All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
53:59
“IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!” | Saagar On NATO’s Ploy, Censorship Laws, UFOs & MORE! - Stay Free #174
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to go.
I guess I'll just have to go.
And unless they could not understand I am a black man, and I could never be a veteran.
I'm the second-most important member of the tribal royalty.
So I'm looking for the CEO.
Looking for the CEO.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you awakening wonders.
What a day it is to be free.
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 negative sense of competition, more a sense of, oh, we're all in this area and we're
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 the conventional liberal spaces, that I shouldn't talk
to Tucker.
Certainly people will say that Tucker shouldn't talk to Tate.
And yet Andrew Tate would have conversations on 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 A 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 cancelled 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 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 that's actually here with the
man has to say for two and a half hours 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 any individual that's subject to its censure.
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 pre-existing relationship really helped and I, 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, asks for his first interview, or the power of Rogan's endorsement of your work, first on the heel and now, of course, on breaking points, We recognise 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 in 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 if 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?
NLP is actually a great example of that.
For those who don't know what we're talking about, I guess 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, you know, 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
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 just 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 would be like, no, I think that's 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 to 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 Where is this in our popular discourse and conversation?
I see this constantly, Russell.
I know you see it in the UK.
I thought US media was hawkish and bad, but I had no idea what I was dealing with.
Until 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 you're 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 Hippocracy 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 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 are Russia 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.
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 want to 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 base is 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, you know, 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, you know, I think that the things politics and media, all that is bidirectional.
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 the, 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 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.
We have people who may have Yes, it seems increasingly like an obligation.
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 Point 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 subject.
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 gonna 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 by the candidates.
So I would just say that.
And, you know, Russell, you and I are professional interviewers.
It is a dance in terms of whenever somebody is talking, you know, something that you want to get to, 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 a 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, you know, I mean, at the end of the day, that's what we do.
So whenever people are like, you know, I see, I always see these ridiculous things.
Are you going to denounce Crystal?
You know, all that.
I personally, like 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, you know, there are many audiences out there of which we may share, like, mutual interest or whatever that may hate what the other says.
And, you know, 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, 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 an 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 were like, Oh, come on!
Hold on!
Isn't this like a whole thing we're together?
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, Sagar?
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've 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 of 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, you know, 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.
Consider 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 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 Pharmajohn2022.
Are there topics that you keep away from because of personal danger associated?
Ooh, uh, personal danger?
No.
Uh, 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, you know, via some cutouts.
And I was just like, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing.
And, uh, I still, you know, it hasn't materialized yet.
So I'm not going to stop.
I think my latest Epstein story was two weeks ago.
So, uh, 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, Paedophile 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, that's what 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.
For me in particular, you know, spending time in Thailand and in Cambodia.
I've actually personally witnessed 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 gonna do?
You think I'm gonna go to a cop?
He's gonna 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 a 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 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 of 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 a chance to talk a little bit about the establishment of Breaking Points and how that all came about.
Well, look, I mean, uh, 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 up 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, uh, 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 going to lie and say that I didn't feel pressure.
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 threatened 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 unchanged 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 this.
Orders of magnitude larger from when we were 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.
Uh, you know, if you're very interested, I'm sure they'll tell you the same thing.
Ah, thank you.
Well, uh, 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, uh, 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.
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 he 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 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 institutions 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 Ron DeSantis and Oliver Stone and Jordan Pearson 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 I ever get this show made?
He's picking his nose!
As well as podcasts and all sorts of stuff.
Thank you.
We're going to take a moment now to look deeply into a news story that I think Saga would struggle to cover due to personal limitations as a journalist.
I'm only joking.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing breaking points news.
Thanks for watching Zik Fox News.
Here's the news.
No, here's the fucking news.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing for new legislation to investigate the phenomena of UFO.
But why don't they just tell us all the stuff that they're concealing in top secret files?
Is this the final revelation or just the latest distraction?
Chuck Schumer, majority leader in the Senate, is pushing for legislation to enable a deep investigation into the phenomena around UFOs.
Are there living extraterrestrials among us?
Have they got extraterrestrial corpses?
Are there recovered vehicles?
Have we long been in contact with extraterrestrial species, even since the 40s, notably and famously Roswell?
But instead of just investigating what's going on, why don't they tell us all of the top-secret information from Area 51, open up all the files, for God's sake, tell us what you've been doing all along.
You lot, do you still think this is a distraction from the corruption in the Biden administration, the increasing censorship laws, the march towards a surveillance state, an ever-increasing surveillance state, The obvious new emergent abilities to create meaningful social credit scores, the discrediting of populist political figures like Trump and RFK.
Where do you stand on this issue?
The reason I'm fascinated by it is because I sort of always have been, because it changes the entire perspective of reality.
That's why I like this conversation.
The reason the subject of UFOs fascinates me is because we tend to get mired in the contemporaneous mud of our everyday conversation.
Oh, they're trying to bring down Trump.
No, Trump's the worst guy in the world.
Oh, they won't let RFK debate.
Oh, RFK, he's a crackpot.
These contemporary conversations are important.
But if there is life elsewhere in the universe, if there are other dimensions of reality, then these conversations will truly advance the way that we can run our planet, create new systems, create new relationships.
As long as we stay within this fixed paradigm, squabbling about the criteria within it, then we're not going to change things radically.
Let's have a look at the news around Chuck Schumer and see if we can advance this story and our understanding of it.
And breaking news tonight from Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says he will introduce new legislation to declassify government records related to UFOs and UAPs.
They're always doing stuff like this, aren't they?
We are going to finally tell you why we killed, I mean didn't kill, JFK.
No, we're not going to tell you.
The Pfizer documentation, we're going to reveal it.
Oh, just cross that bit out, cross that bit out.
Instead of pushing it through these endless legislative cogs, why don't they just reveal to us the information that they currently have?
I feel that actually this is a great example of the change in discourse that we all currently require.
Instead of having a parental relationship with the state where they debate whether or not to reveal stuff to us or make investigations in the Senate, why don't they just treat us like we are their paymasters through our tax dollars, tax pounds, tax yen, whatever it is you're paying, and they are administrative bureaucrats.
When did it become that they're like sovereigns or parents and we're like children?
Just give us the information.
That is a big deal and this just came down within the last couple of
minutes and it comes as things are really starting to take shape
for the UFO hearings on Capitol Hill with House leadership just today
confirming that they are tentatively scheduled for the end of this
month. The hearings will be happening in just a couple of weeks.
If you, like me, have long been fascinated by this subject this could be one of those moments where stuff you've known
for ages, stuff you've discussed for ages
is becoming popularized and is becoming part of the mainstream culture.
Let's have a look at this story in more detail.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with a bipartisan group of five other senators, introduced extraordinary legislation last week suggesting that the US government or private contractors may secretly possess recovered UFOs and biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence.
I suppose for me it's just fascinating to see this stuff in this kind of language rather than in bizarre publications like Protean Times or on Gaia TV.
It's odd to see the content of the world of conspiracy becoming the content of the world of the mainstream.
So I understand why loads of you go, It's just a distraction while they're globalizing, while they're increasing censorship and surveillance, while they're normalizing digital currencies and co-opting that movement.
But I feel that actually there's something in this that goes beyond just the usual distraction techniques.
But let me know in the comments if I'm wrong about that.
According to the legislation, non-human intelligence is defined as any sentient intelligent non-human life form Regardless of nature or ultimate origin, which may be presumed responsible for UFOs.
I say it's like, yeah.
Aliens.
Why do they make that so complicated?
We all know what that is.
So what do you mean exactly by aliens?
Big eyes, sometimes.
Be good, be good.
Alf, those guys.
Chewbacca, all of them.
We know what aliens are.
According to a statement accompanying the legislation, the 2017 disclosure of a previously unknown government UFO analysis program spurred a broad congressional investigation of unidentified anomalous phenomena.
The ongoing investigation uncovered a vast web of individuals and groups claiming knowledge of secret UAP-related programs and information.
According to Schumer, the sheer number and variety of UFO-related claims led some in Congress to believe that the U.S.
government was concealing important information regarding UAPs over broad periods of time.
Moreover, as noted in the legislation, credible evidence and testimony indicates that federal government UFO records exist that have not been declassified as required by law.
Here's another example of how classified documentation does not automatically mean information that if it was revealed would make us somehow unsafe, but information that would destabilize the dynamic between the governed and the governing.
To that end, Schumer's legislation establishes an independent nine-member agency to collect, review, and declassify UAP records.
If passed in its current form, the law would mandate that all government UFO documents carry a presumption of immediate public disclosure.
I don't have any faith at all, do you, that this piece of legislation will result in, like, Joe Biden shuffling out and going, I've got to tell you something.
We've had UFOs for ages.
We've known about it since Eisenhower.
We've been in communication with extraterrestrials for hundreds of years, maybe even thousands.
They're not going to do that, are they?
It's like they're trailing another Mission Impossible movie.
Coming soon, we are going to tell you everything about aliens and also JFK.
And then it comes to it, it goes, there you go, there's that thing which crossed out that.
What's on that bit?
What bit did you redact?
I only want it if it ain't redacted.
If someone presents you with a birthday card and in it there's black stuff all over it, they might as well not even bother.
The proposed legislation follows explosive allegations by a former intelligence official, David Grush, that secret UFO retrieval and reverse engineering programs were illegally hidden from Congress.
Importantly, the powerful investigative body that oversees the nation's intelligence agencies found Grush's allegations to be credible and urgent.
In an interview with News Nation, Senator Marco Rubio, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, corroborated the broad contours of both Grusha's allegations and Schumer's bipartisan legislation.
Echoing Rubio's comments and Schumer's statement, Representative Mike Gallagher, who serves
on the White House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, stated recently that all
sorts of UFO whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork and telling Congress that
they've been part of this or that UFO program.
Rubio and Gallagher's remarkable comments bolster two reports citing multiple military
intelligence and private sector officials that defence contractors possess multiple
craft of non-human origin.
They've already decided.
Oh my God, there's life from around the universe.
It's a miracle.
We are all one consciousness that emanated from a glorious explosion in the mind of God.
Yes, and we could use that explosion to kill Chinese people.
Yes, yes, yes we could.
Let's give that to Lockheed Martin.
A provision in the new amendment declares that any and all recovered UFOs and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities shall be transferred to the US government in the interest of public good.
Public good's not how they run the country, is it?
Like, what kind of mindset have you got that you learn that there are extraterrestrials and UFOs?
Hmm, could we sell dad's stuff?
If Jesus is returned to Earth, what are you gonna do?
This is good.
This is good.
The sales of Shroud of Turin tea towels is gonna go through the roof.
I'm going to be able to sell sandals, hand over fist now.
Not everything is a marketing opportunity or an opportunity to bolster the defence industry profits.
This is a possibility to radically re-evaluate our understanding of all reality.
But what they do is, how can we fit it into current reality and make money from it?
Tennessee Congressman Republican Tim Burchett has claimed that he saw classified UFO footage and expressed apprehensions that humans may not be able to handle the technology possessed by extraterrestrial life.
Yeah, we can't handle the truth, can we?
If you think of it, we're still in wars in Europe.
We're still plundering the earth in extraordinary ways.
We're still quarreling about the ways that you might express yourself as an individual human being.
It's so absurd and ridiculous.
And I suppose for me, that is what's fascinating about this story.
That it's an invitation to look at reality differently.
What this is, if you ask me, is an ontological invite to say, hey, it seems like we're steering our planet towards the precipice of destruction.
Some kind of apocalypse, which I know you'll be pointing out in the comments right now, means revelation.
Surely a revelation is at hand.
Surely a second coming is at hand.
This is what this could be.
We can decide whether this is an invitation to look at our relationships between one another, the nations of the world, the communities of the world, the way we run our systems, and run them differently.
Or, we could say, those spaceships look like they would make very good bombs.
Shall we sell them to Ukraine?
Well, no, no, no.
Let's give them to Ukraine and let Ukraine destroy Russia with them, then we can take over Russia.
Like, how come Tim Burchett is deciding we can't handle it like Jack Nicholson and a few good men?
Oh, you can't handle the truth.
We better keep this in government control.
I don't want that sort of relationship with them.
I don't believe they're any better than you or me.
I genuinely don't.
I don't think that Tim Burchett or Marco Rubio or Barack Obama or any of them are any better than you or me when it comes to it.
I recognise there are fields of expertise in this world where people understand deep, complex, neurophysical, biological, cosmological, carpentry!
Like, there are fields of expertise all over the place.
When it comes to politics, though, I don't believe there's this invisible strata, this boundary that can't be crossed.
Like, hello, we are the government.
That is the very thing that needs to be dissolved, decentralised, broken down.
Look at the way they've behaved previously and up to now.
Look at the three years of the pandemic.
Look, we'll be in charge.
We're going to just lock you in your houses.
These are the measures that we're going to take.
Almost every single one of the measures that was undertaken was either flawed or downright wrong.
Now we're on the precipice of some monumental discovery.
I don't want to put this in the hands of the very people that are responsible for almost all of the blunders of the last century.
If they're out there, they're out there.
And if they have this kind of technology, then they could turn us into a charcoal briquette, Birchett said.
Uh, charcoal briquette?
Meanwhile, UFO hunter Ross Coulthard claims a giant spaceship too big to move is currently being stored away under a major landmark.
Ross Coulthard, you better have proof.
People are going to question what I'm about to say.
Have you heard Ross Coulthard talk before?
Now imagine having phone sex with Ross Coulthard.
Listen, I'm about to say something.
It's very sexy.
What if some of that shit is so big... Is it though, Ross?
...it can't be moved?
Ross, you're moving my one.
How big is big?
Why's he so sexy about everything, Ross Coulthard?
Stop being so sexy!
Did you see him when he interviewed David Grush?
Listen, I don't like the sound of what you're saying, mate.
You're making me tingle down under.
Big.
So big they built a building over it, in a country outside of the United States of America.
Why is there a glint in his eye?
I can only assume it is.
I'm going to ring him, because I know Russ Coulthard now.
Is he saying, like, under the Sydney Opera House?
Like, it's got to be a major landmark, hasn't it?
In Australia, let's face it, that's the only one they've got.
So he's sort of saying, isn't he, that there's a UFO under the Sydney Opera House?
I know that sounds preposterous, and I know, oh my God, you can just hear them now, the bleating debunkers.
Those bleating debunkers!
Don't you debunk me!
I'll bunk you so hard with what I've got downstairs, so big it can't be moved.
My one's big enough to build an opera house on.
Let's see this investigated.
Let's just see what happens.
Let's test these allegations before the Congress.
It's very, very easy for people to go, Oh there's no evidence.
Oh my goodness me.
Let's just go away and ignore it.
Let's test it.
Ross Coulthard's certainly very passionate about UFOs and believes that we should have access to all of them.
They're big.
They're extraordinary big.
They're big and they're bloody sexy.
Meanwhile it seems that the United States of America want to continue to control and monetize potential technology.
But where do you stand on this issue?
Do you believe this could be a potential ontological shift?
Do you think this is just another distraction?
Do you think in the next five years we're going to see major revelations or do you think they will mire it in bureaucracy and obfuscation?
I think we have to see this as a potential catalyst to a new and emergent model of reality that is trying to be born right now.
Our old systems of government are dying.
Our old systems of media are dying.
Our old systems of justice are dying.
And that is very scary for establishment figures, for establishment politicians, for globalists that see the future of our world as one enmeshed web of centralised power.
That is not the solution to the world's problems.
What plainly needs to happen is more diversity, more decentralised power, more democracy, more freedom, right down to the level of the individual and right out to the level of the community.
And maybe these extraterrestrial revelations will help us to contextualize our miniscule reality better and show us that we needn't be squabbling among one another about old economic models and even technological miracles which in the eyes of extraterrestrials are little more advanced than the wheel and the fire.
But that's just what I think!
Until next time, stay free!
▲
Export Selection