All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:10:27
IRAN WAR PENDING!? Is This What TRUMP’S Secrets REVEAL? - #149 - Stay Free With Russell Brand
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm going to go ahead and get this.
In this video, I'm going to be showing you how to make a 3D model of a 3D model of a
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hey!
Thanks for joining us, you Awakening Wonders.
This is Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Wherever you're watching this, you can only get the whole show on Rumble, and you are going to want to see all of it.
Why?
Because Michael Schellenberger will be joining us here, in this room, with a surprising array of information on censorship, surveillance, UFOs, and in particular, we're going to be talking about the Trump arraignment.
One of the things that is not being discussed enough is what's in those boxes.
Let me know in the chat if you've considered the significance of what the boxes themselves contain.
Some people believe that what is in there reveals that the US had plans for a war with Iran.
Allegedly.
And part of what's happening now is an attempt to distract us from that significant fact.
We'll also be talking to you on the other side, on what some people would call the dark side, but others would see as a portal for great and limitless light on Rumble about how the lockdown and other regulatory measures affected the victims of heart attacks.
Obviously we can't Talk about that on YouTube.
But I think a lot of the questions that we're going to ask Michael Schellenberger would simply be subject to censorship, which is ironic because he spends so much of his time exposing censorship and the censorship industrial complex.
In fact, he's in the country to participate in a talk that I am... What am I doing?
I'm emceeing, I'm curating.
Yeah, emceeing sounds pretty cool.
I'll be emceeing that chat.
Gareth, you're my on-screen assistant.
There I'll be on stage.
I wonder if you'll be attending the event at all?
Will I be assisting you in some way still?
I'd like you to, in some way.
And this first story that we're covering is fantastic because it's a media story.
The MSNBC are refusing to cover Trump's post-arraignment speech because MSNBC says Rachel Maddow, who you know I have no axe to grind with.
I think Rachel Maddow seems like a really nice person.
Let me know in the chat if you agree.
I feel like that Rachel Maddow says it'll be irresponsible of her to broadcast Trump's post-arraignment chat because he'll say things that are disinformation, malinformation, and yet we know that MSNBC have broadcast So many examples of misinformation in the past.
Let me know in the comments in the chat what examples you come up with.
A few clues.
Russia going, that's one.
The medication.
But you, tell us your own.
Tell us your own right now.
And if you're watching this on Rumble right now, press the red button and join us on Locals.
That's a vast and thriving community.
The things they talk about in there.
It bends your bones, doesn't it, Gal?
It certainly does.
But at least it's not misinformation.
Look at Rachel Maddow on MSNBC saying that they have to censor Trump for... I don't actually know why, because there used to be a time when we were considered capable to discern for ourselves the nature of truth and fiction.
Let's have a look.
Now tonight, after his arraignment on federal felony charges, he's speaking again, this time to an audience of his supporters that's gathered for a campaign fundraiser tonight at his golf club and summer home in New Jersey.
We knew heading into this that he was planning to make these remarks.
We are prepared for his pre-fundraiser remarks tonight to again be essentially a Trump campaign speech.
Because of that, we do not intend to carry these remarks live.
What I think is interesting is it's now become overt.
The process of censorship has become explicit and is being legitimized as it happens.
We cannot show you Trump because he's going to be campaigning.
But America is supposed to be a free country.
We're supposed to be able to ascertain for ourselves whether or not we want to take Donald
Trump seriously, to dismiss him, to arraign him, to lock him up.
But of course the great hypocrisy at the heart of this is we know that MSNBC has previously
published untrue information.
And remember, and let me know in the chat if you agree with this, part of what we feel
is significant is that we're not talking about the contents of the boxes.
Did Trump have vital information that proves that the US have been planning a war with
Let me know in the chat what you think about that.
Let's have a look at the rest of this from Rachel Maddow before demonstrating other clear examples of MSNBC broadcasting untrue information which shows, look...
If they won't broadcast some information because it's untrue, that's the reason they're giving it, and yet they broadcast other information that we know to be untrue, that shows you there's an agenda.
I guess our key point is, what is the agenda that MSNBC are carrying?
Let's look.
As we have said before in these circumstances, There is a cost to us as a news organization to knowingly broadcast untrue things.
We are here to bring you the news.
It hurts our ability to do that.
I can't take any more of that.
Let's have a look at Rachel Maddow on COVID-19 vaccines.
If you're watching this on YouTube, obviously I'm not saying whether this is true or not.
You can decide for yourself using the WHO's guidelines which they still use on YouTube.
Have a look.
Join us on Rumble if you want to see a more exclusive insightful take on this.
We'll be talking to Michael Schellenberger about this in a minute.
Let's have a look.
Instead of the virus being able to hop from person to person to person, potentially mutating and becoming more virulent and drug-resistant along the way, now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.
A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else.
As of today, that information is still on YouTube.
As of today, MSNBC have not retracted that information.
Now, if that were one isolated example, you could say that we're cherry-picking, and indeed, to a point, we are narrativizing.
But let's move now to the subject of war.
Many people say that the Democratic Party have become the de facto party of war.
That's why Tulsi Gabbard, who's coming on the show soon, says she left the Democrat Party.
Now, another thing we've done content on before is MSNBC's framing of military-industrial complex Employees as experts without declaring their ties and relationships with organisations like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin who obviously benefit from ongoing war.
Many of the retired military leaders employed by MSNBC are paid contributors and have secondary affiliations that are rarely, if ever, mentioned, leaving viewers in the dark about whose interests they're promoting.
None of the leading networks, including obviously MSNBC, makes a regular practice of announcing its military analysts' financial ties to the Pentagon, connections that could colour their on-air comments, As documented in a Pulitzer Prize-winning series by the New York Times in 2008, the Pentagon orchestrated the commentary of 75 former officers who served as radio and TV analysts.
So that's one example.
I know what you lot are typing in the comments now, and if you're not joining us on Locals yet, press that red button and join us there now.
Russiagate, that's what you're going to be talking about.
You're going to be talking about The way that MSNBC and the mainstream media at large covered the allegations that Trump was a Russian asset, which we now know was completely untrue and understood to be true by the Deep State and the government themselves from very early on in the process.
Here's Rachel Maddow, by coincidence, reporting on that very subject.
Let's have a look.
If the presidency is effectively a Russian op, right?
If the American presidency right now is the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and an American campaign.
I mean, that is so profoundly big.
We not only need to stay focused on figuring it out.
We need to start preparing for what the consequences are going to be if it proves to be true.
Now I know that Rachel Maddow is acting in good faith even though we know that she appeared at an event sponsored by Lockheed Martin very recently to promote, I don't know, diversity or something extraordinary, important, but perhaps something that could do without the funding of Lockheed Martin.
But if she's acting in good faith it just shows you that the need for transparency and a lack of censorship is paramount because here is someone reporting in good faith things that have been proven to be completely untrue and participating in the censorship.
Would you call it censorship?
Let me know in the chat of Trump's post-arraignment speech making a decision For MSNBC viewers on their behalf of what information to take seriously and what information to ignore.
Now this is where we on Stay Free want to broaden out your perspective a little wider by using this article by Branko Markicic talking about the contents of those boxes.
You know, remember, we've asked you before, we just accept as a matter of course that there's information that's kept
from us and we're supposed not to question what the contents of top secret information and
dossiers might be. Is it that UFOs are real and have been collaborating and communicating
diplomatically with our governments for potentially 50, 60 years, at least since
Roswell?
Are there plans for forever wars?
Ongoing, expedient conflicts that are beneficial financially to the establishment, but not beneficial to the people of Middle Eastern nations in particular?
Now look at what some people allege are in those boxes.
This is from Branko Markatic's sub stack.
Is that right, Gareth?
It's on Jacobin, actually.
It's on Jacobin, which I believe to be a left-wing publication.
Again, this is one of our key points.
Right-wing, left-wing, it doesn't matter anymore.
We've got to find new anti-establishment alliances from across the spectrum.
We can't get caught up in these identity wars.
We can't get trapped in these old categories because we won't be able to move forward together.
That's another one of the things I'll be talking to Michael Schellenberger about in a minute.
Get your questions ready for him, for heaven's sake.
In a detail that's been almost entirely glossed over, central to this case are a set of secret government plans for attacking Iran.
Other than as a purely factual matter, or how to stress how recklessly Trump treated classified information, this has been little remarked upon.
Let me know in the chat, do you think that's more significant than the fact he took boxes?
What's contained in the boxes?
Remember with the recent Pentagon Papers Part 2, released by buddy boy Taxera, we were all focusing on him and what his political views were.
He's just a kid who cares what his political views are.
He's a nitwit.
No one knows anything about age anyway, do they?
Let me know in the chat.
Instead of focusing on the fact that he revealed there were boots on the ground, tootsies on the floor over there in Ukraine, that the war was widely regarded to be unwinnable, this is important vital information, certainly more important than personal information about the whistleblower.
The issue stems from Trump's apparent frustration with what he claimed was a false narrative being pushed by the press that after losing the 2020 election under the advice of Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump was dangerously close to ordering strikes on Iran that could have triggered full-scale war and had to be talked down from it By the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley.
So I suppose what is being claimed by Trump, or what potentially is true, is that this documentation proves which side of that argument he was on.
Was Trump trying to prevent an attack on Iran, or was Trump Agitate for an attack on Iran.
You know what you know about the establishment.
Let us know what you think in the chat.
And let me know why it's become so important to pursue Trump and why it's become so important to distract us, the public, from the contents of these boxes.
What do you think about all this, Gareth?
I mean I think it comes down to with MSNBC credibility at the end of the day.
I mean when we're talking about, I mean Michael himself will be on soon as written about the
fact that when it comes to, we saw the clip about talking about the vaccine, Pfizer itself
has poured money into news media organisations to promote not just the vaccine itself but
the crackdown on disfavoured speech.
So we already know there's not a credibility there.
When you know that this organisation is receiving millions of dollars from companies such as
Pfizer you know there's conflict of interest there.
So Pfizer promote their own product and also fund the censorship of information that's
not favourable for them.
Now Schellenberger if you've heard of him it's probably because of his great work on
the Twitter files which itself was the great revelation that the deep state and social
media platforms are more involved with one another than was previously admitted and maybe
more than was previously imagined.
In order to censor sometimes true information like Zuckerberg himself admitted true information
was taken down.
Why?
And how can these claims be made by MSNBC now?
What credibility does the mainstream have left when we know how they're funded, when
we know how they position pundits and experts, when we know which team they are batting for?
Now you know us, we don't care about the Republicans or the Democrats.
I don't think that the Republicans are meaningfully better than the Democrat Party.
Let me know in the chat if you disagree with that.
With relation to the vaccine, you can give the argument of the science was evolving and changing all the time, and I think that's a valid argument.
It was.
It was shifting all the time, and Rachel Maddow could say, well, at one time we thought this, and then it shifted.
But when it came to Russiagate and the Steele dossier, this is from the Washington Post, the FBI concluded that the dossier was mostly a jumble of claims that were inaccurate, unconfirmed, or already publicly reported.
Sourcing for the dossier was threadbare in the most charitable of depictions.
So this is a time when Rachel Maddow and everyone else at MSNBC was going on air to say, this is definitely true, Trump's affiliated with Russia, there's collusion going on, when we now know from the FBI that this was all unsubstantiated at the time.
They believe that they believed the information was true or that they wanted it to be true and reported it on that basis, whether that's on the subjects that coalesced around the pandemic period or indeed around advocating and agitating for war or Russiagate.
How do MSNBC treat the information that they convey?
How do they treat you as an audience member?
Are they interested in an ongoing discourse?
Are they interested in presenting information in a fair and balanced way, or are they interested
in supporting particular ideas, particular candidates, and conveying particular propaganda?
These questions and so many more are going to be answered, but only on Rumble.
If you're watching us on YouTube now, there's a link in the description.
Click on that.
Join us on Rumble to hear our exclusive conversation with Michael Schellenberger.
I've been talking to him before.
He's obviously fascinated on the subject of lab leaks.
He recently broke the story that the first people to be infected, allegedly, were all employees of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
And I've learned their names because they're all brilliant.
You, Hu, and Zhu.
Those were the first three.
Can you imagine the kind of childish jokes?
He's also incredibly, I would say, robust and bold on the subject of UFOs.
You're going to love the content there and we're going to be talking to him about this story, our main story today.
Is it the contents of those boxes that are important?
Has Trump got information to reveal that the USA was planning a war against Iran?
And of course, this being Michael Schellenberger, someone who I'm doing a live talk with.
There's a link in the chat and the description if you want to join us for that, by the way.
Me, Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger in London talking about the censorship industrial complex, which obviously we're going to talk about.
He wouldn't... He's got to play his hits.
Oh yeah.
Got it.
Yeah.
It's like if you see Rod Stewart and he didn't do Maggie Mae, what are you gonna think? Do Maggie Mae?
Yeah.
Yeah, do the censorship industrial complex. That's your hits, isn't it? You don't want to hear like some b-side
No, you don't hear something off. Oh, it's my latest album.
I'm interested in this now. Yeah, we don't care. No, wake up darling
I think I've got something to say to you.
That's it.
Wake up!
Darling!
Darling!
Okay, join us.
There's a link in the description.
Join us over there.
Do you care about free speech, Gareth?
No.
Remotely.
It's important, though.
Even if Darren, Gareth, he can't be made to care.
Darren?
Who's Darren?
I think I remember what I said.
How long have we worked together?
Who are you again?
Garen.
Even if Garen here, a fine fellow, doesn't care a jot about freedom of speech or free speech, I do.
And where free speech and speech meet, you get freech.
I didn't want my voice over both of them.
Handsome Jack, the bad graphic blag.
He's done it again, hasn't he?
He's off to pursue his dreams as an actor and if he's acting as even half as appalling as his graphics making, we're in for some wooden appearances in soap commercials.
Should do great in Hollywood, eh?
I don't know.
Never did.
about me and I would though. I was a very nuanced. One of the best. Oi! I left there
willingly. I wouldn't wear the hats, I wouldn't do it.
Wouldn't keep down all of the conspiracies they wanted me to keep down. I came over here to give you
free speech right where it hurts, up the ghoulies. Now where is this free speech? Right, so
here we go.
Uh, not Putin.
Russell, what the F, says not Putin, and this is about me on a mobility scooter, which is something that we should be cautious broadcasters.
I've been in trouble for this before because an activist for a disability group said that they didn't like that I did it, but this particular person on a mobility scooter, well, they didn't like it much either.
Have a look.
There you go, that's just me over in America helping others as usual.
Yeah, we're off YouTube at this point, aren't we?
There you go, that's just me over in America helping others as usual.
Yeah, we're off YouTube at this point, aren't we?
That's right.
Probably best, I would say.
Yeah, some people don't like that.
This is Prime7.
I noticed you're revealing more flesh each day.
How far are you planning to go?
Pants and socks?
Possibly.
Oh yeah, that looks alright though, doesn't it?
What was I doing there?
Is that what I was doing?
Happy birthday, Mr. President, to Donald Trump?
It could be any time, to be honest.
I'm amazed you've got that much on.
In some ways, overdressed.
Here's some of your reactions on the Trump arraignment.
LadyGrey312, she says, political persecution is clear when you see Clinton and Biden were not charged for the same or worse crimes.
I saw Jon Stewart do a piece the other day about Trump's alleged embezzlement from his own charity foundation.
He was saying that Trump is treated differently, favourably by the establishment And perhaps there are examples of that being true, if indeed what Jon Stewart's saying about the embezzlement.
Let me know in the chat if you know about that story.
But when it comes to this stuff, I mean... Look, I get that, and that might be true, but when you take an example like MSNBC or, you know, CNN did the same thing.
They refused to air the speech.
Following the arraignment.
Like we're making a stand.
The same CNN who literally four ratings, we know, got Trump and did that town hall speech a couple of weeks beforehand.
It's not consistent.
They both, both of those networks made billions and billions of dollars when Trump got into power by airing him.
We know the MSNBC and both again working with kind of Hillary Clinton and the DNC to push Trump and elevate him in the kind of Pied Piper strategy.
You know, because he'd be an easier candidate to beat.
They're not, you know, they're being disingenuous with all of this I feel.
I don't think that the Pied Piper strategy went very well because even with the original
Pied Piper, I like him, even though what he did was he killed those children, didn't he?
Firstly he led the rats out of Hamelin, great job, don't knock him on his bill.
Then he led all the children out.
Now this Pied Piper strategy, if backing candidates that you feel that your candidate will do
well against, like Donald Trump, who turned into sort of some gargantuan portal for the
nation's emotions, whether for good or for ill, has failed and yet are they doing it
Let us know in the chat if you think the mainstream media is still trying to frame Trump as a favoured opponent, or are they trying to bring him down because he is the Great Swamp Drainer?
And if you believe he is the man that drains the swamp, how come that swamp didn't get drained more during that four years?
Do you think that the deep state controlled him?
Do you think that's what's in those boxes?
What is in those boxes?
Open the lid!
Stare deep, deep inside that box, and if the last three years brought to you incomparable peril and doubt, then you might want to take a
glance in the direction of some good humor. I made a special during that time. Brandemic is
premiering on Moment from the 25th of June. It's uncensored, it's self-funded, it's having a
laugh about a period that many of us found tragic and filled with deception. It's called
Brandemic. Have a look now.
It's been a weird couple of years, let's face it.
This is the COVID-19 timeline.
January 2020!
Patients in Wuhan are infected with a new form of coronavirus.
I remember that bit.
I remember thinking, who gives a f***ing s***?
Tell me when it gets to a bit of China I'm f***ing heard of, then I might start caring.
LISTEN!
HOW MUCH F***ING SP- What on a f***ing bat do you need before you start understanding science?
Yeah, but... What?
But... What?
What?
Well, it's just over here, the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
where they're doing gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
Yeah!
♪♪ I stood there like an obedient prisoner of the state
on my little f****** sticker circle.
Then I took my turn nicely, like Twister for wankers.
Listen to what some people said on the surveys we give out when you get tickets.
Where are you Mr. John?
There he is Mr. John, Mr. John.
Response to the question, what's the naughtiest thing you did during lockdown?
telling all my neighbors I was a medical worker so they would direct their applause at me during claps for carers
some have called it a masterpiece It premieres on the 25th of June.
There's a link in your description.
You can get it now.
Hello there.
Be calm, be still.
Surely the reason you've become so priapic, so prehensile, so mobile, oh microphone of mine, is because you have understood that in the studio with me right now, oh yeah, Michael Schellenberger is present.
Is he the Bob Woodward of his time?
Is he a dazzling devil with a washboard belly?
Are you happy to be here in the UK, Michael?
Thanks for joining us.
So happy.
Thanks for having me.
How was customs?
Did they give you any trouble?
Sailed through.
Just sailed through?
It was fine.
The machines didn't work, but I went through with people.
Did you have to do that bit where you put your hands like that?
No, it was very easy.
Did they say, no, come this way, sir?
Yeah.
None of this?
The biometric devices failed on me, so I had to get through the people, but it worked great.
Michael, before we get into our interview, tell us why you are here at the moment in London.
I'm here to launch the campaign against the censorship industrial complex with you and Matt Taibbi this Thursday 7pm Central Hall Westminster.
How are we going to create a campaign and a movement around such a complex system that has the obvious advantage as conveyed in its name of being able to shut down opposition?
Firstly, how?
And secondly, why is it... See, I'm a proper journalist now.
And why is it so important that we do that?
The most important thing is just to expose it.
Just drag it into the light.
That's what we did in Congress.
That's what you've been doing.
And then I think the other part of it is just to make fun of it.
It's just absurd that here we are, 250 years after the Constitution of the United States puts as our First Amendment free speech, that we're having to defend free speech and make the case for free speech in our societies.
And then we need a global movement.
That's the third part.
It's not just in the United States.
It's in Britain, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Ireland are all places where we see an attack on free speech.
We have to stand together.
There's a global war on free speech.
We need the global resistance.
And it's not just a rhetorical attack on free speech, is it, Michael?
It's a legal and regulatory attack on free speech.
First, ideologically, free speech is being conflated with a whole host of nefarious ideas such as racism and the subcategory, I suppose, of antisemitism and hatred.
But I've noticed lately a tendency, when there is an appetite within the establishment to control or shut something down, that the first thing they do is conflate it with something that is demonstrably Evil.
Is that why it's important to have free speech as a principle that is somehow unencroachable?
That's right.
I mean, we saw, I mean, for years, right, we had cancel culture.
So we had a culture that said people should self-censor.
We see people trying to get cancelled their comedy acts or their speeches in the university.
Now we see the censorship industrial complex using that sort of woke culture and tapping into it to suggest that People are engaged in hate speech.
They're tapping into fears of COVID.
We saw climate change, trans issues.
So they just keep finding more justifications, more reasons to censor you.
I think we have to remind people that our societies have never been more tolerant of racial, religious, and sexual minorities than they are today.
Over 95% of Americans support the right of black and white people to get married, up from just about 4% in the 1950s.
I mean, compare how much more tolerant we are to how people were 50 years ago, 100 years ago.
So this idea that there's more hatred in this society is itself a hateful idea.
It stems right out of the Hillary Clinton idea that there's these deplorables, these terrible people that support Trump, that there's somehow some rise in these hateful attitudes.
There's no evidence for it.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
We're more tolerant, we're more loving as a people than we've ever been.
In the way that free speech is being framed as a right-wing issue, it sometimes feels to me, like within the spaces in media that we all operate in, like here on Rumble, you know, click the red button, join us on Locals, that there is almost a a tendency and a trend for the right to actually to be advocating on behalf of these issues so but you don't strike me as a person that would be traditionally affiliated with the republican party or right-wing movements you strike me as i guess you'd be old-fashioned metropolitan liberal type of a person i mean these are just guesses i'm basing on having spoken to for sure i mean i was a democrat until about a year and a half ago i'm an independent now
But yeah, when I was growing up, when I graduated from high school, the Supreme Court ruled that you could burn the American flag.
It was Republicans and conservatives who thought that should be prohibited.
The ACLU was a defender of the right of neo-Nazis to build a march through Jewish neighborhoods, including neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors.
It was the left that was the defender of free speech.
That's basically reversed itself.
So when we were antagonized in front of Congress, Matt Taibbi and me, we were being criticized by Democrats who have been demanding more censorship.
I think it's because Republicans are now in the minority, they're feeling persecuted, and the Democrats and progressives are really on this holy war of wokeism, and it's just stemmed right out of that.
So you have cancel culture from the bottom, censorship industrial complex from the top.
That's why it's important to have principles that are transcendent of usual political affiliations, I suppose.
Is there a figure in political and public life who, more than Donald Trump, somehow exemplifies these new differences, this demagoguery?
And what do you think in particular about this latest round of... Are they attacks on Trump, indeed?
Let me know in the chat if that's how you regard it.
Or is Trump a felon?
Is Trump a danger to democracy?
Is Trump an enemy of the state?
Or is Trump being curtailed and controlled precisely because he's a kind of berserker bull in the china shop?
And also, if you could cover in this rather corroming question, what do you, not what do you imagine is in these boxes, Branko Makaric has said that They potentially contain US plans to attack Iran, and is that in particular part of the problem here?
And more generally, when dealing with whistleblowers, shouldn't we be talking about the content of what they're conveying, rather than the individuals themselves?
I mean, what I think people have to understand is that we have this amazing system in the United States.
We have checks and balances, we have a Supreme Court.
When people saw the riot at the Capitol on January 6th, which was a total disaster, it was terrible, you have to remember that that's not the same as a coup.
I've lived in Latin America, I've seen what coups look like. It's when the military takes over the
Supreme Court, it's when they dissolve Congress, it's when they take over the newspapers.
The idea that our system is so fragile that a president who denies the results of the
elections, if that's what you think happened, or expresses skepticism, the idea that that
somehow would result in the overthrow of the government is bizarre.
So there's some sense among a lot of progressives in the United States right now that our system is fragile.
And so we've seen that in the culture too.
This treatment of children is fragile.
The democracy is fragile.
Everybody is fragile.
And I think we have to get back to the sense in which we're resilient, we're strong.
Our country is capable of dealing with different opinions.
That's the heart of what it means to live in a liberal democracy.
There's an interesting piece of cultural diagnosis that you've just offered there.
The Romantic period, perhaps, was defined by art and poetry that portrayed nature herself as a vital goddess that could hold, herald, contain, destroy us all.
And then nature, too, has become subject to this framing of fragility, and perhaps deeper psychic wounds are being worked through at this time.
When the news cycle starts to seriously carry stories about UFOs, which I know a lot of our viewers think are false flags, they think we're being fed these stories to distract us, that there's no truth to them.
For me it feels like this is something seismic, this is something epochal is happening.
Our framing of reality is starting to glitch and alter, even if the stories are being used somehow as a distraction.
What's your take on on these stories Michael? I mean what I'll say so I wrote a
Twitter files thread about the Hunter Biden laptop and what we saw was a genuine operation
by retired CIA people, retired or so-called retired FBI people, spreading disinformation
about the Hunter Biden laptop suggesting that it was a result of Russian disinformation.
Same thing with Russiagate around Trump, the idea that he was somehow a Russian asset
despite no evidence for that.
What you're seeing with UFOs is the exact opposite.
The whistleblowers are themselves fearful and persecuted.
The people off the record, they were terrified to talk.
They did not want their names being used.
They were not part of some orchestrated disinformation campaign.
We should never rule out that there's some possibility that's what's going on.
Certainly the military has used UFOs in the past to sort of distract people's attention from secret spy activities.
But what we've seen here is the whistleblower that came forward, this person, David Grush, very highly rated, had
top secret clearance.
He went to the Defense Department office to study UFOs called Aero.
They were not passing the information on to Congress.
He then went to Congress because they had set aside a special whistleblower program for him.
And then various people came forward.
I spoke to them after our testimony.
People trusted us and said, we want to go to you and talk to you about what's really going on.
And they said, David Grush is the real deal.
This is really happening.
We do have UFOs that we've captured over the years.
It sounds totally crazy.
I'm just reporting what people have told me and these are people that were very fearful.
This was not coming from official sources in contrast to Russiagate and the Hunter Biden laptop where it was official people publicly saying this is Russian disinformation.
That's not what's going on here with UFOs.
Right, so to you these seem like legitimate stories and I suppose the re- like prior- it's interesting Michael because we're talking to you already we can see how there's been cultural shifts around what have been regarded as Almost defining issues, free speech, I just sort of assume free speech, that's a left-wing thing, because free speech, because of alternative lifestyles, alternative forms of identity, free speech, the right to speak out against power, that's what free speech is.
This peculiar reversal of the magnetism No, no, no.
Your free speech is dangerous and it's threatening and it's the role of the state to shut down this hateful speech.
Now that the state has plainly rejected any role to oppose corporate power, globalist hegemony.
Let me know in the chat if you think that that shift has occurred.
Similarly, we're seeing a shift in a subject like UFOs, which was the preserve of nut jobs, crackpots, potheads and crack house denizens, becoming something that's seriously discussed by credible journalists.
Like me, and amateur hobbyist journalists like credible journalists like you.
So do you ever step back and even postulate or imagine what the broader themes here might be in the same way that you've suggested that fragility appears to be an underlying idea when it comes to democracy?
Yeah, for sure.
I mean, I think that what we saw with the Twitter files is that it wasn't just about sort of woke culture demanding censorship.
It was also about former FBI, CIA, DOD, Department of Homeland Security demanding censorship by Twitter.
So what you're really seeing is after the war on terrorism, because it was very successful, the United States basically succeeded, you had this huge infrastructure built up to fight the war on terror.
Many of those people then Turned their guns domestically toward towards inward.
So you saw in the Obama years this transition occurred and then really it was the revolutions of 2016.
It was Brexit.
It was the election of Trump and the establishment got very freaked out that they were going to see basically an unraveling of the liberal world order of NATO of the Western Alliance Britain pulling out of the EU.
And they panicked.
And they said, we've got to turn these very powerful weapons of disinformation and censorship that we've been using in other countries against the American people.
And that's what's been going on.
So the censorship itself, it's not often just about preventing us from seeing the information.
It's also about spreading disinformation.
So the Hunter Biden laptop, it wasn't that people didn't hear about the story, but it's that people like myself, because I thought, I believed it.
I thought it was Russian disinformation because that's That's what Twitter said.
That's what Facebook said.
That's what all the mainstream media said.
So what you're seeing is an orchestrated influence operation, they call it.
They used to call it PSYOPs or an information operation being waged against the American people.
You mentioned before the vaccines.
They were censoring true stories of vaccine side effects because they were worried it would lead to an outcome they didn't want, which was vaccine hesitancy.
So what we're seeing, experiencing and living in is a highly curated public space where the principle of freedom, not only freedom of speech but freedom itself, is being incrementally eroded.
We're seeing a rise of authoritarianism but with a new aesthetic.
And in a sense it's quite obvious after the despotism of the previous century that it wouldn't be a militaristic veiled version of fascism or the centralised authority that we would see, but this new emergent phenomena where we're being told that we're being cared for, that there's this sort of extraordinary aesthetic of protection Yeah, you got it.
Yeah, you absolutely got it.
It's done in the name of taking care.
But look, they're chasing us all around.
I mean, they're chasing you, chasing people off of YouTube.
Now you got to go to Rumble.
They chased us off of Facebook.
We broke the story where we found the first three people to get sick from COVID on Twitter.
It had been viewed five million times and we put it on Facebook.
It had been shared five times.
Not 5,000 times.
Not 5,000 times.
Shared five times because they are clearly throttling us on Facebook about this.
So, you know, it's, I mean, if Elon Musk hadn't taken over Twitter, and people have a lot of criticisms of Elon, some of them fair, some unfair, but if he hadn't taken over Twitter, we wouldn't have known about the extent of the censorship.
And now we're able to get this information out about COVID origins, about vaccine side effects, a whole set of other issues.
And they're just not done.
They keep trying to censor him.
You know, you may have seen when he was off in China taking care of his Tesla plants, his own people at Twitter censored this movie, What Is A Woman?
He came back, he had to fire his top censor from Twitter.
So it's just, it's everywhere.
And this is why it requires a movement that's across borders.
We have to fight on all fronts because they are actually cracking down Everywhere at the same time, including on YouTube.
How can this movement...
Deny and in fact countenance the charge that it is one-sided without ensuring that there are voices from across the political spectrum and in particular around the issues and movements that are being used to legitimize censorship.
Isn't it important that the presentation of this movement necessarily includes voices from across the spectrum because In this sort of highly tribalised environment, I feel like, just with you, Harold Dinson, let us know if you agree, that there's almost an appetite to turn it into a us versus them war, to sort of lean into a sort of something that's simple, like the argument around Bud Light, or the argument around what is a woman, where, like, me, personally, I don't care how people identify, I feel like people should be able to do whatever they want.
It's when it comes down to censorship and the inability of people to have opposing views that I feel like we're in difficult situations.
Yeah, and we have seen that now.
So the Guardian yesterday reported that the head of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas in Britain, had been surveilled and watched for her tweets on COVID.
We know that also they're cracking down on critics of the war in Ukraine.
So it's not a left-right thing, but it's definitely an elite populist thing.
What you're seeing is really a big concern from the establishment, from elites, to control the information that we're able to receive and also to control whether we perceive it as accurate or inaccurate.
It's interesting that you use the term populism at this point, Michael, because I have a sense that what's required is a new mass movement more broadly that's international, trans-political, and is indeed populist.
But populism has become something of a dirty word.
in politics. But for me, the idea that ordinary people ought be able to democratically decide
for themselves how their communities are run, what kind of legislation they're subject to,
without the assumption that there is the requirement for a technocratic cadre to legislate, to
control information. Elitism is the key word, isn't it?
It's determined that there is an expert class that ought be able to control information.
And when they use one dialectic to shut down discourse, like, oh, these people are right-wing, that's why we have to censor them, then a figure like RFK emerges.
Ah, well, you see, he's anti-vax, so we have to shut him down.
And in the end, what you see is that there's only a very narrow window within which we're allowed to converse at all.
That's right, and when they're engaged in a cover-up, like they were doing around the lab leak, they say anybody who says there's a potential lab leak is engaged in a conspiracy theory.
You have to see it all as a kind of psychological projection.
People that are conspiring or accusing others of engaging in a conspiracy theory, The people that are waging campaigns of disinformation are accusing us of the disinformation.
But I think you're absolutely right.
I mean, at bottom, there is just a kind of snobbery here.
There's some sense in which I should decide what you should be able to read.
I should decide what you should be able to... It's very old.
It goes back to Plato wanting to have control over the information the public received.
We rejected that.
We got rid of that 250 years ago.
The people that created the United States of America, there were some people who said,
hey, you need free speech so you can have a democracy and you can have free markets.
But there were other people, and I think they really got more into the spirit of it, who
said to have free speech is to be fully human.
It's to be able to breathe and to eat and to live.
You're not fully a human being without your ability to express your own views, right or
I mean, often we don't know what the right answer is until you have a chance to have an argument.
You need to be comfortable, and this is the saddest thing with woke culture, you have to feel free to be wrong and express some half-baked idea in order to get your head right.
You can't do that without, you often can't be right without being wrong.
Even though within the woke culture, if it's fair to use that term, I sense ideas that are really valuable about protecting people's rights to be who they are and nurture and care, and even a term as broad and potentially unhelpful as love could be identified as what's beneath this movement.
The problem is, of course, is that it extracts the ability for salvation, redemption, forgiveness, communication it becomes ultimately a bad faith argument.
The assumption that people are negative and ought be maligned and will be shut
down and that the answer is increasing control. I'm sure you're familiar
with in fact you're probably the person who introduced me to the Gurry's book
there, The Revolt of the Public and he's broader perspective is as you just outlined
these old establishment models are under threat whether it's NATO or
CNN or the BBC whether they're media, government or global organizations
they are becoming untenable because of the miracle of the communications
miracle that's taken place in the last 20 years.
One pathway leads to more self-organisation, more democracy, an ability to curate from a variety of different views, a good faith conversation.
I almost sort of sometimes contemplate an alternative recent past where at the beginning they were
able to go, oh Joe Rogan's got some interesting stuff to say and he's bringing on this guy
Robert Malone and he did invent this particular aspect of it and these people have got an
interesting view about lab leagues.
But it seemed like authority itself was the aim, to regulate itself was the aim.
Even something as plainly observable as the profits of Pfizer, the increased power of big tech, the wealth transfer of trillions, don't seem to be the master plan, merely tendrils that hang from its undercarriage.
It's the beast of authority itself that's slouching towards it.
Yeah, we're seeing this right now.
I mean, the big debate over the last 48 hours on Twitter was because a vaccine advocate named Peter Hotez criticized Joe Rogan for having Robert F. Kennedy on, and then later said something to the effect of, well, science isn't about having debate.
Well, science is absolutely about having debate.
I mean, that's how you figure out the right answer.
You have hypotheses.
You test them.
You subject them to argument.
If you're afraid, I mean there's a weird mixture of arrogance and insecurity here.
On the one hand it's arrogance to say, I know the right answer and you should not be allowed to express your opinion.
But there's also some insecurity that you're so fragile that you can't actually subject your ideas to some sort of debate.
Joe Rogan, like, he hosts podcasts that go for like three hours.
There's plenty of time in three hours to be able to surface your ideas.
So what are you so afraid of?
And so really, again, once again, you see this idea that the public or that democracy is too fragile to allow debate is itself a kind of projection from, I think, very fragile people.
Also that neglects to acknowledge that when we're talking about science, you can't just have that as like an orb of language that conveys veracity, experimentation, double-blind clinical trials.
Science often is a subset of a deeper ideology.
Particularly and observably, science was utilised, and let me know if you agree with this in the chat, science was utilised as a sort of a measure of authoritarianism.
That you cannot argue with this particular bit of science.
And, like, my God, like, Gareth and I do this show five times a week.
It's almost impossible to track the number of arguments that began at position A, which legitimised authoritarianism, and we found our way all the way to Zed, not Zee, and you cannot countenance these arguments.
Lockdowns may not have worked, masks may not have worked, the vaccines were not effective in the ways they were initially argued, Well that's right and also people have a very simplistic idea sometimes about what the truth is or about what the facts are.
It just again, they said they weren't going to profit, they did profit.
In the end it just becomes a sort of a real time example of how new authoritarianism functions.
Well that's right and also people have a very simplistic idea sometimes about what the truth
is or what the facts are.
If you just look at the COVID crisis, at the vaccine, the COVID variants kept evolving
and changing and the vaccine had changing efficacy with different variants over time
and ultimately it was the Omicron variant that resulted in really the end of the pandemic.
So we had a very that it was a very simplistic picture at the beginning which was we're going to lock everybody down and then everybody will get these vaccines and then we'll have herd immunity.
It didn't work that way at all.
It didn't work at all how they predicted it.
So the idea that Truth doesn't stand still.
It's constantly evolving.
Reality is constantly changing and that means that the explanations of reality and the knowledge has to keep evolving with it.
I sensed your argument about terrorism and the measures that were undertaken in order to oppose terrorism and how they were later utilized and repurposed in order to create this sort of domestic control.
Might be prevalent here.
Once you evoke these powers, it's difficult to put these powers down.
It's difficult to acknowledge that you're no longer in the climate where that's required.
It's like there's some invisible momentum behind these ideas.
Now, returning to this censorship industrial complex, what does a movement that opposes it look like?
You've said initially exposure, laughing about it, being clear about it.
How do we, you know, with this event we've got coming up in London, with presumably this being some contract that's going to be carried out over time, Michael, because you can't just show up in London Like this is some one night stand between you, me and Matt Tybee.
Otherwise I'm going to revert to the side of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and see you as so-called journalists, Flybernites, Twitter exploiters and charlatans.
How does this become something that plays out over time?
How does it become something that essentially opposes the legislation that's being passed in the Five Eyes countries?
To penalise platforms that house free speech.
And how do we ensure that we are able to say free speech is everybody's free speech.
It's the free speech of people that are all over the spectrum when it comes to even issues of identity politics.
And with this being, I believe, the 10th year anniversary.
I suppose anniversary means 10 years.
10th anniversary of Snowden being charged with espionage.
With Trump being charged with espionage right now.
With free speech seeming to be under more threat now than ever before.
With Snowden himself saying that the measures and surveillance capabilities that are available now dwarf what was going on when he made those exposures.
How robust and inclusive must a movement to oppose it be?
Well, I think the most important thing is that we need to go on the offensive.
And so we're tired of defending our strong First Amendment protections of free speech from other countries.
So what we want to do is work with these new friends.
It was just very exciting.
People are coming from around the world to join our movement here.
And we're going to help everybody to go on the offensive.
They should have more free speech rights in other countries.
We should not have fewer.
So we're going to help them to change their laws around the world to expand free speech so that it's closer to the very high golden standard of First Amendment rights in the United States.
That's the first thing.
The second thing is that we just have to expose these organizations and defund them and then dismantle them.
Many of these organizations are... Matt Taibbi created a report of 50 of the most important censorship organizations.
These are non-governmental organizations, government contractors.
He created a report of them so we know their names, we know where they are, so we can just go to lawmakers in the United States and other countries and say, please stop funding this group.
Or if this group is doing other good work, as it may be the case, then fund that, but tell them they must no longer engage in censorship activities.
You mentioned Snowden.
Even in that case, I think people thought at the time that it was just about surveillance.
But what we've seen that the surveillance, it doesn't stop with surveillance.
The surveillance continues and then it turns into censorship.
So you're monitoring somebody, monitoring it seems innocent enough, I'm just reading their tweets.
Well no, then quickly you're going to Twitter and you're saying, please, you need to stop that Russell Brand social media post from going viral, or you need to make sure that Michael Schellenberger is on a blacklist so that anytime he posts something it doesn't go viral, it doesn't get fed into other people's feeds.
So we need to build that global movement, demand greater free speech rights, expose the censorship industrial complex, and then defund and dismantle them.
God, you have got a manifesto, that's good that you've done one of those.
Also, I think we should defund and disband Matt Taibbi himself.
Disband him, defund him, break him up into all his component parts and release him back into the wild.
It will be unfair, Michael Schellenberger, to bring you all this way to the United Kingdom to conduct our conference in London, there's a link in the description and in the chat if you want to get tickets, without exposing you to Britain's best investigative journalist who needs no introduction, except perhaps this one.
Gareth's in, yeah, that's him over there. He's got a link.
I get to ask a question. It's not patronising, it's got a jingle.
I just wondered what you thought about the policies around disinformation in terms of
how they relate to the lack of populist policies around economy now. I read an article by Lee
Fang this week about Obama taking advantage of tax loopholes that he campaigned against
and during his presidency spoke about against and is now using them to pay half the amount
of tax that normal everyday Americans pay.
I just thought it was interesting that at a time when we go through the pandemic and a wealth transfer that occurs, When we go through the Ukraine war at the moment, where companies are making, you know, record profits, the way that people are being shut down around disinformation, and Obama himself is someone who has, as Lee Fang writes himself, stopped populist economic arguments altogether, in favor of talking about disinformation.
That seems to be his thing now, disinformation the same way that Joe Biden's doing it.
I just wonder if you think that there's a kind of correlation with the idea that we need to be shutting down people around Disinformation and not remotely talking about economic populist theories and arguments anymore, redistribution of wealth, about what to do, about the fact that all these companies during the pandemic made ludicrous and record profits.
Do you think that's something that plays into the use of disinformation policies?
Oh, absolutely.
I would say they're just two sides of the same coin.
I mean, so you saw that one of the threats that the censorship industrial complex emerged to combat was Brexit and the labeling.
So you saw with Brexit, the labeling of the supporters of Brexit who wanted greater control over Britain's future, but it was the labeling of supporters of Brexit as racists, as nationalists.
You see this strong emphasis on anti-Semitism, a clear Uh, attempt to sort of call everybody fascists who support these policies.
So I do think there's a very strong relation.
Same thing with Trump.
The idea was that it's not populism, it's actually fascism.
But no, it's clear.
I mean, the beneficiaries of globalization overwhelmingly were the upper 1%, top 10%.
Those were the folks that were pushing back against Brexit, that wanted the globalization.
There's a lot of benefits to globalization.
I've certainly benefited Many of us have benefited from many aspects of it, but I think it got to a point where we started to lose control over it.
We didn't really feel like, in all of our countries, that we had much say in it.
And it became clear with the censorship that the elites didn't want us to have much say over it.
And when we did have say over it, we were saying all the wrong things.
Any form of aggregation centralizes power and will require some form of distribution and potentially redistribution.
We've seen already that most systems of government do incorporate redistribution of assets and wealth through subsidy, through maintenance of Dead systems.
The phrase zombie capitalism is one that describes an economic system that's already in decline and perhaps has already experienced collapse.
So, ultimately, the censorship industrial complex itself is simply a tool to maintain the power of the elite.
So, Gareth's question was an excellent one that brought together the incentive for the censorship industrial complex.
It just helped us.
Why the fuck to have this thing in the first place?
Well, in order to maintain those systems, right?
Well, yeah, I mean, look at this issue of the moving of the... Obama, to his great credit, banned gain-of-function research in 2014, OK?
Cambridge, there's a Cambridge working group, they said, this is really dangerous, we can't see any clear benefits to this kind of research.
No clear benefits?
What if there was a pandemic one day?
Yeah, well, yeah, so, I mean, exactly.
So, yeah, but then Fauci and Collins and this guy Peter Doszak with Eco Hollow Lines, they moved it to China, They then said, oh it's not really gain-of-function research, it's chimeric research, and they made up some justification for it.
These are unelected officials who are making decisions that ultimately affected everybody on earth.
So I think that's the kind of arrogance, the lack of accountability, Are you suggesting that that gain-of-function research that was conducted in China, because it was banned in the US, had some consequences that we might be aware of?
I thought you were going to say Fauci, Daszak and Collins, they moved it to China, where they conducted some research in Wuhan, and that was the last anyone heard of it.
No further problems.
And now, if you get a bat coronavirus, you can go to bed at night safe in the knowledge, as Rachel Maddow said, you take one jab and that's it.
That's it.
You'll be fit as a fiddle.
I mean, and there's a technocratic response where they go, well, it was at a too low of a security level lab.
It was at BSL 2.
It should have been at BSL 4.
But the fundamental issue is that these were not issues that were properly debated.
It was not decided by Congress.
Rand Paul's done a great job drawing attention to this.
He has, hasn't he?
Yeah, he really has.
I mean, when I first heard him talking about it, I thought he sounded like a conspiracy theorist.
And now I'm finding that he was spot on from the beginning to be alarmed about this.
So we do have dangerous things in the world that we have a lot of care to manage.
Radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological.
Sometimes they have benefits.
There's reasons to keep smallpox, some amount of it around, experiment with it.
But the public should have a say in that.
We had a huge debate over nuclear power for like 50 years in the Western world.
And now we have cameras in every nuclear facility.
And I'm a big advocate of nuclear power, but I'm shocked when I look at the lack of regulation for coronavirus research.
I mean, if they had the level of regulation for nuclear, it might be a different story.
Wow.
That's fantastic.
Thank you, Michael, for pulling together such a vast array of complex subjects, from UFOs, from the microbial, from the microscopic, to the cosmic and cosmological.
Michael Schellenberger can be relied on to create true narratives.
And alongside his oppo, Matt Taibbi, who can't be here for... What's he doing?
Warming his voice up?
Finally having some honey and lemon for the voice that he's got, that bloody time.
Will be appearing.
Look, there's an image there of us, me.
That was taken just yesterday, wasn't it, Gareth, that photograph of me?
I like it!
That's just more than there I am staring Koresh like out into the future I simply wasn't prepared for.
Join us if you wanna live in London at Central Hall Westminster there's a link in the description
but I think we're forming lifelong bonds here to oppose the censorship industrial complex aren't we?
Well let's hope we can shut it down before our lifelong bonds expire.
I've got the wrong attitude, I saw it after it was like one before it was to keep it going.
I like it, it's lucrative as hell!
Shut it down.
We'll shut it down in a few weeks, then we can get the old aliens down and start working out what's going on with that.
Sounds pretty sexy to me.
Get your tickets at censorshipindustrialcomplex.com.
That's the name of your website.
Dot org.
All right.
That's the distinction.
You can learn more from Michael by checking out Public on Substack.
I'm a subscriber myself, and I enjoy it.
I'm always, when I get that email, I'm always, I enjoy that, don't you?
Send that across to me.
Sometimes I say, oh, I'm in there.
Look.
I'll scan it for that.
No, that's not me.
That's not me.
Ah, there's me there.
Oh no, it's someone else's email.
Okay, listen, we're gonna leave it now, but we've got a fantastic week.
We've got James O'Keefe, him that did that Big Pharma thing, and also he was in a musical of Oklahoma.
Who else we got this week?
We've got some fantastic people.
Oh, the people that... We've got bloody Yoga with Adrian coming on here.
I'm gonna do actual yoga.
There's no point freeing yourself from censorship and then having a lower back issue.
Is there? Also you've got to awaken your most dormant systems.
We're going to be talking about BlackRock, WFU, Crane, as well as getting in touch with some pretty powerful lower
chakra energy over the course of the week.
Remember, join our locals community. We're just one red button away.
That includes you, Michael. I expect to see you jabbing away at that red button.
You can see all of the interviews we've done already with RFK, Richard Dawkins, Jordan Peterson, Marianne Williamson.
They're all on there.
Also remember my stand-up special Brandemic is premiering on the 25th of June on Moment.
Pre-order your tickets now.
There's a link in the description.
But now...
In order to celebrate Michael Schellenberger even further, we are covering yet more of the consequences of that pandemic period.
During the first month of lockdown, it's been conjectured 18 months was slashed from the life of heart attack victims, who've already been suffering enough, ain't they?
Join us tomorrow here, 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.
Thanks for refusing Fox News.
You're the dude.
No, he's the fucking loser.
New study suggests lockdowns robbed heart attack sufferers of one and a half years of their life on average.
Zuckerberg admits that true and debatable information was censored.
Who then is responsible for these deaths and shortened lives?
Did you know that a new study has revealed that during lockdown many people had heart attacks, didn't call it in because they were told there's more important things happening.
Were those things more important?
Let me know what you think.
What's more likely to kill you?
A heart attack or coronavirus?
Also, what's the relationship between heart attacks and coronavirus?
This we will get into in time.
Let's unpack this so we can understand it better together.
If true information was being censored, if people suffering from genuine life-threatening illnesses were not getting the care they needed, what was the point of lockdown?
What was the point of lockdown?
This is from those whack-a-doodle conspiracy theorists over at the fuddy-duddy establishment newspaper, The Telegraph.
The first month of lockdown cut a year and a half off the lives of heart attack victims in the UK, a major study suggests.
The international research published in the European Heart Journal, what do they know about the hearts of Europe?
Those crackpot hobbyists.
All they want to do really is just analyse the journal and study the hearts of Europe.
That's all we really do.
You're a conspiracy theorist!
The European Heart Journal tracked the care of patients who suffered major heart attacks in the four weeks following lockdown with a similar group the year before.
After Boris Johnson issued the order to stay home, protect the NHS and save lives, advice that he simply didn't follow himself.
He went out, had parties and did what the hell ever he fancied doing, as usual, and currently is over in your country, America, lobbying to continue the war between Ukraine and Russia.
So, there's a guy whose opinion to take pretty seriously.
After Boris Johnson issued the order to stay home, protect the NHS and save lives, the number of heart attack patients admitted to hospital plummeted.
Research published in The Lancet... Oh yeah, The Lancet.
What's that?
Run by Alex Jones?
No, no, actually we're just trying to learn about medicine and the efficacy of pharmacology.
Yeah, you're a conspiracy theorist.
Has previously shown a 40% fall in such admissions in the first weeks of the pandemic with patients staying away for fear of being a burden or catching the virus while some treatment was stopped.
Wow, I wonder if anyone was saying stuff like that.
During the lockdown, hey, what are going to be the implications on cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other conditions caused by that bad food you keep advertising at us all the time?
The new study, which examined published data, estimates the impact of lack of care on life expectancy for patients who suffered major heart attacks.
I wonder what the impact is of a lack of care on people who have suffered major heart attacks.
That's not important right now.
What we've got to deal with is conspiracy theories.
The lack of care on a major heart attack is second to the idea that someone might, I don't know, be in a park less than two meters away from another person, or not take exactly the medicine at exactly the time that makes the most profit.
I mean, has the maximum benefit on the people that it's so clear we care so much about from our attitude towards
heart attacks.
Overall it suggests that just 44% of such patients were hospitalised in the UK in the
four weeks from March 23rd 2020 compared with around 77% in the same month the previous
year.
The international team of researchers modelled the long term impact of this and found it
is likely to have reduced the life expectancy of such patients by an average of 18 months.
Researchers said the findings showed the public will pay the price of lockdown for years to come, saying restrictions to life-threatening conditions must never be allowed.
Oh, forget about it.
Oh, it's just a conspiracy theory.
Let's move on.
There's other things we're being lied to and surveilled about and censored around now.
Move on to those.
Why don't you support whatever it is we care about now?
Forget about that.
That was years ago.
It's not years ago for those people that have got heart conditions.
Have you got a heart condition?
Do you know someone who has?
Was your cancer treatment interrupted?
Was your mental health affected?
Let me know right now in the comments.
I want to hear from you.
Your information is vital.
The study, which involved researchers from Spain, Italy and other European nations, also examined the impact of Spain's lockdown, where the modelling estimators Two year loss in life expectancy for victims of major heart attacks.
Remember, when people were modelling data, many people were saying, but what about the implications elsewhere?
But that information wasn't beneficial, perhaps it could be argued, to the interests of the people that were regulating and legislating.
And if you want more evidence of the inconsistency around this issue, where's the rainbows now when doctors are on strike in the UK?
Where's the rainbows now when key workers are striking all over the world because they're not being paid what they deserve to be paid?
Oh, suddenly their work's not so significant.
Where are the rainbows on the windows for nurses and doctors striking in this country right now?
If what they did was important then, surely what they're doing now deserves to be properly paid for.
Let me know in the comments.
comments. Last week, the Telegraph reported that the benefits of lockdown policy were
a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed. Scientists from
Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures
taken to protect populations against COVID across the world.
Follow the science. Do you Analyse the data.
The science suggests.
Don't be so selfish.
Investigate what these terms mean now.
Is anyone saying follow the science now?
Can you hear people?
Suddenly, it's time for an amnesty.
It's time to forget about... Oh, I see.
It's almost like you just say what's convenient to you when it's convenient, that you've got no morals.
No principles, no vision, no idea how to change the world.
So it's probably time to start listening to the rest of us who have some fantastic ideas about how things could change.
Let me know in the comments what your ideas are.
We value you.
Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales.
In an average week, there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.
Of course, any deaths are sad and tragic, but some deaths appear to be more important than others, more expedient, more profitable, more beneficial to state and corporate power.
That's at least how it seems to me.
Let me know in the comments what you think.
The report authors said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a negligible impact on COVID mortality and were a policy failure of gigantic proportions.
So we have a decision to make.
Was it a policy failure of gigantic proportions underwritten by absolute ineptitude, which means we should never trust them again?
Or was it mendacity that means we should never trust them again?
Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its COVID dashboard measuring cases and deaths all over the world.
The study's authors conclude the science of lockdowns is clear, the data are in, the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.
The detrimental impact of lockdown on children's health and education, on economic growth and its contribution to large increases in public debt has become increasingly clear since the policy was introduced.
Check out this!
During the pandemic a secretive government unit worked with social media companies in an attempt to curtail discussion of controversial lockdown policies.
So it wasn't just ineptitude then was it?
Because if it's just ineptitude you wouldn't have the time to set up a secret government unit that censors information.
Bear this in mind when for example the BSBC sets up their Hello, we're your new agency that are going to shut down dissenting views.
Wait, what if these dissenting views are correct, like they were last time?
Wait, what if voices that are conveying truthful information are being censored and shut down?
Wait, what if the truth is a complex thing that requires nuance and conversation, good faith and an open heart?
Well, many people are having open heart surgery right now because of the way we behaved last time.
Perhaps we could look at their open hearts.
Maybe I'm not going to trust you as much as I might have done a few years ago.
The Counter Disinformation Unit?
I mean, that is straight out of Kafka.
You have upset the Counter Disinformation Unit.
The Counter Disinformation Unit.
Don't worry about our name.
Just shut up and do as you're told.
Otherwise, we're going to turn into a stag beetle.
The Counter Disinformation Unit was set up by ministers to tackle supposed domestic threats.
But what is it that's being threatened really?
Let me know in the comments.
And was used to target those critical of lockdowns and questioning the mass vaccination of children.
You're questioning the mass vaccination of children!
Oh my God, it turns out legitimately.
What else?
You're questioning whether or not heart attack victims are going to have 18 months slashed off their lives.
How dare you question it?
But it's true.
Truth doesn't matter anymore, Stag Beetle.
Read Metamorphosis.
Critics of lockdown had posts removed from social media.
Let me know in the comments if you had posts removed.
There is growing suspicion that social media firms use technology to stop the posts being promoted, circulated, or widely shared after being flagged by the CDU or its counterpart in the cabinet office.
Let me know if you want more collaboration between big tech and social media in the government.
Let me know if you want the CIA and the FBI more heavily involved in censoring true information.
It seems to be an important issue these days.
Documents revealed under Freedom of Information, FOI and Data Protection requests showed that the activities of prominent critics of the government's Covid policies were secretly monitored.
An artificial intelligence firm, AI, was used by the government to scour social media sites.
The company flagged discussions opposing vaccine passports.
Some people said that these vaccine passports will be set up and then they won't be rescinded or relinquished after the requirement for them has receded.
Then other people said if there haven't been clinical trials for transmission, what is the point of these vaccine passports?
Other people said if 96% of people that are asymptomatic cannot spread the virus, what is the point?
Other people said if there is a test available that can identify whether or not you're infectious, what's the point?
These questions, I think, are all valuable.
Do you?
Many of the issues being raised were valid at the time and have since been proven to be well-founded.
Well-founded, absolutely true, legitimate, and completely collapse the counter-argument.
The BBC also took part in secretive meetings of a government policy forum to address the so-called disinformation.
Oh, the state media and the state collaborated in controlling the information that you have access to.
But the good news is both of those organizations are independently funded by this business they run somewhere else.
They sort of sell cars and they've got a vineyard.
That's your money!
They're using your money to control you!
It's beyond irony.
It's tyranny.
In America, Twitter has released similar information showing how the US government also introduced a secretive program to curtail discussion of COVID lockdowns.
Almost as if the world's most powerful governments are all using the same playbook.
Almost as if, if you were to look into it right now, you'd find that Canada, America, New Zealand, Australia and the UK, coincidentally known as the Five Eyes countries that Edward Snowden revealed were sharing data Secret data by the way are all setting up new quirky peculiar little surveillance laws that enable them to spy on you, surveil you and prevent you from accessing information that might be sensitive.
But hopefully that's not happening right now.
So those of you that during the pandemic were concerned about the consequences of lockdown and indeed medication on other health conditions appear now to be verified in your concerns.
Let me know if you've been affected by heart disease or many of the other conditions that were likely exacerbated by measures that were taken by your government that you were prevented from publicly discussing which doubtless prolonged the unnecessary process and led to many unnecessary deaths.
Do you believe the government and the corporatized state act entirely for your benefit?
Or do you think you would like to be involved in that process yourself just in case there's a tiny chance that they don't have your best interest in your now potential Well, that's all we've got time for today.
Thank you for watching another fantastic episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Until next time, stay free with Russell Brand.
▲
Export Selection