All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 13, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:10:57
Candace Owens vs Russell Brand: Politics, Censorship & Independent Media - Stay Free #206
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm going to play a little bit of this.
In this video, I'm going to play a little bit of this.
In this video, I'm going to play a little bit of this.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
In this video, I'm going to play a little bit of this.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders!
Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand for a fantastic show.
It's going to be beautiful and fascinating because we have a guest who can be described with both of those words.
It's Candice Owens.
We're also, when we're exclusively on Rumble, going to be discussing the nature of modern censorship with Candice and the obvious need for the protection of free speech and how we bring our personal morality to the complex subject of Free speech.
In our item, here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
We're going to be talking about Bill Gates and lab-grown food.
It's not just synthetic meat grown in Petri dishes, a disturbing literal monstrosity, but now lab-grown fruit that, to me, I've seen some of it, it looks like boogers, and also lacquered fruit that are covered in some sort of odd diaphanous web that I find most disturbing.
But now I'm excited and you will be too if you saw our previous conversation because I'm going to be talking to
political commentator, host of the Candace podcast, producer and narrator of the new docuseries,
Convicting a Murderer on the Daily Wire, the very great, always intriguing, limitlessly
confrontational Candace Owens. Candace, how lovely to see you again.
It's so wonderful to be back.
I really just was very excited about doing this podcast, because I had such a fun time with you, because at the time we were on such opposite sides of the totem pole, but you were just so kind, such great energy.
And I just said to myself, he's going to drift a little away from being a hammer and sickle communist, because he's just too happy.
He's just too substantially happy.
It's been really great.
And also, Russell, I will never forget you.
You will always be a part of my love story because I met my husband right after I left your podcast that night.
So whenever people ask how we met, I'm like, I was three hours late to dinner with my husband because I was doing Russell Brand's podcast.
So I'll never forget you.
You're my good luck charm.
Some great things could happen for me after this.
I am glad that I have this apotropaic quality in your life, that I bring you love and good fortune, Candice.
There's a word I don't get to say too frequently.
And yet I find that we are already at a point of conflict because I noticed that you thread I did your first announcement, for that's what it was, with the idea that I've somehow been seduced into a political and cultural space that you long knew that I would inertly wander into.
And I tell you now, I always believed in freedom.
I've always been anti-establishment.
I've always been pro the rights of the individuals and the rights of the community.
I've always been opposed to corporate power and to the combination of states and corporations against the people.
And I've always believed that when it comes to cultural issues, We must be allowed to form our own opinions and identities.
And I don't think I was ever a hammer and sickle communist.
Although I do remember some marvellous moments when you were in our studio.
It was the other studio then.
And what's going to happen?
Is everyone just going to get away?
And I remember you sort of skipping around the studio.
I thought, how can I continue to argue with this person?
She's just too charming.
And then you marched right out of there and got yourself married.
And we're both now, I think, three kids further down the line.
You've got a new human being entering the world, have you?
Yeah, nine more weeks left of this pregnancy.
This will be another boy.
I have a boy, a girl, and this one will be a boy.
So yeah, everything has just been wonderful.
But I do consider this my good luck podcast, so I'm looking for some good fortune after this.
And yeah, I know I'm being a little hyperbolic.
You weren't fully hammer and sickle, but I would definitely say that you've As we all have developed over the years and it was a wonderful interview and I think one of the things that you definitely have always been open to is conversation even with people that you disagree with.
So I totally understand the success and why people are totally obsessed with your podcast now and everything that you're doing because you're just an interesting person to listen to.
I love watching Russell Bryant clips.
Thank you.
You're really lovely to say that to me.
Now, when I talk about aspects of socialism, I think it's important to understand that what I'm interested in is compassion and kindness in politics.
Actually, beyond that, love.
And how do we have systems that are able to convey quite basic spiritual principles, I would say, that are common in Christianity and Islam and all great and minor faiths when we look beyond the kind of cultural divisions that can easily arise from religion?
Well, what it offers us, I think, is the opportunity to infuse our systems of government and control with an emotional and spiritual quality.
I feel that what we're living in now in this sort of semi... it's not right to say nihilistic because there is so much charge when it comes to meaning in our political space.
But what there is a lack of, I believe, is spirit and kindness That everywhere we look, there is kind of deception, there is hatred, there is a lack of real vision.
And I would say that that's prevalent throughout the mainstream, whether it's on the purported left or right.
What kind of advances have you noticed?
What kind of changes have you noticed?
Where do you look optimistically on the intervening years since our conversation?
Where can you say, well, this has improved, this has gotten better?
Well, so I think one of our differences, which we had early on and I think we still hold, is I actually don't look for compassion and emotion in politics.
I think that it actually needs to be extracted from politics.
And I think that part of the reason is that we've moved away from logic and reason and objectiveness and more towards emotion and compassion, which is subjective, and that's why
it's problematic.
And emotion can yield to some really bad things.
We've seen this over the years, when people are being so invested in their emotions that
they're not thinking clearly.
And actually, the people that tend to seize control when people are emotional is the government.
So I am very much like, how I feel doesn't actually matter.
We have to remain objective about these things.
And I was just having a conversation this morning with my in-laws about that.
They're overseas at the moment and talking about women and women in politics and why I don't know that it necessarily works all the time.
And I was talking about this.
I've been talking about this on my show for four years.
You know, women are we are naturally more emotional than men.
I hate to say Pretend that there are biological differences between men and women but there are and that emotion is a wonderful thing When it comes to caretaking and nurturing and raising children, but I think in the political realm We often have our emotions hijacked and when they are hijacked it can it can lead yield great evil And I think we're in a circumstance where there's a lot of emotion being hijacked and yielding great evil
I agree with you that logic and rationalism are necessary for logistics, operations and organisation.
You can't organise a society based on, I feel very jealous, or I feel very joyful, or I feel very sad.
But when creating a vision, there has to be an emotional component.
There has to be an acknowledgement that That humanity has some value, that we are not just material blobs fighting for individual survival and making necessary pacts with one another, whether that's on a global scale or a communal scale, or just the interrelationship between two people for our shared and mutual survival.
So I don't think that emotion is a basis for government, but it is the place from where we need to derive our vision.
So I don't think that it's in any way ridiculous to suggest that kindness ought to be a part of politics.
And also I would say, because I recognise what you're disputing
and contesting there.
I think many of the people that purport to be advocating for kindness and compassion
and for example, rights of previously or currently maligned groups
are actually not doing that at all.
They're using those ideas to mask the same kind of...
of corporatism, authoritarianism, ability to censor, ability to surveil, ability to
shut down, that has always characterized authoritarianism, whether it's from the right or the left,
or these new emergent terms like centralist and peripheral.
Like there's no question that the, you know, call them a leftist government if you will,
although it doesn't sort of fit with my terminology.
The current American administration are an authoritarian administration.
They're about the imposition of power and control, even the way that the war is discussed, the conversation around the pandemic, the shaming of people that won't align with their perspective on cultural issues.
For me, I don't see that as emotion.
I see that as manipulation.
Right, exactly.
So it's the manipulation of emotions and I think, yeah, I definitely agree with you.
I just think that I can arrive at the conclusion of our humanity logically.
I don't need emotions to do that.
I can logically deduce that we are human beings and that, of course, we shouldn't be doing things, we shouldn't be imparting evil on individuals.
It's not because of an emotional aspect, but I don't think that we should be imparting evil.
But yes, you're exactly right.
What we're seeing right now is this authoritarian government across the world that are pretending to care about people, compassion, you know, wear a mask, save lives.
Well, how could you not want to save lives?
If you don't want to wear a mask, then you're a horrible person and you're trying to kill everybody.
And that's why I really think it's important to steel yourself against that sort of a manipulation.
And when you speak about that, though, They kind of frame you as a harsher person, which is something that I've definitely suffered in the media, as this hardening of Candace Owens doesn't have a heart.
It's not that I don't have a heart.
I just also have a brain.
And I'm very fearful of government encroaching into our personal lives, and I had done everything to insulate my family from that.
And the best way to do that is to tether people to their brains and, you know, not saying more than their hearts, but just to remember that you do have a brain and you should use it.
I don't find you to be a hard person.
I think that you're actually a good deal of fun and that you're very bright and sparky and a joy to be around actually.
But I do think that you are a sort of deliberately iconoclastic.
I think you are Great provocateur.
I think you enjoy saying controversial things.
That's sort of my assessment of you but I believe that all of those things are possible within joy and good humor and of course within the parameters of accepting that you have had a completely different life to me.
You're completely entitled to entirely different political perspective and in any kind of democracy worthy of the name you would accept and embrace those differences.
And last time we were talking, we spoke a lot about populism in the most common and
broad terms. Brexit regarded to be a sort of an emergence of a nationalist populism
in my country. Trump commonly regarded as a sort of an outlier in a new type of populism.
But in a sense, these markers don't hold up to scrutiny because across Europe prior to
Brexit, there were numerous populist movements in response to the 2008 financial crash. And
in your country, sort of protest movements like Occupy, which I grant you is sort of
a truly global movement as that financial crash was also global. Would you argue now
that populism and those populist events, Trump, Brexit, were not anomalies, but in fact, the
new normal, that what we're witnessing is a kind of an end of at least a strong appetite
for a different type of politics. And just one sort of conversational example, like I
think that Ron DeSantis, who's been a guest on our show, and I'm sure you've spoken to
him and I found him to be a delightful man, I understand his suffering in the polls because
he is too much like a regular politician in a media landscape where what people want now
are accessible, personable.
Identifiably anti-establishment figures like Donald Trump and let's take for the sake of this conversation the emergent forces of Vivek Ramaswamy who I know you're very fond of and RFK whose populism and popularity at least is another marker of change.
Yeah, you know, I think, for me personally, the reason why I said from the very beginning it didn't matter how much money that Ron DeSantis had, that his campaign was going to be a flop and that prognostication has proven true, it's not necessarily because he seems too much like a politician.
It's because there's something about him that feels like he kind of checks Which way the wind is going and maybe checks with his donors before he says something.
And it really comes really down to your gut instinct about an individual.
And I think it matters.
I actually think it matters.
There's something that feels less trustworthy with him.
And that's not to say that you need to be extremely personable and a great speaker.
I mean, I actually find RFK interesting because of the work that he's done.
And I'm obviously not a Democrat and I wouldn't vote for him.
But I think that the work that he has done regarding vaccines and You know, sort of standing up to the medical establishment his entire life is something that's noteworthy.
He's done something different.
He's done something brave.
And to hear him continue to do that is something that makes me want to gravitate towards him.
I don't think any of us would say RFK Jr.
is one of the great orators of our time necessarily.
And so, yeah, people are responding to looking at an individual.
I think they're taking what they're saying and what they're doing and I'm wondering if this person will have enough courage,
because it takes a lot of courage when you get into a position of power to stand up to the
authoritarian, whether it's the CDC or any of the other bodies that they've created.
And I just don't know that I feel that way about Ron DeSantis.
Vivek Ramaswamy is doing a lot of different things.
I didn't really think anything of him until I had him on my show, and I just had a very
good conversation.
I felt like, OK, I kind of understand who this person is.
He's a true academic.
He's extremely ambitious.
But it felt more authentic.
So, yeah, I guess you could say that that could be something that has to do with the populist movement, and people are naturally distrusting.
But I think it's something else.
I think it's gut instinct, and I think that people want to measure you against, you know, Did you stand up to this?
Did you stand up to that?
What is your actual record?
And Ron Sanders is a great governor.
I have nothing bad to say about him.
If I was living in Florida, I'd try to vote for him 10 times if I could, but I never thought that he was going to be able to have the same success nationally.
Well, it wouldn't be possible to vote 10 times because, as you know, there are no problems with voting in Florida or anywhere else.
It's one vote per living human being has been well established for a long time now.
I think it's not just about like oratory but just authenticity more is what people appear to be craving now, Candice, that people are sort of starting to sense that our Sanitized, empty, hollow political rhetoric isn't leading anywhere.
Another thing, because you sort of, I guess it's fair to say that your position is generally a conservative, how do you feel when issues such as free speech and a broad and general anti-war stance appear to now have become Conservative issues.
There's been this extraordinary flip where the liberal, peacenik, cultural revolution, let it all hang out, let's smoke a doobie man party has become the party of have a war, don't question a war, don't talk about potential peaceful or diplomatic solutions.
And obviously when it comes to censorship, the liberal democratic left are it appears more sensorial based on the relationships
that have been demonstrated between them and the social media sites, for example, and
their use of various deep state agencies to control narratives. And in fact, excuse me,
just the continuum of censorship across successive administrations, Snowden onwards, you
know. So when the values like free speech and, you know, anti war can become untethered
from one side of the political aisle. What does that do to your position?
And do you think it's a fair assessment to just acknowledge that these changes have taken place?
Yeah, these changes are taking place.
What I would say is the right is still very much pro-war, as well.
I mean, I think we saw this in the Republican debate stage, where how many people were saying you had Pence, you had Nikki Haley.
And this is why we talk about the military-industrial complex, because it encompasses the left and the right.
But speaking outside of the political players and just to the individuals, yeah, I think what's happened, because I've tried to actually assess it, is Well, people that are left-leaning have actually always been emotional.
And so what's happened, though, is the emotional arguments are now being transpired to make them support things that they've never supported in the past, right?
So it still works, you know, if you're saying, you know, end the war in Vietnam.
There's emotions.
Let's end the war.
Hippies, OK, we want this to be over.
And now you're saying, well, no, no, no, go to war, because think about the Ukrainian
children.
Think about how awful Putin is.
It's still a hijacking of emotions.
But the end result, I think, is actually different.
So they haven't necessarily changed.
They've perhaps grown more emotional.
Or I would say the media has grown just increasingly so focused on emotions all the time that they're
It's just, how could you not feel bad for the Ukrainian children?
How could you be so awful that you don't want to send billions?
Who cares if there's no accounting?
It's kind of going into a black hole, and we're giving less to the people that are in Maui.
You know, it's your job to constantly care about something.
Here is the current thing that you need to care about.
That's really interesting because it makes you wonder if there's any actual principles present at all.
My position on being anti-war is surely at this point in evolution we must be able to come to peaceful solutions.
Surely this is our duty and I would say that whether it's the Iraq war, Afghanistan war, Vietnam war, Korean war, Current war between Russia and Ukraine and in all of those wars the death of civilians and children of all creeds and nationalities is Appalling when it comes to the subject of free speech when it was the right when it was we were talking in the 1960s Whatever our civil rights movement pro-women gay different ethnic minorities or cultural groups when it was their them Spearheading that that's a cultural movement their free speech was important and now I think free speech is
I mean, what the point of principles is, is they transcend an immediate agenda, isn't it?
It's like your principle doesn't just sort of shift depending on what your objective is.
Oh, I don't like war.
Actually, I do like war.
And it seems that what's happened is that war has become packaged in Quite unique ways.
And I agree with your analysis that it's emotionally packaged.
But what it appears, what the genuine power behind it appears to be an ulterior or transcendent power, depending on your perspective, in specifically the military industrial complex are able to make sure that the American project remains a military one for economic Rather than ideological reasons, and I reckon, I suppose, that that's a rational discourse and a rational analysis.
But for me, it comes from an emotional place, because I think it isn't right to kill people and use violence as a way to resolve disputes.
So it's sort of a fusion of both emotion and rationale, because if, you know, because rationale can lead to genocide, brutality, and so can emotion.
So, you know, I wonder what you thought about that little moral snake's nest I've flung your way.
No, I actually—I totally agree with you, and this is why I was staunchly against, even from the very beginning, day one.
It's like, we just pulled out of Afghanistan, now you're telling us that we need to all focus on Ukraine.
And the American mindset is kind of being set to believe that we constantly have to be worrying about everybody else's problems, right?
That if you say, OK, we have plenty of problems here on our own, why don't we focus on those, that you're somehow rotten and you're somehow backwards.
And again, there's no accounting for it.
So if you think about it, you've got IRS agents that can—God forbid you send $200 on PayPal,
you know, you can be fined by the IRS.
I can log into my bank account, and I can see every single charge.
But we have no idea where billions of dollars are going into a black hole.
And it's very obvious that there are kickbacks, and this is why the politicians want to keep
these wars going.
I mean, that, to me, is just a rational, logical conclusion that most people don't see when
the current thing arrives, because there's this full-media effort, because part of the
military industrial complex is also the media.
The media is reinforcing these ideals, reinforcing these principles, that we constantly have
to be the moral police in the world.
Quite frankly, I'd like to mind our own business.
I don't know why we insist that the way that we want to live has to be the exact way that every single person in the world wants to live.
I live in America.
I like American values.
I like American principles.
I don't necessarily think that people in Iran and Iraq have to enjoy the way that I live or the way that I dress or the freedom that I want to express.
And so, they use this moral policing argument, and you saw this on the debate stage.
It's one of the reasons that I would never vote for Nikki Haley, why Mike Pence I would not vote for, is because they say, no, it is our job, and they use these Cold War arguments, and this is why we must do this, and, you know, Russia could become the Soviet Union again, when, in fact, it's us that has military boots all across the world.
It's us that's actually encroaching into other people's territory.
And people are completely delusional about that fact, and when you say it, You know, you're public enemy number one, but I've been public enemy number one and two and three for a while now, so it's okay.
You've been a lot of public enemies.
Now, if you're watching this on YouTube, one of our glorious 6.5 million awakening wonders, tuning in, doubtless, to see a fiery spat between Candice Owens and Russell Brand.
Candice, because of her ferocity and libertarianism, and me because of my alleged, I think you said, sickle-waving socialist or hippy-dippy Airy, fairy, sparkle, covered, woo-woo, new age, guru, claptrap.
Well, it hasn't happened yet, but next we're going to talk about YouTube censorship and how it has pertained to both of us, how both of us have been affected by legacy and mainstream media censorship and attacks, and we'll be talking about that exclusively on the Home of Free Speech Rumble.
Click the link in the description, join us over there, Right now to see us talk about that subject.
If you're watching us on Rumble, give us a like.
The Rumble button?
I don't mean that no more.
Give us a like.
Like us.
Like Mama used to make.
And we'll talk now.
Are we safe?
Are we just on Rumble?
Can we, Candice and I, speak freely?
Candice, so what do you think about the role of YouTube in regulating and censoring content?
Do you think they've just become another arm of the mainstream?
And also I would still want to take issue about saying that my children are surprisingly beautiful rather than predictably beautiful on the basis of a beautiful, two beautiful parents.
Your children are shockingly beautiful.
I know there's no pictures of them in the public sphere, but I did run into you in the UK and at some hotel and they are shockingly beautiful children.
Like they're just really, Stunningly beautiful.
You're kind of like, you see them and it just kind of blows you away.
I'm not saying that you're not a shockingly beautiful man, but I am saying that any person that saw your children would be like, wow, these kids are positively stunning.
They should be on, I don't know, the cover of magazines.
They're just, they look like glass dolls, is the only way that I can describe it to people.
I'm like, have you ever seen one of your parents' children?
They're shockingly beautiful.
I always say it.
I want to be honest with you.
I don't want to say it behind your back.
I always say your children are shockingly beautiful behind your back.
Now on, I'd like you, when you're passing on that anecdote, to say, have you ever seen Russell Brand's children?
As you might imagine, based on his physical appearance, they are extremely beautiful children.
But then again, why wouldn't they be?
Just to reiterate my main point, isn't Russell Brand handsome?
And then, you know, carry on with whatever crazy, ethno-nationalist, right-wing, rallying cry you are on.
So wait, what do you think about YouTube censorship then, Candice?
I absolutely hate it.
I'm on a ban right now.
I'm always in trouble with YouTube.
And what's really surprising in your earlier question about whether or not they're pushing mainstream talking points, I think it's much more nefarious than that.
It's really scary.
The groups that they allege are protected.
I think all of my strikes that I've ever gotten on YouTube are all pertaining to the topic of pedophilia.
And they try to say, well, you can't talk about pedophiles if they're gay or if they're trans,
even though we're reporting on actual news stories and talking about what's actually happening.
And for me, it's not a battle that I'm willing to give up.
So I continue to talk about it and I endure these strikes and these periods
because I'm a parent now.
So this isn't one category that I'm not going to say, well, just find me on a different platform
and we'll talk about it.
It is something that needs to be talked about.
There's obviously been an explosion of pedophilia light, as I like to call it.
What's happening in the school systems in America, I'm not sure if it's as prominent in the UK school systems
and you can let me know, but this agenda operating under the guise of LGBTQIA,
by the way, tacking on extra letters, and this is what happens.
These social justice movements never end, right?
It's the NAACP.
Okay, now you have the same rights as white Americans.
Oh, but now we have another battle to endure.
It's against the police officers.
All we want is gay marriage.
Love is love.
Second you get gay marriage, suddenly you're like, well, what about trans bathroom signs?
Oh, okay, now we've got the trans bathroom signs.
Well, we need to make sure that children are allowed to pick their gender in the classroom.
It's never ending.
And I don't understand what two gay men wanting to be in a relationship has anything to do with my children being enrolled in a school and needing to learn about, you know, 26,000 genders that don't exist.
What do you imagine is the agenda of those you oppose?
Hill to Die On. So, you know, the YouTube censorship surrounding that topic makes me
very uncomfortable.
What do you imagine is the agenda of those you oppose? What do you genuinely think is
the reason? Because, you know, I know the kind of stories you cover. I know how it would
be reported in some portions of the media. People say misgendering and things like that.
And you know me, right? That's not the sort of thing that I would ever do if someone wants
me to say something, you know, the same way as I'd call someone mister or doctor or whatever
if they asked me to. If someone says call me like whatever I'm like, it's for me.
Just because of that principle of kindness that I've previously mentioned.
With regard to this issue, are you saying that you believe that paedophilia, obviously I think we've both agreed that paedophilia is distinct and separate from other forms of, it's a matter of abuse because it's a matter of consent, children can't offer consent, they're too young, it's just plain and simple abuse.
What do you think is culturally happening?
Do you think pedophilia is being normalized?
And to what end?
Yeah, it absolutely is being normalized.
I mean, they've already come up with another term for it.
You're seeing college professors say that it's this push that it should be called minor attracted people, that the word pedophilia is not something that should be used.
That's scary.
You're softening pedophilia.
And when you see things of this nature and then you take a look at the books and why they're trying to introduce this to kids that are quite literally in kindergarten, first grade.
I mean, you're talking about kids that are five, six and seven years old.
Why else would you want to talk to them about their private parts and their gender?
It doesn't make sense.
Teach my children arithmetic.
Teach them hard academics.
You know, and it's not about being accepting because you have children.
Could you imagine if every single thing that they said you wanted to affirm?
I literally yesterday woke up and my son said he wanted to drive the big car.
Yeah, it's important to tell my child, no, he can't drive a car.
And so by trying to assign to say to kids, you actually are smart enough and you do have the autonomy separate from your parents to make decisions.
What are we setting them up for?
You know, we're setting up the idea that you can—you're an adult.
You're a little adult, and don't listen to your parents, and your parents are backwards, which, of course, is—the pedophilia thing is just going to be right behind it.
And I've got my eyes on that.
I really do believe that that's what's happening right now.
My children happen to be quite good drivers and I have no problem with them driving either the big or little because they can do what they want in that vehicle.
I mean, as you've said, they're so unnaturally and peculiarly and inexplicably good looking.
Just gotta let them do whatever they want.
I was also, what do I want to say there?
What I feel is reasonable when educating, firstly I would say this, The parents of children should be in charge of the way that those children are educated, and whether that's traditional or progressive should be a matter for the parent to determine.
Again, that's a principle.
So the principle isn't, I've got a preference and I'm going to use this argument to leverage my preference.
I don't care, not care, but mind how other people raise their children.
I wouldn't want other people telling me how to raise my children.
So like, you know, and, but what I would say possibly, aside from paedophilia, which is sort of, it
seems to me pretty plainly wrong, that when it comes to offering different ways that a human
being might express themselves or be, isn't the assumption that we live in a culture that
doesn't allow room for debate or conversation, or at least hasn't historically, and a lot
of assumptions around identity, around gender have been made, that sort of began with the,
you know, something you touched on earlier, that women ought to be able to work in all
roles and have jobs in whatever sector, and you know, because even when you said a bit
earlier, like, you know, women are more emotional, I thought, God, I bet I'm more
emotional than you, and like, you know, I'm a man, you're a woman, I bet you're more logical
and rational than me.
I'm emotional.
That's how I run, you know what I mean?
Anyway, so I guess, look, a conversation about norms and the various ways that people might express themselves, I think, is healthy.
But having said that, I don't think that anyone else should take precedence over the parents when it comes to imposing ideals or ideas.
Yeah, we need to be a society, of course, when you're governing for the whole.
You need to be a society that governs based on the rule, not the exception, right?
So yes, there are exceptions.
Are there some men that are more emotional than women?
Absolutely.
But as a rule, women are more emotional than men.
And we should be able to say that.
We should be able to acknowledge that.
And that's always been the circumstance.
Women are drawn to certain categories.
that men are not drawn to, the way that men bond is different than the way that women
bond.
These are, again, rules.
Of course, there are exceptions.
I'm sure there are some women that are absolutely crazy about sports and absolutely love sports.
But to then say that because we have these exceptions and we're going to now pretend
that all of society needs to pretend that everything is anomalous, that's when things
I mean, you think it's an act of compassion to if somebody comes to you and says, you know, I'm this to affirm them or to not to maybe not affirm them, but you're saying out of respect to, you know, play pretend in a certain way.
And for me, that's offensive to me, because what you're saying is I don't mind how you live.
But when you tell me that how you live Now has to influence how I live and I have to pretend that reality doesn't exist.
I find that to be very problematic.
It's sort of like, you know, if you meet a person who's suffering from, I don't know, bipolarism or suffering from grand delusions and they come to you and, you know, they say something that is so obviously not true.
And but then they demand that you say that it is true.
You're demanding that I lie, right?
So if you want to go out and pretend that you're a woman And in, say, I'm—you know, I don't know what a Russell name would be, whatever it is.
That's absolutely fine, but I don't have to pretend that you're a woman.
I get to exist in the realm of reality.
And so I find that to be weird when we're encroaching on people that are seeing things straight and as they are and pretending that it's not kind if they don't want to play—pretend.
I'll play pretend with toddlers, I will, you know, but not with adults.
Well, I suppose I see it as that there is an, around language, there is an arbitrariness anyway, when it comes to some of the terminology that's used, that language is convenience for identification, and if language has a different meaning to somebody because of the way that they feel, and I can make them Feel better just by saying that.
Like, for me, that's easy.
And not that different from if someone had some sort of cultural tag that they would like me to apply, like, seigneur, monsieur, or, like, whatever.
If someone says, like, for me, that identifies, you know, female or any form of identification, it just doesn't trouble me in that way.
Now, like, I'm sort of open to your sort of rule, the type of analysis you apply to that, but I don't know why, sort of, what troubles you.
Because calling me a birthing person, you're basically saying that I have to cease to exist so that men that have mental disorders can exist, right?
That's very wrong.
It's wrong to pretend that I'm not different from you.
You've been pregnant before, Russell.
Do you think calling me a birthing person?
You've seen your wife be pregnant.
You see what women go through.
So the idea that I'm going to stop existing so that somebody can feel good in their head, it's just not who I am.
I think it's very important to acknowledge the actual struggles that real biological women go through in the same way, and the hurdles that they have to go through.
And as we start diminishing language, which obviously is what's happening now, they're starting to say, you're a birthing person.
Men can breastfeed.
No, they can't.
Women breastfeed.
Women go through that.
It's a very hectic experience.
And so I very much draw the line at that, and I'm very happy to be considered not compassionate or not emotional enough.
And I think that the reason that movement has gotten so far and now you actually have men invading into women's spaces is because it started with one person saying, I'm just going to pretend to make you feel good.
Reality has to remain reality, and I am very objective when it comes to those things.
Okay, what I feel is like you said earlier about the norm should rule or the majority should rule and I started to feel that under scrutiny and analysis there are so many different taxonomies that are not really acknowledged.
An obvious emergent one are the sort of subjects around gender identity that we've been discussing but it appears that there are just so many ways of being American, being a human being And it appears to me that really what the ulterior force, the burgeoning force beneath this, which is not being addressed, is that there is nothing permanent or necessarily rational or logical about the idea of a nation-state.
About having communities of 300 million people or 60 million people under one government that this in itself is an idea and plainly it's an idea because there is no actual literal thing called France.
It's conceptual.
It's abstract.
Same for any nation or community.
And indeed, for hundreds of thousands of years, we evolved in smaller communities.
Now, I'm not anti-progress or anti-technology or medicine or any of those great advances, but what I've started to suspect is that centralism, centralization, authoritarianism, gargantuanism, whether that's in the corporate world or in the state, are ways that you can create elite strata and control huge
populations.
What I believe in is maximum democracy that would, in my view, immediately defuse the
kind of conversations we're having.
Like if I was living in a community of 100 or 1,000 people and we vote...
Do you agree that we, if people want to be called a pronoun, we'll do it?
Yeah, yeah, cool.
And then you're one.
People go, no, no, we're not doing it.
There you go.
Democracy.
And we all accept and marvel and enjoy the many different ways, like you said earlier, that people might, you know, you're happy if you go to Iran or Australia or Finland and find cultural distinctions, which I think is glorious and, in fact, a different kind of diversity.
What I believe we are on some level protesting against is the homogenization of everything.
And this homogenization is happening for commerce, for commodity, for authoritarianism.
It's not benefiting ordinary people.
It's advancing elite interests and it's undemocratic and it's destroying the world.
And people are sort of positioning it in extraordinary ways in order to facilitate it.
So where do you think that democracy and the simple idea of people being able to run their
own lives and run their own communities, as distinct from a kind of libertarianism that
becomes ultimately, I don't know, sort of financial and a communal anti-community.
How do you, what do you think about those type of ideas, dear Candice?
Yeah, I actually totally agree with you, and that's actually what makes America quite unique, is that we have state rights, and so you can kind of choose your tribe.
You know, I made—I decided to leave Washington, D.C., and leave—I was also living in Philadelphia for a while, because I realized that I don't identify with these people, I don't identify with the way that things are run, and I moved south.
And it feels like I'm in a completely different country, just living here in Nashville, Tennessee, right?
Completely different values.
And it's all about finding your tribe.
And you are correct that I think that we function better on a community level.
And now my life is totally different, and it doesn't even reflect what you're seeing on the mainstream media, because they have no interest in the way that people are living in the South whatsoever, actually, if we're ever being talked about.
It's in a negative way.
So, you're absolutely right, and this is why I think that I spend so much time—and conservatives in general spend so much time talking about families, right?
Because that's your original tribe.
Your original tribe is a husband, a wife, the children.
You get to assess how you want to live, what you want to allow into your household, who you want to allow into your household.
And that is the number one answer that I get to people when they ask me—they're so frantic about the way of the world.
and I'm talking specifically about Americans because our government is run different,
obviously, than yours.
You know, what can I do? What can I do?
Rather than focus on the big picture, this idea of what the nation
and what our responsibility is as a nation, what can you actually do in your own house?
When COVID happened, for me, I never worried a single day.
My children were never going to be masked.
I was never going to mask.
When we had a baby nurse come one night I said, you don't have to wear that.
She said, I want to.
And I said, actually, we don't allow that in this house.
And we, you know, showed her right out, uh, because this is our house.
We get to, we get to, we're actually the bosses.
I I'm the dictator.
Me and my husband are the dictators.
We're the evil rulers of this house.
So, and that returns power back to the individual.
I like your style, man.
You're hilarious.
Because like me, I'm like, listen, I don't really see that these mask things are working.
I guess maybe I'm just not strong enough.
But if someone in my house was wearing a mask, oh man!
I feel embarrassed asking people to take their shoes off.
But you'd be like, get that mask off!
Yeah.
And what did they say?
That's what I did the entire time.
She left.
It was no hard feelings.
I just said, we actually don't allow that in our home.
And I think she was quite surprised by that.
But the concept of my child waking up in the middle of the night, baby, and you've got a person that looks like Bane from Batman looking over the crib, it's just not allowed in my house.
You know what I mean?
So this is a baby.
If you're afraid of a baby, I don't need you here, right?
So if a baby terrifies you, you're obviously not a good baby.
Hello, let me check this baby's doing.
Oh, yay!
What a delightful child!
That's my Bane impression.
I hope you're pleased that I've done that.
That's what it would look like.
I was like, he's going to wake up and my poor little baby's going to see, like, this is very scary.
And so we just didn't allow it in our households at all.
Didn't require any of our employees to wear it.
We didn't stop anything.
We didn't care about, don't see your family for Thanksgiving.
I hosted a huge Thanksgiving.
You know, that's the beauty of small communities.
That's the beauty of family.
You get to establish your own rules.
You don't have to pay attention to the nonsense of the mainstream media.
So you're absolutely correct.
In a way, it starts to expose, I think, a conversation like this one, that there is no need for ongoing cultural conflict.
There is simply a need for mutual acceptance and respect.
Whether it's a subject like masking, where it appears we agree, except I'm too scared to impose my own beliefs in the same way that you are.
Or subjects like gender identity, where we disagree, but it's sort of like, yeah, let's be who we are, man.
Like, what's the issue?
Now, I want to talk to you a moment, Candice, that because you are such a troublemaker, because you can't even accept that Netflix have made a successful documentary about causing some bloody problem about it, making a murderer, which we all liked, we all had We had a lot of fun.
We all sat around thinking, oh, the police are corrupt, aren't they?
The way they've jailed this poor fella.
It was a lot of joy.
Now, you've made a new docuseries trying to ruin that for everyone else, haven't you?
Trying to even unmask that, like that was a problem.
Tell us about your new docuseries, Convicting a Murderer, and why you've done this, and why you're such a troublemaker.
I have to say, one of the things that I'm fascinated about is the, just the psychology
of propaganda.
And we've all fell victim to it at one point in our lives.
I mean, there are so many things that I believed when I was in high school, and now I know
that those things simply aren't true, but I adamantly believed them in my soul.
And so in my political career or in my cultural career, however you want to spin that, I like
the idea of a mass brainwashing that takes place because the media was able to present
a piece.
And so I obviously did the Black Lives Matter doc last year, and now Black Lives Matter
is filed for Chapter 11, and people are starting to realize that I got really emotional and
fired up about that.
But before BLM and George Floyd, there was this Making a Murderer series.
And for whatever reason, we trust documentaries more.
Like, we just set our preset to, like, OK, the media might be—the news might be lying to me, but a documentary, I'm—they're documenting this, so this absolutely must be the truth.
And the Stephen Avery case was absolutely fascinating.
You know, it was a global sensation.
It put Netflix on the map.
And you see this same dynamic that keeps playing out over and over again, where we are now interested in turning villains into heroes.
And you see this on a fantastical stage, like, you know, the movie Maleficent.
Like, they're, they're, oh, actually, here's the real story.
Wicked Broadway play.
Oh, actually, I know she was the bad guy, but let me tell you why she has a soul.
Joker.
you know, actually, let's really tell the story of the villain, feel bad for the villain.
But then when that happens in real life, like with the Stephen Avery case and making a murderer,
when you are taking someone who, you know, threw a cat into the fire, abused animals,
abused dogs, abused cats, abused women throughout his lifetime, and then kills a woman, and
you say, as a documentary maker, how can we turn him into a sympathetic character?
We're talking about someone that has—that's something that has very serious implications.
We're talking about a family that had to not just bury their daughter, Teresa Hallback,
who was 22 years old and had her entire life ahead of her, and was fearful of this man,
Stephen Avery, and who expressed her fear regarding this man, Stephen Avery.
She was brutally raped twice.
She was shot.
She was stabbed.
She was burned.
She was chopped into a million pieces.
And then she was killed in the afterlife because two lesbian documentary makers from New York was like, this could be an interesting person to turn into a hero.
And what happened was the celebrities seized this, all the usual characters.
Alec Baldwin said, you know, the brother wasn't crying enough at the funeral.
and created this monstrosity of this family getting harassed with conspiracy theories,
some that the daughter wasn't even dead, that she was gone with the cows and in Mexico.
It created a cult, you know, a fan base and people sending letters to Stephen Avery wanting
to marry him in prison. It's very dangerous. This aspect of the media being able to turn villains
into heroes when it comes to real life is very, very dangerous.
And I'm very interested and I always want to expose it because the only way we conquer it is if we all realize that we're getting duped, you know, that we're playing a part in all of this.
That's a fascinating perspective and take.
What do you think it is?
Because I've always thought that, in a sense, a story that tells the Joker from a semi-naturalistic and anti-hero perspective is an interesting artifact, an interesting take and also by the way, a kind
of a weird cultural weariness and a running out of IP, frankly, and running out of ways
to keep franchises alive. But do you think that there's something sort of more nefarious
at play?
Yeah, well, I think that first and foremost, you're right.
It's interesting.
You're like, oh, yeah, this could be another take.
This could be interesting.
We're going to explore this.
But I think in terms of the media, there's always been something more nefarious at play.
I don't think it's a coincidence that all the late-night talk hosts made these documentary-maker stars, gave them Emmys, you know, and told them, yeah, absolutely, this could potentially be true, and decided not to look over the facts.
There was one UK host, actually, who, from the very beginning, called those women out and said, you're not telling everything about the case, but his name I can't think of right now.
But I think for them, there was always an agenda, because in 2015, when this docuseries premiered, Making a Murderer, there was this sort of anti-police sentiment that was brewing, and they wanted to believe that the police, who are generally the good guys, were the bad guys.
And we've seen how that's played up and how that's scaled over the years.
And you see that when they were sitting down with Trevor Noah and these hosts on late-night talks.
Did his thing, and he's sort of said, oh, well, this is the one case where now white people can see how we've been—you know, how maybe potentially the criminal system is wrong and rotten and locking them up because of Stephen Avery, and did his whole bit.
And so it was also a way to racialize everything, which is bizarre, because Stephen Avery was a white guy, but to kind of drum up this narrative.
So I think that there is always a nefarious political agenda, and they seized upon this series to further divide people.
And yeah, we're kind of seeing the consequences of that.
But this is something that I'm just fascinated by.
I love to examine people's psychology and how easily we are routinely duped by the power of the mainstream media.
Yeah, God, testify.
What do you think is the significance of the success of a film like Sound of Freedom or The Emergence of Our Man, Oliver Antony, like these sort of, I won't use the phrase anti-hero after what we've just been discussing, but like new cultural voices That are not coming through the typical machinery, the media machinery, which of course have incumbent economic models and certainly, you strongly believe, a set of ideals that they are conveying through their cultural products.
What do you think about the sound of freedom phenomena?
Let's start there.
It's amazing.
It's amazing to see something that is truly anti-establishment have so much success.
And I think we're seeing this, like you said, with Richmond, north of Richmond, that people, we're understanding how people are feeling.
And I think that there is a moment, there is a shift that is happening culturally.
I think people are no longer believing they're They're what they're reading and what they're seeing in the mainstream media.
And that's in large part not just because of people like them, but people like you, podcast hosts that are getting millions and millions of views and subscribers stepping outside of the traditional model.
And I think that infuriates the establishment.
And it's why they've grown angrier and why they are encroaching even more on censorship and things of those nature, because they think if we can just stop these people from speaking, then we'll be able to regain control.
But they're wrong.
The train has already left the station.
Oh, please, God.
Please, God.
Hey, I've got a few questions from, like, people.
Thomas Beard, I was just, like, watching these guys in the locals' chat.
Some of them, they're such conspiracy theorists, they think that this ain't even live.
It's live.
Thomas Beard goes, do you think that the Will Smith Chris Rock slap was staged?
I don't.
No, I think Will Smith is a broken man, and I think when I watched his wife put him on Red Table Talk and talk about how she cheated on him with her son's friend and he sat there like a puppy, I was watching a man—it was very sad, like a tail between the legs, something that you should never see happen for a man.
And I think he was broken.
He had a moment.
He wanted to show Jada that he was the strong, masculine man that she's looking for, and he did something stupid.
That's good analysis.
Fair enough.
Thanks.
Michael L. Roscoe, do you ever plan to run for president because him and his family want you to?
That's very sweet.
Thank you so much.
You know, at the moment I'm running behind toddlers.
The family stuff is way more important to me.
And I actually think that I have more influence outside of politics.
I think the realm of culture is way more influential.
And I'm just happy with where I am right now.
You won't do it!
Oh wow, gosh.
Rich2054, what is your personal view of the Lahaina fires, the local federal government response, and what's your perspective on big stars doing campaigns to raise money for that?
Obviously, the federal response has been abysmal, and when you weigh it against our response to Ukraine and the United effort to make us send money overseas, it should really shine a light on how corrupt the United States has become.
I don't have any conspiracy theories to offer.
None of it makes any sense.
It's very worrisome, and it's kind of hard to sift through it all at the moment.
But yeah, absolutely a corrupt response is what I would say.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's a weird one, that.
I tell you, it's interesting talking to you.
Maybe I have changed.
Maybe I have, you know, I still disagree with you with loads of things, but I agree with the, I agree with the concept of you.
I agree with the essence of you.
Yes.
I agree with the right for you to be you.
And if you came on here one day and said that you wanted a different pronoun, I wouldn't, I wouldn't even remark on it.
I just go, yeah, right.
I don't care.
I'm like, I'm happy.
Love is love.
Love is love.
So, hey, listen, Candice, thank you very much for joining me.
I hope you've enjoyed this conversation.
Now, get out there in that world and have some fantastic luck.
Last time you left a conversation with me, you went out and got a husband.
Why not leap straight into polygamy?
Go out there, get another one!
Or a wife!
Why not that?
You've heard it here first.
I'm off to get me another husband because that's just my luck after I do the Russell Brand show.
Thank you so much for having me.
It's always been so fun.
Let's not make it too long next time.
I'm always in the UK, by the way.
We could do this in person.
I am a married Englishman, you know?
I know.
I know you did.
I don't think I don't think about that.
Come and sit here.
Come and be on the show.
I'd love that.
I'd love that.
Yeah, exactly.
Thanks Candice.
I love it.
Stop saying that my children are... I like beautiful, but not unnaturally beautiful.
Not like... Well, they're just... they're like beautiful creatures.
Like, they're like perfect specimens.
Guys, I'm telling you, it's bizarre.
Obviously, because they would be.
Candice's new docu-series, Convicting a Murderer, which is seemingly made just to annoy people is available on the
daily wire of course and you can watch episode one on youtube her podcast candice is available now
well what a fantastic show that was remember tomorrow is our medical special medical
experts telling you what to what to do, trying to drag you on to live for decades more
because I don't know, either you've got to eat meat or never eat meat or sit in a sauna
or get freezing cold. They've all got all sorts of crazy ideas they're willing to shove
at you. We've got some amazing people coming up. Jimmy Dore, lefty radical.
Crystal Ball.
Lefty Radical.
Yanis Varoufakis.
Lefty Radical.
Eckhart Tolle.
Spiritual Radical.
All leading up to a radical turn to the right when Ben Shapiro will be coming on our show.
I don't even know if that's chronological order.
If you are watching us on Rumble, and you must be because we are here exclusively, click the red Awaken button right now to join our locals community.
Or are all the thousand pants gone?
Is there no chance to get some pants?
You could get Awaken Wonder Pants if you're one of the first thousand.
You get early access to interviews, you get guided meditations, plus the screen I have on is the Awaken Wonder one.
That's the one I have on right here.
You can join our behind-the-scenes meetings and so much more.
Now!
Are you willing to eat meat if it was never alive?
If it was cellularly grown in a Petri dish?
Or would you like fruit to live forever, glossed over in some peculiar glucose pulp?
Do you feel that Bill Gates' numerous global endeavors are designed to help you to fight climate change, to fight all sorts of things like food waste and poverty?
Or do you think there could be another motive?
Certainly Vandana Shiva does.
She calls this food fascism.
Here's the news.
No.
Here's the effing news.
No, here's the fucking news!
Good news!
Bill Gates is investing in lab-grown food, meat and lovely coatings for fruits.
Is this in order to reverse climate change and feed the world?
Or is it so that the entire process of food, from growing it to selling it, can be patented and controlled by Bill Gates?
Bill Gates appears to be attempting to patent new types of food that are grown in labs and centrally controlled.
Remember, the key issue that we discuss here is global corporatism.
Are there a network of agencies and interests that are able to transcend national democracy, and all forms of democracy actually, and impose everything everything on you from censorship to the ability to control
food sources.
Certainly our friend Vandana Shiva believes this is precisely the case.
Let us know in the comments what you think Bill Gates' role in the world is.
Is it that he's a philanthropist who just wants to feed people or does he have other motives and what are they?
Let us know right now.
Let's have a look at how our friends at the mainstream media are describing this phenomena of lab-grown fruit.
You've heard of lab-grown meat.
Yes, I have heard of it.
I'm disgusted by it.
Instead of harmonising with nature, instead of looking at ways to decentralise power, instead of empowering farmers to do their jobs properly, and I say this as a vegan who doesn't even eat meat, instead of having sensible farms with sensible farmers who have authority in their own lives, why not create some disgusting, appalling, visually anomalous and morally reprehensible New food source!
Yeah, we'll do the second.
But what about lab-grown fruit?
New Zealand scientists at Plant and Food Research are looking at how to produce fruit without a tree, vine, or bush.
Why are we doing this?
Why are we going to all this trouble to subvert and deny nature?
Why not just find new ways of taking care of the planet together, which could be done sensibly by decentralising, by placing an imaginary grid across the world, and empowering people within each territory to run their own lives?
Thing is, there's less profit in that, Why's there never any research done on how to break up food monopolies?
Now over in the lab, people are experimenting on stopping Bill Gates from being so bloody greedy.
Stop it, Bill.
Stop it.
No.
No, I won't.
Bill, stop it.
No, I want to control everything!
Bill, you don't need any more farms.
Just one more farm.
It may not look like it now.
Because what it does look like is bogies, boogers, snot.
Look at what it does look like is nasal discharge.
Sir, would you care to indulge?
No, you're alright.
I'll stick with the Ferrero Rochers.
But this Petri dish has the makings of blueberries.
We could have a whole new growing system for fresh plant foods.
They're preparing for dystopia.
Look at the ways you can see the preparation for dystopia take place.
Militarisation of the police force, growing food in laboratories, having robot dogs patrolling the police.
And drones patrolling the skies, censorship laws everywhere, the ability for organisations like the WHO to bypass national democracy, centralised currencies where you can switch off the financial power of individuals at will.
All of these stories, I swear, we're going to look back at this and say, look, it was so obvious what was happening.
We just watched it like, hey, that's pretty funny.
It's a petri dish full of boogers.
That petri dish of boogers means that you're going to spend the rest of your life in a cell.
A system that looks completely different from what we've always known.
We're all aware that the world is changing.
Yeah, we are!
Thanks to Bill Gates!
We're all aware that the world is changing.
Bill Gates actually gave the money for these boogers and this haircut.
We've got climate change which is going to cause quite disruption to our growing systems and where we live and how we grow and where we grow.
And how much authority would give Bill Gates?
Plant and food researchers working with cells from a range of fruits including cherries,
peaches and apples.
Scientists say among the benefits could be reducing the environmental impact of food
production.
I think that we're racing down the wrong trajectory, don't you?
Instead of going, do you think we're creating food in a way that's detrimental?
Are there any ways that we could improve that?
Let's consult with a variety of agricultural experts from around the world and ensure that we don't put financial imperatives across our practical ecological considerations.
Instead of having that conversation, it's like, or we could just grow stuff in a lab and carry on racing towards the apocalypse.
A profitable apocalypse.
Growers have mixed views.
Lab-grown fruit seems to be making a solution to a problem we don't seem to have.
Like, we have plenty of fruit to supply to the market.
There's no problem with that.
Bring in unnecessary Frankenstein fruits.
We don't actually need any more fruit.
Snot-covered blueberries!
Well, I've just grown some out here.
Get that filth away from me, you goddamn racist farmer lunatic!
Agriculture in itself, while providing the miracle of incredible availability of food for former hunter-gatherers like you and me, and me also created interesting hierarchies that are
becoming further emboldened with each new successive revolution. When technology and
agriculture combine, what you'll have is the ability to absolutely control food. And increasingly
I question the motives of the people that financially back these endeavours. We're
always told this is going to help people, this is going to feed the poor, but you could find ways of
feeding the poor. Now it doesn't seem to be a bloody priority does it? Let me know in the
comments if you agree.
Researchers say it's not about trying to replicate traditional fruit, but rather creating something
new and equally appealing.
What am I trying to go to war with fruit for?
What kind of world are we living in when fruit's a problem?
Fruit's alright.
Leave fruit alone.
Fruit was never the problem.
The problem is centralised systems that have become corrupted, communicating with one another, disempowering independent organisations, whether they're agricultural, media, financial or political, in order to create a vast hegemony in which all of us are just obedient little prisoners.
Yeah, but also, look at the shape of that blueberry.
It's disgusting.
Wouldn't you prefer to have a square one?
Oh, alright, I'll try one.
Here you go.
If you're eating food, you need to have something that tastes good and has a nice texture and is pleasant to eat.
What are we having a go at fruit for?
Where did fruit go?
Sir, look at fruit.
Disgusting bloody things, isn't it?
Have you seen this strawberry?
Nasty little thing.
What if there's all them seeds around inside of it?
Bill Gates isn't able to patent those bloody things.
Let's get them off with my shaky tweezers.
What are we putting into these lab-grown fruit to make them nutritional that we're then putting another heap of stuff in there to keep them nutritional or to counteract that?
And that would be our biggest concern with it.
There's this constant mistrust of nature herself, the idea that fruit somehow is malign and problematic.
Fruit and nature evolved alongside us.
We are it.
We are not separate from it.
The idea that we are overlords that need to construct things in a lab and that that will somehow be beneficial.
Remember how peaches used to be?
Mmm, yeah.
Delicious.
This peach will protect you from the next pandemic.
How do you know there's gonna be another pandemic?
Just eat your fucking peach!
The next avocados you buy at a grocery store might stay fresh at least twice as long as they used to.
James Rogers founded Appeal, stupid name, in 2012 and the company has raised a total of $110 million in funding from investors who include, oh, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Sure, they won't want anything in return for that investment.
Roger's appeal thinks it can combat the problem of food waste with its primary product, a tasteless, odourless, edible coating made from plant materials.
Okay, plant materials.
Hold that phrase in your mind for a moment.
Appeal can keep produce like avocados or oranges from going bad for weeks longer than usual.
Again, it's another bolting on to the natural world.
I suppose the human project of civilization is fundamentally a denial of nature, but surely there are ways for us to evolve in harmony with nature, for us to acknowledge who we are, what our relationship with the earth and one another is, rather than continuing down this mythic path of progressivism, which seems to be continually empower one set of interests, usually at the cost of ordinary people.
The product, eddy peel, they're really pleased with that pun, aren't they?
...is described as a way of prolonging the freshness of produce and as an edible post-harvest coating.
Mmm, delicious!
Eat your edible post-harvest coating!
I don't want to!
It's making my teeth fall out!
We'll grow you a new tooth over here!
There you go!
It feels funny!
My tooth hurts!
It's not your tooth.
It's the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's tooth.
Why is it green?
Ask Bill.
Imagine if we go to Monsanto or McDonald's and ask for a bit of sponsorship.
What kind of answers do you think we get?
The answer is no.
But these guys sponsored us.
Therefore, I endorse them and if you can use their product, please do.
Stay to the end, I'll make it funny.
Now, do you think your face enjoyed the summer as much as you did?
If you're British, your face barely had a summer.
But ladies and gentlemen, here's Ella from Rockford, Illinois.
I have both age and acne spots, and this stuff is actually fading both of them.
This serum is worth every penny.
That is Ella talking about the Dark Spot Corrector from GenuCell, a must-have after months of record heat and humidity.
What's causing this stuff?
Sun spots, brown spots, discoloration, and even red inflamed patches all appear in front of your very eyes, and it's gotta be stopped.
And here's the GenuCell amazing guarantee.
You'll see results in one day, or your money back.
So you've just got 24 hours.
Take advantage of GenuCell's most popular package, which now includes the Dark Spot Corrector, plus the classic GenuCell bags and puffiness treatment, all at, I can hardly believe I'm saying this, at 70% off.
So you can try the best skincare in the world for yourself, completely risk-free.
It's simple.
Go to GenuSeal.com forward slash promo today and start looking years, even decades younger tomorrow.
That's GenuSeal.com forward slash promo.
You'll see results day one and you'll get compliments everywhere you go.
Guaranteed.
Lovely.
Who doesn't like a compliment?
A peel's plant-based protective coating is made of materials that naturally exist in the peels, seeds, and pulp of fruits and vegetables that we commonly consume.
Aren't you hearing a lot, though, about how seed oils are really bad for us and they're giving us heart conditions, cancer, diabetes?
I mean, haven't you heard that from like Kali Means?
Let me know in the comments.
The safety of these compounds have been verified by regulatory authorities, including the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, and you know where they get their money, and the World Health Organization, and you know where they get their money.
So it's extraordinary to see that what's offered as an unbiased regulatory body is funded, you know, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation significantly fund the WHO.
Like, what are they doing?
Hey, excuse me, I'd like to get some approval for this lacquer that I want to put on fruit to make fruit last longer, and could I ask me?
Oh, well, I do!
I do approve of this.
I'm gonna need a little more money.
Oh, come on, you.
Well, it's all for a good cause.
We gotta do something about climate change.
God, it's so expensive.
Like I keep it all.
How can you have your product verified by an organization that you're the second biggest contributor to?
That doesn't make sense.
That's not regulation.
That's a way of avoiding regulation through careful investment.
But it's not just lab-grown fruits that Bill Gates is interested in.
It's money.
No, not money.
Also, lab-grown meat.
For you, of course.
And the climate!
Bill Gates has said rich nations would help the global fight against climate change by moving to 100% synthetic beef.
Let's see if he's investing in any.
Gates has already invested in lab-grown meat startup, Upside Foods, and has invested in multiple plant-based meat companies, including Impossible and Beyond Meat.
Oh, thanks for the financial and dietary tips, Bill.
One side of Bill comes up with the idea, the other side of Bill approves it, and the rest of us have to eat that stuff.
But how will these new scientific advances even positively impact climate change?
Lab-grown meat has been touted as a way to save the planet, but a new study suggests its green credentials are not as solid as many believe.
Researchers have revealed that lab-grown or cultured meat produced by cultivating animal cells is up to 25 times worse for the climate than real beef.
Oh well thanks, it's only 25 times worse for the climate.
Production of real meat has a huge carbon footprint because it requires water, feed, and the clearing of trees to make way for cattle.
Despite this, experts say the carbon footprint of lab-grown meat could be orders of magnitude higher once the industry grows.
Experts think lab-grown meat is set to become more ubiquitous in the next 10 years, transforming from a niche concept to a common fridge staple.
But for this to happen, production methods will have to be scaled up from mere petri dishes to massive energy-intensive industrial units.
You can't make a comparison between a petri dish and an energy-intensive industrial unit.
Look at this!
This is much less energy than that cow!
Okay, well, can you make a lot of it?
We certainly can!
Fire her up, boys!
It's an entirely different proposition of that scale.
And even as a vegan, who only actually doesn't eat meat because I think it's cruel, I still find it somehow distasteful, unpleasant, weird, and at odds with the direction that we're supposed to be going in, to eat meat grown in a laboratory.
This is not the solution.
This is just another variation on the problem.
In the study, the scientists estimated the energy required for stages of lab-grown meat's production from the ingredients making up the growth medium, and the energy required to power laboratories, and compared this with beef.
They largely focused on the quantity of growth medium components, including glucose, amino acids, vitamins, growth factors, salts, and minerals.
They found the global warming potential of lab-grown meat ranged from 246 to 1,508 kilograms of CO2, equivalent per kilogram of lab-grown meat, which is 4 to 25 times greater than the average global warming potential of retail beef.
Again, I'm not a person who is pro-meat, and I'm saying a lot pro-industrialized meat.
I am pro freedom, I am pro you making your own choices for your family and your diet, and I am aware that there is a global effort to disempower and destroy farmers.
I believe because farmers are an important part of the chain of survival, i.e.
they are connected to the land, they are growing food.
There is no question there are challenges around agriculture.
And areas where agriculture could be improved.
But I don't think that the motives of these centralised globalist endeavours is to improve the ecology.
I don't think it's to improve anything.
I think it's to gain control and to make money.
I think those are always the motives.
I don't believe that these kind of interests are here to help us.
Let me know what you think in the comments.
I want agricultural workers and farmers to feel empowered and part of a community.
We've moved so far away from connected communal models where all of us feel like we are invested
in the food cycle, the cycle of life, communication with one another, that we're willing to countenance
an idea where why don't we give centralised authority to some lab-grown meat, lab-grown
fruit, patented seeds, unelected powerful entities that have been half-regulated by
other unelected entities that they also fund.
This seems to me to be a further advance of globalism that's plainly taking us in the
wrong direction, that isn't popular with the world.
with ordinary people and no one asked us if we wanted it.
And the only way they can continue to justify it is that, oh, we're helping you, we're helping you,
we're helping the environment.
But the facts do not support that.
Earlier this year in the US, the Food and Drug Administration declared cultured meat
safe for human consumption,
paving the way for them to be sold stateside.
But in the UK, the Food Standards Agency is yet to do the same.
Better call the FDA.
Brrp, brrp.
Could you approve this new lab-grown meat?
Well, look, I know that that's also me, so I'm gonna say yes.
In fact, this is a waste of money on this phone call, but at least it didn't damage the environment.
The industry has since grown to more than 150 companies as of late 2022, backed by $2.6 billion in investment, according to the Good Food Institute.
Let's see what Van Der Schieve said about this issue, and in particular Bill Gates, at the Community Festival earlier this year.
When the junk food industry was trying to rewrite our laws on food safety, food and health safety, I wrote a very quick briefing paper for our parliament, and it's called Food Fascism.
And I said, stop this food fascism.
So when your seed is controlled by Monsanto, your trade is controlled, your chicken are controlled by Cargill, You're junk food and therefore you're creating diseases controlled by Coke, Pepsi, Nestle.
All of this is a system of food fascism.
And then the next step of Silicon Valley and the techno-billionaires wanting to invest in fake food, so that not only do you have one patent on a seed, now you have 14 patents on an impossible burger.
On every fake food, there are hundreds of patents because every synthetic artificial element has a patent behind it.
Can you imagine if the whole world to shift to fake food, how much royalty collection they'll have?
That's what they are looking at.
And what we have to do is take the simple thing.
Same simple thing as a scarf.
Right?
If Gandhi could spin and say, we will make our own cloth.
And we said in Navdanya, we will save our own seeds.
We will never let seeds be the monopoly of the Monsantos and the buyers.
We have to do that now.
And we have enough time because not only is their fake food not ready, it's failing financially.
We're doing a report.
Many companies have gone bankrupt.
Many companies have gone bankrupt.
So we need to look at the failed system, the fascist system, and say, no, you're part of the fascist system.
Don't try and call us fascists.
We are the New Freedom Movement.
There you are!
Is lab-grown meat, lab-grown fruit, lab-grown fruit coating a way to help us and preserve food and save the environment?
Or is it an attempt to garner patents, to control food, to control yet another aspect of our lives, to separate us from nature, to separate us from one another, to separate us even from the concept of democracy because everything is centralised and regulated in some stratosphere inaccessible to ordinary people?
Is it food fascism?
Or is it pro-climate, pro-people?
I guess you have to decide.
Who do you trust?
Bill Gates or Vandana Shiva?
I'm going with Vandana Shiva.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the chat.
Until next time, if you can, stay free.
Man, he switchin', switch on, switch on.
▲
Export Selection