TODAY - Elon Musk & Mark Zuckerberg cage fighting!? The titan submersible: why was its implosion not announced sooner? And our special guest, Professor Jeffrey Sachs wades in on whether the mutiny in Russia was a false flag.For a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here: https://russellbrand.locals.com/Come to my festival COMMUNITY - https://www.russellbrand.com/community-2023/NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/Find out more about the world-renowned economics professor: https://www.jeffsachs.org/
If you weren't an awakening wonder, you wouldn't even be here.
Hello!
Welcome to another week of news and information.
And when I say news, is it me on scene assistant Gareth Roy?
Or has the world gone all unusual?
It has.
When I was growing up, billionaires weren't having cage fights.
That wasn't what it was.
They weren't like billionaires having a cage fight.
They were like...
Or in balloons, hot air balloons.
The most extravagant one we had, had a very neatly trimmed beard and would go up in a balloon.
That's it, he's not like, I'll have you, other billionaires, I'll do you, see you mate, I'll nudge ya, I'll have ya.
Or the Branson vs Gates, now that would be a fight.
Branson v Gates, it's a grudge match!
Let's get them wrinkly old knuckles bare and bashing at one another.
So yeah, of course, Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are going to have a cage fight.
That's unusual.
We're going to be talking about the Submersive Titan.
That's what it's known as, isn't it?
The Submersive Titan.
And I will be offering you Jungian analysis about how it's an attempt to revive a relic at the bottom of the ocean.
Deep within ourselves, there is information.
There is a story that we want more from.
Also, it's a story of inequality because you wouldn't be getting in a submarine
unless you could afford to.
It's extraordinary, this age of exploration.
Let me know in the chat and the comments if you feel grief for those lost
or if you think it's a distraction from the hunter stuff.
I'm interested in you.
If you're watching this on Rumble right now, press the red button.
Do yourself a favour.
Join us in Locals.
It's part of a community.
We've got some exciting news coming for that community.
I can hardly wait to tell you.
We're going to start a whole new movement.
I'm not going to use the word cult because a lot of people don't like that.
In fact, it is a pejorative term for sure.
But we're starting a new movement, and it's going to be really, really exciting.
Guess who's coming on?
Jeffrey Sachs.
Jeffrey Sachs is coming on the show.
If you don't know who Jeffrey Sachs is, he's one of the first people that explained that the war between Ukraine and Russia had been, if not caused, certainly agitated by NATO infringement of former Soviet Union territories.
He explained it.
He's a brilliant, brilliant thinker, a great teacher.
He's one of those people that it's really hard for the establishment to discredit, because when you listen to him, you think, Perfectly reasonable person.
It's like journalists like Taibi and Schellenberger that I did that free speech event with last week, which was, gratefully, I acknowledge, was attended by Stella Assange.
You realise that there are so many credible people now that are unwilling to put up with this elite establishment corruption that it can't be that everyone's suddenly turned into some mad right-wing conspiracy theorist.
It can't be that.
But if you're watching us on YouTube, Join us on Rumble and you will learn there for yourself that free speech is not the free speech to hate one another.
That's not why we want free speech.
We want free speech to attack the establishment and we will have to stop broadcasting on YouTube or Twitter or Twitch or Gut Bucket or Tickle Pickle or all of the main sites, all of them.
We'll have to stop broadcasting on them because in a minute we're going to be talking about Chris Witte.
He's our version of Fauci, although he's not allowed to accept money from pharmaceutical companies.
Not that I'm suggesting that.
Royalties, Russ.
Royalties!
That was a royalty!
That's the best thing, isn't it?
You can't criticise a royalty.
How dare you?
That's my royalty!
Chris Wee, he's like, he organised our Covid response and he said that he was pressured.
I mean, I've got to be careful how I say this, but he was the scientist determining the response.
And he said he would not have called.
Kind of.
He said scientists would not have called for lockdown.
Scientists, he said, like Einstein, all of those guys would not have called for a lockdown.
It's going to be interesting.
We can't even talk about it on YouTube, that's the truth, because of the WHO money, because of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
That's why we can't talk about it.
But first, if you thought billionaires couldn't be, and we'll be talking about that coup as well a bit.
That coup.
Is it a coup or is it a distraction?
Join us over on Rumble.
Do you think this is a convenient coup?
Do you think this coup, and apparently they've been talking to me, what's his name again?
Progozhin.
Progozhin.
All Progozhin.
Progozhin's a mercenary killer, I tell you.
Yeah.
He's a mercenary.
Have you seen his face?
He's a warlord.
He's a warlord.
He's not like, oh, this guy, Progozhin's come along.
Everything's going to be OK.
He's not like a friendly dude.
He's not Nelson Mandela.
No.
Is he?
He's like a Russian warlord.
He's a bully boy.
Let's get behind him.
I like him!
Anyway, we're going to be telling you about that coup.
Do you reckon though, before I get into it, do you think this is a convenient distraction from the failing Ukrainian counter-offensive where a thousand Ukrainians a day are dying, which is a great stain again on this terrible, terrible ongoing conflict that many people believe.
And we'll be asking Jeffrey Sachs, who's an expert about this, is this war being perpetuated simply because it's advantageous to imperialist interests Stay free with Russell Brand.
term state imperatives of the United States military industrial complex, both politically
and economically. You tell me in the chat. I don't know. I'm just a sweet little guy.
Stay free with Russell Brand. See it first on Rumble.
What I believe in is the idea that there is a convergence of economic and political interests
that creates a kind of irresistible magnetism in a particular direction. Let me know what
you think, guys, because I know you've got some wonderful opinions. Listen, there's no
point listening to the pontifications of a gadfly and a dilettante when on the line now
we have got renowned economist and professor at Columbia University, a man whose facial
expressions are straight out of Kabuki.
It's Jeffrey Sachs.
Jeffrey, it's so lovely to see you.
Yes.
There you go.
Good to be with you, Russell.
It's lovely to hear you in that great echoing chamber.
Where are you?
You're in a pyramid.
I'm in the Vatican, so you're hearing the real echo.
You're really helping with those conspiracy theories.
Live from the Vatican, it's the Da Vinci Code with Jeffrey Sachs.
But Russell, I have to tell you, before we get to Purgosian, you know, the other thing to think about with the pandemic is there is really serious, legitimate reason to think this came out of a lab funded by the U.S.
government with China.
That's no joke.
That's actually completely substantive.
And that's what I would like to know.
And that's what they're not telling us at all about.
And they know a lot more about that than they have told us, and I know a lot about it enough to know how much they've lied.
So that's pretty interesting also, because we spent the last three years in an epidemic that may well have been caused by deliberate manipulation of a SARS-like virus on NIH contracts, so it's pretty annoying.
Yeah, that is annoying, Geoffrey.
That's one way of describing it.
Certainly a lot of people in our chat over on Locals, press the red button if you want to join us there now, completely agree with your analysis, which I know is an analysis arrived at over a long period of time.
Just quickly, Geoffrey, before we move on to Purgosian and whether or not this is a false flag event, this brief coup over in Russia in order to distract people from the Ukrainian counter-offensive and its potential failure, can we just determine that If it is established that this was a lab leak that was brought about due to a lack of due diligence and perhaps because of irresponsible gain-of-function research that involved American financial interests, how does that change our response to the events of the last three years?
What specifically does it mean we should be pursuing that would be impossible if a natural origin theory were accepted?
Well, the starting point is that it would mean we have a U.S.
government that is absolutely reckless, out of control, lying at every turn, and dangerous to the world.
So that would be my starting point.
I think that is a plausible case.
It's not proven, but it's plausible.
And if it happened, we sure better know, because the U.S.
is continuing to do lots of research Probably all over the world, of a very dangerous kind, and it would be nice if someone would tell the truth and someone would look at some actual documents and facts.
Just a couple days ago, the intelligence agencies released another report.
It's a joke.
They released no data.
They released no background.
They ...gave us a few paragraphs.
It's bull, and it's disgusting, after all this time.
Given all the lies that they have said, it's absolutely disgusting.
So, I really would like to know, because if the U.S.
recklessly not only endangered the world, but led to a virus that killed 20 million people, And has lied about it, denied it, and most likely is continuing this kind of research.
I sure would like to know.
Well, Jeffrey, if your line of inquiry is correct, then you should be canonized yourself.
But if it's incorrect, I think you should go straight to a confessional and get yourself cleansed, perhaps by the Holy Father himself, given that you're live from the Vatican.
Now, thank you for giving us such conclusive and explosive analysis on the events of the last three years and the implications of it being indeed a lab leak origin scenario.
Can you tell us how we, sorry Jeffrey, we've got your mic muted while you're hollering in the Vatican.
Would you tell us about how we should understand the recent news of the failed mutiny of Prigoshin over there in Russia and how it's being reported on by the mainstream media?
Is this a self-contained issue and do you think this is a false flag event to distract us from the failing Ukrainian counter-offensive?
How does this sit into the whole Russia-Ukraine narrative, sir?
Look, I think the one thing we know is how it's being used by the U.S.
and the U.K., and it's being used to prolong and expand the war.
Because we have a war machine in the United States.
I don't really know which generals are running the show right now.
I don't think it's Biden.
But we have a war machine that wants an expanded war with Russia.
So, whatever is the actual story here—and we don't know about multiple possible outcomes—what the media are reporting is no questions, other than saying, you see, Putin is at the end, and now we
can—basically, the implication is just we continue and we destroy Russia. So, you see it in
every mainstream newspaper in the U.K.
and the U.S. now.
Not a question asked.
No puzzlement.
No puzzlement over the fact that the CIA says, oh, we knew for weeks.
Well, it raises a lot of questions, doesn't it?
Nobody asks questions anymore.
We have a narrative.
The narrative comes from the U.S. intelligence community.
It comes from the U.S. military.
It gets adopted in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, in the
U.K., every paper, whether it's—I'm just looking at The Financial Times—reckless
as usual.
Gideon Rockman, the Putin system is crumbling.
Does he know?
Chris Donnelly, the president's hand has been fatally weakened.
How the hell do they know?
They don't know.
They don't ask anything.
But this is a storyline.
Why this storyline?
Because we have pushed into an incredibly disastrous war, first and foremost disastrous for Ukraine, because the Ukrainians that are dying, We provoked the war.
We refused to negotiate over the core issues, mainly NATO enlargement.
And we have a media that is so driven for more war and utterly without the idea of asking a single question, just like the questions you're asking.
They're not even raised in our newspapers.
But this has been like this all along.
They want more war.
That's all.
So, whether this is a godsend, that now we can say we should have more war because we're about to defeat Russia, whether this is actually—CIA played a role in this?
Not impossible.
Anything's possible, given that they say, we knew for weeks.
Well, how the hell did they know?
Somebody should actually explain some of these things.
Whatever it is, what they want is war.
The point you make, by the way, is an extremely important one, which is the so-called Ukrainian counteroffensive is killing thousands and thousands of Ukrainian young men who have been pulled off the streets, put in front of Russian helicopter gunships put in front of Russian artillery are dying by the hundreds or thousands per day, but we don't count any of that.
We don't care at all.
The whole thing is a U.S.
effort to overthrow the Russian government, which is, I think, is fanciful Reckless, endangering the world.
But that's how our generals have thought for a long time, how our CIA has thought for a long time.
That's what they'd like to do.
The Ukrainians are in the meat grinder, as they say, and they are dying massively.
No one counts that.
No one cares.
It's just a big, big success story.
That's how our media is reporting it.
And it's unbelievable.
You can't get A single thought, a single idea in the New York Times anymore that says, hmm, maybe what the government's telling us isn't exactly 100,000% the truth.
They don't ask anymore.
Nothing.
the truth. They don't ask anymore. Nothing. Not a word.
So, I'm not a happy guy today on our media question because today it's just exactly what
More war, more war, more war.
That's all they want.
And in the U.S., there's not, by the way, not a word of opposition except Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Thanks God for him.
Because he's the only politician talking about a different way.
Negotiating.
Like his uncle did.
Like his father led.
And that's the real point, actually.
Yes, I think, Geoffrey, after we finish our conversation you should have a look at the dome of St Peter's.
I think you want to have a little glance at the Sistine Chapel ceiling and take in a couple of Caravaggios to unwind because it seems like you need it.
Now we live in a bewildering and beguiling media space.
We live in a landscape where we're Offered cage fights between prominent billionaires like Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.
A sense of mad, demented carnival descends.
As you say, legitimate legacy media spaces seem incapable or unwilling to ask the pertinent and necessary questions when we find ourselves on the advent of a potential crisis of previously unseen proportions.
An ambition to carve up Russia is a bold one indeed.
To embark on a secondary campaign agitating for war with China seems outrageous.
To have a political sphere devoid and divorced from debate, open conversation, where reasonable, rational figures like RFK that offer anti-establishment perspectives and diplomatic solutions ...are regarded by the mainstream as hysterical pariahs who cannot be engaged with, with the liminal space in which discourse can take place ever shrinking.
These people are too far to the right.
These people are conspiracy theories.
The role of independent media is clear, that it's necessary and important that we ask these questions, that we have to behave responsibly, that we have to have one eye on what's beyond simply reporting and move towards Activism and campaigning and participating in this conversation in perhaps more political ways.
When you see us move from a state of crisis around the pandemic, around which it seems that we were lied to extensively, into a geopolitical crisis like the current one, where we are continuing to be lied, where it seems evident and obvious that behind these events are sets of interests that can be observed, diagnosed and tracked.
At what point does this begin to coalesce around a political movement?
And do you feel that, given that the systems we live within, electoral, political, financial, delivered us into this state, how likely is it, even with the candidacy of a figure like RFK, who's joined us here on Rumble, both as a guest and now as a contributor, how likely is it that this system will allow him to make a reasonable impact?
How hopeful are you, Geoffrey?
Look, you know, what's interesting is we don't have discourse anymore in the mainstream.
We just have a narrative.
We have a line.
The line, because I know a lot, I've been in the inside, the line's bullshit most of the time these days.
Makes no sense.
Doesn't tell the truth.
Tries to create amnesiacs of all of us.
You're not allowed to talk about history.
You're not allowed to talk about an event the day before yesterday.
You're not allowed to ask questions.
But what's interesting, Russell, to me, nobody believes that hibis.
So if you ask, do you believe what we're being told, no one believes it.
No one believes, you know, the vast majority of Americans.
...believe that the virus came out of a lab.
Well, damn well they should, but they've been told exactly the opposite by all of the government officials.
No one believes what the government says.
And so, what does the narrative do?
What the narrative does is allow the truth to just be ignored.
Rather than confronted.
So the idea of the narrative is not to make people believe.
The idea of the narrative is to have something to say, so that you don't actually have to talk about real things.
So we're living morning till night with political bullshit.
We're not talking about anything real.
Where did this war come from?
I'll give another example.
You know, pretty obvious.
Two examples, very quickly.
In December 2021, Putin put on the table a draft agreement, security agreement, U.S.-Russia draft security agreement.
We could have negotiated with no war.
I called the White House.
They said, no, non-negotiable NATO enlargement.
I had that call for an hour.
Never discussed in our media the fact that there was a draft agreement put on the table.
Then, in March 2022, we know it now because of an interesting point.
There was nearly a signed agreement between Russia and Ukraine to end the war, and the United States stopped it.
And Naftali Bennett, who was prime minister of Israel and an informal mediator then, You know, he has a long interview where he describes at the last moment the United States came in and stopped it.
And why did they stop it?
Bennett says because they wanted to look tough to China.
It wasn't even about Ukraine.
It was about that it would look soft to China.
Okay, but my point is something else.
Nobody in the mainstream media has raised the point that That there was nearly a negotiated end to the war in March 2022 that the United States stopped.
It's too little a fact for The New York Times to show any interest.
It has nothing to do with what The Washington Post might report or anybody else, so it's not mentioned At all.
And if you mention it, you're crazy.
You know, you can't negotiate with that guy.
But he did negotiate.
No, you're crazy.
You can't negotiate with that guy.
It's whatever they want to say.
Not to make us believe it because what they say is so damn preposterous.
Six people in a sailboat blew up the pipeline.
They say whatever they want so that they don't have to say Something real.
They don't have to show us a document.
Remember, everything's secret.
Everything's confidential.
Nothing is for public anymore.
So we have—it's not even right to call it a narrow discourse.
There's no discourse, because I think this discourse means that it's a two-way line.
Maybe I'm wrong about that.
There's no discussion.
There is a narrative.
And for some reason, all of the papers I grew up with went dead.
They're unreadable.
Every day I want to cancel my New York Times subscription, but if I could cancel a hundred of them, I would.
It's just so painful to see the stupidity of it right now.
It's exciting to be able to speak to somebody with you with such evident integrity.
It was exciting to spend time recently with Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi at an event designed to address the emergence of the censorship industrial complex and the need to confront it and organize a movement around it.
I'm always astonished when I speak to Michael and Matt, that journalists that, you know,
literally in the case of Matt, did work for the Rolling Stone
and certainly a few years ago, these would have been the kind of legacy media journalists
that were prized in the sort of Woodward-Bernstein tradition.
Investigative journalists that care about facts that are voracious, that offer you information
and allow you to reach your own conclusions, that see it as their job to interrogate power.
And now are both pariahs.
You can make the same point about Chris Hedges, you can make the same point about Glenn Greenwald,
that journalists with integrity are a problem now that have to be smeared, extracted and destroyed.
And only journalists that, as you say, convey unequivocal propaganda without inquiry
are safe to be housed within mainstream media outlets.
When it comes to the matter of the war, it's plain that they only platform pundits,
not only, but frequently platform pundits with ties to the military-industrial complex.
In the case, for example, of CNN, they are ultimately owned by Comcast
that have interests in weapons manufacture through General Electric.
And even when it's not so palpably true, There is the kind of compliance that comes when interests converge at such magnitude.
That's why I'm always grateful to hear from you, Geoffrey, and to bask in the rigour of your intellect.
So thank you once again.
And Geoffrey, what the hell are you doing in the Vatican?
I better stare at the ceiling.
I think that was good advice.
I'm going to go do that.
Go stare at that ceiling, because otherwise, I don't know, we're going to get Dan Brown onto you.
Well, there he is, Jeffrey Sachs.
Thank you so much, Jeffrey.
Thanks for your fantastic contribution once again.
Great to be with you.
You can find out more about Geoffrey's extensive work and his books at geffsax.org.
That's J-E-F-F-S-A-C-H-S dot org.
That's where you'll find his fantastic work and you'll learn that you have legitimate, authentic voices that are anti-establishment and plainly undergirded with a great deal of knowledge and experience.
This is not Rumble, home of the crackpot and the nutcase, in spite of my physical appearance and sometimes even Gareth's baleful demeanour.
As he looks off into the middle distance.
You enjoy Geoffrey, don't you?
Yeah, he's wonderful, isn't he?
And you're absolutely right.
The complete opposite of a crackpot.
And I think the point there, and we spoke about it last week with regard to China, I think it was Jens or Jens Stoltenberg of NATO literally said last week, Uh, the Russia have to lose to send a message for us to send a message to China.
So this is not about Ukraine anymore.
I mean, it's so explicit, you know, like this counter offensive was meant to be the end game for Ukraine.
It hasn't turned out that way.
They can explicitly write these things in the mainstream media, but never seem to follow up and go, uh, but what does that mean?
Yeah, then why is that?
What is this total lack of inquiry?
A lot of people here loved Geoffrey.
MaxMatitis though, 444, what are your thoughts on the forthcoming Mel Gibson doggie series?
Yeah, we're going to have to educate ourselves on that.
Rumoured.
Rumoured, I think.
Rumoured.
I look like Randy the Macho Man Savage, says someone on there.
Yeah, I do look like Randy, the macho man, and also those two words, or terms at least, describe me perfectly.
I'm both Randy and a macho man.
I think that we should show our deep presentation on Obama's tax loophole, that's not a euphemism, elsewhere.
I think that we should do, we should appear, do you want to join us on locals for a bit longer?
Do you know what?
Do you know what?
We're going to do a bit extra.
We're going to do some freedom of speech over on local.
So you guys that have already clicked that red button on the bottom, we're going to do 15 minutes extra just for you because we love you.
We'll put our presentation up on Obama's tax loophole.
He is taking advantage of a tax law that during office he claimed that he was trying to get rid of.
That's basically the truth, isn't it?
That's exactly it.
We're going to put that presentation up for you later, but we're going to go now and do locals with our item free speech.
But God, have we got some fantastic things coming up for you over the course of the week.
Why?
For example, so hey, later on in the week, we've got Jack Dorsey.
He's coming on the show.
Imagine that, Jack Dorsey.
What are we going to ask him about?
Tell us, will you?
Join us over on locals.
Tell us what to ask Jack Dorsey.
Aaron Maté is coming on.
You can get some home truths about the war from him.
We will be naked fighting Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg in a paddling pool full of jam.
That's a little bit later, that's on Tuesday.
So listen, if you're watching this now on Rumble, click that red button!
Join us on Locals.
We're going to do another 15 minutes where we do freedom of speech.
We're going to spend 15 minutes answering your questions and your inquiries.
And if that's not the truth, my name's not Randy the Macho Man Savage.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
