All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 29, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:05:10
OH SH*T, The Pilot Test Has Begun In Ukraine… - Stay Free #213
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, I'm going to go ahead and get started. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm
going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to
start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with
the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first
one.
I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going
to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start
with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one.
I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going
to start with the first one.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Organic is breaking in. We've got a live spot there.
Hello there you awakening wonders.
Thanks for joining us today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Thank you for rejecting the mainstream narrative and legacy media corruption in favor of an opportunity to build something beautiful together.
We've got some fantastic content for you coming up.
On here's the news.
We're talking about Hillary Clinton.
You're going to love this.
She had an amazing interview with legacy media and former White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, in which they talk about Election, meddling, and they talk about corruption and war.
It's astonishing.
It's astonishing to see the gentle harmony between the legacy media and the establishment.
You're going to love it.
You will love it.
Then, this is an extraordinary story.
We're talking to Jeff Garner.
He's our guest today, who's talking about your clothes killing you.
Your actual clothing?
Not just your food now?
Not just Big Pharma?
Not just an oppressive state bombarding you with continual lies raining down like Satan's fire?
Your actual garments?
I mean, probably this shirt's coming for me next.
Who knows what'll happen?
Jeff Garner's gonna tell us about the toxicity.
In clothing.
Almost like every single element of your life is somehow being exposed to corroding elements.
We will be available broadly for the first part of the show.
Then we'll be exclusively on Rumble.
That's why it's super important that you follow us there.
You like our content.
And if it is within your means, if it's possible, support us.
Support us.
This is the change time.
This is when we need you.
it's within your means, if it's possible, to make a commitment to us so that we know
where you are and you know where we are. So that we can continue to fight for independent
voices, so that we can oppose the state, so we can oppose corruption, so that we can try
and find a way that we might unite in the spirit of something beautiful together, so
we can have some values together, so we can have unity, so we can form new alliances,
so we can challenge this thing, so that the serpent's head can be chopped right off. This
is the time now, guys. Now, this is fantastic. To start, I want to tell you about USAID.
They've revealed that they are subsidising Ukraine, and by their own words and in their
own language, corrupt Ukraine, they say, with US taxpayer money.
This is extraordinary because sometimes you think, well what's the agenda with Ukraine if we know that NATO provoked Russia, if we know that the 2014 coup needs a good looking at, if we know the military-industrial complex benefits, if we know hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian people are dying as a result of this conflict, if we know that much of the aid isn't finding its way into the correct places, if we already know that BlackRock are intending, already, investing in a post-war Ukraine, although God knows how long that's going to take because Because they love a long war, don't they?
They love a long war.
What's going on with this USAID?
This is a clip that's going to knock your socks off and blow your mind.
Have a look.
One of the things that Congress has given USAID since this full-scale invasion began is an unprecedented amount of money in direct budget support, which sounds kind of obvious.
Of course, we would do that.
We want to stand with Ukraine.
But it's totally unprecedented, this kind of scale.
At this point, based on what you know about the values of the establishment, do you really believe that things like standing with Ukraine motivate them?
We've got to stand with Ukraine, and there's nothing else in it.
Nothing else.
Nothing historical we need to look at in terms of what caused this war, and there are no potential benefits down the line.
Just standing with Ukraine.
Note how simple little phrases are introduced to, in a sense, invite you to forego thinking.
...of investment, and we're talking along the lines of about $15 billion in, in a sense, cash.
$15 billion in cash?
Would you like to see that in Hawaii?
To the Ukrainian government, which was famously corrupt, you know, in past years and still has work, as you noted, to do.
This is weird, isn't it?
They're just saying we're giving $15 billion of your money, your money that you work for, because remember, the government hasn't got money.
The government don't have a taco stand or a lemonade stand.
They're not generating revenue.
It's your money, $15 billion of which they're taking and giving to a government that they say, this is just the words of the spokesperson, are corrupt.
Would you like a vote on that?
To do on corruption today. I don't know if we could have gotten that money out of Congress if not for DIA
Because what DIA allows us to do is that direct budget support goes yes to the Ukrainian government
But then it goes to pay teachers to pay health care workers to pay first responders and there's a digital trail
It's not you know some official. So what is DIA and what is the intention here?
Ask yourself first of all and let me know in the chat.
Do you believe that this is a humanitarian mission or do you believe, like in previous wars, there is a cloak of humanitarianism that is placed over a potentially darker or at least more profitable agenda?
Let's look at what DIA means first.
DIA is the groundbreaking and award-winning mobile application that connects 19 million Ukrainians with more than 120 government services, dozens of digital documents, and has distinguished Ukraine as a world leader in e-government innovation.
Does this sound like the beginning of a new type of passport?
A new type of aggregation of information?
A possible opportunity to pilot social credit scoring.
Every single Ukrainian citizen has to have this app.
It tells you about your health.
It tells them about your health.
All of your information neatly corralled and bundled into one convenient place by and for a government that have just been referred to as corrupt.
Launched in 2020, the DIA app allows Ukrainian citizens to use digital documents on their smartphones instead of physical ones for identification and sharing purposes.
Passports.
The DEA portal allows access to over 50 government services.
And if you don't behave, denies you those government services.
Eventually, the government plans to make all kinds of state-person interactions available through DEA.
All good.
More state.
Just what we all need.
DIA was built in partnership with the USA.
Oh, I bet it was.
And is poised to be shared with other countries.
On the sidelines of the 2023 World Economic Forum in Davos, USAID Administrator Samantha Power said the US hopes to replicate the success of DIA in other countries.
We talked throughout the pandemic period about the possibility of crisis situations being used to pilot technology that would become normalized and ultimately utilized to generate the possibility for control.
Not for convenience, not for safety, for control.
Ukraine is in a state of emergency.
Ukraine are in a hot war with Russia.
How that war came about, you can investigate.
We've certainly made a lot of content about how it came about, but certainly they are in a war now and therefore in a crisis and therefore more amenable to ideas and schemes such as this one, which appear to me to be pretty immersive, totalitarian, potential digital dictatorship creating technological capacities.
Let me know what you think, though, in the chat.
It's a digital trail.
It's not, you know, some official deciding this or that.
It actually is going directly into the bank accounts in a manner that just, it would have been untraceable in a prior regime.
Oh, so you can trace people's expenditure.
That's curious, isn't it?
That, in alignment with new CBDCs, the cryptocurrencies it's okay to like, would mean total control, as long as there's no precedent for shutting down people's bank accounts if, for example, the state disagrees with them, like the Canadian truckers.
Interesting.
Let's learn a little more about USAID.
US, United States, love the United States.
Aid, who doesn't love aid?
Let's see what USAID actually means.
As political turmoil engulfed Ukraine in the lead-up to 2014, the U.S.
was fueling anti-government sentiment through mechanisms like U.S.
aid and National Endowment for Democracy, just as they had done in 2004.
So as well as providing aid, they stir up anti-government sentiment and possibly fund coups?
The Washington Post's David Ignatius once wrote that the organisation functions by doing in public what the CIA used to do in private.
Why are we doing this stuff in private?
Should we just do this stuff in public?
Yeah, as long as we call it like, you know, USAID or something.
Are they going to buy that?
They're going to have to buy it.
We've got access to their taxes.
Surely this isn't somehow connected to biolabs?
The US military outsourced some of its biological weapons research to the government, installed by the 2014 coup in Kiev, Democrat presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
has said.
According to Kennedy, the bioweapons program is operated under the guise of life sciences research, such as gain-of-function experiments on viruses, and we all love those, right?
And other pathogens, ultimately overseen by Dr. Anthony Fauci.
I've heard that name somewhere.
Who headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases between 1984, convenient year, and 2022.
When some of these bugs escaped from laboratories in the U.S.
back in 2014, the Obama administration banned gain-of-function research, Kennedy added, so Fauci outsourced it overseas.
A lot of them went to Ukraine, Kennedy told Carlson, while some of the research was moved to Wuhan.
Hmm.
Wuhan, China Laboratory, the suspected origination point for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Most of the research was funded by the Pentagon or by USAID, which Kennedy described as a CIA cutout.
CIA funding goes to sub-organizations and they are able to conduct programs that seem a little bit dubious.
They've cancelled the elections.
What kind of democracy has no election?
I mean, isn't that the main thing about it?
Imagine a democracy, but without elections.
Then we don't have to keep meddling in them.
We just don't have them.
That is brilliant.
But is it democracy?
We can say it is.
Zelensky said he's not going to have an election because it would be inconvenient during the war and would be expensive.
Well, the thing is, if you don't have elections, why in the world would we be supporting a country that's not a democracy?
They've banned the political parties.
They've invaded church.
Later you will hear Hillary Clinton say one of the things that defies Vladimir Putin is his hatred of democracy.
But what's happening with democracy right here, right now, in this ally of the states, being funded by the United States?
So, no, it isn't a democracy.
It's a corrupt regime.
And are the Russians any better?
No, the Russians are worse.
But at the same time, we don't always have to pick some side to be on.
But the ultimate reason I'm against this is we don't have the money.
And when we borrow more money, it leads to more inflation, leads to more likelihood of recession in our country.
And so we just can't keep doing it.
Okay, seems like Rand Paul is making some pretty interesting points, and it seems that, as we've been saying here on our channel, and it's so important that you continue to support us, and thank you for supporting us, that what we need are new alliances that transcend the old partisan ideas that are increasingly irrelevant if what you have is a centralist authoritarian system that doesn't really offer you democracy, that just ushers through the agenda of the powerful, which requires ongoing war as one of its main Contingent and components.
That's just what I think, though.
Let me know what you think in the chat and the comments, and if it is within your means, please become an Awakened Wonder and support us so we can continue to do this work with you.
Now, you are gonna love this piece of investigation.
It's a conversation between Jen Psaki, former spokesperson and press secretary of the White House, in conversation with Hillary Clinton, formerly, well, just Hillary Clinton, really, And we'll be talking about the nature of this conversation.
Some of the claims that are made, some of the lies that are told, just sort of live lying.
It's amazing.
You're going to absolutely adore this.
In it, Clinton talks about an authoritarian dictator who invades other countries.
That is an extraordinary claim, particularly under the circumstances.
Here's the news.
No, no, no, no, no.
Here's the effing news.
Hillary Clinton is on the legacy media, warning of potential election interference in 2024
and of an authoritarian dictator invading foreign lands.
But is this a matter that could be resolved by her simply looking in a mirror?
Today we're talking about Hillary Clinton cropping up on MSNBC, Microsoft NBC as it's officially called, in order to warn us of potential electoral interference in 2024, as well as the mendacious actions of an authoritarian dick.
So let's have a look at the interview where Hillary Clinton makes these claims, as well as looking at Hillary Clinton's previous record, Russiagate, and whether or not there's some potential hypocrisy here, and potentially too, seeding of ideas that means that when certain events happen it's possible to query them in advance.
It's possible now that we're living in an immersive environment where big tech companies are able to curate realities for us.
Let's present us with information that is favourable to their agenda and completely deny access to information that's challenging to their objectives.
A figure like Hillary Clinton is, let's face it, an establishment entity who has been in alignment with the agenda of the powerful for many, many years now, whether it's the Iraq war, various invasions of Syria, and through the Clinton Foundation has numerous interesting relationships with very powerful globalist entities.
Let's have a look at this interview together and see if we can observe where the real threat to democracy lies.
Vladimir Putin has obviously your friend in mind.
For a start, just note that Jen Psaki used to be the spokesperson for the White House just a few months ago and now she's being portrayed, presented, framed as an objective media voice.
What we have here is just two establishment figures This is no moral judgement on them as individuals, I'll leave that to you in the chat and the comments.
This is simply an observation that their interests are in total alignment.
How can the media analyse and scrutinise potential corruption within the establishment when they are plainly part of that establishment, observably part, not in some opaque, obscure, conspiratorial way.
People leave a job with the government, start a job with the media, and vice versa.
He has intervened in our election in the past.
Right.
That's just actually not true.
And not only has it been disproven, it's the very kind of election result denying that has led to Donald Trump elsewhere being condemned, indicted.
They're simply saying, Putin, we know this for a fact, interfered in the election.
Well, hold on.
Don't you think there are bigger systemic problems that need to be analysed?
Do you not think that a bigger problem, one that might be resolved, is that the Democratic Party has abandoned ordinary people, operates entirely for a donor class that Joe Biden says before the election nothing will meaningfully change to a room full of financiers?
The idea that there is some external threat, some baddie, some bogeyman that's causing all these problems is the type of false dynamic that allows them to continue to neglect the function of democracy, service of the people.
It's not something, as you experienced firsthand, it's not something we talk about a lot.
I think they did cover it quite a lot.
It's all that was on the television for ages and ages.
Look at the name of the show, it's called Inside with Jen Psaki.
You better believe you're inside with Jen Psaki.
You're right inside the establishment with Jen Psaki.
Get out of the establishment!
It's trying to destroy you!
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.
How can you pass this off as news?
Should we be talking about what we're talking about now more?
Yeah, let's talk about it some more.
What, more than this?
Yeah, how about a bit more?
A bit less?
No, more.
Because I don't think, despite all of the, uh, you know, deniers, uh, there's any doubt that he interfered in our election.
What?
Is there doubt?
I think there was.
I think there was the revelation of a steel dossier funded by the Clinton campaign's legal team.
I mean, there's so much information that we'll get into in a minute.
This is just passed off almost as light, casual, fireside, over a cup of coffee entertainment.
But what it actually is, is mendacious propaganda designed to normalise information that is detrimental to your wellbeing.
Oh, why did this happen?
Because they interfered in the election.
Oh, OK.
What's disinformation?
This is disinformation.
What kind of platform should be shut down?
These platforms should shut down.
What kind of dissenting voices should you ignore?
These dissenting voices.
Look at what the objective is.
Look at how this is formulated.
Look at how it's funded.
Look at your own lives.
Look inside yourself.
And for a moment, see if you can find some intuitive flame that informs you where the truth is.
Or that he has interfered in many ways in the Oh yeah, it's the usual.
affairs of other countries, funding political parties, funding, you know, political candidates,
buying off, you know, government officials in different places.
Do you mean exactly like the US has done for generations?
Jen Psaki just nods along.
Yep, some more propaganda. Could have some more propaganda.
Don't you just sometimes want to question what you're being fed? What is this on the spoon?
Oh yeah, it's the usual. No thanks.
That is his opus, you know, his opus operandi in the sense that he hates democracy.
Firstly, you don't say opus operandi.
It's modus operandi.
And people don't just hate democracy, do they?
Like, urgh!
Democracy!
People have their own agenda, their own lives, maybe even their own colonialism, their own imperialism, maybe even their own criminal invasions provoked by the events of 2014 and NATO infringement, but criminal nonetheless.
What people don't have is just some sort of pathological hatred for the idea of voting in an election.
Although, there are some people that seem to hate democracy.
And I think we're about to see one's face right now.
He particularly hates the West, and he especially hates us.
Especially.
Bloody Hillary Clinton, if it wasn't for her, we would have global domination.
Putin is probably quite busy, especially with all these illnesses that they claim he has.
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.
He's very good.
That's what he is.
You know, when he was a little boy, they noticed, this guy's good at dividing people internally and turning them against each other.
Vladimir, come here.
Hello, Vladimir.
I see a bright future for you.
This skill you have for dividing people internally and turning them against one another.
Why aren't people not just plainly talking about, look, God, our whole party is funded by the military-industrial complex.
We're in no position to stand up against Big Pharma.
You can see that from the bill we've just passed.
Our business is lying.
Your business, Jen, is making those lies seem like convivial, ordinary, everyday truth.
And in order for us to facilitate that, we have to portray Vladimir Putin, who is, you know, president of Russia and probably has all sorts of crazy stuff.
He's been in the KGB.
This is certainly not advocacy for Vladimir Putin.
But he has to be turned into sort of a cartoonish villain straight out of Gotham in order to stop us thinking straight, in order to maintain us in a sort of state of continual bewilderment where we're unable to go, can we just put all this to one side for a moment and focus on how we might run our own lives and our own communities?
What's going on with the price of our food?
What's going on with the price of our energy?
What's going on with Big Pharma?
What's going on with democracy?
What's going on with our media?
What's going on with funding an ongoing continual war which you admit has no end in sight, has no chance of being legitimately won in the traditional sense when you can't look after your own population notably, observably and obviously in Hawaii?
Isn't it Time for a real reckoning.
Isn't it becoming increasingly clear that nothing short of revolution, a mass disobedience, a mass denial of these systems of corruption, is going to be required in order to change the world?
Oh no, I didn't like that question, Jen.
Jen?
Is that you, Jen?
And sadly, he has a lot of apologists and enablers 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.
Oh, that barbaric invasion.
That's why I never did any barbaric invasions of any countries while in government.
And when I did invasions, they were Nice.
And so dividing us and then trying to seize territory in such a brutal way to
try to expand his reach.
Can I ask you and tell me in the chat and the comments do you think that Hillary Clinton actually believes this?
while she's saying it, or like inside she knows, oh god we did that coup in 2014, or what about the NATO
infringement, oh god I can't actually talk about the degree to which it's
a criminal invasion, because of America's historic criminal invasions of
numerous nations, including, but not exclusively, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,
our willingness to engage in any war that is profitable, either on a resource level, or a psychological level, or
for unipolar power, and, like, what's going on? What does the inner monologue
say?
Because, Jen Psaki I could ask.
To try to restore the Russian empire, if not the former Soviet Union.
I've got to restore the Russian Empire, if not the Soviet Union.
Also, I must do that thing where I divide people on the inside and turn them against each other.
I've always been so good at that.
Oh, bloody hell.
It's true, I do have bum cancer.
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.
Well he wasn't alone in that, but it's not like you can't say that you're the anti-Putin, that Putin is like actually evil and therefore that you are actually good.
I mean if that were true, if human beings weren't complex, made up of a whole network of sometimes contradictory emotions, goals and objectives, if that weren't reality, this is just an odd Framing for Hillary Clinton to offer us when we sort of know what her involvement in the Iraq war is, we know what her involvement in Russiagate was, we know what that foundation stands for, how it's funded.
At this point it's not possible to claim that you're sort of an innocent shepherd just trying to do good in the world and it keeps ending up in children getting bombed somehow.
We are where we are and part of the challenge Is to continue to explain to the American public that, you know, the kind of leader Putin is.
This authoritarian dictator who literally kills his opposition.
Okay.
Just remember that phrase.
Authoritarian dictator who literally kills his opposition.
Let me know in the chat.
Kills journalists, poisons people who disagree with him, invades other country, interferes with our election.
That is part of the alternative we have to reject in this election.
We have to reject authoritarianism.
We have to reject a kind of creeping fascism almost.
It just says at the bottom we have to reject authoritarianism and fascism.
What do we gotta do?
You know authoritarianism?
Yeah, yeah, when other people are in control and you can't vote for anything and no matter what you vote for you get the same thing.
Yeah, that.
We gotta reject that.
Okay, so how's Hillary Clinton helping?
Yeah, it's confusing, isn't it?
And then fascism.
Oh yeah, we gotta get rid of that.
What about when we were applauding for that actual Nazi?
This is propaganda.
This is what's happening right now.
What she's describing, she's doing.
This is what this is.
This is propaganda.
This is what's happening right now. What she's describing, she's doing. That's, this is what
this is. This is propaganda. It's reductive, it's oversimplifying, it's deceptive, it's dishonest,
it's not including vital information.
Why is it that you can't have on a news program like Jen Psaki, who's plainly an intelligent journalist and spokesperson, and Hillary Clinton, who's spent her whole life in politics, why can't you have the conversation where you go, look, obviously the NATO infringement on former Soviet territories exacerbated this situation, and the truth is that we were involved in the coup in 2014, that's just a matter of record.
And plainly there is an agenda to rebuild Ukraine in much the same way that Iraq was subsequently built after that war.
And I can see that American people might be mistrustful of our agenda after, you know, for example, the Iraq war, which I was of course personally involved in.
And it might seem a bit high and mighty of me to say all of this stuff while I've been involved in the sort of droning and bombing of children all across the Middle East and numerous times we've deceived you.
But that's just the way that politics is.
And I'm really going to sort of try and do better.
The reason you can't have that conversation is because that is not what politics is anymore.
Politics is a closed cube of deception.
The function of the media is to gloss that cube while appearing to interrogate it.
You cannot have real interrogation in those spaces.
You can have them in these spaces, and that's why these spaces are being attacked.
Because in the end, I believe, and I pray that you do, that we'll go, why are we voting for these people that are trying to destroy the world and trying to destroy us and have no moral values?
Why are we doing that again?
Because we don't believe there's an alternative.
Well, there is an alternative.
You know that.
You know it in your spirit.
You know it in your heart.
And you have to really, really hold on to it.
Now, more than ever, I think.
Uh, to want to be dictators.
And we can't allow that to proceed.
So, I think it's... I think it's fair to say that, uh, you know, you have a tough job.
I don't know if it's that tough of a job.
What do you want us to say on the show?
Could you just say these things?
Yes!
Okay.
There's your money.
See you next week for more lies.
See you then!
Because you have to...
Talk about what's happening in the news, but you also have to keep people's eyes on what's right behind the horizon.
Talk about the news, but then keep people's eyes on what's right behind the horizon.
I tell you who'd be good at this.
Vladimir Putin.
Because what he could do is he could separate us into two bits.
And part of us could look over the horizon, and part of us could watch the news.
But he's not going to help, is he?
The bloody election meddler.
And I fear that, you know, the Russians have proved themselves to be quite adept at interfering.
The Russians?
Just try and put aside the specificity of this particular issue.
Doesn't a sentence like the Russians have proven themselves to be quite adept at interfering seem like something that belongs to a schoolyard or a couple of hundred years ago?
Isn't that just actual mad racism?
And if he has a chance he'll do it again.
Like they do it for a hobby. So there you go. It's sort of ascribing as pathological matters that are strategic and
also in many instances in this case just plainly untrue.
Let's have a look now at the truth behind the propaganda.
Let's have a look at Hillary Clinton's record.
And let's have a look at subjects like election, meddling, war, authoritarianism, bombing children.
Just some of the litany of things that came up in that conversation we can provide you with a different
perspective with.
And get this idea, you can decide for yourself what you believe to be true.
It's a tough job though.
An email released by WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling Donald Trump to the White House.
WikiLeaks?
What happened to that guy Julian Assange?
Because wasn't he In its self-described Pied Piper strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new mainstream of the Republican Party in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.
That doesn't seem like the sort of plain-speaking, transparent democracy that's being described in the chat there with Clinton and Psaki, does it?
Like, for example, sometimes what we do is we fund opponent politicians that we particularly dislike In order to create a false impression of our opponent's party.
Oh, whoa, whoa, hold on!
If you think of the founding fathers, if you think of the dreams of democracy, if you think of Athenian democracy, the idea that the populace, the public, the republic can together account for how society is governed, you wouldn't build into it, would you?
Should we do this thing where we support our opponent?
That's mendacity, that's Machiavellian and it's passed off as
normal, it's not even discussed. Why?
Because if they were ever honest the whole thing would come tumbling down, right?
The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates
as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.
What we need is a cudgel. A cudgel against racism.
And a cudgel against corruption and hypocrisy?
No, a cudgel to cheat and lie!
Clinton's camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be elevated to leaders of the pack and media outlets should be told to take them seriously.
That went well.
Other messages published by the whistleblowing organisation show how while the Clinton camp was facilitating the rise of Trump, it was systematically undermining the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton's left-wing opponent.
How can they claim to have any moral superiority?
Look at what the tone, the general tone of that interview was a kind of moral piety, wasn't it?
But Putin wants to destroy me because he knows that I wouldn't put up with any of that stuff
where he divides people in two and all of that thing that amoebas do. I wouldn't have that,
that's why. You know, it's all very pompous, isn't it? Very sort of certain of itself.
But actually what they do is, right, let's promote those candidates. Keep Bernie Sanders quiet,
for God's sake, he's got a bit too much to say for himself about democracy and the
financial industry. That's what's actually happening.
So what the hell are the media doing?
Again, glossing the cube with apparent inquiry that amounts to little more than deceptive lacquer.
Leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee show that the organisation which is supposed to be bound to impartiality sabotaged Sanders' insurgent presidential campaign which had mobilised millions of people and inspired a massive grassroots movement.
The sort of thing that they claim they're interested in, grassroots movements, people
being genuinely interested in change, people of all genders and classes and races etc being
mobilised and wanting to participate in their community, stuff that they would just say
when it's just words that you could just spew out into a friendly media environment.
If it actually happens they're like, oh no, that thing's happening where we can't make
loads of money from lying to people.
Quick, shut it down!
That's the reality.
Now, remember one of the things that this pious piece of propaganda centred around most
was Putin's alleged interference in the last election and the next election.
Two for one.
Let's have a look, once again, in case you've forgotten it, because the news moves so quickly these days, always a new agenda, at the Russiagate scandal.
Hillary Clinton personally approved her campaign's plans in fall 2016 to share information with a reporter about an uncorroborated alleged server backchannel between Donald Trump and a top Russian bank.
Her former campaign manager testified in federal court.
In September 2021, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign was indicted on charges of lying to the FBI in a 2016 meeting where he shared information about the Trump Organization and Russia.
So there you are, indicted in court.
Here are some words from Matt Taibbi on Russiagate.
There are two reasons the Clinton story isn't a bigger one in the public consciousness.
One is admitting the enormity of what took place would require a system-wide admissions by the FBI, the CIA and virtually every major news media organisation in America.
That's going to be an obstacle.
The Clinton campaign created and fuelled a successful years-long campaign of official harassment and media fraud.
They innovated an extraordinary trick using government connections and press to generate real criminal and counterintelligence investigations of political enemies, mostly all based on what we now know to be self-generated nonsense.
The world has mostly moved on since Russiagate was 30 or 40 current things ago, but the public prosecution of the collusion theory was a daily preoccupation of national media for years.
And as you saw just recently in this interview, they're talking about it again as if it was proven rather than the truth.
Disproven!
A substantial portion of the population believed the accusations and expected the story would end with Donald Trump in jail or at least indicted.
It's incredible how they could just create an alternative reality and it becomes sort of an unquestioned and almost objective fact.
Clinton and her campaign systematically lied throughout both about collusion and about their involvement in disseminating popular theories about it.
We know this for a fact.
In March 2022, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign agreed to pay a $130,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission for concealing their role in producing the Steele research, a role, by the way, her campaign never admitted to, and which was only disclosed through dogged effort by the House Intelligence Committee nearly a year after the 2016 election.
So they had to pay a fine, and they denied involvement altogether.
And then, still, right now, this is not historic, even though 2020 is not that long ago, is it?
barely a year ago. Now they talk as if it's like, you know, well Putin hates me because
obviously I'm so honest and he's always hated honesty and democracy and I don't think he
likes these bracelets either. You know, like it's extraordinary isn't it? Why didn't Jen
Psaki by the way, inside with Jen Psaki, go in? Well that when you had to pay that fine
though. Why did you have to pay that fine? Jen, it's a difficult job you do.
You know, you have a tough job.
These are the questions.
Oh, sorry.
Where do you get your hair done?
This is not just misinformation.
It's the most sophisticated kind of disinformation.
An intentionally false story spread with official imprimatur.
So, there we are.
Remember this word, disinformation.
Something that's been seeded in the public imagination quite deliberately and extensively in the last couple of years.
Why?
In order to shut down opposition.
If they really cared about disinformation, there's a lot of disinformation right under their noses.
Jen, we're not talking about that disinformation.
You do a difficult job, Jen.
You know, you have a tough job.
Oh, yeah, sorry.
Those necklaces, do you not worry they might jangle on the mic?
No, I don't worry, Jen.
Another key component of Hillary Clinton's pious conversation was the condemnation of Putin's military actions and aggression, a subject that is quite close to her heart.
As a supporter of the war in Iraq, Clinton racked up quite the rap sheet during her time as Secretary of State, escalating wars, greenlighting coups, and generally maintaining and expanding US power around the globe.
In 2009, Clinton stood with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, and called for 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan.
I never wonder, like, what is the real difference between America sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and Putin sending troops to Ukraine.
I believe it's wrong that Russia invaded Ukraine.
I feel that the suffering is wrong.
I feel like it's a whole godless, awful affair and I wish it would end as soon as possible.
I wish and pray.
I sort of feel the same about Afghanistan.
It's like, what, Afghanistan's got too many syllables in it, and that G and the H and the F in the middle.
Yeah, it's different.
Afghanistan, Afghan hounds.
I don't like it.
I don't like their clothes.
It's dusty there.
Those are their mountains that they got.
We need 30,000 boots right on the ground.
It's the sort of same thing, isn't it?
On most foreign policy decisions, including Libya, Clinton was in favour of equally aggressive action, if not more so than former Bush appointee Gates.
Clinton and Obama got away with hawkish policies because they stuck to the language of humanitarian intervention and liberation.
Clinton helped assert the right of the US government to intervene in any country of its choosing using the most brutal means possible to achieve its ends.
Well, that's not that humanitarian, is it?
Using the most brutal means possible to achieve your ends.
Sort of authoritarian and sort of dictatorial and sort of aggressive.
But isn't that what Putin's meant to be?
Clinton was also an enthusiastic supporter of Obama's decision to step up the use of drone warfare in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Clinton and the Obama administration solved the drone program as a precise and effective way to target terrorists with fewer risks of collateral damage.
But the numbers tell a different story.
What are you going to trust, Hillary Clinton or some numbers?
In his investigative report entitled The Drone Papers, The Intercept's Jeremy Scarhill demonstrates that the drone program is far from precise and that the death of civilians is a common gamble the US willingly makes.
During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90% of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.
Good news!
Go on.
10% of the people we've killed, yes, were not innocent civilians.
That doesn't sound that good.
Jen, you do a difficult job.
You know, you have a tough job.
Sorry, I meant to say, that coat color looks nice with your eye color.
Yes it does, Jen.
Jen!
Do you like your difficult job?
I do.
Then stick to complimenting my hair and stop mentioning all the people that I've killed.
As Secretary of State, Clinton made it a business to make sure the world was open for U.S.
business.
From securing defense contracts for Lockheed Martin to brokering deals to build nuclear power plants for Westinghouse, Clinton and her ambassador CEOs traveled the globe to bring foreign governments and U.S.
companies together.
We have to position ourselves to lead in a world where security is shaped in boardrooms and on trading floors as well as on battlefields, Clinton said terrifyingly.
Is it true that you travelled the world on behalf of American business interests trying to create systems of dominion, destruction and death?
Then you do a very difficult job.
You know, you have a tough job.
But tomorrow you could be doing a much more difficult job.
Gardening.
For Barack Obama.
According to a report by David Sirota at Truthdig, American military contractors and their affiliates who donated to the Clinton Foundation were awarded some $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.
And governments seeking to buy arms got the same preferential treatment if they sent money the foundation's way.
No matter their human rights record.
So there you are.
Department authorised $151 billion in Pentagon broker deals for 16 of the countries that
gave to the Clinton Foundation.
So there you are. For Hillary Clinton it seems to me, and I would love to know what you guys
think, that war is a type of business, whether it's the wars of the 90s or the noughties,
or perhaps even this current war. It seems that the role of the media in relation to
Hillary Clinton and the interests that she represents is to present that information
in a favourable way, excluding, occluding, obscuring any potential inquiry that might
lead us, the people, to recognise this simple fact.
Hang on a minute, haven't we got more in common with one another than we do with these sets of interests that claim to be operating on our behalf?
Wouldn't it be better if we were able to democratically intervene and prevent these unconscious systems of destruction from dominating our lives and the globe?
This, for me, is what defines Hillary Clinton as a politician and as a public figure.
Not based on some personal or visceral dislike, just based on the information that we've just shared with you.
And personally I feel that the role of the media ought to be to interrogate, investigate, discover Inquire as to what the reality is.
What are the media doing with their resources that they don't have time to present a more accurate account of the agenda of the Clintons, various top-level politicians that are presented as heroes.
I believe it is the role of the independent media to investigate these subjects, to present alternatives, to bring you hope and light.
The possibility that we could maybe change the world together if we were awakening together.
That this can't be the best option.
This cannot be it.
People just sitting casually discussing about how bad Putin is, which he very well may be, without talking about their own role in literal global destruction and profiteering from death.
It seems to me those are important subjects.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the chat.
See you in a few seconds.
Thanks for watching ZigFog's series.
Did you like the video?
No.
Here's the fucking news.
Thank you for your support.
Thanks for being a member of this community.
That's a further example of how the mainstream and legacy media corroborate state imperatives and what passes as journalism is essentially propaganda.
Let me know if you agree.
Thank you for following us here on Rumble and remember, press the red button if you can support us more deeply.
It's more important now If you're watching us on YouTube, click the link in the description and follow us over to Rumble, where we can speak more freely.
We've got some fantastic content.
I'm having a conversation right now with Jeff Garner, who's an eco fashion designer, whose new documentary, Let Them Be Naked, exposes, among other things, the toxins prevalent in our everyday clothing and is trying to revolutionise Yeah, thanks for having me.
If you're watching us on YouTube, join us over on Rumble for yet another story that
demonstrates how the world we take for granted is pervasively toxic, whether it's our food
or even our clothing.
I've not heard about this story before, so I'm fascinated to meet Jeff Garner.
Jeff, thank you so much for coming on the show.
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Yeah, it's a very important subject, so I'm glad we're here.
I've never heard of it before, and it's one of those things, I suppose, that takes a little
bit of introduction because it's like, I suppose, eating processed food, which we're all becoming
a little more aware of, something that we just take for granted, that fast fashion,
easily accessible clothes are sort of part of life.
Life now they're beyond the luxury.
They're something that we feel entitled to and while occasionally we might think are these being made in sweatshops?
Exploitatively in some far-flung land.
That's the kind of thing we've become aware of in the last 10 20 years I've not considered the possibility that the process of the of making the clothes could somehow be toxic to the people wearing them But what have you learned?
Well, you know, I've been doing this 25 years, and that's why I called it Let Them Be Naked, because the idea is that it's better to be nude than to be clothed in synthetics, because, you know, if you break it down and look at history, we basically, when we started clothing ourselves with synthetics after the war, for example, we ran out of silk parachutes, so we created nylon in the laboratory, right?
So Dupont created it.
We never studied the synergy of effect.
What does that nylon do when a lady goes from silk stockings to nylon stockings?
Right.
And that's what we're in to today, because as we learn in the food industry, we have like You know, what we put in our bodies affects our bodies, but we never thought about what we put on our skin.
Our skin is permeable.
It goes into it, goes into the bloodstream, and we've proven this through science, but, you know, nobody's connected the dots, so to speak, and so that's what this doc is all about.
It's like I'm connecting the dots Showcasing that, yes, if we put this nylon that's non-breathable, that has toxins in it, it does enter the bloodstream.
It does enter your body.
It does cause effects, right?
So, and there's all these synergies.
So, you know, for example, like say you go out running today and then you sweat and you have this mark underneath your armpit.
That's the aluminum in your deodorant mixed in with the heavy metals in your dyes.
So it's just science.
So there's an effect that happens.
What happens to your body, right?
And nobody's studying this because why would a fast fashion company put money into research to study what they already know is prevalent, which are toxins in their fabrications, and it's going to affect the human health.
So nobody's going to put money into it.
So that's why I had to do this talk, because I know too much.
And I had to go to my friends and say, hey, I need some money to do this talk, to expose this, because more people need to know.
Because my mom, she basically passed breast cancer two years ago.
If she would have known that potentially there's these carcinogenic toxins in this bra, in this nylon polyester bra, that could cause breast cancer, well, she would have chosen differently.
And that's the whole point of this.
So, you know, without getting too heavy into the science of it, but that's why I'm doing it.
So, yeah.
Thank you.
Tell me, mate, what evidence is there that microfiber toxicity can create respiratory, immune and gastrointestinal health effects?
I take your point that there is no appetite for expenditure on unprofitable advances.
We've talked about this a lot in Big Pharma.
No one will expend significant sums proving, for example, that natural immunity is effective or vitamin D or Numerous, now notorious, medications that potentially would have been effective in treating coronavirus.
It's just one obvious prevalent example.
And in big food, it's plain and apparent that excessive salt, sugar, artificial implementation and even preservation can be detrimental to diet.
and more broadly, holistically, it's becoming apparent and obvious that our species and
our kind have to look at ethnographic and anthropological information when it comes
to designing a way for living, i.e. if we lived favourably in tribes of a hundred people
for hundreds of thousands of years in harmony with our environment, eating what grew, when
it grew, and that was beneficial.
Even like now they do those studies in the Blue Zone, I was watching that documentary
the other day with that dude in places like Ocassana I think it's called and some provinces
within Italy, when they undertake these studies it's generally people hang out with their
friends and eat food that grows nearby and remain active, essentially live in harmony
with our own evolution.
So obviously I'm completely open to the idea that in the pursuit of profit, in the pursuit of fast turnover, in the pursuit of effective fast dying techniques and manufacture techniques and Fast durability shortcuts are taken.
I mean the nylon example is usually used to demonstrate the ingenuity of collaborative enterprises in New York and London famously and of course it solved a significant problem at a historic time but I am seriously interested in the possibility that something we take for granted, like the clothes that we wear, is just yet another one of those areas where our unconscious assumptions lead us to make decisions that we wouldn't make if we were well informed.
So is there any evidence that the lymphatic system is inhibited, for example, by the fibres used in the clothing you described?
And elsewhere, what evidence is there whilst I appreciate it's often difficult to come by evidence that is unprofitable evidence?
There's a great book called Dress to Kill that Sid Singer did years ago, and he basically did a study in Fiji.
And he basically, you could imagine, you know, as all tests, you have to have a case study in which you had women in Fiji that never wore a bra before.
And then he basically put half of them in bras and kept the other half without bras.
So what he discovered was basically the women that were in bras, 90% of them, developed cancer. And so you can read a study and it's
basically been buried, you know, a few times in that sense, but it, you know, it's been out there, but
it's been buried because you got to understand there's companies out there that don't want this
to be known.
There's, you know, chemical companies that have made billions, 37 billion a year off of putting these toxins in the clothing and manufacturing.
So yeah, there's ample proof, ample studies, you know, and basically, you know, in that book, it goes into detail exactly what, you know, the problem That resides is simply biochemical levels.
For example, you know, you're talking about earlier about the respiratory system.
So as you can understand, like smoking took a long time to prove that it causes lung cancer, right?
So now we're in that same kind of space where we're trying to prove that these these chemicals off gas in your clothing.
For example, if I'm in the sun and I'm sitting in polyester nylon, it's going to off gas carbon monoxide, right?
So It happens in our cars.
Say you have a cloth, you know, covered car seat and you close the windows and it sits in the sun, it's going to off-gas.
You open that car door, you're going to smell that ammonia and that's the off-gassing.
So that new car smell, that's going to go into your lungs.
It's going to affect your respiratory system.
So it's these kind of things that we don't think about on a daily basis because we think somebody approves that this is sitting on a shelf selling in a retail store and it's safe for us.
And that's not what's happening.
Yeah, in this talk we're going to go through, obviously, the science and the proof and all that, but the problem is it's spread out.
It's in all different years, all different categories.
There's books, there's, you know, published studies, and we're putting it all together so that people can, like, just see the, you know, see the steps and see all the connection points and all the synergies, and that's the important part.
So, no, I can't sit here and say, hey, there's this one book or this one study that proves it all, because it hasn't been put together.
So part of the endeavor of your documentary is to correlate and compile the various pieces of evidence that suggest that the fashion industry, or not even the fashion industry, maybe just clothing, fast-consumed fashion, The needless consuming and endless acquisition of commodities has detrimental side effects.
Now this is something that I guess most of us are to a degree unaware of.
Certainly me, I was thinking then about like, what about the t-shirts that we're selling,
like our merchandise, which raises money for our foundation that will now make donations individually
to people with addiction and mental health issues, that no doubt that's, you know,
that was, we sort of gave that to cost-effective t-shirt manufacturers.
That's probably the sort of stuff that's affected in this way.
And it's interesting that even something like this that can seem somewhat niche very quickly,
if you'll forgive the pun of the image, once you start to unravel those threads,
you see it starts becoming connected to systems of aggregation and consumerism
that are fully immersive experiences for us, whether it's the way that we eat food,
the clothing that we wear, the shoes that we wear, the TV that we watch, the way that we use technology.
We're living in a curated reality that just doesn't apply basic common sense.
Like it's plain that synthetic materials will not harmonize easily with the processes of
our evolution.
But, as you have pointed out, there is no appetite to demonstrate the problems of toxicity
inherent within these models because it will mean a lot of money will be lost.
My understanding is that we're wearing more clothes than ever, purchasing more clothes.
Is it 80 billion pieces of clothing each year that we're just consuming mindlessly products that it's possible are possibly intoxicating and detrimental?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, when you talk about your merchandise, for example, I started in band merchandise when I was young in Nashville.
I did all the rock and roll bands and the plastisol ink is what's used to set the ink, you know, so you run through these dryers and I learned very quickly like, wow, nobody's wearing masks and this person's getting sick and So yeah, there's, it's pretty much in every, you know, element of production so reality is we don't have, you know, these policies that are protecting, not only the workers but also ourselves from wearing it because
There is a disconnect.
People think that these chemicals set in their clothing.
They don't wash out.
That's the other thing.
So imagine all the washing that we do.
So if you're working out in gym wear, you're going to go sweat in the gym.
Well, these fabrics aren't permeable.
They hold smells.
So you ever walk by somebody, you can really smell them at a gym.
I work out at Soho Farmhouse and I'm like, what is going on?
I'm wearing hemp.
I don't have to wash my hemp boxers every time I wear them.
That's the other thing.
These natural fibers are going to breathe.
You can wear them more often.
You don't have to wash them as much.
So there's all that water usage.
There's detergents that have all these chemicals in it as well.
These toxins that they don't have to disclose because they're protected as their special ingredient.
So you could see where it's just really taken over in our fashion world and that's why they say it's the second, you know, most pollutant industry and it really is.
That's something that you can change quickly and easily.
You know, all your listeners could literally go home today and change their detergents and that's a very quick Beautiful fix because that will change what the water, you know, I live next to the ocean.
It's going to go straight in the ocean.
It's going to go into water streams, etc.
So, you know, all these things are connected.
So yeah, so it's important.
At Community Festival this year, Vandana Shiva, activist and world teacher, gave me a scarf that was grown from cotton that is non-patented seeds, woven by people using traditional practices, dyed with natural indigo, and she explained to me that this piece of fabric was revolutionary, bypassing, as it does, many of the systems of control that dominate Indian agriculture and textile manufacturing.
Of course, Gandhi, that great imperature for disobedience, revolution, opposing imperialism, began many of his campaigns with the simple assertion that he would only wear homespun cloth that he himself was in control of.
I sense throughout culture, whether it's food or farming, which are obviously ideas that are connected now with what you're talking about, fashion, within diet, throughout the world, It seems that people are awakening to the idea that what is required are decentralized models.
As long as we are aggregating and operating with top-down structures where a few monopolies or extremely vast enterprises are able to control markets, often because of practices like you describe, fast turnaround, chemical support, lack of investigation in alternatives, Lack of local alternatives, inability for proper competition, inability even to have ordinary craft and indigenous design and indigenous practices.
Because of this tendency it's almost like every area of ordinary life is dominated by consumerism, dominated by profit and things like the Potential toxicity a kind of lost by the wayside so it can become quite revolutionary to step outside of these Systems, so I suppose what you're proposing Jeff is that you know oh well where possible we step outside of these ecological Ecologically unwise systems, but even then when you mentioned the detergents and stuff I feel like things like that are more expensive and I bet we've like the sustainable fashion and
Is that the first thing that happens?
It becomes more expensive, people can't afford it, because that's the reason a lot of people are eating terrible food, right?
It's because it's cheap, it's available, and there's not enough awareness about the alternatives.
Exactly.
So yeah, you nailed it.
So we're dealing not only with awareness, but addiction.
So people are addicted to cheap price points, right?
So it has to do with clothing as well.
They can go buy a new date outfit this weekend, H&M czar, etc.
for 20 bucks.
I can't even buy this fabric for that amount.
So, you know, what I like to tell everyone and all my buddies ask the same question is like, we're dealing with a true cost issue.
So For example, t-shirts in the 70s were sold for $7.
They're still sold today for $7.
But gas has gone up.
You know, food has gone up.
Housing's gone up.
Why isn't clothing?
Well, if you go backwards, you learn why.
Because of unfair You know, ethical trade, their labor practices, you know, cheap ingredients, cheap fabrication.
So, you know, until we educate everyone to say, hey, this the reason why I make this hemp T-shirt for 40 dollars is because that's my true price.
That's my true cost of buying the hemp because hemp takes more, you know, to make, etc.
My plant based dyes that I hand do.
Take more.
So until we can turn it over and help people join this movement of, hey, wearing natural fibers are better for you.
You're not going to drive that commerce is going to help get it cheaper.
And so we're kind of stuck right now because we want to be give that availability to everyone.
But the fact is, I would go broke if I made a seven dollar T-shirt.
I would be paying for everyone's T-shirt.
Obviously there needs to be a profound ideological shift.
We need to break away from the model of disposability and consuming.
Of course, the easily accessible off-peg items produced elsewhere using technology and techniques that may be detrimental, even carcinogenic, it takes us kind of a step.
When people talk about the radical change that's plainly required in the world, I sometimes wonder what that will feel like.
What would it feel like to untether yourself from media that doesn't like you?
And once you've done, what would it feel like to untether yourself from food that is toxic?
To stop consuming in order to make yourself feel better?
Of course I know that there's something that I do.
I'm still someone who tries to make myself feel better by buying something or watching something rather than staying deeply attuned to What it is I'm experiencing, allowing sadness or fear or grief to pass through me, sooner just grab something off the peg to soothe it or stuff some sugar down my mouth in order not to feel it.
You know, in a sense it becomes quite seismic to re-harmonize with nature in a kind of somewhat arcane way, but just due to the nature of the processes of civilization it is a form of progress to recognize these models aren't working.
This quick fix food that is processed and quick fix consuming and adorning yourself with fabrics that are potentially toxic.
It's not like the model is working.
Everywhere you look, you see that people are in despondency and despair.
Everyone is suffering because they can't afford fuel or food.
Meanwhile, the industries behind these products continue to prosper.
Where we're given information that just doesn't make sense to us anymore.
So whilst what you're suggesting in some ways feels like radical and in some ways difficult to grasp, for me I believe it's part of an essential, holistic and fundamental change that is necessary and I suppose your opportunity to convey that to a large audience is going to come in the form of your documentary, Geoff.
So I understand you're in the process of making it now.
Where are you in the process?
We're about halfway through filming.
We just got done with London Fashion Week.
We had a show at Burlington Arcade.
So I showed a new collection there.
Again, trying to build it up.
But yeah, I mean, the documentary world is new to me.
You know, I'm a designer.
I've been doing it for 15 years, showing for 10.
And I learned very quickly.
I've done shows at Edinburgh Castle, at Chateau Fontainebleau in Paris.
I've done these beautiful shows, but I realized those 600 people who see the show, that's a small minute amount to make a change.
So I realized, you know, I have to go through this medium of a documentary.
And that could help create it because, you know, you got a lot of articles coming out, books coming out.
What happens is, as you are well aware, is that PR will spin things, right?
And so these chemical companies obviously have more money than I do.
These fast fashion companies have more money than I do.
So they're going to spin things.
For example, Victoria's Secrets was sued by 600 women for breast cancer.
And they were able to spin it, saying it was the wire in the bra versus the fabrication, right?
So then it's an easy fix.
They don't have to change their production.
They don't have to change their fabric.
They can still make their bralettes for $14 and, you know, nothing changes.
They just change the wire from metal to plastic.
Because metal is a conduit of radiation, like you can get it from your cell phone, you can put it in your bra, etc.
And anyway, so they were able to shift that.
So, you know, we actually interviewed the woman in the dock who first, who filed the suit.
We also, there's also these uniforms, you've probably heard about airline uniforms.
And this one particular airline, this designer, Zac Posen, created a polyester purple uniform.
I've interviewed, this one mother was lactating purple milk from the uniform.
That's an issue, right?
So there are things that we've already discovered.
We got about half, you know, another month worth of filming.
Then we're gonna launch it in February, hopefully with the Oscars.
And that's kind of our plan.
So, you know, I'm doing this for every mother out there, Every individual, every buddy that has prostate cancer, I just want to give back the power of choice to consumers.
And that's why I make, you know, hemp boxers for my buddies, because they don't have an alternative.
You know, there's something in the boxers and polyester, there's a positive and negative ion.
And when they hit, like when you're a kid and run across the carpet, and you could shock your brother or sister, That is, that's what's happening to your scrotum.
That's shocking.
So there's a reason why we have issues with impotence today and, you know, childbearing issues and et cetera, because it stems from what we're wearing.
And we just don't realize it because men went from wearing wool boxers to cotton boxers, DVDs, to now these sexy spandex-type, you know, boxers.
And we don't even think about it.
Cause we're just, you know, men are like, let's put it on, let's go hunt, let's go run, let's do whatever.
We don't think about it.
Um, so that's why I'm doing it.
Well, that's fascinating, mate.
Well done.
And you're right there.
There has been, I feel like fertility rates have dropped by maybe 50% in males.
So as well as a dietary and environmental factors, clothing is plainly a component.
And I hope that your documentary Does the necessary work of revealing where further research is required in order to demonstrate the shortcomings of an industry that seems to be part of the immersive consumer experience which in itself facilitates just more unconscious behavior which appears is in some cases literally killing us.
You can follow Jeff's work by going to prophetic, that's with a K, dot com.
We'll post a link in the description.
And look at the trailer for his new documentary which is out in February at redfordcenter.org.
We'll put both of those links in the trailer.
Jeff, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation.
Best of luck with both of your endeavours, your label and indeed your documentary.
What you're wearing now, incidentally, looks terrific, and I'd be well into that shirt, plus that waistcoat or vest, as a matter of fact.
They're both things that you've designed, are they?
Yeah, absolutely.
This is Madeira lace.
You can't really tell, but I did a project with Madeira.
The lace uses tablecloths, and now we did a collection made of gowns and dresses out of the Madeira lace because it's a dying art.
You've got fabric linens in Scotland.
You've got other textilers that are making these products, and they need help.
But yeah, this is dyed with indigo from Tennessee Farm.
Houndstooth from London.
Yeah, there you go.
I love the outfit.
No, I'd love that.
I'm well into the idea.
Thanks, Jeff.
Jeff Garner, thank you so much, mate.
Thanks very much for joining us.
That is the end.
Thank you, man.
Thank you very much.
That's the end of the show today.
Joining us next week we have Lee Fang, Stella Assange, Kim Iverson and Tim Pool talking, of course, as usual, about the legacy media, military-industrial complex, big pharma, living entirely, almost now, in an immersive state of manufactured and managed information where dissenting voices and dissidents are shut down.
Even if that's simply in the realm of boxer shorts and personal hygiene.
You can click the red button to join our locals community.
We need your support now more than ever.
In addition to supporting us, which seems ideologically important, let me know if you agree with that.
You get guided meditations, readings, Q&A sessions and all sorts of additional content.
I want to thank some of our new supporters like Snow Mark, FlyingAppleTree, Claire Cross, John Hamill, Isabel1963.
Thank you so much for joining us.
It means the world that you're with us on this journey.
Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, if you can, stay free.
▲
Export Selection