All Episodes
Previous Next
April 24, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:05:52
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Holy SH*T! Pfizer Secretly Funded Who?! - #114 - Stay Free With Russell Brand
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, enjoy your life.
Enjoy it.
This is your life you're living, you lunatics.
This is Stay Free with Russell Brand.
We're streaming live.
Hello, Vandana Shiva.
Are you the new Snowden?
Hello Bandana Shiva.
Are you the new Snowdin? Are you?
Join us not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, stay free.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
So I'm looking for the steel Looking for the steel
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Let's treasure each other.
We're getting the breaking news.
We've got a live shot there.
Hey!
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Maybe turn off the audio on... Oh, that's what it's like being me.
I hear my own voice in my own mind.
There's always at least three tracks running.
For example, someone's got to give this dog a biscuit, haven't they?
Someone's got to do it.
Someone's got to organise... I thought I was meant to be the intern.
No, no, no, no.
I've given him a biscuit and he says it's malpractice.
Someone's got to bring together a set of disparate communities to bring about a global revolution.
Someone has got to ask you, our community, will Taiwan be the next Ukraine?
Someone's got to tell you, breaking news, Tucker's left Fox.
Tucker has left Fox.
Tucker's not going to do Fox anymore.
Let's call Tucker.
Call him?
You just left him a voice note.
I know, he's too keen now for Tucker.
Hold on, he's listened to the voice note.
Does it mean they've listened to it if it disappears?
I don't know, they've gone blue ticks.
We will get you, Tucker, by the end of this show, so help me God.
And also, exclusively on Rumble, you know we're on YouTube right now, well we won't be in a minute, because of the, you know, we love YouTube.
YouTube's where our 6.4 million wonders live, and we love every single one of their million.
Every one of their million, six million, point four, we love them.
But, We've got to go on to Rumble to talk to Lee, Fangs for the memory, Fang, about, and he's breaking a story on our show, so this could be our most important show ever, he's breaking a story, new Pfizer revelations about some Pfizer funding stuff, that is going to knock your pants down around your ankles, or possibly if you're in a comical mood, put them on top of your head, no matter what the hygiene consequences of such an action should be.
We're talking about institutional corruption.
We're talking about nepotism.
Meaningful nepotism.
The kind of nepotism that leads a man, a certain little man called Joseph Jojo Biden, to possibly visit Ukraine to grease the wheels of his son's employment at Burisma Rhymes with Charisma, a Ukrainian gas company.
And this kind of nepotism exists throughout Congress because there's evidence of significant insider trading.
Allegedly!
Because just before that SVB, the Silicon Valley Bank, went down, guess whose kids were selling off their Silicon Valley Bank shares?
Well, it's one of them other banks, actually.
Yes, you guessed it.
Elected, paid-for politicians that you pay for out of your taxi dollars.
So, we'll be investigating that as well as getting Tucker on line one and feeding the dog.
A lot going on.
Okay, hey, look at the way that propaganda works.
This is brilliant, this is.
You'll see a story like this.
This is from the United Kingdom, which is where you get your language and where the Queen, God rest her soul, used to live until very recently.
This is, uh, Northern Railway asked passengers to stop watching porn on trains.
Now, you might think, perfectly reasonable request.
Yeah.
Don't watch pornography on a train.
Constantly look out the window.
Right.
Maybe make polite conversation.
Yes.
Although actually I prefer, I'd rather they did watch porn than talk to me.
Maybe read a bit of the mainstream news or something.
Have a look at some mainstream media.
But I don't like small talk on a train, do you?
No.
I'd rather that they were engaged in pornography and the likely behavioral activity that accompanies pornography.
You know, I'd rather that than talk to someone.
Yeah, although I think there's people in our, what would be, uh, Congress in the United States who were doing that in Parliament.
I think that's probably a bit... We had people in our Parliament doing that, yeah.
A bit more disrespectful, isn't it?
Well, look, at least they're not in transit, I suppose.
They're static in a parliamentary building.
But what we want to point out, it's not the puerility.
of this story, but the fact is, the fact that they'll use something that all of us will agree on, we don't think that people should be watching pornography and engaging in the accompanying uh, onanistic activity, to legitimize, look at the last, look at the last bit of it, uh, they've advised customers to refrain from searching offensive topics and inappropriate jokes, ah, and stop from search, stop them from searching explicit material and bad language on their wi-fi.
So what this will become about, Is to censorship.
Now I know this is a frivolous story but sometimes you can see in a fragment the whole.
You can see in a fractal the way that these patterns repeat themselves.
Let's have a look at the kind of broader corruption that sits at the top of American politics power pyramids in the form of lovely old Joe Biden who's expected any second now to announce that he's going to be running again even though mild perambulation for him seems like a challenge.
Let's see how the mainstream media are reporting on Joe Biden right now.
His re-election campaign as soon as tomorrow.
So, if he wins, America's oldest president could stay in office until he's 86 years old, and that may not sit well for a lot of Americans.
According to a new NBC News poll that shows 70% of Americans do not think Mr. Biden should run again, including 51% of Democrats.
Now, half of those who say he should not enter the 2024 race cite his age as a major reason why.
Major, minor, not a reason.
Not a reason is my favourite category of all of those things.
Hi, so this is a quote on corruption that might be useful to you.
Have a look at this.
This is the quote about the broader corruption in this story.
Isn't there a Biden corruption headline?
Biden campaign blink and orchestrate Intel letter to discredit Hunter Biden laptop story.
That's the former head of the CIA revealed that he was strong armed by the Biden administration
into providing the letter with 50 CIA signatories that was used to underwrite the invalidity
of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Have a look at this quote about corruption.
Have a look at it.
And the so-called political processes of fraud our elected officials like our bureaucratic functionaries like even our judges are largely the indentured servants of the commercial interest.
Now this is where one story about a potentially corrupt President, I mean, let us know in the chat right now, if Joe Biden strong-armed the CIA into delegitimizing the Hunter Biden laptop story, would you call that corruption?
What about the stenographer that says that he heard Joe Biden and Hunter Biden chatting about the deal with Burisma and fracking and stuff?
We're starting now to accumulate a story of If not extraordinary corruption, it's appalling that it's not extraordinary.
It's the level of corruption that we accept within American politics, but politics in our country, the UK, too.
It's an acceptance that really our political leaders are, broadly speaking, serving commercial interests.
Yes, because their personal interests align more with financial, commercial and corporate interests than with the interests of the electorate.
Have a look at the SVB story now and the number of Congress folk who sold shares around the time that that banking crisis took place.
So have a look at this.
On March the 10th, Silicon Valley Bank collapses.
Also on March the 10th, children of Democratic representative Jared Moskowitz sell shares of Seacoast Banking Corporation worth $65,000 to $150,000 after Mr. Moskowitz attended a bipartisan congressional briefing on the bank in Tumult.
Then the very next day, Three days later that is, yeah.
Pardon?
Three days later.
Seacoast banking shares fell by nearly 20%.
At least eight members of Congress or their close relatives sold shares of bank stocks in March.
Some members were buying bank shares during the volatility.
Talk us through this bit, Gareth.
Yeah so I mean this is the case so obviously what was going on at the time this example of Mr Moskowitz is after that congressional briefing obviously had insider knowledge I mean I guess it's allegedly but it seems pretty obvious you think that during the bipartisan congressional briefing you would imagine so they went listen you tell you something Seacoast Banking It's gonna go down.
Those shares are going down.
Sell them!
Right.
But obviously it can work the other way as well.
So March 17th, Republican representative Nicole Malliotakis buys shares of New York community Bancorp after private discussions with New York State Bank regulators.
Are you suggesting that that conversation with the New York State Bank regulators contained information that led Nicole Malliotakis to buy those shares?
Or could it just be a coincidence?
I mean, it could be a huge coincidence.
He has the Chapman Bank regulators.
You know what that's put me in the mood for?
Acquisition of some chairs.
That's right, but everyone's selling theirs.
Oh yeah, you're right, it is probably a bit silly.
I'm gonna buy some though, on another hunch.
Right, another hunch.
So two days later, New York Community Bank Corp... There's more hunches in Congress than in Notre Dame Cathedral, baby!
Nice.
Thanks.
New York Community Bank Corp buys assets belonging to the failed Signature Bank, a deal that prompted its biggest share rally ever.
It never had a bigger one.
Yeah, so it doesn't matter whether they're buying or selling, they're making all the right choices over there in Congress.
Nepotism and corruption, systemic and institutional.
Well, how can we get it up For another four years of octogenarian Joe knowing that it seems at least that he is corrupt, that he used deep state facilities to crush a story that could prevent him from winning an election against Donald Trump.
And that also, furthermore, what's more, that he's getting his son little deals over there in the Ukraine.
I mean, if it was Donald Trump, do you think the mainstream media, the NBCs, etc., will be reporting on this more?
Do you think they'll be saying, hold on a minute, Donald Trump took Don Jr., our friend over at Rumble, over to Ukraine, got him a gig with Burisma, and he's using the CIA to repress information that could be negative?
I mean, isn't...
Trump right now being hauled through the courts of New York City on the basis of a hush payment that came from potentially legal fees or campaign funding.
I know it's a sort of a complex legislative and bureaucratic case, but we all know that whatever they're saying really is to take Trump out of the race.
And what I'm saying to you is that whether it's Biden or Trump, as long as the systems and institutions remain as corrupt
as they are, and they sit on a bedrock of corruption, because look at
that, it's normal.
During a three-year period, nearly a fifth of federal lawmakers,
or their immediate family, bought or sold stocks or other securities
that could have been affected by their legislative work.
Essentially, insider trading.
People in Congress that have connections as a result of their job
to certain stocks and shares and corporations have been involved in sales on those very stocks and shares.
That means it's deep deep in the institution doesn't it Gareth?
And obviously, this is a situation at the moment where, especially with the Biden stuff that's going on, is things are coming out, but there isn't transparency around it.
And this occurs at the same time as the Biden administration is poised to increase internet surveillance in response to those Pentagon papers that we have kind of talked about the last week or so, and the restrict act that they're bringing.
There's all ways of censoring and shutting down discussions, shutting down truth, when we're not able to glean any truth from the things that have been going on with them.
Centralising authoritarianism at a time where we do not trust authority at all.
We believe in democracy here at Stay Free.
Of course we do.
Freedom's what we believe in above all else.
That's why we've been polling you like it's 19 bloody 99 with this question.
What needs to be stopped first?
Lobbyists trading money for government favours?
Members of Congress owning stocks and shares in the companies that they regulate and legislate?
Four, or against, government censorship on free speech.
Which of those three things, and I reckon in future we should put A, B, C, and make that look sort of nice and clear, you know, like sort of a clear thing and look at the language a bit better.
A, B, C, sort of make it very clear.
Have we got some polling results on it right now that we can show?
Right now, 61% of you are concerned about free speech.
Well, that's good, because we are on a free speech platform and we've got a free speech guest coming up.
Later, we're going to be talking to Lee Fang, one of the Twitterphile legends, I'm calling him.
Yeah.
Those brave, proud journalists.
Did you see Tim Robbins' tweet about this?
Tim Robbins, a proud, lifelong Democrat.
Such a Democrat.
Let's find that quote.
Such a proud Democrat that he was openly ridiculed in that film, Team America.
No, you know, Because he was one of those ones that's always at the forefront, lobbying for campaigning.
His Rumble interview of us, if you've not seen it yet, you should have a look at the whole thing.
It's up on Rumble right now.
He did an extremely aggressive tweet.
We don't have it physically as a graphic.
Nice one, thank you very much.
Right, listen to what Tim Robbins said.
Recently, independent journalists like Matt Taibbi, Shellenberger and Barry Weiss have all been exposed in a massive censorship operation by the US government to control content on social media and eliminate any dissenting voices.
Have you read their reporting or are you listening to the embarrassed, compromised hacks from the media that are covering their tracks?
Nice rhyme, Tim.
Could be the most important story related to our personal freedoms in the US and it's being buried.
Mainstream media have not only ignored the story, but now attack the journalists, effectively serving as a thuggish censorship arm of the government.
Meanwhile, then a bunch of politicians threaten journalist Matt Taibbi with jail time.
What an embarrassing, shameful time for the Democrats and the free, inverted commas, press.
You are losing any shred of credibility you had, you effing fools.
And by the way, free Assange.
So there you go, Tim Robbins.
Like, I think what's happening now is that there's a real movement for independence in
American politics.
Let me know in the chat right now if you agree with this.
Like, there's new emergent voices, even within mainstream politics.
Someone like Rand Paul, like a little while ago, Bernie Sanders, people were saying.
And, like, people like, I don't know, Robert Kennedy, stand for president.
Do you think we should have him on the show, by the way?
Because I think we could have him as a guest.
Let's get him on.
But people are like, oh no, he's anti-vax and all that kind of stuff.
He's a lot of other things as well.
He's very much anti-war.
He's anti-war, he's anti-corruption.
I think we need some of those voices at the moment.
He's a Kennedy!
He's a voice that we need!
Isn't he?
Is he?
Well, I think we should talk to him.
Do you want him on?
People do.
Who he is more than anti-vax is Alex Overton, Overton Window.
Yes, says Ginny Phoenix, I think.
Of course, I'm not that... I've not got good eyes.
Right there, but another one of the voices that's taking people to task is Rand Paul.
Ram Paul, in a minute we're going to be talking about the pharmaceutical industry very seriously with Lee Fangs for the memory fang.
He's going to make a revelation about Pfizer and Pfizer's expenditure that's going to knock you on your bottom.
It's going to bend your bones, this one.
When you hear about what Pfizer have been doing with their money, it's fascinating.
We couldn't say it on YouTube, it's too controversial.
You want to get rid of that tattoo?
Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, you're gonna be getting... Cover it up!
Get ready for that, getting pinged off your little old body as quick as an ex-wife!
Like, I reckon that, yeah, you're gonna love that story, but let's have a look at Rand Paul exposing, if that's the right word, some of the ludicrous expenditure that the pharmaceutical industry lays out on experiments that I don't think are worth undertaking.
Listen to this!
My most recent report uncovered $482 billion in government waste.
For example, NIH spent more than 1.1 million to get mice drunk.
How much do mice drink?
For God's sake, they can really handle their booze, the mice.
Apparently we're not aware of what happens when you drink too much.
2.3 million dollars to inject six-month-old beagle puppies with cocaine.
Apparently there's not enough evidence of what happens to humans on cocaine.
So the beagles, they could have sniffed that.
Right.
As well, because injecting it's not an effective, it is effective, I mean economically effective, don't do drugs, drugs are bad.
But I'm talking purely in the context of these scientific experimentations which are taking place that Rand Paul's talking about.
The beagles, if you put it on another beagle's bum, they would sniff that up.
Would that be your way of achieving it?
I've got to say, if you were a scientist, obviously we all know you are one.
In a way I am a scientist!
If I was down at the labs, living it up in Wuhan where we're pretty lax in our lab in Wuhan, I'd go...
Pop a couple of G's on that beagle's body, because I got a hunch that some science is going to happen around here.
How much are you being paid for that?
Several billion dollars.
I want taxpayer dollars for that, whether you like it or not.
You don't get to vote.
Mind your own business.
Fauci decide what happened with them dollar bills.
And let's see what the magical third is.
So we've got a drunk mice coked up beagles.
Also, though, three million dollars to watch hamsters fight on steroids.
That's how much you'd be willing to pay to see it.
I mean, which one of those?
So we've got another poll for you.
We're running two polls simultaneously.
What do you want to see more of with your taxpayer dollars?
Mice getting drunk, drugs, drugged up Beagles even if they've been inefficiently administered
intravenously when they could be administered nasally which I think is how more people do
cocaine, although I would endorse that obviously as drugs are bad and I'm as you know drug
free. Or do you want to see some steroided up hamsters brawling?
A lot of people are saying roided hamster cage fighting.
That's what Rogue Nation saying.
Yeah, I agree.
Almost as if it was well-spoken.
Some people say that's cruel to animals and not to do any of it.
That's an interesting perspective.
That's an interesting perspective.
Nearly, I would say, not a solid majority.
A lot of you are going for the hamsters.
A lot of you want to see the little drunk mice though, to see what they're like.
Best mate!
I don't know what they're like.
Okay.
Hey, listen, we're going to flip over now to being exclusively on Rumble because we've got Lee Fang coming up.
Now, Lee Fang is one of the Twitterphile legends that Tim Robbins vocally advocates for.
Lee Fang has been doing actual journalism, revealing the relationship between the Deep State and social media organisations.
Lee Fang He's investigating pharmaceutical companies.
Li Fang is doing what journalists are supposed to do, convey difficult, challenging, truthful information to the rest of us so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves rather than being deluged in untruths, censored to within an inch of our lives and surveilled all the way to Belmarsh.
So we're going to leave you now because there's a lot of stuff that Lee Fang's going to say and this is an exclusive conversation with Lee.
I believe he's about to simultaneously release the article on Substack in an exciting moment.
Very exciting on the day that Tucker resigns.
I'm going to call Tucker again.
It's a very exclusive day.
Almost everything's excluded.
Nothing's in here.
So goodbye YouTube.
Goodbye.
We love you.
Rumble!
Join us, join us here.
So, please, welcome to the show.
It's Lee Fang, an independent journalist who worked on Twitter Files.
He now writes an investigative newsletter on Substack and he's the author of The Machine, a field guide to the resurgent riot.
Thanks for joining us, Lee.
It's great to see you, mate.
I'm humbled by the intro.
It's really good to be with you.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you for your humility and your grace.
Mate, we want to start with the exclusive story.
As I understand it, Pfizer are attempting to sort of set up grassroots organizations that are lobbying for COVID vaccine mandates.
I'm sure I'm mangling that somewhat, but it sounds like Pfizer are spending money to create apparently authentic voices advocating for vaccine mandates.
Is that what's happening, Li Fang?
Well, look, this story basically takes a look in 2021 when in the United States, we had multifaceted mandates, you know, mandates enacted by I live in California and San Francisco.
There were very restrictive mandates here.
But, you know, across the country, including the Biden administration in September of 2021, enacted a very kind of strong mandate with no exemption for prior immunity or, you know, kind of natural immunity or prior infection, natural immunity.
And, you know, Pfizer was not playing a kind of visible role here.
They didn't comment on any of the articles.
They weren't really talking to the press.
You saw consumer groups, civil rights groups, patient groups, doctor groups, you know, public health organizations all saying, you know, these mandates are necessary.
Even though there wasn't a lot of scientific evidence to support the basis that, you know, we needed these mandates, that, you know, they were sold to us with The claim that they would stop transmission of the virus.
You had this coalition of community groups saying we need the mandate.
Well, I'm taking a look at new disclosures that show that many of those organizations, these third-party organizations with a lot more credibility than a pharmaceutical company with a lot of money to gain, were taking funds from Pfizer while lobbying for these controversial policies.
So, you know, I list them out.
I talked to a lot of experts.
It's a story I just published right before coming onto your show on my Substack.
We're very excited to receive this exclusivity from you, Lee, and at the risk of diminishing your contribution, you're getting a lot of love in the chat.
Notably, Pride Faults, who says, simply, babe alert.
That's an objectifying comment, I believe, about your physical appearance, but we'll probably get some more on that.
That's going to be coming up.
Another exclusive.
Another exclusive.
Lee Fang is sexually attractive.
Let's have... Yep, no, there's more of it.
Oh, it's getting... No, it's getting quite rude now.
Stop that!
That's enough!
Oh, that's made me... Objective, yep, this is all happening.
So, can we have a look at this, some of the FIES lobbying stats?
We'll just talk you through this, Lee, stuff that you all obviously know.
Can you pull that for me?
Pfizer CEO Albert Baller is the treasurer of the Pharmaceutical Lobbying Group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Pharma spent a total of $140 million over that, in fact, on lobbying between 2019 and 2022, as well as the pharmaceutical industry being the largest single advertiser on mainstream media.
75% of all their ad revenue comes from the pharmaceutical Industry Lee.
So we're talking about an almost immersive omnipotence.
They've got power in every direction as well as it appears as a result of your exclusive there to be investing in apparently organic and authentic voices that are, you know, pro-mandate or pro-vaccination.
What chance do we have of real democracy?
What chance do we have of legitimate open conversations when an organization can exert that much power over that Well, look, you know, the figures you just cited were the ones that have to be disclosed.
You know, that's when they hire, you know, a former member of Congress or a staffer to go and wine and dine, you know, a policymaker or regulator.
They have to disclose most of that funding, that spending.
But So much they don't have to disclose, how much they're spending on television, how much they're spending on TikTok ads, how much they're giving to these front groups or these doctors groups or these public health groups that kind of set the nature of the debate.
They kind of appear in the news media, they create events.
And they created a discourse that looks authentic, that looks organic, but it benefits the bottom line of their benefactors, of companies like Pfizer.
And, you know, the vaccine debate is, you know, I think it's fraught.
It's interesting because this has shaped our lives in the last three years of the pandemic.
But it's, you know, it's also not that unique in the sense that every major pharmaceutical company in the United States engages in these practices.
They pressure regulators, they spend so much money on direct-to-consumer advertising, and really they kind of just dominate the entire public policy debate.
So, you know, we can talk about a lot of other special interest groups, but pharma is unique in just the raw amounts of money they spend to control the entire public sector On regulatory, on policy, on really everything in terms of how it affects medicine and as it's practiced in the United States.
Lee Fang, what specific groups did they fund, mate?
Do any of them stand out?
Does it seem particularly manipulative or deceptive?
Any of the groups that have like legitimacy or authenticity that is surprising?
Let's just talk about a few of them.
You know, in Chicago, there's a very kind of controversial vaccine mandate.
There are also discussions about vaccine passports.
And, you know, a large percentage of the African-American, the Black community in that city was not vaccinated in 2021.
And one of the oldest African-American civil rights groups, the Urban League, Chicago Urban League, went out into the media and was asked, you know, would this mandate hurt the African-American community?
Would it kind of push them to the sidelines?
And she was very clear in lobbying and pushing back against that, saying, no, the mandate's worth it.
It's worth it for our community.
She never mentioned that, you know, just prior to that interview, a few months prior to the interview, she received a $100,000 check from Pfizer, not mentioned during the interview, not mentioned on the Urban League's website.
It's not disclosed until this morning, until right before appearing on your show.
The Consumer's League of America, I mean, this is another Consumer advocacy group that's kind of famous for standing up to corporate power, you know, founded over 100 years ago fighting against monopolies.
They're a group that kind of mysteriously endorsed the mandates In 2021, again, they received big money from Pfizer and even has a Pfizer lobbyist on its board.
You know, these are intricate relationships that aren't disclosed to the people reading these press releases who are getting pressured by these groups, and it's affecting the entire debate.
It's affecting how regulators see these issues, and it also affects how the public sees this.
When they see these third-party groups That have some credibility.
You know, these are kind of famous organizations that are known for standing up for the public interest when they're saying, hey, these mandates are a good idea for the American public.
It seems genuine.
They're just not disclosing the Pfizer money, which I think, you know, is a relevant factor here when you're talking about a policy that compels Americans to take this product.
Yeah, I think that should be at the beginning of the endorsement.
Eventually, African-American people should take these vaccines.
Also, earlier, a minute ago actually, I just got $100,000 from Pfizer, who I think they do sell vaccines and they would potentially financially benefit.
If it can't be explicit, you can't have democracy, I think what the danger we have now, Lee, is we've reached the point where there's such Mass distrust in government, mass distrust and mistrust of media, and there seems to be no attempt to rectify that through authenticity and morality and principled action, but through the increase of censorship, through the increase of control.
With Matt Taibbi, your mate, your fellow Twitterphile journalist, he's being threatened with jail now, I understand, and I don't know how much traction that's got, and I pray that it isn't something that happens.
Matt Taibbi's a friend of ours, we love him, the croaky-voiced, drum-kit-perched, cap-wearing, so-called journalist sweetheart that he is.
Do you worry yourself that we're reaching a point that free speech is actually something that you could be in prison for?
And if you're Julian Assange, you're already in prison for it.
I mean, I've looked at, I've covered Congress for the last 15 years.
I've never seen anything like this.
And there are a lot of Uh, experts and people brought in to testify, uh, who mislead, who get the facts wrong, who, you know, they engage in all kinds of kind of scurrilous behavior.
And I've never seen behavior like this in terms of a member of Congress in response.
And Matt Taibbi, for the record, I don't know if your audience has seen this letter.
I exclusively obtained it and published it last week on my sub stack.
But after testifying on March 9th, Matt Taibbi had a back and forth
with one of the members of Congress, Democrat named Stacey Plaskett.
She's the one who called her, Taibbi and Schellenberger, a so-called journalist.
You know, very aggressive kind of questioning.
But, you know, that's par for the course in politics.
You know, you can get aggressive with a witness.
What's unusual is this letter afterwards that took a quote from Matt Tybee saying that an arm of the Department of Homeland Security had worked with one of these disinfo NGOs that's, you know, partially backed by Stanford University as they were pressuring Twitter on content moderation policies.
Uh, that Twitter did not distinguish between the private sector and the public sector when they were receiving these censorship requests.
That was the entire quote.
Baskett is threatening prison for that quote.
That wasn't 100% accurate.
You know, I published more emails.
There's tons of comments.
Everyone who's been reporting and looking at these internal Twitter files sees it.
It's the FBI.
It's the arm of the DHS called CISA.
These government agencies that are exerting incredible levels of pressure on social media firms, including today, although we don't have the same kind of purview, the same kind of visibility that we had under the Twitter files, but it's certainly happening to other platforms as well, including Discord and Facebook and others.
Um, but yeah, I've never seen this letter taking a true quote, an accurate quote from Matt Taibbi and saying this was an example of perjury that you could face up to five years of imprisonment for, for telling the truth.
It's extraordinary.
It's also true, I understand, that Facebook have been censoring Seymour Hershey's reporting on the Nord Stream pipeline.
This value of free speech, according to our poll, let's have another look at that poll.
I think a lot of our audience are deeply concerned about free speech and it seems that the free speech argument is increasingly being connected, I think, through centralised media narratives with, you know, right-wing extremism.
And it seems that there's an attempt to, yeah here it is, like 60% of our audience that we're currently polling say that free speech is the issue that concerns the most out of a whole bunch of significant little issues there.
Do you think that we're reaching some kind of tipping point where credible, lifelong Pulitzer Prize winning journalists like Seymour Hersh are being sort of shut down and censored?
What do you think, how do you think, do you think there's like new alliances that we can make to ensure that we can continue to speak freely?
Well, look, you know, I grew up in the Washington, D.C.
area in the suburbs, Prince George's County, and the war in Iraq kind of radicalized me and motivated me to get involved in media and politics, just seeing kind of the entire mainstream media basically in lockstep Repeating the Bush administration's drive to go to war and their claims about weapons of mass destruction and a war on terror.
And I, you know, I had such great hopes for the promise of the open internet as a corrective to government censorship, that with more voices we'd have a better chance of getting to the truth, especially when it comes to these life and death foreign policy issues.
I mean, there's nothing bigger And the war in Ukraine is kind of an example of how I was wrong.
The internet is quickly becoming different.
We're getting organized into little walled gardens.
We're getting pushed into just a small number of platforms.
Those platforms are coordinating with government.
And they're attempting to squelch the truth.
At the same time, we have, you know, because of these big social media firms draining the advertising revenue from legacy newspapers, we just have less journalists too.
So it's all bad.
You know, I did a story last year looking at how a whistleblower from the Department of Homeland Security basically told us that the Department of Homeland Security Their next big agenda item is working with social media companies to correct quote-unquote disinformation about the war in Ukraine, Russia.
I mean, this is an issue where we don't know the truth.
You know, we see a lot of war propaganda.
We see a lot of claims about, you know, the readiness of Ukraine or, you know, what have you about Russia.
But there's not a lot of independent reporting.
There's not a lot of skeptical reporting.
We need more voices, but how do you reach those voices if we're only on a few platforms and those platforms are coordinating with the government to squelch out voices of dissent?
Yeah, we've been talking a lot about the restrict act that appears to be being sort of caressed into the public debate.
What was that public news article we read, Gareth?
Who's it by?
I want to say Leighton Baines, but I know he's a former Everton left back.
Leighton Woodhouse.
Leighton Woodhouse.
Yeah, Leighton Baines won't be writing about that.
He'll be focusing much more on coming out from the back, ball playing left back.
Brilliant player, actually.
But Leighton Woodhouse was talking about how in order to legitimise censorship, you have to create the problem of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation.
Because without it now, there are too many independent voices, too much capacity for investigation.
It's for one narrative to dominate in the way that it could have done sort of, you know, before the advent of these technologies.
So while there was sort of briefly this utopian possibility of free speech, open communication, thorough investigation, it's being, you can see now, it's being sort of legislated against.
There's smear campaigns against independent voices.
People are being threatened with prison.
It's unprecedented and extraordinary.
Do you think that this Restrict Act, which we had explained to us, is like the Patriot Act after 9-11?
It's like using, for example, the recent Pentagon Papers to underwrite this censorial legislation.
Do you think this is the sort of thing that will go through, mate?
Well, just again to compare it to the War on Terror and the Bush administration, they used the claim that, you know, you were in league with terrorists, you know, you were a jihadi or whatever to polarize the debate, to, you know, stigmatize any voices of dissent.
We see that again today.
You know, we just have a different vocabulary, a different kind of cultural moment. You know, we say that someone is
hateful, they're, you know, spreading hate speech, they're extremists, or they're spreading disinformation
or malinformation.
And, you know, obviously no one supports intentional misinformation or intentional hate,
but these attempts to stigmatize whistleblowers or journalists with these kind of classifications
to marginalize them, it's emotionally arresting, you know, it doesn't...
That's the kind of language you use to push someone to the side and say, don't listen to them and censor them.
That's what the government's doing.
That's what these government-funded NGOs are doing.
There's a whole network of organizations that are part of this.
Even for me, I launched my sub stack.
I went independent for the first time in nine years.
And with my first story out, you know, out the gate, I had an MSNBC host saying that, you know, I was just writing about the Department of Homeland Security, you know, accusing me of being a bigot or something.
I mean, this is the strategy for marginalizing independent voices of dissent.
Lee, I'm really glad that you've moved to Substack.
We recommend that everyone who follows our work follows Lee Fang.
He's a fantastic journalist and if you were willing to introduce perhaps photographs of yourself with your top off or just in some Bermuda shorts, I think you might gain more followers.
That's just advice based on what some of the things I'm seeing in the chat here from our locals community that people can join to essentially objectify our guest.
Absolutely.
Thank you for joining us and providing people that are sexually attracted to men with some free midday pornography.
Even though we did a story today about people masturbating on public transport, from the perspective of... it wasn't a good thing.
I wonder how they'd feel about masturbating to Lee's Substack.
Let's do a poll on do you think it's acceptable to masturbate over Lee Fang's substack imagery of him in his vacation wear, or do you think that's wrong?
We'll do a poll on that, Lee, and we'll send you the results, and perhaps you can do an article on that.
Well, you've got to be the top-level tier for that, but like and subscribe, you know.
You've got to paywall that shit, Lee!
Paywall that!
All right, Lee, thanks for joining us, mate.
It's fantastic to speak to you.
Thanks so much.
I appreciate it, Russell.
Fantastic guest.
Thank you so much, mate.
There you go.
Lee Fang there.
Finally, Lee Fang.
Lee Fang!
Wasn't he great?
Worth waiting for.
Thanks for the memories?
Was that the...?
Thanks for being so sexy.
Right.
That's what I say to Lee Fang.
They love him in there.
I'm not surprised.
He should be a regular contributor.
Agreed.
Why don't he take down his trousers and pants?
Did they say that?
I like a slappy... Is this you?
This is you at this point, isn't it?
I wanna kiss Lee Fang.
This is you.
So what if I'm married to Laura Brand?
Hold on, that's weird, that one.
Yeah.
That's weird.
That one didn't make sense.
Behave, said Alex Overton-Window.
Yep, look at that.
People, once your photos are online, we can do what we want with them.
Some people saying simply stop.
Oh, some people saying Gareth is sexy.
That's from Brooklyn M. Do we need a competition, though?
A sex contest?
No, we don't, because that's not what we're about here, as a matter of fact.
Don't get distracted.
We're trying to awaken people.
Don't even start up this.
A couple of guys with a dream to end up in a sex contest.
Or did we?
Maybe we did.
Maybe we did do that.
But before we move into the hot world of sex contests, do you sometimes worry that you're being prepped for another bloody international conflict, this time with the superpower that is China?
There are US defence contractors, I think they're in Taiwan right now, hawking their wares is how I'm going to describe it.
Shall I say that?
That's what they're doing.
And we've got to ask you in this deep investigation that we've conducted, are the US solely interested in protecting Taiwan from a giant aggressor, or are they the aggressor themselves?
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Thanks for accusing Fox News.
Here's the news.
No, here's the fucking news.
If the US are genuinely interested in protecting Taiwan, why is it representatives of the defence industry that get
sent over there?
Would they make any money out of potentially causing World War 3 with China?
Right now the American defense industry, aka the military-industrial complex, are sending representatives of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc.
to Taiwan in order to help them.
What kind of help?
Missiles and stuff?
Is this help got strings attached?
You bet it's got strings.
Green dollar bill strings.
Tendrils made of money attaching you to the US economy.
Are the US a kind of benign force going around the world helping people that are being picked on by bully nations?
Or are they agitators continually creating new conflict in order to feed the insatiable beast that is the military-industrial complex?
Let's have a look at this story while we answer the question, Taiwan, Ukraine too?
Are you ready for another Ukraine?
I mean, aren't we just, are we still in Ukraine?
Around 25 US defense contractors plan to send representatives to Taiwan next month.
Marking the first time the arms industry will send a delegation to the island since 2019.
Not that long ago.
The planned arms industry trip to Taiwan comes as the US is looking to ramp up arms sales and general military cooperation with Taiwan, which will further exacerbate tensions with Beijing.
This is the problem with their economic model.
It needs to continually escalate and grow.
Whether it's energy companies or now the military-industrial machine, it requires limitless growth.
Growth in this instance means people always buying weapons.
So that's, I think, just a really simple analysis of what's happening.
Which means you have to create the conditions in which people will buy weapons.
And people don't buy weapons if there are treaties and peace deals and armistices
and a general sense of goodwill to all mankind, individual personal awakening, good community
relationships.
People don't buy weapons under those circumstances.
So these visits, do you imagine that what it is, is, oh shit, right, is there anyone?
Anyone at all we can help?
Yeah, Taiwan, they're under all sorts of pressure.
Should we get over there and just see if, I don't know, maybe they want some answers?
Or do you think it's, we've got this business model, this is what's happening in the next quarter, this is what's likely to happen when eventually the Russia-Ukraine situation peters out, why don't we get this lined up so we can tell our shareholders, you know how the world works, don't you?
This is how the world works.
The delegation plans to meet with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, who recently provoked major Chinese military drills by meeting with US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in California.
Let's have a look.
It's a decades-long battle for sovereignty from China.
That's the situation.
A decades-long struggle for sovereignty from China.
That's what we're being told.
I don't know if there's more complexity to the relationship between Taiwan and former European colonial powers like Spain and Portugal.
I don't know if Taiwan has formerly been colonised by Japan, a historic enemy of China.
I don't know if China have strategically had to occupy Taiwan in the past to prevent colonial and imperial powers impeding on their territory.
What I will tell you is that the US literally have China surrounded by military bases.
So if China do feel insecure and threatened, you could argue there is some legitimacy to that, in the same way that you could say that NATO expansion provoked Russia.
Without saying that Russia's war is not criminal, you can still say Russia's actions in Ukraine are criminal, the deaths are unnecessary, Putin is a monster.
All of that can be true, while simultaneously saying, hey, hang on a minute, America appear to have been, through NATO expansion, agitating for that conflict.
Are they doing that now?
I'm trying to remember this, trying to remember this for in two years time or three years
time when you hear, Chinese forces were flying planes over neutral waters were bombed, we
found that they'll start doing that stuff.
The media you've seen again and again won't inquire, interrogate or legitimately question
the intentions of the government, they'll just say what they want them to say.
You saw that with this whistleblower lad, Buddy Texera.
Should this have happened?
How can we stop it happening again?
Why did it happen?
Not once did they say, hold on a minute, are there US troops actually fighting Russia?
You said there weren't.
Do you not really believe that it's possible that Ukraine are ever going to regain this territory?
Is there no hope for a peace deal in 2023?
All stuff that's being denied and not discussed was revealed.
Those revelations are never discussed because what the media do, as you will see in this story, is they convey to you the preferred narrative of the powerful.
Not a counter-narrative, which surely should be at least part of their job.
Let me know in the comments in the chat if you agree.
And today, the Taiwanese president held her highest level meeting with a powerful ally,
the United States.
It's the first time a meeting like this takes place on US soil since 1979.
This comes as tensions in the Taiwan Strait continue to escalate.
Tensions don't just escalate like eczema or asthma, they are being agitated now, probably
through this media campaign, probably through this defense contractor visit, probably by
by encroachment of bases all around China.
China aren't just like, oh right, let's do this shit now.
That's what we're told, in order to legitimise and justify these actions.
Elsewhere you'll see Biden talking about, we're going to shut down this trade deal, we're going to control this, we're going to introduce these sanctions.
It's a sort of a global approach to creating the conditions in which the system can continue to flourish.
It's beneficial if there's tensions, it's beneficial if there's wars, beneficial if there's arms sales, beneficial if you have domestic populations terrified of ongoing war.
There's no loss for them because they live in a different world to you.
And it works to bolster its military readiness amid fears they could face the same fate as Ukraine.
This is a bit like Ukraine.
It's over there, Ukraine.
It's Ukraine of the East.
This morning, we look at the worry in Taiwan that China will attack it someday.
Why's it got this sort of jazzy little bass line?
Got news for you guys.
World War III is a-comin'.
You thought it was bad to provoke Russia in a secret proxy war?
Well, if the conflict with Russia was Infinity Wars, then this is Endgame.
You're gonna love this unnecessary movie war that we're creating for you right now.
A U.S.
warship yesterday sailed through the Taiwan Strait, separating the island from China, a narrow body of water there.
And it followed days of Chinese military drills around Taiwan.
So here we go, here's the stories about military drills.
Now there's the warship.
Is the warship a provocation or a counter-provocation?
If it was a Chinese warship down the Gulf of Mexico or along the side California or whatever or sailing into Manhattan, oh well, you know, we were doing drills.
What is the legitimacy of this power?
Just for a moment, stop and say, wait, what right did the United States have?
And it's not United States people.
It's not people in some farm somewhere in Minnesota.
It's not people working in a factory in Milwaukee.
It's not ordinary Americans they represent.
They don't care about ordinary Americans.
You die.
You're fodder.
You're cannon fodder.
You're TV fodder.
You're sugar fodder.
This is legitimization of an economic exercise in the guise of military interventionism.
The US Navy called the voyage a routine movement.
That was just a routine movement.
We got these routines where routinely we provoke superpowers in order to create tension so the military-industrial complex who we give 50% of the Pentagon budget to, not that you'd know from an audit because we've not completed the last five, and then we can routinely have an unnecessary war where like Taiwanese people will die so everyone's a winner.
What about Taiwan?
Oh no, they lose.
Like Ukraine!
Taiwan's steep coast and mountainous terrain make it something of a natural fortress.
But not a good fortress, so you're gonna need some missiles.
But China's People's Liberation Army could well mount an attack anyway, so Taiwan is beefing up its military.
And training with new US weapons.
This is the news.
They're telling you what they're doing.
We're selling them weapons.
We're training their troops like we did in Ukraine just prior to this conflict.
It's difficult to say whether or not China are worse than US imperialism.
You know, there's the Uyghur people being tyrannized and oppressed and genocided.
There's all sorts of terrible stuff in Chinese history.
This is the story of empire.
This is the story of power.
That really isn't the question.
The question is, is there a good reason for the United States to get involved in exacerbating these tensions?
Is it the United States business?
Do ordinary Americans want to lose their lives?
Do they want to use their taxpayer dollars, because this is where this is heading, to pay for military aid?
Why should you be paying for missiles in wars in Europe?
And Asia.
The answer is there's no reason, except it makes good sense for the military-industrial complex who have armed America now so that it's broadly speaking an impenetrable fortress that spends as much money as the next nine countries combined on military expenditure.
So that's done.
So now you have to tout for business elsewhere.
Please tell me I'm wrong, because if it's right, it's terrifying.
This tropical island, from its ultra-high-tech semiconductor factories... Those semiconductors that we need to stop China becoming more and more powerful.
...to its rural highlands, where tea is still picked by hand.
And look!
They're picking peas with their hands!
Adorable!
23 million lives, American leadership, and probably the world's economy all hang in the balance.
What?
The world's economy?
When did that start becoming one of the objectives?
That was always the objective.
We don't care about these pee-picking motherfuckers one bit.
We care about those semiconductors and we care about that money.
And agitating other superpowers into potential conflicts is a new strategy that we're suddenly willing to consider when in the old days it was just little countries that you had to pretend it was kind of a fair war between some country you'd never heard of before and America.
Now we're doing the big ones.
China!
Russia!
Proper countries!
Proper money!
Live on CNN!
China's army even releasing an animated video of how Taiwanese sites would be targeted in an attack.
So here is an animation of how, hypothetically, China would respond if there was agitation.
Yeah, that's an animation to pretend.
Here are some actual US military bases that are there already!
The United States plays a major strategic role in the Indo-Pacific.
With 375,000 personnel, there's a vast network of operations.
375,000, that's basically colonization.
That's so many people.
That's a decent-sized town worth of military personnel thousands of miles away from the country that they're from in order to do what exactly?
You'd really have to believe in the righteousness of the American project.
But who among us does anymore?
America is tearing itself apart.
Politically, half of the country hates the other half of the country.
Get on with dealing with that shit!
You too could live in hatred where every single election is hotly contested and denied by the loser.
Go home, deal with that shit, and then once you've got that sorted, maybe start fucking with China and telling them what to do.
Because as far as I can see, you ain't got nothing to sell.
Except missiles.
That extend from Hawaii In recent years, the US has been faced with the reality that its apparent singular power is being challenged economically by several countries such as China.
To contest these challenges, the US began to rebuild its military force structure through its allies and more of these smaller but no less lethal base structures.
For the past 15 years, the U.S.
has pushed its allies, including those organized in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to strengthen their military power while increasing its techno-military power and reach by establishing smaller bases across the world and producing new aircraft and ships with greater territorial reach.
This military force was then used in a series of provocative actions against those it perceived as threats to its hegemony, with two key countries, China and Russia, facing the sharp edge of the U.S.
spear.
At the two ends of Eurasia, the U.S.
began to provoke Russia through Ukraine and provoke China through Taiwan.
These provocations over Ukraine have now resulted in a war that has been ongoing for a year, while the new U.S.
bases in the Philippines are part of an escalation against China, using Taiwan as a battleground.
In recent years, Taiwan has become a flashpoint for tensions between the United States and China.
At the root of this simmering conflict are the country's diverging perspectives over Taiwan's sovereignty.
The Chinese position, known as the One-China principle, is firm.
Although the mainland and Taiwan have different political systems, they are part of the same country, with sovereignty residing in Beijing.
Meanwhile, the US position on Taiwan is far less clear.
Despite formally adopting the One-China policy, the US maintains extensive In fact, under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, US law requires Washington to provide arms of a defensive character to the island.
A defensive character!
So there you are, there are essentially two conflicting narratives.
China sees Taiwan as part of China, and I'm sure there are numerous perspectives available on that.
And US will use whatever perspective is amenable to the sale of future arms and watch the flexibility of defensive character altering in the same way as we saw aid become lethal aid become just have some weapons now guys the taxpayers are funding it anyway so what do we care which we saw of course in Ukraine and that's what this writer is suggesting that this template will be repeated in this escalating conflict
The US justifies its ongoing ties with Taiwan by claiming that they are necessary to uphold the island's democracy and freedom.
We've heard this somewhere before.
Democracy and freedom are pretty abstract ideas, and if democracy and freedom are indeed the priorities of the United States of America, I've got a country where you can start practicing those principles.
It's called America.
America!
Go there!
Why don't you take over America and do some democracy and freedom there?
So that people don't feel tyrannized, unequal, broken, disparate, fraught with conflict, despair, emptiness and hollowness in America.
That's where you should focus your energy and effort.
And the reason they're not, it's not because there is no problem with democracy and freedom there.
It's because there's no profit to be gleaned.
Those poor bastards have already been sucked dry.
We're already at the phase where we're selling them fentanyl in order to rinse the last few
cents of profit out of the population.
They're no use to them anymore.
Now we're installing robots and officially treating them as an occupied population.
So the profits are to be had in conflicts between Ukraine and Russia and, coming soon,
Taiwan and China.
The US maintains close military ties with Taiwan through arms sales, military training
advisors and personnel on the island.
Where's all that heading?
As well as repeatedly sailing warships through the narrow Taiwan Strait that separates the island from the mainland.
In 2022, Washington pledged $10 billion in military aid to Taiwan.
Do you remember voting for that?
Do you remember that day when you said, yeah, yeah, God, take $10 billion and give that to military for Taiwan.
Nothing to worry about here.
Everything fine in America.
Use some of that surplus, surfeit money that we don't need for our own homeless crisis, overcrowded prisons, desperate communities, broken small businesses, destroyed moral fabric.
We don't need.
Get that to Taiwan.
I've been thinking about it.
Taiwan.
That's the problem.
Meanwhile, U.S.
congressional delegations regularly travel to Taipei, legitimizing notions of separatism, such as a controversial visit by former U.S.
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi in August 2022.
Would the U.S.
or any other Western country accept a situation where China provided military aid, stationed troops, and offered diplomatic support to separatist forces in part of its internationally recognized territory?
The answer is of course not.
Of course not.
In November at the G20 Summit in Indonesia, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden held their first in-person meeting since Biden was elected president.
At the meeting, Xi strongly reiterated China's stance on Taiwan, telling Biden that Taiwan is the first red line that must not be crossed.
Let me make a note of that.
So do not cross Taiwan.
Let me put that next to Ukraine.
Got it.
Got it.
That's all good.
That's good.
Also beat Big Pharma this year.
It is clear from the US's track record that Washington is intent on provoking China and disregarding its red line.
In Eastern Europe, a similarly reckless approach, namely the continued expansion of NATO towards Russia's border, led to the outbreak of war in Ukraine.
As progressive forces in Taiwan have declared, to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait and avoid the scourge of war, it's necessary to stop US interference.
Good luck with that.
So there you have it.
You now have some more information with which to form your own opinion.
Do you imagine that the 25 defence industry representatives are in Taiwan in order just to help Taiwan for humanitarian reasons?
Or do you imagine it somehow relates to the bottom line?
Have America built an economy the success of which is contingent upon And if that is indeed the case, as I and many other people believe, what is the incentive to bring about peace?
How are we ever going to break out of these structures of endless agitation, now increasingly with opponents that have the ability to wreak havoc and to seriously oppose the American agenda, unless we, as individuals, start to awaken to the reality that we're living in and start to demand political representation that includes discussions on American foreign policy, on globalism, on veiled imperialism, On a nation that's supposed to represent American people, but in fact significantly represents the military-industrial complex.
Remember, a significant portion of your federal taxes, about 50%, ends up going to the military and 50% of that goes to defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
Meanwhile, actual military personnel, heroes, they are To the tune of 60% of them unable to have decent housing and 25% of them are using food stamps and 11% of the American homeless population are former veterans.
There's some facts and figures to mull over while thinking about what the incentives of the American war machine might be.
And if you are American, I'm certainly not attacking you.
And if you're the American war machine, I'm not attacking you either because frankly, I couldn't afford to.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
See you in a second.
Can it be a coincidence that it's the very day that Don Lemon left CNN?
You're suggesting they're coming together?
Are they coming together, Tucker Lemmon, Don and Carlson, together as a sort of hybrid polemical news network?
What's going to happen?
What's the future of independent journalism?
Surely it can't be us.
Surely it can't be the people in that gallery.
Dan, why don't you show our viewers the team behind the team that are in that room right now.
Let's have a look at who runs this little organisation while we warm ourselves up.
You can de-defrost that glass as we can see him in all their glory.
Turn on the screen so I can see the output from that camera, please.
If you don't mind, turn that screen on.
Thank you very much.
There they are.
Jenny May Finn, she's snuck back in.
Look at how many people just toiling there.
And if you look in the corner, there's Tucker Carlson.
Just perched there, waiting.
Yep, that's right.
Tucker Carlson's going to be joining.
Do your impression.
Are you kidding me?
Are you peeing in my yard?
Oh my god, that's amazing!
I love that!
That's what he was like when we went round Tucker Carlson's house.
I've been texting him, but he's obviously a little bit busy.
He's a bit busy, isn't he?
Because apparently, this has been done in an extraordinary way.
This just in!
Tucker Carlson did his last show and then was told, you're out, Tucker!
It's over, baby.
They didn't even give him a runway.
That means we believe that Tucker Carlson has got a new deal somewhere.
This is pure speculation.
Pure speculation that he's told them about that and they're not willing to keep him on Fox News doing his promo for him.
That's what we think.
What do you think, Gail?
When you say we, do you mean you?
I mean, I am.
And what I am thinking also is... Are there some more thoughts?
They're going to try and frame it as, oh, it's because of all that stuff about Dominion.
Oh, it's because he said those things on air.
Fox will be spinning this.
Tucker will be spinning it.
This is a big divorce, I would say.
Wow.
Look at you.
You're in overdrive on this part.
I know how to play this kind of stuff.
But who cares what I think?
Let's see what the real detractors, the real Tucker haters at CNN have got to say.
Let's look at how they're covering it over on CNN.
Let's have a look at that now.
This just in to CNN.
Tucker Carlson is out at Fox News.
The right-wing network just announced the two have parted ways.
Watch to see if there's any emotion or mood.
I predict that they'll start saying stuff like it's because of the Fox News payout.
They say that Tucker Carlson uses dog whistle racism on the show when he's talking about population demographic stuff.
What else do you think that they'll I don't know what they'll say but I mean in terms of what Tucker's been saying recently obviously there was the stuff around Fox and the court case but you know he's been talking a lot about independent journalism and one of the things he said recently was about his regrets over the Iraq war and some of the reporting that he was involved in himself and he seems to be saying a lot and he kind of said a few things to us privately about the way in which independent journalism is like the way forward now.
We can never reveal the things he said privately.
Other than the peeing in the yard.
I will reveal that I peed in his yard.
My milkshake is nicer than tharn.
Let's have a look at a bit more of this CNN stuff.
Darcy is here with more on this.
What are you learning?
He was out on Friday.
Will we see him say goodbye?
We're not going to see him say goodbye.
This is really stunning news coming from Fox.
They say his lad... It's so weird that they're turned on by him not being able to say goodbye.
He's not going to be able to say goodbye.
He's just going, goodbye!
It's interesting, isn't it, I suppose, because the media is devouring itself in a way.
This Euroboris image, the serpent devouring its own tail, is an end days symbol.
We are watching live the mainstream media falling apart like other centralised organisations.
It's losing its legitimacy, authority and trust.
What Tucker Carlson has, I imagine, realised is that he is powerful enough to leave Fox News as well as being disillusioned with mainstream media.
As we've consistently said, we don't trust Fox News, we don't trust MSNBC, we don't trust CNN, we don't trust the Republicans, we don't trust the Democrats.
We trust you!
That's who we trust.
You and ourselves.
Let's see where they go next.
Last show was April 21st.
They put out a very short statement.
They said they thank him for his service and that's it.
That's all we know right now.
But of course this comes days after.
Last week you remember Fox News settled this massive defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over the election lies that it promoted in the wake of the That's where they are attempting to narrativize it.
Because this is what I've come to realize, is that the whole sort of mojo of center-left liberalism is predicated on the small differences between them and other corporatized, commercialized political interests.
All that the liberals, or let's call it the Democratic Party media machine, have got is We're a bit better in these areas.
Those of us that say you're not significantly different, you work for the same corporate interests, you work for the same financial interests, are a real threat to them because that's all they've got.
That is their treasure.
That is their precious.
We're a bit better.
We tried this healthcare measure.
We're saying the right words.
We're trying our best.
No.
You work for the military-industrial complex.
You work for the financial industry.
You work for Big Pharma.
You have lied to us repeatedly throughout the pandemic era.
Let's see what goes now.
2020 election, so they paid out $787 million, the highest known defamation settlement ever
publicly known in US media.
But earlier on this show, we revealed to you that the biggest, the majority, 75% of all
advertising revenue comes from Big Pharma.
The Big Pharma lobbyist group is headed up by Pfizer's Albert Baller.
Pfizer have had to settle to the tune of billions out of court.
So whatever Fox paid the Minion, it's dwarfed By what Pfizer have paid out in out-of-court settlements and these dudes go to the bat for them the whole time.
Pfizer agreed to pay 2.3 billion, the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.
That did not stop the mainstream media.
Advocating intensely for Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry during the pandemic.
And as Li Fang just revealed, even grassroots organizations that are connected to civil rights were being paid secretly by Pfizer to advocate for their products.
Allegedly!
Let's have a little bit more, a little look at CNN and then we're going to flip over to being exclusively available on Locals on our membership community.
You can join us there, there's a button somewhere on your screen that helps you to click through.
Let's have a look at a little more of this CNN stuff.
So this is coming days after that.
Unclear, of course, whether this is related.
It's kind of hard to imagine that these coincidentally, these things happen.
Tucker Carlson was sowing doubts about the US election results just up until the last few weeks.
So it's possible that there was a relationship there, but really big news.
And I should also point out that they've stuck with him really through quite a lot.
Like he has promoted conspiracy theories about the vaccines.
He has said things that are just blatantly anti-immigrant.
That's, I guess, all right.
We'll click over to being exclusively on locals and promoting conspiracy theories about the vaccine.
This is CNN, remember?
This is where Don Lemon said you should shame people that are hesitant about vaccines.
This is CNN, where they said ivermectin is a horse medicine.
This is CNN, where you can still now go on YouTube right now, because for all the stuff they're banning, what they haven't banned is Rachel Maddow saying, if you take this vaccine, it stops with you.
You cannot spread it.
They never clinically Trolled it for transmission.
Propagandist lies.
Listen, we're going to go on to locals now.
You can join us there.
And also tomorrow on the show, we've got Saga Njeti, co-host of the YouTube show Breaking Points and author of The Populist Guide to 2020 and New Right and Left are Rising.
Saga is a pretty good guest for us.
It's going to be exciting.
So join us tomorrow.
We're going to be streaming exclusively on Locals, where we'll cover some more of this story.
You can press the red button.
There's a red button on your screen.
Look for it, grope for it, search for it, press it with your tongue.
Pretend Lee Fang's still on the screen.
If you join our Locals community, you get access to weekly podcasts, recordings, meditations, exclusive news, as well as this valuable content.
Join us tomorrow on Rumble with Saga.
Not for more of the same, but for more different.
Until then, stay free.
Many switches, switch on, switch off.
▲
Export Selection