Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 13, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

58:49

Sound Of Freedom: They Don’t Want YOU To Watch THIS! With Jim C - #167 Stay Free With Russell Brand

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
	Thanks for joining us on the channel that some are calling the best independent news network on planet Earth.
	That's what some people are saying.
	Who are those people?
	Me, my mum, her, the children.
	I can't pronounce it, but they're aiming to say stuff like that.
	You know that war in Ukraine is going on and on and on.
	The mainstream media are pretty excited about it, unable to see the potential for it to lead to cataclysm and disaster as it gets cluster bombed to another dimension.
	We're talking about Threads as well.
	Are they de-amplifying anger on there?
	Or when they say de-amplifying anger, do they mean censoring?
	And when they say congenial, friendly new platform, do they mean censoring?
	Is Threads a censoring platform that's trying to make censoring seem like a That's a good thing.
	If you're watching us on YouTube right now, you will know all about censorship.
	And if you're watching us on Rumble, and I suggest you do, click the link in the description if you're watching this currently on YouTube to join us over there, where we have a commitment from our overlords at Rumble that they will never censor our content, that we're free to say anything.
	And that means that we're just reliant on self-judgment, which in my case can be a pretty unreliable faculty, can't it?
	It's a big old commitment when you think about it.
	There's a lot of pressure these days to Censor yourself?
	No, I won't just censor anything.
	In fact, not even censor yourself, because that's one of the things that Tayibi and Schellenberger were talking about, that, you know, there's a policeman in your head, you're policing, you can't trust yourself, you can't trust your own nature, that's part of what the misanthropy inherent in the system starts to do.
	Come see the misanthropy inherent in the system!
	That's from Monty Python's Holy Grail.
	If you're watching us on Rumble, why don't you press the red button and join us over on Locals?
	We've got some fantastic guests.
	We're going to do the guests on Rumble just in case.
	Do you know who it is?
	It's Jim Caviezel and Tim Ballard from that new film, Sound of Freedom, which has somehow got itself all controversial.
	And what I can't work out, let me know in the chat what you think.
	Is it controversial because of the subject of stopping trafficking of children, which would seem to be a pretty good subject universally?
	That's not a political issue, is it?
	That's everyone agrees.
	Everything's a political issue, Ross.
	Hey!
	Don't traffic those children!
	Do traffic those children!
	That's a one-way argument!
	Unless you're actually involved in the trafficking of children, I don't know what it is.
	But that's one of the things I'm going to be asking Tim and Jim.
	Jim is pretending to be Tim.
	I'm gonna go, pretend it's Jim.
	Pretend to be Tim right now.
	Right.
	Blow all our minds.
	Blow Tim's mind.
	Wow.
	Whoa.
	Yeah, so we're going to have that conversation.
	I'm going to be talking about that.
	It's interesting as well because later this week I'm talking to Critical Drinker about movies and the ideology that appears to be influencing and directing how movies are made these days.
	I wonder if this film is successful because of its subject, because of its economic model, why is it causing such controversy?
	Obviously I'm going to be talking to Jim and Tim about that.
	Jim and Tim!
	GM and Jim!
	But MSNBC, you know from the mainstream media, they are pleased as punch, they're cock-a-hoop, they're giddy with glee that Russia is completely surrounded by NATO allies, even though that seems to me to be the very sore thing that could precipitate a nuclear conflict, and we're all suffering that, I think.
	We're all going to suffer.
	I mean, I don't know if we learned anything from Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
	I don't know that it was that great of a thing.
	Was it?
	Let's have a look at the mainstream media.
	They don't seem to remember it.
	It is extraordinary what Vladimir Putin has done to himself, but also what Joe Biden and NATO has been able to manage.
	And that is a Russia that is completely surrounded by NATO allies.
	And you look at the Balkans...
	That's actually a promise that was made that's been broken, isn't it?
	At the end of the Cold War, which defined the lives of those of us that grew up in the 80s and 90s in particular, a pledge was made between the United States of America and Gorbachev, then the head of the Soviet Union, now Russia, that they would not infringe by even one inch on former Soviet territories.
	And now, unlike Morning Joe, which claims it's a sort of sensible, loving show... Is it a sensible, loving show?
	When I was on there, they were very rude to me.
	Like they're sort of reveling in and excited by Gareth, like Finland and Estonia, Latvia and in particular most obviously Ukraine being NATO territories.
	That's not good, is it?
	No, I see that map as absolutely terrifying.
	A little bit like the one that shows the US bases surrounding China.
	I don't see that as a win.
	How can you put this on mainstream media and say, Russia, the idiots, seem to think we're infringing on their territories.
	This is why Russia is a bad country and why they're idiots and why there is no need to escalate the conflict.
	It's absolutely absurd.
	You're referring to the map of Chinese territory that is now similarly encircled by, what is it, US assets in this instance?
	US naval bases, I think it is.
	US naval bases, there it is.
	Like, whenever you see those stories on the news, a drone was knocked down.
	Where was that drone?
	You don't need to know where the drone was, just know that Russians knocked it down.
	Where was it?
	It was in Russia.
	A Chinese warship cut us up.
	Summit Chronic, where was it?
	Just there by China, as a matter of fact.
	Stop, like, going in people's gardens and then complaining that you stood on their rake, you lunatics.
	Let's have a look at the rest of this piece of mainstream propaganda, see what they're so excited about.
	...as Admiral Stravita said, that's now the NATO lake.
	You know, you and me could put everything on the table this morning, starting at six o'clock.
	I gotta tell you, it's all on the table.
	Did he say Reich?
	It sounded like he said Reich.
	Don't say Reich, that's not... like you never hear... I don't even know what the first and second Reichs were.
	No.
	I just know that by the time they did the third one, much like the Matrix films, it was terrible.
	I think stop using the word after that.
	Do you think we can ever rehabilitate reich?
	This is a reich but it's a different type of reich.
	It's a reich that's right.
	That's what they'll be doing on freds and stuff like that.
	They're trying to sort of sell reichs as a positive thing.
	This is a reich at a price that's right.
	It's a lovable reich.
	It's a reich with a twinkle in his eye.
	How would he elect to use that word then?
	Did he actually say reich?
	Go back a bit just in case he didn't say reich and he stuttered because don't say reich.
	Reich is a word that's now had to pick up and put on its hat And leave the lexicon of polite language.
	Did you say right there?
	No, I said right.
	You said right, because if you'd said right, I'd have been all over you!
	I know you would.
	Like, stick on a monkey!
	I'd have been all over you, like, stick on a monkey's private!
	No, I know.
	I'd have been right up you!
	You would.
	Go on, let's have a look.
	See what I'm saying?
	Come on, we want to know.
	Lake.
	Uh-oh!
	You know, you and me... Go back a bit.
	Give us a breath to get into it.
	I forgot, is it Jack doing that?
	Admiral Stravita said, uh, that's now the NATO lake.
	That sounded like Reich.
	Are they talking about... Let me know in the comments what you heard there.
	I heard Reich.
	Is that... Is that Reich?
	They don't sound that similar.
	Right.
	to to to to right kaka I mean there was a long pause after it yeah certainly was
	bloody ridiculous all right so what else is it what's going yeah do we need to
	watch this for the end or they just sort of saying it's a good thing that Russia
	are being provoked yeah that is what they say so look at the other headlines
	around this story gate says he will co-sponsor amendment to block cluster
	bombs Ukraine this cluster bomb story let me know what you think about this
	this is one of the the most perfect recent examples of how a story can
	change it or an object in fact can change its qualities based on the
	context is placed in cluster bombs a year ago were dangerous deadly lethal
	irresponsible weapons but now cluster bombs are the answer of course what many
	people are saying is that the Ukrainian counter-offensive is failing dreadfully
	it's a bloodbath that Ukrainian bodies bodies are being stacked up, that this whole imperative to
	destabilise and diminish Russia was always going to require Ukrainian deaths, and that's a
	price that NATO and the US are willing to pay.
	They don't care that Ukrainians are dying, and because Ukrainian people are proud and
	they have been criminally invaded, they are of course willing to fight what seems like
	an unwinnable war against an opponent that historically tends not to lie down.
	It seems completely absurd but the cluster bomb itself is.
	Irresponsible, nefarious, dangerous weapon.
	120 countries have signed a treaty saying that it should be banned.
	And if you by the same mentality that justifies the use of cluster bombs could be used to justify anything up to and including nuclear arms.
	Yeah and Gates is one of the examples of members of the Republicans that have said that this is not a good idea.
	I think several members of the Democrat party have said the same thing.
	Obviously Joe Biden is going ahead with it anyway.
	But you remember with the Democrats going back a few months as well then when they wrote that letter to Joe Biden regarding the Ukraine war and asking him to you know reconsider and to try and push for peace and that they were you know that was essentially turned down that letter.
	Peace deal was taken off the table.
	Benjamin Netanyahu revealed that.
	I don't know why I keep going on about him.
	You're never going to meet him.
	The Ukrainian defense minister says his country is a great testing ground for Western arms.
	Is that how they're advertising it now?
	Literally, it's like explicitly become a place where weapons are tested.
	Well this is that uh Aleski Reznikov and you remember he was in the news uh a few months ago for saying that Ukraine was now de facto NATO country.
	Oh yeah.
	Part of the alliance so he's now saying something which he actually said before this time what he appears to be kind of saying it's really interesting so he says for the military industry for the military industry of the world so already we're talking about the military industrial complex we're not talking about countries we're not talking about war we're talking about the military industrial military industry of the world you can't invent a better testing ground which is like a mad thing to hear that you can't invent a better testing ground almost like as we may suspect this has become
	A showroom for the best weaponry in the world.
	He also says that the Russians are watching, the Chinese are watching.
	Everyone's closely watching how these weapons perform.
	And China, buying weapons from Russia, are also watching Russian weapons to see how they perform.
	Almost like this whole thing is about how the weapons perform rather than the geopolitical elements of it.
	It's extraordinary the number of contexts that are colliding here in this ludicrous conflict.
	If you're watching this on YouTube, we're going to leave you now for a number of reasons.
	Firstly, because we're going to show you a deep dive analysis of Threads.
	Is Threads the new home of censorship?
	If you're watching this on a platform that is heavily censored, If you're watching us on a platform that was indicted in the Twitter files, then, or at least implied to be carrying deep state objectives in the Twitter files, then you'll have your own answers and your own suspicions, I'm sure.
	Also, later in the show, we're going to be talking to Jim Caviezel and Tim Ballard about the Sound of Freedom.
	So click the link in the description and join us over on Rumble, because there's questions I'm going to ask.
	I simply can't ask on this platform.
	So see you in a minute.
	Join us there.
	Click the link in the description.
	If you're watching us on Rumble, thank you very much.
	I want to have a look now at this brilliant presentation that we made on the social media site, Threads.
	We've been talking about it for a little while.
	I actually joined up to Threads and I've got sort of a question.
	I feel a bit bad about it actually.
	I'm on there.
	You are?
	Is it the wrong... They've not censored me yet, as far as I know.
	I've not been looking at it in too much depth.
	I think you've got to be on there to see what happens.
	See what's in there.
	You'll get censored at some point, Brand.
	I'm bound to, but the mainstream media are... They're... The way that they are propagating and celebrating this channel is...
	Outlandish and outrageous.
	It's not balanced reporting at all the way that it's being spoken of.
	It's clearly something that they're willing to push because my assumption is that they share the same values there as mainstream media outlets, as legacy media outlets, that they're willing to censor in the same way.
	So let's have a look at this.
	They're saying, of course, that what they're doing is de-amplifying anger, creating a social media site where we can all be congenial and convivial and friendly with one another.
	But actually, I think those are all code words for censorship, with Zuckerberg saying on Lex Friedman's brilliant podcast that he regretted censoring true and debatable information.
	What an extraordinary turnaround this is, because it's been revealed that they are going to run Fred In exactly the same way they run other Meta properties like Facebook.
	Controlling, censoring, highlighting information.
	And this as well, after the EU fined Meta, I think, over a billion dollars for packaging up and selling European data to America, which is completely illegal.
	This is a fantastic investigation.
	You'll love it.
	After this, we'll be talking to Jim Caviezel and Tim Ballard about Sound of Freedom.
	But for now, threads.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news!
	Good news, everyone!
	A new social media platform where you're guaranteed to be censored!
	Threads!
	Sorry, did I say censored?
	I mean, your anger will be de-amplified!
	You're gonna have to de-amplify my anger, baby!
	I'm getting pretty furious!
	Ah, I feel better now I've been nice and censored.
	It's amazing that Mark Zuckerberg has launched this new platform to rival Twitter where it's almost guaranteed to commit the same kind of sensorial atrocities that took place at Twitter and in other social media spaces in the era of the laptop and the...
	Once again taking place unobstructed by righteousness or any commitment to transparency.
	Let's have a look at how the mainstream news are wallowing and glorying in the advent of this new social media platform that they can censor again.
	Let's have a look at this on the mainstream.
	Mark Zuckerberg's company, Meta, has launched its new app that's expected to compete with Twitter, which has faced backlash under the ownership of Elon Musk.
	Backlash from you!
	The text-based app, known as Threads, looks nearly identical to Twitter and has seen more than 30 million users sign up since yesterday's launch.
	What I want to draw your attention to is what we call editorializing or narrativizing.
	The way that she's speaking about Fred's is broadly positive.
	The way she speaks about Twitter is broadly negative.
	Nearly 30 million signups.
	Well done, guys.
	A horrific 50 million people use Twitter.
	This is what we are accusing the mainstream media of, presenting information in ways that are favourable to a pre-set agenda.
	You'll see it in the news currently, with the story around cluster bombs.
	When Russia used cluster bombs last year, BOOM!
	Russia and America facilitate Ukraine's use of cluster bombs.
	Necessary!
	Cluster bombs.
	Either a cluster bomb is bad, or it isn't.
	Particularly in the context of military warfare, they're not using cluster bombs to blow up materials to build orphanages with.
	Although, you're gonna need a lot more orphanages, so that might be another use for them.
	So just watch out for the editorialization in this piece.
	Celebrities from Oprah to Kim Kardashian to Jennifer Lopez.
	Ooh!
	Already joining the app that looks fairly similar to Twitter.
	Yeah, because it's mimicking it.
	Because what's happened is Elon Musk has publicly declared that they're not going to censor content on Twitter anymore.
	So they've recognized, hey, we can start a new site where we will censor content.
	It's like the episode of The Simpsons where Homer is ahead of the stonecutters.
	They think, oh no!
	How do we deal with having Homer in the stonecutters?
	Just start another thing that Homer's explicitly not allowed in?
	The ancient mystic society of no homers.
	This might as well be called Twitter that we're allowed to censor again.
	The launch coming just days after Twitter announced limits on its app, including how many posts users can read per day.
	The changes led by controversial billionaire Elon Musk.
	What we're witnessing now is an attempt to extract, diminish, deplete Elon Musk's ability
	to present counter-narratives to you.
	Even if you disagree with Elon Musk about, I don't know, free speech or conservatism
	or whatever it is, I don't know anymore because I don't believe in any of those systems or
	any of those alliances.
	I've just completely lost faith in all of it.
	You have to respect the principle of allowing people to communicate openly.
	Of course fascism is bad.
	Of course hate speech is bad.
	Prejudice, bigotry, violence, terrorism, these things are all bad.
	But what I think is happening is hate speech and free speech are becoming conflated in order to facilitate the new category of misinformation, disinformation to justify censorship.
	And once that happens, it will happen arbitrarily.
	Not arbitrarily, actually.
	It will happen at the whim of the powerful.
	Already, we know, because of Edward Snowden, the state and big tech are collaborating to share and exchange your information.
	The problem with Twitter is not, oh no, there's hate speech on there.
	The problem is he's not complying with their agenda.
	Just think about it for a moment.
	What do you think they really care about?
	Hate speech?
	Yeah, you know, which is bad.
	We all know it's bad.
	Not complying with their agenda.
	Just reflect on it for a while and then let me know in the comments what answer you come up with.
	I'll say what I want to say and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it.
	Meta describing its vision as creating positive and creative space to express ideas.
	Leveraging Instagram's more than 2 billion users.
	A positive and creative space to express ideas that will decide which ideas remain out there expressed and which ones just disappear.
	Posts on the app can be up to 500 characters long with links, photos and videos up to five minutes.
	This is promo!
	This is promo!
	It's on the news!
	They're promoting it on the news, aren't they?
	They're just saying Oprah Winfrey, Kim Kardashian, woo!
	More characters!
	You can't say that you hate McDonald's but you love Burger King.
	Can you?
	Either you think fast food joints are irresponsible, peddling bad food with too much fat and sugar that deplete the environment because of the way they graze cattle or whatever it is, and I'm not saying it's not an important issue, I know it is.
	I'm just saying that if you don't like McDonald's, you sort of also have to not like Burger King.
	You can't say, McDonald's is terrible, but Burger King, I love their place.
	Why don't you like McDonald's then?
	That M. I don't like that M. That's because they don't have any principles.
	What they have is an agenda.
	They have an agenda instead of principles.
	Elon Musk.
	Saying that Elon Musk flew into a rage is editorialising.
	She weren't there.
	They don't know what Elon Musk's doing.
	It's just this is the way we're presenting the information.
	Elon Musk is hysterical and full of hate like his whole platform.
	Zuckerberg, he's candid, he's open, he's promoting creative open spaces.
	I bet you something else you'll see, that social media accounts of mainstream media pundits and organisations more generally are promoted and thrive in threads.
	You'll notice that.
	Said their Twitter competitor, Threads, would be sanely run.
	An obvious dig at the Nazi-friendly dumpster fire Musk's Twitter has become.
	Nazi-friendly dumpster fire!
	Now, remember, the use of Nazis and the evocation of the imagery and atrocities of the Second World War is almost a cliché for arguments that are running amok and going crazy.
	Once you associate someone with the Nazis, you're sort of saying we have the right to exclude them from the conversation.
	When in fact what has happened to Twitter under Elon Musk is he said everyone's free speech should be protected no matter where they are on the political dial or spectrum.
	That's not what the Nazis did.
	The Nazis censored and shut down all information, promoted certain ideas, obviously leading to horrific genocide and atrocities against racial groups and sexual identities and even Though what we're witnessing now, I believe, is a different kind of authoritarianism.
	It is about the control of information and control more broadly.
	And I think using that kind of language is very telling and indicative of the type of territory we're moving towards.
	Let us know in the comments which of these two facilities more resembles an ideology that's about control.
	Zuckerberg's Threads launched yesterday and it's looking like it actually has a shot of besting Twitter.
	In less than 24 hours, Threads had more than 30 million subscribers.
	It has an innate advantage compared to the many other Twitter alternatives that have cropped up, since you can automatically follow everyone you are already following on Instagram, and they can automatically follow you, creating instant community and familiarity.
	Oh, that's so fantastic!
	You're tracking our information, you already have our data, we can already map one app onto another app.
	Also, look at the conversation we're not having.
	What are these apps actually doing?
	What is their policy when it comes to sharing information with the government?
	Look at how this is being covered versus how the Twitter files was covered.
	What was revealed by brilliant, credible journalists, Tayibi, Barry Weiss, Schellenberger, people who care about investigations and have this principle.
	Here's the information, you decide what you think about it.
	They don't editorialise except for rather elegantly drawing references to literature like Huxley and Orwell who seem increasingly perspicacious and relevant.
	Mainstream media, nothing.
	Nothing on that.
	Silence.
	This story, which is essentially promo, they burst out of the gate with 30 million.
	Woo, baby!
	Woo, we get to censor again.
	We can just dance naked in the sweet rain of censorship.
	In an interview with The Verge, Instagram CEO Adam Osseri calls Twitter a pioneer in the space but says its volatility under Musk has opened the door for threads.
	It's not its volatility under Musk that has opened the door to threads.
	It's the fact that they're no longer compliant in the same way with deep state agencies.
	FBI had agents literally working there.
	Payments were made.
	Information was extracted.
	True information was censored.
	Zuckerberg admits that.
	Zuckerberg's Gone on podcast Lex Freedman's notably and said we censored information that we shouldn't have done.
	You know, asked for a bunch of things to be censored that in retrospect ended up being more debatable or true.
	Now would you like to come onto our new platform?
	Of course next time it won't be the exact same emergency.
	It'll be a slightly different crisis that facilitates and necessitates, in their view and words I predict, the censorship.
	We can't platform these type of voices.
	Of course it's very easy to highlight things that we all agree on.
	I think we all agree, don't we?
	That hate speech, racism, bigotry, hatred of people based on the way they identify is foolish, wrong, old-fashioned, history.
	Forget it, move past it.
	I urge you, I pray that you move past that craziness if it's something that lingers in you.
	But the ability to censor true conversations about scientific matters, experts sharing data that's contrary to the overt intentions now of the state and corporate interests, that is a necessity.
	What they are doing, let me tell you plainly, is they are recognising that now, with independent media as advanced as it is, it's possible to propagate and disseminate ideas that contradict mainstream narratives fast.
	You can get a character like RFK or perhaps even more notably Donald Trump bypass all of the gatekeepers of MSNBC, CNN, but what Threads is, no, we'll play ball your way.
	And that's why the mainstream media are playing ball with Threads.
	NBC News has reached out to Twitter for comment but just received an automated response.
	Let's look at this in more detail so we can decide for ourselves What we believe to be true rather than being smashed in the face with lies like a big daft hammer with CNN written on it.
	Mark Zuckerberg met a CEO ushered in users with his inaugural post.
	Let's do this.
	Welcome to Threads.
	He described Threads as a friendly alternative to Twitter, an app that lets people indulge in text-based conversations with a 500 character limit and the option to share links, photos and videos.
	Zuckerberg seems to be putting a lot of emphasis on keeping threads congenial.
	Right, so congeniality, I predict this.
	The same way that safety is used to undergird state interventionism.
	We're doing this to keep you safe.
	We're doing this to keep you safe.
	Well, can't I keep me safe?
	No, we'll keep you safe.
	I don't want you to keep me safe.
	We're keeping you safe.
	And convenience is used when it comes to commerce and commodity.
	It's gonna be so convenient, give us all your data, then you'll just have to show your face and you'll walk straight in, right?
	That's safety, convenience, now congeniality.
	This is friendly.
	Let's unpack what they mean by congenial, just another word for friendly.
	What do they mean by friendly?
	Friendly to what?
	And for who?
	And for what purposes?
	Zuckerberg stated in a Wednesday post, the goal is to keep it friendly as it expands.
	I think it's possible and will ultimately be the key to its success.
	I use Twitter because it's part of my work, right?
	I don't use it like, oh, I wonder what so-and-so are doing.
	But the media class use it to promulgate, to propagate, to disseminate information.
	And they like it that certain information gets promoted and other information gets shadow banned, which we know happens thanks to the Twitterphile revelations.
	And what they object to, I believe, is that they kind of lost their favourite space.
	It was a space they were in control in.
	Dorsey says it was wrong to ban Trump from Twitter.
	Probably the right decision for the company, but the wrong decision for the world.
	And of course it is. You can't ban Donald Trump, former president of the United States,
	while there's ISIS on there and neo-Nazi Ukrainian battalions.
	If hate speech is wrong, hate speech is wrong.
	Not, I like that hate speech, but not that hate speech.
	And it's very complicated. In the end, you have to go, bloody hell, just let people work it out.
	Don't you? Do you? Let me know what you think in the comments.
	He candidly went on to take a swipe at Twitter, suggesting that its lack of success is due to its desire to
	support more free speech.
	I think there should be a public conversations app with one billion plus people on it, said Zuckerberg.
	Twitter has had the opportunity to do this but hasn't nailed it.
	Hopefully we will.
	But of course what Zuckerberg means when he calls for congeniality is censorship.
	Isn't that great?
	This is what this article is pointing out.
	Congeniality will be used to underwrite censorship.
	And isn't that exactly how things are going at the moment?
	Hello there.
	What you said wasn't very congenial.
	We're going to have to censor you.
	You have 20 seconds to comply.
	It's often said, almost to the point of cliche, that we were offered by great English writers of the last century two visions of the future.
	Orwell's brutal 1984 vision of overt authoritarianism, the jackboot, the prison cell, the torture, the rats, the room 101, the nastiness, big brother.
	And Huxley's more gentle, almost like iPhone aesthetic before it happened.
	Clean, smooth lines.
	People in pods just gently supine under the influence of Soma.
	A gentle, friendly, lovely drug.
	Nullified.
	Automated.
	What this system, and I think that social media networks like Fred's are just part of it, I think they're designing it, is a vision of the future.
	Not where like in Orwell's vision is a jackboot pounding on your face.
	It's you actually licking a jackboot.
	Willingly loving the jackboot, a sugar-covered, friendly, congenial jackboot that you're licking like a lollipop.
	Let me know in the comments if you agree.
	On Thread's first day of operations, users already reported having their posts taken down, mainly for political reasons.
	Some accounts say they are being blacklisted or greylisted.
	That's the only area where things aren't black and white, is the degree to which they censor you.
	When you try to follow a problematic person on Fred's, you might be warned that their account has posted false information or has violated community guidelines.
	You have violated community guidelines.
	Welcome to the gulag.
	Gulag?
	Sorry, I mean play park.
	Oops.
	I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet.
	Oh dear.
	Censorship techniques that have been honed by Meta on Facebook and Instagram are already being zealously deployed on Threads.
	How many of you feel a sort of sense of personal disappointment that after seeing Mark Zuckerberg saying it was wrong for Facebook to censor true information, to hear that they're going to be using techniques honed during that period of draconian and interventionist censorship once more?
	Don't you feel sort of personally disappointed?
	Or were you not so naive as me as to be pulled in by those testimonies to personal change that Zuckerberg made?
	Certainly many of the fiercest critics of Musk-era Twitter have been clear that what they want is more censorship.
	From the very day Musk took over last year, every inch Twitter has taken towards greater free speech has sent the Twitterati into spasms.
	For loosening up the rules on what people can tweet, Musk was accused of empowering fascism.
	For restoring the accounts of formerly banned users, he was accused of having blood on his hands.
	And for shaking up Twitter's verification system, for allowing ordinary people to get themselves a blue tick, he was accused of enabling disinformation and conspiracy theories.
	That's the fundamental idea here and I think it's important, isn't it, to try to continue to identify what the underlying principle is.
	The underlying principle of censorship has to be, it has to be, we know better than you what is good for you and therefore we are going to control what you have access to.
	Of course it's never presented like that.
	It's always like, there's these baddies, and the baddies are doing bad stuff, and we'll, don't worry, we'll deal with the baddies.
	Of course you have to say that, but you deal with the baddies.
	They're not in your house.
	They're just on your phone.
	Like, oh, that's bullshit, that's bullshit.
	Like, aren't you, we're capable of that, aren't we?
	Aren't we doing that all the time?
	I mean, aren't we doing that right now with this?
	Aren't we looking at this and going, oh, this isn't what they're saying it is.
	Friendly.
	Oprah Winfrey.
	Isn't this going to be great?
	What they're doing is they've created a new space that they can censor because they've lost the ability to censor the last space.
	They've recognized they can't control it.
	So, all right, let's just set up an adjacent space.
	That's essentially what's happening, isn't it?
	Let me know in the comments.
	This is what explains all the excitement over Threads.
	The tweeting classes are desperate for a return to the censorious pre-Musk status quo.
	They yearn to be protected from the free expression of the masses.
	They want social media to be a safe space again.
	They want big tech to be their big brother.
	Meta is already too powerful.
	One company controls what much of the public is allowed to see.
	And if Threads succeeds, it will have 80% of the global market outside of Russia and China, according to one industry insider.
	Well, fortunately there's no plans to go to war with Russia and China by proxy on spurious bases in order to diminish their power and conquer the whole world and achieve a kind of globalist super state where everything is super friendly and super congenial.
	So friendly now since we killed all the Russian people.
	Yeah, isn't it?
	As such, it's reasonable to expect that Meta will censor precisely the same way the large news media corporations, including the New York Times and corporate advertisers, want it to.
	One of the things I learned from talking to Jack Dorsey is that he feels that he'd had no choice as the CEO of Twitter.
	Because this is what happens, right?
	Like, you might think Jack Dorsey's the world's worst guy and love Elon Musk and all that.
	I don't obviously mind what you think in the privacy of your own mind.
	I don't mind what you say down there in the comments.
	But this is what I learned from listening to him.
	He's the CEO.
	People say, look, advertisers are saying they want Trump banned.
	Look at what's happening to our value on the stock exchange.
	Oh, no, it's going down.
	Right, ban Trump.
	Oh, look, the value is going up.
	Cool.
	So the sort of market, as it were, is what controls it.
	But the market isn't like a weather system.
	It's not meteorology.
	It's not nature.
	It is reflective of things like confidence, ideology, and agenda.
	The market can be rigged and biased.
	Of course it can.
	That's how there are people that are brilliant at it.
	How do you think Paul Pelosi and Nancy Pelosi are operating?
	I don't know.
	That's just alleged.
	I've got no evidence of that.
	What I'm saying is, is the market is not an independent entity.
	It's a set of interests.
	And while there is volatility in markets, and there are accidents in markets, it is representative of a set of interests and an agenda, wouldn't you say?
	So Twitter censored in accordance with market principles.
	What this is doing is saying, we will regulate to make this ultimately a space for advertising.
	I mean, why are they not saying that on the news?
	They go, oh, it's great.
	It's going to be friendly, free speech.
	No, it isn't.
	It's a place where censorship can take place and where advertisers can say we're not gonna find our post up against something we don't like because in free speech people say crazy stuff like you do, like we all do.
	You think they're so perfect?
	You think they haven't accidentally said something that's dumb or stupid or hurtful?
	Called being human.
	And I think that's what offends me most of all, is that they don't want us to be human.
	They want us to pretend to be something that we're not, to not have a shadow, to not have fissures of darkness and sadness and pain and remorse and regret running through each of us.
	But coming with that, the possibility for redemption, salvation, healing, new conversations, they want us frozen and ossified in this pose of piety that could never be real.
	So we won't be real.
	We'll become like their act.
	Hello, I'm so congenial.
	Oh, that wasn't very friendly, was it?
	More censorship is what the mainstream news media, big corporations, and their celebrity pitch people have been demanding.
	Meta's business model is about getting the public to spend more time online so Meta can profile us more and make advertising money.
	Full stop.
	For that reason, Fred's has an extra zero privacy protections, allowing companies to know one's location and consumer preferences.
	Full stop.
	Unlike Twitter, Fred's collects data about health and fitness, financial info, sensitive info, and other data.
	Oh my God.
	It's literally worse than Twitter.
	It's worse.
	It's not better.
	Oh my God.
	the European Union fined Meta a record 1.3 billion dollars after finding the Facebook
	parent broke its privacy laws by transferring user data from Europe to the United States.
	Oh my god, the European Union had to fine them because they just transferred a bunch of private
	data from one continent to another.
	That's illegal.
	They do illegal stuff.
	It's very difficult because we don't know how to conceptualize something like data, do we?
	Because it's not like gold or oil.
	It's a more complicated concept.
	But as we advance, as we begin to understand this, we'll see how much power we've given them.
	And we'll see how they're misusing that power.
	And we'll see the way that they are doing it is by pretending it's for you.
	Fred isn't for you.
	If it was just you, they wouldn't bother to create it.
	It's for them.
	One of the oldest maxims of social media is if you're not paying for the product, you are the product.
	So you're the product.
	Even now, while you're watching this, I know that there's programmatic ads in this.
	We know that we have commercial sponsors.
	We try to be responsible about the way that we deal with that.
	And we don't use your data in irresponsible ways.
	What we want is to create a movement of awakened, responsible, Open-minded, good-hearted individuals that we can communicate with.
	And I see myself as being on that journey with you, no better than you, no worse than you, part of humanity with you.
	Flawed, making mistakes.
	What they want is an anodyne, supine, congenial, friendly, censored, shut-down, market-friendly place that they can absolutely control.
	And according to that European Union fine, they're not worthy of that trust because they are abusing it criminally.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	Thank you for choosing Fox 4 News.
	Thank you so much.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news!
	Now we are being joined by an actor who is not only pretended to be actual Jesus in Passion of the Christ.
	Do you remember going to see Passion of the Christ?
	Yeah.
	I went and saw it.
	Very good indeed.
	When I saw it, something went wrong in the cinema and I had to go and turn the lights on at the back, which isn't normal.
	What?
	I saw it in Camden.
	I went to see Passion of the Christ.
	It was much more intense than I thought it was going to be.
	I don't know why I didn't think that the Passion of the Christ would be intense.
	I mean, I know what Jesus went through.
	Yeah.
	The crucifixion, the passion, the lashing, the abuse.
	The name-calling.
	All just to name a few of the trials of our Lord.
	Something went wrong in the cinema and I had to turn the light on and I remember being most proud when I said let there be light before I turned the light on.
	Very good.
	And I didn't get as much as you deserve.
	Do you feel a little bit like in that moment you slightly became Jesus?
	I was trying to imply that to the cinema goers of Camden, Camden North London of course, but they didn't come with me on that journey at all.
	They were much more, Jesus is the embodiment of the unknowable and nuministic entity that we call God.
	He is the potential for all of us to transform and become loving and awakened souls.
	And if you want someone who's not Jesus to be Jesus, Get Jim Caviezel.
	Jim's starring in Sound of Freedom, a new film based on the true story of a U.S.
	homeland security agent rescuing children from human traffickers in South America.
	We're right interested in it.
	Primarily I'm interested, of course the subject matter is fascinating, but it's a film that's been made in a different way.
	It's been funded in a new way, it's been promoted in a new way, and it's had extraordinary mainstream media pushback and some extraordinary Accusations about the motivations of the film and the audience of the film have been made.
	So all of this is stuff that I'm excited to cover with both Jim Caviezel and Tim Ballard, who Jim plays in the movie, who'll be joining us a little later.
	Jim, are you there?
	I am.
	What's your motivation in making this film, Jim?
	Is it that you were compelled by the story, compelled by the issue?
	I'm assuming you're Christian, Jim.
	Was your own Christianity a factor?
	And do you think it's a particularly Christian story?
	Well, if you want to go to the biblical story, no greater love have you than give your life for another.
	No greater love And, you know, I came into depth of that when I was doing the Passion of the Christ.
	I was electrocuted.
	I had my shoulder dislocated.
	I had two heart surgeries, including open heart.
	I had hypothermia and it infected my lungs.
	And for about 10 years after that, I struggled.
	I wanted to show people a level of Christ that people would feel like they would have an encounter.
	So I asked God to play me, and that was the difference maker in that film.
	In the same way in Sound of Freedom, when I met Tim and what he had been through, that's also a biblical story where you would sell everything you have for that one pearl that Jesus speaks about.
	And I've had the things that can fill you in your heart in this world.
	I felt like this was my service as an actor to help people out and bring them to God.
	My involvement in this film, I have three children all adopted.
	I became very well aware of nefarious activities even in the orphanages and things around the world and the dangers that children undergo and so I feel like I would In a heartbeat, give my life for my family or my children and felt that the dangers that they're going to undergo now, and especially within the media that is not giving the truth of what's happening or ignoring it, that
	I felt that this might be able to do something.
	And Tim, who's an incredibly special human being, sought me out for this because he saw the passion, and he saw The Count of Monte Cristo, and those were two films he liked.
	And I didn't think, you know, being an actor when I was younger, that this is where I was going to end up.
	But there was something there that was Um, you know, doing The Passion was like climbing Mount Everest on the hardest side of the mountain.
	And, uh, you know, um, I used to do comedies, Russell.
	Did you know that?
	Seems like a stretch today, mate.
	Sounds like you've got the weight of the world on your shoulders.
	Like, Jim, obviously you're an actor that takes your work incredibly seriously, as all great actors do.
	Perhaps that's one of the ways that I've suffered in that industry.
	What we'll do, I know that Tim's ready to join us now, but we'll have a look at the trailer for Sound of Freedom,
	and then Tim Ballard, upon whose story the film is based, will be joining us, and we'll be continuing to talk about
	Jim as well.
	You can join us on Locals by pressing the red button.
	People are saying these are lovely people.
	That's Primal Colin.
	This is an important story that needs to be told.
	People have seen the film and think it's amazing.
	If you'd seen the film, you'd understand the heaviness, says Rogue Nation.
	And of course, I've spoken to people involved in this production, and I realize it's an extremely serious subject.
	We're going to be joined by Tim just after the trailer.
	Let's have a look at the trailer now.
	It is the fastest growing international crime network that the world has ever seen.
	It has already passed the illegal arms trade.
	And soon it's gonna pass the drug trade.
	Because you can sell a bag of cocaine one time to the child five to ten times a day.
	God's children are not for sale.
	How long you been doing this?
	Four years now.
	How many pedophiles you got?
	288.
	288.
	We can't do that.
	We are now joined by Tim Ballard upon who the movie is based.
	Tim, thank you so much for joining us to talk about Sound of Freedom.
	How are you today, mate?
	I'm doing great, Russell.
	Thanks for having me on your show.
	Thank you so much.
	It's an honor to have you.
	We learned, I personally learned about this film when a friend of mine told me about it a couple of months ago.
	He told me about the significance of the story.
	He told me about his personal involvement.
	They had met you and he knows about the Railroad Project and he was incredibly excited and honored to be involved. I'll just make sure that I won't publicly
	say who it is because I'm not sure if I'm supposed to. So I've known about your film for a little
	while. Tim, you're clearly a man who's inspired some very strong feelings. You're clearly a
	vocational and devoted man and it's plain that only a person that has direct experience of
	playing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would be fit for the job.
	So that's fantastic casting right off the bat there.
	We're getting Jim Caviezel on board.
	Can you tell me a little bit about the process of getting this film made?
	Tim, tell us how you've come to be in this position and as well touch on stuff and why you believe it's so important that people see Sound of Freedom.
	Yeah, great.
	So I spent 12 years as a special agent, undercover operator, and I would get deeper and deeper as the years went on trying to find the root of the problem.
	Eventually started getting overseas and started doing overseas operations.
	And in 2012, 2013, I was working a case in Colombia, got further than I was supposed to get, and they said, come home.
	And I said, I can't.
	I've made myself the bait.
	I've gone too deep.
	And they said, well, then you have to quit your job if you want to continue the operation.
	And I did.
	It was a very difficult decision.
	And we went ahead, and my wife and I decided to quit.
	And we finished the operation as, you know, private citizens, if you will.
	And the operation was enormous.
	It ended on October 11, 2014.
	The biggest operation, the biggest rescue operation that I think I've ever heard of.
	There was over 120 women and children rescued, 15 traffickers arrested.
	And the mainstream media in the United States, back when they Everybody thought it was still good to say child trafficking is bad.
	They reported.
	It's the craziest thing.
	It was all over the news.
	Everyone was like, yay, we're helping kids.
	And one of the producers, Eduardo Verastegui, Alejandro Monteverde, saw that clip with the mainstream media.
	And that's how they found me, ironically, through the mainstream media and said, let's make a movie out of this.
	Nine years later, The same mainstream media is acting like, well, I don't think it really happened.
	It's the most bizarre twist of events, but that's how it got started.
	And they came to me and said, who do you want to play you in the film?
	And right out of the gate, I said, Jim Caviezel.
	Hands down, Jim Caviezel.
	And at first they said, They love Jim as an actor, but they wanted someone that looks a little bit like me because they had written into the script kind of this transitional thing at the end where they show real footage.
	And I said, I don't care.
	Look, I'm not a big fan of Hollywood producers.
	I think that some of the Stuff that's produced there is the reason we have a demand for child sex in the United States.
	And I know Jim is in, but not of, Hollywood.
	He loves Jesus.
	I love Jesus.
	And that's it.
	And they said, okay, we'll move forward with Jim.
	And they know they made the right decision.
	I'm trying to think who else could have done it.
	I mean, you gotta have Jim Cavieza.
	When he flashes that smile, you're in all sorts of trouble.
	I'm trying to think of what other casting direction you could have gone in there to tell you the truth, Tim.
	Now, like, of course, yeah, I'm old enough to remember when child sex trafficking was universally condemned.
	I'm also old enough to remember that when people used to speak about networks of uh child sex stuff that it was sort of regarded as a conspiracy theory then there were some high-profile stories in our country that suggested that there was more truth to it than people had dared to imagine because it's such a horrific thing for most of us even to contemplate that then of course in recent years we've had the Epstein story which makes it
	Yet more palpable that there appears to be a connection between these most nefarious and uh let's say sort of ghouling and ghoulish activities and the activities of powerful people and now having spoken to both of you for a few minutes it becomes pretty plain why people why certain aspects of the media are not willing to promote this film one i think it's because it's an economic model that's outside of their control it's a promo model that's outside of their control And it's plain that from just from your most recent answer, Tim, that you believe there's a connection between this type of activity and powerful institutions, shall we say.
	So evidently there is, you know, now it makes more sense.
	But what I'd read up to now is that they were saying it's connected to groups like QAnon and conspiracy theories.
	But one of the things I've learned over the last few years, and I'm certainly not saying I believe... I don't believe in anything until there's proof.
	I just can't be bothered with the arguments.
	But certainly the last few years have shown me that things that start off as conspiracy theories end up being verified and I pray to God that this is not something that gets further verification.
	Tim, I want to say mate that obviously you've gone into areas that most people aren't willing to Confront.
	Most, everybody of course is opposed to exploitation and violence, all right-minded, sane and awakened people of course, but most of us haven't experienced the jagged end of this type of cruelty.
	It seems that Jim has, it's been difficult for Jim just sort of playing you and going through the process of promoting this film What kind of burden and scars are you carrying or do you feel enriched and empowered by the success of the work more than you feel traumatized by the dark side of it?
	It's a mixed bag.
	It depends on the day.
	I have a million holes in my brain.
	You can't watch thousands of hours of small children being sexually assaulted without having some pretty serious damage.
	Again, there's a reason I asked Jim to play me.
	Because that spiritual side is the only place I have found healing.
	You know, a really cool story.
	Jim didn't know this.
	He ad-libbed my favorite line into the movie.
	He didn't know that was my line for life, my line for my operations.
	When I'm going into dark places, such that you see depicted in the film, there's a line from the scripture I read to myself over and over again.
	It's where Jesus stands on little children.
	It's the only time perhaps in the Bible where he truly gets violent, even mafioso violent, in his language because he says, I think we kind of pass by this too quickly sometimes when we read the Bible, he says that it's better that a millstone be hung about your neck and you tossed to the bottom of the sea than that you should hurt one of these little children.
	I mean, that is, it's Jesus, so it's righteous, but it's also mafioso.
	It's like cement shoes kind of stuff.
	Right?
	Like, this is what the mafia does to people when they cross them.
	Well, this is what Jesus is going to do to you if you cross these little children.
	That was important to me because I say to myself when I'm going into dark places, I'm scared.
	Don't get me.
	You're going to watch that movie and think I'm some brave guy.
	I'm no braver than the next guy.
	I'm scared to death going into these undercover situations where my life's on the line.
	But I say to myself, Jesus is violently on my side.
	And that means I can have faith That I can be violently on his side, and we're gonna be okay.
	And so, in the movie, there's a scene, it's a real scene in a cafe where we arrest this pedophile.
	In the film, his name is Oshensky.
	And Jim leans over and ad-libs a line that's not in the script.
	And he didn't know this was my go-to line.
	He looks at the pedophile moments before he's about to be arrested, and he says to him, Better than a millstone be hung about your neck and you tossed to the bottom of the sea, than you should hurt one of these little ones.
	And the actor, who did a phenomenal job, he didn't know what to do because, I mean, Jim's ad-libbing this line, and it seems out of context for a millisecond, and then two seconds later you realize what Jim's doing.
	You realize what the actor, Jim, is doing, trying to depict me sending a message to this sick, sick person before he goes down.
	And That is why Jim Caviezel had to play me because that's, to answer your question, that's how I heal.
	I only heal.
	I heal during the operation.
	During the dark moments, I've already begun my process of healing because I bring Jesus and all that Jesus brings and redemptive power from the get-go.
	So both of you are able to endure these experiences and render them through your connection to a gangster Christ.
	Christ that's willing to take it to the dark places.
	This is not the Jesus peacefully with the lamb.
	This is the Jesus with the moneylenders.
	This is the Jesus with the millstones.
	So, like, that's pretty serendipitous and synchronous, Jim, that you were able to come up with that line.
	It's pretty plain that your Christianity directs you as an actor and as a man.
	How did you bring that to bear on this part, and in particular, in that scene?
	Well, if you go back to the Passion of the Christ, Our makeup artists, Christian Tinsley and Keith Vanderlyn, they were showing, Mel Gibson was showing the Shroud of Turin and it had, when they showed it and put it up on a kind of light that could come through it, you could see all of the track lines in it.
	The Cat O' Nine Tails, the whips they used on him, and immediately both of them believed that this was real.
	And then I said, why are you making such a big deal of it?
	And they said, well, look at his face.
	There's such a piece to it.
	And then they pulled, I said, I don't understand.
	And they pulled this out and you see this picture, this This is how all of the bodies they use from people that have been decapitated, murdered, or anything, and the way that they, when a person dies, the face is frozen in that horrible look, and you see the face of Jesus on that, you see, does this look like a criminal?
	Now, when I was doing the, so I, the, The work that I was going to do on this, I had to go to those depths because when people watch it in the theater, they're having a personal experience with something internal inside of them.
	And there was no different than when I was with Tim and I had to go to the places.
	So I met with Tim originally and then he was busy.
	I went over to Utah and got to see his whole place where he works and his men and everything.
	And then I went to other agents that I've known for many years that I went through and started researching all of this stuff.
	And you couldn't look at this stuff without having some protection in your soul.
	But what drove me more than anything was my own children and possibly losing them.
	And so that weaponized me.
	That made me, obviously, as you say, the Jesus that was going to be a bit of a thumper in this one.
	And so I was Um, you know, it's, it's, I, I, uh, I even thinking about it right now.
	Um, it just, I think the children and seeing, um, that, uh, it, it, it, it's different than an adult watching something that's older, but it relates to Jesus because he was the most innocent there ever was.
	And the children are the closest to that.
	Yes, I've heard it argued that what we're saying about the radiance that comes through the innocent is because they're not fully materialized, fully alloyed to the material world, you can experience God consciousness more through the young, through youth, even with cute young animals.
	There is a sense that the pure original condition can be experienced more before we Go through the various trials and conditioning that takes place that delivers us into adulthood and often the state of dull conformity that that renders.
	True Nature's Child says, Jesus the big G. Ian Drummo says, Jim is actually looking a lot more like Tim in this interview than I've ever seen him before too.
	Didn't recognize him in first, so doing a good job On that front too.
	Caroline Joyce says, do they think enough is being done by governments and law enforcement to track down the perpetrators of crimes of this nature and prevent future crimes from happening?
	What do you think, Tim Bard?
	Oh, Jim's straight in there.
	Jim ain't mucking about.
	It's a hard answer from Jim.
	Go on then, guys.
	Let me know what you're thinking.
	Well, let me tell you, no, not at all.
	I mean, first, start with a basic fact.
	There's about five drug agents in the United States government for every one anti-child trafficking agent.
	But it goes much deeper than that.
	An awareness, by the way, in a republic, theoretically, when the people get loud, we'll see those numbers shift.
	Tim, Jim, I really appreciate both of you for this devout and serious undertaking.
	I can see that it's put both of you under incredible strain and I'm really very grateful to you for the work you're doing and that you are obviously continuing to do and for your level of commitment.
	Thanks for getting up early and joining us.
	I really appreciate it.
	Thanks, Russell.
	Take care, Jim.
	Take care, Tim.
	Thank you very much for your time.
	On the show tomorrow, I'm going to be joined by The Critical Drinker, a very popular and successful YouTuber who shares honest and hilarious critiques of movies.
	Have you seen him yet?
	Go away now!
	It's absolutely extraordinary.
	Let's have a look at him right now.
	Thanks for having me on, man.
	I can't believe it.
	I'm sandwiched right between Tucker Carlson and Ron DeSantis.
	I've got a lot to live up to on this one.
	You better come up with some pretty powerful right-wing ideology right now.
	You surely love the critical drinker.
	A man who has analyzed and critiqued contemporary cinema with a perspective that you're unlikely to see in the mainstream.
	I think we are definitely stuck in a rut as a culture when it comes to just relying on the past.
	As you say, the motivation behind these IPs and these franchise movies is no one's willing to take a risk.
	What they lack with these modern characters that they try to do is that they're not willing to take that step of have them fail and be vulnerable and have flaws and weaknesses.
	We're going to talk about Sound of Freedom.
	Why is this movie causing so much controversy?
	I'm also going to start referring to the Critical Drinker by his actual human name, and I'm going to ask you to remove them aviators.
	Not yet!
	Not while we're still on YouTube!
	So there you go, that's our show tomorrow.
	To join our locals community, just press the red button at the bottom of your screen now.
	You also get first access to interviews like Oliver Stone and Rhonda Santis next week.
	We do meditations the whole time, loads of stuff about events.
	We've got a fantastic week for you next week.
	Join us tomorrow for The Critical Drinker, not for more of the same, oh no, we wouldn't insult you with that, but for more of the different.
	Until then, please, if you can, stay free.
	Man, you're switching.

▲