“IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!” Saagar Enjeti on NATO’s Ploy, Censorship Laws & UFOs
Saagar Enjeti, co-host of Breaking Points joins Russell to unpack the implications of new censorship laws, the mainstream media’s reporting of the movie ‘Sound of Freedom’, and the US's controversial stance over sending cluster bombs to Ukraine. PLUS, are aliens among us? Russell & Saagar discuss the world of extraterrestrial possibilities, sparked by recent whistleblower revelations and Rep. Tim Burchett's startling comments about classified UFO footage.For a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here: https://russellbrand.locals.com/NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/
Thanks for joining us on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
It's a very special conversation today for those of us that are interested in truth.
Non-biased reporting, confronting issues that we find challenging, a willingness to listen to alternative perspectives, old media, new media, old activism, new activism, censorship, the complexity around language.
I am being joined by that great truth seeker, co-host of Breaking Points, it's Saga Njeti.
Saga, thank you so much for joining us today.
Oh, thank you so much for having me back, Russell.
I appreciate it.
Last time we communicated, you revealed that you worked with Tucker briefly.
Since then, we've had Tucker on our show.
It's really important for us and significant.
It really is one of those moments in a channel's trajectory, I guess, perhaps for you, like your conversation with Rogan when you guys went on there and stuff, like where you notice how independent media relies on these kind of alliances and how significant it is that we sort of formulate them.
And it seems to be happening quite easily and naturally in this space,
that there isn't a sort of a negative sense of competition, more a sense of, oh, we're all in this area
and we're sort of helping one another.
Since being on our show, Tucker's also spoken to Andrew Tate.
And I suppose what I feel is interesting to discuss is like people will probably say to me,
people that like, say from conventional liberal spaces, that I shouldn't talk to Tucker.
Certainly people will say that Tucker shouldn't talk to Tate.
Where do, and like, and yet like Andrew Tate would have conversations on sort of a mainstream platform like the BBC.
How do you navigate that space saga?
I don't believe that anybody can decide except for actual people like audience members as to whether somebody is out of bounds or not.
And so, yeah, I'm glad that you had that conversation with Tucker.
I found it really enlightening.
Congratulations on that, by the way.
You got the first Big one.
And actually, some of the things that you and I talked about last time around came true.
He revealed in your interview about January 6th, what the Capitol Police had told him a little bit about the feds in the crowd, you know, at the time.
And that was part of the thing.
One of the reasons why he was taken off the air.
So it was good to hear some of the details within that.
But, you know, Andrew Tate as well.
I mean, look, Andrew Tate was one of the most popular viewed people on the Internet.
And then he was effectively canceled overnight.
Now, Some of the allegations and all those things against him definitely are bad.
But, you know, Tucker certainly did get into some of that with him.
It was a two and a half hour conversation.
So if you want to know more about the guy that supposedly is, you know, riding the brains of 14 year olds, I can't think of a better way to actually hear what the man has to say for two and a half hours.
And you can make up your mind for yourself.
That's just what I believe.
Yeah, I suppose censorship and cancellation are sort of emergent phenomena that, aside from this case specifically, let's just talk about them generally, appear to be tools that prevent independent media from doing what it's plainly organically doing, creating spaces for conversation and preventing centralised authoritarian narrative setting.
And it would seem to me that generally that would be a bigger problem than Yeah, I think you're absolutely right, which is that at the end of the day, it is up to people to make up the mind for themselves.
And we can't just be in a situation where somebody could tell you, Russell, not to speak with that person.
And then also, beyond all of that, was the interview newsworthy or not?
I would say that you actually landed one of the biggest interviews in the history of modern media, right?
You had, do you know the X?
to TV hosts, traditionally this is something where after they leave, what do they do?
They go sit down with the New York Times, they go sit down with Vanity Fair,
or whatever one of these other ridiculous, or no, he sat with you, you guys had a conversation,
a real back and forth, we actually got to get into it a little bit.
Your preexisting relationship really helped.
And for me, listening to it, I felt like I was actually in the room with you and elucidated something both newsworthy, interesting, and also got to the depth of who he was as a person.
I think that Tucker, I haven't been able to watch the full Andrew Tate thing.
I got a little bit of it, but I think that he probably got to more of that than I've seen previously.
And when you come right off the gate and you try and hit somebody with you're unacceptable, instead it's let's actually get something out of this conversation for the people who are listening.
I reckon that what you've identified, Saga, is that these techniques are an attempt to rig the game, because what's playing when someone like Tucker chooses us for his first interview, or the power of Rogan's endorsement of your work first on The Hill and now, of course, on Breaking Point, We recognize that the natural tendency is for people to have access to independent media spaces that are more appropriate to the way that they want to consume news.
Conversationally, in some cases, in a more nuanced way, with counterpoints that are expressed, declaration of biases as part of the content.
Sometimes now when I look at mainstream news, it feels clumsy.
It feels like you can see what they're doing.
Take for example, mainstream media reporting on the emergence of Zuckerberg's new meta-platform Threads.
They're going to bat for Threads.
That's plain.
Like they're saying that we had a, excuse me, I think a CNN piece where they said, You know, neo-Nazi friendly, Twitter is a dumpster fire, Fred, it's easy to use, all the people you follow, and it was like news reporting!
It wasn't, there's no sort of sense that, here is some information, why don't you decide for yourself?
It's extraordinary, isn't it?
I just went through this on the Sound of Freedom film.
I'm sure you've seen a lot of the discourse on this.
So I was traveling.
I was in India.
I actually had a marriage ceremony there and all that.
So I tried to check out, right?
But I keep thinking, things keep bubbling up to me.
Sound of Freedom.
Okay, so I come back.
I'm like, what's going on here?
CNN has this whole piece, it's like a QAnon film.
I read more, I have multiple reviews of the film and the Guardian, Rolling Stone, Washington Post,
everybody's saying it's QAnon related.
I keep looking for an example.
I'm like, where is the actual thing in the film that endorses, there isn't one.
Basically what they're saying is that by talking, by making a quote based on a true story film,
which is effectively the oldest genre in the history of Hollywood,
that you are then endorsing QAnon because some QAnon people like the film.
And I was like, this is the most absurd thing that I've ever seen.
It's, I mean, taken.
Are we all forgetting that that was a film that already was created?
Like, is that QAnon friendly?
So, as you just laid out, you know, they try and they try and put, you know, try and conflate two different things.
Like you just said, neo-Nazi Twitter.
It's like, yeah, are there neo-Nazis on Twitter?
Maybe.
I mean, what percent are the base?
Why, why, why if they, they exist there, are they somehow representative of the entire 237 million daily active users?
So, They use this selective grouping of one thing that is tangentially attached to a broader film or Twitter platform, anything like that, in order to brand the entire thing as racist or terrible or out of bounds of the conversation.
And I guess the only good news is that people are waking up to that and they say, this is absurd and I'm not buying into this anymore.
That's extraordinary.
Certainly the Matrix are going to be in a lot of trouble after the Tucker and Tate conversation because that is a metaphor he's using pretty consistently and seemingly at least in that instance with good reason.
The recent piece of EU legislation that's proposed to facilitate further censorship
and enable the EU to find social media platforms that don't comply with their censorship model
was described by Thierry Breton, I think is the bureaucrat's name, in these terms.
He said that if people are advocating for rioting, if they're saying it's okay to kill
people and burn cars, we should be able to censor them.
And even rhetorically in this piece of conversation, killing people, which we know is bad, burning
cars, which we know is bad, was alloyed, rhetorically at this stage, but ultimately legislatively,
with dissent, with protest.
And it appears that whether it's in online spaces or in physical spaces in the, you know, since we're referring particularly to what's happening in France at the moment, there are attempts to Facilitate censure and regulatory action on the most spurious of bases by using almost like literal NLP and mind control techniques of associating one idea with another idea, then legislating on that basis.
Do you feel that's what's happening?
The NLP is actually a great example of that.
For those who don't know what we're talking about, I guess what the best way to describe it is to try and bring two associations between these as a form of control.
I previously had used it, heard it used more in like the pickup world or whatever,
but I'm sure there's a lot of different ways that it's described.
The reason why though, what you're saying is so important is that to get an association of something,
like you said, spuriously, between something legitimate and then something that should be out of bounds
in terms of action is the most classic form of speech control.
And actually, I'll say something controversial.
I think it should be legal to be able to say something like, you should go burn a car or something like that.
Maybe I'm out of bounds, but I believe absolutely in the freedom of speech, no matter how abhorrent it is.
And I specifically also believe that in online spaces, because I think that the line is always so fuzzy, especially in a time of crisis that I would always rather err on the ability of people to get their point out, especially in a chaotic situation like what's going on in France or what happened here in the United States, BLM, January 6th, any of these things.
I don't believe in out-of-bounds conversation whenever it comes to what is allowed out there.
Then it is up to all of us though, people like you, people like me, others, normal citizens and others, to sit around together and to say, okay, let's make some sense of this.
And like if you were to ask me, you know, do I think it's good to go out and say that we should go burn something?
No, I'd be like, no, I think that's bad.
But at the end of the day, I'm just so ridiculously reluctant after having now lived and seen so many of these political experiences that have come to the front in which censorship was always the first action.
Don't forget, you know, before the world was talking about Ukraine.
What was happening?
Those Canadian freedom protesters right, you know, north of our border here, watching the censorship online, the Canadian government freezing people's bank accounts.
I mean, even U.S.
media organizations doxing U.S.
citizens who anonymously were donating, you know, to these protesters.
That was one of the most chilling speech environments that I've ever seen.
And then we went into Ukraine, which has only dialed things up, you know, a hundred times worse than that.
So I'm very much reluctant at this point to put restrictions on speech.
There is something insidious at work in our culture when the justification for censorship is to assume malign intent
and to claim the authority to make that adjudication, particularly when we live in a time of such ambivalence
around authority, where surely now the results of every US election are
likely to be...
We're retrospectively contested.
The losing side is not going to say, oh, well, it's a fair fight.
You won fair and square.
Whoever comes out on top in next year's vote, where the judiciary is doubted by both sides.
Oh, this federal judgment was only made because it's a Trump appointed judge.
And then when you see the Ambiguity, beyond ambiguity, disingenuity of, for example, the cluster bomb argument that a year ago cluster bombs being used by Russia meant they were war criminals and now cluster bombs being sent to Ukraine to be used in that conflict by the United States of America is being described as necessary, sold to us as necessary.
What does that tell us?
There's nothing more disgusting than that because, you know, I sat in the room.
I was a Pentagon correspondent.
I watched and listened to the Obama and Trump people say that it was a war crime when Russians were using cluster munitions against Syrian civilians in the Battle of Aleppo and during the Syrian Civil War.
We all watched as Jen Psaki criticized the Russians, I think correctly, you know, for using cluster munitions against civilians.
in Ukraine and then we turn around on a dime whenever Ukraine is running low on ammunition and by the way also the United States is running low on ammunition and we have to start going into these uh into the ammo stores of these munitions which are banned by some hundred some countries described as a war crime by the United States government not even I see this constantly, Russell.
I know you see it in the UK.
turn around and ship them.
And where is this in our popular discourse and conversation?
I see this constantly, Russell.
I know you see it in the UK.
UK media, I thought US media was hawkish and bad, but I had no idea what I was dealing with
till I went over to London.
The interesting thing though, that I find though, in all of this is that once again,
people are not stupid enough to have that clip, to show it on a show like mine or like yours.
And for them to put that side by side and say, yeah, this is ridiculous.
I mean, and to not know that this isn't a direct.
Hypocrisy by the U.S.
government, by the West and its position within this conflict.
And then, you know, really worse is that removing so much of the moral high ground with it, which I think normal, average civilians, if you were to ask people here, you know, in Washington, D.C., somebody who's not involved in government, you'd be like, hey, do you support Ukraine?
A lot of them are, you know, pretty dispositionally liberal, and they say, yeah.
And they'd say, well, why?
And they're like, well, we're fighting for democracy.
We're fighting against this.
We have the moral high ground.
And then you would ask some of the cluster munitions.
They would be honest enough, I think.
A real, normal citizen would say, yeah, I think that It takes away a little bit from what we are fighting, you know, allegedly for.
And so that gets to the removal of conversation in public discourse, which is so important for the powers that be to make sure that their hypocrisy can't be pointed out.
And it's why censorship, especially on the internet, which is the greatest vehicle for free speech that could ever exist, is so important to protect.
There is this, of course, inherent amnesia built into the phenomena that, as with the cluster bomb story, so with the pandemic, we're continually invited to forget the events of just a year ago.
And this is what becomes almost existential.
This is an issue that goes beyond the way the media behaves.
This becomes, in a sense, a type of psychic warfare where there's a lack of personal and social certainty in what we're doing.
We have to support Ukraine in this conflict because Russia are war criminals.
Okay, why Russia are war criminals?
Because of the invasion.
Oh, how did we get into that territorial complexity?
Oh, well, there are these issues.
And what's NATO's role?
And now what's the role of cluster bombs?
You can't ask questions.
If you interrogate these situations, you find yourself in a peculiar position.
I think both sides, to simplify it by calling it two sides, Can, in their own ways, create that kind of dynamic.
But your earlier reference, The Sound of Freedom, sort of brought that up in me.
That, hold on, isn't this just a film talking about child sex trafficking?
No, it appears that it has a particular type of audience and that could be associated to this issue and that could be associated to this issue.
And in the end, of course, you could find, I think, conditions to morally object to almost any cultural artifact on the basis of history of colony or history of imperialism or connection to misogyny or there's always gonna but in the end who's left in the conversation i can't help thinking that that is part of the aim this nullification of good faith communication leads to a sort of stagnation and the kind of unipolar so social condition that it appears that they're aiming for do you ever
Stop to think what is the agenda or do you think of it as a kind of inert process saga?
Unfortunately, I think it is both I think there is there are both disparate interests in which individual actors have an incentive to continue pushing the status quo in which everybody is Divided such that they're unable to have conversation and those individually are all trying to make money Then there are also bad actors,
and I would call those really the politicians who cynically feed into that
and don't wanna change any of it because it is very politically convenient,
especially here in the United States in our primary system with the most active parts of each individual basis
being hyper-partisan and responding to the worst incentives.
Politicians who actually wanted to bring our country together
would want to work outside of that system.
But unfortunately, they end up playing most into that system
because it is in their most immediate interest.
And it requires somebody, a real statesman, somebody to actually come out and say,
"No, I'm going to reject this type of system.
We haven't seen that really for quite some time."
And I think that the things, politics and media, all of that is bi-directional.
As in some of it, the politics is downstream of what's happening in culture,
but culture can also be very downstream of when somebody is big enough to come up and say,
"No, I'm going to reject some of this."
And I do believe that there is a tremendous opportunity for all of that.
But I think that at the end of the day, though, the effect is what you describe, is it is a unipolar, almost push from the top in order to keep division at the center of not even only American, but Western life.
Just generally, in order to keep people from asking bigger questions around bank bailouts.
I just saw an article about the largest bankruptcies, you know, in modern times, almost since the Great Recession.
And yet, you know, it's easier whenever people are fighting about Bud Light.
And people who are the most interested or whatever with Bud Light, Target, etc., they think that I'm saying that I'm denigrating them.
I'm never going to tell people what to rank as importance.
I think you are totally free and correct in many cases in order to talk about that and see it as an issue.
I'm only saying, though, that people need to always ask in terms of selective importance and interest and what is actually being pushed, said by the powers that be, as to what, you know, qui bono, like who benefits.
Um, from all of this.
So, it is important, I think, for everybody to try and also self-check, and I have to do this to myself all the time, the things I get the most hopped up about internally, and just say, you know what?
We also have a mission here to do either on my show or even in a conversation, not only, you know, with my wife or with my friends, with people who may have different views than me, and that secondary taking a breath and pursuing connection has always served me well on a personal level, and I think professionally as well.
Yes, it seems increasingly like an obligation.
A recent conversation that you conducted on Breaking Points that made a significant impact was you and Crystal's chat with RFK.
Now a lot of people thought that got very contentious and that Crystal in particular was unfair on the vaccine subjects and in fact from our local stream Lotus Mother asks does Saga regret the way Crystal handled the first interview?
Now before we ask Saga to answer that those of you that are watching us on YouTube click the link in the description join us over on Rumble because Saga, you know Saga, he's going to be honest right now.
And that honesty may breach community guidelines over there at the Citadel.
We love you, you 6.5 million Awakening wonders.
Click the link in the description.
Join us over on Rumble to hear the answer of Lotus Mother's question.
Did Saga regret the way Crystal handled the first interview?
If you're watching us on Rumble right now, smash that Rumble button!
Join us on Locals, press the red button there, and get into the conversation with Sensitive Hearts and Tydro1.
Cluster F word?
Oh, that's very saucy.
Saga, what do you think, mate?
How do you feel about the way that interview went down, and Crystal in particular?
Well, I personally think much of the criticism of it was very bad faith because, look, I mean, at the end of the day, the question that she asked him, well, actually, there's also some meta things that are going on here.
So I saw there was a criticism that people thought that Crystal had cut RFK Jr.
off.
Now, unfortunately, his security guy was actually standing in the room and he had a hard out in order to leave.
So that was near the end of our conversation.
So in terms of the time limit and all of that, it was very real.
And much of that was largely because of the imposed time limit that was set.
I also think that in terms of the question that she asked him, which is how are you going to convince people who have different views on you on vaccines, was perfectly legitimate and one that has really stood the test of time.
I mean, unfortunately for RFK Jr.
etc. I also think that in terms of the question that she asked him, which is how are you going
to convince people who have different views on you on vaccines, was perfectly legitimate and one
that has really stood the test of time. I mean, unfortunately for RFK Jr. in many of the polls
that we have seen very recently, there has been actually reduction in some overall support
because Democratic primary voters don't feel as if he aligns with them on some of these issues.
And I think that it actually was important.
So look, I mean, what something that Crystal and I went into with that was that debating vaccine science is not something that her or I are qualified to do.
All we are qualified, quote unquote, to do is to ask about the political ramifications.
So, you know, I mean, at the end of the day, I thought that Crystal's position was totally legitimate.
I think that many people who hold RFK's position on vaccines got upset about it, and I think that's fine.
I mean, I should note, you know, we made a commitment at the very beginning.
We're like, we're not going to do what ABC News did.
Like, we're, you know, we fully, you know, we released the thing In full.
expecting backlash. And I mean, at the end of the day, that's what we do. So whenever people are,
I always see these ridiculous things. Are you going to denounce Crystal? Personally, Crystal
and I have a great relationship. We understand each other.
We have faith in our ability to conduct things professionally. We also understand that there are
many audiences out there of which we may share mutual interest or whatever, that may hate what
the other says. And that's part of doing business whenever you have a left and a right show. What's
clear to me is that we're living in a space that seems to fragment and fracture even as we're
occupying it.
We recently did an event with Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi and it was a sort of an anti-censorship industrial complex event in fact.
So the audience that were there, the live audience that were in attendance, were obviously there because of their support of those issues.
Stella Assange was there and spoke about Julian's plight and they're very sort of beautiful and moving and difficult to watch speech actually because I was really sort of aware of her experiences as a woman and as a mother and a wife as well as a activist obviously.
But there were points where sort of Michael Schellenberger said you know like I really like what RFK is doing In the space, I don't agree with him on everything.
And like some people, like we had people in production that were in the audience, you know, watching because it was an unusual event and stuff.
And they said, like, some people are like, oh, come on.
It's like, well, hold on.
Isn't this like a whole thing where together, like this is an anti-censorship movement.
We're going to have to form new alliances.
We're not all going to agree with one another on everything.
There has to be some sort of Spirit of good faith, where it's like, you know, maybe you agree with this aspect of RFK, and you like this from Trump, and you like this from over here.
Like, this seems to be part of what the political space is telling us now, that those old alliances are fracturing, even in the sort of premise of your show, and the polarity between a Democrat and a Republican is, in a sense, exposing that new dynamics are emerging within that.
Would you say that's fair, Saga?
Yeah, I mean, I think it's good.
Look, and here's the important point.
It's also an important point for people to get checked, them personally.
Many people think I'm open-minded, but sometimes whenever you get confronted with something of which you 100% believe, it turns out you're not nearly as open-minded as you think.
And I thought that the example that you gave was really good, of that even at an anti-censorship event, when you do say something which can go against, you know, some of the feelings of the people in the crowd, we are all human beings.
This is not an individual critique of these people.
I am aware of this feeling of everyone.
And, you know, if anything, I think what stands the test of time is the ability to continue to show up to work every single day Even when you are feeling as if, oh, people are upset at you.
And I personally experienced that during the Black Lives Matter protest and many different times of which there's been, quote, controversy.
I'm sure you've done the exact same thing, Russell.
It's easy when people are singing your praises.
But, you know, look, we have a commitment at our show, I think you do as well.
I think many, the Schellenberger, Taibbi, the folks that you all mentioned here,
and there can be disagreement.
And I think that is completely and totally fine.
I would also note that one of the great pleasures that I had was to be able to talk to Bobby Kennedy again
and to see him as a class act and to have him come back on our show,
to have a fulsome conversation that lasted within the time parameters
that his team, we were able to negotiate or whatever and have it to be cordial and have it to be something
that we all came away both from the first and the second one, actually, I should note too.
With Kennedy feeling good about.
We've also had other candidates on.
We're actually literally scheduling some right now.
I know you are as well.
And these are ones in which I find enlightening, interesting.
They're considered them like real highlights of my professional career to get these things that are out there.
And something also, Russell, that you and I understand, too, is that by doing this and having done it now for quite a long period of time, Individual flashes in the pan and some of those things are not what you focus on.
You hold principles in your mind, and you always use them as your North Star, even when you're doing well and, you know, supposedly on the low or whatever.
And if you do that for a long enough timeline, enough people understand what you're about, and that's what you always try to move towards.
Yeah, that really makes sense as an ideology, not just for broadcasting, but for life generally.
I've got a few questions from our locals community.
If you have questions and if you want to join our community.
Thank you, Sagar.
I appreciate that.
Press the red button and join us.
Thank you for permitting me.
The first one is from Farmer John 2022.
Are there topics that you keep away from because of personal danger associated?
Ooh, personal danger?
No.
I haven't had any topic that we have kept away on because of personal danger.
I did get some very strange calls back in 2019 when I was reporting about Epstein, and I was told, you should keep away from this if you know it's good for you, whatever, via some cutouts.
And I was just like, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing.
And it hasn't materialized yet.
So I'm not going to stop.
I think my latest Epstein story was two weeks ago.
So anything that comes up, we'll be talking about it.
Well, on that note, this question here is from gobsmackedpanda.
Sometimes the names here, there's always a risk that the names could undermine the seriousness of the question.
But, you know, people are entitled to have these names.
Does Saga think that the mainstream media are smearing the Sound of Freedom because the film, not just because of the economic model and the PR model, but because of the subject.
Indeed, I ask this because you've just brought up the sort of Epstein case, because a little while ago, Pedophile Rings and that kind of stuff was like, oh, this is crackers.
This is like Alex Jones territory.
And then sort of post Epstein, you start to realise, OK, well, something's going on.
And like then the nature of his death, Do you think that's part of it, or do you think they're framed by the economic model or the PR model, or do you think it is the subject?
I honestly don't know.
I do think that the liberal media has been so sensitive to validating anything that can be coded as right-wing that they have to preemptively attack.
So unfortunately I do think it is the subject matter and I do think and so I said in my monologue is I think that's a tragedy which is you know Russell I'm sure you spent some time in the developing world uh for me particular you know spending time in Thailand and in Cambodia I've actually personally witnessed um some of the stuff going on you know creepy guys coming from abroad walking hand in hand with somebody who looks on the edge I felt a pit in my stomach.
And I think the pit really came from, what am I going to do?
You think I'm going to go to a cop?
He's going to tell me to screw off, right?
There's nothing you can do in that individual time to affect what you find is one of the most abhorrent things that a human can do to a child.
And so for me, you know, to have that be politicized then, is really a tragedy, and it's not validating at QAnon whatsoever.
So I do think it's unfortunate, and I do also think it is a subject matter.
I think that the media, you know, because they really do lack ethics in so much of this regard, they're more afraid of criticism than they are of telling the truth, that they would rather go in that direction.
I suppose some of the high-profile stories from our country and from yours indicate that there has been a degree of sort of complicite and a culture of silence.
So yeah, it's difficult to counter what you're saying.
Blessed Old Bird asks, question for Saga.
Do people leave the hill on their own accord or are they removed from their hill?
What does he mean by... the channel?
Yeah, yeah, yeah!
Like, do people voluntarily leave the hill, or are they pushed?
I suppose this gives us the chance to talk a little bit about the establishment of Breaking Point and how that all came about.
Well, look, I mean, we certainly had a choice.
I can tell you they didn't want us to leave.
We are the ones who wanted to leave.
And the reason that we wanted to leave is we didn't feel like we could live up to our values of all the things that we talked about today and be connected to corporate media organizations.
I've told multiple of these stories publicly.
Before but you know I've had instances there where I would criticize you know a lawmaker and then that lawmaker would call like the boss boss's boss or whatever of the company and say I had to retract what I had said or they would pull out of an event that had nothing to do with me but that the company you know was doing that made them a lot of money and I'm not gonna lie and say that I didn't feel pressured.
Now, I didn't do it.
You know, at the end of the day, I didn't apologize.
I never would.
But, you know, I can't tell you that I didn't think about it the next time that I was talking about that lawmaker or a company of which I was critical of, which said that I was threatening their lives by talking publicly about the names of their employees, which were publicly posted and well within the bounds of the First Amendment.
Once again, you know, making Threaten and actions and all of this and the more that you're connected to the system that the more venues Of attack and it's remarkable since I have gone independent And crystal and I have we have probably been even more unchained in our rhetoric But because they don't have any levers that they can try and pull around me.
I don't get these calls anymore Even though, arguably, the show is bigger than ever.
I know so, actually, in terms of the downloads, the views, and all that.
It's orders of magnitude larger from when we were in terms of our public influence, in terms of all of that.
And yet, because we don't have things that they can connect to, when they have a problem, they can call me, but they have no monetary thing that they can try to affect my overall business or my career.
So, in a way, that has been the most freeing thing.
So, I can also tell you, Ryan and Emily, they've very much left of their own accord.
You can ask them.
You know, if you're very interested, I'm sure they'll tell you the same thing.
Thank you.
Well, as we move to the conclusion, it's nice for us to celebrate our mutual love of ufology and extraterrestrials.
Since we last spoke, there have been further revelations.
Tim Burchett saying that he saw classified footage.
And again, I think we're still in a space where many people think that this is false flag, distraction, information.
And I know that you sort of take this subject.
Seriously, where do you think this is going to take us?
Do you think that in the next 12 months or so we're going to get some sort of categorical acknowledgement of, I don't know, extra-dimensional life?
I don't know about the categorical acknowledgement.
I do know that Dave Grush, the whistleblower, is a very serious person.
I don't think Tim Burchett is a liar.
I have heard enough seriousness from people who are very sober in the intelligence community, the military, the journalists who have been covering this topic for decades, actual lawmakers.
Senators Gillibrand, Rubio, and others, that they are taking Dave Grush, his testimony and all of that, with the utmost seriousness as which they would any other, you know, type of topic.
And I think that's why it is so important for us to understand that the level of obfuscation that is being alleged by Dave Grush are multiple felony crimes committed, both in terms of lying to Congress and obfuscating from the American people and the world for multiple generations of the alleged UFO Phenomenon.
So look, I would love for there to be a disclosure, but I've also become comfortable enough with the gray area.
And I'll give you an example.
You know, we just had the release yesterday of somebody of the Manson family, and it actually reminded me of the great book Chaos by Tom O'Neill is, you know, I wouldn't say Tom O'Neill definitively proved that Manson was a CIA op, but it came close enough that I'm very comfortable saying it.
And I think that that's probably where we will end up with the phenomenon or where with any of these, where the crimes and the level of, you know, the total revelation of this actually happened, the cover-up and all this.
It's too titanic.
That's why 75 years later, we still don't know who killed JFK.
That's why we don't know about Charlie Manson.
We don't know, you know, about Jack Ruby and the mind control experiments that were done on him.
And who knows how many, you know, the Unabomber.
I could probably go on for this forever.
on this topic, but we know enough that people like you and I, and I wouldn't even say enlightened,
just people who care to read, can say, "Yeah, there's something going on here." So that's
probably where we'll end up. Do you think that freedom and decentralization are ultimately going
to become the same thing?
Do you think that, in a sense, the kind of models that we're consistently critiquing, the institutions of the deep state, the flawed electoral models that we're living within, do you think, in a sense, that whether it's the technology and communications revolution or the amount of cultural dissatisfaction and conflict, do you think that these are indicators that what's required is real systemic change?
Do you think the model that we're critiquing is coming to an end?
Do you sense that?
Yes, but not on a timeline that any of us would desire.
Last time I was here, I warned about how arguably dying institutions fight harder and actually create even more censorship.
But the internet is like the printing press.
You can't put it back in the bottle.
And something my friend Antonio Garcia Martinez has always said is, don't forget about the utter chaos that the printing press unleashed.
There was a literal 30 years war.
It lasted for 30 years.
We're about 30 years into the creation of the internet in my opinion the 30 years war is probably just now beginning and then on top of that there were you know the what the the protestant reformation on top of wars that unleashed a century and had all kinds of 40th order effects of which nobody could have
Ever understood or realized whenever that device was created.
So look on a long enough timeline.
I absolutely think that we will get there, but I do always take the time to warn people.
Progress does not come in a linear fashion.
In fact, many times we can feel retrenched.
We can feel as if things are not working stagnant, but you know, it's one of those where the fundamentals of the technology are moving us in that direction.
Now, we will see many iterations and versions and all those things of the places that we want to end up, but I have faith that we will eventually get there.
That doesn't mean, though, that you should sit back and relax.
That actually means you need to fight harder to get there even quicker rather than let inevitability kind of take its course.
That's a really interesting answer, thank you very much.
Freedom creates conflict, and therefore, in my view, there's a necessity, not only for tenacity in the fight, but also for personal reflection and ongoing personal awakening, because it's going to require a spiritual component, because I think it's going to be individually and collectively very challenging to go through these kind of changes, as you say, the institution's attempt to cling on to power.
Saga, I recognise that you, like RFK, and that's why there wasn't a full answer, have a hard-out, And I respect that, sir.
Thank you very much for joining us today.
I find you very clear.
That's what I feel like when I'm talking to you, that there is clarity and good faith and integrity.
I really appreciate your time.
Likewise, sir.
And it is such always a pleasure to be able to talk to you.
So thank you so much.
I can't thank you enough for the invite.
Thank you, sir.
Speak to you again soon.
You can watch Saga on Breaking Points over on YouTube or you can listen to Breaking Points as a podcast.
You can join us on Locals and see these conversations live on the occasions where we pre-record them by pressing the red Join button that's on your screen now.
We can get exclusive interviews while they happen to, well, people like Rhonda Sanders and Oliver Stone and Jordan Peterson and Eckhart Tolle.
We've got so many fantastic conversations and sometimes you can join them live and ask Questions like these people shouting, Freach!
Gobsmacked panda and sensitive hearts.
I loved Saga, thanks for that conversation.
Smiley face from Ian Drummo for the RFK reference.
You could be joining these awakened wonders, why don't you?
As well as the meditations that we do all the time, behind the scenes means we invite people into our pre-production shows.
They sit there going, oh my god, how did they ever get the show made?
He's picking his nose!
As well as podcasts and all sorts of stuff.
Anyway, thank you very much for joining us for that show.
Join us again tomorrow, not for more of the same, we'd never insult you with that, but for more of the different.
