Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 3, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:14:18

This Is END GAME! Canada’s AUTHORITARIAN CRACKDOWN On Dissent!- Stay Free #215

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, we're going to go ahead and start the video. So, this is the first time I've ever seen a bird. I'm going to go
	ahead and start the video.
	So, this is the first time I've ever seen a bird. I'm going to go ahead and start the video.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Spudgy, Spudgy.
	Spudgy.
	Hello there, you freedom-loving awakening wonder.
	Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	How we appreciate your loyalty, your fealty, your ability to see past deception and towards truth.
	And that's exactly what we're covering today.
	We're looking at Canada.
	Has Canada set itself up as some sort of dystopic authoritarian nightmare where academics are punished and penalised, where clerics are flung in jail, where protesters are demonetised?
	What's going on under the auspices of democracy, under the admittedly fantastic coiffured hair of Justin Trudeau?
	We're looking at that in detail.
	We're going to be speaking to Stella Assange, activist and wife of Julian, who knows a thing or two about Freedom and incarceration.
	She's just been to see Julian and we'll be talking today about the possibility of Julian being released and what it means when a man is incarcerated, jailed, without trial, without conviction.
	What does it mean for justice?
	What does it mean about the principles themselves?
	Are there any principles at Oh, now we need you to follow us on Rumble.
	That's how we plan to survive, thrive and move forward.
	Like and subscribe to our channel there and press the red awaken button to join our locals community and to support us directly if that's something that's within your means.
	If not, your presence is so much more valuable than your money.
	I can't tell you how much we value you.
	Lindsey Graham has been sending messages to Trump, essentially a pro-war message.
	The war between Ukraine and Russia continues to escalate.
	People continue to die.
	Peace is still not permitted to even be discussed.
	And Graham has a message for Donald Trump, who, curiously, extraordinarily, is the only significant political figure advocating for peace.
	Just wrap your head around that now.
	That Trump is the lone voice advocating for peace and he's perhaps the most vilified figure on the planet.
	Let's have a look at Lindsey Graham offering a curse to Trump.
	Have you asked Donald Trump, your friend, to come out and publicly support more aid to Ukraine and to push some of these sceptical members of the Republican conference?
	I'll leave it up to him to what to do, but he wanted to get out of Afghanistan.
	Vladimir Putin has been praising him for his comments about Russia and Ukraine.
	Here's what I'll say about President Trump.
	He did not pull the plug on Afghanistan, even though he wanted to.
	The biggest mistake we've made since the war on terror is withdrawing from Afghanistan.
	To President Trump and anybody else, if we pull the plug on Ukraine, that's ten times worse than Afghanistan.
	There goes Taiwan.
	To stop funding Ukraine is a death sentence for Taiwan.
	Putin will keep going.
	You missed all of World War II, if you don't know how this movie ends.
	To the Republicans who say Ukraine doesn't matter to us, you're wrong.
	Respectfully, you're wrong.
	The war gets bigger, not smaller.
	There goes Taiwan.
	Well, it's a terrifying, mad prediction.
	There goes Taiwan.
	Taiwan will be next.
	That's ten Afghanistans.
	I'll give you ten Afghanistans for the price of a Ukraine.
	Terrible, terrible auctioneer Lindsey Graham is.
	And do you see how we're sort of gridlocked into perpetual war?
	It's the worst thing since the War of Terror.
	So it was a mistake to get into the War of Terror, but the Afghanistan war is sort of part of that ongoing hellish narrative, and there's no way out of it.
	Let's see who else has been addressing Donald Trump.
	You may have already seen this.
	Chris Christie is not a man who should be trying to come up with catchphrases and nicknames.
	He don't have that ability.
	...in Washington, D.C.
	also.
	And Donald Trump should be here to answer for that, but he's not.
	And I want to look at that camera right now and tell you, Donald, I know you're watching.
	You can't help yourself.
	I know you're watching.
	Okay?
	And you're not here tonight, not because of polls, and not because of your indictments.
	You're not here tonight because you're afraid of being on this stage and defending your record.
	You're ducking these things.
	And let me tell you what's going to happen.
	You keep doing that, no one up here is going to call you Donald Trump anymore.
	We're going to call you Donald Duck.
	I'd say that's a lot of pipe.
	There was a lot of exposition required to get there.
	Okay, but I'm gonna do this down the camera.
	Now, wait, you're not here not because you're not, well, it's not because of the indictments, but,
	and also it's not because of the pose, so, you are ducking, okay, therefore I'm gonna call you,
	wait for it, and all the while you're thinking, this isn't gonna be Donald Duck, is it?
	It's not going to be, like, we've almost sort of forgotten that Donald Duck and Donald Trump have the same name because it's too glaringly obvious.
	It's too much in our face as a reference to warrant being comedically utilised.
	But Chris Christie there, he's giving it a bloody good go.
	And so to Kamala Harris.
	I get no joy from criticizing high-profile political figures.
	My belief is that as we continue to awaken, as we continue to access the depths of our being, as we see plainly that these systems are incapable of delivering anything other than hypocrisy and corruption, they appear to get worse whether it's Dear old cadaverous Joe Biden, who's in a plain state of atrophy.
	Or Kamala Harris, who's meant to be the safety net in the event that dear Joe Biden inevitably tumbles.
	She appears to be worse than him, using metaphorical systems and rhetorical devices that don't make sense in any language.
	Although I'm not actually qualified to say, because I only speak this one.
	So let me know if there is another language You know that old story about the two frogs and the pots of water?
	You're a good storyteller, I'm going to tell you a good story.
	So, two frogs and two pots of water.
	but then you'll have to click the link in the description to support us, to support free speech, to support freedom
	more broadly.
	Let's have a look at what Kamala Harris is saying.
	You know that old story about the two frogs and the pots of water? Okay, so here you're a good storyteller.
	I'm gonna tell you a good story. So two frogs and two pots of water.
	So in one pot of water...
	Firstly, this is not an old story. It...
	It's an apocryphal tale.
	I think where Kamala Harris is going is that frogs don't notice that the temperature is gradually increasing to ultimately their boiling point.
	I think that's what it is.
	But I don't think there are two separate pots of water.
	And it's not like sort of a folky tale that's told to kids.
	It's like just an odd way of illustrating the idea that you don't notice incremental change.
	And it's not true.
	And it's not real.
	But already I'm confused by it.
	You drop the frog in, and you slowly turn up the heat.
	And that frog will be like, oh, it's getting a little warm in here.
	And then that water starts to boil, and that frog perishes.
	In the other pot of water, you turn up the heat to the point it's boiling.
	You drop the frog in it, it'll jump right out.
	Let's not be that first frog.
	No, let's not be that first frog.
	Could there be a more inspiring message as your fuel bills soar, as your food bills become unmanageable, as your country falls apart before your very eyes, as sacred principles just fall away to leave nihilism and a kind of moral morass and an empty hollowness, a facade.
	Let's just remember that our way through this is just don't be that first frog.
	That's what I will say in this situation.
	Uh, Kamala Harris sometimes seems to defy description, but people had a go at it with one of those word clouds.
	Let's have a look at how they described her.
	Variety of words that were used.
	Useless.
	Strong.
	Idiot.
	Incompetent.
	Horrible.
	Worthless.
	Oh my god.
	Some of it's actually a bit unkind.
	Clueless.
	Unsure.
	Puppet.
	Lovely.
	Democrat.
	Cop.
	Meh!
	Pathetic woman!
	Them word clouds bring out some extraordinary reactions.
	And so now we go to another extraordinary emergent facet of authoritarianism.
	This phenomena, I believe, is perhaps the most important thing happening on the world stage right now.
	Liberalism, safety, security and kindness are being presented to us as a way towards
	a progression in society, a better and more evolved society.
	But when you actually look at the legislation that accompanies the rhetoric around helping
	people and supporting one another, you will note that often it seems to benefit elite
	establishments and penalise ordinary people.
	And that could be no more obvious.
	Hey Lord! The very gods themselves come out in support of us.
	Then in this extraordinary story where a Calgary pastor was sentenced to 60 days in jail for his role in protest against Covid-19 public health measures.
	If you ever want to question whether you're on the right side, have a look at a pastor being arrested by masked men and flung in jail for simply following his religious beliefs and standing with his community.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	No, here's the fucking news!
	Trudeau's Liberal Canada jail a pastor for giving a speech at a blockade while celebrating actual Nazis and calling non-Nazis Nazis.
	Yay Canada?
	Plainly, truth is coming out.
	Plainly, new revelations are being made.
	Plainly, we are at some sort of biblical apocalyptic time where pastors are put in prison by the Canadian government and neo-Nazis, well not neo-Nazis actually, Original Nazis are celebrated literally in Canadian Parliament.
	So where is the truth?
	Where is the justice?
	Can you trust the system?
	Let's get into it.
	And isn't it curious how those that claim to be representing people that are suffering, the vulnerable, appear Considered to be the most authoritarian, dictatorial, deceptive and deceitful of them all.
	Let's look at this story in Canada and see if it can be applied to other global situations that we're experiencing.
	Remember, we need you to follow us now.
	That's how you do it.
	There's the details.
	And if you can support us, we need your support.
	And I can't promise your bank account won't be frozen.
	I wish I could.
	If you're in Canada, it probably will be.
	Let's get into this story.
	Calgary pastor Artur Polowski has been sentenced to 60 days in jail.
	Nothing like a pastor being arrested in the middle of the road by policemen wearing masks to tell you that democracy and the system are thoroughly healthy.
	For his role in protests against COVID-19, public health measures.
	Polowski was found guilty of mischief and breaching a release order.
	Isn't that like what Bart Simpson and Dennis the Menace and adorable scamps throughout time have done?
	No vulgarity!
	No mischief!
	No politics!
	This is for the spirit of play.
	For questioning the difference between right and wrong.
	And for standing up for what you believe in.
	20 years.
	This is the key, by the way.
	Back in May, in connection to the demonstrations which blocked Alberta's main Canada-U.S.
	border crossing at Cootes.
	During the trial, prosecutors said Palowski's impassioned speech...
	How dare you!
	How dare you use passion!
	This is Canada!
	Oh, sorry.
	Let me neuter that right down.
	Palowski's impassioned speech to truckers fanned the flames of unrest and convinced them to stay longer.
	We're at a curious point, aren't we, where now, a few years down the line, it seems that many of the questions around coronavirus and the way that it was handled, particularly by authoritative and, I would say, proactive or interventionist governments, is up for inquiry.
	Did Lockdown Did lockdowns work?
	Did masks work?
	How effective were vaccines?
	These are all just questions that you might, if you're not in Canada, think about in the privacy of your own home, for now.
	Because it looks like what the Canadians are actually looking to introduce is sort of thought crime laws.
	Like, don't think aboot that.
	Sorry for the cheap aboot joke, but you know, it is Canada and I'm not there at the moment, so... I always said to the government officials, leave me alone.
	Please leave me alone.
	Let me do what I'm good at, which is feeding the poor, preaching the gospel, and just being a church.
	Preaching the gospel, feeding the poor, and going to church.
	There's that key!
	You don't have to come and listen to me.
	However, let me do my job.
	And that's what I did in the past three years.
	I did my job.
	I am a shepherd.
	I stood by hurting people.
	I did my best.
	You don't have to like it.
	You actually do have to like it.
	It's a new law.
	It's now the law in Canada that you have to like it.
	What an extraordinary situation where someone who dedicates their lives to spirituality, to truth, to the exploration of meaning, to support in a community, standing up for their own rights.
	And remember, we now know that on average Canadian truckers were more vaccinated than the average Canadian population member per capita.
	You know, there's data on that.
	You know, follow the science, as they say.
	So we know that it's not that they were particularly anti-vaccine.
	They were just particularly pro-freedom.
	Now, one of the macro arguments we are making to you on our channel right now is that ideas around safety and convenience and security are being mobilized to shut down your liberty.
	That what was once regarded as the ordinary right of the average citizen is become like privacy or private money, all these things.
	They're going.
	I think going fast, the ability to communicate, the ability to question, all of these things are being shut down radically.
	I'm almost glad of a situation where street preachers are being banged up in Canadian knicks.
	60 days that dude got and they wanted him to have 10 months.
	They wanted him to have 10 months.
	And just bear in mind that this is taking place in the same sort of time frame as a Nazi being applauded in Parliament.
	You might think, oh that was just a spurious error.
	No it wasn't.
	They are so keen to live in a projected reality that actual reality doesn't matter.
	There is the conjured medium maelstrom of reality, then there is actual reality.
	That is why we have to find a deep connection within ourselves to a kind of absolute truth, to absolute values, to absolute principles, because they ain't got any!
	Back in May, Pawlowski was found guilty of mischief and breaching a release order.
	I can't get past that mischief.
	Is it like, that's a crime now?
	When is all this laws being introduced?
	We've had quite enough of your evil mischief.
	Mischief, skullduggery, tomfoolery, and hijinks.
	20 years.
	Bart, the record of your mischief is staggering!
	I wouldn't have your hand up at that angle.
	If I were you, I'd give it a speech, mate.
	You might get all of Parliament applauding you.
	Convince the protesters to stay longer and to quote, hold the line.
	Like I said, I should never be arrested, I should never be charged with an offence.
	Martin Luther King was a preacher, Malcolm X was essentially a sort of imam.
	People that have strong religious conviction will apply their religious conviction to social situations because they've not been individualised.
	Materialized, bought low, reduced, told there's no hope and there's no way.
	Because this person's a man of God and sees spirituality as being more valuable than sort of the set of values that a culture just comes up with off the top of his head and then makes the actual law.
	These people, people like you, people like me, that have actual values, that believe in redemption, salvation, believe in change, believe in changing the system, believe in changing the self, believe in moving forward, believe in beauty and grace and truth, they are a threat!
	You are a threat.
	Your freedom is their problem.
	Plainly.
	Look!
	I was there in the capacity of a pastor.
	For Bridge City News, I'm Micah Quinn.
	Let's have a look though at what else is going on in Canada just to make sure that the imprisonment of a pastor isn't some anomalous outlier.
	We first became interested in what was going on in Canada because in spite of his appearances and, let's face it, lovely haircut, Justin Trudeau doesn't appear to be that interested in freedom.
	The rhetoric of freedom, yes, but the sort of authoritarianism and emergency law revoking kind of capacities of people that are more traditionally associated with tyranny.
	Tyranny in Canada is not always bad, even the worst example of tyranny in human history.
	The Nazis.
	Last week the Canadian House of Commons Speaker Antony Rota invited a 98-year-old man named Yaroslav Hunkar to attend a speech by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
	Rota called Hunkar a Canadian hero and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cheered for Hunkar alongside lawmakers.
	They were willing to do that just because they just didn't understand the facts and they hadn't looked into them properly.
	In a spiritually evolved society, the possibility of redemption and absolution for a Nazi would be something you'd consider.
	If you read, for example, Viktor Frankl's seminal work on his experiences in concentration camps, Man and His Search for Meaning, then you'd be aware that the travesty and murders and genocide of the Second World War oddly provided an opportunity for change.
	But that's not the culture that's being evoked or invited in Canada, a culture of like where we really try to understand reality, morality, truth, spirituality.
	What they want is just to mobilise and utilise particular narratives that can legitimise authoritarianism in control.
	You'll never see them advocating for a story where it's like, oh yes, I suppose actually we should just let people do what they want and why don't we give people a vote on whether they want that or not and maybe for the next, if there's going to be another lockdown, people can vote on it and maybe we can let the truckers decide.
	They're never going to come to those conclusions.
	It's always going to be, you know that pastor?
	Put him in prison.
	Because that is control.
	Control.
	Bear in mind, learn to observe, learn to watch.
	I know that you're doing it because I read the comments, I read the chat.
	I know that you're further along than me, many of you.
	Let's ensure that we keep doing that together, eh?
	In response, Rota took full responsibility for the incident and Trudeau called it deeply embarrassing.
	Trudeau then warned against Russian propaganda and Russian disinformation.
	Because he's just saying stuff now.
	Yeah, you know, we applauded some Nazis because of Russian disinformation, actually.
	Is it not Canadian disinformation to celebrate a Nazi?
	You could say that.
	Are you Russian?
	Trudeau's non-apology and dismissal of criticism as Russian disinformation is especially hypocritical given his repeated denunciation of the Canadian Freedom Convoy as a Nazi-linked movement.
	Because the truckers' grievances were legitimate, and over the years seem increasingly legitimate, and because the actions against them were pretty draconian and extreme, emergency laws, freezing bank accounts, not allowing people to fund them, frying people in prison that gave speeches, you have to find a way to legitimise that.
	You have to reverse engineer it.
	What would make it legitimate to do that?
	If they were Nazis?
	Yeah, but they're...
	Yeah.
	Anyway, we've got this guy over from Ukraine who you're all going to love.
	Hooray!
	What did he do in the war again?
	I don't know, but apparently he got a lot done.
	Hooray!
	About the truckers, Trudeau said, we are seeing activity that is a threat to our democracy.
	It's a threat to your democracy.
	Your democracy is not a democracy.
	And it's undermining the public's trust in our institutions.
	Quite rightly.
	Trudeau one day later compared the truckers to Nazis and American racial segregationists.
	That's so disgusting, isn't it?
	Like, what the hell does it have to do with racial ideology, the freedom of movement, the rights for workers to unite?
	How is that even connected?
	Isn't it more likely, here's a hypothesis, that it's got nothing to do with that, and they retrospectively apply that in order to disempower that movement?
	What do you think's more likely, looking at the facts?
	Conservative party members can stand with people who wave swastikas, he said.
	They can stand with people who wave the confederate flag.
	I prefer to just out and out applaud Nazis.
	Bring them in from the cold and clap at them up in the gallery.
	Straight for it.
	Not their signs or their monikers, the Nazis themselves.
	It should not have to be said, but it does.
	Trudeau had zero evidence then, and none today, that the truckers were racist or Nazis.
	Zero evidence.
	The swastikas printed on flags at the convoy were not hate symbols.
	They were intended as criticism of the government's overreach for a comparison to Nazi Germany.
	Yet Trudeau condemned a Jewish member of parliament for being sympathetic to the convoy and for supporting people who wave swastikas.
	Trudeau's colleagues participated in his conspiracy theory.
	One Liberal MP said that Trucker's Honk Honk slogan was a coded message for Heil Hitler.
	There was never any evidence for this then or now.
	Isn't it more likely that at a trucker protest, where there's likely to be trucks, and you're on a road, and people have got horns, that it might mean honk your horn in support of the truckers?
	That well-established form of showing solidarity?
	But I suppose that's not Nazi enough, is it?
	So if we could just, oh, H H Hail Hitler!
	Yes!
	Yes!
	We could undermine their entire campaign with this!
	And meanwhile, let's get this guy over from Ukraine.
	Good work, good work.
	He was very busy.
	Apparently in the 30s and 40s he got a lot done.
	As such, Trudeau was spreading disinformation.
	Naturally, Trudeau has for the last three years been accusing others of spreading disinformation and demanding that social media companies like Facebook and Twitter censor the people he disagrees with.
	The problem with you, Zlot, is you celebrate misinformation.
	And you also celebrate Nazis.
	But what about you with that Nazi?
	That is Russian disinformation!
	Canada's political troubles may seem trivial and unimportant.
	The country is not a significant military power.
	It has fewer people than California.
	Its economy is the ninth in the world.
	California is the fourth.
	Trudeau has just been engaging in the usual progressive rhetoric of accusing his opponents of being Nazi, something both sides do, as the controversy over last Friday's applauding showed.
	But Trudeau is important, and what he's doing in Canada should terrify everyone in the Western world who cares about being free from government tyranny, censorship and disinformation.
	That's because Trudeau is pioneering a new way for governments to take control over the
	information environment, spreading disinformation and demanding censorship that is similar but
	different to efforts we are seeing in places like California, Australia and New Zealand.
	Former and current colonial powers appear to have relationships with some of the nations
	they helped to establish, i.e. the countries listed just then, where piloting ideas that
	would seem likely to engender resistance in countries like the United States or the UK
	or seem more pronounced and more dangerous, appear to be able to be practised there.
	Notice that during the coronavirus period Australia set up, I think I'm right in saying,
	internment camps.
	Notice that Canada is very assertive and progressive with authoritarianism, with the disinformation being described in this article.
	It seems to me that because these countries, because of a shared tongue with significantly your country, the United States of America, are being used to normalize ideas and to introduce ideas that elsewise we might be reluctant to accept.
	Let me know if you agree with that.
	Let me know if you think that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Maybe even the UK to a degree, we're no longer a superpower, we're essentially ancillary to the United States of America, are being used to pilot ideas, normal ideas, so that they can become ubiquitous.
	Let me know in the chat in the comments if you agree with that.
	People across the Western world were rightly alarmed when Trudeau last year invoked for the first time in Canadian history the Emergency Measures Act and froze bank accounts of people who had simply donated to the truckers cause.
	It was brazen thuggery that Trudeau justified by calling ordinary Canadians Nazis and racist.
	If you call someone a Nazi or a racist, whatever you do is permissible.
	It seems to me that's how this particular play works.
	Trudeau's crackdown on the Freedom Convoy protesters was followed by efforts to regulate and control the internet.
	His online streaming act and online news act gave the government expansive new powers to regulate what happens and what you see online.
	It's all about control, isn't it?
	Like the online UK safety bill here in the UK.
	Do they want to protect you?
	Or do they want to control you?
	Do they want to help you?
	Or do they want to control the access to information that you receive?
	Just have a look and decide for yourself.
	You'll be able to work it out.
	Are there any global trends?
	Do there seem to be laws being passed all over the world?
	Does there seem to be a process of vilification, shutting down of dissent, shutting down of dissidents, vilifying people that disobey and stand up in opposal for it?
	You can observe all of that for yourself.
	You don't need me or anyone else to tell you.
	You let me know in the chat.
	The atmosphere created by Trudeau and his party is completely upending Canadian society, leading to the persecution of his detractors and limiting speech and expression.
	Earlier this month, a Liberal judge in Calgary sentenced a Christian pastor to two months in jail for what he said during a 20-minute speech to the Truckers Freedom Convoy.
	We can't keep bringing you inspiring, groundbreaking, anti-authoritarian, anti-totalitarian content like we do without our partners and sponsors.
	And this week, once again, we've teamed up with, you guessed it, Stickermule to create this limited edition sticker pack.
	Look at these delicious stickers.
	There are six stunning designs, including this guy.
	They're only available in this pack, and they're all made with Sticker Mule's magic touch.
	Sticker Mule has 10,000 of these packs.
	That's right, 10,000.
	Ready to deliver to you absolutely free.
	Just go to StickerMule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the forms.
	Perfectly easy!
	StickerMule.com forward slash Russell, fill out a form, then you're just gonna have some stickers, alright?
	And isn't that better than where you were prior to the... Yes, it is better!
	And this is how we're able to continue to bring you radical content that challenges the system, like we're doing right now.
	Get over there, StickerMule.com forward slash Russell, fill out the form.
	Get on with it.
	Right.
	The College of Psychologists of Ontario recently ordered conservative psychologist Jordan Peterson to undergo social media training because they believed his tweets and opinions were problematic.
	And Ontario court then upheld the college's decision.
	So it began in academia.
	It began as a cultural phenomena.
	And it's ended up in the judiciary.
	The judiciary imposing measures on Jordan Peterson.
	You have the right to agree with or disagree with Jordan Peterson.
	You know I have a friendship with Jordan Peterson.
	He's my friend.
	And I disagree with him as I'm sure he disagrees with me on many issues.
	What I don't disagree with is his right to freely communicate and essentially have a set of values that seem to me to be based in pretty thorough research.
	And I've had arguments with Jordan Peterson about some of the matters where I disagree with him and it seems that that's not actually affected our friendship.
	But what is clear is what's going on in Canada is anything but dull.
	It's terrifying.
	In looking to defend minorities and promote culture, Trudeau's liberals are everything they once feared.
	They are authoritarian, anti-democratic and illiberal.
	I think what happens is inept politicians that are kind of like Pop star poster boy politicians that kind of look nice or sort of seem appropriate are kind of groomed and ushered through the system and they don't actually, this is my view, my personal view, understand politics that well and they're able to be manipulated by people who understand things a lot better than they do.
	They don't notice that all of a sudden they're saying things like that.
	I admire China.
	Yeah, we should shut down their bank accounts.
	Yeah, let's invoke the Emergency Act.
	Those truckers are Nazis because they're not grounded in the kind of ideals that, for example, that pastor is, who's like, I'm willing to get arrested for what I believe in.
	I'm willing to die for what I believe in.
	Those kind of values, even that kind of mindset, having a community that you care about, having people that you love, having values and principles that go beyond materialism, is being eroded because Well, you know, why?
	Because we're living in sort of cellular atomic little realities where the best we can hope for is just some sort of quick hit of purchase.
	We're being distracted and disconnected from God.
	And you have to wonder whether Jordan Peterson is a problem not because of his views on identity and identity politics or because he has a deep reverence for meaning and passion and standing up for what you believe in.
	What do you think, based on what you're learning about Canada here, think is more of a threat to the Canadian system?
	Do you think it's like they're fretting in all day, oh no we really want to help people on their
	identity issues or do you think they want control? Because look at the legislation that's been
	introduced. What does it seem to be augured and directed towards? And what's happening in
	Canada is not separate from what's happening in the US, the UK, Europe and Brazil but intimately connected
	to those nations. That's what globalism There is a kind of a global tide rising.
	There is authoritarianism, centralism.
	There are connections between laws in the countries just listed there that sort of don't make sense.
	Where are they coming from?
	Whose ideas are they?
	What happened during the pandemic?
	Where did those decisions get made?
	What happened in anomalous nations like Sweden that took a different path?
	Did they have a lot more deaths?
	Oh no, less deaths.
	This is extraordinary.
	Where do these edicts come from?
	If they're not grounded in data, in real verifiable facts, Then it's an agenda.
	Then it's an ideology.
	Then it's globalism.
	According to Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party supporters, he and their party are the party of compassion for vulnerable people, freedom and Canadian culture.
	Liberals care in their view, while Conservatives don't care.
	Trudeau has proclaimed his loyalty to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	And when the Liberals introduced their social media reform legislation, they said the goal was to promote Canadian culture, ensure the sustainability of the news industry, and guarantee we heard from marginalized voices.
	But a government cannot claim to care about the vulnerable or about freedom while freezing the bank accounts of a single mother working a minimum wage job as Trudeau's government did.
	Nor can the government claim to care about the vulnerable or freedom while trying to regulate the internet to prevent further protests and challenges to Trudeau's government.
	The main way Trudeau and the Liberal Party are trying to do this is by subsidising news media and punishing smaller media outlets.
	This is similar to what governments are doing all around the world.
	Hmm.
	The government defends the crackdown on expression and speech by appealing to Canadians' innate sense of kindness.
	Our leaders tell us we must protect our culture, protect the vulnerable and care for our communities.
	They argue that limiting expression and criminalising dissent is a means to that end.
	But censorship has always been used to hurt and marginalise minorities and has never helped them.
	Rights were won for African Americans, gays and lesbians by ensuring they had the ability to express themselves freely.
	Trudeau's actions aren't about social progress, they're about power and control.
	Trudeau embodies many of the traits of left-wing authoritarians.
	All authoritarians support censorship and submission.
	They tend to believe this is necessary because in their minds the population is naive and cannot be trusted.
	Can there be a clearer marker of authoritarianism than the belief that the population are inferior to those that
	govern?
	I think for a long time we've sensed that that is the mindset.
	They think they're better than us.
	They think we can't run our own lives.
	They think our relationship with them is like a relationship with a parent who can dock your pay in the
	form of taxes and dock your freedom in form of censorship and now in new,
	previously inconceivable ways, control your movement, control your ability to communicate,
	control your ability to participate in the technological public sphere.
	This no longer seems to me to be about kindness.
	I think we're going to have to check our value systems.
	What is the liberal left about?
	What is Justin Trudeau trying to achieve?
	If your real end was to help people, to protect vulnerable people, wouldn't there be more evidence of it?
	Wouldn't there be less and less globalist measures, like curtailing freedom, freezing bank accounts, etc?
	Wouldn't you see the promotion of open conversation, the promotion of freedom, and a good faith relationship with the population?
	Wouldn't you see the promotion of smaller media outlets and the diminishing of larger ones, rather than the subsidisation of larger ones, which is what's actually happening?
	Authoritarianism is predicated on this idea.
	You should not be allowed to control your own life.
	You don't know what you're doing.
	You need to be controlled.
	And they are going to control you.
	It's as simple as that.
	Trudeau constantly splits the population into liberal angels and conservative devils.
	You either believe in liberal climate policy or are a climate denier, according to Trudeau.
	You either mask up and vax up or are putting lives at risk.
	You either support the radical demands of trans activists or you hate sexual minorities.
	There is also something deeply antisocial about Trudeau's behaviours.
	To falsely accuse your opponents of Nazism and racism, to cut off the bank accounts of people who criticise you, these are cruel and callous behaviours.
	Few Canadians believe that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meant to undermine democracy or stand with Nazis last Friday when his main Liberal Party ally led the House of Commons in applauding a former Nazi.
	But that's the whole point.
	Trudeau no more meant to undermine democracy or stand with Nazis than Canadian truckers meant to undermine democracy or stand with Nazis.
	And yet Trudeau accused them of precisely that.
	Few Canadians see either Trudeau or Canadian truckers as Nazis.
	What we need to change now is for more of us to get angry when we see our leaders label our fellow citizens as such.
	It seems that we live in a time where treasured and hard-won principles such as justice, such as freedom of speech, such as innocent until proven guilty, are just being casually discarded all in the name of kindness and safety and security.
	But if you see a pastor being arrested by masked police and put in prison with a claim that he ought serve 10 months when what he was actually doing was standing up for what he believed in, Meanwhile, Nazis are being applauded in Parliament, which, as this writer says, was obviously an error.
	You have to question how much you can trust this system.
	Are countries like Canada and Australia and even the UK being used to pilot a new form of authoritarianism?
	Authoritarianism not based on militarism, although militarism is always one of the ends and certainly where the money comes from, but a kind of totalitarianism that's based on helping others and protecting others and protecting you from yourself.
	I believe it is.
	I believe that authoritarianism is based primarily on the idea that they know more than you.
	That you are not capable of running your own life.
	That if you defy them, if you dissent against them, you could be shut down, depersoned and even imprisoned.
	And I believe we have to stand strongly against that together.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	Keep chatting, baby.
	see you in a second.
	It increasingly looks like dissident voices are silenced in order to maintain centralized control.
	And on that note, what a fantastic guest I'm about to Introduce.
	If you're watching us anywhere else, we're going to be exclusively available on Rumble now, so click the link in your description.
	And if it's within your means, please press the red button and become an Awakened Wonder to support us.
	We need your support now more than ever.
	But if it's not within your means, you stay with us.
	You, your attention, your consciousness, and your life are far more important to us than your money, let me tell you that.
	Joining me now is Stella Assange, human rights lawyer, activist, and of course, wife of Julian Assange.
	Stella, thank you so much for joining us today.
	Hi, Russell.
	I'm happy to be here.
	Yeah, it's lovely to see you, mate.
	You went to see Julian pretty recently.
	Tell me, how did that visit go and who was with you?
	Well, on Saturday I went to Belmarsh Prison to see Julian, like I do once or twice a week.
	But this time it was with the kids and Roger Waters and Yanis Varoufakis.
	So it was a really special visit.
	What is it like?
	What are the conditions of the visit like?
	Well, we were able to go in without any issues.
	And actually we were able to film outside Belmarsh.
	I think they turned a blind eye because Roger was there and they didn't want to cause a scene.
	So thankfully we were able to do a video outside with Janice and Roger and I think it's had 1.5 million views on Twitter already.
	And it was lovely.
	I mean, you know, we only get two visits a week so we have to That's all I get and the kids get with Julian.
	Sometimes I'm traveling so sometimes he's able to also see friends while I'm away or when I'm here and this time he was able to see Roger Waters who of course has been an incredible advocate for Julian.
	He has a free Julian Assange massive image as part of his show that he's been touring around the world with And of course, also Yanis Varoufakis, who was the former Minister of Economy for Greece and a global commentator and an old friend of Julian's.
	He would visit Julian in the embassy regularly.
	So it was really nice for Julian to see his old friend, Yanis, and his new friend, Roger, who he had never met in person, but of course knows all the advocacy and amazing support that Roger has been I understand that there is some more optimism around the campaign for Julian, in particular because of the 60 Australian MPs that have urged the US to release Julian.
	Does this feel like public opinion and even significant political support is beginning to increase?
	Absolutely.
	What Julian has is a global campaign, the likes of which we have never seen before.
	Every single day there is some action somewhere around the world, from Sri Lanka to the UN General Assembly.
	The UN General Assembly, I bring it up because Lula, the president of Brazil, had his address to the General Assembly.
	This is the meeting that takes place every year in September, where all the heads of state of the world come together to New York, to the UN building, and then they speak, they give an address, and Lula was one of the first ones to speak and he brought Julian up in his speech and what happened there was a completely rare for the UN General Assembly which was that there was a spontaneous applause in the hall and that's because Julian's case is so important and symbolic
	of our times, of an abuse of the legal system, an abuse, a geopolitical kind of show of force in which the person who has exposed the most the excesses of the global Superpowers in situations of war, interfering in the legal systems of not only their small states, but also their big allies like Germany and Italy and Spain.
	So Julian has had such an important role.
	in exposing the true kind of anatomy of power globally, that this has become a reference point for our times and is of geopolitical importance.
	So you have that kind of big picture political significance of the case, you have the legal significance of the case where you have all the major human rights groups, All the major press freedom groups who are saying this is an aberration, this case is the biggest threat to press freedom globally, not only because it's an attack on the First Amendment in the United States, it's the first time the Espionage Act is being used against a publisher, it will be able to be used against the rest of the press, not just the press, you know, not just the ones with the press credentials, but anyone else really who dares publish true information about criminality, about the most powerful people,
	in the country, in the United States.
	But then you have a different dimension, which is that Julian is Australian, and he wasn't even in the United States, right?
	So the US is using its espionage laws extraterritorially to apply to the rest of the world, to basically muzzle the rest of the world, to restrict freedom of speech in the rest of the world, in other countries, in the UK where he was, in Europe, where he was publishing from, and so on.
	And then you have another aspect, which has developed over the last 10, 12, 13 years, which is the surveillance on the Internet and the means through which they can actually censor speech.
	And we've seen this, of course, in the last four or five years, where social media companies have been instrumental in interfering with people's ability to emit, transmit their voice online.
	And so that has come about because the tools with which speech can be suppressed are proliferating.
	There is not just a market for censorship, there's also a market for tools to censor.
	This is so... This is so...
	tempting for the powerful.
	If the tools exist, of course they will be deployed.
	And at the same time, there's a weakening of the protections, of free speech protections, of human rights in general, of citizenship rights in general.
	And so you have this, on the one hand, states and corporations having greater means of coercion, And at the same time, citizens becoming less and less able to resist, less and less able to speak out, less and less able to push back.
	And this is a very terrible trend.
	So Julian's case exists in this greater context.
	And I think the whole world knows the significance and how Julian's case connects with all these issues.
	One of the other shifts that appears to have taken place within the framework of Julian's incarceration is that authoritarianism has peculiarly drifted and acquired a new aesthetic Just prior to our conversation we were talking about events in Canada and their ability to imprison individuals on the basis of protest, their new online bills that of course as you've just outlined permit censorship.
	We've been talking about how comparable bills have been introduced in the UK and indeed across the world and a significant part of Julian's revelations detailed where we were Gosh, 20 years ago or whenever it was that those revelations were made and of course, as you've explained, the situation has gotten worse and the power to censor control and the desire to legitimise authoritarian control has increased since then.
	One of the things that I continue to be surprised by, Stella, is the posture of liberalism whilst endorsing and practising tyranny.
	Do you think that there was something pivotal in Julian's revelations around, for example, the Hillary Clinton emails and other revelations about the Democrat Party that have somehow contributed to this extraordinary shift where parties that present themselves as liberal, pro-minority, pro-protecting vulnerable people are oddly the most willing to shut down dissenting voices?
	The most authoritarian.
	Has it sort of been a case that has shown us the transition of liberalism into authoritarianism?
	Well, I think, look, you have to look at this from a long perspective.
	Liberalism was pretty well defined, I think one could say, during the Cold War.
	You had the virtue of liberalism kind of held against, one could say, the virtues of the other bloc.
	So the other bloc was talking about social and economic rights.
	It also had obviously a very dark side to it.
	And then the West upheld civil liberties, freedom of speech, etc.
	And what has happened since is that freedom of speech over time as the internet has become a generalized means of communications globally, freedom of speech has been recast as a danger.
	Information has been cast as a threat.
	It can be misused.
	You know, it's basically cast in a conflict and war And then at the same time, well, how can they do that?
	How can they go from a self-definition that privileges civil liberties and this self-image of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech to where we are now.
	Well, they've kind of instrumentalized this sense of protection, of safety, and of determining areas in which they, as the The paternal figure will come and look after us, the poor public that cannot discern what they should know or what they should say and so on, because you don't know what the consequences might be.
	It's of course a very cynical shift.
	This is all bullshit.
	It is just the temptation of authoritarianism has been too strong.
	The means through which they can exert authoritarianism have become so available that they keep on keeping up this rhetoric, this liberal rhetoric, but don't believe in it.
	And don't practice it and don't set any expectation of practicing it.
	Because the excessive force through which governments have used their powers to shut down freedom of speech over the last five years have become really obvious to everyone.
	And so, for example, the people who donated to the Canadian truckers now understand that they are in a different world where even their
	What used to be protected expression of freedom of speech to support whatever cause they wish to support has been shut down and there are consequences for you personally as a result of that and you know who knows what kind of list they've been put on through the banks and the banks are now a An extension of that control network through which freedom of speech is being suppressed.
	Yeah, it does seem to be happening.
	It seems that while still maintaining the guise of the values that you rightly pointed out preceded, particularly in opposition to a sort of a Cold War opponent where the authoritarianism and the Stasi and the KGB and the Executions and the Poisoned Umbrellas were all sort of very lurid and vivid and Cold War and Ian LaFrennais, is it Ian LaFrennais?
	I mean the guy that wrote James Bond.
	It was all sort of very pronounced and clear and it appears now that we've drifted into a point sort of, in particular it seems to me Stella, I know you've been observing this more closely than I have, but in the last couple of years, five years, ten years, you're much more likely to get support for actual liberty, whether that's freedom of speech, freedom
	to publish, freedom of press, and principles like judiciary and the assumption of
	innocence until proven guilty. Those kind of principles are being discarded curiously in the name of
	this parentalism that you've just described.
	And have you found that you're more likely to get allies that are on what you might once have
	regarded as the conservative right? Or do you think that part of what's happening is that those
	labels and models are starting to break down?
	Vivek Ramaswamy for example publicly said he would free Julian obviously and I wonder if you feel that There's now a shift where the authoritarian and more tyrannical and censorial and incarcerating and espionage act utilizing government are the ones that present themselves as like the friendly face of progress.
	Well, I find that Julian has allies across the spectrum, and I think that's partly because the attack against him is so outrageous that the only people you really find defending his incarceration, his extradition, are somehow implicated in the crimes and corruption that he exposed.
	You know, be it I study them on Twitter and so on.
	You get this person who says something outrageous about him remaining in prison, and they're usually in Virginia or used to work in Guantanamo Bay as a prison guard.
	And then it's like, of course.
	But it's rare to find people nowadays saying that Julian's imprisonment is is okay.
	And that's a good development.
	And I think we've made fairly good progress in the mainstream for that to happen.
	But I think there's something else going on here as well, which is that In the very center, you have a very constrained position.
	There's no free thinking.
	It's more about associations.
	What is the right position to take?
	That's why you have, you know, the major parties are virtually indistinguishable, because there is no expression within the system for for opposition.
	And that is negative in a way, but it also means that outside of the center, there is a dynamic and interesting development where people from different sides of politics, you know, have different views on the role of the state and immigration and all sorts of things also come to agree about a few things.
	And I think the central one there that I hope everyone can converge on is freedom of speech.
	Freedom of speech is really kind of the central pillar for a democracy.
	And if you start undermining freedom of speech, then all the other rights you have basically melt away.
	And so I think there is a growing awareness that freedom of speech is the one in which we need to agree in order to progress as a society.
	And of course, Julian has been a freedom of speech advocate for decades, and the whole WikiLeaks project is about not just the integrity of the historical record and, you know, the ability to put evidence of wrongdoing onto the public record, but also of the ability to transmit information.
	And if you look at the United Nations declaration, the UN declaration, sorry, If you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was formulated in 1948, it's kind of the basic document to which the international order was formed after the Second World War, so there was a lot of
	I find it to be a very virtuous document and article 19 talks about freedom of speech and it is the freedom to seek, receive and transmit information regardless of means and across frontiers and this is such a revolutionary this is such a An amazing article when you think about it, if it were actually able to be preserved and enforced, which is obviously what we're trying to do through Julian's case.
	This is something that everyone signed up to, to seek, receive and transmit information.
	Across frontiers and through whichever means.
	And that is what is being attacked right now, because if people are able to speak to each other, then a lot... If information is free, then power is challenged.
	That is a natural dynamic.
	Stella, though, what I'm experiencing, and I don't know if this is because of the kind of cultural space that I'm occupying, I don't believe it is, because what I think is that I have consistently remained anti-authoritarian and once was associated with the left in a conventional way, in the way that, broadly speaking, any celebrity or public figure has that kind of champagne socialist veneer or air about them, although Personally and actually my background had always included activism and because of being a drug addict had always meant that I'd lived on the margins both economically and indeed criminally due to the sort of status of controlled substances.
	What I feel is happening though now is that free speech has become a right-wing talking point.
	I don't see the same appetite to do that on the right.
	States and also Australia and also the United Kingdom are introducing bills that control,
	limit, curb, dilute free speech under the auspices of misinformation and disinformation.
	I don't see the same appetite to do that on the right. I don't know why this point of
	difference has emerged or occurred, but there are times when I think that it is particular
	to Julian Assange in fact, specifically because of revelations around the Clinton emails,
	because of the discrediting of the Democrat party.
	I feel that this issue is a sort of a centrepiece within that.
	And I believe, and I'm obviously in the case of Julian Assange bears this out, that if your free speech is a challenge to the establishment, they will find a way to delegitimize your free speech by saying that you are A particular case where free speech shouldn't apply because of some egregious act or some crime or as in the case in Canada, oh well those truckers are Nazis and you can't give Nazis free speech so we're going to have to shut that down and close down their bank accounts.
	So whilst I acknowledge that support for Julian Assange and the atrocity of his imprisonment can come from across the board, I have a sense that When it comes to significant movement, you're more likely, and this is a question not a statement, do you think it's more likely that a Republican president would pardon Julian Assange than a Democrat president?
	because I do think that's the case, even though of course Trump, who apparently
	considered releasing Julian, ultimately did not.
	Well, look, the support for free speech at the political level is...
	basically absent.
	And that's because, as I said, the means through which they can shut down control and control not only your speech, but the narrative is much more accessible now than it was years ago.
	And that is tempting, especially not just tempting, but it's basically required Because they have defined the information sphere as a threat model.
	And there is no significant pushback in that respect.
	And of course you have this whole NGO economy and researchers and think tanks and so on that have suddenly seen the enormous pot of money that is being made available through public funds and so on to be able to fight information that is dangerous.
	And so there's a huge constituency that is keeping this illusion alive.
	And then you have the people who just want to, who are not part of that.
	And it's There are a lot of interests.
	I mean, if right now maybe it's the right who is more sensitive to it because they are being more censored, then it's just a matter of time before the others realize what kind of monster they have created.
	And so I don't think we're there yet where there is a general realization that we all have to converge on the principle of freedom of speech.
	But I hope that we can reach that point.
	And in terms of Julian receiving a pardon, I certainly hope that whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, they will come to their senses.
	Of course, the Obama administration decided not to even prosecute Julian because they said, he's a publisher, not a hacker.
	And if we do, then we're going to set a precedent that can be used against everyone else.
	So we're not going to do that.
	And then Trump went ahead and initiated this unprecedented prosecution.
	And now Biden has continued it.
	Because it's convenient, isn't it?
	It's convenient to have the most high-profile publisher who has exposed U.S.
	war crimes, corruption, and wrongdoing in a prison cell in the U.K.
	and they can say, well, it's not even us, it's the U.K.
	who is keeping him in prison.
	And of course, the U.K.
	also plays this game and says, well, we're just keeping him for the United
	States. They want to extradite him, we're not charging him with
	anything. And so it's just a matter of this. It's comfortable
	for them right now to keep Julian rotting in prison where he's been for four and a half years. But of course, the
	case is now progressing to its final stage. And Julian could be
	extradited within, you know, by Christmas.
	Wow. As well as, as well as I think, providing us a lens for
	how political categorisation is altered, particularly the categories of left and right, exposing how what we have is
	centralist authoritarianism, and ultimately, different degrees of
	neoliberalism.
	Another pivotal aspect of this case and the way that Julian is subsequently being handled, in my view, is the seismic change in the ability to communicate and
	control information.
	That, in a way, what Julian did was the first time, most pronounced and evident time, that
	anybody demonstrated the ability to convey information differently, and potentially and
	specifically, and I assume this is why the response has been so draconian and terrifying,
	show that enormous numbers of people could almost instantaneously deprive the establishment
	of credibility, withdraw their support for existing systems of government, and for prevailing
	and previously unchallengeable modes of geopolitics, i.e.
	the ongoing military-industrial complex, the necessity for wars, the requirement, therefore, for
	unjust wars, because the wars are not legitimate in the ways that are claimed, they are just
	economically necessary wars, both for resources, capital, unipolar objectives.
	Because of the technological capacity, as well as Julian's moral willingness to expose
	that information, What I feel we've seen, and in fact what the response to me demonstrates, is that this is about power.
	This is about preventing what could potentially happen if enough people were willing to dissent and disobey and tell the truth and communicate and form new alliances.
	It could be an end to these types of systems.
	If people were well informed, If people understood that what lies behind clandestine documentation is not just information that would be harmful were it to fall into the hands of our enemies, but information that is harmful if it falls into the hands of the public.
	And that's why I believe that we see this case endure.
	And that is why, whether it's in the purported left or right, there are It's been very slow to have vocal, clear advocates come out.
	I'm just speaking personally as well.
	You know, I've been aware of Julian Assange.
	I've visited Julian when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy.
	I've been aware of this story for a long time.
	I'm just too scared to talk about it.
	Just like, oh no man, you can't talk about that because that's what happens.
	That is what happens.
	If you are willing to talk openly about systemic corruption, if you're willing to openly talk
	about how the media now does not hold the government to account, they simply convey
	the messaging of the state, you are going to get in some serious, serious trouble.
	And obviously what Julian Assange did was unprecedented as a result of available technology
	and his own personal moral position, as I've stated.
	And since then, there's not been anything that significant.
	And I think the reason is, is because the media works for the state, the corporate state, both in terms of where they get their advertising dollars and where they, ultimately, where their interests converge.
	So, in a way, there can be no more significant victory than the release of Julian.
	Well, that's right.
	I think there's a, I think that's why the movement to free Julian is global and because it's tapped into a greater understanding of what his imprisonment actually means.
	It's a show of force where the killers have put the truth teller in prison and You know, have enormous resources to try to complexify and obscure that that's what's actually going on.
	But that's what it is.
	It is putting him in the most kind of brutal and basic way of shutting him in a cell for years on end, silencing him and threatening to keep him in prison for the rest of his life.
	And I think the average person, when they see Julian's situation, they realize that they have a sense of natural justice and they understand that really it is Julian's political speech that is the reason why he is in prison.
	He is being silenced and censored because he made The world know about crimes and assassinations and torture that was not just committed but also impugned ongoingly to this day.
	Nothing has been done to put anyone in prison for the literal war crimes, assassinations of children, you know, of toddlers that are recorded in these publications and nothing has happened.
	There's always been a cover-up and as part of this cover-up they put Julian in prison so that he can no longer speak and so that he can't say, well, he cannot continue to expose crimes and expose corruption.
	So it's a show of force.
	It's a show of brutality.
	To send a message to everyone else that the powerful are untouchable and if you try to do the right thing you will be hounded and that just cannot stand.
	That's why Julian's freedom is connected to everyone else's freedom because his imprisonment started a trend, his persecution started a trend Which is where we are, you know, 13 years down the line.
	And I was just reading an interview that he gave a French magazine called Philosophie.
	In 2013, and the question was, what do you think will be your situation in 10 years time?
	And he says, well, it really doesn't depend on me.
	It depends on which way the world goes.
	If the world continues to, or if the world realizes to uphold, if the trend is that that transparency and holding governments and exposing corruption is a good thing, then I will be free and WikiLeaks' legacy will be upheld as an example.
	But if the world goes in the opposite direction, in a direction in which Control and surveillance and authoritarianism increases, then I will probably be in prison somewhere.
	Those are his words from 2013.
	And plainly that is the way that it's gone, obviously and demonstrably.
	And to my earlier point, that is why the political parties that previously were organised, at least rhetorically, around the language of civil liberties and the rights of the individual and the significance of free speech have shifted so enormously to authoritarianism, censorship, surveillance,
	alliance with global corporatism, geopolitical unipolar goals, the depleting of the capacity
	of other superpowers like Russia and China legitimizing as humanitarian resource-based
	and politically motivated wars, understanding ever more sophist ways of legitimizing wars
	that are plainly about an agenda that's been present forever.
	One of Julian's quotes that I refer to a lot is the function of government is to funnel
	public money into private hands.
	Once you realize that the Afghanistan war is not about winning it but prolonging it,
	you will understand it differently.
	And I think that's something you can apply almost beyond war and to almost every aspect
	of the relationship between the government, the public, and the deep state and corporations.
	It's sort of an interesting, I would call it, equation for understanding power and the
	way that power operates.
	Stella, I understand you're making a documentary.
	Can you tell me about this documentary?
	I understand that you're publicly funding it and stuff, or at least it's being publicly funded.
	Can you tell me a little more about that?
	Well, there are a few documentaries.
	The one that I was actively involved in that was produced by Julian's brother, Gabriel Shipton, is called Ithaca and it was just touring in Brazil and it's toured in the US and it's I think still on ITV in the UK and there's a new documentary called The Trust Fall and it is
	being crowdfunded.
	I've seen parts of it and I think it's a very good explanation of Julian's case.
	It has very good interviews.
	It has a very heartbreaking animation of Julian in court and the kind of difficulties that were The kind of difficulties that he faced when he was in court.
	Of course now he's not even allowed to go to court because he follows hearings from Belmarsh Prison.
	Maybe that will be different in the next hearing.
	But yes, it's called The Trust Fall and do watch the trailer for that and you get a good sense of what it's about.
	And then Julian is, of course, nearing what could be the final hearing here in the UK.
	It's really the end game for Julian, because the High Court just incredibly decided that it would not allow Julian permission to appeal.
	I mean, think about it, when you have all the major human rights organizations, press freedom organizations in the world Saying that this case is of the highest importance.
	It's a greatest threat to press freedom.
	It's absolutely outrageous news about Mike Pompeo ordering the CIA to draw up plans to kidnap and assassinate Julian.
	And then the High Court said, well, we are not going to grant him permission to Appeal to even present his arguments before the High Court.
	So that's where we're at.
	He has one final recourse, which is he has gone to a panel of two judges to review the decision and there will be a public hearing.
	So the good news is that there will be a public hearing and we are calling on everyone Who can come to come on that day in front of the High Court, in front of the Royal Courts of Justice in central London.
	We're calling it Day X because we don't have a date for it yet.
	We're waiting for the court to actually announce it.
	But we expect it to be within a matter of weeks, really.
	And this is, you know, if you have never Actually come to a protest or support Julian but haven't expressed it.
	This is the moment to really express it by showing support for him on that day and to come in from the royal courts and I'll address the people who come as well and there will be press.
	So it's important to show Julian's support.
	Thank you, Stella.
	We will ensure that we publicise that event in any way that we can.
	Thank you very much for joining us.
	It's always an incredible pleasure to speak with you and to see your ongoing courage and optimism.
	Thank you.
	Thanks, Russell.
	You can keep up to date with Stella's campaign to free Julian Assange by following her on X at Stella underscore Assange.
	We'll post all that in the chat, of course.
	We've got some other fantastic guests coming up this week.
	Tim Pool's joining us.
	Kim Iverson's joining us.
	Scott Adams is joining us.
	If you want access to additional content and if you want to support our channel and our voice as this movement gains momentum, as it becomes necessarily global, as we take a stand against authoritarianism, As we campaign to free, let's not let him become a martyr, but heroes like Julian Assange, then press the red button and become an awakened wonder and join us.
	We'll meditate together, we'll read together, we will be tight, and we will fight together, like NotInMyName and FightTyranny.
	These are new members.
	Madison Taylor One joined us, Sarah Bear 2007, Bazia Kenton, Katie Cash.
	Thank you all very much for joining us.
	I'll see you again tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.

▲