves you and believes in your freedom and your right to be you.
That may not be true of the mainstream, but by Jove, it's true of us.
Wherever you're watching this, the whole show is only available exclusively on Rumble.
We'll be with you on YouTube for about 20 minutes.
But then that hankering for free speech.
Oh, the sweet rain of freedom will be upon us.
Oh, I love it, don't you?
I can almost taste it.
Taste the freedom coming down your neck hole.
Hey, you can watch my stand-up special available on Rumble for a limited time for $20.
Have a look at what it looks like when it's not moving about.
We'll show you a little clip of that later.
But it's time now to get on with the news, surely, isn't it?
There's been a drone.
There's been a drone knocked over near Russia.
How can we make this situation worse?
Well, I suppose by consulting various warmongers.
Those of you that are American, you'll know what Lindsey Graham's all about.
In spite of having the glassy eyes of our Lord Christ, he seems to crave nothing more than sweet Lady War. Let's have a listen to him advocating for a
little bit more of the old chaos. Later, hey, you've got to stay with us, we've got Kim Iverson, she's
going to be on the show later, and once we click over to being exclusively on Rumble,
we'll be telling you all sorts of crazy, wacky stuff about January the 6th. I mean,
significantly and importantly, what led to that particular event, and are the media exploiting
it?
Also, one of the main things we're asking today is, is the world in so much trouble that we're going to have to turn to Donald Trump if we want world peace?
Let me know in the chat and the comments what you think.
Also, we'll be talking about that financial crisis and how it is actually connected to 2008 and how actually bloody world taxpayers will be made to pay for it, if indirectly.
But first, let's look at Lindsey Graham with his sweet, beautiful blue peepers advocating for an escalation in a global conflict because a drone had its feeling hurt.
Drone ain't got nobody inside it!
Let's have a look.
They shot down our drone.
What should our answer be?
We met Sean Hannity.
We went on Fox the other day.
Do you remember?
We were on Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfield, some of the world's sweetest, most adorable people.
Met Sean Hannity in a corridor.
So mental, wasn't it?
He was like that and he's quite a big geezer, isn't he?
And I was like, hey!
And then there was a conversation.
How far away did you spot him from?
Quite far.
Like, you know, so I had time to organize myself.
I feel like time slowed down.
Like, oh, that's Sean Hannity.
And I remember some of the things we've said about him.
Like, oh, he's like a sort of Ken Dole's dad and things like that, you know.
But like, actually, again, he was really nice.
We had a conversation and we got into the areas where we disagree.
Like, let me know in the chat if you think I should go with Sean Hannity,
because having spoken to Cornel West, who's our guest on the show tomorrow,
I increasingly believe in the necessity of these conversations with people that you don't agree
with.
We have to find the love in one another.
We have to find a new solidarity.
Otherwise, we're just gonna be, we've been divided and conquered.
That's basically it.
And guess who came up with that?
It was the British, the old divide and conquer.
I loved what he was saying about his father and how he'd like, he was, you know,
a working man and all this kind of stuff.
It was really sweet.
I know, because I was about to, when I see Sean Hannity out there, I sort of got geared up to start.
And I thought, oh no, I remember, that's that man from the corridor.
He's nice.
Yeah.
I'm getting emails and texts off all of these folks now.
So it's like, you know, you've got to love people.
That don't mean to say you have to agree with people's opinions.
There are loads of subjects where we're not, or any of us, if we got into it, we're not going to agree with one another.
But I tell you what, I'm starting to believe that the neo-liberal establishment don't care about the things they claim to, right down to stuff like social justice issues, environmental issues.
I think it's all skullduggery, I really do.
But listen, look at Sean Hannity, son of Irish folks who's worked hard to get where he is today, talking to this dude, Lindsey Graham, the glassy-eyed advocate for murder.
Check it.
Well, we should hold him accountable and say that if you ever get near another U.S.
set flying in international waters, your airplane would be shot down.
What would Ronald Reagan do right now?
Ronald Reagan, actually, have a look.
Ronald Reagan was the person that negotiated peace With Gorbachev, do you remember that?
Like, let's check out this bit.
What's important is a couple of years later a treaty agreed upon between Gorbachev and Reagan and it was ultimately instantiated by US Secretary of State James Baker.
Neither the President nor I, that was under Bush by that time, neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place, not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well.
Because it's important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
How did that go, guys?
How's it been going with that old infringement?
Many's the inch, because even this drone was above the Black Sea.
And the Black Sea, if you have a little look at a map or a globe, it decks the Russia.
So whilst no-one's saying, oh, it's good that they booted that little devil out of the sky, I think it's a little sanctimonious to act like that drone's like some sort of Thomas the Tank Engine of the air that deserves naught but respect.
Calling upon the name of Ronald Reagan because I guess that our man Lindsey Graham saying that he was a sort of a gung-ho militaristic president and geez maybe he was.
The reality is that he sought a treaty between the Soviet Union as it then was and America.
Why?
Because it's for the good of all humanity to not have ongoing and particularly military conflict between those two nations even if it's a proxy war.
Also, though, if Reagan were alive now, I think what he would actually be saying is, can you please let me out of this coffin?
Because he'd be feeling trapped, I think, about this time, wouldn't he, Gal?
He certainly would.
Can't be easy to be in that little box.
God bless his eternal soul.
American foreign policies and freefall, I can't add much to what you've said.
All I can tell you is that on multiple fronts, we're in a dangerous situation.
Weakness breeds provocation.
That's not a catchphrase, is it?
Weakness breeds provocation.
That's turning peace into potential war.
That's advocating for escalation.
And this is what's happening all over the military.
Have a look at this bit of footage on Fox News talking about the drone encounter.
We told you yesterday how we're seeing, like, words like harassment being used, and reckless rapid fire, all of that, like, escalating the tension.
Have a look at this, and then we'll tell you a fact or two about this, uh, Senator Joni Ernst, and we're- Right now, we are getting our first look at new- Whoa, what's that all about?
That was- is that- that's a different clip, was it, that started playing?
I think that might have been this one.
Let's have a look, it wasn't, the counter wasn't going down.
Video showing the moment a Russian jet dumps...
It's different on our monitor, we got, like the counter's not going down guys, so have a look at what's on our
monitor.
Fuel and collides with the US drone over the Black Sea. You can see it right there.
We're playing a different thing guys.
Can we play the clip that's on the monitor?
Get yourselves together in there.
Hey, it's human beings back there in the gallery and they're struggling to keep up with the sheer pace of news that we're conveying.
It's interesting what's going on in the Republican Party at the moment, isn't it?
with this, I guess, war, generally speaking, we kind of know that they're part,
a portion of them are calling for Biden to up the already record and massive budget,
military and Pentagon budget, but then you've got certain elements of it,
DeSantis being one of them that are saying, we need to, you know, calling for peace
and calling to deescalate things and calling for less money being spent on the military.
So they're gonna have to work that out.
What's the narrative gonna be, I guess, by next year's election?
That's gonna be interesting.
Again, I suppose, because of the terminology, taxonomization and nature of power is changing,
it's more helpful than using the terms left and right, Democrat, Republican,
to hold in mind the idea of central authority and peripheral voices.
And if you use that terminology, you can start to see where the discourse is heading and why there's a need for new alliances.
Let's have a look at how, though, Fox News reported on this story and Joni Erst.
Let's think about why this person will be consulted on this issue.
Check it.
It's not playing on our monitor.
So I said, well, what should we do, Gal?
I guess we'll move on from that clip.
Yeah, maybe that clip don't work on here.
Yeah, maybe not.
Do you think this is since we had James O'Keefe?
If you're watching us on YouTube, we're going to only be available on YouTube for a few more minutes.
Then we'll be exclusively available on Rumble, where we'll be talking to Kim Iverson, where we'll be reporting.
On January the 6th and where we'll be showing you a deep dive presentation on the financial crisis.
Let's have a look now at this story.
Our first look at new video showing the moment a Russian jet dumps fuel and collides with the US drone over the Black Sea.
You can see it right there.
You can see the fuel trail being dumped by the Russian jet.
You can see it impacting our drone propellers starting to slow.
Our drone.
That's our drone!
That's my favourite drone!
That drone only had one more day till it retires.
Oh, they're a bit on the drone.
And then pretty in short order, I'm being told that we will go to colour bars showing that the drone itself has been incapacitated.
We're just watching this all together for the first time.
What's your reaction?
It's not Christmas.
Why make it out that it's like some sort of joyful, familial event that's taking place here?
When you see that.
Right, correct.
And this was over in international airspace.
And so the Russians have gotten very aggressive.
And you know what?
We need to really take very firm action in this.
We need to make sure that we're continuing.
So what they're doing is advocating for an escalation.
Firm action means war.
It means spend more money.
And Joni Ernst, let's have a little look at her previous She's got.
I'll tell you what I'm going to do.
We're going to come off of YouTube now, and what we're going to do is we're going to show you our presentation on the financial crisis.
Let's have a look at that in our item.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
YouTube, if you're watching us on YouTube, click over to watch us on Rumble, where we can do this freely, and then we'll use this opportunity to sort out whatever technical problems we're having.
But now, let's have a deeper look at the Silicon Valley bank collapse.
Let's have a look at whether or not taxpayers will really end up paying for it.
We'll do the stuff about the global conflict at the back end of this and ask how we found ourselves in the bizarre situation where the best attempt at peace the world might be left with is in the, some say tiny, but others say normal, sized hands of Donald Trump.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Good news.
No, here's the fucking news.
Oh no!
There's a financial crisis.
Hopefully it won't have been caused by deregulation.
Hopefully you won't ultimately end up bailing them out even if it's tangentially.
And hopefully some of the same people that were involved in the 2008 financial crisis won't be involved in this one.
If there was a massive bank crash in 2008 that was caused by impropriety, deregulation, prioritizing financial interests above the interests of ordinary people that literally had some of the same protagonists involved, I'm not suggesting they're major players, but certainly people that worked at Lehman Brothers and Deutsche Bank now work at Silicon Valley Bank.
I mean that's enough of a connection.
Deregulation somewhat led to this situation and it's It's even possible that people will continue to profit in spite of the fact that, on the surface, loads of money has gone missing or disappeared.
Let's get into this story in detail and see what it can teach us about the way that Washington and Wall Street interact, the symbiosis and revolving door between those two institutions and how, ultimately, even if Joe Biden literally goes on the TV and says taxpayers won't pay for it, if you change the word taxpayer to the word you, that might not be true.
Here's a mainstream media news take.
MSNBC, you know how those guys love me.
Hopefully, they won't make this a partisan issue.
They'll accept that there are a lot of institutional problems that need to be resolved that neither party are addressing.
They won't simply say, this is the fault of one of the parties, you know, the one we don't like.
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.
Do you see that what they're essentially saying is, this is Trump's fault.
Here's Trump surrounded by people.
Now, of course, Trump's actions do contribute to this current crisis.
But is that the entire story?
No, because already what he's not told you is in 2008, Barack Obama bailed out the banks after that financial crisis, meaning that the people that literally caused that problem were given the opportunity to participate in the resolution of that problem, as well as being exculpated from the blame that they ought rightly have shared in. No one went to
prison, no one was penalised properly, whereas across America and across the world, ordinary
people lost their homes, lost their jobs. Measurable, meaningful consequences. Were there
measurable, meaningful consequences for the people that caused it? Let me know in the chat, let me
know in the comments. Just in case you don't know everything about the complex and
deliberately obtuse world of global finance, here are some facts. On Friday, California regulators shut
down the Silicon Valley Bank, SVB, a top lender to venture capital firms and tech
startups, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took it over following a bank run by
its customers.
I think that means a load of people took out their money at once.
On Sunday, regulators closed New York-based Signature Bank.
During the pandemic, start-ups and technology companies enjoyed heady profits, some of which they deposited in the Silicon Valley Bank.
Flush with their cash, the bank did what banks do, it kept a fraction on hand and invested the rest, putting a large share into long-dated treasury bonds that promised good returns when interest rates were low.
So far, so good.
As long as them interest rates remain low, nothing to worry about.
We'll be rich!
Rich, I tells ya!
But then, starting a little more than a year ago, the Fed raised interest rates from near zero to over 4.5%.
Oh no!
As a result, two things happened.
The value of the Silicon Valley Bank's holdings of treasury bonds plummeted because newer bonds paid more interest.
And as interest rates rose, the gusher of venture capital funding to start-up and tech companies slowed because venture funds had to pay more to borrow money.
As a result, these start-up and tech companies had to withdraw more of their money from the bank to meet their payroll and other expenses.
But the bank didn't have enough money on hand.
Yesterday we also spoke to Ryan Grim, who talked about a text message chain where people that were invested in SVB, or at least had their money in SVB, communicated about drawing that money out prior to drawing it out.
He believes that that should be investigated, that that's significant information.
Why didn't they just draw out their money individually?
Why did they do it collectively?
Obviously any responsible reporting on this issue has to include the most recent and significant financial crash, the events of 2008, the political and financial ramifications of which are still being felt right now.
Many people argue that Donald Trump is a consequence of Obama's significant decision to Bail out the banks in 2008.
The way in our country Tony Blair will ever be tethered to his decision to invade Iraq along with George W Bush, your then president.
The fact that Obama didn't say, no, I was voted in on a mandate of change and hope and supporting and standing up for ordinary people from across the political and social spectrum.
No way, man, I'm not doing it.
Instead, what did he do?
He did what you would imagine he'd do.
He bailed out the donors and the banks.
Then they let people Set up new regulations and new rules that are involved in a crisis, the whole thing's exactly what you think.
And one of the things that worries me when I learn about politics, and you let me know if you feel the same way, is the things that you often intuit, like, hold on a minute, do they just, like, bail out their donors and stuff?
You're right.
Obama endorsed the Wall Street bailout and appointed a team of Clinton-era economic advisors, led by Tim Geithner, who became Obama's Treasury Secretary, and Lawrence Summers, who became Director of the National Economic Council.
These were the same people who, in the 90s, had prepared the way for the financial crisis by deregulating Wall Street.
So in the 90s, under Clinton, they deregulated Wall Street, they were lobbied, presumably, and they went, oh yeah, alright, we'll let you trade in ways and bundle stuff together and make irresponsible bets and communicate in weird ways.
Then the people that made those decisions were present in the Obama administration, so they're not gonna go, oh no, you know those ideas that we had then?
They were bad ideas, why don't we put the people responsible for that in prison?
Oh no, it's me.
The Obama administration rescued Wall Street, but at enormous cost to taxpayers and the economy.
Estimates of the true cost of the bailout vary from half a trillion dollars to several trillion.
I can't conceptualize either of those numbers, can you?
They're just abstract at that phase, but I'll tell you what's not abstract.
Not having a house.
The Federal Reserve also provided huge subsidies to the big banks in the form of virtually free loans.
But homeowners whose homes were suddenly worth less than the mortgages they owed on them were left hanging in the wind.
Many lost their homes.
Obama thereby shifted the cost of the banker's speculative binge onto ordinary Americans, deepening mistrust of a political system increasingly seen as rigged in favour of the rich and powerful.
Now in a minute we'll watch Joe Biden's speech and he says things like, you know, capitalism's about risk.
If you risk money and you lose money, that's on you, but it ain't on you.
And he was obviously vice president when that happened.
So what kind of credibility has he got when it comes to talking about financial crisis?
None.
What we see more and more in these investigations that we undertake here at Stay Free Media is that the system is rigged in order to support institutional financial and military industrial complex power and the skill of the political class and media class is managing that information so it seems like it's either the right thing to do or there's no option but to do it or the other people would have done it worse and indeed have done it worse in the past.
So we just feel trapped in a situation where there's just no options but the fact is there are options.
Democracy is an option.
Independent journalism is an option.
Independent thought is an option.
Your freedom is an option.
But to understand this story a little more deeply and with a little more clarity, we have to look at events in 2015 as well.
Eight years before the second largest bank failure in American history occurred, SVB's president personally pressed Congress to reduce scrutiny of his financial institution.
So eight years ago, the president of SVB, Greg Becker, Personally himself lobbied for deregulation.
Do you know what would make things a lot easier?
Go on.
Deregulation.
What, do you mean let you do more stuff that you want to do without stopping you from doing it in case it causes a financial crash of some kind?
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
Deregulators.
Let us do what we want to do.
I see banking as being like jazz.
I like my banking to be free flow.
Okay, we'll deregulate you, but there won't be some sort of crisis, will there?
I'm promising you, I give you my word, as a banker, there won't be.
In 2015, SVB President Greg Becker submitted a statement to a Senate panel pushing legislators to exempt more banks, including his own.
Obviously.
Other banks.
Not mine.
I'll do it the hard way.
But these other guys.
Give them a shot.
So there was a massive crisis.
Regulations were introduced.
We cannot let that happen again.
We've got to stop it.
They just wait a little bit of time.
Right.
A bit of time has passed now.
Can you take those regulations off?
it's making it impossible for me to make money in unethical and currently illegal ways.
Two months later, SVB added former Obama Treasury Department official Mary Miller to its board.
So they do a bit of lobbying.
They appoint a former Obama administration member.
And what do you know?
They suddenly get their way.
But don't think there's a revolving door between Washington and Wall Street.
Don't think that no matter who you vote for, you're going to get the same sort of results.
Don't think that there's no one in Washington standing up for your rights.
And even the peripheral figures that do care about your rights, voices in the wilderness that won't have any meaningful impact because institutional power is locked into a set of interests that can't be moved by democracy.
They've rigged the game.
You know that already.
Around that time, federal disclosure records show the bank was lobbying lawmakers on financial regulatory reform and the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2015, a bill that was the precursor to legislation ultimately signed by President Donald Trump.
The bill was supported in the Senate by 50 Republicans and 17 Democrats, including Virginia Senator Mark Warner, Democrat, for whom Becker held a fundraiser, That is Menlo Park, California home in 2016.
It's exactly what you think it is, isn't it?
They hold fundraisers.
If I hold a fundraiser for you, will you deregulate the banking industry so I can make money?
The answer is yes.
Yes, I will.
Oh!
Before I go, does that not make you feel compromised?
You know, that you're not representing the interests of the people that you were elected by to protect them, particularly in the wake of the 2008 crash?
Sorry, I stopped listening after we agreed on the fundraiser.
Three years later, after the bank spent more than half a million dollars on federal lobbying, lawmakers obliged.
That's the phases it took.
A bit of lobbying, employer is someone, old a couple of fundraisers, a bit more lobbying, crack on and earn your money.
Progressive critics have been quick to blame a deregulatory measure approved five years ago by the then Republican-controlled Congress for engendering two of the three largest bank failures in US history.
Yeah, because then what you could do is you can have your cake and eat it.
You can still feel like you're on the right side of history and everything and not do anything to change anything.
That's what happens again and again and again.
In fact, I increasingly believe that is the liberal position.
Well, the only things are available are these bastards or us bastards.
And us bastards at least pretend to care about people that are slightly different from us.
The GOP, however, wasn't alone in supporting Senator Mike Crapo's Republican Idaho Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act.
Even then, it wasn't just Republicans.
Barney Frank, architect of the Dodd-Frank banking regulations implemented in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, played a key role in whitewashing the bipartisan effort to weaken those rules in 2018 after he had received more than a million dollars while serving on Signature's board following his departure from Congress.
Just take a moment to absorb that.
One of the people that came up with the regulations to prevent another crash like 2008 ever happening again, this dude, Barney Frank, got a job on the board of Signature and took a million dollars and participated in weakening the regulation that he himself came up with.
He must have known what that regulation was supposed to be doing it.
How are we ever going to stop another financial crash of this nature?
Well, I've come up with some regulations.
If we carry the one across there, there it should work.
Okay, thank you, Barney.
Great work there.
Cutly ears, cutly ears, cutly ears.
Would you mind removing some of those regulations?
It's making it difficult for some of the guys to make money.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, would there be any problems?
I can't think of any problems off the top of my head.
I think I was feeling a bit regulatory that day.
I was regulating everything.
I regulated the cat, regulated the dog.
I regulated my shoes so tight that one of my toes fell off.
We gotta loosen things up.
I'm gonna need a little space, a little room, in particular, to store some of this cash that I've recently acquired that it's none of your business where I got that, as a matter of fact.
Does anyone need anything deregulated?
Roll up!
Roll up!
Anything dereg... Oh, you regulated this a couple of years ago?
Yeah, you can deregulate that at the right price.
Essentially, Frank downplayed the risks of deregulation while being paid by a bank that stood to gain from it.
I don't think there's any problem deregulating.
Thank you for my money.
With just a few moments of scrutiny, it becomes perfectly clear that whilst you can say that the measures passed by Trump contributed to this problem, it was already a bipartisan bill, therefore culpability must be shared by both parties.
It also relates to early events, specifically the events in 2008.
Also, a Democrat, Barney Frank, created that regulation, then lobbied for the deregulation while working at one of those banks that gave him money.
So you can't have a partisan position on this.
Remember, we're not saying that the Republicans and Donald Trump aren't to blame.
They are, but also the Democrats are to blame as well.
For example, they've learned that people don't like bailing out banks, so they'll be very careful to say, we won't be bailing out the banks using taxpayer money, we've got this special miracle fund that only comes from bankers.
Okay, do you think if we spend a moment pondering that, do you think the banks might look to somehow rescind those losses or mitigate those losses elsewhere?
Who do you think the banks will all look to get the money from?
General Zod?
Thanos?
Baddies from the outreaches of space?
What do you think it might be?
You!
Today, thanks to the quick action of my administration over the past few days, Americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe.
Don't have confidence, unless you are the mark in a confidence trick, which of course, we all are.
No losses will be borne by the taxpayers.
Instead, the money will come from the fees that banks pay into the deposit insurance fund.
Investors in the banks will not be protected.
They knowingly took a risk, and when the risk didn't pay off, investors lose their money.
That's how capitalism works.
That's why there's not people involved in Lehman Brothers and Deutsche Bank working at these banks.
Like, Joseph Gentile can't really have worked at Lehman Brothers and also SVP.
And Kim Olsen can't really have worked at Deutsche Bank and Signature.
Otherwise, what Joe Biden's saying there would be a mad lie.
During the Obama-Biden administration, we put in place tough requirements on banks How did that work out?
the Dodd-Frank law. Dodd-Frank law, that's that guy, Frank, who lobbied to change the
law so that a bank he worked for and who gave him a million dollars could benefit. To make
sure that the crisis we saw in 2008 would not happen again.
Unfortunately, it did happen The last administration rolled back some of these requirements.
Oh that last administration where people held fundraisers.
Oh that last administration that was voted for by both parties.
Oh that last administration that was a direct result of the failures of 2008.
Joe Biden and elected and appointed officials all insist the emergency interventions to protect deposits in Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank Or indeed any further bank failures won't come at taxpayers expense.
On Monday, Biden was at pains to say that no losses would be borne by taxpayers, and the money would come from the fees that banks pay to the Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC.
His comments followed those of Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, who told CBS on Sunday, Let me be clear that during the financial crisis there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out and the reforms that have been put in place means that we're not going to do that again in the same way, in a way that's visible and plain because we worked out that we can get away with this stuff if we just change the words a little bit.
But one thing we can tell you is the financial industry isn't going to be meaningfully persecuted in the same way that Joe Biden's big pharma we beat pharma this year bill isn't going to meaningfully penalise him.
Otherwise, you won't be seeing Pfizer come in on saying we've made record profits.
What they'll do is they'll find a way of being able to say something to you, like, oh, we changed it, look, that won't make a meaningful difference, not to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.
We beat pharma this year!
Jason Furman, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Barack Obama, was not convinced, saying, make no mistake, it does have an expected cost to taxpayers.
Even Andrew Ross Sorkin, financial columnist for the New York Times, thinks it's a bailout.
It's a bailout, not like 2008, but it's a bailout of the venture capital community and their portfolio companies, their investments.
It's easy to see why the Biden administration is keen to avoid the B word, given the general antipathy towards the enormous bailouts that Wall Street banks received during the 2008 financial crisis.
Generally speaking, it created a populist movement, notably Occupy, where people from across the political spectrum came together, recognizing that their interests, shared interests, meant they ought to put aside any cultural differences and come together to confront centralised power.
Have you noticed that since then, there's a lot of talk about how we're all different from one another and how we should spend all our time fighting one another based on our cultural, sexual and identity differences?
What a weird coincidence.
Almost as if the culture is pumping you full of information to make you think, oh god, that person's got a different type of dickie bird than I got!
Spend all your time worrying about stuff that doesn't really matter if you stop thinking about it.
Finance officials have said that covering depositor losses from the bank failures would be met in part by the deposit insurance fund held by the FDIC, the government corporation that supplies deposit insurance to depositors in the US commercial banks and saving banks.
But Susanna Streeter Head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdowne said the wider banking system will bear the brunt of the bailout of banking customers as the money will come from fees institutions pay into the deposit insurance fund.
So this won't affect you unless you use money.
No, no, no, perhaps you don't use money in your life.
I, of course, get through life just by it.
If I need a good or service, what I do is I sing them a song.
And then I'll just get my money like that, so I'm not affected by banking stuff.
If that happens, it will get harder to argue that the non-bailout bailout will not ultimately fall on US taxpayers.
But they will keep arguing it, or they'll wait a little bit of time, like they did with the 2008 regulations, before rescinding them, because you're thinking about something else.
Because by then, there'll be a war, or a pandemic, and we'll be thinking about that, and you'll forget, oh no, there was that thing when they lied to us again.
Don't forget!
Assuming there are wider losses not covered either by SVB and signature assets or federal deposit insurance funds, part of it should be expected to fall on bank customers indirectly, Morgan Ricks, a banking professor at Vanderbilt Law School, told NBC.
OK, so let's see if there is a relationship between the way that parties are funded and the way that parties behave when in office, and if Biden's serious when he spouts invective about how the perpetrators of these events will be punished.
In 2020, President Trump promised four more years of low taxes, light regulation and a laser focus on the stock market.
Yet professionals on Wall Street shunned Trump and funneled staggering amounts of money to his opponent.
Campaign donations to Biden were five times larger than to Trump.
What this clearly demonstrates to me is that there is a porous relationship between Wall Street and Washington.
That if you give enough money to the Democrat Party or the Republican Party, they will legislate, regulate and govern in accordance with your wishes, not in accordance with the people that voted them into office and power.
Biden received five times more money from Wall Street than Trump.
Do you think that receiving this enormous injection of cash will impede his ability to regulate, guide and influence the manner in which he regulates the financial industry?
Or do you think he'll just take that money and forget all about it?
The same way they took your vote then forgot what they promised you.
That's just what I think though.
Let me know what you think in the chat.
Let me know what you think in the comments.
I'll see you in a second.
Thanks for refusing Fox News.
Good day.
No.
Here's the fucking news!
Is it me, or does the future feel more insecure and uncertain?
Wars, pandemics, lies, trickery.
My cats keep having kittens.
The last one's personal.
For those who are in the United States, there is a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg.
American Heart for Gold make it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.
With one phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside a qualifying retirement account like your IRA or 401k.
American Hartford Gold is the highest-rated firm in the U.S.
with an A-plus rating from the BBB and thousands of satisfied clients.
Right now, they will give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
This offer is only for U.S.
customers.
Call 866-505-8315.
866 505 8315 that's 866 505 8315 or simply text brand to 99 88 99
That's 866-505-8315.
get up to $5,000 of silver and protect your future in this crazy crazy world
with some solid precious metals literally made in stars Sweet, delicious gold, baby!
That's what we want, ain't it, gal?
Certainly.
Gold and silver.
Did you see how, at the end, I said it's made in stars?
I did.
It was really poetic of you.
I'm poetic when I'm... I'd want a big bar, though, if I had it.
Oh, yeah, lovely, shiny, like a Willy Wonka chocolate bar, but nothing but gold.
So one of the things we're talking about over the course of this episode is the course escalation of tensions between Russia and the United States vis-a-vis the drone issue and I guess what's funny is when you see Donald Trump crop up on your TV set saying that he could solve the conflict in half an hour or 25 seconds or whatever audacious claim Trump has made about being able to bring about peace but the truth ...is that Trump is an outlier and an oddity in the global political space, in particular because of his willingness to, for example, visit Kim Jong-il.
That was like an odd little move.
Un!
Do you get that?
We've got Kim Iverson coming on, there's il, un, there's everywhere I look there's a Kim.
She's got a finger on the button as well.
Of the nation.
Right.
You like what I did?
I do like it in a way.
I can do puns as well.
It was a good pun and a good joke and I think you should be, I say encourage you.
Thank you.
Especially after your moment of doubt when we were speaking to that Cockney economist only yesterday.
Because his name was Gary.
Gary, Gary Snatch.
Show me the money before I slice you up.
Gary Stevenson.
Listen, what we're talking about more broadly is the escalation of fear in our No sooner does a pandemic end than there's an economic crisis and a geopolitical conflict.
I wanted to draw your attention to a couple of interesting quotes.
This first one's from HL Mencken.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
We went from the Cold War to the war on terror to this war on germs.
Now we're back to normal war.
personifying drones oddly pretending to be haughtily concerned about the sort of the drone getting sort of petrol blown about all over it whilst accepting money from Raytheon which was the last example we didn't end up getting to but that person that Fox News featured Obviously got big contributions from Raytheon.
You can't bring someone who receives money from Raytheon onto a show to objectively either advocate or deny the necessity for war.
Listen to this as well by Konya Boyak.
Physical attacks lead to a corresponding increase of trust in political leaders and submission to them.
This effect is likely the same whether the attack be a surprise known to political leaders yet allowed to happen Or directly orchestrated by these same leaders who stand to benefit from the increased trust and submission.
False flag operations are used because people generally do not have access to the details so they're prone to rely upon what they're told and are thus easily deceived.
People will for the most part believe what they're told in times of crisis and so government officials, whether their motives are good or evil, capitalize on or completely fabricate the crisis.
I think sometimes it's Interesting and wise even to broaden our perspective to look at what's happening.
We become so captured and immersed in the terrifying details of endless and diverse potential conflicts and actual ongoing conflicts that we forget that something deeper is happening to us.
on an emotional level.
You'll love the conversation that's on this show tomorrow with Cornel West precisely because he's a figure who's able to take a macro perspective, who understands history, who understands philosophy and yet still has recourse to love and emphasizes the significance and importance of spiritual values when dealing with this level of complexity.
You know our perspective has become about bringing people together, having conversations
that no longer are in separate encampments defined by former tribal allegiances to right
or left.
This is increasingly necessary.
Now, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and its subsequent and ancillary complexity
is not the only thing that's happening right now, because North Korea, which I thought
was one of the things we'd just be able to put on the back burner.
Forget about it.
Apparently this situation is escalating because the US and South Korea have been testing missiles.
Now, I still can't work out what happened first.
Did the US and South Korea test their missiles and cause North Korea to do some fanciful stuff in the sky?
Look, they tested some missiles as well.
They apparently can fly in sort of figures of eight and stuff.
Sounds pretty brilliant, actually.
But nevertheless, it's like you can only just start, you know, like you can barely relax about Russia, Ukraine, and then you're told it's kicking off in North Korea and there's new military bases cropping up in the Philippines.
So there's this ongoing escalation of angst and fear, ongoing cultural conversations that seems doomed to end in yet more conflict.
This is why there have to be voices about advocating for love and forgiveness and compassion.
Basic spiritual principles, if you ask me.
Let's have a quick look about what's going on in North Korea and then we're going to talk to Kim Iverson in a minute because she has a sort of a broad journalistic understanding of how these conflicts are being used to divide us.
First, let's look at how, I think it's ABC report, or is it NBC?
It's one of the BCs, report on this current escalating conflict in Korea now.
God.
Tonight, the U.S.
and South Korea launching their biggest joint military exercises in years, readying themselves to defend against an evolving North Korean threat.
North Korea weighs... Readying themselves, but simultaneously provoking it.
It's interesting framing, isn't it, mate?
To say, oh, we're just readying ourselves for what?
Nothing, because nothing's happened yet.
And do you think that launching missiles into the sky on the border is likely to exacerbate tensions or relieve them?
It's pretty clear that it's going to make things worse.
No time in retaliating.
Official state media saying the North launched two cruise missiles on the eve of the drills from a submarine off North Korea's coast, claiming they flew for two hours in figure eights over the Sea of Japan.
that they did figure eights yeah it's not ice skating no it's also a hard thing to do for a missile yeah it's almost too impressive and also they did it for too long like once you've seen a figure of eight by a missile you don't need to see it do it again and again come back now lads like juggling like once you've seen a bit like of juggling you're like oh i get it you can juggle oh fire oh fuel prices are high at the moment as well so you're wasting fuel South Korea's military confirming they tracked at least one missile launch from the North, saying they're working with U.S.
intelligence to analyze it.
The tests launch a pointed reminder of the escalating security threat from North Korea, which conducted more than 70 missile tests last year, the most ever.
U.S.
National Intelligence Director Avril Haines saying North Korea is using aggression to reshape the region.
...and to reinforce its status as a de facto nuclear power.
The joint U.S.-South Korean military...
That's an interesting double act that's forming over there.
They've worked on that handshake and I think it's really paying off.
But it's going to take more than a coordinated fist bump to bring about peace.
That's why we're asking in today's show about Trump's peculiar diplomacy for all his evident faults.
I know a lot of you love him and some of you don't.
He certainly was willing, at least, to have conversations with people, wasn't he?
Like, because, actually, no, I will show you that, General.
Like, because this dude, this military dude, who, he crops up every few days, this guy.
He's actually talking about, like, the drones had this happen to it.
Look at him talking about Korea.
He makes a pretty heavy fret.
Check it.
Well, I think we've been very clear that were North Korea to employ a nuclear weapon, it would be the end of the North Korean regime.
Wow.
That'd be the end of it.
That's amazing.
But I suppose if it deploys a nuclear... Sure.
...weapon, does he mean...
Right, we know exactly what he means.
But it's also, equally, that's it for all of us.
I mean, just be honest at that point.
It's all over at this point.
It's one of the things that's been obfuscated in this escalating global tension is that we've all got skin in the game when it comes to the annihilation of the planet.
We all Have a look at Trump when he went to visit Kim Jong-un.
I want you to pay attention to a few things.
Trump is his usual bright and breezy, robust self.
In my view, Kim Jong-un don't show a wide enough range of emotions.
That's why I'd like to see a few more expressions from Kim Jong-un.
Have a look.
We were in Japan for the G20, we came over and I said, hey, I'm over here, I want to call up Chairman Kim.
And we got to meet and stepping across that line was a great honour.
This was a special moment.
The same mood in this bit of the visit as well, isn't he?
He's never not in that mood, Kim, is he?
He's either focused or very bored, I'm not sure which.
I think he's switched off.
And I also don't think he'd have got that job if his dad didn't do it.
That's what I think.
They talk about nepotism in the Trump family, don't they?
Like the Trump kids are getting an easy ride.
Clinton.
Clinton.
Nepotism.
But look at what's going on over there.
I've never even seen him look that animated.
I actually don't think he will do a nuclear war because I don't think he could be bothered.
It looks like he's just... Right, tensions are escalating on the border.
Should we send up some figure of eight drones?
Kim?
Kim!
What are we going to do, Kim?
Sorry, I was thinking about something else.
I was thinking about my dad.
He was a good man!
He was a good man!
He's got a daughter now, hasn't he?
Yes.
And she's going to be next, maybe.
That's right.
He took her to all the rockets and stuff.
Did he?
Day out, to see all the big rockets.
But I bet even on that day, he was in that mood.
Of course he was.
Not like, oh right, daddy and daughter day.
Like when I'm out with my kids.
Yeah.
Oh, it's a hell of a day, isn't it?
I'm enthusing them.
I know.
But also, I'm not, like, escalating tensions between the South.
Well, certain tensions.
What do you mean, like, between me and the wife?
No, I didn't mean that.
I just meant general tensions.
General tensions.
You know, when they come up.
Yeah, there's tensions.
There are tensions.
They're getting escalated.
So, listen, here to perhaps dampen down the horror that we could be on the brink of the apocalypse is Kim Iverson.
Kim Iverson's on Rumble every day at 6pm.
Kim, thanks for joining us.
She's fantastically here.
It's always good to see you in front of that lurid, livid, pink backdrop.
Thanks for coming.
Thanks for having me.
Great to see you.
Great to see you, mate.
I'm glad you like the background.
I put this one on just for you.
Bury them sometimes.
What else do you go for?
Lime green sometimes.
It's terrifying.
Lime?
Yeah.
Listen, Kim, I know that yesterday you spoke to Dmitry Polyansky and I'd like to know what you learned by talking to the UN ambassador to Russia.
What particular revelations were made and how it advanced the conversation and whether it gave you a different perspective on this recent escalation via the drone story?
Yeah, so ambassador, he's the Russian ambassador for the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, he basically says that the drone was in Russian airspace, that they didn't touch the drone, that, and now we have video evidence of what happened, according to the US government, they've released the video and you can see the Russian fighter jets.
Spraying jet fuel on the drone.
It's unclear if the fighter jets actually hit the drone.
The U.S.
is claiming that they did, but the Russians are saying they didn't.
The ambassador basically said that if their jets had hit the drone, then their jets would have been damaged, and their jets were not damaged.
But we did see from the video that a couple of the propellers were bent.
One of them was bent.
One of them looked like it was twisted.
So it's unclear what caused that.
Maybe the jet fuel is really, I mean, I don't know how heavy it is when it sprays out of
an airplane, but it's possible that the jet fuel bent it in some way when it was flying
over.
That would be the only thing that I could assume.
But basically, the Russians are saying that this drone was in their airspace.
Now, of course, the United States doesn't really recognize that as their airspace because
the United States doesn't recognize Crimea as Russian.
So their point is this drone shouldn't have been there.
It was headed towards Crimea.
They have evidence of that.
They now have the drone.
The drone was found in the Black Sea in about 900 meters, which is, you know, the Black
Sea is about 2,700 meters deep.
So 900 meters is fairly close.
They were saying that it was pretty close to the Crimean shore.
Sure, and they now have recovered the drone so it looks like I mean both things could be correct There could have been a lot obviously there was fighter jets doing some fancy maneuvers around the drone At the same time that the fighter jets may not have made contact direct contact with the drone it could have been the jet fuel that bent the propellers and At the same time this drone clearly was very close to Crimea in what Russia considers to be their airspace so it looks like One side says it was aggressive.
That's Russia saying this drone was aggressively in our area.
And the other side says you guys were flying recklessly and unprofessionally around our drone and took it down.
Essentially shooting it down without shooting it.
I do think that hearing a different perspective on this subject already helps to temper the escalating tensions.
It's obvious that this issue, from a Russian perspective, is entirely different.
It's seen as an act of aggression to even be in that airspace.
And I wonder, Kim, if you have anyone there with you who could potentially turn your mic down a little bit.
We're experiencing some distortion at this end.
I'm not sure if that's something you could do.
Thanks very much, Kim.
It seems again that this is one of those stories that's being leapt upon to advance the narrative that it's legitimate to increase tensions between the US and Russia.
Why are we not seeing any attempts at diplomacy?
Why is the media in particular always keen to present even relatively minor skirmishes in the least favourable light?
I wish that they would go towards diplomacy, and I would hope that something like this wouldn't escalate things.
But it looks like this is just going to escalate tensions.
The U.S.
is using this incident as a means to say, look, Russia's aggressive towards us.
But I don't know how you could categorize how the U.S.
has been behaving or the West has been behaving towards Russia this entire time.
This is a war that is not being declared a war.
The United States has engaged in warfare The West in general has engaged in warfare with Russia by
proxy through Ukraine and been very warmongery in the rhetoric.
So, Russia has every reason to feel threatened by the United States.
If there is a surveillance drone flying right around Crimea, Russia has every reason to
feel threatened by that.
I mean, it's a war.
So I don't know how exactly they're going to de-escalate this or use this to de-escalate
They're going to have to just—both sides are going to have to kind of ignore it if we don't want this to escalate into a further conflict where there's boots on the ground.
I mean, the next step is going to be NATO troops in Ukraine.
That's the only thing left.
at this point, besides giving Ukraine heavier weaponry, that they're not really trained
to use.
So in order to give them that heavy weaponry, we'd have to have NATO boots on the ground
in Ukraine.
That is a full-on war with Russia, and that leads us nowhere great anywhere quickly.
Kim, lurching from one global crisis to another, can you give us some insight on the collapse
of SVB?
Do you think that this aspect of the financial crisis will be utilised to promote the use of CBDCs to ensure that centralised currencies are placed in the hands of existing establishment structures?
Yes, absolutely.
I actually my view on the collapse of SVB and also subsequently Signature Bank of New York and previously Silvergate Bank was that these were targeted attacks on banks that were heavily into the crypto world.
This was a way to take out crypto.
And now crypto doesn't know where to go.
They need banks for on ramping and off ramping crypto to convert dollars or euros to crypto
or to vice versa.
Sell your crypto for euros or dollars.
And these three banks, Signature Bank and Silvergate Bank, were were absolutely they
were the two biggest crypto banks.
And SVB was getting into it.
And suddenly these three banks are taken down.
There was definitely some deregulation that happened.
But the deregulation actually didn't have a lot to do with it.
These banks were solvent banks.
They did not have bad assets like non-performing mortgage loans, for example, where people
were defaulting.
They bought treasury bonds from the government when the government told them to buy those
treasury bonds in order to reduce inflation.
And then those banks were taken down.
And when you look at what happened with Credit Suisse just yesterday and how the Swiss Central
Bank came forward and said, don't worry, we've got this in case something were to happen.
That is the role of the of the central banks.
That is what their purpose is, is to help go in there and ensure that a solvent bank
has liquidity when there's a potential run on that bank.
That's exactly what the Swiss Central Bank just did for Credit Suisse.
And yet the U.S.
Federal Reserve Bank was unwilling to do that for these three banks.
But then suddenly, three days later, if they just would have implemented the rule that they have now, three days later, those three solvent banks would have remained in business.
You can take a bank down when a bank is insolvent, but to take a solvent bank down, that's purposeful.
They whisked in—SVB had a buyer.
They rejected that buyer.
That would have saved SVB.
Signature Bank was solvent by the time they showed up to seize it.
Same thing with Silvergate.
Silvergate was told to prepay loans that they weren't needing to prepay in advance.
Why would they need to do that?
That was taking out their liquidity.
This was a targeted attack.
on cryptocurrency. That's exactly what this was. That's why we're not going to see very many other
banks collapsing anytime soon. They will eventually. There's going to be some collateral damage.
But ultimately, this was targeted on these three banks. It was intended to take out crypto because
the Federal Reserve has been very transparent and open about wanting to roll out central bank
digital currency. They can't do it when there's alternative cryptos out there. They even have
this on their website.
They're very open about it.
They say that the rollout of CBDCs will help protect the U.S.
dollar as the global reserve currency.
They flat out say it on their website.
They're wanting to do this.
They've just implemented a 12-week pilot program to see...
To see how CBDCs do.
So, we're seeing them march towards this central bank digital currency, where individuals like you and I will have bank accounts, essentially, with the central bank, with the Federal Reserve.
That's where our bank—that's where our money will be held.
They'll be able to then surveil us.
They even say on their website that it would help with combating crime, criminals, because of the transparency of where their transactions are going.
So, they're wanting to roll out the central bank digital currency.
They're wanting people to want it.
So, part of these collapsings of these banks is also to get people to say, oh my gosh, you're telling me when I put my money that I earned into a bank account, and I've made no risky investments, the only thing I did was open a bank account, and now you're telling me I might lose all of my money, claiming it's somehow my fault I opened up a bank account.
They're wanting you to feel that fear so that then you say, well, then what's the only thing?
How can I keep my money safe?
Well, you'll keep it safe if it's directly with the Federal Reserve.
That is the only place.
So that's what they want to do.
They're wanting to roll out these CBDCs and they're wanting you to want it.
If you can control the money, you can control the people.
That's what they're doing.
God, Kim, that's such an extraordinary and evolved perspective and so in keeping with one of the themes of today's show, how the escalation of fear ultimately causes us to submit to further authority.
I hadn't noticed that potential in that story at all, not that I would, I'm not a financial expert by any means, but much of the reporting that we've seen and even participated in focused on the increase of Interest rates and sort of almost, I suppose, conventional financial arguments for how this collapse has been brought about and its corollary with 2008.
This crypto perspective and how it might facilitate further centralization of currency is a fascinating one.
I don't know why I'd be remotely surprised that you would provide such insights, Kim, for you have made a living doing precisely that.
Kim Iverson, thank you so much for joining us on Stay Free.
We're always grateful to have you.
Thank you for having me.
It's such a joy.
Kim Iverson is the host of The Kim Iverson Show, available to watch every weekday from 6pm PT, 9pm ET on Rumble.
Before we wrap up the show today, why don't we momentarily ruminate on the events of January 6th?
Because this is obviously something we've been threatening to talk about for a number of days, and in particular the way that it's been mobilised and utilised by differing sides within media.
Let's take this US Today headline.
How dare anyone diminish or deny The events of January 6th.
I suppose what it centers around in the end is whether or not you feel like you ought have access to as much information as possible before making a decision.
That's one component of the story.
The other one is what are the conditions that led to January the 6th?
That tends to be absent from a lot of mainstream reporting.
We enjoyed very much this clip on NBC where they talk of Tucker Carlson as if he's a sort of shamanic figure able to create Alternative realms and dimensions.
Have a look.
For the second night in a row, Fox News host Tucker Carlson used his exclusive access to more than 40,000 hours of video.
Big deal that he's done it on consecutive nights, is it?
No.
News is on every night.
That's not a big enough thing to mention on the news.
Every single night.
I noticed this at around 9pm.
Tucker Carlson appears.
Why is he doing this?
Also, he talks about his exclusive audience.
That's people that watch the channel.
That's just viewers.
To his loyal audience that he's captured and tricked somehow.
It's really odd the things that they choose to attack particularly when ultimately from their perspective this is a story about bias.
What their claim is is that Tucker Carlson and Fox are only showing footage that supports their perspective and certainly that is a claim that can be made but they have to simultaneously recognize that they are doing the same thing.
It's clear that all of the footage Unless, you know, you go full on, it's the whole thing staged, which some people are down with that, aren't they?
Like, you know, there's footage of people smashing up doors, there's footage of ins- of what look like insurgent acts,
but there's also footage of people sort of ambling through corridors across tiled floors,
so somewhat peacefully, it seems.
"...from January 6th to create an alternative reality..."
Ha ha ha, it's not- it's not an alternative reality!
It's just another thing that happened.
It's just another perspective like then when we were talking to Kim who'd spoken to a diplomat from Russia and from a Russian perspective that drone strike is well that's above water that's adjacent to our nation, we still consider Crimea to be part
of our nation.
In a way, there can be no progress without access to alternative
perspectives, whether it's regarding this issue or any issue. You can only
de-escalate tensions by considering how other people might feel and what
narratives they might adhere to. Carry on.
Another clip.
There's another one.
Are you guys gonna do... Are we cool to look at the next thing?
Here we go.
Some January 6th facts to weigh alongside Tucker Carlson's new January 6th fantasy.
Fantasy?
So it's really interesting to do a show about bias, to have a take about bias, and then to use such extraordinarily bombastic and hyperbolic language while apparently addressing the issue of bias.
I suppose this is one of the things we've been talking about a lot in the last couple of weeks, that there is no moral authority on either side and ultimately we need Listen to what some people said on the surveys we give out when you get tickets in response to some of these questions about the effects of lockdown.
I'm just going to show you a little clip of my show Brandemic.
It's available now on Locals.
You can get it if you want immediately. Have a little look at a clip of that.
Listen to what some people said on the surveys we give out when you get tickets
in response to some of these questions about the effects of lockdown. I'm a scientist.
First one's from Steve.
In response to the question, what's the naughtiest thing you did during lockdown, Steve said,
telling all my neighbours I was a medical worker so they would direct their applause at me during
Clap for Carers.
Well you can see that stand up special by joining us on Locals where you also get access to our
weekly show Stay Connected.
I also do meditations on there, and live recordings.
Graham Hancocks will be joining us next week.
You can You can attend that if you want to.
On tomorrow's show, I'll be talking to Dr. Cornel West, a philosopher, political activist, and someone who inspires in me a deep belief that it is possible to change by listening to voices from across the political and philosophical spectrum, that we needn't be tyrannized and frightened by the bombast
▲
Export Selection