Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 2, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:16:28

State Surveillance EXPOSED: The Facial Recognition Tech NIGHTMARE - Stay Free #214

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	so so
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
	Thank you so much for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	We've got some fantastic things to talk to you about.
	One, the state versus rumble, and curiously, the power of big tech in alliance with globalist governments and how this is becoming the dynamic that's going to control information, data, surveillance, your ability to observe, imbibe, consume, potentially dissenting voices or Dissident views for the next few years, how there's a raft of laws being proposed, being ushered through right now in my country, in your country and across the world.
	They're going to make free speech and even opposition and free thought basically impossible.
	It's an incredible story.
	You're going to love it.
	It's a good companion piece to our conversation with Dr. Robert Epstein, where he talked about how he's observed and demonstrated the degree of corruption That is demonstrable, and the impact it's having on everything from elections to actually perception itself.
	Also, Lee Fang's coming on the show.
	Now, in order for us to house these voices, we need your support.
	If it's possible for you to support us by following us on Rumble, please do that.
	And if you can become an Awakened Wonder and support us directly, that would be incredibly appreciated now more than ever.
	Fang's going to be talking about stuff like a Zimpick and revelations around that obesity drug that's going to stagger you.
	Do you know what I think we need at the moment?
	it from the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict and indeed free speech itself.
	Remember, join us on Rumble if you can and become a member of our community by clicking
	the red button on your screen now.
	Do you know what I think we need at the moment more than anything?
	A portrait of Hillary Clinton.
	That is what the world requires.
	If I could just look at Hillary Clinton rendered in oils, not oil that was gleaned after the Gulf War conflict, paint oils, I think that would really soothe me at a time like this.
	Oh, someone's doing one.
	Great.
	Let me start by thanking Secretary Blinken.
	I am incredibly grateful to you for your leadership, the tremendous job you're doing.
	If we had been in this room in its former, much gloomier kind of look... A portrait of Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to lift the ambience of any room, unless it's a room sort of somewhere in Syria or anywhere, frankly, where she's backed illegal wars.
	Anthony Blinken said of this, the walk to the Secretary's office on the seventh floor is a little bit awe-inspiring.
	Down the wood-panelled mahogany row, surrounded by portraits of our predecessors, all of them white men, Blinken said before the unveiling.
	A couple of years ago, and talked about an invasion of Ukraine that, instead of driving a stake between us and our allies, brought us closer together in order to support the right of the Ukrainian people It's funny that Hillary Clinton refers to the dark times as the before-war times, and when she talks about allies and friendships, it's not the Care Bears, it's a bunch of people coming together to get involved in a profitable war.
	What are we gonna do now, a picnic?
	Yeah, a picnic's fine, we'll do that.
	After the war, though.
	Okay, we'll do a war then, a picnic?
	There's not gonna be a picnic.
	It's not gonna be a picnic for the American people.
	They're paying for it.
	because we had burned so many bridges and actually tried to blow up one in Crimea that didn't go well either with our allies and our friends so reinstating A foreign policy that plays to the best of American values.
	What are the American values that benefit in here?
	Profiteering?
	Sustaining an unwinnable war?
	Lying to people?
	Using taxpayer dollars to sustain a war that can't be won instead of supporting the people of Hawaii in their evident need and suffering?
	Are these the American values that you voted for?
	That puts our interests and security front and center but does it in a way that actually brings people to us, not pushes them away,
	would have been thought to be extremely difficult. And indeed, it was, but it was accomplished. And
	we have seen the continuation of a lot of the values and priorities that we worked on
	into the Biden Administration.
	And in looking across the globe, defending democracy in Ukraine.
	Expanding NATO.
	Democracy where there are going to be no elections.
	Just as an aside, too bad, Vladimir.
	You brought it on yourself.
	Or we brought it on you by expanding NATO.
	This could not be a happier occasion and thank you so much for hosting us.
	Yeah, it's like we're exchanging a spectacle for reality and any alternative vision is likely to
	be shut down according to legislation that's being ushered through.
	Extraordinary that this is what statespersonship looks like now, offering war instead of peace, Celebrating alliances that are ultimately dedicated to bringing about death and profit and presenting it as if it's just a congenial celebratory affair.
	What an extraordinary demonstration of how far from the values of ordinary Americans the values of elites have become.
	Also, do you know that people are getting arrested for no bloody reason other than their face literally don't fit?
	Facial recognition technology is misfiring as basically everyone knew it would.
	These days we're used to being watched while we shop.
	Yeah, I don't like it though, do you?
	I prefer it wasn't happening.
	We shouldn't just be normalising being continually observed, spied on, surveyed.
	Especially as we now know that at best we're being sold stuff we don't need and at worst we're being completely lied to and controlled.
	But consumer group Choice has found retailers Bunnings, Kmart and The Good Guys are using more than just CCTV.
	The Good Guys?
	You know what we are?
	Good Guys.
	What's all these cameras?
	We're spying on you!
	Because we're good.
	To keep an eye on us.
	Some cameras at their stores use facial recognition, scanning features to create unique face prints.
	It's the equivalent to Kmart or Bunnings asking for your fingerprint or your DNA
	every time you enter into the store.
	Oh my God, it's just being normalised, isn't it?
	All those things we thought were dystopian, that were called conspiracy theories, that we were told would never happen, are just literally being unravelled, unfolding before our very eyes.
	Yeah, you're just going to have to interface with recognition technology every time you step into a store.
	This data will be compiled, this data will be used, it will be centralised.
	It's astonishing to be present as the process of normalisation, as if it's been sort of pasteurised and made normal before our very eyes.
	And be careful with those eyes because they're being analysed right now.
	The companies say it's to prevent theft.
	There are strict controls around the use of the technology.
	It is not used for marketing or consumer behaviour tracking.
	Okay, but is it possible it could be misused like all other technology always is?
	And again, it's the same old story, the same old paradigm.
	We're doing this for safety.
	We're doing this to stop theft.
	We're doing this to help you in some way.
	Will you eventually be doing this to control us and shut us down and corral us into paddocks?
	Yes, but we're the good guys, remember?
	You're the bad guys, and we can prove it with facial recognition technology.
	This is the message outside Kmart stores.
	Facial recognition mentioned here.
	These new bureaucracies where once you're told something's happening you have to comply like every time you're on your phone you realise we've got cookies oh god all right all right but accept manage cookies I can't bother to do all that you just end up just blindly complying with this new bureaucracy that's entirely bundling you as data now that's essentially all we are is a set of data points to be sold at And to be controlled, and if you try to resist it and oppose it, you will be enemied, unpersoned, shut down.
	What we don't know is really important questions about how this information is being stored.
	How is it being used for other purposes such as marketing?
	We've got a fair idea though, haven't we?
	By looking at history, by listening to the many brave people that have come forward to say, yeah, they're spying on us, they're using that information.
	And what they'll do is they'll find some loophole where they're like, oh, we didn't use it, but we swapped it with some other company that did or some other nation that did.
	These are literally the techniques that they're already using.
	Yes, but just because we always do do it, that doesn't mean we're going to continue to do it in the future, does it?
	Yes.
	It's sci-fi for now, but face prints and spending habits could one day be used to create hyper-targeted advertising.
	John Anderton!
	You can use a Guinness right about now.
	That's the least of our worries.
	A hyper-targeted advert might be fun.
	You might feel special for a moment.
	What you don't want is hyper-targeted, unpersoning, closing down, and eventual incarceration.
	And there are more sinister applications.
	In China, facial recognition is common and used to track and detain Uyghurs.
	But that's China!
	We're not going to just follow China.
	We'd never put up with what Chinese people had to put up with, like, during the pandemic, for example.
	In Australia, experts say it's also notoriously inaccurate.
	Last year, the Human Rights Commission recommended a moratorium on facial recognition technology until the country can ensure it's used responsibly.
	But instead of that, we just went ahead and put them in shops anyways.
	For now, the space remains largely unregulated, and retailers are free to scan away.
	So, wow, isn't it interesting that there's a new raft of laws to control free speech and shut down free speech because it might hurt us in some way when it comes to individual people, but when it comes to businesses using facial recognition technology, no regulation!
	How extraordinary!
	Yet another example of the new legislation targeting individuals and allowing elite organizations, or in this case stores and I'd say it's a step too far.
	bypass any type of regulation at all. Whether it's climate change or pandemics or energy crisis or war,
	ordinary people are paying and suffering, elites manage to evade and avoid it, almost as if they're
	in charge of the laws and system itself.
	They tell you one thing, but what they're gonna do, you never know. I'd say it's a step too far.
	I don't trust anyone, let alone corporations.
	There has to be some kind of like AI security that, like, you know, keeps a check on the people.
	So I guess it's a necessary evil.
	Necessary evil.
	More necessary evil!
	We've got enough, haven't we?
	Choice says the regulator needs to intervene to make sure consumer rights are protected.
	So there you are.
	When it comes to stores, analysing your face, storing the data, potentially using it in ways that are as yet unregulated, it appears it's a free-for-all.
	But when it comes to free speech, the ability to communicate, the ability to dissent, laws are being drafted and passed curiously in concert all over the world.
	Ireland, the UK, your country, the United States, Canada, Australia, everywhere new legislation, usually named after things like safety or kindness or kittens, is emerging that prevents us from communicating openly.
	In this item, we look at Google's incredible power beyond monopolistic.
	We look at the deals being made between big tech giants and governments that mean that reality is becoming an entirely curated space where only certain information is allowed and the power of that information is literally inconceivable.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the fucking news.
	Are globalist governments, worldwide, and big tech giants collaborating in order to shut down
	free speech and independent media and to create a totally curated sphere of reality
	in which dissent will be almost impossible?
	The answer is...
	In the UK a new online safety bill has been introduced that makes it essentially impossible for big tech platforms to encourage, house and indeed permit and facilitate voices that contradict the official narrative on a whole range of subjects including but not limited to health and pandemics, War and military industrial complex matters, mainstream media and legacy media narratives, and essentially the corporate agenda of the state.
	You can add almost infinitely to this list because that's what the bill allows to happen.
	Essentially the idea of conversation and discourse is being shut down, curated, controlled.
	Now remember in the pandemic period at the very beginning there were legitimate voices from well-seasoned experts who were saying things like, Or is this going to be safe?
	And what are the consequences of this?
	And what about this particular measure?
	Or this lockdown?
	Or this... That kind of conversation was happening.
	Many of the things that were being discussed, one example being just natural immunity or the Wuhan lab leak theory, were censored at the beginning because of existing collaborations between the state and big tech in your country, in my country, in countries across the world.
	That's what globalism means.
	The ability to facilitate a ubiquitous global agenda without democracy.
	There won't be a variety of results, as would happen in a democracy, because people would have all different perspectives, opinions, needs, requirements, cultures, etc.
	You would see the opposite of hegemony.
	Hegemony is now being legislated for in the UK, but it's not limited to that.
	Ireland is introducing a law that's yet more draconian.
	Every one of the five eyes countries, that's the term used by Edward Snowden to describe Australia, New Zealand,
	Canada, the UK, the anglophonic countries, they collaborate and share each other's data in order to bypass spying
	restrictions in their own native land.
	Each of them are introducing online laws that make it difficult for us to communicate openly.
	Now, as is always the case, always the case, these laws are facilitated using things that any sane person would agree
	with, like, you know, hate speech.
	No one wants hate speech, do they?
	Absolutely not.
	No one wants exploitation of children.
	No one wants violence or exploitation.
	Of course, that's just standard.
	Everybody agrees with that.
	Everybody believes in that.
	And that's why those ideas are used to usher forward and through measures that will ultimately lead to the inhibition and prohibition of free speech and opposition and dissent.
	Just ask yourself this question.
	Is there a reason that you don't trust the government?
	Is there a reason you don't trust the legacy media?
	Is that reason because you don't think they have your best interests at heart?
	When it comes to pandemics?
	When it comes to wars?
	When it comes to the way they report on any story?
	When it comes to the way they govern?
	The way they spend your taxpayer dollars, pounds or whatever currency is relevant in your nation?
	Do you trust them anymore?
	Are you beginning to detest and despise them?
	Is there a reason for that?
	And is that reason fundamentally that you cannot trust them because they do not tell you the truth and they do not operate on your behalf?
	They are operating according to a different agenda.
	It's not conspiracy theory.
	These are facts.
	Facts that we're going to discuss with you right now.
	Let us know what you think about that in the chat.
	And thank you for joining us again.
	And if you want to become a member of our community, we need you now more than ever before.
	Let's get into the facts of this particular story.
	The free speech website and free speech is in inverted commas, free speech, because over the last few years, terms like disinformation have been introduced.
	Oh, look at this disinformation!
	What if people don't treat their medical conditions correctly because of this disinformation?
	Yeah, is it that?
	Or is it that you are tacitly, and in some cases explicitly, supporting a big pharma agenda because they are, in fact, your biggest advertisers?
	Because they are significant donors?
	Just note what is being regarded as disinformation and you'll work it out for yourselves, obviously.
	The free speech website that hosts Russell Brand could be forced out of the UK under new online safety laws, experts have said.
	Under the online safety bill, which is due to become law next month, Rumble will be regulated by Ofcom because it's accessible in the UK.
	Under the new law, Rumble will have to prevent children from seeing pornography and material that promotes self-harm, suicide or eating disorders.
	Violent content and material harmful to health, such as vaccine misinformation, will also have to be kept from children.
	Look at how this paragraph uses a literal hypnosis technique.
	You can look it up for yourselves.
	Verifiable, verifiable suggestion.
	In short, some information is given, like you are sitting on a chair.
	You can feel air on your face.
	You think that you're a chicken now.
	Have a look at that technique in this paragraph.
	Under the new law, Rumble will have to prevent children from seeing pornography.
	Well, that's good.
	Material that promotes self-harm.
	Thankfully.
	Suicide or eating disorders.
	Obviously.
	Violent content.
	Yes, of course.
	Material harmful to health.
	Yeah, good, still good.
	Such as vaccine misinformation.
	Ah, so suddenly we've gone from black and white, areas where we would all agree, to a grey area.
	What is vaccine misinformation?
	Is it misinformation that there are cases of myocarditis?
	Is it misinformation that some of the booster shots have only been tested on eight mouses?
	What is misinformation?
	This is precisely the area where misinformation is information that they would prefer you not to have.
	Just ask the question again.
	Do you believe that the state and big tech have as their absolute priority your well-being and your welfare?
	Non-cooperation could leave Rumble executives open to arrest if they came to Britain as the bill provides for senior managers to be held criminally liable.
	So do you see now that what the state are doing is co-opting a once private space that obviously as the twitter files revealed was being controlled and curated to prevent certain information being amplified, promoted or even in some cases seen.
	They've gone from doing that covertly to enshrining it in law.
	That these platforms Aside from the biases that may exist within them, have the potential to facilitate absolutely open communication.
	That's what free speech platforms do at their best.
	Platforms like X and platforms like Rumble facilitate the possibility for open communication and for us to be able to make decisions for ourselves.
	This paternal attitude This idea that we must be protected, that we should be protected, that we can be protected, that we're going to be protected whether we like it or not, is being used to legitimise censorship and control.
	And remember, keep at the forefront of your mind, do you trust the government?
	Do you trust the media?
	Professor Lorna Woods, an internet law expert who was one of the architects of the bill, said Ofcom had the ability to disrupt or block Rumble if it did not comply.
	An Ofcom spokesman said, Ofcom is preparing to regulate online safety
	by ensuring that tech companies have effective measures in place
	to protect their users, particularly children.
	Now, plainly, what your government and my government claim is these bills that are being oddly coordinated
	and concert across the world are about protecting children.
	That's what it literally says here.
	But let me ask you this.
	If your government's primary concern was the protection and welfare of children, would they be targeting online free speech platforms like Rumble and other places where free speech is possible?
	Or would they be looking at Big Food and their agenda to fill us up with processed food that plainly introduces diabetes, heart disease, cancer?
	Would they be attempting to regulate the type of food that's available in schools?
	Would they be looking to ensure that children have healthy diets, have access to good, healthy food?
	Do you notice that the government aren't saying, we've got this new bill where we're going to regulate big food, or we've got this new bill where we're going to regulate big pharma and ensure that certain drugs aren't promoted.
	We're going to introduce this new bill to ensure that children have access to nutrition, to good education.
	Of course, phatic and empty promises are made in all of those areas, but this is where we're seeing legislation that enables control.
	It facilitates control, not welfare.
	As well as establishing these standards, we will engage regularly with services to understand what they're doing to protect their users and push them to make improvements where needed.
	That's literally telling you, we have an agenda, this is the information we want them to have, this is the information we don't want them to have.
	So just have a little look at history, recent history and history more broadly, to see whether
	or not you can trust your government to handle the information you have access to.
	And ask yourself again, if their interests are really about welfare, wouldn't they have
	a different agenda when it comes to war?
	Wouldn't they have a different agenda when it comes to health?
	The funding of health, the funding of education, and the availability of good food.
	Just a few examples to contemplate.
	If there is a lack of consistency, that's revealing.
	Here's some further thoughts on the online safety bill.
	The online safety bill seeks to shield internet users, especially youth, from the slingshots of malicious online content.
	But the bill goes beyond forcing platforms to remove illegal content.
	The bill is shrouded in a veil of safetyism and pays only lip service to privacy and free speech rights.
	The implementation sword will be wielded by Ofcom, the communications regulator with the law setting a stringent punishment pathway for non-compliers, inclusive of colossal fines and even incarceration.
	This is unprecedented levels of censorship.
	Incarceration of publishers of information they don't disagree with.
	I suppose we shouldn't be surprised because Julian Assange, a publisher of information they don't like, is already incarcerated.
	The bill imbues the government with tremendous power.
	Oh, that's good, because that's what they need, more power.
	They're doing so well with the power they have.
	The capability to demand that online services employ government-approved software to scan through user content, including photos, files, and messages, to identify illegal content.
	Illegal for now, but potentially dissent.
	What is the priority of your government?
	Have you not noticed that official military bodies that were used to counter terrorism are now being used to counter narratives or inconvenient narratives when it comes to the pandemic or when it comes to the war?
	Your freedom is becoming their problem.
	What it appears to me they want is to be able to completely curate and control your reality.
	Google already has a tremendous capacity to control the information that you see and don't see.
	Our conversation with Dr. Robert Epstein is very informative and you should have a look at that conversation.
	It will astonish and stagger you what you will learn there.
	These two entities, big tech platforms and governments globally, interlocking in order to control the information sphere is something that we should resist while we still can.
	It's going to define the next generation.
	It is going to determine the outcome of elections.
	It is going to determine, literally, whether or not you and future generations of your family are free.
	Non-compliance can result in severe penalties such as facing criminal charges.
	From a free speech and anti-censorship perspective this legislation is fundamentally disturbing.
	Critics argue this bill could enhance potential censorship on the pretext of safety.
	How often in the last few years have you seen safety and convenience used to legitimize measures that doubtlessly offer more ability to control?
	Whether it's passports in order to ensure health or whether it's free speech around somewhat abstract matters like a apparently foreign I believe we're living in times where authoritarianism is being moved towards, usually under the auspices of safety, or convenience, or necessity, or kindness, or a response to a particular type of crisis.
	But once these powers are granted, they will at some point be used, and you may find yourself unpersoned.
	You may find yourself at odds with a state agenda, and they will have the power now to control, criminalize, and incarcerate you.
	The bill as it stands allows the government to scan messages and photos posing significant threats to security and privacy to internet users globally.
	When Edward Snowden made those revelations, 10, 15 years ago now, it was already staggering the capacity that governments and big tech companies had to spy on their own citizens and to determine what they deemed appropriate and inappropriate.
	This is now dwarfed by current capacities.
	We are at a point where you could live in a reality where the information you gain access
	to is completely and totally controlled, to a degree we already do live in that reality,
	and where any possible alternative voice could be shut down for a variety of reasons, of
	course beginning with entirely legitimate and reasonable causes, but ending up with
	simply preferences, and those preferences are always biased towards the interests of
	the state and the state's partners.
	So that's how the state can control and shut down independent media, dissidents and dissenting
	You have to decide for yourself whether they would use that power judiciously.
	Do they behave in a judicious manner?
	Let me know in the chat and the comments.
	Let's have a look now at how global big tech are opposing potential competitors.
	There's an antitrust element to this, there's a monopolization element to this, but more important is the ability to control your own ideological, philosophical, theological, ontological space.
	In a significant event leading up to the Republican presidential primary debate in August, Rumble, the rising video platform, was granted exclusive rights to provide a free online broadcast.
	However, it became apparent that Google search had buried references to Rumble's stream of the debate, sparking concerns for proponents of free speech and critics of Google's monopoly power.
	When you have monopolistic power, whether it's over food or information, you can control the quality of that food or information, you can control access to that food or information, you can determine how it is used.
	We used to have a different understanding of this when it was in the material realm, where you could understand that the monopolization of a particular commodity was not potentially advantageous to us.
	The people that are going to be potentially exploited as a result of that level of control.
	Now of course there are monopolies around food actually still and indeed obviously energy and the ability to engage in war but attention, consciousness, the ability to engage sentiently with data and information is now able to be controlled to a degree that I don't think we're even capable of understanding because of course the reality we live in is already curated by these interests.
	That's why you've got to watch Our conversation with Dr. Robert Epstein where he tells you about how he has demonstrated how this is happening and how it could be significant and he believes it has already been significant, for example, in American presidential elections.
	You're going to want to watch that conversation.
	Let's have a look at how something more measurable and observable like Rumble's coverage of the presidential primaries was controlled and shut down.
	According to a report by The Intercept, prior to the debate, Google's civics and US campaigns team had expressively inquired about the RNC's livestream plans, seeking to align it with the public's search for a live event.
	An RNC official told Google via email that the debate would be streaming exclusively on Rumble.
	The August 23rd debate was broadcast on Fox News and streamed on Fox Nation, which requires a subscription, while Rumble was the only one to stream it for free.
	Despite providing Google with this crucial information, users searching for the debate stream on Google were ushered to links from YouTube, Fox News and various news reports instead of Rumble, causing the platform to miss out on expected traffic.
	There's a clear example of Google directing viewers away from free content towards paid-for content by the legacy media.
	Why would they do that?
	This unceremonious disappearance of Rumble's link from Google search results led to an outcry from Rumble's team.
	Its general counsel, Michael Ellis, viewed it as an exemplification of Google's long-standing practice of suppressing competition to propagate its own platform, YouTube.
	He argued that this action was not merely a case of miscommunication, as Google had suggested, but egregious favoritism.
	Now, of course, this is already a significant piece of information.
	It's coverage, I suppose, of a Republican primary debate that was available for free.
	But for me, what's more terrifying is the possibility that reality itself is going to be controlled and curated by the interests of the big tech monopoly and the interests of the state.
	They are forming more and more opportunities for collaboration.
	You already know there are Military and data contracts between Google and Microsoft and your government and my government.
	Now, the new bills that are being passed across the world in concord, in concert with one another, grant new powers and new abilities.
	Based on this evidence, how do you imagine that's going to be used?
	Do you think it's going to be used to encourage healthy debate, to facilitate dissent in voices, to enable different communities to have a voice, to be entitled to their own views about their own culture, about their own ideology?
	Or do you imagine that this might be exploited in order to absolutely shut down opposition
	views, to completely disappear and diminish any voices or interests that are at odds with
	the interests of the state and their corporate partners?
	Just spend a few moments thinking about the last couple of years.
	Just think about their actual stance on welfare of children.
	Just think about how they allocate your taxpayer dollars up till now.
	Do they facilitate foreign wars or do they respond to domestic disasters?
	Use this information to conclude for yourself whether or not you want to grant them new,
	exclusive and in some cases absolutely unprecedented almost to the point that it is beyond conception
	power.
	This incident holds significant implications for digital free speech and competition in
	It raises important questions about the role and responsibilities of dominant internet platforms in relation to smaller emerging entities.
	When we view this through the lens of censorship, it serves as a poignant reminder of how tech giants can shape what is accessible to users.
	Practices like these could lead to a monopolistic information environment where curiosity, choice and access are limited.
	Already we live in this world, to a point, but it's going to be exacerbated by these laws, unless we oppose them.
	Unless we facilitate measures of observing how these tech platforms behave.
	Again, Dr. Robert Epstein showed how they can place observers in various territories to see how Google curates information.
	They've already been able to influence Google's behavior.
	Again, watch that conversation if you can.
	The issue resonates loudly in a world where Google is already entangled in a pivotal antitrust case leveled by the Department of Justice accused of undermining competition through monopolistic practices.
	Therefore, the handling of Rumble's broadcast rights puts a spotlight on Google's operations, raising more eyebrows about its alleged preferential measures and their implications for free speech and fair competition.
	Rumble is currently in discovery regarding legal action against Google, accusing the tech behemoth of anti-competitive practices.
	Rumble alleges that Google is unfairly promoting its own video platform, YouTube, at the expense of its competitors.
	The lawsuit, which has drawn significant attention in the tech and legal sector, claims that Google's algorithms unduly prioritise YouTube content in search results.
	Additionally, Rumble points to the pre-installation of the YouTube app on Android devices as a major competitive disadvantage for other video platforms.
	Perhaps you're aware that in Malaysia, many phones already come with Facebook installed and it becomes the only portal via which people can access information.
	Platforms and apps that have a preference, it's obvious to see that that will control your access to information, that will control your understanding of reality, the food you eat.
	What do you think advertising is?
	Here you go, this is the type of food that you should eat.
	What kind of ideals do they promote?
	Oddly, when it comes to nutrition and food, food that are actually demonstrably bad for you.
	And when it comes to information, we're expected to believe that they have your and your children's best interests at heart.
	Since 2001, Google has given a share of its revenue to smartphone makers, Apple and Samsung, as well as to browser makers like Mozilla, to get them to set Google Search as the default option on their phone handsets and web browsers.
	Importantly, the deals are not known to be exclusive.
	Another search operator could theoretically bid away the default option from Google, but the amounts involved are colossal, billions annually, with Apple being the most important.
	Wells Fargo estimates Google will pay the phone maker $23 billion this year for the default search position.
	The two companies have had a profitable, if conflicted, relationship since the advent of mobile tech in 2007.
	And the deal has been quite advantageous to both firms, cementing Google's search monopoly and providing Apple with a reliable cash source, plus ensuring a place for the crucial suite of Google Apps, Search, Maps, Gmail and YouTube.
	Look at the numbers involved in that deal.
	$23 billion.
	Look at the scale, the truly global scale of this problem.
	In any other sphere, at any other time, this would be illegal.
	The only reason it's not illegal is because Google and Apple are bigger than nations.
	That's part of what globalism and anti-globalism is about.
	Unelected, private, corporate interests having so much power that they are beyond the control of any government that would even seek to control them, a government that actually represented you, and I don't see many of those around these days.
	So when the government, your government or mine or any government, form deals with those organisations, can you see the degree of power that they are wielding?
	It's unimaginable.
	Apple and Google are already corporately and financially more powerful than most nations on earth.
	And the nations that are more powerful than them, because of our tax dollars, because of our endeavours, because of our shared and individual histories, those powers are doing deals with them right now to ensure that Apple and Google continue with business as usual.
	And the state have the new advantage of being able to spy on you and use your information and control the information that you get access to.
	This is what globalism truly means.
	That your nation doesn't belong to you.
	Your nation belongs to them.
	That all you have is empty rhetoric around freedom and liberty and justice but you don't actually see it because it doesn't happen with you.
	It happens in deals between Google and Apple.
	It happens in deals between your government and those corporations.
	And the only way to oppose it is, curiously, through independent media voices and platforms that, maybe even for economic reasons, might oppose the ideology of these behemoths.
	This is absolutely vital.
	This set of new bills that seeks to shut down competition facilitates yet more power for these global giants.
	And these giants are making alliances, deals, and terrifyingly, laws with your nation.
	You know that EU laws are often constructed in collaboration with Google lawyers.
	This is a staggering historical moment.
	This is what we mean when we talk about centralised power, authoritarianism and globalism.
	Power that is beyond nations, that co-ops and corrupts nations, that means that your democratic rights, your free speech, your liberty and your freedom are little more than noises controlled by a completely immersive dome of unassailable power.
	Google is now on trial for illegally building a monopoly over online search, but given the weak state of US antitrust laws, the company is likely to emerge unscathed.
	For something as toweringly important as the Internet's main source and channel of information, public ownership and some form of democratic control should be on the table.
	To check Google's power, we need to bring it under public, democratic control.
	How likely do you imagine that is, with the type of deals and type of laws that are currently being made, with the convenience, facility and unimaginable power that these two cooperating entities, the big tech ones and the state funded ones, funded by you ones, when they're collaborating to the evident degree that they are?
	In a sense, this is the very forefront of globalism.
	The ability to control nations, the ability to control information, the ability to control you, to observe you, to decide what information you get access to.
	This is, I believe, the access point.
	Even though some of the examples that we use might seem too personal or too particular to rumble, for example, when you look at the scale of the deals being done between Apple and Google, the deals being done between Google and your government, when you look at the nature of this legislation, it becomes clear to me that we are on the precipice of something irreversible and unprecedented.
	Something that Absolutely has to be resisted.
	It seems to me that what we need are independent political thinkers that are willing to challenge these monopolies, that are willing to say, if we are elected, if we are in government, we will take parts of Google, at least maybe Google in its entirety, into public ownership.
	You know that these search engines were initially funded by the NSA and the CIA?
	That's public money again.
	It's very curious how that continually happens.
	Taxpayer funded, on the way out, privately owned, when it comes to the kind of utility and deals that are plainly being made right now.
	So these laws should be resisted.
	These practices should be resisted.
	These companies have to be broken apart.
	But that's just what I think.
	Why don't you let me know what you think in the comments in the chat.
	I'll see you in a second.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	Good day.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news.
	Keep your comments coming in the chat.
	Remember, please God, we'll be back to something resembling normality soon and we'll be able to interact more freely.
	That is my prayer, that is my hope and I know that it will come about.
	Remember, you can support us by becoming a member of our community and we need you now.
	More than ever.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, click the link in the description, because what are we talking about?
	We're talking about independent journalism.
	We're talking about the necessity for dissenting voices.
	And on that note, we are introducing a significant voice in the independent media world.
	It's Lee Fang, who you know from Substack.
	You probably know about his work on Twitter Files.
	Join us now.
	We can't carry on on YouTube.
	We're going to be on Rumble.
	See you over there.
	You guys, we have Lee Fang, who for a variety of reasons is much beloved on this platform.
	If it isn't his natural root lift, it's his investigative journalism that has made him adored across the spectrum.
	Lee, thank you so much for joining us today.
	Hey, thank you so much for having me.
	Mate, I know that the thing you want to talk about most of all is Azempic.
	We've talked about it before on this channel.
	We've talked about it with Calimeans.
	We've talked about it as an emergent new drug that's going to conquer, that's conquering new markets, that's extraordinarily profitable, and that has been presented perhaps in ways that are, if not disingenuous, just dishonest.
	Can you tell me what the story you've just broke on Azempic is, please?
	Well, look, first, just to introduce it, you know, these are a new class of drugs, these GLP-1 drugs.
	They kind of imitate a hormone, the GLP hormone that regulates insulin levels in the body.
	They were first approved for diabetes.
	And look, there are many benefits for people struggling with diabetes.
	And this is one of the number one killers.
	Around the world and in America.
	But the issue here is that drug makers, Novo Nordisk, is the first big company to come out with a class of these drugs.
	Many other big pharma companies are rushing to bring products to market.
	Is that in addition to regulating insulin and helping diabetics, patients have found that you rapidly lose weight on these drugs.
	So Ozempic, also known as Wegovy, There are others that are coming.
	They have blown up as a weight loss silver bullet.
	And the companies that produce these drugs see a gigantic financial windfall.
	The drugs not as a diabetes drug, that's part of the story, but the big part of the market is treating obesity.
	44% of adult Americans are overweight, something like 100 million people.
	It costs over $10,000 a year to take these injections, these drugs.
	So to seize this financial opportunity, to get Americans using Ozempic or Wegovy, what have you, there's a coordinated campaign by Novo Nordisk and other big pharma companies to reshape the public discourse, to plant dozens, if not hundreds, of media stories talking about, hey, If you're struggling with obesity, if you're struggling with body image issues, if you're struggling with obesity stigma issues, if you're concerned about the racial disparities in obesity, you should consider this class of drugs.
	Don't feel concerned about asking your doctor for these drugs.
	In a lot of areas of medicine and in public policy, there are disclosure requirements.
	If you publish a scientific paper, if you air a television advertisement, at least in the United States, you have to disclose that, hey, this was paid for by a drug company.
	But those types of disclosure requirements don't exist for the media.
	So for the biggest newspapers in the country, for the Washington Post, USA Today,
	for the biggest broadcasters, for CBS News, NBC, and even for small local television outlets
	and local news outlets, we're seeing a flurry of news articles
	quoting physicians, experts, patient advocacy groups, celebrities, community activists, civil rights groups.
	I mean, the list goes on of groups that are encouraging the use of these drugs for weight loss, where I think there are still questions to be answered if this is an effective treatment for most people struggling with obesity.
	But there is this kind of coordinated campaign to get Americans on these drugs for obesity.
	And there's a lack of disclosure that these experts being quoted that are going to the media shaping the public discourse around how we see these drugs, how Americans view whether they should take them, whether our insurance companies should provide them, should the government change the law and should the government be paying for these drugs.
	That's the big push right now.
	There's no disclosure that these experts are being paid for by Novo Nordisk and other drug companies that stand to gain from the explosion of this market.
	It's extraordinary how reality can be so carefully cultivated that a story like this, a narrative like this, can be constructed around a product which is plainly being engineered, I don't mean pharmacologically engineered, but I mean as a phenomenon and as a commodity in order to be highly marketable.
	My understanding is that Azempic and the class of drugs require lifelong usage once you embark on them.
	And it seems to me that you're saying that they are known to be effective for diabetes, that there is evidence that they are effective for weight loss, but perhaps not sufficient evidence when it comes to potential side effects of long-term usage.
	And in any event, the way that we are being sold the idea of this class of drugs is not objective.
	There are undeclared interests and undeclared financial ties.
	Can you give us some examples of those financial ties, Lee?
	Yeah, just to give you a few examples.
	I mean, there are many doctors that are being quoted almost on a daily basis.
	There's a doctor in Texas named Deborah Horne, who's appeared in many different media outlets.
	You can Google her name, look at the Google News or what have you.
	I highlight her quotes in a recent CBS news article.
	She discusses the need for insurance companies to start paying for Ozempic and Wigovi.
	She's pretty much the only physician quoted by this news article.
	What's not disclosed is that she has received about a quarter million dollars from Novo Nordisk.
	On the last few years.
	Those are old numbers.
	We don't have the latest disclosures.
	It's probably much more.
	That same news article talks to a think tank, the Urban Institute, and that basically, that the study looks and says, hey, we don't have enough states paying for Ozanpick and Wegovia.
	Only a few states do.
	Well, who financed the study?
	Again, Novo Nordisk.
	I mean, this is almost like an entire marketing release from Novo Nordisk, but with no But it's framed as news.
	It's only positive about the company, but there are no fingerprints showing that everyone quoted in the story was funded by the company.
	It's extraordinary to note how frequently we find these days that news media is nothing of the sort.
	It's merely the broadcast arm of corporate interests that are in many cases evident, traceable and observable if you're willing to undertake the research or watch for the relevant and ongoing It's not surprising to learn that such a potentially profitable drug is marketed not in a direct, plain way in terms of its utility and efficacy, but through various rather more insidious means, i.e.
	it's presented academically and scientifically as beneficial, apparently independent think tanks are offered as giving objective information, which is of course paid for information. And beyond even this already egregious
	example of what appears to be a form of legal corruption is the idea that science, or science as it's
	commonly understood, has itself become warped. What I mean by that, Lee, is we're looking
	at information that is apparently objective, but actually the momentum behind this product is not a
	desire to treat people's diabetes or obesity, It's a profit-driven motive that just has to pull into its vacuum any necessary information in order to meet those ends.
	It's unlikely that people are going to do studies on the long-term impact of a Zen pick or what happens if you suddenly stop taking it and don't want to take it.
	Because the findings of such clinical trials would potentially be unprofitable.
	So even, and I feel like we saw some of this in the pandemic period, information that's presented as science is actually a very carefully curated and managed reality that often is sort of the opposite of science, i.e.
	not objective.
	No, that's right.
	I mean, even the internal studies from Novo Nordisk, these are the company's own studies, show that almost immediately If patients get off these drugs, the GLP drugs, and they're using them for weight loss, they regain the weight within weeks.
	It's almost instantaneous.
	So just to put this in perspective, Pfizer had one of the most profitable pharmaceutical products of all time.
	Uh, in 2021, uh, you know, releasing their vaccine, that was something like $80 billion in one year revenue, just from this one product.
	Well, recently bankers, uh, JP Morgan and other investment banks put out some estimates for the GLP market, uh, for Wegovy, uh, Zempik.
	And then, you know, there's many other competitors coming out very soon.
	Uh, within the decade on an annual basis, these drugs will bring in about 70 to $80 billion annually.
	And it's very different from a vaccine.
	A vaccine is somewhat of a one-time event.
	I mean, obviously there are boosters and other dynamics around this, but generally speaking, vaccines are a one-time event.
	These drugs, as you mentioned, you're not supposed to get off of.
	And while there are Great benefits for diabetics to avoid dialysis and to extend their life by taking these drugs.
	For weight loss, you know, I think the benefits are not clear.
	I mean, we're seeing very serious side effects.
	I mean, very common side effects are the nausea and vomiting and other issues, but very serious, less common side effects are stomach paralysis.
	People who can't digest their food.
	The food just kind of sits there in their digestive system, not moving.
	There's thyroid cancer.
	There are other effects that, you know, you look at this drug and you say this is not a panacea for weight loss.
	I mean, there are so many other interventions that many patients need, but for many policymakers, for the drug companies and others, this looks like an easy
	quick fix to just throw money at a problem, to make enormous amounts of profit for a small number of
	companies and not look at the bigger picture. You know, the issues around our food system, the
	issues around our agricultural policy, the issues around the American culture and way of dining
	and eating, you know, these are much more complicated, less lucrative issues to
	solve, right?
	So it kind of, it does get back to profit.
	Novo Nordisk is one of the most valuable drug companies, one of the most valuable companies in the world right now, just on the back of this one product, which is still taking off.
	I mean, if they win this campaign right now, they're lobbying furiously.
	to allow Medicare, the main kind of health insurance public program for older people in the United States, to cover
	this drug.
	That's over $10,000 a year. That's a lot of potential profit.
	It's probably downstream.
	It gets the private insurers to cover this as well.
	This is going to mint many new billionaires if it's successful, this lobbying campaign.
	And that's the main thing.
	It makes you identify how we have to recognize and analyze unconscious assumptions that, or in any sensible world, remain relatively unconscious.
	What I mean, Lee, is the idea That the motivation behind the pharmacological industry is to find solutions to health problems.
	That would seem like a sort of a sensible assumption but under even a little analysis it becomes clear that the function of the pharmacological industry is to make a profit and that's a sort of a very different ideological goal and almost it sometimes seems to me that if there are any benefits to their products it's almost an inadvertent consequence rather than the raison d'etre of the industry.
	When a commodity like a Zempik or other brand names available becomes hot like this, it's
	plain that the mentality and the mindset, the relationships between the state, the insurance
	companies and the pharmacological companies is not, oh wow, how are we going to help as
	many people as possible?
	We simply have to resolve this.
	Because if that were the mindset, as you have just said, there would be a soup to nuts,
	forgive the analogy, analysis of the food industry, the way that big food lobbies, the
	type of foods that we eat, the unconsciousness around diet.
	It's far more convenient to have one arm of the corporate state machine fill you food
	of processed, carcinogenic, diabetes-inducing food than another arm strap you up and lash
	on a machine that injects you with drugs to reduce the fat for as long as you take it
	forever.
	What's behind even an enormous story like this is almost more alarmingly the idea that the system itself is guided by malign principles I'm fearful of using language like profiteering or some kind of zombie capitalism or a monstrous, undemocratic, anti-American, anti-human ideology, but it seems like the only way to describe it, this kind of cart-before-the-horse mentality.
	It exists throughout cultural, social and even geopolitical life because I know elsewhere we have companies such as and specifically Lockheed Martin able to offer a positive outlook for the future of their investors and shareholders based on an assumption that the Ukraine-Russia war will continue.
	Now of course this is another situation that's presented as humanitarian intervention because there's a criminal war and it has to be resolved The narratives around it are highly censored and edited.
	Conversation around it is shut down.
	Can you tell us a little more about Lockheed Martin's relationship to the potential for an ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict?
	Well, you know, I took a look at some of the recent investor reports and there was a conference hosted by the investment bank Morgan Stanley here in California earlier this month Uh, it was a kind of a opportunity for the big companies to make presentations.
	Um, I reviewed those presentations.
	They were fascinating because many of the big defense contractors discussed, uh, the war in Ukraine.
	Um, and of course, I mean, the through thread here between big pharma and big defense is that these are companies that legally have a fiduciary duty to their investors.
	They don't serve necessarily national security or human health or the public interest.
	They serve their investors.
	And so for that very simple reason, at this investor conference in Southern California,
	recently Lockheed Martin and others discussed the business opportunities presented by the
	conflict in Ukraine.
	Now, you know, the U.S. is escalating this war incrementally along with its NATO allies
	in terms of the types of weaponry they're providing.
	Just last week, the Biden administration announced that they're releasing long-range missiles
	produced by Lockheed Martin that are going to carry cluster munitions and providing those
	to Ukrainian forces.
	We've had the steady increase in the types of weaponry that we've provided to Ukraine
	now that we're training F-16 pilots in Arizona and preparing.
	for NATO allies to provide those planes to Ukraine, a very major escalation.
	But just looking at the munitions, I mean, this investor conference, I clipped part of the video
	and posted it on my sub stack, but you have the executives at Lockheed Martin basically saying, look, we've given
	so many munitions, air defense missiles, long-range missiles,
	various forms of rockets, anti-tank rockets like the Javelin.
	We've given so many that we now have these incredible resupply contracts with
	the US.
	military.
	We've got to restock the U.S.
	stockpile and provide new contract deliveries to Ukraine.
	And given the escalation, we're seeing more business opportunities.
	I'm paraphrasing here, but they use incredibly explicit language.
	And I think this is important to see that there are many different interest groups shaping
	public policy and the dynamics around this very complicated conflict between Ukraine
	and Russia.
	And these businesses have a lot of say in Washington.
	These companies underwrite the politicians.
	They underwrite the biggest think tanks.
	They also have a lot of influence in the media.
	So they're shaping the contours of how we discuss this debate in a very subtle way.
	It's not like the Ozempic issue where you have all these talking head doctors and obesity activists appearing in the media without disclosing their ties.
	It's not quite as overt as that.
	But if you look at the largest think tanks, the largest kind of institutes that advise on national security priorities, that help write As well as the policy being directed, as you say, by lobbying, donations, shared financial interests, there's also the perception of this war.
	funded by the defence lobby, particularly companies that stand to benefit like Lockheed
	Martin.
	As well as the policy being directed, as you say, by lobbying, donations, shared financial
	interests, there's also the perception of this war.
	I was struck, Lee, when you said that in very plain language you can hear in the discourse
	between Lockheed Martin and their investors the projections, requirements and agenda of
	that particular financial entity or corporation that, as you say, has only a fiduciary duty
	to its investors rather than any moral obligations.
	The moral obligations are supposed to belong to the government and the media.
	That and those moral obligations are fulfilled not through integrity, authenticity and rigorous self-examination and transparency, but instead by a kind of propagandist endeavor that prevents you from ever being able to regard the war as anything other than Unprovoked, an unjust attack, and of course, you know, every time I mention this, so as not to be guilty of lacking nuance myself, I always mention that it appears to be a criminal invasion and I'm not like a Putin apologist.
	I'm simply a person trying as best as I can to understand the dynamics behind this war and why it is being sold to us in such a reductive, simplistic and unhelpful manner and why people are not Talking about peace the media the dominant mainstream media the legacy media call it what you will appear to be Heavily committed to present in this conflict in a very simplistic way photo opportunities that lead to bizarre incidents like a Nazi being applauded in Canadian Parliament the simplification of the History between Ukraine and Russia and some of the factions fighting with the in the Ukrainian army.
	How do you suppose it is?
	When you say it's not so simple or blunt as the Azempic example, talking heads with clear financial ties, giving you a narrative that's plainly beneficial to their own financial interests, how is it that it's so difficult to present alternative stories or even to aggressively inquire as to the origins of this conflict and the potential malign reasons for its perpetuation?
	I mean, that's an extended conversation.
	But if you look just kind of broadly speaking, you know, almost for any complicated policy issue, you need kind of An interest group.
	You need, for lack of a better term, a lobby.
	I use that term broadly.
	Whether that's organized citizens or organized business groups or what have you, to represent a perspective and to go argue for that perspective to the media and to policy makers and make a case.
	In the case of Ukraine-Russia, there's no real interest group that's lobbying for peace.
	Right?
	There's no one that gains financially, really, from peace.
	I mean, perhaps, you know, there are, you know, interrupted grain and trade ties with the war in Ukraine.
	But generally speaking, there's a lot more people making money than there are losing money, especially in the United States.
	These folks are not organized.
	And then you not only have the defense contractor lobby that's very influential, But you have kind of the permanent Washington blob of, you know, the military, the intelligence agencies that go on the Sunday talk shows and are quoted headline news talking about the, you know, kind of glorious victories that Ukraine will have in their counteroffensive every day in the media.
	This is kind of more of a imperial mindset in the American media that just sees a very black and white, almost Cold War era conflict with Russia and an opportunity to bleed.
	I mean, this is in their terms and what people like Senator Lindsey Graham
	and others have said, you know, an opportunity to bleed Russia,
	to kill Russian soldiers, to diminish and destroy Russian military assets.
	And they have the biggest platform, you know, and just looking at this as an interest group story,
	the blob in DC, the defense lobby has the biggest platform of.
	The peace lobby, for lack of a better term, does not.
	And so you really have one side that's taking up all the oxygen and we don't have a sober-minded discussion of what are the ramifications of escalation?
	What's the endgame?
	What does peace look like?
	What are the incentives for negotiation?
	Who's pushing these leaders to do that?
	Because, you know, at the end of the day, Ukraine is heavily relying on the United States.
	You know, I would love a situation where we have, Ukrainians have full agency and can
	negotiate on their own.
	But for many reasons, the United States is in the driving seat right now.
	You know, the country, Ukraine is militarily and financially dependent on the United States.
	The United States has a role in setting any kind of peace negotiations, but we're not seeing that.
	We're not seeing anyone really push for that, and we've seen the few voices on Capitol Hill.
	There was that small effort last year by a number of progressive House Democrats
	to just write a letter saying, pending to the Biden administration saying,
	hey, could we please have peace negotiations as an option?
	Not saying we need this or we're gonna cut off aid or anything kind of dramatic.
	And just by drafting that letter, someone leaked the draft, people went apoplectic
	and the lawmakers who were even drafting that letter apologized for even considering that as an option.
	So, we just have a very one-sided debate right now in Washington.
	Yeah, it's terrifying and becoming more terrifying.
	I'd forgotten about that letter.
	And I recently saw a bit of propaganda, Republicans for war in Ukraine, where they sort of tried to eliminate.
	Yeah, yeah, that.
	Yeah.
	Like even the possibility that it could be discussed or that there could be an opposing argument anywhere in Congress or the Senate was sort of closed down.
	We should get on board with this war.
	Also watching Hillary Clinton with Jen Psaki able to sort of Blithely reiterate points about Putin's election interference, Putin as a authoritarian dictator, their imperialist goals and you could sort of just watch live facts being denied, lies being told, simplification being offered as news and they just sort of nodded together as if what was being reached was
	A true consensus.
	We're sort of living, it seems to me, perhaps at a pivotal moment because of some of the laws that are being passed like the online safety bill in the UK, but I know there are sort of comparable laws throughout the world that are going to grant governments the power to essentially shut down dissent, as always, under the auspices of safety and the kind of reasonable censure that most people would anticipate around hatred and pornography involving minors.
	But Actually, it seems that with the vast power of Google now, we spoke to someone very interesting the other day, Dr. Robert Epstein, who told us about the ability of Google to manipulate information and sway elections, and his studies were pretty, I would say, persuasive, and he's certainly someone who I'll be talking to more.
	I wonder, What you feel with perhaps, I guess, one of the emblematic stories that demonstrates this ability of the media to manage, control and manipulate information is that remains the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	The way that his role at Burisma has been reported on.
	Can you tell us a little more about that, Leon, and what it says about media reporting in particular?
	Well, you know, this story that, you know, I wrote recently, it's complicated because there are a couple dynamics here.
	One is just the traditional way that the elites, powerful people in the media and in politics and business spin the press every day.
	I mean, there's just a cottage industry of, you know, crisis PR firms and, you know, fancy consultants that help spin lies and make sure that
	reporters never kind of get the truth when they're asking tough questions. And then there's this
	kind of algorithmic, deep state, I suppose, censorship that we've seen also in this story
	where because of partisanship, because of power, you know, there's been efforts to push
	the story out of public view and kind of falsely claim that it's an example of Russian disinformation.
	I know this is something that you've covered a lot, especially the Hunter Biden, New York
	Post story in October 2020.
	But you know, what's interesting to me for the Hunter Biden laptop, you know,
	I took a look at the emails recently and I've been writing some stories around it.
	I think this is true for both Republican and Democrat and other elites, but we just have this special portal, this window to see the kind of sausage making and the inside.
	So I've been doing a couple of these stories, looking at the Biden laptop emails and looking at how Hunter Biden for 10 years managed his public image in ways that I think all the elites do.
	We just have a special window into Hunter Biden.
	So in fairness to him, I think this is true for many elites.
	But you know, he was hiring, you know, special consultants to airbrush his Wikipedia, to airbrush the Wikipedias of his foreign business partners in Ukraine.
	And you know, these are very expensive, you know, $4,000, $5,000 a month firms that, you know, they use fake accounts, you know, a whole network of fake accounts That go in and edit the negative stories out and add, you know, all Hunter Biden's charity work and all the awards into those pieces.
	And, you know, also working with these consultants when he was dealing with stories,
	with questions from the press, when the New York Times, when Time Magazine,
	with the biggest outlets, Wall Street Journal, were asking questions when he was hired
	to this Ukrainian company, you know, this Ukrainian company that was under investigation
	that was kind of notoriously corrupt, had hired him in 2014 at a time when the U.S. was working
	with Ukraine and promising anti-corruption reforms, when Joe Biden was the liaison
	from the Biden administration to work with Ukraine to institute ethics reform.
	His son was hired by one of the most notorious oligarchs.
	I mean, this was a kind of obvious story.
	I even wrote about it at the time.
	You know, I was writing at smaller outlets.
	I had my own personal blog writing about Hunter Biden.
	It was refreshing to see my own stories being circulated in his emails back in 2014.
	Because I was looking at these conflicts of interest.
	A lot of people were asking these questions.
	And even back then, you can see the emails where Hunter Biden was spinning these reporters saying, you know, this is a, and he was using his spokesperson, you know, he was saying, you know, these, this board thought, you know, the compensation level is completely normal.
	It's what every company kind of provides.
	A typical board member.
	That wasn't true.
	He was being paid about a million dollars a year for perspective.
	Fortune 500 companies, some of the biggest companies in the world, only pay about $100,000 per year.
	He was receiving 10x the normal compensation rate.
	He claimed, oh, I'm working on geothermal issues and corporate transparency and good governance.
	The emails show that's plainly not true.
	You know, he was helping get the kind of Ukrainian oligarchs that he was employed by a special visa.
	They've been banned from the US because of their corruption issues, helping them kind of dislodge a prosecution in Ukraine and kind of work on various kind of lobby efforts to influence the US government.
	And that brings me to the other thing, you know, a lot of Reporters very reasonably asked, are you lobbying?
	Are you influencing the State Department?
	Are you influencing your dad?
	Are you meeting with, are you setting up meetings?
	Are you hiring lobbyists?
	And of course the answer was no.
	And that answer was reprinted in all the biggest media outlets in the US.
	But the emails show that, again, this was plainly not true.
	They were setting up meetings with John Kerry, who at the time was heading the State Department.
	John Kerry's staff, I should say, with his top deputies.
	Um, you know, it's kind of ironic when they're, you look at some of these email threads with Hunter Biden, you know, they're talking about how to respond to the New York Times, and the New York Times said, you know, are you working with any lobbyists?
	And the person who helped coordinate the response to the New York Times was one of the lobbyists they had just hired the previous month.
	And they said, of course, no, we're not.
	So, you know, again, like, I don't want to unfairly beat up on Hunter Biden, because I think this dynamic exists for the elites across the board, Democrats and Republicans.
	But we have this window into his emails, and it just really shows the spin cycle, how reporters respond every day, how the elites shape both social media and mainstream media.
	And it's very difficult to get the truth.
	Do you think that this is an issue that's sufficient to destabilize Biden's presidency?
	And I ask that really only to demonstrate that we appear to be living in a deeply fragmented world.
	It's been commonly said really since the advent of immersive social media that we live in silos and that there are numerous cultural fissures.
	But now it appears that I can't envisage a 2024 Election where whoever is victorious is hailed by both sides as the noble and righteous winner I can't really see how this kind of sentiment of deep hatred now towards legacy media towards the government this total lack of trust in almost every institution that people fund through their tax dollars or pounds or whatever the relevant currency is I can't see now how
	How this can be sustained, other than unless there is going to be an attempt to centralise and control information to such a degree that to be a dissident becomes impossible.
	I wonder what you feel about this fragmenting space.
	I wonder what you feel about your own role as a journalist, based on what I know of your work and you as a man, committed to telling the truth when telling the truth is a difficult thing and allowing people the dignity and honour of determining for themselves what to do based on the facts that are available.
	How do you feel that this space is going to evolve?
	How difficult do you feel it's going to be to be an independent media voice in this evolving space?
	Do you have any sense that we're approaching anything like an endgame based even just on the, you know, the various rafts of legislation that being globally passed?
	I mean, I feel conflicted, to be honest with you, because I see multiple perspectives and I have my own personal role as someone who works in independent media.
	But I'm also, you know, I'm a citizen.
	I'm an American.
	I want good things for the public interest.
	I want good laws passed and shared prosperity, whatever, you know.
	But because we can't just have a completely fractured dissident media.
	We do need strong institutions.
	We need high-quality newspapers that shine a light on corruption and tell you what's going on on a day-to-day basis, you know.
	In addition to that, we do need an outside voice Questioning the media and questioning power.
	How do we maintain a balance is very difficult because if you look at the major mainstream institutions of the media, they've lost credibility.
	They've shifted to a subscriber model desperate for revenue because they've lost so much revenue to Facebook and Google that they're captured by their subscribers.
	They don't have enough reporters and editors.
	So when you're a powerful, powerful public relations firm or corporation or powerful government official, it's very easy to go to a newspaper that doesn't have a lot of fact checkers, a lot of, you know, adversarial reporters and spoon feed the media to give them a prepackaged news story.
	And, you know, they're under budget and overworked and they say, OK, this looks like a scoop and they basically republish it.
	Um, and they're under increasing pressure from government agencies to censor, to say that, hey, look, if you publish, you know, the wrong narrative or the wrong person, um, that's a form of disinformation or hate speech or what have you.
	And, you know, that's going to lead to, you know, you being shadow banned on the social networks on Google and the internet platforms and Facebook, that means less advertising dollars and they're already being pinched.
	Um, That's not a great dynamic either, because how are you going to have an open society in public debate?
	Now, for independent media, I'm part of that.
	I try to hold myself to a high standard, high journalistic standards.
	If I make a mistake, I rush to issue a correction.
	I call people.
	I try to provide context.
	I try to be fair to all sides in a debate.
	But for a lot of independent media, some are less scrupulous.
	You know, you have a lot of bad faith independent media out there with lower standards.
	While we need an independent press, a dissident media to constantly criticize and shape institutions
	and to provide more relevant news to our viewers and to our readers, that's not a sustainable business model
	either, you know.
	I wish I had the resources to provide all my news articles for free.
	You know, I have a paywall on most of my content because I need to make a living and pay rent.
	But you know, it's again, not a sustainable business model for just people like me or you to be an independent press.
	We need kind of a broad public interest that informs everyone.
	And how to shape that isn't clear, especially in the age of the internet.
	No, man.
	You made me feel like it's a very complex issue indeed, but also that your personal integrity and the possibility that the support of integrity like you demonstrate could create new pathways, could create accountability and could amplify the voices that I believe desperately need amplifying.
	Lee, thank you so much for joining us today.
	It's always a great pleasure to speak to you and to see you.
	Thanks.
	Thanks once again.
	Thanks so much for having me.
	Good seeing you, Russell.
	Good to see you, mate.
	You can read Lee's investigative work on his Substack by going to leefang.com and I suggest you do that.
	I'm serious when I say he's a journalist with genuine integrity.
	Just listen to the way he speaks.
	Listen to what he cares about.
	Guess who's joining us on the show tomorrow?
	Stella Assange.
	Stella Assange is a lawyer.
	Of course, she's married to Julian Assange and she's an activist whose very life is consumed.
	Well, actually she's a mother, so her whole life can't be consumed by it, but primarily she's trying to campaign for Julian Assange's freedom for publishing information that was unfavourable to the state, and you all know the condition that Julian is in now.
	From our conversation with Glenn Greenwald, it seems that there's been some evolution, blessedly in that story, in that the Australian government Mostly because of activism among their citizenry are demanding some justice for Julian Assange.
	So we'll be talking about that in particular with Stella.
	Now if you want to support us and you know now how important it is, please become an Awakened Wonder if it's within your means.
	If it's not, please stay with us and enjoy this content for free.
	It's much more important that we have you than we have your resources.
	But as this situation evolves and develops, surely we shall need both, ultimately, because we are committed to building something here.
	We are committed to going beyond independent media and into an independent movement for true freedom, for truth, integrity and freedom.
	If you become a member, you get guided meditations, reading, Q&As.
	I'm sure the situation will evolve and we will certainly do our very best to provide you with as much as we can.
	And I'd like to welcome Our new members, Uncle Tony, BadMonkey61, LaLaKetchup, HumptyDumpty and JediFish, all now reveling in the glory of the Awakened Wonder movement.
	Please join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, that'll be no good, not after a day like today, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.
	Switch on, switch off.
	Man, he's switching.

▲