Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 10, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:13:35

Tucker’s BREAKING Twitter Announcement! What It REALLY Means! - #126 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In this video, I'm going to be showing you how to make a real gun. This is the gun I
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	You are awakening.
	You are wonderful.
	You are an awakening wonder.
	We are on this voyage together as the world around us appears to deteriorate culturally, ecologically, and from almost every conceivable angle sometimes.
	We are here to tell you that there is a thread of divine truth running through things.
	We're going to be talking about Trump's trial.
	Tucker, join in Twitter.
	We're going to be looking in depth at the Fox, Twitter, and Tucker smearing component.
	And then if you're watching this on YouTube, we'll be exclusively on Rumble talking to
	Whitney Webb.
	If you've seen Whitney Webb before, you'll understand why we have to do that on Rumble,
	because this is a journalist who is willing to talk truth to power.
	The reason we joined Rumble is so that we can have free speech.
	And while Tucker Carlson may believe that the only free speech platform in the world is Twitter, we maintain that Rumble can become an oasis for open dialogue that can include voices from across the spectrum.
	We welcome all opinions.
	We welcome open conversation.
	But before we get into Whitney Webb and talking about Bill Gates and all of the complex and difficult stories in the world, let's have a look at a Eurovision song contestant.
	That's something we have in Europe where people get together and sing usually kind of kitsch songs.
	This guy's from Moldovia.
	See if you think he's nicking my look.
	That's what I'd like to ask.
	Let's have a look.
	He's nicking my look, isn't he?
	That's what you were doing last week in that barn.
	I wondered what you were spending all that time doing.
	What are you doing in that silky garment?
	Arms flung wide.
	I actually have dressed in that exact outfit.
	I saw that earlier and I was like, hmm, this is where it's gotten to now.
	This is where the plagiarism has gotten us to.
	Of course, the world is agog at the result of the Trump civil case.
	Trump has been found Guilty.
	And I guess this is another one of those cases.
	And let us know in the chat if you agree with this.
	You can join us on Locals by pressing the red button on your screen now.
	That will show us what a divided culture we are living in.
	Whether it's an election result or the result of a, well not a criminal trial, a civil trial.
	It seems that there is no faith in justice.
	Let me tell you what I mean by that.
	If you're a person that really, really likes Donald Trump, my assumption is that you'll feel that this is an unfair verdict.
	If you're a person who loathes Donald Trump, my sense is that you'll feel that this is a righteous and correct verdict.
	If you're a person that has an affiliation with an aspect of this important and significant issue, you will line up where you usually line up.
	And we've said the same thing about elections.
	Can you imagine whoever Joe Biden runs again in the next election?
	I mean, does this mean it's impossible that it will be Donald Trump?
	The sense is, Still possible, still possible.
	Like, whatever the result of that election, like the last few elections, the team, the party that loses will contest the general.
	Thank you so much for dealing with that ongoing, broadly unacceptable noise.
	Thank you so much.
	The party that is not victorious will ultimately say, oh, it's, you know, it's not legitimate.
	I think that points to something really significant in our culture.
	Where is the moral authority and legitimacy now, beyond tribal affiliation?
	Will there be people that really, really love Donald Trump that say, no, I actually believe that he is guilty?
	Or will there be people that loathe Donald Trump that say, oh, I don't think he is guilty?
	Or broadly speaking, will the opinions be divided along those lines?
	So again, it's one of those moments that shows us that the culture is losing its cohesion.
	I think some people will be like incredibly happy and see it as justice done.
	Other people will be agitated and aggravated.
	And certainly I think Trump himself says he's going to appeal.
	Is that right?
	That's what I've heard anyway.
	So again, let us know in the chat and the comments what you feel about this difficult story, this sad story of what sounds like one of the things that's confusing is that if it's a criminal case and it's been carried out on a civil level, so much complexity around those things.
	You just wonder where the Trump story's going to go, don't you?
	I mean, there's just one thing after another thing and you just wonder where this narrative is going to lead to.
	Yeah, where does this lead when this is such a significant person who's detested by so many people and adored and loved and revered by so many people?
	It starts to feel to me like the visible symptom of a fractured nation.
	We spoke to Robert F. Kennedy and you'll be able to see that on tomorrow's show.
	No, Friday show.
	Friday show, you're going to be able to see that.
	If you're a member of our locals community, press the red button to join that.
	You can watch it right now.
	It's already there.
	And if you're a member of our locals community, you can join these conversations live as they happen.
	It's really worth doing.
	You get the sense that People are so dissatisfied with centralised authority.
	There's so much suspicion around all of our institutions.
	No one trusts the mainstream media anymore.
	No one trusts the political establishment.
	No one trusts the financial world.
	There's so much disdain, so much loathing, that it has to be addressed beyond the level of individual matters.
	Although individual matters have to be dealt with as well, particularly in the event of egregious actions, of course they do.
	But at the broader cultural and social level, where are we heading?
	RFK, it's so amazing to chat to him because he's someone that's got anecdotes with Marilyn Monroe in them.
	Anecdotes with Jackie Kennedy in them.
	That's there when the news is received that Jack Ruby has shot Lee Harvey Oswald.
	And the evidence for Lee Harvey Oswald being a CIA asset is just beyond doubt now.
	Oh, uh, thank you.
	Allegedly!
	I mean, that's why this is a... Like, if you think you're in... Like, I know you lot on Rumble.
	I know you well.
	I've learned to know you, and I've learned to love you.
	I love you.
	I love you guys, and the significance of love in all of this, you know, can't be doubted.
	You might think you know conspiracy theories.
	You might think you know deep state power.
	You might think you're down with all of that.
	Well, RFK has, in some cases, literally seen where the bodies are buried, and It's an incredible portrait of America and American history that he paints.
	His views on the pandemic, his views on Antony Fauci, like, you know, some of the stuff.
	We read the comments, obviously, and that's why we urge you to join us on Locals Now, where the comments are running by now.
	Turtle Mountain and Chief411, all of you guys are right there loving you.
	Thank you for the compliments on the suit, by the way, guys.
	Look, what RFK shows you is that America is a nation in need of urgent change.
	And by his reckoning, America has been in this position before.
	Immediately before the changes in the 1930s, the New Deal, the significant changes, the attacks that took place on financial institutions around that time, the empowerment of America, a new kind of populism was born then.
	Now, anything that's antithetical to the state agenda is immediately condemned as right-wing, whether it's being pro-free speech, being suspicious about the fate of Julian Assange, opposing incremental surveillance.
	We'll be telling you more.
	I think next week we're going to go into this in more detail.
	Like about how Biden is lobbying to continue the surveillance powers that were introduced after 9-11 by exaggerating, in my view, and that's just an opinion, the threat of American drug cartels and the ability to impede and control them that continuing these surveillance powers will give them.
	Essentially, now they know the war on terror is over, they have to find new wars.
	we were taught problem, reaction, solution. The current problem, fentanyl, Mexican drug cartels.
	It's not that it isn't a problem, it is a problem, but it's how you're using this problem to get what
	you want, which is an extension of some of the things that is warrantless surveillance of American
	people. Haven't we known for years now that that's not a good thing? How many people have to talk
	about how bad that is, how bad a thing that is happening to the American public? Because what it
	fundamentally means is that they are able, and they are already doing this, store data without
	And that means your data, my data, can just be stored on massive databases.
	You know, I'm an old school guy.
	I don't understand this stuff.
	But they can then go and access it whenever they want.
	That's what Edward Snowden was telling us.
	And as Gareth rightly points out, one approach could be, oh, we've got to stop these drug cartels.
	But you know how the pharmaceutical industry created that opioid pandemic.
	Allegedly!
	Because it was settled out of court, so I have to present that.
	But we know it, don't we?
	Let me know in the chat and the comments if you agree with that.
	Another approach, if you have a nation of people that are taking painkillers en masse, do you think that that might be an indication that there's some pain?
	And if in the immediate aftermath of that pandemic, You have the sense that ordinary businesses collapsed, ordinary people's lives were annihilated.
	Meanwhile, there was a massive wealth transfer in the favor of the elites.
	It leaves us with so many questions, so little trust in the establishment.
	Look at this story, the ongoing Hunter Biden laptop stuff.
	I mean, and again, as we continually say, as a person in recovery, I'm sympathetic towards Hunter Biden's personal problems and no judgment there.
	He's a person that's like me on the path trying to recover from addiction issues.
	But when it comes to the financial aspects of it and the potential for Joe Biden to have been involved...
	...involved in his deals with Burisma, the Ukrainian gas firm there, and CIA coercion, like RFK saying, get rid of the CIA, dismantle the CIA, while simultaneously acknowledging there'll be decent people working at the CIA.
	Members of his own family have been in the CIA, of course.
	Like the Hunter Biden story rolls on.
	This is a bit of good news, I would say.
	Definitely.
	Australian MPs are urging the US to end their beer to extra diet Julian Assange.
	We read that letter out the other day that he wrote from like from Belmarsh prison where he's currently incarcerated illegally because he's certainly not had a trial and he's certainly not guilty of anything.
	So not certainly not from a criminal perspective.
	So like the case of Assange I think is almost a litmus test for where Our morality is.
	We have to believe that there's something wrong with drug cartels.
	You know what I like?
	Drug cartels!
	But we have to amplify that threat and suggest that the solution to that threat is new ongoing surveillance powers evoked in 9-11.
	Julian Assange, you have to sort of deny yourself a fundamental truth to leave Julian Assange in Belmarsh and a lot of people are willing to do it, seemingly.
	It's interesting the amount of things that all the stories that are coming up here are things that lead us back to talking about RFK, you know, in your interview yesterday.
	What do you think that is?
	Well, surveillance was one of the things that he was talking about, disbanding, as you say, like breaking up the CIA and disbanding the surveillance apparatus that's going on.
	Julian Assange, he's like said that he would pardon Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
	And what I would say is like to tee up that interview on Friday, it's a fantastic interview.
	Like if you want, if you think people on the right are criticizing America's foreign policy, the Ukraine war, and the military industrial complex, you should wait until you hear what RFK says about that.
	Because if you have someone who's running to be the president of the United States, I don't think it matters if they're independent, democrat or republican, it would only for me be relevant that this is a person that gets into office that says we are going to end wars, we're going to bring the troops home, we are going to dismantle the CIA, we're going to stop surveilling people, we're going to have a massive investigation into what went on during the pandemic, We're going to do our best to address the obvious cultural scars that America bears and find a way that is beyond shame and blame of creating a better America.
	This is a kind of agenda and trajectory that that nation, your nation, Must go on.
	That's not someone ending donation, addressing the excessive power of the military-industrial complex.
	He's literally talking about things that would make a difference.
	What you'll notice when Biden runs a campaign video is either stuff he won't do or stuff that won't make a difference.
	That's what it is.
	We beat Big Pharma this year.
	We capped a few drug prices.
	Their profits are going to be the same.
	We use taxpayer money to fund the development of those medications.
	When they get sold, the profits go to them.
	I mean, it's absurd and ridiculous.
	RFK... Yeah, and on the right you could say, you know, we've got to stop this, or some quarters of the right would say, oh, this war in Ukraine's got to stop, but whilst we amplify this war going on with China, you know, it's either side, the things that they are saying, versus the things that RFK is actually saying about bringing the troops home, stopping these wars permanently.
	What we believe fundamentally here on Stay Free is neither the Republican Party or the Democrat Party are, when it comes to it, interested in you.
	That within the mainstream media, whether their inflection is of the left or the right, they ultimately are beholden to corporate interests that mean that when it comes to crunch time, they will not support you.
	Perhaps new change will come in the form of new elites, and it's difficult to argue that Elon Musk is not part of that new elite, and he has made, and this is our main story today, a hell of a sign-in and a hell of a Shall we call it a big boy move?
	Tucker Carlson's going to be on Twitter now.
	This is amazing.
	As you know, I've got Elon's number.
	So I was just calling Elon Musk to try and get an interview.
	I thought, just call directly.
	Because you do all our guest bookings, don't you?
	One of my many jobs here is to come up with these stories, the research, iLegal, all the pieces to make sure nothing incendiary or insensitive.
	You put that button there with the allegedly on there, that's you.
	I go over to Taiwan myself, get all the semiconductors, get this stuff all working.
	And by the way, tensions over there seem to be amplified.
	I don't know what's going on.
	Anyway, I do all of the work, as you can tell from my whole personality.
	So I was ringing Elon Musk, and like, That wasn't Elon.
	I wasn't sure.
	So I asked him some questions about the nature of AI and Neuralink and I wasn't satisfied with the answers because it's more... I thought maybe he's done Neuralink already and he's talking to us from a sort of an AI sentience.
	Yes, he's neuralinked himself right up.
	He's neuralinked himself to some sort of cloud, to some sort of AI demigod, and I'm receiving the raw data like computers in the 80s when you had to load it from a cassette and it used to go... You didn't store it on a database, did you?
	Yeah, I've got all that info.
	I can use that against Elon Musk.
	If Elon steps out of line, I've got... He sounded like a ZX Spectrum noises from the 1980s.
	Do you remember computer games in the 80s?
	Are we going down that road?
	Or are we going to talk about Tucker Carlson on Twitter?
	So, he's going to have his new show on Twitter.
	So, Twitter now is going to be rivaling Rumble, presumably.
	As a free speech platform.
	So, look, what's he saying, Musk?
	I want to be clear that we've not signed a deal of any kind.
	Tucker is subject to the same rules and rewards of all content creators.
	Oh, God, what does that mean?
	Yeah, well, I think what he's saying is there's no contract being signed.
	I don't know about a financial agreement that's going on, but I think from Tucker's perspective, he just wants to be out there telling his truth, ultimately.
	I mean, there's so much stuff being said about him at the moment.
	Fox are obviously on a bit of an agenda to potentially even smear Tucker in terms of the type of stuff that's getting released.
	We'll be doing more on that later on in the show.
	And I think from Tucker's perspective and some of the things he was saying to you when you were on Fox before, he's got opinions about what's going on at the moment.
	I think he just wants to be able to get it out there.
	We feel that Tucker Carlson's gone on, in some ways similar to us actually, a sort of a public journey of reappraisal.
	I've always been sort of an anti-establishment person but Tucker by his own reckoning is someone who says he feels guilty about promoting the Iraq war.
	We've said publicly that around the subject of race we have like overt disagreements with some of Tucker's Rhetoric, but we think, and let us know in the chat in the comments what you think, but it's important to find new alliances if your ultimate interest is creating new systems and challenging the establishment.
	It's difficult to do that if you sort of partition yourself away from anti-establishment voices.
	Who in mainstream media has been more anti-war?
	Then Tucker Carlson who has been more willing to attack the corporatization of American politics and latterly whether it's Republican or Democrat and I feel like that's where the future lies.
	This is Tucker Carlson's announcement.
	I'm not sure if I want to see Brian Stelter first or Tucker.
	Because I know that I'm going to get a kick out of seeing Brian Stelter criticizing Tucker.
	Can you tell me in the chat, do you want us to show Tucker doing his announcement about Twitter first?
	Or Brian Stelter on NBC will take the first five answers over here on Locals and we'll go with that.
	So press the red button on your screen, join us on Locals.
	It's the thing.
	NBC, Tucker, Tucker, Tucker.
	No, Tucker's one.
	It's Tucker.
	Let's have a look at Tucker first.
	This is Tucker's announcement.
	Hey, it's Tucker Carlson.
	You often hear people say the news is full of lies.
	But most of the time, that's not exactly right.
	Much of what you see on television or read in the New York Times is, in fact, true in the literal sense.
	You could pass one of the media's own fact checks.
	Lawyers would be willing to sign off on it.
	In fact, they may have.
	But that doesn't make it true.
	It's not because his tone is still exactly the same.
	That's still Tucker.
	Tucker's brand is big enough to survive Fox.
	That's why Fox has got to destroy Tucker in order to not see a significant loss of value,
	I would say.
	I was just thinking as well, you know the point that they made about the financial and
	the contractual side of things.
	That's obviously, he's under contract at Fox.
	One of the big things I think at the moment is Fox want to keep him under contract and
	he wants to get out of that contract.
	So him going on Twitter and doing this without a contract is a way of still broadcasting
	his content but without signing a new contract.
	What a fascinating maneuvering.
	Again, what we're reading, and we think what the media at large are reading, is that Tucker moving into a different media space is a seismic event in the shift.
	of power between independent media and mainstream media, which of course was to a degree precipitated
	by an outspoken platform owner like Elon Musk. Not that Zuckerberg ain't powerful, of course he is.
	All the people that own those things are by are de facto powerful because you can't own one of
	those things if you ain't powerful. It's just that Elon Musk, whether you agree with him or don't
	agree with him, is not in alignment with mainstream narratives overtly and plainly. So they are trying
	to shut down Elon Musk, he's too powerful. And now there's this voice being added into the mix.
	It's extraordinary, I would say. Let me know what you think in the chat, guys. But I feel that what
	this means is that the balance of power is shifting. And I think that can only be a good
	thing, even if you are far, far left, ultra liberal, progressive, SJW, all issues, by the way,
	that I'm sympathetic to, the ideas that I grew up with, culturally what I belong to.
	You're going to find new allies in surprising places.
	That's what I believe.
	As people have more control in their own lives, particularly if this media power becomes at some point political, that's what's going to get really exciting.
	Well, just to jump in on the stuff in terms of right versus left on this and where you find yourself, one of the things that came about through the Twitter files was the revelations, again through Taibbi and Schellenberger, was that a lot of left-wing sites, independent sites, were being barred from people seeing.
	So it wasn't just overwhelmingly right stuff, it was a lot of left-wing media.
	Well, like Martin Gurry says, it's no longer left versus right, it's center versus periphery.
	If you are a peripheral voice, like Greyzone, they are like, and Jacobin and all these sort
	of publications, they're left.
	They're attacking the establishment from the left.
	They're saying, hold on a minute.
	If Joe Biden says nothing's going to fundamentally change, you don't have a left wing.
	You have just have an establishment government.
	That's what you've got.
	That's what you have now.
	Entrenched careerist politicians who belong to the mentality of lobbying and donations
	is what guides the trajectory of political decision making, not the will of ordinary
	people.
	Should we have a look at the rest of what Tucker's saying?
	True.
	At the most basic level, the news you consume is a lie.
	A lie of the stealthiest and most insidious kind.
	Facts have been withheld on purpose, along with proportion and perspective.
	You are being manipulated.
	How does that work?
	Let's see.
	If I tell you that a man has been unjustly- If you imagine all of this being said by Noam Chomsky, Well, like, it's just, like, you wouldn't go, no, Chomsky's gone mad.
	Would ya?
	He's saying, like, the media's manipulated.
	It's media analysis.
	Arrested for armed robbery.
	That is not, strictly speaking, a lie.
	He may have been framed.
	At this point, there's been no trial, so no one can really say.
	But if I don't mention the fact that the same man has been arrested for the same crime six times before, am I really informing you?
	No, I'm not.
	There's something about the way he talks that is sort of weird, because it's not patronising, but it is somehow simplifying.
	I feel like, I really understand this stuff.
	No, it isn't!
	And then it also feels very certain, but not aggressive.
	It's weird, isn't it, these days, because there are almost aesthetics that you can appreciate in figures.
	Because they're sort of, what do I want to say, refined, sophisticated and interesting that transcends whether or not you would morally align with those people.
	Like if you see Tucker Carlson and go, oh no, I get it, I get it, I do the same thing, you just wanted to have different rules for you and different rules for you.
	Oh my god, this guy's style.
	You can't beat this guy in a conversation.
	What I like about this is obviously as you say this is media analysis from Tucker and what you wonder if this is like a kind of taste of what's to come is like someone coming from the position that he has in the mainstream and there was no one bigger than Tucker obviously we know he was an MSNBC before that and then to Fox the kind of things that now he seems to be moving over to kind of independent media the revelations and the analysis of the mainstream might be Seismic.
	It might be pretty amazing, the kind of ways in which the mainstream delivers their news, in which they cover up certain ways of doing things, the agendas that the mainstream has.
	Certainly if our conversation with RFK, which you can see on Friday, or right now on Locus if you want, if that's anything to go by, then it will be.
	Because when you talk to someone inside the establishment that, no, like, I know the guys that run the CIA.
	I was there when that happened.
	Like, you know, when you were in the midst of history, like this guy, what he understands and knows is incredible.
	Also, is someone that won like corporate cases against Monsanto, like the fact that the,
	I've got to say this and tell me what you think, the fact that the left is like,
	anti-vaxxer, shut him down, shut him down.
	That shows you that authoritarianism has a different inflection now,
	because abandoning someone because they have different position to you
	on a subject like vaccination, because like abandon them altogether,
	even though they've won battles against Monsanto, that they're environmentalists defining issues
	for the Democrat party, which he's running, you know, for the candidacy to lead that party.
	It sort of shows that.
	The real ideology is about staying within very narrow trammels.
	And I say that those lines are determined by corporate interest, not by anything else.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	So you're right, Gareth, like he's going to have truth bombs, this guy, right?
	Yeah.
	I'm misleading you.
	And that's what the news media are doing in every story that matters, every day of the week, every week of the year.
	what's it like to you know we did that bit with john stewart because we we love john stewart right
	and john stewart thinks that um tucker carlson is not legit that tucker carlson is a sort of
	manipulator that's trying to i think stewart's words we're trying to marshal the darkest forces
	which i guess means stuff around race and prejudice and that kind of stuff well now we'll find out i
	mean because now there isn't a fox news script so now we'll find out who tucker carlson is and if
	he's if it's more the stuff that he was saying the anti-corporate stuff and the criticisms of
	the republicans and the democrats or whether it's more like what jones john stewart said
	Work in a system like that.
	After more than 30 years in the middle of it, we could tell you stories.
	NBC and Brian Stelter yet. Let us know in the chat. Red button on your screen guys if you're not on locals yet.
	Sees Mick, he's pronounced sighs Mick over here.
	NBC, finish Tucker. If you want to finish Tucker, I'm gonna let Tucker play out.
	Work in a system like that.
	After more than 30 years in the middle of it, we could tell you stories.
	The best you can hope for in the news business at this point is the freedom to tell the fullest truth that you can.
	But there are always limits.
	And you know that if you bump up against those limits often enough, You will be fired for it.
	That's not a guess, it's guaranteed.
	Every person who works in English language media understands that.
	The rule of what you can't say defines everything.
	I'll engage you to that. Well done, guys.
	You will be fired for it.
	That's not a guess.
	It's guaranteed.
	Every person...
	That's what happened to him.
	This happened to him.
	...who works in English language media understands that.
	The rule of what you can't say defines everything.
	It's filthy, really, and it's utterly corrupting.
	You can't have a free society if people aren't allowed to say what they think is true.
	Speech is the fundamental prerequisite for democracy.
	Kay said the same thing, because without freedom of speech, you have the ability to censor and control.
	That means you can control every single other issue.
	That's, again, you've got to watch this conversation with RFK.
	If you're watching this on Locals, it's available there now, or we're going to TX it, as we say in the industry, on Friday, right?
	It's unbelievable.
	And what's fascinating about it is he has the same views when it comes to free speech as Tucker here.
	Yeah.
	And what, you know, when Tucker's talking about, well, those are digs at Fox News, aren't they?
	Yeah.
	Again, what we'll go into later on in the show, but the things that have come out that either Fox News released themselves or has been released in some other ways, doesn't seem like enough to justify firing Tucker.
	So something's happened that they didn't like.
	They didn't like the direction he was going.
	And it also doesn't make rational sense because a lot of Fox News, Why do you speak ill of the fairer sex?
	As much as not how you feel that Robert Murdoch, uh, Robert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch runs his deal.
	Let's just take a play out.
	That's why it's enshrined in the first of our constitution.
	Wait, thanks.
	Four amendments.
	Amazingly, as of tonight, there aren't many platforms left that allow free speech.
	The last big one remaining in the world, the only one, is Twitter, where we are now.
	Twitter has long served as the place where our national conversation incubates and develops.
	Twitter is not a partisan site.
	Everybody's allowed here, and we think that's a good thing.
	And yet for the most part, the news that you see analyzed on Twitter comes from media organizations that are themselves thinly disguised propaganda outlets.
	You see it on cable news, you talk about it on Twitter.
	The result may feel like a debate, but actually the gatekeepers are still in charge.
	We think that's a bad system.
	We know exactly how it works.
	Does he mean me in Twitter?
	Already?
	Who's the we?
	Who do you think the we is?
	And we're sick of it.
	Starting soon, we'll be bringing a new version of the show we've been doing for the last six and a half years to Twitter.
	We bring some other things too, which we as his team will tell you about.
	But for now, we're just grateful to be here.
	Free speech is the main right that you have.
	Without it, you have no others.
	See That's why I want the monitor on.
	I'll see what's going on over at this place.
	Tucker will be directing like that.
	Okay, so listen, I tried that when I was on Tucker.
	I know you did.
	It's just my nature.
	Let's have a look.
	So we want to see what Brian Stelter has got to say about this.
	And if you're watching us on YouTube, we're going to be on exclusively on Rumble from Matt.
	Well, you'll understand. Whitney Webb's coming on.
	Whitney Webb's talking about Epstein in particular.
	Am I allowed to say, like she's got...
	I think you can mention his name.
	It's in relation to Bill Gates.
	It's in relation to the head of the CIA.
	It's stuff that I just can't risk talking about on YouTube.
	We love you 6.4 million Awakening Wonders.
	We want to keep you.
	We can't take the strikes.
	You know, we had Dr. John Campbell on here.
	You know, you've got to be so careful.
	We have to keep that audience alive.
	That's why we want you to click on that link right now.
	Join us on Rumble, where we can speak freely.
	And that's not bad.
	We're not going to go yet.
	But first, we're going to do this thing with NBC and Brian Stilwell.
	Let's have a look.
	Okay, well listen, Twitter was already under fire for misinformation, disinformation, all-out lies, anti-Semitic... Invented those words.
	They invented those words.
	Misinformation, disinformation.
	That has been invented in order to like...
	Oh, do anyone in the world think, listen, that what the purpose of these new categories of mis and disinformation is, is, listen, this is very dangerous.
	People are going to take medicine and stuff that's actually bad for them.
	So in order to be able to stop that, you know, if it was exclusively that we've seen now from the Twitter files, they were, they were censoring true information from across the political spectrum.
	The FBI were paying them money.
	I mean, it's just not what these people are continuing to pretend it was.
	You sound shocked with Brian Steltz on the screen.
	Because I'm excited and he's going to talk in a minute.
	... racism before Elon Musk took over and now it's gotten kind of crazy, right?
	Seemingly unmoored, if you will.
	Will anybody be able to police what Carlson says?
	Or is this the point? It's just a free-for-all.
	I think this is the point. It is a free-for-all.
	It's what Elon Musk wants to provide.
	This move by Tucker may cement the idea of Twitter as a right-wing website.
	Amazing.
	You've got to get more of that.
	I want to see more of this guy saying this stuff.
	Like, because... Pundit for hire, Brian Stelton.
	Yeah, I can take on anything now!
	Do you think he'd come on here?
	I think it'd be a good interview.
	I reckon if we paid him enough.
	Yeah, I'd like to have him on.
	I mean, like, also just like that, No one's going to be policing Tucker Carlson.
	It's also weird how he said, we know Twitter, uh, you know, is a hotbed for disinformation, misinformation.
	And that was before Elon Musk took it over.
	It's like, well, which is it that you prefer then?
	Did you prefer it before?
	Or do you like it now?
	What is it?
	What is your preference?
	The preference is control.
	No principles, no values.
	This is what we continually point to.
	We want to see a continuum of values.
	OK, we're going to listen.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, Whitney Webb's joining me now, an investigative journalist renowned for her work exposing Jeffrey Epstein.
	We're going to be talking to her right now over on Rumble.
	It's not the kind of thing we can talk about on YouTube.
	So click on the link in the description and then come all the way through and join us on Locals, where we'll be following your Okay, Whitney, are you there?
	Whitney, Whitney, are you there?
	Where are you, Whitney?
	In Chile inside a grandmother's handbag, as usual.
	Thanks for coming on, Whitney.
	Yeah, my pleasure.
	Thanks for having me back on.
	Have you got a baby again?
	Uh, what do you mean by that?
	I have a one-and-a-half-year-old, so... I feel like last time we spoke, Whitney, we had, like, a long conversation, and then, sort of, it became clear, not early enough in the conversation, that you'd been, like, looking after your baby the whole way through the interview.
	Like, when my children come in here, which they did earlier, like, you'll see bits of that, actually, because it was a show we did, uh, like, it was just absolute chaos.
	Your, uh, child was very well tended to.
	Yeah, my toddler is getting his molars in right now, so it's definitely chaotic in some senses, but otherwise very fun and entertaining.
	I like you, Whitney Webb.
	Like Whitney, our audience are well aware that when having a conversation with you, it's best to do it in a free speech environment.
	We're in particular interested in talking about Bill Gates' relationship with Epstein.
	Now, look, even on a free speech platform like Rumble, my particular... I guess what I really want to know is this.
	If you're friends with Jeffrey Epstein, Does that mean that you're definitely involved in nefarious activity related to sex trafficking, sexual assault and abuse, that crazy Ireland stuff?
	Does it mean you're necessarily involved in corruption?
	Does it?
	So I think there's you have to keep in mind Epstein is a guy that was also really involved, for example, in financial criminality.
	Suspect fundraisers and sort of this broader effort to redefine philanthropy, you know, move it away from how it's been considered by the public for a long time as altruism.
	To a new model where it's really impact investing disguises philanthropy.
	It's all about return on investment.
	And that's why you have him so close, closely involved with the Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which are really institutions that were created in this period where that shift was happening.
	And Epstein was a key part of it.
	So more often than not, the people that tend to go to Epstein tend to be looking, I think, not necessarily so much for the sex trafficking stuff, though there obviously are those cases.
	But I think the financial ties are very significant because even the people that were, you know, discussed in this new Wall Street Journal expose, they admitted, oh, we went to Epstein for his wealth and connections.
	It was about money.
	And this is a guy that if you look at his history from the time he was at Bear Stearns, the time he was involved with shadow finance in arms deals, With people like Adnan Khashoggi and all these, you know, suspect intelligence ties in that period, then going to very suspect Clinton White House fundraisers, visiting the Clinton White House 17 times and being tied up with, you know, the biggest campaign finance scandals of the Clinton administration, and then going on to get involved with philanthropy.
	I mean, there's a very particular reason you'd seek out someone like Epstein, in my opinion.
	Right.
	So, like, the trafficking was almost like a side hustle.
	There's a lot of financial impropriety also.
	Gareth, I saw our co-host, our on-screen assistant, I can't remember what we call Gareth these days, but certainly he's integral to the show.
	Gareth, I saw you had a very big reaction to what Nick Whitney was saying.
	So fascinating the kind of rebranding of altruism into philanthropy as we now know it and the ways in which we're told it's one thing and obviously I didn't realize he was such a key figure within that and that makes a lot of sense but it's really fascinating.
	central to that all that like, you know, and I bet you know, that that trend, that's all of that ESG stuff is ESG is
	like, you know, like the way of categorizing blue chip companies
	so that they have social credit score type stuff going on or
	ways of gaining additional credit through their ecological or sociological moves, that seems like a way of capitalizing
	literally, on certain social justice ideas that are good.
	That's why they have a certain gravitas, but are not legitimate
	in these contexts. And the biggest example of that is these sort of phony philanthropy organizations that you know, do
	appear to have connections with the Clintons and the Gates Foundation. I see. Can I just ask you this is more of a
	personal thing. Say someone like Noam Chomsky, who I really, really like when he's meeting up with Epstein, is there is
	there any way of like meeting up with Jeffrey Epstein, that is
	legit Or is it if you've met with Jeffrey Epstein or been on that airplane, it ain't a good look, full stop?
	So the Chomsky situation is interesting.
	Well, it's also a little complicated because Chomsky himself hasn't been very forthcoming about why he would meet with Epstein.
	But actually, before these revelations in the Wall Street Journal, Epstein was very open before he died about why he was interested in someone like Noam Chomsky.
	He gave an interview in 2017 that was published later in Science Magazine, and there he said that the reason he invited Chomsky to his townhouse was because he was interested in talking to Chomsky about artificial intelligence specifically.
	And this is, I would argue, part of Epstein's big focus and M.I.T.
	specifically where Chomsky is long taught and been affiliated and particularly with M.I.T.
	artificial intelligence initiatives.
	So I think with Chomsky a lot of it was apparently related to that.
	Now the question is you know.
	How much did Chomsky really know about Epstein?
	Because keep in mind, some of the meetings that he was known to have with Epstein weren't just with Epstein.
	They were with people like Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who was very, very much involved, if you look at the evidence, with aspects of the sex trafficking operation.
	And then you also have him Uh, going on like a dinner meeting, I guess, with Woody Allen and his wife.
	And of course, Woody Allen is very controversial for his alleged molestation of Mia Farrow's adopted daughter.
	And then he ends up marrying another one of Mia Farrow's adopted children, allegedly getting involved with her when she's around 17 or 18.
	So, uh, There's a bunch of weird stuff there.
	I don't have the answers about Chomsky.
	I wish he would have given a less evasive response to the Wall Street Journal.
	He essentially told them that his meetings with Epstein were none of their business nor anybody's, which is not the kind of response I was personally hoping for from Chomsky.
	But, you know, he was very evasive and defensive in his response.
	I can see that I myself, I'm not immune to the problem of it.
	When it's someone that you're predisposed to like, like Chomsky or Woody Allen, people I think are like, you know, contribute to the culture in various ways.
	Like, I'm like, oh no!
	But when it's like Bill Gates, I'm like, aha!
	But you think that Bill Gates's connections are much more likely to be about setting up apparently philanthropic organizations that have great influence.
	It's very interesting to see Those kind of ties because I guess I guess what it is is Epstein is like an outlier of when people in spaces like this say hey there's all these sort of secret connections and there's all this corruption that goes on financial and there's a sexual component to it like Epstein is like
	Someone that emerges that appears to have these things written down.
	That's kind of, I guess, what he represents.
	When you have such a deep knowledge of a figure like Epstein, what do you think his significance is?
	Why do you think he died in prison?
	Why did he have meetings with the CIA director William Burns?
	So does he have deep state connections?
	Big finance connections?
	What does he represent, Whitney?
	Okay, so I wrote a thousand page book about Epstein and his deep state connections.
	They are very significant, they are very disturbing, and a lot of it essentially intersects with some of the things that are being promoted right now in terms of technocracy, artificial intelligence, digital ID, all sorts of these types of initiatives.
	Epstein was on that beat very early on over a decade ago.
	But even before that, he was involved with this power nexus, sometimes referred to as the Enterprise back in the Iran-Contra era, and essentially stayed affiliated with aspects of that throughout the years.
	And in my opinion, he was a serial financial criminal.
	And it's not quite clear exactly what the extent of his financial crimes are, but from what we do know, it is pretty significant.
	And I think this would go back to sort of, you know, his earlier ties with Bear Stearns and this, where he was allegedly a bounty hunter for finance, hiding and finding looted money for powerful people.
	This is a guy that was an expert in the shadow banking system.
	And I think, you know, after he did it in the 80s with these suspect arms deals, And then sort of offered similar services to the Clinton administration.
	He went on and started developing, offering those services to a host of powerful people, including Silicon Valley, for example, and all other sorts of powerful entities.
	And I think, frankly.
	The mainstream media has really done this story and injustice by focusing so near it's almost exclusively on the sex trafficking trafficking ties and not on really any other aspects of Epstein and what he was doing, because there's really a lot more to find.
	And, you know, my work is a testament to that, but other people as well have dug up a lot on what he was involved with.
	A lot of people in the chat over here on Locals, you can join by pressing the red button on your screen, are fascinated by your work.
	Georgie Gale, among many others, are asking for the name of your book.
	We're going to post a link to your book right now in the chat so you can get that if that's what you're interested in.
	Fascinating what you just said, Whitney, because it does seem like, as you say, whilst Jeffrey Epstein stays in the realm of, you know, the kind of sex crimes and the more lurid parts of his history, we're not focusing on the financial elements of it.
	And you could even suggest that maybe when you're talking about altruism rebranded as philanthropy, which is ultimately about power in the case of, for example, Bill Gates, maybe it's almost more convenient that this still remains within the kind of more lurid elements that can be kind of dismissed as conspiracy.
	Rather than the focus, which should come from the media, on the financial elements of all this.
	You know, where was this money?
	What were these, you know, financial arrangements that were going on?
	Why is it that... What's kind of most relevant about these recent revelations?
	And why won't the media focus on it?
	Yeah, what is most relevant?
	And can I add to that, do you believe the positioning of Epstein primarily around the sex trafficking, do you believe it's strategic?
	And as Gareth says, you know, Gareth's question about what is most significant about the recent revelations, if I may just add.
	Yeah, so I definitely think it's a strategic effort to limit what is acceptable discourse about the Epstein case.
	And as far as the financial ties go, a great example going on right now is the JP Morgan Epstein case.
	You know, so a lot of focus has been on these revelations in the Wall Street Journal.
	But what hasn't been talked about as much is that there's been four billionaires subpoenaed as part of this JPMorgan Epstein case, including including Thomas Pritzker, who runs the Hyatt Hotels Corporation.
	And he is in Epstein's black book written next to his name is numero uno, number one.
	That's a pretty odd thing to have next to your name.
	And the Pritzkers are very much tied to the Democratic Party, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, or William Burns, who was Joe Biden's pick for CIA director that was meeting with Epstein.
	He met with Epstein right before he went, from essentially being Hillary Clinton's deputy at the State Department to the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, which Penny Pritzker runs, who, of course, is related to Thomas Pritzker.
	And the Pritzkers, as I note in my book, are essentially this very powerful clan out of Chicago who were responsible in a large part for Obama's presidential and Senate career and have historic ties to organized crime going way, way, way back.
	Uh, to, like, the thirties and forties and all sorts of very suspect activity that helped essentially cement their position in Chicago politics, which is pretty notoriously corrupt if you're familiar with political history in that part of the country.
	So.
	Well, I mean, I'm just saying then that Gareth is astute to point out that the financial corruption is much more significant because it points to, as you say, Whitney, continually in your work, the nexus of power.
	There's some pretty big names getting dropped there.
	So is it potentially strategic to amplify the more salacious aspects of this case in order to distract from the fact Epstein and the revelations that you have presented us with are the flying saucer on the White House lawn of deep state corruption.
	Yeah, I think that's fair because if you look at some of these, some of this information coming out, particularly of the JP Morgan case, there's a lot of powerful people that are potentially on the hook for enabling his sex trafficking crimes, particularly Jamie Dimon, one of the most powerful bankers on Wall Street.
	So, I mean, that's hugely significant in and of itself.
	And again, some of the other people that have been subpoenaed as part of that case, the two co-founders of Google, Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
	And apparently, Larry Page is so concerned about being served papers in this court case that he can't even be found.
	They've tried five different addresses and can't find him anywhere.
	And that's really astounding when you consider the ties of Google to the CIA from its founding, its collaboration with mass surveillance, and the fact that the New Albany Company, which was incorporated by Jeffrey Epstein, owns the land on which major data centers for Google, Amazon, and Facebook sit on.
	And no one's talking about that stuff because at the same period of time that happened, Epstein was setting up this insane DNA data mining company that he called a biomedical Google.
	In the U.S.
	Virgin Islands, and he wanted to sequence the genes of all these young Virgin Islanders, and he started funding education initiatives for little kids and teens, very suspect when it's Epstein, right?
	Because he wanted them to basically run servers for this company for him, and he wanted to train them from an early age on.
	I mean, there's so much crazy stuff here, and as you start picking away at it, I think it becomes really clear why they're They're focusing so much on his sex crimes.
	And again, it's not just his sex crimes, you know, as they occurred over the course of his lifetime and career.
	The mainstream media focus is specifically on sex crimes from 2000 to 2006.
	And there's no discussion of what Epstein, well, very little discussion of what Epstein was doing after he was arrested the first time and what he was doing around the time he was arrested the second time.
	Because I think it's fair to say that the Department of Justice of the United States wasn't interested And justice for Epstein victims when they arrested him and, you know, helped cover up his apparent murder in 2019.
	Wow.
	I mean, when I talk to you, it's a little like talking to RFK.
	Like, it makes me realize that this is deep.
	Like, even some of the more contentious stuff that we've talked about on YouTube, the pandemic, the exploitation, the media manipulation, the funding of politics, in a sense, is sort of Necessary to remain there.
	It's necessary because you can kind of demonstrate it in a way that's, I don't know, it feels, what do I want to say, sort of somehow simple and plain.
	When you start going, Google CIA, they own the land, you start to think, oh my god, this is, Enormous.
	We're living, we're in a sort of prison.
	We're being held in a sphere of managed reality and true power is completely inaccessible when you're not participating in it at all.
	Things are much further gone than you would dare anticipate and they sort of, in a sense, they sort of cut your fingers off as soon as you reach anywhere near He's like, hey, there's something weird going on there.
	And they cut you off.
	But there's so much further to go.
	There's so much further to go.
	Our conversation with RFK was like that, Whitney, where you just sort of hear someone in the same sort of easy manner, someone that's obviously done a great deal of research, someone that's obviously done a great deal of journalism and has a great deal of experience.
	And it's I actually think it's terrifying.
	That's why I start to at some point feel a kind of like we said that we were joking about it before, you know, like in Few Good Men, it goes, you know, when Jack Nicholson cracks and goes, You can't handle the truth!
	And you go, oh shit, no actually, I don't think I can, it's a bit heavy.
	Can I just go back to sleep in the Matrix, like the bloke who wants to go back and eat steaks, rather than being there with Neo and Morpheus and Trinity and Whitney, getting your nuts kicked on a daily basis by the depth Enough of the corruption.
	We need independent media.
	Not only that, this independent media needs to become a kind of activism, because there are powerful, nefarious, deep, malfeasant forces at work.
	Whitney, have you looked much at RFK's staff?
	Do you like him?
	You don't have a little bit of rivalry, do you, of who could be the most extreme person trying to bring down the state?
	No, definitely not a rivalry.
	We've actually met.
	I spoke at the Children's Health Defense Conference last year, which was their first conference, and I was really happy to meet him.
	I think he's a great guy, and I hope that his campaign, you know...
	The DNC, particularly in the primary stage, is known for committing fraud to keep people they don't want out or, you know, keep the wrong person from getting the nomination right.
	So what I hope, you know, if that same fate befalls RFK's campaign, I hope he can raise awareness among a large segment of the left that has sort of been, you know, a lot of Democratic voters have been apparently, you know, You know, hypnotized to become increasingly authoritarian over the past few years, supporting war, supporting big pharma, supporting corporations and this public private partnership model, which is really, you know, if you go back to how much how the majority of Democratic voters were back in the George W. Bush era, I mean, they're practically unrecognizable.
	So I hopefully that I hope that RFK can help, you know, wake some of those people up.
	I hope so, because a move to tackle an opponent, an establishment, excuse me, an elite this powerful, you're going to need allies from all sides.
	You're going to have to put aside previous partisans, because they don't mean anything anyway.
	I like this party!
	It's all made up, you lunatics!
	You're believing in nothing!
	You're believing in nothing!
	Awaken!
	Awaken!
	It's really difficult to sort of remain sanguine about it you know because it's something induces in me an almost hysterical fear to see the scale and scope of their power and also the sort of casual bureaucratic manner in which it's sort of conducted and exercised.
	We were saying now that like because there is legitimate justified mistrust in most institutions whether it's judicial or media or electoral that After the next election, whoever wins it, the other side's just going to go, they cheated.
	In a way, the institutions are dead, even according to their own framing.
	Do you think that?
	Well, I think the situation in the United States right now, voting is not going to solve the problem.
	I think for a long time, culturally in the United States, people have been conditioned to look for a political savior and assume that one man can fix all of the problems.
	That the United States has, and I think, and as my work shows, the corruption is so long standing and so systemic that it's really going to take a mass movement of people divesting from that system and building something parallel in order to really fix what's going on in the United States.
	Yeah, it's very complicated, but I think that's, I mean, essentially what we're seeing is a major effort to force everything in the world into the digital realm as part of the Great Reset, the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
	At the same time, governments around the world, including in the UK and the US, are pushing to exert complete control over that digital realm.
	We're seeing that with censorship, but it's only going to get worse from here.
	If you look at the policy papers from groups like the WEF or the Carnegie Endowment and a lot of these other entities that are very intense on setting policy, particularly for the West.
	And I think people really need to be aware of what the problem is, because if you don't understand the scale and scope of the problem, it's very hard to understand the ways to fix it at the end of the day.
	So, you know, some of the stuff may be harrowing and may be, you know, upsetting to some people,
	but it's better to know what's actually going on and, you know, understand the truth of the
	situation because without that we can't change anything for the better, in my opinion.
	Yeah, we're getting a lot of love for you, Whitney, over in locals.
	You can join our Locals conversation right now by pressing the red button on your screen.
	What I'm saying is if you did say what you like, you wouldn't be sitting in that chair.
	of the Constitution. JackSwiss underscore like grumble is a parallel. Oh what you think we're not a parallel? Hold on a
	minute, I think we can say what we like on here. I am me!
	What I'm saying is if you did say what you like you wouldn't be sitting in that chair. To quote Noam Chomsky maybe for
	the last time. Then there's some people like Blessed Albert, citing the Bible, talking about Nebuchadnezzar's dream,
	Daniel 2 20 23.
	You can join us there in the best little place to exchange theories.
	The locals' chat is going on right now.
	Some great memes.
	They're just having their own fun in there.
	Whitney, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation inside your own grandmother's handbag.
	I like to imagine that Whitney has been shrunk down To a tiny being, she's in a handbag with her toddler and their molars, just... Tic Tacs or... Yeah, if that shot came wider, you would see some tiny little Tic Tacs.
	Like, Tic Tacs are like that big, big as minions.
	Old tissues.
	Yeah, like, yeah, she's next to her nan's handbag, like a cell phone that's that big, and you see... Bill Gates, his name, flashing on there.
	I'm coming for you, that's enough out of you, young lady!
	Thank you so much, Whitney.
	We've posted Whitney's website in the chat.
	Whitney Webb... Thanks, man.
	I'll just say thank you to you once more instead of being silly.
	Thank you.
	No, no worries.
	Take care.
	Thanks, man.
	Whitney Webb is the author of One Nation Under Blackmail, and you can follow her work at the Unlimited Hangout.
	There is a look at it now.
	Now, we're going to ask you guys in the chat.
	You've got some options, right?
	Eva, we can throw to our presentation on Fox News smearing Tucker, but we won't be there when it comes back.
	We'll have gone, because my children are here.
	Or we can just end the show now.
	So it's up to you, first five people to let us know.
	Do you want us to throw to this brilliant presentation we've made about Fox News smearing Tucker, and then you can watch that play out for a little while?
	Yeah, you want the throw?
	I think they'll do that.
	They're doing that, they're doing that.
	Okay, so just before we throw to that, let me tell you that tomorrow we're talking with, is it RFK tomorrow?
	No, we're talking about the revolving door, retired personnel from the military.
	I mean like, In a way, we're going to have to go deeper and deeper, aren't we?
	We've got a great presentation tomorrow.
	We'll be talking about how a lot of military-industrial complex people end up going to foreign governments around the world, giving them advice.
	Then we talk about the war on drugs.
	And of course, on Friday, RFK.
	So get joining Locals right now.
	There's that red button on your screen.
	We're going to let it play out.
	This is brilliant.
	You can see the links that Fox News are going to to shut down Tucker Carlson.
	It's pretty fantastic.
	If you join us on Locals, you also get meditations there, podcasts, news about live events like Immunity, which takes place in July next year.
	So, uh, yeah, enjoy this presentation.
	Uh, you know, join us tomorrow for more and not for more of the same, more of the different.
	Uh, and here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Stay free.
	And if they are, is it because they disagree with him on cultural issues, or is it because they think Tucker Carlson is about to cost them a lot of money?
	Loads of us are very interested in Tucker Carlson.
	Why are Fox deliberately smearing Tucker Carlson?
	What is it he has against them?
	And do Fox News have anything on Tucker that's genuinely dangerous?
	What does it tell us about the shifting media space?
	Is it, as I've been telling you for a while now, it's no longer left v right, it's periphery versus centre?
	And I would regard, say, Jon Stewart as a voice of the periphery, and Tucker as a voice of the periphery.
	i.e. they're both attacking the establishment.
	Why then can there not be new alliances?
	What is it about Tucker Carlson that makes some people love him and some people hate him?
	And what will Fox News do to prevent Tucker Carlson breaking out on his own with his own
	media voice?
	And what does that tell us about the decay in mainstream media right now?
	First of all, there's this tweet from Glenn Greenwald, the right-wing fascist, over with us
	on Rumble.
	There's obviously a decision by Fox to wage a massive war on Tucker Carlson's character, partnering with both the New York Times and Media Matters to do it.
	And it's extremely odd for many reasons, beginning with the fact that he hasn't uttered a negative word about them.
	So let's have a look at the Fox News leaked footage and determine for ourselves, is it that bad?
	And why are Fox doing it?
	Overnight, a new report about former Fox News host Tucker Carlson's private comments after his bombshell departure from Fox News.
	In a text message obtained by the New York Times sent by Carlson to one of his producers in the hours after the January 6th attack on the Capitol, the host allegedly describes watching a video of a group of people he calls Trump guys violently attacking a, quote, Antifa kid, calling it dishonorable and adding, it's not how white men fight.
	That might make you feel a certain feeling.
	Certainly using terms around race seems like it's adjacent to racism, doesn't it?
	That's, I think, what we all feel.
	If you hear, that's not how white men fight, you start to feel like, oh yeah, that sounds like we're moving towards racism.
	So let's see what he actually says and if it's any different from that.
	And if it is different, if you think it's being presented in a way that's different from how it was originally said, then that tells you something, doesn't it?
	Carlson also writing he found himself rooting for the mob.
	I really wanted them to hurt the kid.
	I could taste it.
	But then Carlson writes, quote, an alarm went off.
	This isn't good for me.
	I'm becoming something I don't want to be.
	If I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
	Sounds like an interesting reflective perspective to me.
	Let me know if you agree with that in the chat.
	The message surfaced as part of Dominion's defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
	A redacted version appears in public court filings.
	But the Times reports members of Fox's board of directors became aware of the unredacted version on the eve of trial, and were so alarmed by Carlson's views on violence and racial superiority, they took steps to investigate Carlson and settle the case for nearly $800 million.
	So Fox cite those text messages as the reason that they fired Tucker Carlson, that they were disturbed by his views on race.
	Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know that Fox News in general is hypersensitive about people being blunt or clumsy around the subject of race.
	And this in particular seems like someone analysing their own previous bigotry and prejudice and being willing to let go of it, also off camera.
	So that's interesting because it's revealing in that sense.
	I would ask this as well.
	If people cannot change, how are we ever going to change the world?
	If someone's once done something that is off-key and then they disavow it and move on, you're like, no, too late!
	Then where's redemption, salvation, improvement, change, progress, revolution?
	Oh, that's interesting.
	None of us can ever get together.
	Oh, interesting policy.
	Video of some behind-the-scenes comments from Carlson have also surfaced since Fox settled its lawsuit with Dominion.
	Left-leaning group Media Matters posted a video appearing to show Carlson chatting with host Piers Morgan before an interview.
	If we're going to talk about sex, I'd love to hit some of the fine points of technique.
	But it's your show.
	It's totally up to you.
	We can certainly talk about your sexual technique, especially after your tanning testicles last week.
	Not mine!
	We'll speak in more general terms, but I've got something to add.
	Harmless jokes.
	Previously the New York Times reported it had obtained a video of Carlson discussing his quote postmenopausal fans and referring to a woman as quote yummy.
	Come on guys.
	I am completely against all forms of bigotry and prejudice.
	Racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia.
	Not liking people, judging people on the basis of a characteristic around their religion or their race or their identity is not only horrible, it's a Stupid waste of time.
	And I'm willing to criticise that in anybody, absolutely anybody, because it's an obstacle to the progress we absolutely must make if we are to change the world.
	But someone saying, talking about their own testicles and tanning and referring to someone as yummy or postmenopausal, postmenopausal is not very nice, wouldn't like someone saying that about someone I loved, I'd kind of, don't say that, that's my auntie or my mum or whoever, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't say, you cannot work in media ever, that is woe!
	But nobody's gonna watch it on Fox Nation.
	Nobody watches Fox Nation because the site sucks.
	This other clip could be more revealing because it shows him criticizing Fox.
	I'm just frustrated with the... It's hard to use that site.
	I don't know why they're not fixing it.
	It's driving me insane.
	And they're like making like...
	Lifetime movies, but they don't work on the infrastructure of the site?
	Like, what?
	That's just insider stuff.
	Someone criticizing bad management.
	That happens everywhere, doesn't it?
	It's crazy.
	And it drives me crazy, because it's like, we're doing all this extra work and no one can find it.
	It's unbelievable, actually.
	They're ignoring the fact that the site doesn't work.
	And I think it's like a betrayal of our efforts.
	That's how I feel.
	So I, of course, I resent it.
	So there you go.
	Now, perhaps a more helpful opinion might be the opinion of someone I personally deeply respect, Jon Stewart.
	Let's have a look at what he had to say about Tucker Carlson.
	To your point, though, about a guy like Tucker Carlson, that's cynical.
	What he does is cynical.
	Right.
	And he hides the true motivation for it.
	And that's what I mean by the difference between well-intentioned, honest brokering and cynical manipulation.
	Tucker Carlson has said things about race that I completely disagree with, and in fact some of those things I raised on his show.
	What Jon Stewart appears to be saying is that those things are so insidious that it nullifies the significance and importance of the anti-establishment things that I agree with Tucker Carlson on I suppose where I differ from Jon Stewart is that I believe that people can change, that people can say things that they now disavow and don't believe in.
	I believe that we can all evolve together and that if you exclude someone like Tucker Carlson from the conversation, who's popular, anti-establishment, anti-corporate and anti-war because Because in the past they've said things you disagree with.
	You potentially lose not only an important and skilled ally, but also access to millions, hundreds of millions of people that like him.
	But let me know what you think about that in the chat.
	So if it's true that Fox News are releasing footage in order to smear Tucker Carlson, could it be something to do with this?
	According to Axios, Tucker Carlson is preparing to unleash allies to attack Fox News in an effort to bully the network into letting him work for or start a right-wing rival.
	Fox, which has seen its ratings plunge in Carlson's slot since he was let go 13 days ago, wants to sideline him by paying him $20 million a year not to work.
	Fox News viewers in Tucker Carlson's old time slot reportedly decreased by about 50% since the network's biggest star was shockingly ousted.
	Axios has learned Carlson is busy plotting a media empire of his own, but he needs Fox to let him out of his contract, which expires in January 2025 after the presidential election.
	Carlson Confidants say he's also contemplating building a direct-to-consumer media outlet where his millions of fans could pay to watch him.
	Carlson's predecessor in his Fox slot, Bill O'Reilly, created a blueprint for this.
	A close friend of Carlson said, Why is Tucker Carlson so fascinating?
	Why are there some people that loathe him?
	And why do so many of you love Tucker Carlson?
	Carlson was a genuine aberration in US corporate media, which is why he's gone.
	Yes, over the years, Carlson played on white fears, placing him firmly on the right.
	But he also gave over his massive corporate platform at Fox News to some of the most critical and thoughtful independent journalists and pundits around, from Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté to Jimmy Dore.
	Carlson not only brought them into the living rooms of mainstream, That is true.
	I think many more people have heard of Jimmy Dore and Aaron Maté and Glenn Greenwald as a result of Tucker Carlson.
	So I suppose that's the platforming argument.
	People say, oh, you shouldn't platform those people.
	Well, Tucker Carlson platformed some pretty radical anti-establishment voices.
	By the way, voices that are also loathed by the left.
	I don't think Aaron Maté or Glenn Greenwald or Jimmy Dore are racist.
	And the liberal establishment also hates them.
	So is there some continuum here of anti-establishment rhetoric is what gets condemned and derided rather than some social or cultural type of rhetoric.
	In that way he exposed ordinary Americans to critical perspectives especially on US foreign policy that they had no hope of hearing anywhere else and almost certainly not from so-called liberal corporate media outlets like CNN and MSNBC.
	Some of the thing a voice like Tucker Carlson's exposes how unliberal CNN and MSNBC actually are.
	Because if you're really liberal, then you should always be talking about maximum amount of freedom.
	Maximum amount of freedom for unnecessary taxation.
	Only taxation that leads to the benefit of vulnerable people.
	Not taxation that ends up with a military industrial complex.
	You wouldn't have former military industrial complex employees come on your channels if you were actually
	against war.
	If you were actually for freedom.
	So I think that figures like Tucker Carlson, and I'll be honest, on occasion I feel that I've been used in this way, are attacked and smeared and censored and shut down, not because of anything particular that Tucker Carlson has done, but because Tucker Carlson's voice is antithetical to their interests.
	Let me know in the chat if you agree with that.
	And he did so while constantly ridiculing the media's craven collusion with those in power.
	But all that is being ignored.
	Media analysis of Carlson's departure has focused so far almost exclusively on his clashes with Fox News management and a series of disrespectful tweets.
	But those clashes cannot be understood outside a wider context in which Carlson was pushing against institutional media constraints at Fox Designed to prevent the real work of journalism holding the powerful to account.
	So by having on Jimmy Dore or Seymour Hersh or Aaron Maté or Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson introduced Fox News viewers to rhetoric and ideas that they wouldn't hear anywhere else.
	Many of those people are virulently anti-establishment, they all are in fact, And anti-war in particular.
	And I'm beginning to think that the same way that the pharmaceutical industry perhaps had a little too much influence, bias and interest in the pandemic and were able to manipulate regulation, allegedly, that when it comes to war, war is an overarching power.
	that continually influences the trajectory of American foreign policy.
	So by introducing voices that oppose those ideals, you are against the establishment, and that the establishment care more about that than they do about indiscretions or inappropriate things that Tucker Carlson might have said.
	Let me know in the comments if you agree or disagree.
	Rather than welcome this record, the blinkered tribalists of the left preferred instead to accuse Greenwald, Mattei and others either of outing themselves as right-wingers by appearing on Carlson's show or by providing legitimacy to Fox's white fear-mongering.
	It even reached the absurd depths that any retweet of a Carlson clip was denounced because supposedly the left was poisoning its own well.
	We would soon convert ourselves from socialism to national socialism.
	But if Carlson's firing by Murdoch suggests anything, it's that the corporate media had grown increasingly fearful of the extent to which Carlson was becoming a loose cannon, and that the kind of independent journalism he hosted and amplified was gaining traction.
	A few years ago, we did content that was just anti-everything on Fox.
	We went and trolled Fox outside their premises.
	Here we are at Fox's headquarters.
	You wanna get arrested?
	When I found myself on Glenn Greenwald's show or on Tucker Carlson's show, we saw them openly attacking the establishment, the military-industrial complex, questioning the power of lobbyists and the donator class.
	And for me, that's necessary and important wherever you find it.
	Particularly if the old model is indeed dead, then new alliances are going to be necessary.
	And that's going to evolve some unusual new conversations and unusual new relationships, isn't it?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Through a rapid rise in his ratings, Carlson proved that there is an appetite, a big one, for stories that question the consensual narrative imposed by the rest of the corporate media, for stories that actually hold the powerful to account, rather than simply claiming to, and for stories that refuse to assume Western meddling around the globe is necessarily a good thing.
	If it was only white fear-mongering that drew audiences and propelled network news hosts to the top slot, then Sean Hannity would surely be king of the ratings, not Carlson.
	The reality, the one Carlton confirms, is there is an audience ready to listen to critical independent journalism when it can be found.
	The job of the corporate media is precisely to stop viewers hearing dissident views, a rule that Carlton played fast and loose with for too long.
	Now it seems he has paid the price.
	Maybe, on Fox News, Tucker Carlton initially was a voice that was completely in alignment with their general agenda.
	But perhaps, over time, Tucker Carlton's perspective shifted.
	Didn't he used to be on MSNBC after all?
	Maybe he has continued to evolve and become an independent voice that attacks both the right and the left, and whilst he may have his own cultural views, he is ultimately an ally to those that attack the establishment and want to see real and meaningful political and systemic change.
	That is possible!
	People alter over time.
	It's interesting to consider, too, if we are debating the effect of exposing Fox News audiences to left-wing and dissident perspectives, what impact Greenwald Mattei and others have had on Carson himself.
	That's an interesting perspective.
	I know that from listening to a variety of radical opinions, my own political perspectives have changed.
	They have shown me, essentially, that any institutional, donor-backed party Those who knew him well, such as Greenwald, have argued that he is on a political path away from the views he once held.
	genuinely radical views because that is the main thing that they oppose.
	Systemic change, radical change, empowerment of ordinary people.
	That they will resist at all costs.
	Those who knew him well, such as Greenwald, have argued that he is on a political path
	away from the views he once held.
	There is certainly evidence for this, and it may be that it was just such evidence that
	sealed his fate.
	Sounding more like Noam Chomsky, Carlson recently referred to the media as a control apparatus and admits, I spent most of my life being part of the problem, including by promoting the 2003 Iraq war.
	The media are not here to inform you, really.
	Even on the big things that matter, like the economy, wars, COVID.
	Their job is not to inform you.
	They are working for the small group of people who actually run the world.
	They are their servants.
	We should treat them with the maximum contempt because they have earned it.
	That seems to me more likely to evoke the ire of Fox News and Rupert Murdoch than him saying that he had a realisation while looking at an aspect of a riot, realising that really, what's the point in hating anyone?
	Or saying, yummy.
	I don't think Fox News have strong views on that kind of thing.
	I do think they have strong views on people saying, Hey, the media primarily operates to amplify the opinions of powerful elites that transcend democratic power and are beyond the bipartisan systems that govern America.
	That, I think, whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, they don't want that stuff out there, do they?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Presumably Murdoch understood that he was very much included in the small group of people who actually run the world, a group that should earn our contempt.
	But beyond speculating about Carlson's motives, the more significant point, the one we should celebrate and highlight, is that media consumers are slowly becoming less passive and more critical of traditional sources of information.
	And this is absolutely necessary.
	If we remain passive, we are not going to change anything.
	That media outlets such as ours, I would hope, are now intersecting with genuine activism, because you can't continually carry this message and not contemplate how real change could be enacted.
	Carlson understood that trend and tried to straddle the divide.
	He had a foot in both the corporate media camp and the independent camp.
	Through his sacking, he has proved just how untenable that position is.
	One, the corporate media is there to entertain and distract us and keep us locked into tribal identities, banging heads against each other in utter futility.
	The other, independent media is there to help us think more critically about power and about our responsibilities as citizens.
	You can't serve those two masters, as Tucker Carlson just found out the hard way.
	So does that seem like a more accurate appraisal than the one you're seeing elsewhere in the mainstream media?
	A media that's invested in attacking Tucker Carlson because the small differences between Fox and MSNBC are the only differences that they're interested in debating.
	These are the conversations we want to have with you.
	And it seems to me, personally, that Tucker Carlson wanted to have those conversations as well.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat and the comments.
	who need forever wars in order to justify their own existence and to continue their ongoing profit.
	These are the conversations we want to have with you and it seems to me, personally, that Tucker
	Carlson wanted to have those conversations as well. But that's just why I think, let me know
	what you think in the chat and the comments, I'll see you in a second.
	My father's first instinct, which was a good instinct, turns out was that the CIA is a-
	I was almost 10 years old when my uncle was killed.
	And I was standing in the White House, in the foyer of the White House, with my aunt Jackie Kennedy, and my mother, and my father.
	My uncle's body was in the east room.
	I, at that point, like many Americans, was asking questions because this didn't look right.
	How can you speak out openly against these kind of interests, let alone try and mobilize a political movement and stand against them without serious fear of, well, assassination?
	It wasn't just Fauci, it was the whole US intelligence military apparatus that was basically... Simply not possible for you to answer that question on YouTube.
	They were bragging that they could kill everybody, basically everybody in the world for 29 cents a person.
	What you're saying, Robert, even leaves many hardened conspiracy theorists quivering like Boy Scouts.
	None of this is stuff that we should be doing.
	Quite bloody terrifying.
	This is a war where Ukraine has been made a victim, not just by Russia, but by the United States government.
	We have to just say, wait a minute, we got to stop fighting each other.
	And we got to go after the people who have their jackboot on our head.
	It's time.

▲