All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:13:48
TRUMP ARREST?! - #094 - Stay Free With Russell Brand
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm going to go ahead and get started.
you Hey!
Hey!
Hello, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Wherever you're watching this, the whole show will only be exclusively available...
On Rumble.
That's because after 15, 20 minutes or so, we start saying stuff that you require free speech to say.
Not indoctrinating hate, not engendering speech that would divide us or make people feel bad about themselves, but a far worse crime than that.
Suggesting that if we unite, we can confront establishment centralised authority.
Today's a show that is about authority because Donald Trump has been arrested.
You might not like it.
Well, not yet.
Oh no, he's gonna be arrested in the future.
He's predicted his own arrest.
That's right.
Christ-like?
A little bit.
One of you will betray me, one of you will deny me.
That's out of Jesus Christ Superstar.
Not my words, Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Are you doing a little audition at this point?
I know that there are people, certain people, erstwhile of Project Veritas that make musicals here and there.
Even in Trump predicting his own downfall, well that's not what he's predicting, he's predicting an authoritarian attack He is depicting himself in a very particular position.
We're going to use this as a point to pivot and discuss authority.
Who has the authority to arrest Donald Trump?
By what moral authority?
And are there any other comparable cases that if you were to arrest Trump for that, essentially it's like did he use electoral funds, campaign funds to pay for Good luck arresting Putin!
money for dear old Stormy Daniels, is there any comparable offence committed by the opposing
party? And obviously there is, because otherwise this would be a lot of rhetorical nonsense.
Also, the ICC have announced that they're going to arrest Putin. Good luck, good luck
arresting Putin, he ain't going quietly though. Mr Putin, you are under arrest.
OK, what is it for?
My driver's license?
No, it's for the crime of war.
Illegal.
OK, I'll come quietly.
The ICC have offered similar decrees previously.
Colonel Gaddafi, don't remember what happened to that guy, don't remember seeing him jostling about on the back of a truck, having all his dignity robbed.
Stripped nude, jostled to the undead.
And also, The dude that used to be in charge of Sudan I think is currently exiled or hiding out somewhere.
They call him that as well.
The Dude.
Chief Dude of Sudan!
So like it's not unprecedented but it is unlikely and it brings about important questions and these are the ones that I want you to answer.
I want you to ponder along with us and then answer.
Who has the authority?
It's the same with free speech.
If you don't agree with the principle of free speech, you have to conclude that there's some group, individual, or institution that has the authority to deny you your free speech.
Who are you giving that authority to?
Once our trust in institutions like government, media, and the corporate world has broken down...
Pretty sure that's where we are.
Then none of us are granting that consent, are we?
So that's one of the things we're going to be talking about.
Also, we're talking to Glenn Greenwald.
What an exciting conversation to be having at this time.
Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, radical advocate for free speech, radical critic of all political corruption, wherever it's found.
Newly confronted continually by his old liberal establishment pals.
Not that a liberal establishment would have ever been Greenwald's pals, but they've turned on him, haven't they?
He's someone that faces a lot of attacks.
He's a brilliant journalist.
He's our friend over here on Rumble.
We're honoured to have him.
And then once we flip off a YouTube, We'll be talking about censorship that so-called journalist Matt Taibbi talks about.
Some vaccine side effects stuff that we just wouldn't be able to talk about on YouTube.
On our item, here's the news.
We're talking about January the 6th.
You're going to absolutely love it.
But before we get into this Trump stuff, the true nature of power, you should know that Russia are recruiting new warriors on Onanism website.
Pornhub.
Let's have a look.
Uh, Wagner.
Wagner, like as in the composer.
The composer.
Hitler's favorite.
Let's have a look at the, uh, like the advert.
There was some text from the advert that we were pretty keen to see, weren't we?
Let's have a look at that.
So take down that still immediately and replace it with a text that we discussed so that I can see it if you don't mind.
Thank you.
Could you?
Shall we have that or not?
Do you remember that?
We said the advert because we don't want that text there because we discussed that.
It's the new text.
No, that's the previous text from the Vice article.
What we want is the text from the advertisement that Gareth read out in the article.
Don't worry about that.
I was never married to it.
It was always at best mediocre, which seems to be the standard.
I've got it here if you want to hear it.
Yeah, tell me.
Right, so in the since-deleted ad, a blonde woman wearing red lipstick is seen seductively sucking a large lollipop, while another woman's voice huskily says in the background, we are the coolest army in the world.
Trivialising, minimalising and sexualising war.
I think if you were to join an army or a militia on the basis of that advert, then find yourself in a war, you might feel pretty misled.
It's at what point during watching that content you would feel more like joining a war, isn't it?
I think, knowing my own relationship with these kind of porn websites, which I've had to curtail due to moral and spiritual reasons, but I would start off very enthusiastic.
And because you don't want to join a war.
I'm not interested in that.
I think that my own trajectory would be initial incredible enthusiasm about, yeah, I'm going to join that militia.
I'm going to have a fantastic time.
War!
Yeah!
And then ultimately, oh God, what's the point?
Can't we be kind to each other?
What the hell are we doing this for?
I can't fight anyway.
I'm too weak!
I'm fragile!
The main story we're talking about today, though, is the potential impending arrest of Donald Trump.
And in particular, who has the authority to conduct that arrest?
Maybe as well as watching us, you watch mainstream media.
You can see how mainstream media will report on this.
The assumption of authority is baked into their presentation.
Have a look at this crazy bit of reporting.
You'd never know anything was wrong in Donald Trump's world.
The former president in Oklahoma rallying a crowd at a wrestling... Like, how would you at that point know that there was something wrong in Donald Trump's world?
I mean, what should he do?
Nervously shuffle off that plane?
It's not like how Joe Biden does.
Like, there should be at least one accident descending the stairs.
Oh look, Donald Trump today looked besieged by doubt as he descended... It's amazing to have everything he owns, it's got his name written on it.
Mmm.
That must be good for your self-esteem.
It must be.
If you look at a tower, Trump.
If you look at even, like, in your notepad, Trump.
I mean, even if you see, sort of, like... Have you ever had headed notepaper before in your life?
Oh, I'd like that.
Brilliant.
We'll get you some.
We'll get you some for Christmas.
We'll get you some sooner.
Let's have a look at the rest of this.
If Trump is worried about a wrestling tournament, I mean what an incredible life he's living.
He's being president, he's getting off a jet, he's at a wrestling tournament, he's being indicted.
The thing that's interesting though about this indictment of course is that it appears to be for the misuse of campaign funds which if you think about it is really similar To the Democrat Party situation with the Steele dossier that they funded.
So let's have a look at it just side by side.
Because I guess the real question is, put aside your prejudices for a moment.
Maybe you really like Donald Trump.
Maybe you do not like Donald Trump.
In a sense, I think one way of achieving objectivity and a relationship with your inner principles is to somehow regard the object just as a catalyst.
Say, for example, during all of the controversies around the pandemic, if you could forget about the object itself and just think, how is power behaving?
Is there a wealth transfer?
Is there censorship?
Does there appear to be an agenda?
You can just interrogate yourself and conduct your own investigation.
Obviously that doesn't mean that what we do on our own is going to be of a higher standard than what academia can achieve, but we have to recognize that a lot of interests are being bought out, that there's a lot of In fact, government is founded now on corruption.
That's the founding principle, isn't it?
That they are funded by, lobbied by, owned stocks and shares in, corporations that receive favourable treatment and indeed legislation.
That we all understand at this point, and quibbling about the small differences between the parties, is all that's left for us, and that's what we're calling democracy.
And even this potential impending arrest of Trump is another example of that, because look, It's claimed Trump concealed alleged hush payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws using legal expenses.
You're not allowed to do that.
You're not allowed to use legal expenses.
That's the key phrase.
Legal expenses, yeah.
Okay, so Clinton was fined by the Federal Election Committee for funding the Steele dossier using illegal expenses.
Yeah.
So that's interesting.
It's pretty similar.
It's just not as doesn't sound as dodgy.
It's not so salacious because Trump's one has a porn star in it and that one's got a dossier.
Dossiers famously require sexing up like the dossier that was used to underwrite the illegal invasion of Iraq
where specifically the then head of spin doctory Alistair Campbell said we better sex up that
dossier i.e. make it sound like there's definitely weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Spoiler alert and I don't like using that phrase.
There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.
I can tell you no one sexed up the steel dossier.
It was so un...
It's boring as all hell.
What they did is Russiagated it up and made it sound like there had been collusion.
What's interesting about this as well is who has the power to make those arrests and on whose behalf do they operate?
You'll be aware by now that the ICC have issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin.
This seems like a sort of very mute and clerical approach to a despotic, maniacal tyrant.
Sir, you are under arrest.
This is like a person that has access to nuclear weapons.
That doesn't seem like bureaucratic compliance is utmost in his consideration.
It's been issued to a couple of other leaders, Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and Colonel Gaddafi.
Gaddafi, as you know, is dead now.
And Omar al-Bashir has been deposed subsequently.
Have a look at this moment.
This is really interesting.
This is Colonel Gaddafi addressing, I think, an Arab council where Assad and him are talking about
the recent death of Saddam Hussein, who was, of course, executed by...
I don't know. I mean, who did that?
This is where it gets into sort of this is where I think it gets into important philosophical territory because you have to presume a degree of authority whether you're talking about freedom of speech or you're talking about arresting Trump and not arresting Clinton and again we're looking at the issues it's not like The function of this show is not, wouldn't it be great if Trump was in charge?
Or wouldn't it be great if Putin was able to continue to kill Ukrainian children?
Obviously that's appalling.
Obviously what we're advocating for is a radical change in the way that power is structured fundamentally.
What these news stories highlight is a lack of moral probity at the core of our systems.
You can't You can't claim that you're going to arrest Trump and then not arrest Clinton.
You can't arrest Putin for war crimes and then not look at the military history of the West, even the recent history.
And when I say recent history, we're talking about Trump, Obama, Biden.
Recent history.
We'll talk more about that in a moment, but just have a look at this.
This is good to look at this because if you're like me and I'm sure you know you could be watching this
anywhere in the world let me know in the chat let me know in the comments join us in part of our
locals community because those are the comments and chat that I watch coming up now hey a Hogan
like and let us know are you aware of these alternative narratives are you aware of how this conflict
looks if you're watching it from within Russia you know like they'll have their own anti-establishment
voices There'll be people saying, Putin's a tyrant.
We don't want to be going to this unnecessary war.
This ain't benefiting us.
I'm just trying to enjoy Pornhub.
Just recline and freely express myself.
And I'm getting militia adverts?
That's not a pop-up I came here for.
I came up here for a pop-up of another variety entirely.
Here, you get a look into what Edward Said would say is the sort of alternative perspective of reality that we're often denied, in particular, from the Muslim world.
Although, of course, Gaddafi was a secular leader, which made him useful for a while, until he wasn't useful, then it's goodnight, baby!
Game over!
Have a look at him talking to Assad after the occasion of the execution, call it what you will, of Saddam Hussein.
We will remember that moment.
Check it.
Why isn't there an investigation into Saddam Hussein's assassination?
An entire Arab leadership is being killed in the streets.
We're not going to watch a funeral.
Maybe it's your turn now.
And I'm...
What Gnappy didn't know is that the next person was going to be him.
Yeah, the punchline to that actually was his own death.
It's a brutal punchline.
Yeah, one of the worst, I'd say.
Listen, we don't know, none of us, none of us know, in case you're, like, you might not be able to speak that language, I'm guessing he's speaking Arabic there, like, and you might be listening to this only on audio, what Gaddafi said was, listen, we can't just let him kill Saddam He's a sovereign leader of a country.
They've just gone in there and killed him.
That means they could do it to any of us.
I mean, any one of... And he says, amusingly, any one of you.
Or... And everyone laughed as if they all knew.
Or you, actually, my man.
And of course it was Gaddafi that died next.
And by what right?
And again, this is not... You can say stuff like this.
Indeed, you must say stuff like this without fearing that you're gonna be sort of...
Dubbed an advocate of Gaddafi because, of course, as we now know, as centralised authority doubles down on its control, rather than address the issues raised by peripheral counter-narratives, whether they come from the left or right, they instead smear all dissenting voices, whether that's a powerful dissenting voice or a relatively marginal or minimal one, Like this, oh, you don't want to listen to Matt Taibbi, he's a so-called journalist, as that congresswoman said in that investigation.
Instead of addressing the revelations of the Twitter files, why not just accuse Matt Taibbi of being an idiot?
Instead of dealing with Donald Trump, whether you like him or not, and I know loads of you really love him and you know how I feel about Donald Trump, don't feel like he's the solution, fascinating figure.
In loads of ways.
Rather than dealing with, hey, how come this figure has risen to the forefront?
What failings does that show systemically?
That 13% of people that voted for Obama also voted for Trump.
So, hmm, that's an interesting statistic.
What does it reveal about society?
Well, I'll tell you what it reveals.
That it doesn't bloody work properly.
That's what it reveals, and they can never have that conversation.
I want to draw your attention to a few philosophical quotes that will help us formulate our thoughts around the nature of authority.
Firstly, the theory advanced by John Rawls is that authority is legitimate if and only if it acts in accord with principles the subjects agree to.
So for us to give authority to the state or to the ICC, we have to agree with them.
At this point, there is no we.
The point where you can have 300 million Americans going, yeah, we the people, it's over, isn't it?
Now, there's a lot of talk of succession, but in a way, it's got to go further than that.
I think more democracy, more ability to govern your own communities.
This is a quote from Robert Paul Wolf, who I hadn't heard of until about 25 seconds ago.
So don't feel like I'm trying to act like I'm cleverer than you.
I don't think I'm cleverer than you.
I don't think I'm better than you.
I don't think I know stuff you don't know.
I know you know stuff that I don't know.
Let's talk through this.
The basic idea, says Robert Paul Wolf, is that it is incompatible for a subject to comply with the commands of an authority merely because it is the command of the authority, and for the subject to be acting morally autonomously.
Don't just do what you're told because you were told to do it.
Literally the opposite of what you're told at school.
Literally the opposite of because I said so.
Because I said so works for kids.
Thank God, because I've got kids.
But it doesn't work for an adult population of engaged civilians, does it?
That's why you need the term subject.
You're subject to that power.
That's one of the things we continually talk about.
The tone of parentalism that is in our discourse continually.
Like, oh, we've decided the experts, when they talk about experts, that's mummy and daddy.
And I'm not denying the category of experts.
But we are querying the nature of de facto aristocracies and technocracies where power is administered without inquiry, particularly once democracy has become nullified and hollowed out by corporatism.
Would you agree?
Let me know in the chat.
Hit me back, baby.
You know, I'm interested in what you think as well, although you wouldn't think so from the amount I talk.
Wolf thinks that each person has a duty to act on the basis of his own moral assessment of right and wrong, and has the duty to reflect on what is right and wrong in each particular instance of action.
Complicated.
Time-consuming.
Difficult to have people blindly... blind... blind, obedient people.
Easier to manage than what's being suggested here.
Such a person will be violating his duty to act autonomously if he complies with authoritative commands on grounds that are independent of the contents of the command.
So the duty of autonomy is incompatible with the duty of obeying political authority.
This is the challenge of philosophical anarchism.
So anarchism isn't about chaos.
Anarchism is about democracy and lack of domination.
It's one of the things we've discussed on the show.
And I guess that's what comes up here, isn't it?
Yeah.
When you start saying arrest Putin or arrest Trump, what you're saying is there are people, groups, institutions that have the moral authority to undertake that.
And there isn't because, you know, I know you've got some points Gal and then we'll move on to Putin and the war crime stuff and how that argument can be made.
Of course.
You want me to make a point?
Yeah, you look like you're ready to.
Well, I guess the situation at the moment, it's very, it's amazing that this is happening at the same time.
So the Pentagon is helping to shield Russia from international criminal court, ICC, again, interesting.
This is amazing.
From ICC accountability for its atrocities in Ukraine, fearing such a reckoning could set a precedent, allowing the tribunal to prosecute the U.S.
for war crimes in a new report, which is amazing.
So at the same time, you've got them say, we need to arrest, you know, Putin for war crimes.
The U.S.
is literally withholding Do you hear how important what Gareth is saying is?
All the while the narrative is Putin's evil, Putin's bad.
How many speeches have you seen of Joe Biden, back lit, standing up in front of a military congregation saying, this guy didn't reckon on how brave Ukrainian people are.
Oh brilliant, so Putin's a war criminal, you bet he's a war criminal.
Can you give us some evidence please because we're going to prosecute him as a war criminal.
Hold on a minute.
If we give them that evidence, they'll know that we're war criminals as well.
So that is the truth.
That's not conspiracy theory.
Here's some information for you guys.
In a minute, we're going to be talking to Glenn Greenwald, who I pray is watching this because I think he'd give us such a pat on the back for this.
Don't you think, Glenn Greenwald?
He does a lot of nice tweets about you anyway.
He's always sticking up for us when they're digging us out, isn't he?
Listen, if you're watching this on YouTube now, we're going to have to click off in a matter of moments.
I'll tell you why, because we're going to be talking about some corporate stuff that YouTube are just unable to broadcast.
And hey, everyone's trying to make a living in this world, even the Alphabet Corporation.
So we got to click over just to rumble, because we're talking about some of Matt Taibbi's so-called journalist and friend of the show, some of his revelations around vaccine side effects.
And then there's another thing as well.
Oh, Raccoon Dog, man.
Have you heard about Raccoon Dog?
There's a new animal in town.
It's Raccoon Dog.
It looks like what you think it would look like.
It suddenly entered the scene.
Like, Raccoon Dog.
Imagine, like, the genealogy of the Raccoon Dog.
Like, it exists at 12 noon, 12.01.
It's your fault, that pandemic!
Bloody hell, give us a minute!
No one even knew I existed, like, 25 seconds ago.
Just emerges on the scene.
It's the Orson Welles of being blamed for coronavirus.
So straight out of the gates, bang!
Here I am!
Nice reference, sir.
Thank you.
I knew you'd like that.
We've used it before, haven't we?
So listen to this stuff.
Before we click over to being exclusively on Rumble Home of free speech, let me hit you up with some of these facts.
We do a deep dive into this subject later in the week.
You're going to absolutely love it.
So, documented and alleged war crimes committed by Russian forces and contractors in Ukraine include... So this is terrible and awful.
We're off YouTube at this point.
Oh, actually, yeah, we better come off YouTube, because this list is bad.
So we'll come off YouTube.
Join us on Rumble.
Click over now.
We've got great guests.
We've got home troops that are going to awaken you.
You do not want to miss the awakening.
You're going to want to participate in this particular rapture.
See you in a second.
We're going over onto Rumble.
Alleged war crimes committed by Russian forces and contractors in Ukraine include, but are not limited to... So this is what Russia have done, or they've been alleged, because they've not been proven, but I bet they bloody well did.
That's just my opinion.
Massacres and other murders of civilians and soldiers, indiscriminate attacks on densely populated areas, these are all war crimes.
Attacking critical civilian infrastructure, bombing hospitals and shelters, torture, rape and sexual enslavement of women and children and stealing children.
That is why we do not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
But we do investigate the narrative and the chronology of events that led to this point because it's bloody significant.
Check out this terrifying fact.
American troops and contractors have perpetrated each of those war crimes in US attacks, invasions, occupations and peacekeeping operations in the years since the ICC was established in 1998.
Since 1998!
We're not even talking about Vietnam and all the crazy war crimes of all those sepia days of Dead Kennedy and sort of Dickie Nixon flicking the V's.
We're talking about modern era.
We're talking about Biden, Obama, Trump.
We're talking about a corrupt system that has no moral authority to be arresting anybody We're talking about a system that by its own acknowledgement cannot participate in an ICC attempt to arrest Putin for war criminality because their own revelations would inculcate them, not inculcate, would incriminate, incriminate them, would incriminate them.
So that's, is that ideal?
Could we do better than that?
No, it's a difficult system to tinker with.
Let's more or less leave it the same.
Yeah, I mean you don't see a mainstream, you don't see CNN saying, but let's look at our own crimes, do you?
What you see is a CNN piece about them having an arrest warrant out for Putin.
That's why when I personally saw Trump, even though we were doing videos then saying, oh Trump, we don't think this dude's the answer, he seems a bit crazy.
It was amazing to see him go, you think our hands are so clean?
He would say stuff like that.
And like, you know, you'd be in jail.
You'd think, oh my God, this guy's going there.
Like Chappelle said on SNL, it's like he said stuff like, all the things you think's going on in there, they are going on in there.
He, like, Tony Blair, God rest his eternal soul, even though he's still kind of living, had the aphorism, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
Now, obviously that was a sort of a bit of rhetoric designed to assure potential new voters that they wouldn't allow law and order.
We all know what that means, right guys?
Issues would rise to the forefront.
But it's an interesting piece of language, I think, because in order to address Trump, you have to address the conditions that led to Trump.
The sense of despair, the alienation, the isolation, the inequality, the entropy, the corruption, the institutionalised hypocrisy.
And they're not willing to have those conversations, so therefore you get Trump.
So instead of like, oh Trump, like you watch any mainstream left-leaning liberal establishment show, even entertainment ones today, they'll be just telling you how bad Trump is.
Maybe they'll be doing some jokes about like how Putin should be arrested.
What they won't be telling you is this.
That any war crimes trial, if you're going to nick Putin, should start with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.
They initiated a brutal war of aggression against Yemen in which upwards of 400,000 civilians have died.
The principal accomplices, always knowledgeable and sometimes enthusiastic, of the royal killers were Presidents Barack Obama Donald Trump and Joe Biden, whose administration serviced the US-provided warplanes, supplied munitions used to bomb weddings, funerals, school buses, and other civilian targets, gave intelligence use for targeting, and for a time refueled Saudi and Emirati aircraft.
So that is recent participation.
People that are still like bowling about.
Obama's got a Netflix deal.
Biden's in the White House.
Trump's being arrested, not for war crimes, But for hush money paid to Stormy Daniels.
So what does your culture value?
What do your systems prioritise and prize?
What are the principles around which our society is organised and could we improve it?
These are the questions that we give to you.
These are the questions that we want answered.
Join us in the chat and join us in our locals community for access to all sorts of other content.
Yeah, that's exactly it.
And what we were talking about earlier is that, you know, the situation with Trump being arrested, the thing they don't talk about is they don't talk about Yemen, because what Yemen highlights is that Obama was a huge part of it.
I mean, look at all the drone strikes under Obama.
Our literal current president is doing fist bumps with the Saudi leaders.
Did he do a fist bump?
He did a fist bump with a Saudi leader.
He did do that!
He did do that!
That's the narrative that just isn't told.
Gareth, I've come up with a catchphrase that I think is going to be helpful to changing the consciousness of the American public, in particular those that watch mainstream media outlets like CNN.
Go on, mate.
Get Don Lemon to talk about Yemen.
Nice.
Yeah?
Get Don Lemon to talk about Yemen.
It's catchy.
That's what I would say.
It's catchy.
It's catchy, but will it catch on?
That's the real issue, I suppose.
Shall we move now?
Sure.
Are we going to show our presentation?
Here's the news.
Before Glenn Greenwald, yeah, we probably are, do you want to hear a little bit about Raccoon Dog?
Raccoon Dog is the new culprit Yeah, there's Raccoon Dog.
Of course it was him all along.
He's even wearing a Zorro-style mask.
He's a bandit.
It's Raccoon Dog is the new stooge in Who To Blame Other Than Scientific Ineptitude at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded by the NIH and ICT.
Double funded by you, actually, because I used taxpayer money to fund some of this experiment.
I mean, even when I'm saying this, this is one of the things I'm glad we're on Rumble, because I'm not sure how this could be... Is this right?
Taxpayers paid for the EcoHealth Alliance or for the NIH to do gain-of-function research in Wuhan twice, and...
If that virus came out of there, that ain't good.
Now they're coming up with all sorts of convoluted excuses comparable to the magic bullet theory made famous by the movie JFK.
Fauci's like, I suppose it could have come from that lab, someone could have left the lab, gone and done some bad research in the caves, gone back to the lab, then they've gone home, kissed their wife on the snout, then they've gone to the wet market, still with maybe mucus on their lip, they kiss a raccoon dog, or one of them Penhaligon's one of those crazy little bald armadillo creatures is.
That's when you get yourself one hell of a coronavirus.
Yeah, if you hang, if you all the while, while watching Fauci talk about the coronavirus, think, is this dude trying to avoid personal blame for this?
It all makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?
Do you think Mate, did you invest in that lab?
Oh no, listen, what could have happened is someone at that lab there, maybe it was go to work on roller skates day, they roller skate in at work, they slip right out, oh my god, what's that on their finger-tippy-two-toes?
Have a look, is this bit of mainstream media news, this patronising graphic, or is this just a still?
That's just a still, is it?
This is Fauci making those claims.
That's the raccoon dog.
On the mainstream news, we'll just show you this.
The mainstream news, right, did this thing of how the raccoon dog could potentially have given the virus to a woman.
There's no evidence, mind.
It's not like they've gone and done some research, and actually this woman, she's been carrying on with raccoon dog in ways that you just wouldn't credit.
It just said it might have been from a raccoon dog.
And then to exemplify the issue, they've used the graphic, have a look at it, that is insultingly non-additive to the argument, presenting as it does, the silhouette of a raccoon dog, an arrow, and then a woman.
So how exactly... Listen, we can't understand this, we're just ordinary people.
How exactly would coronavirus get from a raccoon dog to a woman?
Well, if you see over there, that is a raccoon dog, and then it could go from the raccoon dog to all the way across there to the woman.
No, that's not that bit yet, you poor sweet people.
That's the alternative magic bullet theory.
A Lambly could be...
What's going on in there, do you think?
Who knows?
The debrief's going to be better than the show.
You know what I think's happened?
Raccoon Dog's got in there.
It's got into our gallery.
It's causing mayhem in our gallery.
That's one theory.
That's one theory that I think will be being advanced in about 30 minutes.
Let's watch the news report.
The East Asian raccoon dog, a relative of the fox, may hold the key to the origins of COVID-19, according to a group of scientists quoted in The Atlantic magazine.
The team says their new analysis of samples taken at a Wuhan market in the early days of the pandemic is a really strong indication that infected animals were there, including raccoon dogs.
The findings support the theory that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans.
But researchers... The graphic's not giving you enough, is it?
No, it isn't.
No, if I watch the news, I want a little more science in my graphic.
Yeah, like that's, I'm going to watch the news a little more discerningly now, because remember what I said a minute ago about parentalism?
That's how I would explain raccoon dog to my children.
What is it daddy?
I said bit of a dog, bit of a raccoon.
Why does it exist?
Because it's convenient for it to exist.
Why have we Have we never heard of it before?
Because it's never been relevant before.
Why are they bringing this to the forefront of public knowledge?
Because it's gaining momentum.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology caused that lab and it had significant funding from people
directly involved in the response to the pandemic, which means that they were not only culpable
for causing the pandemic, but subsequently profited from the pandemic.
And that would be such glaring evidence that the entire system is corrupt, that people
might rise up in the streets, refuse to cooperate in unprecedented levels, be willing to overlook
their cultural differences in a new war against the establishment authority.
I see.
This raccoon dog, where exactly does it live?
It lives in Fauci's mind, rent-free internet.
I like this dynamic between you and your little daughter.
That's, that was a conglomerate of, that was a sort of a, that was a hybrid of both of my children actually.
I could not get either one of them to cooperate.
It's hard enough to get one to say here's the fucking news for that sting to tell you the truth.
The amount of cajoling that that took.
Um, should we look at that?
Should we look at Fauci doing the magic bullet stuff?
Yeah.
A lab leak could be that someone was out in the wild Phone don't sound right for a scientist.
Therebly could be someone is out in the wild.
He's improvising already isn't he on the news about this another way that this could have happened.
Okay so like this is like this is what I'll call the adulterer's textbook well those Prophylactics could have got in the bin because a jackdaw was using used prophylactics to make its nest.
A spermy little dwelling place high in the sky.
He's trying to build the nest.
The jackdaw drops him.
It gets stuck on our maid's slipper.
The maid comes into the room.
She puts the slipper in the bin.
You find them in the trash and accuse me.
Not necessarily me or Fauci because I could be anywhere at this point.
Oh yeah, that makes sense.
Or have you been having sex and you've put that prophylactic in the bin?
It's that, isn't it?
Was it with the maid?
I just want to know.
In my mind...
No, but like, I didn't, I didn't actually, I didn't have... No.
It was actually with a raccoon dog.
In my mind, a very sexy... You saw how those raccoon dogs dressed.
What do they expect coming in there?
Dressed like little banditos?
Dressed a little bit like... Especially the one on the news where it had a fluffy, like... Beautiful.
Very voluptuous.
Hi, I'm a raccoon dog!
Don't come too close though!
Don't touch these goods!
If you got a weak, weak respiratory system or comorbidities, you're gonna go down fast!
If only there was some medicine that was mandated near us, dammit!
Then you'll all be safe!
Raccoon dog, you've done it again.
You've ruined another life.
Maybe looking for different types of viruses and bats, got infected, went into a lab, and was being studied in the lab, and then came out of the lab.
But if that's the definition of a lab leak... It isn't!
That's your definition of a lab leak.
All the while they've been saying, follow the science, follow the science.
What they've meant is, follow the science that we will afford you access.
access to. Even Robert Redfield's testimony revealed that they were considering alternative
narratives right at the beginning of this. They were considering lab leak theory himself.
He's talking now like lab leak theory is like some mad mouse trap, like the Doc Brown machine
that dispenses dog food at the beginning of Back to the Future.
Okay, Marty McFly comes in, he presses a button, a cuckoo comes out of a clock, it knocks a ping-pong ball forward, it rolls down, and then Einstein the dog gets his dog meat.
Yeah, could have been that, mate.
Or maybe they had dodgy air conditioning at that Wuhan Institute of Virology, or people weren't following safety measures that were stringent enough, and there's a bloody pandemic, and it's embarrassing because you partially funded the experiments that have led Or maybe they were just having a massive party and things got- because they were getting paid twice the amount of money they should have been paying.
Both lots of money!
So maybe they just had some big party in there and things got knocked over and who knows?
Hey look we did an invoice for this money from America but look they've sent it again!
Woohoo!
It's time to P-A-R-T-Y!
Now maybe that party, they went down to the wet market and got one of those Panhalicans, and you know what they're like over there.
They'd have lifted up its little snifter.
They use it like ammonitrate.
They'd have been sniffing away at its back door, and that's the way you get yourself a Pandemic Baby!
He's gone.
He's gone in the imagery.
That's what was bound to happen eventually, wasn't it?
If we kept doing a show, eventually someone was going to say something like that.
It's like those typewriters and monkeys and all that stuff.
Eventually someone says things like that.
So let's have a look at Fauci's version of it, just to justify the version of the graphic that we've spent some time creating.
What Fauci thinks, here's an alternative theory, what could happen is a woman meets that raccoon dog, a needlessly naked woman, might we add.
Then what happens is they go to the lab, look at that, do some experiments, that's what that looks like.
Then she goes home to her family, maybe she Have a little kiss and cuddle and stuff like that.
There she is.
Look at that heart.
She's making a little bit of the sweet love down there.
And then next, what happens is she goes out and about.
Maybe that was a wet market down there to her house or whatever.
Then what happens?
Global pandemic.
You're staying in your house for ages and ages till you learn to comply with all of our centralised edicts.
Don't challenge authority.
Become an obedient, servile little prisoner of the state.
I can see why folks should get paid all that money now.
I mean, these are brilliant theories.
That is a good idea.
That's so hard to make that.
That's why you've had to spend two years sitting in your house.
That's why your children weren't educated properly.
That's why your small businesses failed.
That's why a five trillion dollar wealth transfer flew in the wrong direction, upward of you in the wrong direction.
Shall we have a look now at the reporting around the events of January the 6th and see the kind of media biases that were at play there?
Well, the only thing I'd say is it's 20 to 6.
So don't do that.
I don't know, maybe we need to speak to Glenn.
What do you think?
Well, get to Glenn Greenwald.
What do we think?
Yeah, get Glenn Greenwald!
All right.
Oh, Glenn Greenwald ain't here.
They've been too scared to tell us.
They've been too scared to tell us because I've seen that for the first time I've probably sort of shown a little bit of irritation on screen.
Although you've done very good managing of all this, keeping my moods on track, haven't you?
Oh, well.
Over the course of the day, it's all part of the job.
Well, ultimately, we're all going to die, so I suppose there's no point in getting too worked up about anything, really, if that's the baseline.
The interesting thing about what we're about to see is along similar lines.
We're kind of talking about Trump and the phenomenon of Trump and January 6th, and asking, really, in terms of truth, what are we... double standards, you know, ultimately, like, what footage are we allowed to see?
We're only allowed to see one version of it.
So that's what we'll be kind of getting into.
In this, because...
Whether or not, wherever you stand on the Capitol, in fact, this is maybe, this is a new philosophical device.
I can't believe we're inventing this.
Let's work out if we're inventing this.
Don't concentrate on the subject.
Yes.
Like, whether it's, you know, vaccines, vaccine hesitancy, war in Russia, Trump, Capitol Hill.
Like, because it comes with a certain amount of cultural heat.
That cultural heat will contaminate you and infect you and you'll start feeling certain stuff like, I hate Trump or I love Trump or whatever it is.
Try to observe that.
That's where spirituality becomes relevant.
That's why my conversation with Cornel West was good.
If you ain't watched the Cornel West episode yet, you should watch it.
And if you ain't a member of our community, you should join it because we do things like live shows with Graham Hancock.
You can come Watch it literally with us in the room.
Lean over and touch Graham Hancock.
He ain't gonna mind, is he?
He might.
Oh, no, don't touch Graham Hancock.
We don't know.
He might mind.
Anyway, I'm saying there's benefits to being a member of our community.
So we're saying, whatever the subject of the story is, don't get bogged down in that.
Just look at the behaviour around it.
So if, like, for example, with the Capitol Hill, all you have to decide is, do I want to be shown all of the footage before I decide?
Am I capable of discerning for myself?
Does one side of this argument seem particularly biased towards censorship?
You know, and that doesn't mean, again, just to tell you for a final, not for a final, but another time, we don't think that the answer here is, and that's why you should vote Republican.
That is not what we think.
I've never voted for a right-wing person.
I've never endorsed a right-wing person.
Happened to me recently.
I didn't really even talk to any, but I have done lately and they're all absolutely delightful.
I've mostly discovered some of the sweetest, kindliest, most adorable people I've ever encountered.
So let's have a look now at the farrago surrounding Tucker Carlson's reporting on Jan 6.
Again, try to keep your focus on the way that it's being reported, the way that it's being handled, and let us know in the comments and chat if you like the way that we are handling it.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Have a look.
Is it the worst thing that's ever happened since 9-11?
Since the American Civil War?
And do you get any objective reporting on it?
Is it wrong to riot?
I would say it is.
Is it wrong to use riots to implement favorable bills and fund a new internal army?
I would say it is.
Let's have an objective look at January 6 and the way it's being used by the establishment.
Now, January 6th has been in the news a lot, not just because of the event itself, but because of the way that it has been reported.
For the sake of clarity, my general opinion is this.
It's wrong to be violent under any circumstances.
It's wrong to hurt other people.
It's wrong.
It's simply wrong.
I would never advocate for violence.
However, I also believe that American democracy is in real trouble, and I don't have a sense of sanctimony around the buildings, symbols, and epitomization of American democracy.
Our democracy!
We were doing so well!
That's where we accept all our lobbying money!
That's where we accept donations from!
But what we want to know is, how is this story being used?
Is it being used to pass laws, for example?
Is it being used to raise funds, for example?
Is it being used to divide people?
And more generally on the subject of censorship, do you want to be given information and decide for yourself what you believe, or do you want someone to decide on your behalf what information you're able to see?
Now, you know that I went on Tucker Carlson recently and I personally found him a very convivial and enjoyable person to be around.
With the subject of January 6th, it's pretty obvious that you could take footage of an event and show footage that made the riot look more peaceful.
Or you could show footage that made it look worse.
So I'm aware of what censorship means and what editorialization means.
So let's try, amidst that understanding, as well as our General cynicism and weariness around, in particular, the corporatization of American democracy and how ill-deserved any sanctimony around those institutions are, while still respecting that we shouldn't, as human beings, be harming or hurting one another.
Let's have a look at this story, how it's being portrayed, who's using it, and to what end, and see if together we can come to some sort of consensus around what January 6th actually was, how it should be reported, and how it's being used.
Misleading and offensive, that is how the Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger described the presentation of footage from the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol on Fox last night.
I'm always concerned when a news outlet accuses another news outlet of being misleading because, as you know, I believe that they're all equally misleading or to varying degrees misleading.
Who cares?
They're all misleading.
And the idea of offensive, that's linguistic lobbying for censorship, that is.
And I'm assuming what he's saying is offensive to the people who died or were injured.
But I don't believe that, because that presumes a particular outcome.
We can't show you this footage, it's offensive!
No, show me the footage, I can handle being offended.
I'll look at the footage, and I'll form an opinion based on what I think.
Not a curated idea.
Now, of course, I'm not saying that Tucker Carlson is objective.
Tucker Carlson has a perspective.
I understand that what Tucker Carlson thinks is both the Republican Party and Democrat Party and mainstream media are so corrupt that you can't discern truth.
And in these areas, I agree with him.
And when I was on his show, I talked about the areas where I don't agree with him.
Cultural ideas and homelessness.
And guess what?
We had a conversation.
As far as I know, no one died.
So perhaps what we can have is open, honest conversations where we're presented with evidence For the second night in a row.
For the second night in a row.
More control, more authorisation, more censorship, more prescriptive realities.
For the second night in a row.
For the second night in a row!
Almost as if he's on TV every night.
Nightly news programs tend to happen on consecutive nights.
Don't editorialise that.
For the second night in a row!
And we can only assume that the next night he'll be doing more stories!
That shows that there's the application of hysteria and hyperbole in the rendering of simple information.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson used his exclusive access to more than 40,000 hours of video from January 6th to create an alternative reality of what many witnessed.
It's not an alternative reality, is it?
It's an alternative perspective.
He's not Quetzalcoatl.
He's not a Mexican Feather God shaman.
Woah!
Look at reality!
Now everyone's made of waffles!
It's just Tucker Carlson showed stuff that hadn't been shown before in the same way they're doubling down on the smashing of the windows.
According to the footage, people did smash windows.
We can see that.
And according to footage, people did show that shaman around.
Both of those things are true.
Presumably, one media outlet has a vested interest in seeing the windows getting smashed, and another media outlet has a vested interest in showing people being shown around.
So of course, it's possible that the shaman dude was being shown around because the police had been told, look, don't escalate this anymore.
Keep things chill.
That's perfectly possible, isn't it?
But what it also shows is that when they were in the capital, they weren't all of the time running around like aaaah, roaring and shitting on flags or getting George Washington to go, I HATE AMERICA!
The whole thing was clearly in its own weird strange way underwritten by a type of patriotism and ultimately a result of, I would say, ongoing escalating tensions Hello there, you awakening wonders.
Today's show is brought to you by Manscaped, who are the best in men's below the waist and below the snout and within the ear grooming.
Their products are precision engineered tools, like our analysis, for your family jewels.
Manscaped's performance package is the ultimate men's hygiene bundle.
You get the lawnmower.
This trimmer is the future of grooming, and some say the greatest ball trimmer ever.
You get the weed whacker, crop preserver ball deodorant, Although, if there is an odour, there just shouldn't be an odour on your balls.
But if there is, this will rid you of it.
The Crop Reviver Toner, Performance Boxer Briefs, and a travel bag to hold your goodies.
In this case, the goodies are the products, not your reproductive organs.
Join over 7 million men worldwide, not literally, that would be unhygienic, you'd be ankle deep in pubic hair, who trust Manscaped with this exclusive offer for you.
Get 20% off and free shipping with the code brand at manscaped.com.
That's 20% off with free shipping at manscaped.com and use the code brand.
Oh, it's really actually quite satisfying because you can hear it.
Can you hear that?
That's the sound of youth returning.
Hey, listen, we've got Glenn Greenwald here.
All right, Glenn.
Russell!
What have you got on in the background?
Like, I mean, the audio.
Not that telly.
The audio.
Are you watching something?
No, of course not.
My attention is completely undivided on your show.
What would I be watching?
Seems a bit hurtful, Glenn, because when you've been sticking up for me on Twitter, I was beginning to think that we were really... No, no, I was literally listening to your show.
I don't have anything going on in the background.
Bullshit!
Here we are, Russell.
Let's look forward, not backward.
See, that's authoritative.
That was authoritative.
I learned that from Obama when justifying why he wouldn't prosecute the CIA for their torture program.
Well, let's look forward, not backwards at all of our tortures we've done and lies we've told, or quantitative easing.
Let's look forward, naively.
Mate, what do you think's been going on then lately with the shutting down of dissenting voices in particular?
Are we going to call them colleagues, cohorts, mates, Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger?
What do you think of the way that whole congressional hoo-ha went down?
I mean, I think there's this inherent problem with these congressional hearings, which is that in reality, members of Congress have almost no power or authority, notwithstanding the loftiness of their title.
The only power they ever actually get to wield is when they have witnesses before them and
they control the six minutes that they're given with completely unlimited authority.
And as we know, and especially when human beings feel powerless, the little tiny power
they have, they often abuse it.
We've seen this, you know, in all kinds of circumstances.
So basically, all they do is they hector these witnesses, they heap all kinds of accusatory
slurs upon them.
And then when the witnesses go to answer, they say, I didn't let you speak.
This is my time, reclaiming my time.
It's the most pathetic and cowardly display imaginable to publicly brand, no pun intended, somebody in the most insulting ways possible and then refuse to let them answer.
But I thought it was very telling that the Democrats explicitly made clear That the reason they regard these journalists and the ones who work with them revealing the Twitter files as nefarious and threats to the public order is because they believe the censorship regime that those journalists expose, the one that entails the U.S.
security state, the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, colluding with big tech to police the internet, is very noble and necessary.
And if you believe that about a secret program, The way, for example, lots of people believe the secret spying programs we revealed as part of the Snowden reporting were noble.
You're going to be angry at the journalist who revealed it, and that was the most revealing part about that hearing, was how explicitly supportive the Democratic Party is of this censorship regime.
Glenn, in today's show we have been discussing the nature of centralised authority, it's growing ubiquity, it's clearly becoming more radical in the enforcement of its edicts and ideals, yet its legitimacy seems shakier than ever.
The threatened and presumed arrest of Trump is one way that we can discern this waning of actual legitimate authority and as it continues to double down.
Obviously, the neglect of the comparable Russiagate steel dossier stuff is an aspect of this we've covered.
But as it's happening at the same time as a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Putin, it's difficult not to look at comparable war crimes.
We used this piece today about, I think it's from Cato.org, talking about how Biden, Trump, Obama
have all been explicitly involved in the UAE, bombing of Yemen.
I suppose what I would like your perspective on, Glenn, is the decline of trust in authority
and almost the assumption now that there is no central body that has the right to execute that kind of power.
And if that is something that's real and legitimate, and if you feel that it's true as well, what does that tell us about where we are and where we have to get to?
Yeah, it's a very interesting paradox, isn't it, that secure, confident institutions of authority can give the people over whom they rule a greater degree of freedom because they know that those people, by and large, trust those institutions and they're not endangered and threatened as a result.
When those institutions fall into pervasive disrepute, when they're held in contempt, as is the case quite validly for most Western political and media institutions, that's precisely when they become even more authoritarian, when they start cracking down further on dissent because they're afraid.
And instead of trying to determine what is the root cause of this loss of faith and trust and confidence, when's the last time you heard anyone who works in corporate media They're very good at lamenting the fact that the public no longer trusts them.
They're very good at blaming other people for the fact that the public no longer trusts them.
When's the last time you heard any of them in any earnest way engage in self-reflection?
What is it that we did to lose the trust and faith of the public?
Or when is any government official Done that.
They watched Donald Trump get elected.
Clearly an expression, as I heard you saying earlier, of this kind of despair.
Brexit was certainly the same thing.
This kind of, we don't care what the consequences are.
We believe the status quo is so corrupt and contemptuous of us that whatever you tell us we shouldn't do, we're going to do the opposite.
There was definitely a lot of that in terms of how Bolsonaro got elected in Brazil, across the democratic world.
And so instead of ever asking, why are people losing faith and trust in us, they instead want to demonize the population.
They're racist.
They're dangerous.
They're engaged in terrorism.
And as a result, we need to crack down more on them.
We need to censor the internet more.
We need to criminalize dissent more.
We need to try and prevent them from choosing their leaders by convicting them and rendering them ineligible.
And as a result, it's an inescapable cycle that the more they do that, the less trust and faith there is in those institutions of power, and in turn, the more authoritarian they feel they need to be.
And I think that's the cycle that we're currently in, and it can actually be very cleansing.
I think it's good that people finally are seeing that Western institutions of authority merit their contempt and not respect.
But it can also create a lot of instability and dangerous outcomes as well because demagogues and others can cleverly exploit that for nefarious ends.
But ultimately, they have no one but themselves to blame.
And I think you're right.
Their solution, instead of trying to fix it, is to just use force to crack down on those who want to challenge them.
While there has been no public mea culpa from any of those organisations as you listed, whether they are media or political, and certainly, obviously, not corporate, I find it impossible to consider that they haven't privately taken place, that they haven't got within their circles, amongst their elders, amongst their highest intellects, people that are considering, oh no, the reason we've lost authority is because we've become corrupted, because the relationship between the corporate world and the state and the media has become too porous, and people are now realising it because it's So easy for counter-narratives to emerge whether through credible and established journalists like yourself or new emergent voices or members of the public.
They must understand that they are making the decision to double down on authoritarianism and censorship and smearing opponents and dissenting voices.
So Glenn, why is it that that choice has been made and what does that tell us about the likely trajectory over the coming years?
I mean in particular with regard to the likelihood of More pandemics, more legitimisation of authoritarianism.
Because if you consider that they must have access to the kind of reflection and contemplation that has just been shared by you, they must, they must know that, they must surely on some level, and they've elected not to explore it or express it, then there must be an alternative route.
I know I'm making so many assumptions there, but that's what I do for a job.
So what do you think about that and what do you think it means about where we're going if they haven't got that reflection or they're not willing to express it?
Yeah, I'm not sure.
I do fully agree with that assumption, namely that these elites, because they're so smart, and I'm sure a lot of them are quite smart, Because they have this kind of sophisticated understanding of the world, it must mean that they realize they bear some of the culpability for what has happened.
I think oftentimes, to the contrary, especially when you have kind of an insular elite, an increasingly insular elite that is more and more removed from the rest of the society, you know, kind of the Versailles dynamic where you just kind of haul yourself up in a royal court.
And think that the anger outside of the gates is just whiny, petulant, unjustified resentment and not grounded in legitimate grievances.
A lot of elite classes throughout history have thought that about the populations over whom they were so abusively ruling.
It's not so much an intellectual failing, it's a psychological failing.
It's an inability to accept blame.
And oftentimes, the smarter someone is, the more kind of awarded they are with position and privilege and prestige and award, the more convinced they become of their own infallibility.
And the more they genuinely believe that anybody angry with them or dissatisfied with them must, by definition, be somebody whose thinking is misguided or who has poor character and who therefore needs to be controlled, who therefore needs to be constrained and limited And what it is they can do is, almost though, is proof.
If you don't think Dr. Fauci is an eminent scientist with great integrity, by definition, you're someone who can't be trusted with free speech.
You're someone who can't even be trusted to vote for who you want because the mere fact that you distrust these people, the highest and most renowned and well-regarded elites, is proof That you are broken.
That you are somebody who needs leadership and guidance and control and have your liberty deprived of you.
And I think the ability to engage in self-critique is something that is contrary to our instinct.
is something we have to work to get ourselves to do.
And people who are just constantly having their goodness and their wisdom reinforced have no incentive to do that.
I mean, Russell, to me, I know like each year that goes by, we all get older, like there's more and more people
who haven't lived through it.
But the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I think was even more of an eye-opening moment
than the 2008 financial crisis, although they came one after the other
and they're probably interconnected and inextricable.
But the fact that so many well-intentioned people assumed that when people like Colin Powell and Tony Blair
and the New York Times and all the journalists who you're told to trust on both sides of the aisle
are all in unison telling you the same thing, and it all turns out to be a lie,
And huge numbers of people are murdered because of it.
They lose their lives because of it.
The regime is—the region is destabilized.
ISIS arises.
Like, some of the worst possible outcomes imaginable because of the elites and the most well-regarded mistakes.
And then you watch those very same people, who to this day aren't just in the same positions of power, but greater positions of power.
They suffered no consequences at all.
Same with the 2008 financial crisis.
Then, of course, you're going to create this breach where you have the elites over here and the masses over here who both distrust and hate them.
And the more distrust and hate there is for the elites from the masses, the more the elites believe the masses can't be trusted to make their own choices.
And I think that's the tension that's happening.
Well then, I agree.
Glenn, if that is indeed the case, then what we have is in fact a new aristocracy, a new oligarchy.
We have unattainable, unaccountable elites that are not interested in the voices of those they claim to represent.
It sounds to me that you're describing, in a sense, the precondition for revolution,
the revolution or a type of tyranny and authoritarianism such as the world has never before seen,
because it's never had the utility that it currently has.
So some of our most dystopic conjecture is legitimized by that trajectory.
legitimized by that trajectory when you can observe individuals within that
When you can observe individuals within that system advancing on the basis of deception,
system advancing on the basis of deception once that fissure that you
once that fissure that you described in 2003 and 2008 became more entrenched,
described in 03 and 08 had became more entrenched it's almost like it
it's almost like it becomes literal farce.
becomes literal farce they can't double back and check now too late now just
They can't double back and check now.
Too late now. Just keep burying the bodies.
keep burying the bodies just keep putting the paving slabs over the
cadavers it just pave away the truth now if this is the case then is that there's
little value in dissecting and discerning between the minutiae that
distinguishes the the two parties in fact what's required is a galvanization
of a kind of a new populist force is it Glenn or am I doing that speculative
thing again no no I mean, I think that's the only project worth pursuing.
I mean, that's what I regard my project as being when I wake up every day in terms of my work, is exactly that sort of unifying of people who are being told constantly that they're supposed to hate one another across ideological and cultural and religious and demographic divides.
That instead, unifying in that way, that even though you have a bunch of differences on these issues and these inflammatory issues and you call yourself a leftist or a rightist or whatever, and you belong to this party or that party or some other party, the reality is you have so much more in common than you do differences.
Namely, your lives are being controlled and exploited and abused.
By this very small segment of elite culture, and the only thing that matters is overthrowing their hegemony.
And then once a fair system is imposed, you can start kind of grappling with those differences.
Until then, you don't have any outlet for doing that.
You don't even have the right, the freedom to debate.
You don't have the right even to speak.
And I mean, that's literally true.
And you know, I remember reading a lot when I was younger about the kind of oligarchs of say like the late 19th century and then to the early 20th century, you know, people like Rockefeller and Ford and all those people, they would like go through the streets and they would You know, they were very PR-minded.
They would, like, throw dollars out of their cars to the public to try and create favor with the public, to show that they actually cared, that they were people who wanted to help.
They were very philanthropic for that same reason.
They were very afraid of the masses.
They knew that if the system became too extreme, their position would be threatened because you would almost incite a revolution.
And they were constantly thinking about how to placate the public just enough To keep the inequality still vast, but them, the public, just enough kind of appeased so they wouldn't do that.
And I remember asking an extremely wealthy person I knew who worked in a hedge fund after the 2008 financial crisis when the government under Obama so blatantly acted to benefit and shield the wealthiest people and kind of let the entire middle class and working class get expelled from their homes and evicted and suffer in generational debt.
Where did that ethos go?
Like, what happened to that?
They no longer fear the masses.
And what I concluded, and I was writing a book on this actually when the Brazil reporting started, was that basically the elite class has two options.
You can appease the anger of the masses to give them just enough to keep them just enough satisfied that they don't want to get off their couch and risk things.
Or you can say, you know what?
We don't give a fuck about them.
They probably will get to the point where they want to revolt.
And so our strategy instead will be to militarize, to build a paramilitaristic society where we keep them under constant surveillance.
We, you know, make sure that the weapons we have are far greater than the weapons they have, so that if they do actually want to try and do something, they're going to be crushed by force.
And that will either deter them and convince them ahead of time it's futile, or if they try it, They will in fact be crushed and clearly the elite class has chosen that second option.
Yeah, that's not a heartening note to end on, Glenn.
The elites have armed themselves to the teeth.
The glory days where it could be considered compassion to hurl dollar bills out of a limousine, out of rats and scumbags in the gutter, are beyond us.
I think that you're right, as a matter of fact.
I suppose that aggregating and powerful new technologies are emerging that further tip the balance of power towards centralised authority.
The more...
Let me just interject so that I don't go away as, like, the person who's just the bearer of bad news.
Like, the reason I fight so much against Internet censorship and Internet surveillance is because I truly believe the technology that we're using right now, the audience that we're building, the sector of, you know, kind of online life and information dissemination that we are a part of, is the thing that provides so much optimism.
And they know it, too, which is why they're so devoted To controlling it through censorship, to controlling it through exclusion from the financial system, to demeaning and discrediting us in every single way that they can, because that's the thing by which, from which they feel most threatened.
And I think they're right.
I think the thing that we're being a part of, that we're a part of building with so many other people, is the thing that is genuinely encouraging.
Okay, so new alliances can be formed and what we're doing is valuable, but those trends are pointing to the conclusion that the elites have drawn.
Militarise, govern, control, legitimise authority, exploit crises to double down on the ability to regulate.
Impugn and impoverish the population both in terms of their diet and the commodities that they consume and the food that they eat and the stuff that they stream.
Yeah, okay, well that's good because it makes me feel that we're participating somehow in a radical movement of a new global counterculture where power is decentralized and people run their own communities and have the freedom to disagree with one another.
And as you said earlier, those differences can be debated and resolved after meaningful systemic change.
Yeah, all right.
I mean, I think you overreacted to me saying, oh, that's a bit of a dour note to end on.
You didn't even let me do a flourishing speech.
You're right in there.
I've not used my, please can I talk now sign out of respect for you and your heritage as a journalist and an investigator.
That's the first time since he's added that.
I like to come on your show and commandeer the platform and make clear that the person who dominates the interview is me.
It's just like a kind of, I have a lot of dogs.
I learned from my dogs how to mark territory and the like.
So maybe it's just that kind of behavior.
It's very disrespectful.
When you go on other people's shows, you should sit there politely and take on board their points and blindly comply with their agenda.
That's the way I do it.
Well, yeah, at first, we all saw.
Just recently.
Thanks, Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn Greenwald is our friend and colleague here, and we adore him.
He hosts System Update on Rumble.
That's available weeknights, every weeknight, or probably, yeah, weeknights.
That's the five days.
That's the Monday, Tuesday, all that stuff.
7pm ET.
Ian, I'm going to tell you what time it is, PST.
You can also see our item on January the 6th in full after this show on Rumble, because we cut out in the middle because we wanted to get Glenn Greenwald in, especially now we know that he's treating the whole thing as some sort of canine turf war.
Interesting link, though, between what Glenn was saying there and the content of the video that our viewers won't have seen yet.
But that's exactly the case.
The response to the Capitol, whatever you want to call it.
Double down on authority.
Absolutely double down.
Pay the Capitol Police more.
You've got to watch this video right after this show.
Watch our video on January 6th.
You'll love it.
We didn't say a proper goodbye to Glenn.
Glenn, goodbye.
Respect.
We love it.
Oh, there he is.
Glenn's there.
We didn't say a proper goodbye.
Perhaps you want to use this as an opportunity to do another monologue and berate me for minor inaccuracies.
Never that.
I feel good about myself today.
I love you.
Thank you.
All right.
Talk to you guys.
Bye.
Cheers.
Thanks, Glenn Greenwald.
All right.
So listen, we've been talking for 67 minutes.
That's actually more than we contractually obligated.
That's what it's about.
We ain't governed by that.
We're part of a counter-revolutionary movement.
You heard Glenn Greenwald.
We'll stay here all night if we have to.
Think I've got anywhere to go?
That's from the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who said that.
That's right.
Another one.
They love us, the Pulitzer Prize winners.
They're toppling, aren't they, now, day by day.
Another one's dubbed a conspiracy theorist.
To curse that thing.
Bloody yeah, I'd refuse one, even if I was offered one, which I probably will be.
On tomorrow's show, we've got Thomas Patterson, Professor of Government and the Press at Harvard University.
Sign up to our Locals Community to get access to all sorts of stuff, including my stand-up special, Brandemic, which is on there now.
You can watch it literally now.
It's really, really funny.
Or you can buy it for a one-off fee of $20.
Should we show you a little clip of that, or should we go home?
Your show.
All right, have a look at it then.
Like most of you, I went camping in lockdown, right?
Did you go camping?
You had to go fucking camping.
Once you've got kids, you might as well go camping, because your holidays are going to be shit anyway.
So your kids will fucking ruin your holiday like they ruin everything else.
That's what they do.
They let you be happy.
All you've done by going on holiday is you've given up your tools that you can control those little fuckers with.
All the things I swore I would never do as a parent.
Like, is there any greater disjunct than the disjunct between who you say you're gonna be as a parent before you have them fuckers, and then who you are as a parent once they show up?
Me, this is me before our kids.
Oh, parents won't let their kids look at screens.
That ain't right, is it?
You should not let your children look at screens.
Nah, that's the devil's lantern, that.
Manipulation.
I'm not fucking letting our kids watch screens.
No.
When we have children, I will entertain them with folktales from around Come learn of the indigenous spirits, come thee.
When I have kids, I won't give them chocolate nor sugar.
What?
The brown and white, the smack and cracker baby world.
Fuck that.
Now I've got them, I'm like, I'll stick Netflix on and give it a fucking rollo, will ya?
...watch that right now if you want.
If you're a member, you can buy it for $20 or you can just get it as part of the annual membership, which is well worth having, because we do things like, you know, when Graham Hancock comes on, I've had it confirmed, you can just reach over, touch him on the leg.
Oh, it's confirmed, is it?
Confirm that now.
He's fine with that.
Just touch him on the leg and I say, yeah, what's going on with your two-ton car moon?
You do what you like, you're free!
That's what this is about, it's freedom to be you.
You can join us like Character Zero, Sensitive Hearts 25, Loving Action, or chatting away there in our locals world, asking us valid questions.
I bet there's a good comment from the show.
Yeah, there's a couple here on the raccoon theory, the Fauci theory.
So Saltflake47 says, could have been a scientist in the wild that got loose from the lab.
Nice inversion there.
What, the scientist has broke out, he's gone wild?
Exactly, rather than the raccoon dog.
Because Hulk was a scientist, wasn't he?
He just got out of hand one day, didn't he?
He did, didn't he?
Oh, what'll happen if I eat this?
You idiot Hulk!
Don't test it on yourself!
That'll be Fauci's next theory.
It could be Bruce Banner was testing out a new power!
Yeah, they're like Spider-Man things, and even Raccoon Dog sounds like a superhero.
This guy's called Storf the Badger.
which means like i think that he only comments on stories about like things like raccoons go on maybe he says i'm more worried about rabies from that thing lol which yeah maybe you would be you're right he's very specifically because of course badgers mostly it's tuberculosis that you have to worry about from badgers i believe so mate iron I want to say I'm an epidemiologist, but I know what I like, but I'm willing to stick my oar in.
OK, so hey, listen, if you're a member of our community, you can watch our exclusive show, Stay Connected, and as we've just confirmed, that you can actually consensually make love with Graham Hancock.
He's agreed to it.
Very gently, tenderly, and he's actually going to be quite committed to it, he said.
And we will have some raccoon dogs, just in case he says no.
There will be raccoon dogs.
We'll see them, see if they're actually real.
Yeah, that's this Wednesday.
You can join us live for it and comment and ask Graham questions, or if you're in the car, we gave away tickets for like some pairs of tickets to join us actually live in the room.
And if you're watching it right now and you want to come, we'll give one more pair of tickets to you.
We're going to do this stuff.
Might as well do it properly.
If you can answer this question, What is Graham Hancock's favourite position when making love?
If you can answer that.
Quickly, the first one to send it.
Got to be in the locals community.
Let's see.
Not what is the zombie drug?
That's not the answer.
And also you have to be available to come to see us because we're in the countryside in Britain.
So don't bother saying anything if you're not in the countryside in Britain.
Have people thought that that's something you could Google?
Doggy.
Hold on.
Synchronously says doggy.
Firegirl says forget it.
Christiana says bent over.
The answer is Graham Hancock.
It's plain old missionary style.
He's a simple man.
So have any of you answered that correctly?
I mean, have you got the comics, Gav?
If someone says, you know, if someone wants to come... No, I haven't got them.
No, I haven't.
This is a contest.
I'm trying to do a contest.
Did I just get Spanner in the works with your sex question?
Flakka Synthetic Drug.
It says missionary.
Someone says it there.
Drive Pony.
Drive Pony.
You can have a pair of tickets.
And of course, as an added bonus, you can make sweet love to Graham Hancock.
It'd be interesting.
Imagine Graham Hancock's watching this.
Well, I didn't agree to that.
I just wanted to talk about a cataclysmic event.
People in the old days was better than us.
This is a bad old times.
There was a golden age of people.
Is that Graham Hancock?
I thought you were going to make a joke about a cataclysmic event being an orgasm or something.
Who knows?
I don't know how your mind thinks.
Sometimes it doesn't even bother to think.
OK then, I think that is the end of the show, isn't it?
Yes, I would agree.
I can't imagine what else we would do at this point.
No, I think we've done enough.
Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, stay free.
Man, you switch it.
Man, you switch it.
Switch on, switch on.
Man, he switchin'.
▲
Export Selection