All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:18:00
Clinton CLAIMS Putin Will Do WHAT In 2024?! - Stay Free #212
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, I'm going to go ahead and do that.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thank you for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
We've got an incredible show for you today.
We're going to be talking about whether or not the CDC lied to pregnant women, and we've got Glenn Greenwald on the show.
Now, the first part of our stream will be available on YouTube, then will be exclusively available on Rumble.
If you can support us there, it will be incredibly appreciated.
Click the red button on your screen to support us directly.
We need your support now more than ever.
Now with something as complex as war it would be healthy, wouldn't it, to have a nuanced debate.
It would be good to see at least two sides to the story of the benefits of an ongoing publicly funded war and whether or not it might be plausible, possible, desirable to reach a peaceful conclusion as soon as possible.
Well that's less likely to happen now because the Republicans are also for pursuing and perpetuating This war and not investigating the possibility for peace.
Let's have a look.
When America arms Ukraine, we get a lot for a little.
Putin is an enemy of America.
We've used 5% of our defense budget to arm Ukraine and with it, they've destroyed 50% of Putin's army.
We've done all this by sending weapons from storage, not our troops.
The more Ukraine weakens Russia, the more it also weakens Russia's closest ally, China.
Seems almost a little too explicit this video doesn't it?
It's telling you actually exactly what's happening.
5% of our budget.
I'm not sure that the 50% of Russia's army is true.
That's something that could probably do with a little more investigation.
But plainly you can see in a piece like this what the agenda is to deplete Russian resources and to deplete Chinese resources.
It's extraordinary because do you remember that it's not that long ago and in fact It might still be happening.
I try not to get involved with legacy media reporting.
That the explicit agenda was meant to be to support Ukrainian people because of a criminal invasion.
Here we have a piece of robust, overt and exorbitant propaganda telling you actually why this war is being perpetuated.
America needs to stand strong against our enemies.
That's why Republicans in Congress must continue to support Ukraine.
Just in case you thought it would be favorable for there to be more than one opinion on whether or not to continue funding that war.
There's an election coming next year.
How shall we destabilize that process?
Well, Hillary Clinton warns that Putin is going to try and meddle with the 2024 election in spite of them having lost 50% of their armed forces.
According to a recent advertisement, they can still meddle in domestic American elections.
Let's have a look.
Vladimir Putin has obviously, your friend and mine, he has intervened in our election in the past.
It's not something... Firstly, it's extraordinary to see Jen Psaki, whose former role was advocating for, I think, exactly the type of policies that are now wreaking havoc upon the globe.
being posited as a neutral voice within media. And secondly, I don't think there's any evidence
at all that Putin meddled with the last election. In fact, I believe that Russiagate is now
widely regarded as a hoax which delegitimised even the Democrats' claims that Trump was
denying the results of the last election.
It's extraordinary the way that this machine operates, the way that it functions.
People just plainly telling you things that are not true.
And remember, we've just seen a piece of propaganda that tells you whoever you vote for, you're going to be voting for perpetuating war.
Now you're being told That Putin meddled in another election when there's some evidence, I'm talking about the Steele dossier, that that's precisely the opposite of true, false.
And now we're going to hear that the 2024 elections are also delegitimized.
Experience firsthand.
It's not something we talk about a lot.
Do you fear that that is something that could be happening for 2024?
And do you think we should be talking about it more?
Well, I think we should be talking about it more.
So, do you think we should be talking about it more?
I do think we should be talking about it more.
Shall we talk about it more, then?
Let's talk about it more.
That was the news.
We talked about it more.
Uh, you know, deniers.
Uh, there's any doubt that he interfered in our election, or that he has interfered in many ways in, uh, the, uh, internal affairs of other countries, funding political parties, funding, you know, political candidates, uh...
Well, hold on.
If we're talking about funding political candidates from the opposition party in order to create a bogus election dynamic, the Democrats literally did that a couple of years ago.
The elasticity ...of truth these days is outrageous.
As we try to hold together a plainly fragmented society where some people just will never trust the Democrats again, where some people are never going to trust Trump, the pretence that there can ever be a kind of unified America or a unified public narrative where people are going to go, oh we know that Putin meddles in elections, we know that the Democrats would never do anything of that nature, that public space doesn't exist anymore.
It's almost like the function of media is to present to us a kind of version of a unified public sphere.
This is reality.
Remember reality where Putin did that?
Remember this reality where the war is entirely necessary?
Remember the reality where we can trust the legacy media?
All of those things are now just debris.
No one has any trust in the political system.
No one has any trust in the mainstream media.
No one has any belief that the people that are in positions of power now are the people that are going to bring about resolutions to the myriad set of crises that the world faces.
And the fact that it's just discussed in this sort of over-a-cup-of-coffee, genteel and presumably verified way Points to the theatrics of the entire thing.
Buying off, you know, government officials in different places.
So that is his opus, you know, his opus operandi in the sense that he hates democracy.
He particularly hates the West and he especially hates us.
That's mental.
That is the kind of Saddam Hussein rhetoric that we went through on the build-up to the Iraq war.
He hates democracy.
People don't just sit around hating democracy.
People haven't got time.
He's trying to run Russia.
Can you imagine how complicated and difficult that is?
This peculiar nexus of concerns and priorities and challenges.
They don't have time to just Hate the abstract concept of freedom.
That is the rhetoric that's used by people that are not interested in freedom at all.
Reductive, simplistic, childish, lacking in nuance.
Where is the conversation about whether or not the perpetuation of this war is beneficial?
Where is the conversation about whether new models of democracy have to be explored?
Where's the conversation about the reliability of media?
Where's the conversation about the porous relationship between media and the state as demonstrated by this conversation and the Clinton Global Initiative?
I bet if you looked into that for more than half an hour you would discover All sorts of peculiar funding.
Certainly if it's anything like the Clinton Foundation, there'll be funding from Military Industrial Complex, from Big Pharma.
These kind of initiatives and conversations being presented as neutral, when in fact they're the most malign propaganda, is a significant part of what's wrong.
And he has determined that he can do two things simultaneously.
He can try to continue to damage and divide us internally, and he's quite good at it.
And sadly, he has a lot of apologists and enablers.
An apologist and an enabler in this instance means people that don't just directly consume propaganda without questioning.
What's that on my spoon?
Nothing!
Just eat it!
If you go, would you mind telling me what's on that?
Because previously you fed us stuff that hasn't been that nutritional.
Previously you've lied to us.
You have taught us discernment.
Well that discernment is now labeled being an enabler or an apologist.
There are degrees and nuances and complexities to talking about something like the relationship between the United States of America and Russia, the nature of propaganda, degrees of propaganda, the ability to have perhaps a democracy that doesn't need to be continually engaged in war to sustain its economic models and its true powerhouses, specifically the military-industrial complex.
To raise those topics of conversation does not make you an apologist for Vladimir Putin.
In fact, the people that are truly apologizing for Vladimir Putin Are American state interests themselves because they cannot use the International Criminal Court to persecute Russia for their criminal if provoked invasion because if they were to evoke those edicts they themselves would be indicted under its terms because of the numerous criminal invasions that they have engaged in.
The ongoing bombing of Syria Iraq, Afghanistan. So simply this kind of slightly banal,
gentle fog of easy language is toxic, noxious and designed to distract and dumb you.
In our own country, people who either don't see the danger or dismiss it out of hand or
maybe agree with some of the positions he's taken on certain things, including his barbaric
invasion of Ukraine.
How many conversations do you have to have with Glenn Greenwald?
How many times do you have to listen to Jeffrey Sachs or Aaron Maté to identify and discern that that statement is so lacking in complexity as to amount to an absolute lie?
The 2014 coup, NATO infringement on their territories, military industrial complex objectives, Nord Stream pipeline, so many!
That's the evidence of the lies right there because you wouldn't say that if you were telling the truth.
You'd say obviously we've provoked Russia in numerous ways and in fact why do you even need NATO at this point in history?
Who's benefiting?
Who's the real threat?
Who's the real aggressor?
And geopolitics is complicated and We're going to have to accept that there are going to be numerous people at the table if you're going to have a sensible conversation about how the world is run in 2023 as we continue to evolve, as we start to accommodate and incorporate new technologies.
New dissenting voices have to be listened to if we're going to have anything like a judicious and fair and open society, which is what we claim to support.
Of course those conversations can't happen and people that push for those kind of conversations will be one way or another maligned and dispatched and legislation will be introduced like the new legislation in my country, the UK, where on the new online safety bill which amounts to just a huge new censorship power that prevents dissenting voices from being heard.
We are truly living in extraordinary times and sometimes I do think there are black and white good versus evil dynamics going on but certainly not in the way that the legacy media reports.
That is who he is.
I said that for years.
Part of the reason he worked so hard against me is because he didn't think that he wanted me in the White House.
So, you know, the Russians have... They're really, really happy with this.
The reason that Putin is so bad is because I'm so good.
And his badness makes my goodness all the more obvious.
And then Jen Psaki.
Yes, that's reality.
And we can all agree on that.
Don't look out of your window though, don't look online, don't ask any questions, because you're going to see a very different reality.
...has proved themselves to be quite adept at interfering and if he has a chance he'll do it again.
So there you go, there's one version of reality that I'm not entirely comfortable with.
Let's have a look at another stream of propaganda that apparently presents questions that are difficult to Ask and even more difficult to answer.
You will perhaps recall that at the height of the pandemic one of the greatest concerns about proposed medications was whether or not they had been tested on breastfeeding or pregnant women because one might imagine that pregnant and breastfeeding women are not ...particularly likely to put themselves forward to clinical trial.
Although, in many cases, eight or nine mice will usually suffice.
I don't know if these mice were pregnant mice or not.
So, did the US government and CDC have enough scientific evidence before recommending mRNA vaccines to pregnant and breastfeeding women?
Here's the news.
No.
Here's the effing news.
Did the US government and the CDC have enough evidence that mRNA vaccines were safe for
breastfeeding women before recommending them?
And did Facebook censor accurate information questioning that ethic?
Look, why are you asking so many questions?
Why don't you follow the science?
Not that science, that science!
Now during the pandemic and at its height many people were questioning the efficacy of vaccines and the plausibility of them being safe for breastfeeding and indeed pregnant women because how would you ever accurately clinically trial that?
Now at the time it was very difficult to have those conversations because of online censorship of true information.
Because of experts who had concerns and questions being censored, shut down, de-platformed, Ignored.
Extraordinary things went on during that period.
It's only a couple of years ago.
Let's not forget how that went down.
Now new evidence has emerged that suggests that we were right to have those lines of inquiry.
Let's have a look at the story now with a little more detail and see whether or not due process was undertaken by the CDC and American government before recommending mRNA vaccines and whether or not Facebook did indeed censor Today the CDC urged all pregnant women to get vaccinated.
Tonight there's new guidance, the strongest yet, from the CDC urging women who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant to get the vaccine.
Some official recommendations from the CDC.
A continuation because last week we heard the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine and ACOG issue their strong recommendations.
Now we're hearing from the CDC about the importance of this vulnerable population recommending vaccination.
This is based on new data.
So no increased risks.
To be vaccinated while pregnant.
It is crystal clear why we're hearing all our professional organizations recommend imploring women in all three trimesters who are considering being pregnant or breastfeeding get vaccinated.
It couldn't be more clear.
Thank you very much, Dr. Jen.
Couldn't be more clear.
Concerted effort to convey one particular message without dissent, without inquiry, and propose it as science or fact.
Let's have a look at some additional information that might help us to review the level of certainty and confidence we just witnessed from the legacy media.
It is safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women to get vaccinated against COVID-19 according to the Centers for Disease Control.
In fact, according to the CDC, vaccination during pregnancy benefits the baby and reports have shown that breastfeeding people who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have antibodies in their breast milk which could help protect their babies.
So not only is it not dangerous, it's actually beneficial with the vaccine trickling down through the generations like economic opportunity in an indefatigable capitalist system.
The CDC wasn't alone.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology repeatedly urged pregnant and breastfeeding women to get vaccinated.
There was no reason to worry, experts said, because injected mRNA stays in the arm and does not travel around the body.
Oh dear, doesn't find its way to the heart at all?
It is unlikely that the vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue, the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine assured mothers in a statement on the 14th of December 2020.
If it does, it's even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into
milk.
But now a pivotal new study reveals that this was always a lie.
Isn't it curious how sometimes your intuition, your memory, and your perception and understanding
of reality had already kind of informed you that there would be risks when a novel, to
some degree experimental, type of vaccine was being used across a population, that there
would be perhaps additional complexity when it came to breastfeeding mothers or pregnant
women that perhaps required further scrutiny?
In the same way that we've subsequently learned that conversations around natural immunity were repressed or vitamin B or potential resolutions and solutions to COVID-19 that did not follow the prescribed course We now know that some of those conversations were pressed and were controlled.
Now it seems that this, one of the most sensitive aspects, one of the areas where the vulnerability is much more costly, is also being reviewed.
The study, Biodistribution of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk, found that trace amounts of mRNA were detected in 10 out of 13 lactating women in a 45 hour period after vaccination.
Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is not confined to the injection site, but spreads systematically, the authors wrote.
The study confirms previous results published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics last year.
The 2022 paper, Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk, found trace mRNA amounts in seven samples from 11 lactating women.
Crucially, the new Lancet study concedes that mRNA vaccines do not stay in the arm.
Initially, it was thought that the vaccine mRNA encapsulated in the NLP's lipid nanoparticles would remain localised at the injection site and quickly degrade, write the authors.
However, several reports suggest that the NLP's mRNA can enter the bloodstream and accumulate in distant tissues.
The authors further explain how vaccine mRNA is carried to mammary glands.
For lactating mothers receiving the vaccine, our results suggest that the vaccine NLPs will reach the breast tissue, they write.
Despite being excluded from the main vaccine trials, many pregnant and breastfeeding women were mandated to get vaccinated in accordance with CDC guidance.
Does it not seem extraordinary to you that CDC guidance, as well as the media parroting this consistent message, did not have access to, and indeed the trials were not even undertaken, that could demonstrate the possible dangers or inconsistencies with that messaging?
Does it not seem troubling to you that at that time, just a few short years ago, conversation was literally closed down?
That there was uniform messaging, both in legacy media and on certain social media sites, where censorship was routinely undertaken?
Where deep state officials with direct contacts to some of these agencies were willing to censor, control, shut down and purge true information simply because it was inconvenient?
Does this single story not demonstrate the necessity of absolutely questioning this type of information?
The obvious intention to cleanse, control and dominate the media space in order to prevent reasonable conversations from taking place?
Experts with valid opinions being heard?
It seems to me extraordinary.
This is just a couple of years ago.
And what we're talking about now, symbolically, significantly, are mothers.
The symbol, really, of the continuation of our species, the, in a sense, epicentre of many of our value systems.
It seems casually unconscious that such a thing would be disregarded in this manner, but not at all surprising when we look at how the media has behaved regarding this issue and many others.
The Lancet study demonstrates just how irresponsible and reckless the CDC's recommendations were.
CDC encourages all pregnant people or people who are thinking about becoming pregnant and those breastfeeding to get vaccinated to protect themselves from COVID-19, said former CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky in August 2021.
Walensky made a recommendation based not on science but on faith alone.
Oh my god, that's so extraordinary, isn't it?
When you think how malign and neglected faith is, when you think how God or a belief in values and principles is regarded as sort of some kind of hokey crap-pot superstition, and faith-based decisions were being made on the basis, or pretense at least, of science.
Continually people just chatting to their mates, what are you gonna do?
Or we'll do the same thing then.
Are you gonna let them have professional football?
Nope.
And she's like, okay, neither are we, neither are we.
Science just operated, I believe, for much of this period as a kind of new orthodoxy to shut down opposition, It functioned in the same way that a medieval use of theology might have done.
If you question this, you are a heretic.
If you oppose these views, there's something morally wrong with you.
It just seems astonishing to me that this information continues to leak out like breast milk.
At that time, Pfizer and Moderna had not completed trials on pregnant women.
Behind the scenes in 2021, reports journalist Marianne De Marcy, Pfizer was scrambling to conduct a clinical trial of its vaccine in pregnant women.
To this day, Pfizer data on pregnant and breastfeeding women is still incomplete and has yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal or pre-print and has not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation.
Moderna's trial is also ongoing and the company has not released its data.
So as of today, there is no clinical trial data available.
So what was this we were watching on the mainstream news?
Absolutely, it's crystal clear.
Every single channel saying the same thing.
Opposition censored.
No clinical trial data.
And what was the refrain?
What was the rhetoric?
Follow the science.
What science?
It was essentially wishful thinking, authoritarianism, preferences, politicised.
It was at odds with science at almost every step.
And the people that questioned that were regarded as kind of crackpots, heretics and, as you know, conspiracy theorists.
Demarcy reports that Pfizer's trial had major design flaws that would corrupt the data.
Peculiarly, notes Demarcy, Pfizer planned to vaccinate all the mothers in the placebo group one month after giving birth to their babies, effectively getting rid of their control group.
Well, that doesn't seem very controlled.
Well, it does seem controlled.
It seems contrived.
It seems like eliminating the possibility that there would be a group available to show a lack of complexity.
I mean, why would you do that?
That seems like an odd anomaly.
I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but one might sense nefarious intention in such an action.
Regulators also allowed Pfizer to significantly reduce the number of women in the trial.
For this reason, we may never know the true results of the company's study on pregnant women.
Certainly if we do find out, it will be an accident.
It certainly won't be because of transparency, clarity, honesty and integrity.
It will be freedom of information requests.
It will be people knocking on the door, demanding, can we have access to that data?
Give us 75 years, will ya?
Also, we're not sure what happened to JFK yet, but this bullet sure got around.
Proponents of vaccine mandates may argue that none of this matters because there have not been adverse events in breastfeeding children.
But one of Pfizer's own post-marketing surveillance reports contradicts this assertion.
Due to legal action, the FDA was forced to release the report last year.
It showed that in 133 cases of breastfeeding babies tracked down by the company, 17 experienced clinical adverse events, and 3 of these events were reported to be serious.
So, that's some more information that challenges the Legacy Media narrative.
Another Pfizer document released by the FDA under court order found that there were 215 cases of exposure via breast milk, maternal exposure during breastfeeding reported to Pfizer's voluntary pharmacovigilance database.
Of these, 41 infants experienced adverse events and 6 experienced serious adverse events.
Rather troubling.
Many may correctly point out that none of this data is complete or conclusive, but that is precisely the problem.
Yes, it's difficult, isn't it?
Because there is no precise or conclusive information being offered, because conversation keeps being shut down, dissenting voices keep being censored, legitimate experts who are offering alternative views are being shut down, silenced, shadow banned, whatever resources are available.
That does not inspire a great deal of confidence, does it?
Let me know in the chat.
Millions of women were compelled to get multiple doses of the mRNA vaccines under threat of losing their jobs, and in some cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City, being excluded from public life through vaccine passports.
Other women who willingly got vaccinated were told they would have no effect on pregnancy and breastfeeding, but experts did not actually have the data to assert this was the case, and they still don't have it.
Mandating pregnant and breastfeeding women to take an experimental medical product that had not completed clinical trials in their cohort undermined the bedrock principle of medical ethics, informed consent.
Now, we can't continue to bring you this content without your support and without the support of our sponsors.
We are so grateful for your ongoing support.
And we're grateful to the support of our sponsors.
Now, do you know that the IRS October 15th tax deadline is right around the corner?
So if you're scrambling, thinking about those estimated payments, expense write-offs and messy deductions, I've got a recommendation for you from our commercial partners, the attorneys at Tax Network USA.
They've been absolute lifesavers for many, and their team has successfully saved clients over $1 billion in tax So whether you're in the hole for $10,000 or staring at a $10 million debt, they're ready to help you.
And hey, no judgment.
Even if you haven't filed in one, five years, or even an entire decade, they're equipped to secure the best settlement for you.
So before the tax clock runs out, give taxnetworkusa.com forward slash brand a shout.
Okay, let's get back to this complicated story.
The disregard for informed consent was not exclusive to mothers.
It affected all women of childbearing age because regulators, doctors and officials were equally dismissive of women's concerns about menstruation.
In 2021, many women noticed changes in their menstrual cycles after getting vaccinated, but health experts claimed that vaccines were not responsible.
In May 2021, Dr. Paula Hillard, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist of Stanford Children's Health, told the San Francisco Chronicle that it was biologically impossible for the vaccine to impact menstrual cycles.
The virus, she claimed, was far more likely to change women's cycles.
I've noticed many times that coronavirus conveniently appears to offer up the symptoms and effects that a potentially malign vaccine ought to offer up.
You know what COVID does now?
It's myocarditis, and it makes your breast milk taste the chemicals.
So far, there's no data linking the vaccines to changes in menstruation.
It does seem, based on the certainty of the mainstream media, when it was relevant to encourage people to get vaccines, that there's potentially a bit of an agenda here, and certainly some questions that appear to require answering.
And beyond questions, trials.
Clinical trials that need to be undertaken in order to deduce what the truth of the situation might be.
The next year, a large study in the journal Science Advances found that reports of changing cycles were far from anecdotal.
42% of women in a survey of 39,000 reported that their menstrual cycle was heavier after vaccination.
In October 2022, the European Union's drug regulator recommended adding heavy periods as a side effect of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
So after an initial denial, it was demonstrably true that the denial was a little previous and ultimately untrue.
It seems that what determines the narratives we're given is an agenda.
This is what we would prefer.
We would prefer that it didn't affect breastfeeding women, so it doesn't.
We would prefer it didn't affect menstruation, so it doesn't.
We would prefer that there wasn't any debate, let alone clinical trials, to oppose this agenda, so there aren't going to be any.
Experts and once reputable institutions made reassurances about menstruation with zero clinical data at hand, shredding their credibility as scientific authorities.
and when women first raised concerns about noticeable side effects, they were gaslit,
ignored and censored. The link between the mRNA vaccines and menstrual changes or fertility
has yet to be thoroughly investigated. This question remains relevant as the FDA and CDC
recommend another new Covid shot this fall, especially since this boost has been approved
without thorough human clinical trials. They're still doing it. Nevertheless,
the self-proclaimed advocates for women's health and women's bodily autonomy are conspicuously
absent from the conversation. It seems that as long as big pharma and legacy media are able to
effectively control the conversation, there can be no dissent, there can be no opposition,
there can be no reasonable conversation in a territory and area where you would imagine that
ordinarily there would be outcry and outrage about the protection of vulnerable people. And indeed,
who isn't vulnerable when it comes to a potentially intoxicating and, according to this,
untrialled medication?
The Lancet breast milk study highlights the major flaws of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout and the ensuing mandates.
Government officials, esteemed medical organisations, doctors from prestigious universities and experienced journalists told pregnant and nursing women that they should all get vaccinated and that there was no cause for worry.
Only malign disinformation agents, they said, would suggest that there could be any problem.
Dissent is akin to disinformation.
Those two terms are becoming the same.
Legislation is being passed to make it impossible to discern the difference between misinformation, malinformation, and just opposing views and dissent.
This is yet another example of it.
We can't have a conversation about, as we've seen earlier in the show, about Putin and whether or not Putin dabbled in previous elections.
It's just passed off as a fact.
We can't have a conversation about how we found ourselves supporting a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine and whether or not there were opportunities of peace that have been passed up.
All of this is regarded as enabling or apologising.
And the same with this issue.
There is no issue where that template won't be applied.
If you dissent, you'll be shut down.
If you oppose, you'll be ignored.
And simple and obvious basic questions about whether or not there are reliable clinical trials will cause you to be called a conspiracy theorist when under ordinary circumstances a lack of clinical evidence to support breastfeeding mothers or be taking a medicine will be regarded as a significant piece of information.
Fact checkers insisted that breast milk from vaccinated mothers was safe and that breastfeeding newborns never had reactions to the vaccines through their mothers.
Even now, Facebook labels claims that breast milk from vaccinated people is harmful to babies, children as misinformation and the company continues to remove such claims on the basis that they discourage good health practices.
This seems to me to be an extraordinary degree of cooperation in an area where inquiry, expertise, scientific trials, questioning and integrity would be very, very welcome.
Let me know if you agree.
The sweeping censorship on social media often prevented people from discussing the adverse events they experienced after vaccination, as Facebook in particular removed such discussions.
Without the ability to hear about and openly discuss side effects, many people get vaccinated without true informed consent, which is only possible when patients know the actual risks and benefits of a product.
The Lancet study did not reveal evidence of severe harm to mothers or infants.
It's possible that many breastfeeding women would still choose to get vaccinated, even knowing the results of the study.
But those women had a right to know before getting vaccinated, not after.
The CDC, the FDA, and the media actively misled these women, and there have been no repercussions, resignations, or apologies.
Making scientific errors may be understandable, but the attempt to manipulate, deceive, and gaslight is not.
The effort to convince pregnant and nursing women to get vaccinated was a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign.
That it was paired with a government-sponsored censorship program makes it all the more Inexcusable.
For a moment, just hold in your mind the certainty of those legacy media reports.
Take the jab.
Get the jab.
Take the medicine.
And then align that with new, emergent information about a lack of study.
The media, in conjunction with the state, in conjunction with Big Pharma, their biggest advertisers, were willing to convey a message that they just hoped was true and prevented opposing or dissenting voices from being in the conversation.
Some social media sites, notably Facebook, continue to censor true information simply because it's inconvenient to that narrative.
This appears to be the media landscape, the state landscape, the corporate landscape within which we continue to exist.
How can that be called democracy?
How can that be called liberty or freedom?
How can that be regarded as judicious and open?
How can that information be so brightly and casually conveyed when there's clearly not only a conversation to be had, but clinical trials to be undertaken?
How can we have any trust in these government agencies, in this legacy media, when it makes claims like these, which are still absolutely unproven?
But that's just what I think.
Why don't you let me know what you think in the chat.
See you in a few seconds.
Another story where it seems that a little circumspection and analysis might have been helpful before blithely believing in what was called science but in retrospect looks more like orthodoxy and an attempt to profit and control.
Well that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments and the chat and if you want to support our content please press the red button.
Of course we need it now Yeah, absolutely, Russell.
I'm glad to be with you.
to introduce Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.
We all know why he won that.
He's the host of System Update, live on Rumble, weeknights at 7 p.m. Eastern.
Glenn, thanks so much for joining us.
Yeah, absolutely, Russell.
I'm glad to be with you.
I know it's not been an easy time, to put that mildly, over the last week.
But I'm happy to be with you and to talk about whatever's on your mind.
Well, yes.
Thank you very much for offering me that opportunity.
I wonder, to start Glenn, what your views are on the potential for the establishment to cooperate and collaborate when it comes to the stigmatisation and outlawing of dissenting voices.
Is that something that's possible, plausible?
Is it something that definitely happens?
Is it something that in particular in your career as a journalist you've witnessed and experienced and can you give us examples of how that has happened if indeed you believe it does?
I think the systemic attempt to stigmatize dissent, to outlaw it, to suppress it, has become, for me at least, the leading issue on which I most focus, because I think it's the most threatening one, I think it's the most significant one.
I've been thinking about this a lot in terms of the work I did, but your reference of the
start with Edward Snowden and Laura Poitras and the Guardian in 2013, where the story
was essentially that the internet, which was this innovation that had the potential to
be uniquely liberatory and emancipating.
And the idea was we were going to be able to organize and communicate with one another
freely without the interference of state and corporate authorities controlling and monitoring
what we're doing, had instead been degraded into the exact opposite, namely this technological
machine that permitted a level of surveillance and monitoring and spying that had been previously
I remember during the reporting that we did, When we revealed a lot of the capabilities, not just the ones that were imagined aspirationally, but the ones that had been in fact achieved by the NSA and its partners in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada in
Very concrete ways that former members of the Stasi, the notorious East German spy agency, were expressing envy.
Wow, this is something we only dreamed of, this level of ubiquitous surveillance, but only with the internet is it now really possible, not just to open the mail of, say, one out of every five people, 20%, but to store every email and have the ability to watch it and analyze and monitor it.
And the reason that story resonated so much, the reason it was so significant, was because it reflected this successful attempt to take the internet and to turn it into the opposite of what it was supposed to be, from this liberatory technology into the greatest source of monitoring and coercion and control and surveillance ever created in history.
And I think what you're seeing, especially after 2016 with the dual traumas of Brexit and then the election of Donald Trump at Hillary Clinton's expense, Was the conclusion on the part of the Western elite class that it wasn't just enough to use the internet any longer to mass surveil everybody, but that what was too dangerous was to allow free expression to flourish on the internet, that we couldn't afford any longer to allow people
to communicate freely to speak their mind to challenge authority because that was too dangerous and they've said this explicitly you know they obviously don't admit they have malignant motives they'll say things like what ends up happening is that disinformation circulates and that's really dangerous by which of course they mean any views that deviate from their official decrees they leave there's a whole well-financed industry now to label that disinformation And not only do we have to alert people to its dangers, but we have to act to remove it from the internet, to censor it, to suppress it, to demand that big tech platforms remove it and that they now become punished in the event that they fail to censor in accordance with our wishes.
That's The purpose of this new law in the UK, the Online Safety Act, which is essentially designed to say if big tech companies or tech platforms don't remove material we regard as dangerous, we meaning Western elites, they will be found to be in violation of the law and to be in all sorts of ways guilty of huge fines, liable for huge fines, and even criminal offenses.
And all of this is about, of course, dissent is always something that power centers seek to stigmatize.
That's the thing that you expect.
If you're a dissident, you're going to be attacked, you're going to be maligned.
What we're seeing though now is something way beyond that, which is a formalized attempt to ensure that dissent is Formerly banned from the internet.
I remember the first time it was really tried on like a, in a concrete way, was the collusive depersonating of Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones by Facebook and Google and all the internet giants.
And some people at the time stood up and said, this is really dangerous.
If we're going to start with Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones, very shortly, it's going to move to other people.
But most people weren't willing to defend Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones.
They purposely selected people most kind of alienating.
And this system was allowed to take hold and now of course it's expanded well beyond those people and we're constantly seeing even senators and members of Congress having their videos removed or having their speech curtailed on the grounds that what they're saying is not permitted.
And we have this censorship regime now, this whole industry that has been financed in order to justify it and now government attempts to codify it in law.
That really is about policing and controlling speech on the internet in a way that I think is incomparably dangerous.
It seems that what's required is an evolving set of systems and principles that might be enshrined in law, that reflect these new capacities and their dangers, and yet what's actually happening is the reverse of that.
The unraveling of presumed ideas within judiciary, presumed processes that necessarily protect people from being unpersoned, It seems that the momentum is in exactly the opposite direction.
You've already mentioned the UK Online Safety Act and the previous events and the brilliant examples that you gave of people that have previously been silenced and shut down.
I remember thinking in earlier incarnations of mass media, print and television, That it was astonishing the capacity that they had to form public opinion, direct public opinion, to generally speaking get people to, as the famous saying goes, vote against their own interests.
Now we have this sort of almost chrome sphere.
that can entirely encapsulate a human's attention, can measure, manage, manipulate and direct
attention and opinion in ways that are unprecedented, it seems that what's required is the
opposite of what's happening. How can independent media voices even continue to exist in such a
hostile environment?
Isn't it likely that we're just going to see more and more erosion of voices that exist in that space?
And that with something like the Online Safety Act, It's not even just individuals but potentially entire platforms that might find themselves unable to operate.
Both of us work on Rumble and Rumble certainly receives a particular kind of assessment and attention within mainstream media circles.
I wonder what you think The threats are to platforms that are unwilling to abide by and with this type of legislation and how this tendency is likely to increase unless there is opposition and eventually in the form of legislation.
I think the ability to maintain, preserve, and fortify independent media is the single greatest challenge.
This is the battle, the war, that I think is paramount in terms of whether we have basic liberties going forward.
And by basic liberties, I mean the ability to contest Official propaganda that is constantly rained down upon us and bombarding entire populations using the internet.
This is the entire point of the battle that we are currently undertaking, which is, it is so ironic, and obviously we've been doing a lot of reporting on your case, Russell, but not just your case in terms of the importance of due process and the refusal to believe accusations.
that are currently nothing more than just assertions by anonymous people in the media
who haven't even gone to the police. And even if they do go to the police and there's eventually
charges, we're supposed to understand that charges are just allegations and we don't assume the
person is guilty until actual evidence is presented in a fair judicial proceeding. And
there's a finding of filter innocence one way or the other.
This is something so important to battle for. And obviously, you've been advocating that a great
deal, not just in your defense, but in defense of the principle itself that protects all of us.
But I think even the more disturbing part of this has been that
As you know, Rumble has, in this case, basically very flamboyantly expressed its defiance to attempts by these absurd people in the British government to Use and abuse their power, including threats of the Online Safety Act, to ban Rumble from the UK, to subject its executives to arrest if they try and enter the UK, things that have appeared in the British media, obviously as intimidations and threats, all to punish Rumble and make an example of it by essentially saying that if you're a platform that doesn't bow down to and obey
the commands of this censorship regime, we're going to destroy you.
We will not just destroy your reputation, but we will also use legal power now
to prevent you from being in our country.
Rumble, as you might know, is unavailable in France because the French government ordered Rumble to cease
providing a platform to Russian media.
And Rumble's view was, if we have adults who use our platform,
who want to hear what RT and other Russian media is saying, we're not going to take orders from the French government
about who we are allowed to air and who we're not allowed to air.
And as a result, Rumble is unavailable in France because France was threatening to cut Rumble off at the IP level.
So essentially saying, you either obey our censorship commands as a state about who you can allow to be heard and who you're not, or we will ban Your platform, we will control the internet more aggressively than the Chinese do to ensure that views that we find threatening can never be heard.
That's what this battle is ultimately about.
And I think the point that is so critical is, you know, the minute rumble in this case defied these censorship orders and issued this statement.
about this baroness who sits on this committee saying we're not going to obey your commands to demonetize a creator based solely on unproven accusations and we're not going to take orders from you about what information we have to turn over and we're not going to sit in judgment of our creators and the behavior they supposedly allegedly engaged in off the platform as though we're now competent to judge guilt and innocence.
The minute that happened, there was an attempt in one instance to say, well, Rumble is this despicable, untrustworthy vector of hate speech and disinformation.
Instantly there appeared an article in the Associated Press and then a kind of resulting effort to say it's in violation of the Online Safety Act because it's allowing exactly the kind of content the Online Safety Act is designed to Prohibit.
And of course, the Online Safety Act, the chief sponsor of it, was the same baroness, this Dane Dineage, who is the one writing these letters, not just to rumble, but TikTok and media outlets demanding that you be punished before there's any findings of guilt or even any formal accusations.
This is the level of despotism that is driving these kinds of processes.
And I think the important, crucial thing to understand here Is that it's so ironic for media outlets like the Associated Press to accuse others of circulating disinformation and conspiracy theories when these are the same media outlets that told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
And was in an alliance with Osama bin Laden to justify the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
I don't recall any rumble creators doing that.
I recall the New York Times and the Associated Press doing that.
Or these are the same media outlets that spent years telling the public that Vladimir Putin had taken over control of the US levers of power because he had secret sex tapes that he was exploiting to blackmail Donald Trump with.
Or that right before the 2020 election, These are those media outlets that told the public that the Hunter Biden laptop and the documents on it were fraudulent byproducts of Russian disinformation, rather than what they were, which was authentic.
So these media outlets use disinformation campaigns and deceitful lies to manipulate public opinion all the time.
That's what they exist to do, these large media corporations.
And what they're saying, essentially, is that We know the public no longer trusts us because we've gotten caught so many times now telling lies and spreading disinformation.
The public no longer listens to us and no longer believes what we're saying.
So the only solution is for us, forcibly, to try and take any platforms that allow people to dissent from what we're saying, or challenge what we're saying, or offer alternative views, and ban them.
So that it's not just that we're banning dissent, it's that we win the power to disseminate propaganda, our propaganda, on behalf of the Western intelligence agencies, and various states, and media corporations, without challenge.
And if they succeed in that, Russell, in excluding independent platforms and free media, meaning independent media that's not beholden to any factions, from being able to exist, from being able to find an audience, the reason that's so dangerous is because they succeed in creating a closed information system that exists only of their propaganda and only their disinformation that is cleansed of all dissent and all dissidents.
And that is absolutely their objective.
That is exactly what this entire campaign is about, about cleansing the internet of hate speech
and disinformation.
What they mean by that is we need to cleanse the internet of anybody who challenges what we're saying
so that our propaganda remains unchallenged.
And if that doesn't scare you, I don't know what would.
It's very curious that the rhetoric that underwrites this terrifying ideology that you've just described
is so ensconced in the language of freedom and competition, that there's competition for who will be the provider
of the best information, which network, which platform will provide the most truth or the most appealing
narratives.
And yet it's...
...oddly gravitated towards a kind of totalitarianism and monopolisation that bypasses, as you earlier referred to, anything that a monolithic, eastern, communist, centralised modality could ever conjure up.
I recognize that, you know, if it were we were talking about nutrition, if you had the monopolization of food, that would, generally speaking, lower the standard of food, because there is no competition, there is no alternative, there is no viable option.
You're simply going to eat the food that you've been given.
I wonder if you are familiar with, on what your thoughts are, of the Trusted News Initiative, something I recently learned about, which appears to be a set of relationships between big tech platforms and some legacy media outlets.
That have a kind of agreement that they are no longer competing with one another for eyeballs or views or attention, but they are essentially competing with digital platforms and independent media.
It's something that's been made explicit and overt.
And the monopolization of information, particularly now that we have platforms like Google and Facebook with the incredible control that they are able to assert, means that in a way this is Almost ideologically, beyond the control of resources that you might have seen in the monopolies of a century ago and into a sphere that's almost impossible to imagine because it's consciousness, reality.
Reality is being controlled and curated.
Yeah, I mean if you look at the Just those two companies, Google and Facebook, and you might even throw Apple in there.
There's no doubt that we're talking here about the richest and most powerful corporate entities ever to exist in human history.
Way more lucrative, way more powerful than even the kind of anti-trust barons of the late 19th century and early 20th century.
These trusts that ended up being broken up because they got too powerful.
These are more powerful than most nation states, and in many senses, they are more powerful than almost every nation state.
And that has been proven over and over by the unsuccessful attempts to try and break them down or weaken them or bring them under control.
And I think two things are so crucial about this.
Number one is, unlike, say, railroad trusts or oil monopolies, we're talking about just the distribution of Concrete material goods that obviously puts a huge amount of power in the hands of whoever controls it and that's bad enough We're really talking here is about
data and information about pretty much everybody enormous amounts of just think about how much you do online and how much that reveals about yourself and how centralized that information is that everything you do is being stored what you choose to read with whom you choose to speak what you choose to look at the kinds of things that you pursue what you buy what you what you're interested in that puts an incredibly comprehensive picture of who you are, not just as a person,
but as a mental entity, in the hands of these tiny number of
corporations that are able to, I mean, the reason why artificial
intelligence is now happening is because we've turned over so
much data to these companies for so long about how our brains
function and the things we respond to and the things that we look for, that they've been able to study the human
brain and the ways in which it works to such an effective degree
that they're able to actually not just replicate it, but in some
sense, surpass it with technology that predicts everything that we want to say we've all had that
experience of pulling up an email.
And before we know it, Google has basically written the email for us and what it actually suggests.
They're talking about a kind of information and insight into how our brains function and the corresponding ability to control and manipulate that, unlike anything ever seen before.
And I think what we're now seeing is that for a long time, you kind of had these alarmingly powerful actors over here, Google and Facebook and Apple, Operating as their own power center is this kind of counterweight against the states.
Oftentimes they work in partnership with the states on national security issues and on economic issues.
So a lot of times there's a lot of kind of cooperation which makes the state and these corporations immensely even more powerful when they work hand in hand, which they often do.
But at least sometimes there's some separation, as we see, for example, with the obsession now with governments to try and commandeer big tech's censorship power, to put it under their control, to say, you're permitting this information to be heard and we don't want that.
And so what so many of these laws are designed to do, Russell, and they're taking place in every country, not just the UK, there's one in Ireland, there's one in Brazil, they're all throughout Western Europe, They're proliferating everywhere.
They've already been in the Middle East for a long time.
Hate speech laws or disinformation laws.
that they're designed to take this immense power on the part of these monopolistic giants
and transfer that power from the hands of these giant corporations into the hands of the state
to essentially say, technically, you're gonna keep the delete button and the ban button
and the content moderation buttons, but the ones who are actually gonna have power
over when it gets pressed is us.
And that's what we're now seeing is this kind of frightening union
using the force of law whereby the states commandeered this power and put it into their hands.
And it's a kind of despotism, a kind of authoritarianism that we've been trained for so long to believe
only exists in the bad countries, in China and in Iran and in Russia
or wherever you think the bad countries are.
That I think there's a natural tendency to believe, well, the words despotism and authoritarianism can never really apply to Western democracies.
We don't actually, aren't capable of those sorts of characteristics.
But if you look at the laws that are being enacted and the ways that they're being abused right now, not in the future, it's hard to use any terms other than those to describe what is taking place.
It's extraordinary to see how this aggregation, that as it accrues, accumulates and grows, is usually presented as a tool of greater convenience, is creating, as you say, an unprecedented alliance and union and unprecedented power to manage information, to control dissent.
It's astonishing to appreciate that.
It also seems to me It's evident that, concomitant with that, it has to be the provision and endless stoking of cultural division.
Because it's now plainly observable, I think, to a significant number of people that you can't trust the legacy media.
I believe there are numerous polls that point out that trust in UK media and US media is at an all-time low.
Nobody has significant trust in the government of either parties.
There are new populist voices, I think, coming from what would once have been regarded as both sides that, in a sense, are more popular and transcendent of the ordinary rhetoric and parameters of the political groups that they've emerged out of.
Say someone like Tucker Carlson, for example, someone that sort of now broadly disavows both parties in a two-party system.
If there is so much mistrust in institutions like government, like the media, like the judiciary, like the corporate world, when something as significant and as vast as the pandemic can take place and elicit such a cynical response, when there in a sense is no longer one public, when there are numerous publics, when you can have sort of interviews with someone making astonishing allegations about, for example, Barack Obama, and that will only exist in one particular media sphere.
Is it likely that we're going to continue to see the rise of, call them demagogic or populist figures from across the political spectrum?
And do you see a connection between something like Trump's popularity and the sort of earlier incarnations of populism in Europe, like through Syriza and Podemos and stuff?
And do you think that there will be more of a demand for this kind of populism
and will the possibility for this type of populism be maintained when the levers of control are
plainly now, as you've just described, migrate into the state from these big tech organizations?
First of all, I do think the most foundational fact in politics, in culture, in society,
when you talk about the West, is the intense widespread and growing distrust of
institutions of authority across demographic groups. It is really remarkable, Russell,
if you think about it, that it was the case not all that long ago, like maybe five, ten
years ago even, that if you were a major political figure preparing to run
in a campaign and you were accused of a serious crime, let alone indicted as a felon,
you would instantly drop out of the race, he would drop out of politics, he would have no
chance to win.
Of course, nobody would ever vote for somebody who has been accused of serious crimes by media outlets.
And then by legal authorities, they wouldn't even wait for the trial because the mere fact that there would be enough smoke to justify those kinds of allegations would be enough to destroy the reputation of that politician because people had a basic trust in the legitimacy of legal institutions that no such accusation would emerge unless there was some foundation for it.
We've now just watched Donald Trump be indicted four separate times in two separate federal
courts, in two separate state courts, on dozens of felony charges of every different conceivable
kind.
One's involving his conduct after the 2020 election. One's involving his record keeping
and bookkeeping in the Trump organization and the payments he made to a porn star.
Others involving his alleged mishandling of classified information.
They've thrown every conceivable accusation criminally that they can at him.
He's facing jail time in multiple jurisdictions.
And all that has happened since then is that his polling has increased, not just among Republicans, where his standing is, I mean, they've never seen a contestant primary with one candidate with such a gigantic lead that just doesn't waver.
And that lead has grown ever since these indictments.
But even when he's polling against Joe Biden among independents and even Democrats or people who are unaffiliated with the Trump movement, the level of contempt and distrust that people have for legal institutions is so high and for media institutions.
That it's almost like the more they accuse him of being a criminal, the more faith and trust they put in him.
Because there's almost no favor you can do better for somebody than for these media institutions that are so hated, and these governmental and legal institutions that are so despised, than to conspire against the person.
And so, when you take that back, this unbelievably intense hatred for institutions of authority, Obviously, any politician, left or right, that is able to stand up and say, I share your antipathy towards these institutions, the contempt and distrust that you have, is completely valid.
And what I'm going to do is get to Washington or Berlin or London or Paris or Athens or wherever, and I'm going to go to war against these institutions.
And not just against them, but their dogma that has destroyed your lives for so long.
Of course there's a gigantic opening for that kind of populist politics.
And I'm glad that there is.
There should be that kind of an opening because Western institutions are that corroded.
They deserve all the hatred and the distress that they've earned and more.
And yes, there are going to be times when demagogues or people who are dangerous end up exploiting that anti-establishment sentiment.
But at the same time, I think these establishments themselves have proven to be very dangerous and very toxic and very destructive as well.
And so in general, my That trick for understanding politics and where people fit on the political spectrum has become a lot less about left-wing versus right-wing or conservative versus liberal and much more about the central question of do you trust institutions of authority or do you distrust them?
And I think if you're somebody who distrusts them, if you have an anti-authoritarian politics, you're going to end up having a lot more in common with other people who share contempt for those institutions than you are going to have with people who continue to believe these institutions are fundamentally good.
And that to me is the key dichotomy in our politics now.
If that dichotomy becomes instantiated at scale, if Brexit and Trump and some of the other examples outside of anglophonic countries become not outliers or anomalies but actually a trend, it sounds like what you are describing In spite of the attempts to control the public space, in spite of the attempts to shut down dissent, in spite of the new abilities suggested through legislature to absolutely control and shut down dissidents,
Something that's tantamount to revolution.
When there is that degree of, as you say, disdain, hatred, total mistrust for the media, that is a very, very powerful emotion.
Because when I think of some of the resources that are used, I mean sort of, and I know this is not really a territory that I want to direct you to, you're such a diligent and brilliant man and I hate to sort of shepherd you towards woo-woo-ism, But when you think of this sort of puritanical, rootless, traditionless, ugliness that sometimes is used as an ersatz ideology in dominant culture,
If these sort of feelings of deep antipathy, of fierce independence, of longing for control, indeed as expressed so many times in the maxims of these movements to take your country back or make America great, this kind of rhetorical power and what it refers to, this is a very strong resource and I again see the significance of keeping people divided along cultural lines, you know, all of the cultural lines that are obvious and the ones that are plainly used, exacerbated and amplified.
If this was ever to become unleashed, it's a force that could completely, could reverberate throughout the entire political sphere, couldn't it Glenn?
Yeah, and I think it's very important to recognize that as brilliant as we both are, it's not as though we're the only ones who see this.
People who occupy positions of power, who depend upon the continuation of establishment authority and doctrine for their own self-interest, they see it just as clearly as we do.
They understand that populations are turning against them in very intense and radical ways, and that they no longer can command trust and faith or anything else, and they see that as exactly as alarming and threatening to them as they should.
And if you look at history, what happens with power centers and establishment forces is that when the population, the more out of control they get, the more rebellious they get, the more revolutionary they get, the more hostile they get, the more Authoritarian, these institutions of power will become in order to cling on to their power and control and constrain this anger.
So if, for example, we're manifesting in more physical ways and say traditional street protests, and there have been a lot of street protests in a lot of these countries, leave aside the 2021 in the United States, because that was kind of a different nature.
Talking about in Greece, in Spain, in places where you haven't seen, obviously in France, This level of kind of protest and just out in the street rage and anger that's not even that specific or about any particular cause is just more this kind of, you know, this directed but kind of ambiguous hatred toward people in power.
They're going to crack down more and more.
They're going to use police forces and military forces to crush any attempt to protest against them.
You saw that with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The minute it got ground, the minute it got a little bit of a hold, they went to court.
The mayors got orders ordering them dismantled.
They sent the police in and just physically crushed them or legally crushed them.
The minute that it got a little too threatening, that's what power centers do.
In this case, it's not really manifesting so much as physical protest, because so much of what we do now is on the internet and online, and this is the way we organize and protest.
It's manifesting as sentiment.
And what they want to do is kind of go to the root of what is generating this empire establishment rage, which are people who are standing up and saying they're liars, they're corrupt, they're fundamentally against your interests, the things that they want you to believe are in fact totally false, and they want to be able to crush the ability To criticize them, to generate this kind of anti-establishment sentiment, to awaken people, to open their eyes.
And that is what this war is about, this idea that we now have this well-financed industry that identifies disinformation and agents of disinformation and laws that are now in place that are designed to empower governments to remove that from the internet in the name of keeping everybody safe.
I mean, remember the title of this bullshit law in the UK is the Online Safety
Act.
And the baroness who sponsored it went around exploiting, disgustingly, this case of this 14-year-old girl who killed
herself because of material to which she was exposed online and said, we want to turn the UK into the safest
online experience of any country in the world, using the language of paternalism
and talking about how children need to be kept safe, even though the first time they get their hands on this law,
the minute that it's actually about to become enacted, they don't go and use it to protect children.
They go and use it to demand that Rumble be banned from the UK because of its refusal to remove you from the airwaves and remove you from being able to be heard.
So that's what all of this is about.
These kind of things that are dressed up under these benevolent sounding campaigns of protecting us from disinformation and hate speech and keeping us safe is in fact about the realization that they have that there is this kind of quasi-revolutionary hatred toward them and this attempt to try and crush it by preventing those who are fueling it people like you and me and many others from being heard by implementing censorship laws by banning the platforms that are allowing us to speak freely and not only to speak freely but to reach millions of people
That's what all of this is about.
Glenn, how is it possible that Julian Assange is still awaiting potential extradition?
How likely is it that that will be avoided?
What type of power can oppose these 17 Espionage Act Yeah, you know, I think it was really interesting to join us on this case.
this is probably quite a big question. You know, given the, in a sense that yours is a parallel
journey to his in some respects, what does it tell us that he's in the situation he is in? And the
fact that it's so broadly speaking, seems somewhat like a lost cause? Yeah, you know, I think it was
really interesting and Julian Assange's case, I've had obviously occasions to think about this over
the last week or so, as I thought about your case as well, that when it came time to discredit
Julian Assange, because of his groundbreaking historical leaks that he published and reported
on, that enabled the exposure of war crimes and all kinds of deceit on the part of the US and
its key allies around the world, there was an obvious need to destroy his reputation.
And the very first tactic they used was the emergence of rape charges, ones that ended up never actually being proven, ones that he sought asylum and protection from in the Ecuadorian embassy, saying, I want to go to Sweden and contest them and I'll do so tomorrow as long as the Swedish government just promises they're not going to use my presence on Swedish soil.
Turn me over to the U.S.
government.
And he was called at the time paranoid.
The U.S.
government wasn't trying to get a hold of him.
And obviously, it turns out that they are.
But it reminded me a lot, you know, when I was young, I used to have this kind of obsession with the Pentagon Papers case, and Danny Alsberg, as a result, became one of my childhood heroes.
And in my naivete, the thing that really never made any sense to me was, for Danny Alsberg, the only reason why he ended up not going to prison for his whole life, he was on trial for espionage crimes, The judge had already ruled that the defenses he wanted to offer, which was that, look, I discovered proof that the U.S.
government was lying about the Vietnam War, telling the public they were on the verge of winning when they knew they could never win, and it was my moral obligation.
Right.
make this known to the public that the judge had ruled that that kind of a defense is not
even allowed to be raised.
And in the Espionage Act case, that if you facilitated the leak of classified material,
you are automatically guilty and there's no defense like that available, which is why
they've used it against Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, even against Donald Trump, because
it's a law from 1917 that is designed, was designed to basically imprison dissidents.
They used it against socialists who were against World War I and Woodrow Wilson's participation in it, like Eugene Debs.
It's a very repressive law.
And Donald, Nan Ellsberg, was on his way to prison and would have spent decades, if not his life there, for this heroic act that we all now regard as heroic, which is the Pentagon Papers League.
And the only reason he was safe from that was because the Nixon administration decided to break into the office of this psychoanalyst With the intention of stealing the psychoanalyst's notes and files so that it could make public all kinds of secrets about Danielsberg's psychosexual desires and fantasies and practices.
In my naiveté, that never made sense to me.
Like, Danielsberg proved the government was systematically lying about the Vietnam War.
How would it be responsive to say, well, Danielsberg is like a pervert in his fantasies?
And the reason I have come to understand is that there's nothing like sex scandals
to destroy the reputation of any dissident because even if it's true, even if it's not true,
it just makes the person, we don't kind of are uncomfortable with sex.
We don't like talking about it.
We don't like thinking about it.
And if you can force people to imagine the person in that context, in some sort of context of a sex scandal,
it makes people just want to run away.
And that was why the Nixon administration knew that being able to expose Daniels' sexual secrets
would be the most effective way to destroy his reputation and distract attention from the revelations.
And only because that was discovered and the judge ruled that was such an abuse and dismissed his case, that's the only reason he ended up going to prison.
So you see this kind of through line in how he's being treated, how Julian Assange is being treated, the kind of allegations that are raised against you.
It's a very common tactic.
And I think when it comes to Julian Assange, Between that kind of effort to destroy his reputation, combined with his paranoia about Russia that they successfully manufactured in 2016, where they blamed everything on Russia.
You know, Justin Trudeau just got caught humiliatingly having a standing ovation with President Zelensky for an actual Nazi SS soldier.
And in his remarks about it, he said, He started babbling about Russian disinformation and somehow tried to blame Russia.
It's an all-purpose way to just blame everything used as a villainizer, everything having to do with Moscow.
They turned Julian Assange, in the minds of most American liberals, into a Russian agent, and therefore everybody is content in the United States with watching him waste away in prison.
And I think the one optimistic development is that the Australian government, responding to Australian public opinion, which is now overwhelmingly demanding that Australia finally protect its citizens, combined with a lot of international optimism, President Wu in Brazil and President Abloh in Mexico, have made Assange's case one of their priorities.
There's a lot of international pressure being brought to bear now on the United States by countries that it needs to end this persecution.
That I think there may end up finally being some sort of attempt to offer Assange a compromise and to finally have a way out of this, but only because they've succeeded in their real mission, which was not ever proving that he committed any crime, but destroying him physically and emotionally and psychologically and disabling and crippling weakly to such an extent that connected to everything that we've been discussing and kind of took off the chessboard one of their most effective Opponents and dissidents.
Whoa.
Jesus, Glenn.
Thanks, man.
That was a lot of truth that you put into that time frame.
You had a lot of it in your questions, so I had to pack a lot into my answer.
I'm gonna blame you for that.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for making time.
Thanks for your support.
I sincerely appreciate it, Glenn, and I'm grateful to you once more for your time, for your brilliance, for validating broadly my perspective on reality, which sometimes for me feels incredibly biased and instinctual and spontaneous and intuitive rather than journalistic and with Yeah, and you know you have a lot of support in everything that you're going through and I am among those supporters.
Oh no, I'm more or less on track, even though I don't have as many receipts to show as you.
It's certainly reassuring in a time when reassurance is what I need more than anything.
So thank you, Glenn.
Yeah, and you know you have a lot of support in everything that you're going through, and
I am among those supporters.
I think you deserve and are entitled to all the rights that are going to be denied to
And so I'm going to continue to advocate for those rights, not just because you deserve them, but because we all do, and the attempt to erode them is very dangerous.
So I'm in solidarity with you, and thanks for having me on your show.
Thank you.
Thank you again.
You can catch Glenn Greenwald on System Update weeknights at 7pm eastern time on Rumble.
So coming up on the show soon, can you believe it?
We've got Stella Assange, we've got Lee Fang, we've got Tim Pool, we've got Tucker Carlson, we've got some fantastic guests joining us.
You're not going to want to miss them.
It is clear that we need your support now more than ever.
Please press the red button, become an Awakened Wonder, Join what now has to be called the resistance, the rejection of a system that wants you tyrannized plainly and is well on its way to achieving that unless we become activated and awakened immediately.
Welcome to some of the new members like Mish0403, Miss Pepper, Electric Steve1, Aerudite, Passive Spud, Lisa Burnett, Luke and Sy.
Thank you for joining us.
I appreciate you.
I can't express to you my gratitude.
Join us tomorrow, all of you, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
▲
Export Selection