Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 26, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:07:49

How Covid FEAR-MONGERING Will Be Used For THIS NEXT! - #138 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	birds chirping music
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	music In this video, we're going to...
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello, you Awakening Wonders!
	Thanks for joining me for today's fantastic show.
	It is going to be magnificent.
	Obviously, the entire conversation cannot be held here on YouTube, if that's where you're watching it, because it becomes too powerful, too truthful.
	Remember, here on Rumble, what we're interested in is spreading, not misinformation and disinformation, but truths that are challenging to centralised authority.
	There's a red button on your screen right now.
	Press it and join us on Locals.
	Become a member of our community so that I can see your comments and questions as they come up live.
	Today our special guest is journalist, photographer, filmmaker and author Laura Dodsworth.
	We talked about her book, A State of Fear, how the UK government weaponised fear during
	the Covid-19 pandemic.
	But wherever you're watching this in the world, America, Canada, some nation in Africa, Latin
	America, Scandinavia, wherever, you will notice that your government to varying degrees use
	nudging, behaviouralism, propaganda and in some cases downright lies.
	Allegedly!
	Allegedly, in order to control you.
	Obviously, we cover topics that we cannot discuss on YouTube.
	As you know, the WHO's still got their sticky little fingers in that platform.
	So, we'll be clicking over exclusively onto Rumble, around 15 minutes, when I'll be asking some important questions about images from horror, downright propagandist lies, and all sorts of stuff.
	If you're watching this on YouTube, there's a link in the description.
	Watch us on Rumble.
	If you're watching us on Rumble, press the red button and join us on Locals.
	If you're watching us on Locals, come on over.
	Join us.
	Let's establish semi-permanent communities.
	Let's have a look at Laura.
	The government operationalised a campaign to make everybody frightened.
	Laura Dosworth, writer, photographer and filmmaker.
	She's written for the Sunday Times, The Telegraph and The Spectator.
	A State of Fear.
	A controversial book, A State of Fear.
	Was it favorably reviewed by the mainstream media?
	One of the worst book reviews known to man in the times.
	So, what was covert, Laura?
	To not mince our words, the government used fear to control you.
	In order to make those people afraid, you have to deceive them.
	In our time, and who'd have thought that we'd see it, we've seen the mass evocation of fear, I can never trust centralised authority again in any form.
	trust centralised authority again in any form.
	The most basic of freedoms you took for granted are not real at all.
	If you don't want to turn off the TV you have to watch it mindfully.
	You have to understand that it's not a one-way process.
	They're trying to influence you as much as entertain you.
	I wonder if you have concerns about what the next steps will be.
	Well, what's next is the story of humanity.
	It always has been, it always will be the same.
	People can be manipulated.
	Stay free with Russell Brand.
	See it first on Rumble.
	Thanks very much for joining us to talk about this book, A State of Fear, which is a best-selling book, I understand, Laura.
	It was.
	It was on the Sunday Times Best Seller list for four weeks.
	Was it favourably reviewed by the mainstream media?
	That's funny you should ask.
	Well actually, it's had really great reviews.
	Before I launch into some of the bad reviews, I shouldn't just start off with doing my own book down, should I?
	It had great reviews.
	You know, Lord Sumption called it an important book.
	It had reviews in Telegraph and the European Journal of Psychotherapy, some great reviews, but the Sunday Times bestseller list didn't actually protect it from one of the worst book reviews known to man in the times.
	Objectively one of the worst ever ones.
	Well maybe I'm not very objective as the author but it wasn't a great review.
	The much much mention was made of my previous work.
	There's one book where I photographed and interviewed 100 women about their vulvas,
	their vaginas for an exploration of womanhood and you might have read the review and think
	that in real life I'm followed around by a chorus of high-kicking vaginas.
	I'm never without my vaginas.
	It was a very kind of obvious attempt to demean me to delegitimize my new book.
	Mate, look here.
	We've got, uh, this is a quote from the advisor on SPIB.
	Do you know what that is, advisor on SPIB?
	Are we talking about, like, that nudge unit and all that type of stuff?
	I know exactly what this is because this is somebody that I interviewed for my book.
	SPIB is the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours.
	They're a group of social scientists, behavioural psychologists, various social scientists, and what they do is give the government advice Um, in times of emergency, such as a pandemic.
	And I interviewed several of them when I was researching my book, A State of Fear.
	And this one here broke cover, actually, to speak to me because he was so concerned about the way the government was using fear and behavioral psychology.
	I mean, to not to not mince our words, the government used fear to control you in lockdown.
	That's fascinating, and in a sense perhaps it's something that we would have anticipated and something that we can appreciate.
	Sometimes I try to approach the extraordinary events of the last couple of years in good
	faith, not to the denial of what is evident and plain, that there have been regulations,
	legislations and advantages that have been accrued through that period that appear to
	point to an agenda, but at least not to lead to conclusions.
	Perhaps you and I together, through the course of our conversation, can highlight a case
	for how the pandemic was a revealing period, how we learned about how power functions,
	how we learn about how propaganda operates and how we are manipulated, how our behaviour
	is affected by messaging.
	Starting with this quote, Laura, that we've just referred to, the way we've used fear
	is dystopian.
	We have a totalitarian government in respect to propaganda, but all governments engage
	with propaganda.
	The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable.
	It's been like a weird experiment.
	Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.
	So there was an explicit intention to use fear.
	It's interesting to note that in the end we're dealing with a basic palette of emotion, rage
	and fear and shame.
	Even when something feels secular, mechanical and bureaucratic, its resources are quite
	emotional and deep.
	That obviously raises ethical questions.
	Do you think that there was an ethical breach in the way that this pandemic was handled?
	Do you think that they understood things that they didn't convey?
	And do you think that they highlighted aspects of the pandemic, whether that's medically or socially, in order to pursue a gender that was not plain or explicit?
	Wow there's so much to pick up on there but I'm going to go back to your first point that you approach this with good faith and I think that's really important because when I wrote the book there were a lot of people that just said to me well why?
	Why would the government use fear as though it had to indicate that there was some evil conspiracy theory or agenda?
	You know there may or may not be but there's a very simple answer to the question and that is that governments use fear because it encourages compliance.
	There is a gap between your rational thoughts and your suppressed emotions.
	And it's that gap that allows governments or any would-be manipulator to control you, to manipulate you, to exert undue influence on you.
	And fear is the steam in the emotional engine.
	Fear is the big one.
	Is it a breach of ethics to use fear?
	I think this really depends on where you sit personally and ideologically.
	I would probably put myself right at one end of the spectrum that says you should not use fear to control people.
	It is unethical.
	If this was a laboratory experiment, if a psychologist wanted to put their fingers in your brain, reach around and use fear to control you to see what happens, Then they would need to go through an ethics approval procedure.
	You would sign a consent form.
	None of us signed consent forms at the beginning of the lockdown, did we?
	And what's more, at the end of the experiment, they would make sure that you left happy.
	You know, you would probably watch a rom-com and have a slice of chocolate cake.
	They wouldn't send you out a gibbering wreck with COVID anxiety syndrome.
	There was never any end to this.
	The advisors that I interviewed for A State of Fear, the ones who spoke to me on the record and those who spoke to me anonymously, I asked them all, what is the plan for de-escalating fear?
	And there was no plan.
	What really worried me and sent chills down my spine actually were a couple of advisors who were not only very content with the use of fear because they thought it was proportionate in a pandemic, because pandemics are frightening, but they said, well hang on a minute, why would we de-escalate fear?
	We will move from this to the next crisis.
	Which is climate.
	And I think that, you know, there is a risk here that governments lean on fear and nudge, which is a form of behavioral psychology and propaganda to shut down debate, legislation, disagreement, in fact, because these covert ways to influence you are successful and they bypass all that kind of procedure.
	So if you, you know, the The Covid pandemic and the lockdown created what academics have called a window of malleability.
	Our habits changed and that meant we were ripe for more change.
	You know, it's a great time then to push the idea of changing habits towards, say, net zero goals.
	When you say covert, what covert modes were utilised?
	Do you think that the entire Endeavour is to a degree covert because they were not explicit about their operation.
	It's obviously incredibly convenient that many of the things that were used to mobilise fear and compliance have subsequently been demonstrably untrue, whether that's the efficacy of the medication... Allegedly!
	...or the origins of the virus... Allegedly!
	Or many of the subsequent measures.
	So, what was covert, Laura?
	I think a lot of it is covert.
	You know, a pandemic is an emergency.
	But back in February 2020, World Health Organization documents showed that at that point it was very well understood that COVID risk was stratified according to your age and your clinical status.
	So the elderly or people with particular comorbidities were more at risk.
	By March 2020, we locked down.
	And the government's obviously asked this panel, SPI-B, a question.
	Crikey, what are we going to do?
	We're going to lock down.
	We're going to mass quarantine the healthy.
	How are we going to make sure people follow this rule?
	Because it's unprecedented.
	I know from talking to these advisors, they were worried about things like You know, the poor old working class chap missing football in the pub.
	You know, it's kind of classist assumptions going on here.
	And so SPY-B advisors reply with this whole gamut of suggestions.
	One is that people's sense of personal threat needed to be increased because they were complacent, because they understood the risk to their demographic group.
	Another way of looking at that is that people understood very well what the risk was.
	They understood the risk to their age.
	If I think back to that time, my mum started shielding long before they were supposed to.
	She's in her 70s, she's got terminal lung conditions, she's poorly, her and her husband hold themselves up.
	I, on the other hand, was trying to finish a big photography project and I thought, right, okay, you know, my work might be thrown off the table for a while, I'm off, I'm taking some hand sanitiser, I'm going to be careful, I'm not going to go into services.
	You know, we understood our risk.
	The Spybee advisors never explained how they would only target the complacent or those at risk.
	No, what happened was the government operationalised a campaign to make everybody frightened.
	This isn't unheard of in public health problems.
	If you think back to AIDS in the 1980s, we were told That everybody would know someone that died of AIDS within 10 years.
	And that didn't happen, you know, that never came to pass.
	I don't know anyone, luckily, who died of AIDS.
	So there's a kind of a trend in public health to increase the sense of risk, to democratise the sense of risk, if you like.
	So to stop people being complacent, to increase their sense of risk, they did things like ads.
	You know, nearly a billion pounds was spent across 11 government departments in the UK over three years, most of it on COVID.
	So many ads, some of them taking quite a horror film aesthetic.
	They were designed to make you feel that, you know, if your loved one died, it was your fault.
	You didn't follow the rules.
	Let's have a look.
	Thank you, Laura.
	Sorry to interrupt you.
	Let's have a look at some of those ads.
	When it becomes, when in the event that people have correctly deduced that they are not at risk, Then in order to elicit fear, you have to mislead them.
	So it's not only covert, it's duplicitous at that point.
	If people have correctly deduced, oh I'm not really at risk so I should go out, in order to make those people afraid, you have to You have to deceive them.
	Let's have a look at some of these assets.
	These are obviously assets that are derived from the UK.
	Why don't you post in the chat some of the assets from your country?
	They won't regard them as assets, they will.
	You'll regard them as propaganda quite rightly.
	So if you're in America or if you're in Canada, why don't you tell us the most egregious examples in your country?
	Show me what they were using in the US.
	Show me what they were using all around the world.
	Because that indicates that there was a degree of cohesion and collaboration transcendent of national sovereignty, which one might argue is appropriate during a pandemic, but possibly had more nefarious ends than, you know, the preservation of human life.
	In fact, Laura, one of the things that I continually queried is...
	This seems at odds with how we organize society in other areas.
	It doesn't seem to me that, broadly speaking, the way we organize society is, all life is sacred!
	We must protect everyone!
	That's why our economic systems, social justice systems, are all reflecting this sanctity of human life.
	Elsewhere, it looks like elitism, control, opportunity for regulation, opportunity for profit, are the mandates that drive the way the culture functions.
	So look at these.
	It's good that you mentioned the horror aspect. I know you did some work mate on the red and
	yellow thing there, like the sort of colours that were used. And we'll break down, like
	sort of tell, this one see, telling the risk isn't real. What's extraordinary here is
	all of these require us to accept, and we might have to leave YouTube now guys.
	We might have to leave YouTube, so there's a link in the description.
	Join us exclusively on Rumble right now, because I'm going to say things that still, because the WHO's power still extends to the domain of YouTube, where on Rumble we can speak freely to convey love, not to convey hate, to convey unity, not yet more division.
	The vaccines don't prevent transmission, and we're not trialed to prevent transmission.
	And asymptomatic people could... 96% of asymptomatic people tested did not spread the virus and there was a type of PCR test available as early as March 2020 that could demonstrate that.
	So any propaganda predicated on that idea was false.
	Whether they knew it at the time or not can be contested and can't be proved.
	But it was false.
	So anything like telling him I always keep a safe distance, irrelevant in most cases, telling him you never bend the rules, irrelevant in most cases, telling him the risk isn't real, irrelevant in most cases.
	What's your view of this propaganda?
	And we'll spin through some of the stills that we have available, guys, while we have Laura.
	Well, I mean, you make a really good point.
	We were told that one in three people didn't know they had it, and that was presented as something that was really scary.
	Wow, you know, you may come across your grandchild, or your lover, or someone you work with, or your neighbor, and they're a biohazard.
	They won't know they've got it.
	They could infect you.
	Another way of looking at that is, one in three people experience it so mildly, they don't know they've got it.
	But it was twisted around always to be frightening.
	I mean, those stills we just looked at, they're really grainy, the eyes are looking at you.
	It's supposed to make you feel like if you've killed, you know, if someone's died, it's your fault.
	Don't look at what the government might be doing wrong, which is maybe care homes or lack of PPE or hospitals being built like, you know, cities for infection.
	No, no, no.
	Don't look at all of that over there.
	Are you bending the rules?
	Is it your fault?
	You're a risk to your neighbour, you're a risk to your loved ones, so it's a responsibilisation.
	You've got those chevrons at the bottom you pointed out, the yellow and the red and the black.
	Yes, yes.
	You know, what does that remind you of?
	Well, it reminds you of disaster cordons, do not cross, danger, but also a wasp, a wasp sting, this could hurt.
	You know, everything about the visual is designed to create alarm, to hold you back.
	Is that what you mean by, sorry to interrupt you again Laura, is this what is meant by nudges?
	That isn't a nudge.
	What is a nudge?
	A nudge is a form of behavioural psychology which is supposed to nudge you into a form of behaviour that is better for you.
	Because luckily, Russell, there are lots of people that know better than you what's good for you.
	It's what's called choice architecture.
	It's supposed to encourage you to make a better choice.
	An example would be if you're in a shop, putting fruit at eye level and putting chocolate out of reach.
	Um, an example of a nudge would not be taxing chocolate and making fruit cheaper.
	So it's not about mandates, it's not about price, it's about encouraging you to make the so-called best choice.
	And that's all predicated on somebody knowing what's best for you.
	It's covert manipulation with the assumption that the person making those nudges has the moral authority that I would require before trusting them with making that choice on my behalf, which I bloody well wouldn't.
	And so this is just good use of propaganda, good use of semiotics rather than nudging.
	I'd say so, but I think it is, you know, it's incredibly well staged.
	Look at that.
	They did these briefings in Downing Street.
	They'd be well spaced out.
	They gave it a kind of a military feel.
	You've got the chevrons.
	See, when the messages stay home, the chevrons are red.
	As soon as it's stay alert, which is you can sort of get back to normal life a little bit, it's green, green for go.
	They'd have these experts, they'd use very martial language.
	The whole thing was incredibly well staged.
	And don't forget it was daily.
	You know, we were bombarded daily with messages about death.
	We were always told how many people died but never recovered.
	We were told how many people were admitted to hospital but never left hospital.
	And do you remember the COVID dashboard that the UK government ran?
	It was probably the same in lots of other countries.
	It showed you all these stats, but it didn't show you other key performance indicators.
	So you'd know how many people died, went to hospital.
	It didn't say how many children had dropped off the register at school, or how many people had missed their cancer appointments, or what had happened to mental health stats.
	The focus was always on these very deathly Covid stats, to the exclusion of everything else.
	It took over the mind.
	Laura, what I feel is that a helpful analytic tool with the pandemic, and perhaps anything really, is to remove the subject and then observe the behavior around it without the biases that the subject induces.
	And what you can see here is how power functions when it comes to organizing our reality.
	You highlight this information, you eliminate this information.
	We had RFK terrifying array of information to share with us including that a significant amount of the funding for the vaccine rollout, excuse me, came from the military but when it came to the response the military were involved to a sort of like a staggering degree.
	Like that my first response to this was oh really this is an inadvertent crisis to which authority ...is responding by capitalising on it.
	Like, oh wow, we've got the opportunity to regulate now, we've got the opportunity to shut down dissent, censor, create protest law, introduce surveillance.
	But it seems like everything that happened was beneficial when it came to centralised state power and was detrimental to individual freedom and the ability to have an open discourse about the various potential effects. Another bit of information, the Cabinet Office
	spent £586 million in the last three years with a vast majority going on public health awareness
	campaigns during lockdown.
	Let's have a look at that bit of propaganda from Scotland and please post your favourite
	propaganda in the chat. This is what you mentioned earlier using images from Hora. Can you talk us
	through this Laura? Yeah, so the images on the left are from a Scottish health, Scottish
	government health ad showing how Covid can spread.
	Of course it's all, well, most loosely a metaphor.
	COVID is not green slime.
	It doesn't spread around like this.
	And I remember when I saw it, I thought, God, this is horrific.
	It's frightening.
	If I'd seen this as a kid, I know this would have given me nightmares.
	I would not want to trust it.
	What we have on the right is what it reminded me of when I racked my brains, which is a scene from The Exorcist, which has an age rating of 18.
	So, you know, they said these ads were to target 18 and above, but there was no way to stop children from seeing it.
	And what an ad like that has the potential to do is to disrupt intergenerational relationships long term.
	I think it's really created a lot of suspicion between people.
	You know, are we safe?
	What might we give each other?
	Can we hurt each other?
	It's really changed how we go about families, but also waiting for cues from the government.
	You just mentioned authority before.
	And I think that takes me back to the existential crisis, this whiplash of shock I felt when we when we locked down.
	Because before that I'd had this idea that we were free, you know, that I had agency, that I could choose pretty much what I did in my life and that we were part of a democracy.
	And then an emergency hits and you find out that the most basic of freedoms you took for granted are not real at all.
	You can be told you can't work.
	I mean, I'm a freelancer.
	Lockdown was okay for the laptop middle classes.
	You know, if you've got a safe job and a nice home and a garden, you might have even quite enjoyed lockdown.
	In fact, there was an article in the Times this week saying that somebody had lockdown nostalgia.
	I mean, are you kidding me?
	Lockdown nostalgia.
	Lots of people were baking soda bread and forest schooling their kids and it was okay.
	But for some people, lockdown was a nightmare.
	They don't have a nice home.
	They don't have a garden.
	Maybe people were abused at home.
	You know, people missed school.
	You couldn't go and worship.
	You couldn't date somebody.
	You couldn't go and see your lover.
	You couldn't go and see your family.
	And so these things that we've taken for Although some people did go and see their lovers.
	Dominic Cummings didn't see his lover.
	Matt Hancock clearly was breaking lockdown rules.
	I think I saw him adjust something that could have been a subject for one of your photographs, as a matter of fact.
	A hundred of those penises, because some of your portraiture has involved genitalia.
	Not yet, Matt Hancock, but it certainly seems like it could be a subject.
	There was incredible revelations about the mechanations within government.
	There were ongoing parties in our country.
	In America, Gavin Newsom was alleged to have had a...
	gathering. There are enough examples of people wearing masks for photo ops and
	then removing them. It's pretty plain that big tech profited.
	There was the biggest wealth transfer in history and I still think we're
	unpacking and I sense this intuitively as well as like more in more verifiable
	ways and let me know in the chat in the comments now. How do you think society and
	culture more broadly continue to be affected by the events of lockdown?
	How have your children been affected?
	Have you known people that have taken their own lives as a result of the psychological impact of being placed on lockdown?
	What about the fissures that it has put between people from different cultures with different values?
	It's interesting to note, Laura, that there's a class impact here and that particular effort was made to manage what you might call, in our country, working-class people in America, blue-collar Americans, people that do necessary work, that were temporarily, um, um, what do I want to say, deified, or at least celebrated, before being damned, uh, once again, when it was convenient to do so.
	In our country, a lot of key workers and health workers were celebrated, primarily through the medium of rainbows and meaningless platitudes, but when it came to paying them more, uh, those, those pay rises were not offered.
	Uh, 34,000 key workers in New York City, of course, lost their jobs because of a refusal to undertake certain medical procedures.
	So it seems to me that, taken as a whole, this period of time created a wealth transfer.
	It creates psychological instability.
	It creates opportunities for enormous profit.
	Creates opportunities for surveillance.
	Creates opportunities to introduce protest laws.
	Let's not forget what happened in Canada.
	The trucker protest was used as an opportunity... When working people tried to stand up against the use of emergency regulations, you saw what happened.
	You saw how they were smeared and criticized and condemned.
	How technology was used to shut down donations.
	Many egregious steps were taken to shut down our freedom and to your point, Laura, it shows you actually that freedom is temporal and illusory and takes place within such boundaries that it can scarcely be called freedom at all.
	I wonder if you have concerns about what the next steps will be, like when you said a minute ago all of the measures came down to individuals.
	Because you as an individual, a killer, you killed granny.
	I think we've got a headline there.
	That was our former health minister, now reality TV star, Matt Hancock, was offering up that you're killing your granny.
	Don't know how you could possibly kill your granny, given some of the revelations that have since come out about the lack of clinical trialing for transmission, and that asymptomatic people were scarcely infectious.
	But nevertheless, the propaganda has been spread, and the damage has been done.
	I know elsewhere, when it comes to matters like climate change, Let me know in the chat where you stand on that.
	It's normally 15 minute cities, taxes on ordinary people.
	It's seldom, this is why we are going to control corporations in this way.
	It's interesting that many of the measures suggested amount to ways of controlling and prohibiting the freedoms of individuals.
	What do you feel like is the next wave and how do you think it will continue to be utilised, Laura?
	You said so much I want to bottle it and drink it very slowly, but you know... There's plenty more where that came from, mate!
	I'm sloshing about in this stuff!
	I feel like I've been sprayed with a champagne bottle.
	Slow down with that.
	Okay, so hang on, there's... Do you want a kombucha?
	No, I don't, thank you.
	I like it, but I'm alright.
	I'm alright.
	In case it make you burp or something?
	No, I'm alright.
	I drank a Diet Coke before I came on.
	It's a lot less healthy than kombucha, but I'm still battling the burps.
	Well, I've got to say something about the Matt Hancock thing.
	Yeah, whatever you want.
	Because that's evil.
	I think what he said was nothing less than evil.
	It's one of the most egregious things that was said.
	The idea that a child should feel responsible for their grandparent dying is disgusting.
	Because a lot of grandparents died.
	And it wasn't the grandchildren's fault.
	It's because Covid is particularly dangerous for elderly people.
	What a terrible thing to say to kids.
	Just terrible.
	Just to control them.
	What an idiot. You're right because actually mate like we're all like quite um what do I say
	susceptible to propaganda as discerning adults but children who knows and also I think the
	contract between us and those that govern us has been irrevocably all
	altered, broken, I might argue, I can never trust centralised authority again in any form.
	This is why I think judiciary will always be questioned, the media will always be questioned,
	the results of elections will always be questioned, because we've just seen again and again and
	again that there is literally no reason to trust them unless you're absolutely fucking
	terrified. Unless you're terrified to the point where you're like, oh god, just look
	after me, daddy. You know, there's no point in paying any attention at all.
	Lots of people are like that, but I mean, if you look at this front, you've got your
	own butcher, you've got some bottled water, we're in a very lovely studio in a beautiful
	part of the country. Things are okay, we're not on sale.
	And yeah, we are in this really strange time of an unveiling where we're understanding a lot about what goes on around us.
	And for me, this has been nothing short of an existential crisis.
	You know, it really hit me that March 2020.
	And so when you say, well, what's next?
	Well, what's next is the story of humanity.
	It always has been, it always will be the same.
	People can be manipulated.
	You know, in our time, in our time, and who'd have thought that we'd see it?
	We've seen the mass evocation of fear and propaganda to gain compliance for something which nearly all of us were not at risk from.
	I'm not saying COVID wasn't a serious disease for some people, but I think we've only just swerved terrible times and we see what can happen.
	You know, you talked about the vaccine before.
	There were people that were told no jab, no job.
	They lost their jobs if they don't want to be vaccinated.
	And there are many reasons an individual might not want to be vaccinated.
	You know, there are still countries, I think the US has only just lifted its ban on federal, like federal workers were sacked if they weren't vaccinated.
	And you couldn't visit the country unless you were vaccinated.
	They've only just lifted that.
	Think about Canada, like you said, you know, the truckers who didn't want to be vaccinated, they had their accounts frozen and people who supported the GoFundMe had their accounts frozen.
	So we've seen how unvaccinated people can become A minority which is scapegoated and harmed.
	And that was deliberately leveraged as well.
	You know, you had the Covid hero versus the Covidia.
	And how can that be done?
	Well, that's done because once upon a time, the enemy was a country that would drop a bomb on you from another country, right?
	A red button over there in some snowy country.
	Then the enemy was somebody who might strap bombs to their chest, a terrorist.
	But in the case of a virus, you know, we're all the enemy, we're biohazards.
	There was a Dutch on TV, Dr. Sarah Jarvis, in 2021 who said, breathing is an offensive weapon.
	There was one, I was scouring the newspapers at the time for examples of this, there was an Israeli newspaper that called ultra-Orthodox Jews who were breaking the rules, Covid insurgents.
	and bioterrorists. You know the language that was used to describe
	human beings for breathing, for moving about, or choosing not to accept a medical intervention
	was stunning. It was extraordinary to watch how they managed their previous demonization
	of ordinary people by using perhaps and having not yet caught up with some of the
	lexical changes that have taken place in recent years to and to recognizing oh no we're condemning
	people now like of course notably in the United States of America there had to be a great deal of
	work done in communities of of colour because there's a natural, what do you know,
	suspicion of centralised authority.
	And it was interesting to watch that. There's some other comments in our locals chat.
	If you're not a member of our locals community yet, press the red button on your screen.
	Join us on locals like Seaboek77 who says, in my experience our local blue collar community
	refused to wear masks and were sceptical of this whole thing. The middle class went along until
	it split. Half have woken up and the woke far left white collar are the ones we see driving around
	wearing masks in their car now.
	Now certainly it became politicized even prior to the sort of condemnation around Trump.
	I remember initially Joe Biden being like, openly we can pull up the clip if we want to, Joe Biden saying that he wouldn't take a vaccine until it was verified.
	And of course people say that they didn't participate in the politicization of the medications or the responses.
	It was the other side's fault that that happened.
	But that's the kind of sort of tribalized chit-chat that don't get us nowhere. It seems to me that it was a great
	opportunity to control, to demonize, to divide, to censor, to smear, like the
	Twitter file revelations about true information that was shut down and controlled, the
	number of highly credible scientists whose contributions to the conversation was shut
	down, smeared, because it didn't go along with this information. It seems in retrospect, correctly,
	many people were smeared as being anti-vaxxers. By the way, they changed the meaning of the
	word anti-vaxxers in the dictionary during that period. So again, as I say, the subject itself is...
	is of limited interest because we live in a fast-moving time defined by an ever-shifting
	news cycle. But the behaviour that it revealed is fascinating. We can see how powerful interests
	will collaborate. We can see how apparently innocuous free-letter global organisations
	like the WHO are able to assert and continue to assert incredible control over the way
	the information is promulgated and many of that ain't been rolled back yet. Can I ask
	you please Laura about forthcoming potential ways to terrify and control the population?
	I feel like, what's this Time magazine, WHO, this emergency's over, get ready for the next
	New pandemics are always being rehearsed all over the gaff.
	They're always spending money doing sort of like weird games to prepare for new pandemics.
	Some of the anomalies I'd like to point out is when you have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation significantly donating to the WHO, I think behind only the nation of Germany in their level of donations, I would prefer that elsewhere That organization hadn't invested heavily in vaccines.
	Now you might say, well that's a cohesive response.
	They believe in this type of regulation and this type of medical response.
	But when it is profitable and when it affords that degree of influence, it seems to me like there's a great opportunity for democracy.
	It seems that what we're being offered in lieu of democracy now is Limited debate within tiny, tiny cubes of discourse while a centralised authority continues to assert its agenda.
	What do you reckon is going to happen, mate, with, like, forthcoming pandemics and forthcoming, like, climate change type stuff?
	Well, you know, sometimes I tune out of the specifics because the thing is the principles are always the same.
	What people won't want to hear, but it's the truth, is that your brain is a battlefield.
	And it's not just the terrain, it's the target.
	You are the target.
	It's governments, it's corporations, would-be manipulators, they all want to influence you.
	You're subjected to millions of pieces of information every day, and your brain's basically got bouncers on the door.
	It lets some information in and others, so they're competing the whole time for your attention.
	And they will compete using emotion.
	Sometimes it's hope.
	Do you remember the Obama posters?
	Just his face with hope underneath.
	Quite often it's fear.
	You know, like I said before, fear is the steam in the engine.
	So, avian flu, monkeypox, climate, blah blah blah, they're all the same.
	They're using the same techniques to grab you.
	Think about climate.
	I mean, here's a few examples.
	Whatever you think of climate change, and whether it's man-made or not, and what the response is, do you know how they're trying to influence you and manipulate you?
	You know, scriptwriters for films and series, they're invited to workshops.
	For instance, there was a workshop for scriptwriters about how to increase vaccination uptake.
	No way.
	Did that really happen?
	I mean, I know people talked about it because on soap operas in the UK, and let us know if this happened in your country, there was just sort of like casual bits of chat about, have you had your booster shot yet?
	I ain't getting a booster shot, there's no proof that it works.
	That's a conspiracy theorist!
	That literally was a scene from EastEnders.
	That's 100% and it's not new.
	This kind of thing's been going on for decades.
	It's the history of the BBC and governments have had hotlines to soap opera managers and broadcasters forever.
	I think what's different is how out in the open it is.
	Now I've got documentation about the scriptwriters being invited to talk about vaccination uptake and there was a scriptwriter who spoke to me anonymously, again, because he doesn't want to destroy his Hollywood career, My new book, Free Your Mind, because the stories are just fascinating.
	When you watch your soap opera for a bit of light entertainment in the evening, I bet you don't, I don't, but millions of people do, switch off, enjoy it, fine, but be mindful.
	They are constantly trying to socially engineer you.
	There's a big soap opera here in the UK.
	They had Just the kind of cheesy vaccination scene you're talking about.
	Is that Corrie?
	The other one?
	Coronation Street?
	Coronation Street's another one.
	I was on my EastEnders though.
	Yeah.
	So, you know, they had one.
	There was a couple of ethnic minority characters talking quite virtuously about how they'd had their vaccine.
	And then a white woman comes onto the scene, ironically called Karen, and she hasn't had it and they call her one of them anti-vaxxers and make fun of her because she's buying cigarettes but she won't get the vaccine.
	There's loads of that.
	And when you watch it, it actually feels quite artificial.
	But in COP26, All of the UK soap opera storylines converged.
	They crossed over.
	They mentioned each other.
	This does not happen without coordination.
	It was all deliberately to nudge people.
	into being more worried about climate change.
	And the reason for that is to soften people up for net zero goals.
	It's a very contentious political policy which involves a lot of hair shirts.
	And by the time you get to wear the hair shirt, you'll be glad of it because you'll be cold.
	You won't be able to afford your heating anymore.
	The closing credits of EastEnders, this iconic British soap opera, on one episode showed London If sea levels rise by two meters.
	Now even the IPCC does not say this is a plausible scenario.
	But the point about using a graphic, you know, we're not in an observable climate crisis in London.
	We're not wading through water.
	We're wading through woke, but we're not wading through water.
	The point of the graphic is to trick you into thinking that this climate crisis is there on your doorstep.
	One day you might walk out on the cities underwater.
	Although the Netherlands have managed to hold back rising sea levels with medieval technology, and we've got Thames barriers, you know, it's to frighten you.
	And think about insects.
	You know, there's no great clamour among the world's people to eat more insects.
	You know, we're not all going, oh yes, give me mealworms and crickets.
	But have you seen how many programmes are talking about using insects, like in cookery programmes or celebrities eating insects from Angelina Jolie barbecuing Tarantulas, which was truly horrific, to Robert Downey Jr.
	talking about a protein drink that's made from insects.
	You know, there is some kind of technocratic public policy do-gooders, academics and politicians, that really want you to eat insects.
	So you'll see it everywhere in the media.
	Many of these have been regarded as and dubbed right-wing talking points.
	Let me know in the chat and the comments if you're aware of that.
	And let me know also how you identify in terms of your political persuasion.
	My personal belief, of course, is that neither right-wing nor left-wing party organizations are going to deliver to you the individual freedom that you will come to require. I'd love to have a look at
	that. If you can find that EastEnders scene of the vaccines, that would be fantastic if you can pull
	that up and queue it up, have a little look at it before we play it out. That would be fantastic.
	When you said earlier about the brain, or perhaps more obtusely, but maybe more accurately, it's
	difficult to say, Consciousness being the battlefield of our current war of information, having moved from the wars against nations, the Cold War already becoming an abstraction to the war against terror, to the war against germs, now the war against ideas and the war against consciousness.
	It seems to me that it is necessary that we undertake a kind of individual spiritual awakening where we take personal responsibility for our consciousness, where we become aware of when we are responding to fear and when we are responding to desire.
	This is something, of course, I know a good deal about as a recovering alcoholic and drug addict.
	I'm well aware of the role of compulsion and the role of stimulation in organizing my behavior.
	Similarly, though, and blessedly, I'm aware that none of the issues that I seek to resolve externally through material means can ever be resolved in that direction, that without a spiritual awakening, without a willingness to surrender the inner domain to a greater power, I am doomed to be subject to the stimulations, the coordinated stimulations, it seems, that are externally being operated upon us.
	Now me, I feel like that... The climate change conversation for me is bypassed by reverence and love for the environment that I evolved in harmony with.
	That I can see that we ought to behave respectfully towards our planet, and that regulation and control, when it comes to the protection and love of our planet and the species that we share it with, should target first and foremost the most powerful corporate entities that currently enjoy significant subsidies from us.
	Wealth transfer and redistribution of wealth are already taking place.
	It's just in the upward direction.
	Don't be mired in the left versus right conversation or paradigm.
	It's far, far too limiting.
	And pay attention to the various ways that propaganda can reach you if it doesn't reach you in the rather bold and vivid colors of the, like, wasp spewed propaganda of the British state, then perhaps it
	will reach you through the gentler propaganda of soap operas.
	Let's have a look at the clip we were talking about a moment ago, Laura, on EastEnders.
	This is a British soap opera.
	I don't know if it has an American equivalent, really.
	I mean, I don't know, Beverly Hills 90210, but everyone is ugly.
	I can't think about how to explain this.
	I mean, what do they even watch over there now?
	The Crown, but poor people.
	I don't know how to describe it other than propaganda with gloomy music.
	Let's have a look.
	Let's see that again.
	Got the second vaccination?
	Already!
	I'm good for you!
	I'll do my first one later today.
	I'm calling it my superpower.
	Make me that bit more invincible.
	Science is a wonderful thing to do.
	Oh, well, you and me.
	Oh, don't tell me.
	Wait, here comes the white working class.
	Let's see what they've got to say.
	They pushed it through too quick.
	Blood reps, that's what we are.
	I ain't having any of that rubbish pumping to me.
	Can I get my phone, please?
	Not ever noting that it's an autonomous choice of an adult to choose whether or not to smoke cigarettes rather than take a particular medication.
	Now, as Laura was saying earlier, it's individual freedom that is the issue.
	Forget for a moment what your views are on medication. I'm
	intelligent enough to recognise that people have a variety of personal conditions, some that might
	warrant an enthusiastic response to a pharmaceutical intervention, and others that may be
	more cynical and sceptical. And this is not a reason to be cynical, or let alone hateful to
	other people. Let me know in the chat and the comments, one of the things that
	offended me most was the way we were invited to be condemnatory, judgmental and hateful to one
	another. And it was encouraged, you can see that even with a couple of years of hindsight,
	that screams propaganda. There's no way that that would automatically unfurl from the
	keyboard of a staff writer over there at Elstree EastEnders.
	No, I mean it's painfully artificial.
	It's embarrassing.
	And you wonder why the ratings are going down for soap operas.
	It's because they're shameless propagandists for government public health messaging.
	And in fact there was a report that came out, I think last year, from the government's nudge unit.
	And Sky, the broadcaster, and it's called The Power of TV.
	And it's about nudging people towards net zero.
	And this is what I mean about it being more in the open.
	They talk about using the whole gamut of programming from news, which you'd like to think is impartial, to children's programming and cookery, travel, documentaries, product placement, everything in between, in order to make people compliant for net zero policies.
	It's quite astonishing that it's just out there in the open.
	And they talk about the historical use of TV for social engineering.
	So, you know, I would never tell people to turn off the TV, although there is a chapter of my new book with that title.
	But if you don't want to turn off the TV, you have to watch it mindfully.
	You have to understand that it's not a one-way process.
	Influence you as much as entertain you.
	And actually, you know, you were asking before what the dangers coming up are.
	I think people don't understand what a pivotal time we're at with artificial intelligence.
	So at the moment there's a lot of buzz about generative AI, so chat, GPT, BARD, these really fun tools where you can ask it to write you some copy, ask you to write it some text, use it for research.
	That has the potential not only to be used to generate copy but to manipulate you and nudge you.
	And I think people don't realize how far we're already in that world.
	I'll give you one example.
	Anti-knife crime ads.
	Now this sounds like, hello doggy, this sounds like a really worthy, it sounds like a really
	worthy idea that you want to reduce knife crime.
	But what's happened is the UK government has identified the sort of people that might be
	at risk of being perpetrators and gets ad serve to them online.
	So let's say young people that like drill, they've been identified as potential knife crime perpetrators.
	So they search for drill and they get anti-knife crime ads.
	Now this sounds great, but what if that person was never going to pick up a knife, was never going to commit a knife crime?
	They're being followed around the internet by knife crime ads.
	The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
	And for all we know, people are getting the idea about knife crime that they never would have had.
	If I search for knives, I'm probably going to get some really cool Swiss Army knife ads.
	You know, I'm going to really enjoy it.
	I'm going to go on some great websites.
	But somebody who's... I'm not a fan of drill.
	No, but I do listen to quite a lot of cool music thanks to my sons, but not Drill.
	But you know, if I was in a city, black, listen to Drill, I'm going to get totally different search results to me.
	We're in that world now, we're already in that, and what that is reminiscent of is the kind of futuristic surveillance society, you know, that pre-crime, thought-crime territory of films like Minority Report.
	We're already there.
	You add in nudge, behavioural psychology, with artificial intelligence and algorithms
	and people don't understand what kind of personalised, manipulated digital environment they will
	be in.
	You and I will be in different digital environments.
	Like I say, that inner city black youth will be in a completely different digital environment
	again.
	It may all be with worthy, public, you know, worthy goals on behalf of politicians.
	But we don't know yet how that's going to work out and it's quite insidious because people aren't aware of it.
	This is why I'm inclined to agree with Vandana Shiva, regular guest on this show, star of Communi2023.
	There's a link in the description if you want to join us there.
	July the 14th to July the 17th that we must re-sacralize our planet.
	I'll plan it.
	We've only got one, I think, at the moment.
	Re-sacralize it though.
	Re-sacralize our relationships.
	Have an individual relationship with your own consciousness and also pay attention to how you interrelate to the divine.
	Laura, thank you so much for coming on the show and talking with me today.
	Laura's new book is available to pre-order now, Free Your Mind, The New World of Manipulation and How to Resist It.
	There's a link in the description to learn about it now if it's not out yet.
	Is it out?
	Is that in July?
	We'll put a preview link out.
	Laura, thanks so much for joining me, mate.
	Thank you.
	Thanks for having me.
	It was a lovely conversation.
	Well done.
	Stay free with Russell Brand.
	See you first on Rumble.
	Be honest.
	Do you feel just a little bit brighter?
	Do you feel that all the things you suspected and deep down knew were true?
	Let me know in the chat and the comments.
	If you're watching this anywhere other than locals, click on the red button.
	Become a member of our community.
	You get all sorts of access to me.
	Meditations, extra content, and even the opportunity to come here in the livid, lurid flesh.
	We're gonna take a little break now so as we don't go absolutely crazy from the burden of our endeavor, but when we return on the 5th of June, our guests will include Tulsi Gabbard, Richard Dawkins, Roger Waters, and this just in.
	Elon Musk will be joining us.
	Join us next time, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Stay free.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	You're welcome.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news.
	The food you're eating is not only causing you cancer, it's also making you stupid.
	I'm loving it.
	You know food?
	Yeah, what, food?
	What I require in order not to die?
	That you require in order that you die.
	Because most food is now so bad for you, you'd be better off just eating tablets and staring off into limitless space drooling.
	A new study suggests that much of the processed food we're eating is not only causing us cancer and diabetes and heart disease, it's also literally making us stupid.
	So why are we all eating it?
	Good news all round, when you get sick they can sell you the medicine,
	and you'll be a lot less trouble when they're lying to you the whole time.
	Let's get into this story.
	We all know processed foods aren't really good for us physically.
	So why are we all eating it?
	Like why are we not using our collective intelligence and the ingenuity,
	the genius of people that have brought about technological and medical revolutions,
	to get food in some sort of fit state for human consumption?
	Why are we still eating food that we know isn't good for us?
	You know what you're told.
	Oh, this is a choice that you should make at the level of the consumer.
	But I also know for basically a fact that it's people that are working all the time, don't have enough money, poor, bored, broken people are eating food that's bad for them.
	Why are we not spending time looking at ways of growing food locally where possible?
	Only transporting food around the world when necessary.
	Having as our aim optimal, healthy, nutritious food for us all.
	Why are we not doing that?
	Because it's not profitable and it's better to have people stupid and sick all the time.
	That's the answer, you know that, right?
	But new research suggests they could hurt our mental health as well.
	A new study out of Italy links ultra-processed foods to depression.
	And some of you out there might be at higher risk.
	You know that, right, already, don't you?
	As soon as you eat a bunch of processed food, you eat a bunch of crisps, chips, chocolate, ice cream, whatever, there's the moment, the delicious thrill of hacking through the evolutionary code.
	Oh my god, I've got all this sugar and fat!
	But then, I'm not a good person!
	I'm a failure!
	I don't believe it!
	Because you're eating stuff you're not supposed to eat.
	For hundreds of thousands, collectively millions of years, we ate food that was scarce and difficult to attain.
	You know I'm a vegan.
	You know I've got no problem if other people eat meat if that's their deal.
	But try not to eat heavily processed food, heavily processed sugars and seed oils.
	These things are killing us.
	Now, I'm not better than you.
	I'm doing it as well.
	But wouldn't it be better if in this issue, as well as other issues, the culture around us helped us?
	Suggested good things rather than profitable things.
	So you get some patronizing, why don't you try five a day?
	But what you don't get is we're gonna control the price of good food.
	We're going to tax and prohibit food that's bad for you from being sold.
	We're going to help you.
	What's the point in a society if all it does is supports powerful business interests while turning you into a dumb, thick, cancer-ridden lump?
	We're eating more processed foods than ever, and ultra-processed food make up nearly 60% of Americans' diets on average.
	That's not just processed.
	That's ultra-processed.
	Hey, whoa, whoa, where are you going?
	We've already processed that!
	Yeah, I know.
	But we're gonna ultra-process it!
	A diet heavy in ultra-processed food could be responsible for increasing your risk of depression.
	I'm loving it!
	Australian researchers say even packaged products sold as healthy may leave us feeling down.
	Down.
	Down under, more like.
	Have you seen Bluey?
	These days there's plenty of factory food at our fingertips.
	Ultra processed foods are typically foods that come in packages and they typically include a long list of ingredients.
	So things like artificial sweeteners and emulsifiers.
	So even if you are vegan or you're a carnivore, we're not at war with one another.
	If you're eating those kind of vegan foods that has that long list, I do sometimes eat.
	Because they're delicious.
	Because they're one of the few things that make being vegan bearable.
	Then you're participating in the problem.
	You're eating stuff that is not good for you.
	Society's not going to do it for us, is it?
	The government's not going to do it.
	Big corporations aren't going to do it.
	We're going to have to do it ourselves.
	We're going to have to individually awaken and support one another.
	We're going to have to help one another along the path.
	We're going to have to check in with one another.
	Are you eating well?
	Are you doing alright?
	Have you had any broccoli today?
	I've got kids, I know how hard it is.
	You have to almost hold a gun to their heads to get them to eat a bit of spinach or something
	green.
	We're going to have to do this collectively together because they're not going to do it
	for us.
	Now Deakin University's Dr Melissa Lane has linked the consumption of lots of packet meals
	and snacks with having the blues.
	The blues.
	Australia, even the news in Australia is so casual.
	I had the blues so bad that I couldn't stay alive no much longer.
	He found those whose diets were comprised of at least 30% ultra-processed foods were at much higher risk of psychological distress.
	Yeah, that's quite significant.
	You are much more likely to be depressed if you're eating that stuff.
	Let me know in the chat in the comments.
	You feeling alright?
	Right.
	Is the answer no?
	Are you eating a lot of processed food?
	Right.
	That's part of it.
	Can you not afford to eat other food?
	Right.
	That's another part of it.
	Do you have no access to delicious organic food that could grow abundantly if we were willing to alter systems that benefit the most powerful institutions and interests in the world?
	I don't know!
	The potential mood-lowering fodder is not just limited to buns and burgers.
	Delicious.
	I'd love to eat that thing.
	If I was in that room, I'd snatch that out of that man's hand, eat it, and then lick what remained out of his mouth.
	Things like diet soda, things that we might consider to be relatively healthy for us.
	I mean, this all looks normal.
	Firstly, that's the food I grew up on, and it's still the food I crave right now.
	While the packet stuff is often cheaper, it's not always the case.
	This protein bar just cost me $3, compared to this apple, which was 70 cents.
	Ha ha ha!
	The mainstream.
	Do you know what I might do?
	Chuck it up in the air like that and catch it again.
	Leading dietician Susie Burrell says there's growing evidence that manufactured food may impact the microbes in our digestive system.
	We have known for quite some time that a high intake of ultra-processed food has a profound effect on the health of the gut microbiome, which we're learning also has a profound effect over our mental health.
	Things like microbiomes and gut health and the complexity of biochemistry and the body and our relationship between food, that's stuff that people just didn't talk about that long ago, but isn't it It's sort of odd that stuff your grandparents used to tell you, like eat your greens, eat your vegetables, it will help you grow, has all proven to be true.
	We evolved in harmony, of course, with the foods that we eat.
	We are creatures that are products of our environment.
	Part of the process of civilization is dominion over our environment.
	In extremis, what that means is we sort of ignore the fact that we had anything to do with it.
	We're creatures in a zoo.
	We're no longer aware that we are part of the sky and the trees and the soil.
	I don't mean this in a hippy-dippy way, just in a factual way that you evolved alongside it.
	You're supposed to harmonise with it continually.
	This is not a moral argument about the types of diet you have.
	This is a financial argument.
	There are certain financial and economic interests that benefit from you eating certain food, and since the advent of agriculture onwards, whilst it has solved the problem of starvation, it's also solved the problem of Healthiness of eating a varied and balanced diet based on your own personal needs and what your environment wants you to eat because you are your environment.
	You're not separate from nature.
	You are nature.
	You're not separate from God.
	You are God.
	Will you please eat healthy food and try your best to fight against the machine that wants you dumb and stupid and sick and ill?
	I'm loving it.
	So the fresh advice is If it doesn't look like food, it's probably not a good idea.
	Let's have a look at some more details around the story of how we're being slowly poisoned and made sick.
	Like that film The Phantom Fred, where they make us ill so they can look after us.
	Are you ill mate? Are you not very well?
	Yeah I could myself a dicky belly.
	Do you want some medicine? Not really.
	You're having some!
	We've known for decades that eating such packaged products like some breakfast cereal, snack bars, frozen meals
	and virtually all packaged sweets among many other things is linked to unwelcome health outcomes
	like an increased risk of diabetes, obesity and even cancer.
	That should just be how it's explained all the time.
	Hey, you know this stuff causes cancer.
	It should be like cigarettes.
	Causes cancer.
	Causes diabetes.
	Do you think that the lobbying money that Big Food spends isn't about, could you just slow down the eventual revelation that our product is killing its market?
	So we can just wait for a few more to be born, so we can carry on killing them.
	That's what they're lobbying monies for!
	All of Unilever and Kraft and Great Becoming, his own thousands of brands.
	You shouldn't be drinking Coca-Cola!
	You shouldn't be eating McDonald's!
	Of course you shouldn't!
	You know that!
	You don't need me to tell you!
	And if you do need me to tell you, God help you!
	Because I'm an idiot!
	But more recent studies point to another major downside to these often delicious, always convenient foods.
	They appear to have a significant impact on our minds, too.
	Of course, though, your mind's not gonna be separate, is it?
	You're not gonna be all eating, like, sugar and processed stuff, and then, like, I have realized there is no boundary to the self.
	We are continually breathing in and out.
	We are one.
	You're gonna be like, oh, God!
	I just had a poo and a bit of my bum fell out!
	Roughly 60% of the calories in the average American diet come from highly processed foods.
	Research from the past 10 years or so has shown that the more ultra-processed food a person eats, the higher the chances that they feel depressed and anxious.
	A few studies have suggested a link between eating ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, and increased risk of cognitive decline.
	They're making us stupid!
	70% of the packaged foods sold in the United States are considered ultra-processed, the vast majority.
	They're increasingly edging out healthier foods in people's diets and are widely consumed across socio-economic groups.
	Even rich people are eating them and they're edging out healthy food.
	Hey, buddy, would you like to have a banana or a little bit of broccoli, maybe, or a delicious nut?
	No, thank you.
	I think I'm gonna eat this vile, gorgeous, blue shit.
	Ultra-processed foods are carefully formulated to be so palatable and satisfying that they're almost addictive.
	Do you remember when we all learned that social media sites knew that that action, like, we just couldn't stop ourselves from doing it with such little bloody gorgeous little ape morons. I always suspected that what's happening online
	is basically what happens everywhere. That's the way that greed functions. They work
	out what's effective and successful and they just continually amplify it and there's no point
	where they'll cap it and go, is this, have we gone too far now? Ultimately in the end we're
	just gonna be scrolling and scrolling and consuming blue delicious gunk and just
	dropping dead of cancer after they keep us alive for about 20 years with very expensive drugs
	that they could lower the price of but won't.
	They're making it addictive.
	It seems that these apes get addicted to stuff if it's too delicious.
	Well, hold on a minute, but that means they'll just eat bad stuff all the time.
	Yeah, I know, but if you price that correctly, that doesn't matter.
	Yeah, but what about God and the way we should all treat each other?
	There is no God and nothing matters.
	Carry on!
	What does he know?
	What's wrong with us?
	Do you know what people don't like?
	It's real food.
	that they're almost addictive. It's not almost, they are addictive, said Dr. Eric M. Hecht,
	an epidemiologist at the Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University.
	What does he know? The problem is that in order to make the products taste better and better,
	manufacturers make them less and less like real food. What's wrong with us? Do you know what
	people don't like? It's real food. What they want is something that looks like a hamburger,
	but it's made of sugar and dipped in heroin. This is delicious!
	Recent research has demonstrated a link between highly processed foods and low mood.
	No way.
	One 2022 study of over 10,000 adults in the United States, the more UPFs participants ate, the more likely they were to report mild depression or feelings of anxiety.
	How do you feel after drinking all that black sugary drink and eating all that salty, disgusting processed food?
	I'm wondering if I might be another great guy.
	Uh-huh.
	How about some more sugar?
	Okay.
	New research has also found a connection between high UPF consumption and cognitive decline.
	How are you feeling after eating all that food?
	Me no feel bad today.
	Me feel good today.
	More burger want.
	A 2022 study that followed nearly 11,000 Brazilian adults over a decade found a correlation between eating ultra-processed foods and worse cognitive function, the ability to learn, remember, reason and solve problems.
	Who needs any of that shit?
	Just sit down and eat your delicious sludge, you moron.
	Okey-doke!
	While we have a natural decline in these abilities with age, we saw that this decline accelerated by 28% in people who consume more than 20% of their calories from UPFs, said Natalia Gomez-Goncalves, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Sao Paulo Medical School and the lead author of the study.
	It's also worth considering the possibility that the link between highly processed foods and mental health works in both directions.
	Diet does influence mood, but the reverse is also true, said Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard T.H.
	Chan School of Public Health.
	When you get stressed, anxious or depressed, you tend to eat more unhealthy foods, in particular ultra-processed foods that are high in sugar and fat.
	Yeah, I think we all recognize that.
	Let me know in the chat in the comments.
	When you feel down and a bit depressed, one of the ways that you might try to soothe yourself or lift your mood is, ironically, by doing the thing that put you in that terrible state in the first place, you beautiful, darved monkey.
	A study by Imperial School of Public Health found that higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with a greater risk of developing cancer overall, and specifically with ovarian and brain cancers.
	It was also associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer, most notably with ovarian and breast cancers.
	But do remember, it's delicious and it's highly profitable for the people that make it.
	How is it they're able to continue doing this when everyone knows that it's bad for us?
	Why are the government not doing something about it?
	Surely the government should be operating on your behalf to regulate these industries and ensure that, where possible, we're given the best opportunities to stay healthy and fit.
	So why is that not happening?
	Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, AB InBev and 27 other companies spend close to 40 million dollars a year on lobbying in an effort to make their voices heard by lawmakers and regulators.
	Lobbying just means stopping people doing what they should do and would do if lobbying ended.
	That's it!
	And documents released in December show an influential group that helps shape U.S.
	food policy and steers consumers towards nutritional products, has financial ties to the world's largest processed food companies, and has been controlled by former industry employees who have worked for companies like Monsanto.
	So the people that go, we are America.
	Obviously, you idiots are eating poisonous food that we're selling you.
	That's why we, an independent body funded by them, have got some advice about what to do.
	Keep doing what you're doing, please.
	It's bad for us.
	We don't care about that.
	Just keep doing it.
	And thanks for your taxes.
	The documents reveal the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has a record of quid pro quos with a range of food giants, owns stock in ultra-processed food companies and has received millions in contributions from producers of pop, candy and processed foods linked to diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other health problems.
	Why is the point of that?
	What's having the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics owning stock in ultra-processed food?
	We are here for one reason, and one reason only, to direct you towards healthy food.
	Also, we do own stocks in very unhealthy foods that have caused this problem in the first place, but do not let that think that that will... What?
	Sorry?
	We accept money and we're funded by...
	Stop eating that good food and eat that food that you're already eating.
	It's also a way of measuring the disjunct.
	See, the way you're sold these products, when I think of pop and candy, I think, woohoo!
	Like, Coca-Cola sold to you.
	Can you remember a Coca-Cola advert that wasn't, like, just sort of some young, sexy person or a jolly family or Christmas itself?
	And McDonald's is also full of life and luster and vivacity and good humour and ease.
	But it's the actual opposite of what's going on.
	Have you noticed that?
	Continually through your culture, they tell you this, but really it's that.
	The Academy accepted at least 15 million dollars from corporate and organizational contributors from 2011 to 2017 and over 4.5 million in additional funding went to the Academy's foundation.
	Among the highest contributions came from companies such as Nestle, PepsiCo, Hershey, Kellogg's, General Mills, Conagra, the National Dairy Council and the baby formula producer Abbott Nutrition.
	Bloody hell.
	They always find a loophole.
	We have set up an academy to make sure this stuff's happening.
	Oh, that's not good.
	Can we fund it?
	Yes.
	Okay, carry on then.
	More than 300 children, including two 10-year-olds, were recently found working at McDonald's restaurants across Kentucky and several other states in violation of federal labor laws.
	They're selling you bad food, they're exploiting your children, they're lying to you continually, and we're not going to do anything about it because the body that was inaugurated in order to protect you is funded by them.
	That is how it works.
	Are you loving it?
	So there you go, a simple story that shows you how you are being slowly poisoned by delicious foods.
	In a sense, it's a perfect metaphor for the way that we live today.
	Things that taste delicious because we were not evolved to have access to them in these proportions are slowly killing us and the government is not going to do anything about it and the corporations aren't going to do anything about it except set up regulatory bodies that are invested in things staying the same.
	Where's change going to come from then?
	You and me.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	Good bacteria in your gut can impact every process in your body, even that one.
	But did you know 99% of probiotics don't even work at all?
	That's because they don't make it to your gut.
	They go down the mouth hole, they could end up anywhere.
	Unlike this smart probiotic by Heitz, the only product on the market that's proven to work by science.
	Gone are the days of feeling bloated, blocked, and lethargic.
	And that's thanks to the world's first probiotic that targets gut, mental, and immune health.
	You little capsule of glory.
	Boffins, experts, poindexters in the Heitz lab, have shown that 33.9 billion friendly bacteria from this little bottle make it to your gut alive.
	You're gonna make it, kids!
	But that's actually 170% more than they claim on the label.
	This has got to be a first.
	It's better than they're telling you.
	Even better, you only need to take one capsule a day, which means you can say goodbye to foul-tasting liquid probiotics like this.
	Oh, you dirty devil.
	Where did that come from?
	An abscess.
	Take control of your gut health and keep yourself regular.
	You know what I mean.
	With the smart probiotic.
	Use brand15 at checkout to get your exclusive discount.
	Now let's go back to that other magnificent young man.
	Many switches, switch on, switch off.

▲