RFK Jr (Fauci, CIA Secrets & Running For President)
Russell’s big conversation this week is with presidential candidate in 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Together, they delve into some of the most controversial topics of our time, including the assassination of JFK, the true nature of the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. Whether you're a political junkie or simply interested in learning more about the issues shaping our world, this conversation is a must-listen!Watch the full conversation over on LOCALS > https://bit.ly/russellbrand-Robert-f-kennedy-liveFind out more about RFK Jr: https://www.kennedy24.com/ For a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here:https://russellbrand.locals.com/Come to my festival COMMUNITY - https://www.russellbrand.com/community-2023/NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/
I'm being joined by presidential candidate, renowned environmental advocate and lawyer, founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance and Children's Health Defence, and you know, as I've already said, 2024 Democratic presidential candidate, running on some interesting ideas.
Listen to this before we meet Robert Kennedy.
Listen to this.
Bring the troops home, spend money on US infrastructure, heal the cultural divide rather than using the cultural war
to polarize the country, dismantle surveillance, pardon Assange and Snowden,
investigate and maybe even disband the CIA, and I guess we're going to have a pretty intensive reckoning
over events of the last couple of years.
I'm of course being joined by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Thanks for joining us, sir.
Father's first instinct, which was a good instinct, turns out, was that the CIA was
a piece of shit. 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've got to stop fighting each other, and we've got to go after the people who have their jackboot on our head.
It's time.
Thank you so much for having me and for all of your advocacy for the past three years.
Thank you.
Which has, you know, kept me laughing and it's been probably the smartest commentary on what's happening in our country of anybody else on the media.
So thank you, Russell.
It's a great honour to have you on.
The reason I want to speak to you, obviously, is because we continually critique establishment power.
We continually address the anti-democratic relationships between corporations, the military-industrial complex and democracy.
People in Congress owning stocks and shares in companies that they're supposed to regulate.
The historic corruption of American politics.
The theories and conspiracy theories around the assassination of members of your own family, with respect for even raising it.
We will discuss all of this.
The first 15 minutes of this conversation will be available on YouTube.
Then, due to the nature of modern media to speak, Openly with Robert, we will only be able to bring you this conversation on Rumble.
There's a link in the description.
Join us there if you want to see Robert's responses to the questions I'm going to ask about the pandemic period.
I'm obviously going to be speaking to him about his number one best-selling book about Anthony Fauci.
I'm going to be talking about the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy.
Once again, with respect, because it's obviously family members to Robert.
But we'll start with this simple question.
Why do you think that Joe Biden is unwilling to engage in debate even though he is not required to for this part of the political process?
Why is he unwilling, Robert?
I assume they made a calculation that the debate is not going to be helpful.
To the president and that he is a strong enough position now politically that he is strong enough in the polls that he can win.
And, you know, the way that the setup of the Democratic Party at the convention, the way the nomination happens, the super delegates are very, very influential and he'll get 100% of those.
So I think he's confident at this point, or his handlers are confident.
That he can win the nomination without debating me and that the debate can do nothing except for put him in jeopardy.
So I assume that's it, although I'm not really looking into it.
I can't really look into his head.
Uh, given that you yourself are part of the most famous political dynasty in American politics, my assumption is you understand the nature of the relationships between the deep state And the temporal administrations that occupy power in American politics, the significant influence that donations have on policy, the insidious nature of the industry of lobbying, and of course, even the potential consequences of being outspoken.
My assumption, Robert, is that you must appreciate that if you are going to stand for candidacy of the Democrat Party, that you are going to be subject to an Onslaught of smears and attacks because you are speaking out against the interests of, as far as I can understand, the most powerful elite establishment interests that there are.
How are you prepared for that?
How do you envisage that you will get your message across and what kind of attacks do you imagine might take place?
And don't get frightened.
I, you know, I'm already under an onslaught of attack and I have been for many years.
I don't mind the attacks.
The censorship is frustrating because you can't really reply or respond to the attacks.
But, you know, we've developed over the past three years during the pandemic A number of ways of talking to people that can end run essentially the mainstream media.
So I'm going to take a beating in the mainstream media, but I think through podcasts like this and other ones, I think the nature of media is changing and we've also developed a lot of techniques for working around the media.
You know, even Twitter allows us to talk to a larger audience than any CNN show has.
And so, you know, it's going to be interesting.
I expect attacks.
If you ask personally how I deal with it, I feel like I have to stay in kind of a spiritual place and come and everything I do has to come from that place.
And if I do that, if I manage to be able to stay and maintain that connection, that everything durable or enduring or important I do will come from that place and that I'm kind of invulnerable there.
And the only thing that is going to hurt me is if I leave that place and start doing things that are self-interested and self-serving and etc.
Oh man, right, I knew it.
There is a relationship between a deep spiritual connection and feeling safe in this world.
Myself, if I may call you Bobby, I vacillate between service and knowing that there are greater ideals that we must appeal to, that there is real hope for the world, and then sometimes sort of collapse like a souffle made of vanity into self-centeredness and
ego and my own wants. What practices do you have to sustain that? And also
for you, I feel like that you must have been exposed across your lifetime
through your family history, through the access that you have, to the real potency
of the threat that you face. I get frightened because I know like you know
that if you speak out you'll be attacked by the media. Who knows how far those
kind of attacks could go.
What consequences?
You know, sometimes that gets me and it really tests my faith.
It tests my spirit.
So I'm heartened to hear you say that, but also astonished that it is effective when you know what the consequences of speaking out against entrenched power could be.
Well, you know what?
I, Russell, I look back and say, I mean, I was raised in this kind of milieu where we were constantly talking about the, you know, my father was a military historian.
He would come home every night and tell us about the battles that changed history.
We were taught, my grandmother, my father, Took us on tours, and my Uncle Teddy, after they died, took us on tours of all the Civil War battlefields.
We grew up touring the Revolutionary War battlefields and walking the Freedom Trail in Boston and, you know, memorizing poems about Paul Revere and all of the kind of You know, heroic Victorian ballads, you know, from Rudyard Kipling and Alfred Lord Tennyson and all of those.
And we recognize that there was a generation of Americans in 1776 who put their lives on the line, who put their property, who put their reputations on the line, their fortunes, in order to give us the constitutional rights that we have
today.
And they all said if the subsequent generations weren't willing to make similar sacrifices,
that those generations would lose those constitutional rights.
And I watched during the pandemic really in shock, all of the Bill of Rights, with the
exception of the Second Amendment, being assaulted.
I saw it. First they came after freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
They began censoring me openly and many, many other people, just doctors.
I don't think we're going to be able to stay on YouTube for very much longer because I
just feel that your tendency is towards...
Yes.
Free speech and potentially antithetical to the WHO guidelines.
So I'm going to say, let's move over onto Rumble now, because before we go, this is the question that I want you to answer.
You've already said that you feel that the CIA Murdered your uncle, John F. Kennedy.
Would some of us feel like, was JFK the hero that we believe him to be in the culture?
Or was he part of the system?
How can anybody get into the position of the President without being co-opted by the very forces you describe?
The malign intentions that you have outlined in your previous answer.
How can you get into that position?
And if indeed you maintain that, you know, your father, and of course I expect that you will claim that your father and your uncle were legitimate, virtuous, flawed, but good, principled men, then you must presumably believe that the reason that they lost their lives is connected to those values and principles, and it's simply not possible for you to answer that question on YouTube.
I also want to, I also recognize that you are going after, as far as I can see, the
most significant opponents of freedom.
The military-industrial complex, the big pharmaceutical industry and the incredible power they're
able to exert over mainstream politics, and the control over the mainstream media.
And I think if you're going to attack those kind of interests, you cannot do it on a WHO-regulated
site like YouTube.
So click on the link in the description.
Join us now on Rumble where Robert will respond to some of the questions, just some of those questions as well.
And if you're watching this on Locals right now, post your questions in the chat.
I'll be asking Robert some of those questions as well.
So Robert, what do you feel about that sort of rather broad and potentially incendiary and I hope not offensive question I was asking about the family members who most of us believe were murdered by the CIA?
Yeah, I mean my uncle, you know, came into office.
He had been a military, you know, he had been a skipper of a big depot during World War II.
He had the, kind of the enlisted man's scout, although, you know, he was a low-level officer.
He had the enlisted, but he had a kind of an independence.
He had his own ship that, you know, and was destroyed by Japanese destroyer, but he had the enlisted man's skepticism
of the upper brass. And when he came into office, he already, these guys who were, you know,
were running the Joint Chiefs at that time, Lemitzer, Louis Lemitzer, and the other ones, were people
who we knew, who we had known, whose names he knew as an enlisted man, and who many people
respected, but he did, he was skeptical of them from the beginning. And he also
was very conscious of Eisenhower, three days before his inauguration, which I attended as a
little boy in Washington, Eisenhower gave one of the, what we now should regard as
probably the most important speech in American history on January 17th, which
was my birthday when I was six years old, warning Americans about the emergence of a military
industrial complex that would corrode and devour our democracy from within and without. The
institutions of our democracy, it would cause It would turn America into an imperium abroad and a security state at home.
And Eisenhower warned specifically also When he defined military industrial complex, he included the federal scientific technocracy.
It's a really fascinating speech in that way.
My uncle was very aware of that.
Two months in, he's surrounded by people.
Of course, Nixon had planned the Bay of Pigs.
And nobody knew about it.
They had, you know, almost 2,000 trained Cubans who intended to invade Cuba, but they waited.
The Eisenhower-Nixon administration had waited to dump that project on the Kennedy on the next administration.
And so he was then, my uncle was surrounded by an intelligence apparatus and military, his Joint Chiefs were saying, you got to go do this.
And my uncle said, wait a minute, why are we invading a sovereign nation, a little nation?
We're going to look like bullies to the world.
And you know, I don't want a Marxist country there, but that's their choice.
There's one floor that was Russians there.
So it was just a nation that had made a political choice in his view that we didn't like, but he also was very conscious of the abuses of the Batista administration that Castro had revolted against.
And he later said that, sent a note to Castro saying that.
Oh, they were saying, we're going to, you know, we're going to invade.
And Jack said, I don't want any US military involved.
They intended originally to use military amphibious vehicles in transport.
And Jack said, you're not going to use anything from the U.S.
government.
So the CIA then went to United Fruit.
And they provided the ships for the flotilla.
And of course, United Fruit had owned all the sugarcane in Cuba.
So it was, again, this kind of merger of state and corporate power that, you know, and Dulles had represented United Fruit as a lawyer for Sullivan Cromwell before he got the CIA job.
So it's all this kind of incestuous stuff that continues to infect and dictate policy at the CIA.
But they said, listen, and Jack said, are you sure this is going to work?
Are these guys just going to die there?
And they said, no, as soon as they land, we've done all the intelligence.
There's going to be a public uprising against Castro and he's going to, and the public will depose him.
And, you know, these guys are going to be heroes.
And Jack was very skeptical, didn't want to do it, but they said, we've trained these guys.
They're armed.
If you keep them here in Miami and Louisiana and Texas, It's going to be a nightmare.
You've got to let them do this.
But Jack let them go.
They get to the beach and all of his Joint Chiefs come to him with Alan Tullis and said, they're dying on the beach.
You've got to give them air cover.
And Jack said, no, I told you there was going to be no US military involvement.
And those guys, you know, some of them died on the beach, the rest were captured by cash.
You know, Jack came out of the meeting, that meeting, and he said to his aide, I want to take the CIA, shatter it into a thousand pieces, and scatter it to the winds.
And he fired Dulles, he fired Charlie Cabell, and he fired Richard Bissell, the three top guys in the CIA, and he brought in somebody, you know, John McComb, who he thought could run the agency, but the next Three years and a thousand days before his death were a constant battle with his military industrial complex.
And interestingly Russell, He realized in the middle of his presidency that Khrushchev was in the exact same position as he was.
Khrushchev also had fought in World War II, had been at the Battle of Stalingrad, had seen the horror of war, did not want to go to war.
But he was surrounded by military hawks and intelligence apparatus.
That did want to go to war.
And my father got a letter one day, a private letter that was smuggled to him by a KGB spy and a GRU spy called Georgie Bolshekoi.
And Georgie Bolshekoi was a guy who came to our house all the time.
We loved him.
We knew he was, this was when James Bond movies were coming out.
And you know, me and my, at that time there were eight or nine or ten of us siblings.
We all knew, you know, we knew about what a spy was, and we were very excited that this guy was actually a KGB spy, and he was very entertaining.
He could do that, you know, Russian Cossack dancing, and he would do, uh, he would do rope climbing contests with my father, and push-up contests, and he was, he was kind of a bon-homme, a really, uh, a fun guy, always laughing very loud, singing, all this stuff.
Oh, he became friends with my father and mother despite the anger at the State Department for letting a KGB guy into our house.
Roushev began smuggling private letters to my uncle through Oshkosh.
So he was trying to end run his military intelligence apparatus.
And my uncle began this correspondence.
26 letters they wrote to each other.
And they installed hotlines so they could talk to each other directly without talking to their apparatus.
So in my brother's home, which used to be the Summer White House on Hyannisport, There's still wires sticking out of the wall.
That was the red phone that we all knew when we were kids, that if we picked that up, Khrushchev would answer on the other line.
And my uncle wanted to talk to him directly because he did not trust his intelligence agencies.
And his intelligence agencies tried to get him to go into Laos.
They said, you know, the communists would be a domino effect, and he refused, and he settled the Laotian War.
They tried to get him to go into Vietnam to send combat troops, 250,000 combat troops, and it wasn't just The salad brass, as he called them, the top brass with all the salad on their uniforms, what he used to call them.
It was the, you know, it was people he trusted like Maxwell Taylor and April Harriman and Dean Acheson and all these people who were kind of the gray beards and they were all telling me, you gotta send 250,000 people in or the communists are going to take over Vietnam and then they're going to take over Cambodia and then it's going to be Los Angeles, you know, they're going to be at our door.
And my uncle was like, that's their war.
They gotta fight it.
We can help them a little, like the French helped us during the revolution, but we cannot fight their war for them.
And so, before he died, he ended up sending 16,000 military advisors to Vietnam.
That was fewer people, fewer troops than he sent.
Jackson, Mississippi to get one black man, James Meredith, into Ole Miss.
He sent more federal troops there than he sent to Vietnam.
The troops he sent were not combat troops.
They were military advisors, mainly Green Beret, and they were technically under the rules of engagement, not allowed to participate in combat.
He didn't want any combat troops.
A week before he went to Dallas, He heard that some of his troops had been killed over there, and he asked for a casualty list.
And his aide brought him a casualty list that 75 Americans had died in Vietnam.
And he said, that's too many.
I want them all home.
He signed that day a national security order, ordering all the troops out of Vietnam, all military advisors out of Vietnam by the end of 1965 with the first Allison on the next month.
This is the end of November.
He wanted the first Allison shipped home by the end of December.
They shocked the military.
And then he went to Dallas and he was killed.
But, you know, my uncle used to say, Ben Bradley, his best friend, asked him, what do you want on your gravestone?
And he said, he kept the peace.
He said, the primary job of a president of the United States is to keep our country out of war.
That is the primary job.
And he succeeded in doing that.
But no president since him has.
Wow.
Bobby, how can you say, though, that it's beyond reasonable doubt that it was the CIA, just because he sacked some high-ups, because he was gonna dismantle it, or at least he had an intention to, because he was at odds with the military-industrial complex?
And if that is True.
Do you suspect in other high-profile assassinations there's a comparable structure behind it, including obviously the assassination of your father?
And also that if this is, you know, 70 years ago or whatever, how How entrenched are those deep state interests now with the current conflicts, with comparable motivations?
When you have access to this kind of personal information, Do not feel that this is an indefatigable enemy, that this is an unstoppable machine.
I mean, like, in this country, when, like, Jeremy Corbyn, like, you know, got a little bit of traction, like, the media just shut that dude down.
I mean, he couldn't get arrested.
Like, so, like, how can you talk out, speak out openly against these kind of interests, let alone try and mobilize a political movement and stand against them without serious fear of, you know, well, assassination?
Well, let me answer the first question.
Your first question was, you know, why do I say that the case against the CIA in terms of the assassination of my uncle is beyond a reasonable doubt?
The answer to that would take us a 10-hour podcast to even summarize, because the amount of information is so voluminous at this point.
There are more than a million documents.
Including all the documents that show that Lee Harvey Oswald, that they recently released, you know, which we already knew, but it came as a shock to the United States because the president never reports it.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset.
You know, Americans didn't know that.
Certainly the Warren Commission didn't know that, and Dulles made sure that they didn't know it.
He was recruited when he was at the Atasui Air Force Base in Japan.
He was a Marine Radar operator who was in charge of the U-2 flights and then he defected the Soviet Union.
It was a fake defection that was organized by James Jesus Angleton, who was the director of counterintelligence at the CIA.
And it was directed to uncover a mole at Langley.
They felt they knew they had a mole at Langley.
And that mold, incidentally, was never caught, but that mold did tremendous damage to U.S.
national interest.
And one of the things that mold did is it allowed, the CIA believed, the U-2 flights were CIA, they weren't Air Force, and the U-2, the CIA believed that when Khrushchev shot down one of the U-2s in 1960, I think May of 1960, right before the election.
The one where Gary Francis Powers was the pilot.
That U-2 flight was shot down.
The Russians were able to do that because of information that were passed on to the Russians by the mall.
So they got Lee Harvey Oswald's defect to do this very, very loud fake defection that was covered in all the papers then because it was a U.S.
Marine walking into the American Embassy and denouncing his citizenship and saying he wanted to be a citizen of Russia.
Oh, he does all that.
And then what they thought is when he did that, that the Russians would be very worried about who is this guy.
And they would send a message to their moles saying, get us his file.
And they had a trigger system on his file, so anybody who touched it, they'd know that that was the mole.
But nobody actually went in and touched it.
And so two years later, they brought him back.
And he, you know, in this weird situation where Lee Harvey Oswald goes back to the U.S.
Embassy, from which he's defected, and says, I want my passport back.
And they give it to him.
And he, can I borrow $600?
They gave it to him for an airplane ticket.
They sent him to Dallas.
Where he's picked up at the airport by George Morenshaw, who's a CIA asset, and then, you know, who gets him the job at the book depository, among many, many other things.
But we know everything about what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing at that period, and before and after.
We know his constant interactions with CIA handlers.
His CIA handler was a guy called David Atlee Phillips.
I've talked to Cuban assassins who Who saw Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in November, oh no, in September, October of 1963 with Lee Harvey Oswald.
But Lee Harvey Oswald Then did this, you know, somebody did a fake defection of him to attempt a defection to Cuba, kind of.
We know so much about it, including confessions of many of the people who were involved in the assassination.
You know, deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt, for example, who then went on to mastermind the Watergate break-in, and many, many others.
So at this point, The evidence, and by the way Russell, if you ever or anybody who's listening to this want to read probably the best distillation, the best digest of all of this material, a guy who's completely in encyclopedic command of the material and is a really rigorous scholar.
Jim Douglas, and he wrote a book called The Unspeakable.
I think it's the best book written about this, although I've read probably 40 or 50, maybe 100 books about, you know, the assassination stuff now, because once I started looking into it, I was interested in it.
The evidence that the CIA killed my father is much less, is not that well documented, but it's highly circumstantial.
And I'll get to that in a second.
But I will tell you this one thing.
When I was when I was I guess I was almost 10 years old, my uncle was killed.
And I was standing in the White House in the 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 and it was a time when we were waking him.
And Lyndon Johnson comes in and tells my parents that Lee Harvey Oswald's just been shot and killed.
And that the man who did it was a guy called Jack Ruby.
And I said to my mom, I turned to my mom at that time and said, did he love our family?
In other words, was Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald because he was upset, you know, about our family?
And so I, at that point, like many Americans, was asking questions because this didn't look right.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a gangster.
He did not like my family.
And I mean, Jack Ruby was a gangster who didn't like my family, who was, you know, my father.
My father's initial reaction when his brother was killed, the first call that he made was to the CIA desk officer in Langley.
And he said to him, did your people do this?
Then he called up, the next call was Harry Ruiz, who was a Cuban refugee who I knew well, who was a constant fixture in our household.
He had been at the Bay of Pigs, he had fought side by side with Castro and the Sierra Maestra, you know, after they all came back from Mexico.
He was an engineer, he had been very close to Castro, then turned on Castro when Castro went communist.
He was a very close friend of my father's.
And by the way, I've talked extensively with Castro about this, all this stuff too.
My father called Harry Ruiz and said to Harry Ruiz, did your people do this?
Meaning the Cubans.
Because the Cubans at that time had turned on my family and hated them and felt they were traitors because they had not rescued them at the beach.
And because they had ended the raids by Alpha 66 and the other groups that were raiding Cuba all the time.
So the Cubans were very angry at my parents, my father thought, and they were all linked with the CIA.
My father thought maybe that the CIA had done it, maybe using Cubans.
And then the third conversation he had that morning, I was, I had been brought home from Sidwell Friends School when my uncle was shot.
And I arrived at the same time John McComb arrived at my house.
Who was the director of the CIA at that time, and my father brought him for a walk in the yard and said the same thing to him.
Was it the CIA who did this to Jack?
So, you know, my father's first instinct, which was a good instinct, turns out, was that the CIA had killed his brother.
I didn't think that I would ever be the person to change the subject from evidence, albeit anecdotal, that the Kennedys were murdered by the CIA, but I have to do that because I want to talk to you about the pandemic.
Throughout this campaign your name will be prefixed with the term anti-vaxxer.
That's one of the ways that you'll be discredited and smeared.
But I would like you to share with us, if you can, a little about how you feel the pandemic Was used to assert control, profit the pharmaceutical industry, grant opportunity to regulate, introduce surveillance and measures that may otherwise have been resisted.
What does the pandemic period tell us about power?
And in the event that you became president, how would you address what's happened in the last couple of years?
Well, you know, I wrote a book about how the pandemic was misused and that it was not, you know, the public health response was not about public health.
It was about, it was a militarized and monetized response.
It was a pretense for clamping down totalitarian controls.
And the weird thing about the pandemic was this constant When Operation Warp Speed made its presentation to FDA, to the committee they call the VRBPAC committee at FDA, VRBPAC asked for the organizational charts which were classified up to that time, and when Warp Speed turned over the organizational charts
They shocked everybody because the top organization that had managed Warp Speed was not HHS, which is a public health agency.
It wasn't CDC or NIH or FDA.
It was the NSA, a spy agency.
That was the top agency, the lead agency on Operation Warp Speed and the pandemic, was the NSA.
And the second agency was the Pentagon.
And when you start looking at, you know, as it turns out, you know, the vaccines were developed not by Moderna and Pfizer.
They were developed by NIH.
They're their own.
The patents are on 50% by NIH.
Nor were they manufactured by Pfizer or by Moderna.
They were manufactured by military contractors.
And basically Pfizer and Moderna were paid to put their stamps on those vaccines as if they came from
the pharmaceutical industry. But, you know, that's not what they were doing. They were coming
from, you know, this was a military project from the beginning. And then you have, one of the
things I detail in my book is these simulations that I uncovered, about 20 different
simulations, coronavirus and pandemic simulations, that started in 2000, in the year, in 2001, the first one,
right before the anthrax attacks.
Thanks.
And then every year the CIA was doing these, and the CIA was sponsoring them all, and they were, the last one was Event 201, which was in October of 2019, and the participants in there are Avril Haines, who was the former Deputy Director of the CIA, who's been managing cover-ups her entire life.
She did the Guantanamo Bay and, you know, the, on the Senate, and she's right, she is now the Director, the DNI, Director of National Intelligence, Which makes her basically the highest ranking officer at the NSA, which managed the pandemic.
So you have a spy who is convening these pandemic simulations, and in each of these simulations, going back 20 years, they're not simulating a public health response.
They're not doing the kind of things, how do we stockpile vitamin D?
How do we get people outdoors, losing weight, doing exercise?
How do we develop an information grid to all the 15 million doctors, frontline physicians all over the world?
We're going to be encountering this disease so that we can get their information about what they're doing that works and what doesn't work and put together a model of, you know, okay, here are the drugs, the repurposed drugs that work, here are the treatments that work.
None of that happened.
We had an incredible opportunity for managing pandemic in a way that was intelligent and sensitive and devastating to the disease.
But we didn't do any of those things.
It was all about how you use the pandemic to clamp down censorship.
How do you use it to enforce the lockdowns, which, by the way, the lockdowns Every pandemic preparedness document that had been adopted by the major public health agencies, whether it was CDC, WHO, the European Health Agency, the National Health Services in Britain, all of them said you don't do lockdowns.
You quarantine the sick.
You protect the vulnerable.
And you let everybody else go back to work because the lockdowns actually amplify the impacts of the disease.
If you isolate people, it makes them more vulnerable.
It breaks down their immune system.
And if you lock them in a door, it's going to spread the respiratory virus.
And so all things they were doing, that they were drilling, were about clamping down totalitarian controls.
And if you look at that event 201, which is still on YouTube, you can still look it up and go to the fourth seminar that day.
It's broken into four parts.
And remember, the people who are here, who are they?
Evo Haynes, the CIA, now DNI, Director of National Intelligence, who was the CIA Deputy Director Former Bill Gates, you know, a lot of Tony Fauci's people, the pharmaceutical industries, the big media, Bloomberg, et cetera, all the social media companies.
And then somebody odd, who's George Gao, who's the director of the Chinese CDC.
So this is in October of 2019.
Nobody knows about coronavirus there, and yet they're drilling a coronavirus epidemic, a world global coronavirus epidemic.
Well, nobody's going to ever hear the word coronavirus.
The Chinese first acknowledged it on January 1st, so three months later.
We now know coronavirus was already circulating in Wuhan, and the Chinese knew about it at least by September 19th, so that's a month before that pandemic simulation.
George Gao is the Chinese head of the CDC and the Chinese expert on coronavirus, so clearly he must have known that coronavirus was circulating.
On September 19th, a month before that simulation, the Chinese military kicked down the door of the Wuhan lab.
Went in and took all of the genomic sequences off of the public-facing websites and started destroying all the links between the lab and the virus, and put a military general away in charge of the lab.
So they clearly knew that it had come from the lab and that it was already circulating.
And it circulated, Al, we know, down the subway line.
The subway line that leads to the airport from the lab to the airport.
So they knew it in October, and they had this simulation in New York.
And people there, some of those people must have known it was already circulating.
And what are they talking about?
The fourth simulation that day.
And you can go up on YouTube right now and look this up.
They talk about how do we stop people from saying that this came from a lab leak?
And the people who are leading that discussion are the CIA Director Avril Haines, Deputy Director, and George Gao from the Chinese CDC.
And Avril Haines says, essentially she's saying, George Gao's saying, we gotta censor the social media.
We gotta stop them from saying it's a lab leak.
Anybody who says that needs to be deplatformed.
This is six months before all this started happening.
And then Avril Haines says, Not only do we have to censor, but we need to flood the zone with authoritative voices who say, who dismiss the idea that this was a lab leak.
Oh, they were, you know, either they're incredible soothsayers, or they, you know, or there's something weird going on with this, that they were doing it.
And that is in the first one, they were doing this again and again, they did it six months earlier, the same thing, another coronavirus epidemic.
And they, and I detail all of these in my book, and every one of them the CIA wrote the script for.
Now, When Biden gets in there, or when, you know, at the beginning of the pandemic, Mike Pompeo, who's the Secretary of State, says, oh, you know, this looks like it may have come from Wuhan.
We should check this out.
Oh, he gets four different branches at State Department to do an investigation, a massive investigation about whether it's come from Wuhan.
If you read Catherine Even's article on Vanity Fair, she does an amazing job at this.
And she shows that intelligence officers came into one of those meetings later on this spring and said, we're shutting this whole thing down because the US government, which means Fauci, but also the CIA, was funding all of that So, Fauci funded about $26 million.
The CIA was the biggest funder through USAID, about $64 million, and then the Pentagon was the second biggest.
So, it wasn't just Fauci, it was the whole US intelligence military apparatus that was basically handing over cutting-edge military technology, bioweapons technology, to these Chinese scientists who were messing with it.
It's really a strange thing.
And then, so then you have an intelligence officer shutting down the investigation, which Katherine Eban documents.
But then Republicans in Congress, when Biden comes in, say, hey, you've got to investigate this.
You've got to figure out, because there's some mounting evidence that it came from the Wuhan lab.
So he says, OK, I'm going to do it.
He says, I'm going to get all 22 U.S.
intelligence agencies to get together and figure this out.
And he said, and come back to me in 90 days.
Who does he put in charge of it?
April Haynes.
So she signed, you know, then she comes with a thing that says, well, nobody knows.
We'll never know.
You know, she comes with this report in August of 2021.
Nobody knows.
We're never going to be able to find out.
The intelligence agencies say that we can't figure it out.
And so it doesn't, you know, it doesn't have good optics that the same person and, you know, and she continues to be the primary advisor to President Biden on these on, you know, on coronavirus.
What you're saying, Robert, is such a radical departure from the mainstream narrative and even leaves many hardened conspiracy theorists quivering like Boy Scouts when you say that it's not even of opportunism that there legitimately was a virus, that in good faith there was an attempt to curtail it and control it, When it was observed that these methods were not effective, they were not quick enough in responding, there were no clinical trials for the Pfizer vaccine around transmission, but they didn't broadcast that fact or were not explicit about that.
All of these kind of things that I suppose now seem like the sort of worker day layman's conspiracy theories are left in the dust when you say that this is something that the intelligence agencies and the military-industrial complex have been involved in since the get-go, that companies like Pfizer and Moderna merely facilitated the distribution and branding, that this has always been
A global operation that was designed to introduce draconian measures that would otherwise not have been introduced.
And saying something like this, if you cannot prove that isn't it going to discredit The necessary, and I know you've written a massive and very successful book on it, but like, you know, like, that book's, that's hard going, that book, Robert.
I mean, Jesus Christ, it's hard enough to read it, let alone bloody write the thing.
Like, like, like, like, how, like, because I feel like that you are exactly what's necessary, and I feel like mad, crazy shit can happen in politics, because Trump, you know, like, and I feel like that what you need is an anti-establishment figure, and yet from your history, you know, you know where the wires are for the Khrushchev bat phone, The Cossack dancing spy in the front room.
Your personal history is so sort of like this absurd American version of The Crown.
It's so incredible to hear.
But I actually feel that you are what is required.
But that is so hardcore and extreme.
I know our Rumble audience, this lot, they'll bloody well love it.
They'll be well into it.
They've been dragging me along out of the mainstream.
I could have been in movies till about six weeks ago, but this lot got me in all sorts of crap, right?
So, like, what I feel like is, are these the ideas and issues and the framing that you're going to be going into, like, presi- not presidential debates, we know Joe Biden won't have them, but, like, going into this campaign with?
And what kind of onslaught are you gonna get from, like, you know, from the corralled forces of the establishment?
And then after this, we'll move on to you know, the war in Ukraine. What are you gonna, I mean,
God knows where you're gonna go with that.
Let me answer, I only get to your first question on each one of these things, but
let me just answer that and it's gonna kind of brand me as a worst conspiracy theorist.
But, you know, all the things that I'm saying are documented.
There are things that I don't know and there are, you know, there are dots that need to be connected, but I don't try to connect them.
I just say, here's what we know, here's what we can prove.
So I'm just finishing now this book on the Wuhan lab.
And I, you know, I had to kind of put together this history, which was fascinating because You know, why was the CIA so involved with gain-of-function and so obsessed with it?
And I went back and kind of traced this history, which is the CIA was created in 1947, and the first task that it was given was Operation Paperclip, which had already been ongoing.
The Joint Chiefs were already bringing it over, but that was bringing over all the Nazi weapons scientists, many of them, Who were destined for the gallows in Nuremberg.
And the CIA created these rat lines to smuggle them out from under the nose of Nuremberg prosecutors and bring them over to Fort Detrick and to these weapons labs.
A lot of them are nuke scientists, but a lot of them are bioweapons scientists.
Hitler and Goering had a huge bioweapons program and they'd done a lot of work on it.
They had a lot of cutting edge stuff.
At the same time, the biggest bioweapons program was in Japan, and it was managed by a scientist called Shiro Ishii, who was just this diabolical Mendeley-like scientist who was doing human experiments that were, you know, as bad as anything that the Nazis did.
But he then was brought under the U.S.
wing and protected from the Russians who wanted to hang him.
They brought all those scientists over.
It was called Japanese Paperclip.
On that program, they brought all the Japanese scientists.
Those scientists who initiated the U.S.
Bioweapons Program at its birth not only imprinted it with a lot of their cell cultures, etc., but also with a lot of their I would say ethical elasticity or ethical lacunae.
And that continues to sort of infect the entire bioweapons program.
Now, we put huge amounts of money into bioweapons.
In 1969, we had nuclear equivalents.
They were bragging that they could kill everybody, basically everybody in the world, for 29 cents a person.
29 cents a death.
This is what they were going for.
That's success.
They do the opposite of science.
They were, you know, scientists are the opposite of medicine.
Medicine tries to save people's lives.
All of these, you know, microbes, etc.
And they were trying to enhance the microbes to make them antibiotic resistant, to make them spread faster, to make them deadlier, etc.
1969, Nixon goes in there and shuts down the whole program.
And everybody's shocked.
And those guys were very angry.
Now, here's what happened.
And they're living in the basements of the Pentagon, and they're trying to bring this back.
The CIA is secretly doing bioweapons.
They leave Fort Detrick with all their cultures illegally, and they store them in these warehouses in New York.
And they're trying constantly through the neocons who become their allies to revive the bioweapons program.
Then 9-11 happens.
And 9-11, the neocons bring off of the shelf the Patriot Act, which basically is the beginning of the surveillance state in our country.
Nobody reads it.
The only congressman to read it was my campaign manager, Dennis Kucinich.
And he was in Congress at that time and he told me not one copy was available to any congressman.
A 350 act that suddenly appeared the day after 9-11 and that dismantles basically the United States Constitution.
Interestingly, that act, which nobody read, had a provision in it that revokes effectively the Geneva Convention and the Nixon's bioweapons charter.
Oh, all of the, you know, so it basically relaunched the bioweapons arms race.
There were two guys who were blocking it, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle.
A week later, they're stopping it.
They're not going to let it pass.
A week later, they get envelopes filled with anthrax in their offices.
Congress is shut down.
They're shut up.
And while Congress is shut down, the Patriot Act gets passed.
And the Patriot Act relaunches the arms race.
The military begins.
And by the way, that anthrax, which was also used as the excuse for going into Iraq and invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein did it, you know, we were told.
It turns out after a two-year investigation, the FBI came back and said that anthrax was Ames anthrax, highly sophisticated, there's only one place in the world it could have come from, Fort Detrick, which is the CIA Pentagon lab.
So, at that point, the Pentagon began pumping a lot of money into bioweapons, about $2 billion a year, but they don't want to do it because they don't know if the Patriot Act is actually legal.
Because the Patriot Act, what it says is, We're not revoking the Geneva Convention.
We're not invoking the Bioweapons Charter.
And we're making a law that any federal official that violates those two bills cannot be prosecuted.
So the treaties are still in place, but they give an exemption to all federal officials.
The Pentagon's not sure that that's legal.
And by the way, if you violate those provisions of Geneva, it's a death penalty.
You get hanged.
They were worried about doing it.
So they, instead of putting it in-house at the Pentagon, they put it all at NIH in Tony Fauci's shop.
They give him a 68% raise, which is why he became the highest paid federal official in history.
He was making more, $450,000 a year.
The president only makes $400,000, but it's because of that military salary he got, the 68% raise in military.
So he had to do bioweapons development.
That's why he was going to do it and gain a fortune.
And then in 2014, three of the bugs escaped from labs in the United States.
And everybody finds out about it.
Congress has hearings.
300 scientists write letters to Obama saying, sign a letter to Obama saying, you got to shut down Tony Fauci.
He's going to create an epidemic.
Obama shuts down all of Fauci's projects, orders them closed, has a moratorium, but Fauci doesn't shut them down.
He continues doing them, and then he starts shipping everything over to Wuhan, where he can do it offshore, out of sight of these federal overseers and all the nosy scientists like Richard Ebright and the others from the Cambridge Working Group who were horrified by what he was doing.
And that's kind of why the short story of why, you know, we're doing all this stuff in Wuhan rather than doing it at University of North Carolina in Galveston, which is where they were doing it before.
Bloody hell, Robert.
Right, to see this sort of the intricate relationships between these varying complex ideas outlaid in this mad anecdotal way, this fireside chat with an uncle who explains that there is just entrenched corruption everywhere you look, is a real delight but also quite bloody terrifying as a matter of fact.
Bobby, I want to ask you this.
How are we to take seriously the claim that the war between Ukraine and Russia elicits the involvement of America only from a humanitarian perspective when it is so costly and humanitarianism so seldom seems like the motivation for war.
There's a hundred billion dollars.
I don't know if I'm telling you any facts.
You're about to hit me on the head with 10,000 of them.
Probably tell me that Marilyn Monroe gave them on the way out of a bedroom somewhere.
So, Bobby, tell me, what's going on with this war?
Is it a proxy war?
Are we pushing Russia and China into a closer alliance?
And how are you bloody well going to undo this?
After this question, the war one, we're going to go through these pledges and then we're going to talk about what's going to happen if You know, if this stuff gets properly off the ground, and I know you've got 20% in the polls.
So firstly, yeah, is it a humanitarian war?
What's going on with the expenditure?
How do you end these wars?
What's going to be the impact of the escalating tensions between the US and Russia, and of course the agitation of China through the semiconductor Taiwan gear?
Well, you know, we were sold on the fact that it was a humanitarian war, and we were sold using these kind of Formulaic narratives that, you know, Putin is the evil Hitler-like figure, you know, or Saddam Hussein, whoever it is, the one that we need to go to war, and that we are the good guys, and that it's a humanitarian war.
But we have not been acting like it's a humanitarian one.
And by the way, my own son went over there and was fighting over there.
He fought, you know, he was a machine gunner in a special force unity, joined the foreign legion, And fought in the Kharkiv Offensive, you know, motivated by those impulses, by the humanitarian impulse, by the courage of the Ukrainian people, by the brutality of the Russian invasion, etc.
And, but if you look at the history of why, you know, what's happened over there, and you go back a little bit in history, in 1990-91, when the Soviet Union was collapsing, We made a deal with Gorbachev, Britain and the United States, and it was over the reunification, which is a very dicey issue of Germany, because the Russians had 400,000 troops in East Germany.
And we wanted to reunite East Germany under NATO, which had been the Russian enemy.
So the Russians were naturally worried and said, if we take our troops out, We want to make sure that you're not getting a beachhead and you're not going to move NATO into all of our, you know, former satellite states and make us feel like we're under attack, like we're being encircled.
And President Bush famously told them, we will not move NATO one inch to the east.
Since then, we've moved it a thousand miles to the east, and we've incorporated 14 of the Russian former satellite states, and we've put Nuclear missile capable systems, the Aegis missile system, which is manufactured by Lockheed in both Romania and Poland, and the Russians were terrified we'd put that in Ukraine, which is only 400 miles from Russia.
And they repeatedly said to us, you know, you cannot incorporate Ukraine into NATO.
We then unilaterally walked away from our two intermediate nuclear weapons treaties with Russia.
So we had treaties saying you can't use intermediate nuclear weapons.
These were huge Steps in progress, and we canceled both of them unilaterally.
We told the Russians we're not doing that anymore.
Surrounding these missile systems, we started practicing, you know, incorporating Ukraine into interoperability with NATO forces.
Zelensky runs in joining up.
We then overthrow, we helped overthrow the democratically elected government of the Ukraine in 2014.
And install a very ultra-nationalist, and that is a polite way of describing them, ultra-nationalist, you know, government there that's extremely anti-Russian.
That prompts the Russians to go in and invade Crimea because they're terrified that now that we have our own government in place there, we're going to put the naval of our U.S.
Navy fleet In a warm water port that they've had for, I think, 370 years.
It's their only warm water port.
It's their way of having a military presence in the Black Sea.
They're terrified we're going to go in there, so they invade Crimea.
The new Russian government comes in and enacts all of these oppressive laws against the ethnic Russian majority in eastern Ukraine.
80% of the people in the Donbas are ethnic Russians, and they were able to have their own language, and they felt part of the Ukraine, but suddenly there's all these laws being passed saying, you know, that language is no longer any good, you have to speak Ukrainian, and treated essentially as red-headed stepchildren.
And they start doing protests, and the government then reacts violently, and you basically have a civil war in which 14,000 ethnic Russians are killed.
Put yourself in our position.
You know, I was here in 1962 when the Russians put nuclear missile sites in Cuba.
And we were ready to invade, even though we didn't even know they had that, that they were armed at that point.
And if they had also, you know, if Mexico did that, we'd be in there in a second.
If Mexico started killing American expatriates, you know, 14,000 of them, we'd invade in a second.
So we have a Monroe Doctrine that we've enforced for hundreds of years that says, Nobody can put any, no other major power can put any military equipment in our hemisphere.
Meanwhile, we've never been invaded.
The Russians have been invaded three times through Ukraine.
The last time they were invaded during World War II, they were invaded through the Ukraine.
One out of every seven Russians was killed, 13% of the population.
Russia was leveled.
My father, my uncle, in 1963 gave his most important speech, the American University speech.
And that speech, he tried to do what I'm doing right now.
He told America, it was a speech to the American people, you've got to put yourself in the shoes of the Russians and understand How they have a worldview.
You have to put yourself in the shoes of your adversary.
And he went through this history of the suffering that Russia had endured during World War II and why, explaining why it would want to have a legitimate claim to protect its borders.
And the U.S., you know, the Ukraine today is a victim of U.S.
aggression as well, because Zelensky ran in 2019.
And okay, here's a guy who's a comedian and an actor, and I'm not saying that in a disparaging way.
Russell, please.
I don't want you to hear that in a disparaging way.
He's a comedian.
He's a comedian.
Yeah, I run Europe!
Good work!
The reason I'm saying that is the only reason he won that election is he ran on a peace platform.
He was going to ratify the Minsk Accords, which was the Russian-supported agreement.
Tabas remains part of Ukraine, even though it had voted to join Russia.
Russia said, we don't want him to stay in Ukraine, but you need to protect them.
You need to make them semi-autonomous so they're not getting killed.
And so Lenski then gets in there.
He gets surrounded by U.S.
neocons, including most prominently Victoria Nuland.
And she's the one who sort of orchestrated the, you know, the U.S.
walking away from all these nuclear treaties.
And all of his peace professions suddenly disappear.
And, you know, he is pressured by ultra-naturalists within Ukraine and by the US government to start having a military response instead of going to the table with the Russians.
And now we've pumped $113 million in there except for that proxy war.
And our government has admitted, President Biden has admitted that this, you know, the old neocon aspiration, This war is about getting rid of Putin.
And his Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, acknowledged in April 2022 that the war is about... The U.S.
purpose of engaging in this war is to exhaust and degrade the Russian army so they're incapable of fighting anywhere else in the world.
So that is our objective in this war, and it is a proxy war that is using the bodies of the flower of Ukrainian youth, putting them into an abattoir where they are being mercilessly killed.
They aren't even admitting this.
The Pentagon doesn't admit it.
The Ukrainian government doesn't admit it.
They have lost more than 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers.
Ukrainians are trying to leave Ukraine, and it is now illegal to leave Ukraine if you're below 55 years of age and a male.
And they've killed 14,000 civilians.
It's 60% unemployment.
the infrastructure of the country has been destroyed for US geopolitical machinations.
And it's just, it's not right.
The Russians are killing Ukrainians at a rate of probably around seven to one,
as they have a 10 to one artillery advantage.
And, you know, we've killed between 30,000 and 100,000 Russians,
which isn't something to be happy about either.
You know, none of this is stuff that we should be doing if we, you know, if we really wanted peace.
But this is a war where Ukraine has been made a victim, not just by Russia, but by the United States government.
I don't think you're going to hear that kind of conversation, those kind of ideas, that kind of transparency on the mainstream media or from a mainstream politician.
Robert, we will be supporting you and discussing you for as long as your campaign continues and I pray that it ends in success for you and for the people of America and for the world.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
Russell, thanks so much for having us and for being so outspoken, truth-teller on these issues for the last three years.
You've been a You've been a little oasis in a desert of disinformation, so thanks Sean.
You can hear more from Robert on his podcast RFK Jr.
and follow his campaign at teamkennedy.com.
Next week on Stay Free, our guests include Silky Carlo, the civil liberties expert from Big Brother Watch.
She's got loads of stuff around surveillance.
She told us all the stuff that was going on during the coronation.
We've got Annie Mashon, former MI5 intelligence officer, aka a spook on the show.
God knows what she's going to tell us after we've newly been acclimatised by RFK.
See you next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, stay free!
I think you'll agree that there's a great deal to unpack and appreciate in that complex conversation with RFK.
If you're a member of our locals community, you can hear the whole interview, including some exclusive revelations that I simply have to keep under veiled just for you.
Just click the red button below to hear even more from the brilliant RFK Jr.
