Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 4, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:26:19

WOAH! Biden & Musk Go To WAR Over Free Speech - They’re Coming For Us ALL - Stay Free #216

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, we're going to go ahead and put that in.
	And we're going to do that.
	And we're going to do that.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	We've got a live shot there.
	Hello there you Awakening Wonders.
	Thank you for joining me today.
	Thank you for not yielding to fear.
	Thank you for pursuing truth.
	Thank you for having values and principles that are transcendent of the oscillating vicissitudes of a world of deception that wants to enshrine your entire reality in their simulation.
	We've got some fantastic facts for you today.
	We've got an item on Biden versus Musk.
	It's a free speech piece that you're gonna just love.
	Biden's trying to shut down Musk on a couple of fronts now.
	One, misinformation on the platform X. Two, he don't let him use Starlink to bomb opponents of the American hegemony product.
	Project, it's up to you how you see it now.
	Is it about commodity?
	Is it about ideology?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Let me know in the comments.
	If you are in a position to support us, press the red awaken button right now and become an awakened wonder.
	But if you can't, if it's beyond your means, your attention, your time, your faith, your belief, your fortitude is so much more valuable than your money.
	I tell you that right now for nothing.
	Although there would be a small charge, ironically, if you joined.
	But you recognise now when the government tries to demonetise independent media, you recognise the reality you're in right now, huh?
	We're not just about telling you facts now.
	We're about building a movement.
	You're part of it.
	You're necessary.
	We need you.
	We've got a fantastic guest for you today.
	We're going to be talking to Richard Hananya about populism, war, politics, and the new splinters and fractures that are appearing in our cultural space.
	I've spoken to him before.
	He's fascinating.
	You're going to love this conversation.
	Stay with us.
	For the first part, we'll be on a variety of platforms, but then we have to invite you to join us on Rumble.
	And if you can come Even deeper into this movement press the red awaken button as I just mentioned.
	Let's have a look at who's in court today.
	Let's see who the legacy media and the state machinery have turned their weapons on today.
	Why it's Donald Trump just like on any other day.
	He's in court because of his fraud trial and this gives him essentially a chance to communicate.
	In a minute we're going to be talking about RFK and his announcement.
	That's pretty fascinating and exciting isn't it?
	And then we're going to be talking about Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian minister whose name denies how many attachments to Nazis she may or may not have.
	Let's have a look at Trump orating, doing what he does best, saying sort of non-sequitous, astonishing, baroque and garish stuff in court.
	Let's have a look at him.
	I think most people get it.
	People are getting it.
	I can tell you the voters are getting it because every time they give me a fake indictment I go up in the polls and that's never happened before.
	But this is a disgrace.
	It's astonishing to note that our loathing of the establishment is at such a mutual fever pitch now that the enemies of the establishment are de facto the friends of the people.
	Do you trust the legacy media?
	No.
	Do you trust the government?
	No.
	Do you trust the judiciary?
	No.
	Who do you trust?
	People that oppose that stuff?
	Right, good.
	So, whatever you think about Donald Trump, the thing that I've come around to believing is, if they don't want him in, he must be doing something right, because they're working pretty hard to keep this guy out of power.
	And what?
	Is it because of kindness?
	Is it because they worry that he might hurt someone's feelings?
	Yeah, I don't know that that's their priority anymore.
	What's that based on?
	Mostly the wars, I'd say.
	Mostly the wars.
	I think if one of your priorities was not to hurt people's feelings, you'd probably fund and do less wars.
	I don't know.
	Let's see, though, how Donald Trump moves from making a significant point about the rise of populism and anti-establishmentism to sort of sharks.
	Let's say your boat goes down, and I'm sitting on top of this big, powerful battery, and the boat's going down.
	Do I get electrocuted?
	And he said, you know what?
	Honestly, nobody's ever asked me that question.
	But if I'm sitting down, and that boat's going down, and I'm on top of a battery, and the water starts flooding in, I'm getting concerned.
	But then I look 10 yards to my left, and there's a shark over there.
	So I have a choice of electrocution or a shark.
	You know what I'm going to take?
	Electrocution.
	I will take electrocution every single time.
	Do we agree?
	Extraordinary.
	He's under incredible pressure and he's just doing holiday anecdotes.
	The presidential election dynamic is about to radically shift if Bobby Kennedy does run as an independent.
	Is that going to split the Trump vote?
	Is that going to split the Biden vote?
	What will be the impact of his candidacy on the dynamics of the election?
	Let us know what you think in the chat and the comments.
	Hi, everybody.
	I'm going to be in Philadelphia on October 9th to make a major announcement.
	He's got nice eyes, Bobby Kennedy.
	That's what I mostly think, is he's got a kind face.
	The very birthplace of our nation.
	I'm not going to tell you right now exactly what that announcement will be.
	Also, the voice is improving, I think.
	Sounds better, doesn't he?
	I can say, though, that if you've been waiting to come to one of my public events, this will be the one to come to.
	All that, and he's apparently very good at pull-ups as well.
	Let's have a look at how the mainstream media are reporting on this.
	The news website Medii is reporting that RFK Jr.
	plans to announce he will run as an independent on October 9th in the state of Pennsylvania.
	Take this at face value if the report is true.
	First off, you're sitting back going, whoa.
	That's a huge problem.
	For?
	For the president.
	For President Biden.
	Why?
	Listen, any time you have more people in this race that folks have a choice on between Donald
	Trump and Joe Biden, it's problematic for Joe Biden.
	Donald Trump activated so many people.
	We saw the highest turnout election, excuse me, in 100 years, mostly because of Donald Trump, not because of Joe Biden in 2020.
	That was a reaction to Donald Trump.
	So, again, if you've got Cornel West running on a party line, if you've got Robert Kennedy running on a party line, that's problematic for Joe Biden.
	What about the idea maybe that some of his views, he had unfavorable ratings with Democrats, some of his views more aligned with Republicans, so maybe it could actually hurt Donald Trump, you know, pull in that direction?
	I find it very hard to believe Trump voters right now voting for the son of Bobby Kennedy in American politics.
	And plus those voters already have a home in the Libertarian Party.
	So that's what the mainstream think.
	Let us know what you think in the chat.
	Do you think RFK is going to hurt Trump or is he going to hurt Biden?
	Or do you think the whole thing is good for democracy?
	Or do you feel that the 2024 election is really just going to precipitate some sort of terrible
	civil war where whoever loses just says, oh, that was an illegitimate election?
	Now after the Canadian Parliament applauded an actual Nazi last week, Chrystia Freeland,
	whose name sounds like a freedom fighter in a Tolkien book, but actually her policies
	are much more like, well, let's call it what it is.
	A Nazi tries to, it seems, evade the question of just how many Nazis are living in Canada.
	Look at her peculiar prevarication.
	Based on the hand movements, I'm thinking, maybe there are 10 Nazis living in Canada.
	That weird microphone move makes me think, 50?
	are 10 Nazis living in Canada.
	How many veterans who fought with the Nazis are here in our country?
	Will the government do so and what is your response to that?
	That weird microphone move makes me think 50?
	50 to 100 Nazis living in Canada?
	I think, you know, let me just...
	The Monty Burns sort of tent finger prayer hands, I'm now thinking, are there like thousands
	of Nazis just roaming all over?
	Are the Mounties actually Nazis?
	Did you change the word Narts to the word Mount?
	Uh, by reiterating, and I don't think it can be said too many times, uh, It can't be said to me though.
	Now I'm thinking, is everyone in Canada a Nazi?
	Is that actually what's happened there?
	All of the maple syrup and the ice hockey and Quebec and everyone talking French and all that stuff.
	It's actually just, the whole thing's been an elaborate ruse to cover up the fact that it's a sort of utopia for Nazis.
	How hurtful for so many people in Canada and around the world what happened was and has been and continues to be.
	Does she mean by that, applauding the Nazi, or does she mean Nazism?
	Because if she means Nazism itself, saying it was hurtful is an underestimation of the incredible impact of, for example, the Holocaust.
	She's very hesitant, isn't she?
	She wasn't this hesitant when it was like, hey, we think these truckers are Nazis.
	She'd go, well, what's that based on?
	Let's think for a minute, because we don't want to be guilty of condemning people as Nazis just because they temporarily oppose our hegemonic perspective.
	She was like, shut that bank account!
	It's like that, wouldn't it?
	She'd... straight away.
	She'd never see it.
	It's like she's on a quiz show called Shut That Bank Account.
	Shut that bank account!
	As MPs, in our capacity as MPs, it's important for appropriate next steps
	in the House to be taken.
	And I think that is our immediate focus.
	That doesn't require strategy and expertise.
	We're going to take some steps.
	By steps, do you mean not inviting Nazis into Parliament and then all standing up and clapping at Nazis?
	Listen, I... Yeah, that is it, actually.
	Shut that bank account!
	And as a government, we're going to be very thoughtful about any further steps that need to be taken.
	That's so brilliant, because what he's describing there is not applauding Nazis in Parliament.
	If that takes that level of focus and concentration, is it what, is they're nearly always doing it?
	Did they nearly do it the day before that?
	And have they nearly done it a couple of times since?
	We're going to have to be very careful if we're not going to spend all day every day just applauding Nazis.
	This isn't something you can immediately avoid simply by looking at their record in the Oh, no, that person's a Nazi.
	Let's not applaud them just yet.
	That's something like... We've never done it.
	Perhaps the reason that Chrystia Freeland is so hesitant, or the reasons, include the grandfather of Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Deputy Prime Minister, worked for a Nazi newspaper that recruited for the Galicia division of the Waffen-SS, the same division as Jaroslav Juncker, the Nazi who was recently honoured by Canada's Parliament.
	She could have probably just looked at a photo album in her own house to see whether he's a... Wait a minute!
	You're in our Nazi memorabilia book!
	Michael Chomiak, Freeland's maternal grandfather, whom she repeatedly cited as a political inspiration... No kidding!
	...edited a Nazi newspaper for Ukrainian exiles in occupied Krakow called Kraviskivisti, which was printed on a press seized from a Jewish owner.
	Oh my god, their whole business model is based on Nazism.
	That's not good, is it?
	How can they call them truckers Nazis?
	Like me?
	Before I called someone a nuts, you are a... Wait a minute, did any of my family ever steal a printing press from Jewish folks during the... Oh yeah, no, we did do that.
	You are not a good person in a variety of ways, but I'm not gonna use shorthand to describe how or why I think you're bad.
	At some point, Freeland decided it was politically useful to present the elder Chomiak as an avowed liberal democrat and the most passionate of Kadian patriots.
	Look at him.
	I mean, he's very passionate now.
	I mean, his hands flinging up in the air.
	He's stamping his jackboots.
	I've never seen anyone more enthusiastic about democracy.
	When Chomiak's history resurfaced in 2017, Freeland claimed it was a bunch of, oh, you guessed it, Russian propaganda.
	And ironically, the Russians were on our side, against the Nazis, so there you go.
	Confusing, isn't it, the old world?
	Okay, we, unlike Christian Freeland, believe in free speech.
	We believe in freedom, we believe in free speech.
	and when freedom and free speech meet, you get FREECH.
	Here's some of your comments and by god have we missed you, you raw beauties, you loyal
	incredible people.
	And this is a good opportunity, if you want to support our work, press the red button and join us.
	But remember, it's much more important that we have your alliance, your loyalty, than your money.
	But if you can afford both, give us it.
	This is from Emma Lemon.
	Amazing episode with Jimmy Dore.
	So much new information, Russell.
	Good on you for getting up and getting on.
	So proud.
	Thanks, Emma Lemon.
	SpaceDream42.
	I really think you need to get Whitney Webb on your channel.
	Can't think of two people who deliver information so well.
	Get us some Webb!
	She'd been on.
	I'm terrified of Whitney Webb.
	She's brilliant, but she actually talks quite a lot about stuff where people get killed.
	She's coming on, though.
	Opicus.
	Glad to have you back, Russell.
	Stay strong, keep broadcasting.
	Thank you.
	We will.
	As long as you support us, we'll be here with you.
	Thunder 1200 joined your Locals Community Day to support your team and you.
	And the truth, we are very grateful for you.
	Thank you very much.
	It's vital that you support us.
	I really, really appreciate you.
	Ashela, how I've missed you, Ashela.
	Thank you so much for this comment.
	Yep, Russell.
	Have Dr. Epstein back, please.
	I like what he's doing.
	We need to get behind academics like him before the Singularity hits.
	If you haven't seen the interview with Robert Epstein yet, Check it out.
	He explains the extraordinary power to curate and control global narratives that, in particular and specifically, Google have.
	Watch it.
	It's amazing.
	This is about Handsome Lee Fang at Critical Thought goes, Thank you, Lee, for doing your best to keep us informed regarding the suffocating corruption that surrounds us.
	And Love in Action says, When Lee Fang said no one is advocating for peace, all that about says it all.
	Stay free!
	Thanks, Love in Action.
	What an extraordinary time we live in.
	Remember, you can send us your comments, become a member of our AwakendWonder community by joining Locals Press.
	That red button.
	Join us there.
	Now, you're going to love this.
	You know that the state and corporate interests are coming for Rumble.
	You saw that the government and big tech platforms communicated about the demonetization of our channel.
	They're coming for Rumble.
	They're coming for X. There's an amazing interview where Joe Biden talks about his concerns about misinformation, and extraordinarily and amusingly, a book that he nearly wrote once.
	You're going to love that bit.
	It's really, really funny.
	But they also talk about their anger at Elon Musk because he won't bomb people or facilitate the bombing of people, even if it might possibly lead to actual Armageddon.
	You're going to love this.
	It's deep.
	It's funny.
	It's brilliant.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the F'ing news.
	Joe Biden's saying there's a lot of misinformation on X. Also the government are attacking him for not allowing them to use Starlink to bomb Russia.
	So who's gonna win?
	The globalist state or Elon Musk?
	Elon Musk?
	Elon Musk is being attacked.
	Oh, why is that?
	Probably as he said something bad.
	Is it some moral or ethical reason?
	Because you know it's moral and ethical.
	It's the state, isn't it?
	Let's have a look at this story where Joe Biden is talking about misinformation on X and the appropriation of Starlink technology for perpetuation of a war.
	In short, Elon Musk did not permit Ukraine to carry out bombing using Starlink technology, literally because it's against their terms and conditions.
	You know some of the things you have to sign when you manage cookies?
	Yeah, manage cookies.
	Allowed to bomb Crimea?
	Oh, I'm going to say no.
	I'm going to say don't bomb Crimea.
	So let's have a look at this story and have a look at the fundamental question.
	Who do you trust?
	Do you trust the legacy media?
	Do you trust the state?
	Do you trust Joe Biden?
	When they say they're looking after you, just give them a bit more power, do you trust them?
	What do you think of these new online builds?
	And let's look at how they're coming for Elon Musk.
	And let's work out together what will be more beneficial for the planet.
	A victory for the state or a victory for Elon Musk?
	What about what Elon Musk has done to Twitter?
	Lowering guardrails against misinformation.
	Does that contribute to it?
	I mean he's changed its name to something more catchy.
	I like that little bird.
	Joe Biden's got to have conversations like this where we know his relationship to technology and indeed reality.
	It's so sort of tenuous.
	He's not gonna make a Yeah, Elon Musk, this almost incomparable genius coming up with tunnels and spaceships and electronic cars and revivifying Twitter, based on a principle that used to be quite important called free speech.
	What's Joe Biden going to say, a man who doesn't know how to make it out of a room that he's just entered?
	Yeah, it does.
	Look, one of the things, as I said to you, when I thought I wasn't going to run, I was going to write a book about the changes taking place.
	What kind of book is Joe Biden going to write on misinformation?
	He's told lies about that fire around his house.
	he's always banging on about Corn Pop.
	Misinformation's always been a hatred of mine.
	When I was in the fire with Corn Pop, as the flames licked up and down Corn Pop's body,
	I'd say, you better not misinform me, you son of a gun.
	You're a bad dude running with those chains.
	Then Hunter came in on his laptop, at least I think it was his laptop.
	He'd been working for Burisma, all on his own credit, of course.
	I mean, Burisma needed him.
	And the three of us just sat around talking about misinformation together.
	The end.
	And most of it's directed over the years for these fundamental changes in society
	by change in technology.
	Gutenberg printing and the printing press changed the way Europeans could talk to one another all the way to today.
	I've actually got a history lesson. There was a Guttenberg press, Europeans could talk
	to each other different, and now it is today. This book's riveting!
	Where do people get their news? They go on the internet.
	They go online.
	Yeah, that's right.
	So are you going to try and control that news and information to stop a dissident population rejecting a government that plainly legislates on behalf of elites?
	Yes.
	And you have no notion.
	Whether it's true or not.
	What, as opposed to the mainstream media and the legacy media where there's never any lies, never any agenda, never any biases?
	I know that you're a sophisticated audience that are not entirely governed by fear.
	What they want is a population that are completely controlled, that only have access to pre-masticated information that's been ground up in Biden's proverbial gob and spat out in front of you as dumb gruel that keeps you Banalized, impotent, castrated and still, never moving, never noticing your change.
	Of course you should have access to a variety of information and then decide for yourself what's true.
	Who else is going to decide?
	You don't trust the mainstream media, do you?
	Record low trust in the mainstream media.
	Quite right, they're liars.
	Record low trust in the government.
	Quite right, they're liars.
	Record low trust in the judiciary.
	Liars, liars, liars.
	And instead of amending those lies, what do they do?
	Oh, if we just deny them access to the truth, then the lies won't seem so bad.
	Brilliant.
	In an interview with ProPublica released on Sunday, President Joe Biden touched upon the technological advancements and their pivotal role in shaping societal discourse and information sharing.
	Though that wasn't how he phrased it.
	This is a book that's worth reading on the subject.
	Seems like most corn, pop, print and press Europeans talk different to each other.
	You don't know what's true on the internet.
	I see a cat playing the piano.
	Can cats play piano?
	I mean, who taught it?
	And where's its thumbs?
	Oh, they have the internet on computers now.
	While discussing Elon Musk's influence over X and its policies, President Biden seems to delve into concerns about misinformation and its prevalence on online platforms.
	Why are they not concerned about Mark Zuckerberg's influence over meta platforms like Facebook and Instagram?
	Because they agree with him.
	That's why.
	Because there was correspondence between Fauci and Zuckerberg.
	Because Zuckerberg said they censored information that was true and debatable.
	That's why that's not a problem.
	You know, asked for a bunch of things to be censored that in retrospect ended up being more debatable or true.
	So there you go.
	You don't need to spend another second debating what this is really about.
	Is it that they don't want you to get misinformation, or is it that they do want you to get misinformation?
	Is it that they want a free and fair press, or is it they want an unfree, unfair press?
	Remember when Joe Biden did that press correspondence dinner?
	They talk about, oh, it's disgusting that these journalists get executed.
	They don't talk about journalists that are in prison.
	They don't talk about Julian Assange.
	If they cared about freedom of information, Julian Assange would be swanning about, releasing information about American war crimes now, instead of banged up in Belmont.
	You don't need to spend any more time working out what the motives of the legacy media and the government are.
	We already know.
	Let me know in the chat, let me know in the comments if you agree.
	While the president, this time at least, stopped short of explicitly calling for censorship, his comments could be interpreted as subtly highlighting concerns around the unregulated nature of online information, potentially opening a gateway to discussions on tighter controls and regulation of internet content.
	What about regulation of information in the legacy media?
	You don't think the legacy media lie?
	You don't think the legacy media have an agenda?
	You don't think the legacy media compile conjecture, rumour, gossip and create narratives about that?
	You don't think that happens?
	You don't think that during the pandemic claims were made that were proven to be distrue?
	You don't think that they censored information about the Wuhan lab leak that increasingly
	seems to be utterly valid.
	You don't think that the mainstream media, the legacy media's primary function is to
	amplify the message of the state and the elites and the powerful.
	You don't think that?
	This is absolute lies, propaganda.
	All this really is is an opportunity to control and break down potential alternative news sources
	because it's inevitable.
	The independent media leads to independent thinking and independent thinking leads to
	the rejection of the corrupt state.
	That's what they're trying to prevent.
	Nothing else.
	You think they care about morality?
	You think they care about your feelings?
	Have a little look at history.
	This year a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction stopping key Biden administration officials from urging tech firms to suppress protected Despite this ruling, Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign plans to continue flagging so-called misinformation to social media platforms, reaching out to social media companies, and working with media outlets to fact-check untruths.
	According to Politico, Biden's campaign will hire hundreds of staffers and volunteers to monitor online platforms as part of this effort.
	The Biden campaign plans to focus its misinformation targeting efforts on leading Republican candidates, Well that's interesting.
	Political opponents.
	How curious.
	Right from the beginning, it's already the agenda is relevant.
	You always have to think, who benefits?
	Who benefits from this?
	Well, we're only looking at Republicans.
	And you are the Democrats.
	And you're only looking at Republicans.
	And you are the Democrats.
	Huh.
	Including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' COVID anti-vaccine rhetoric.
	The Biden campaign's admission that it will be flagging so-called misinformation in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election follows a major censorship controversy that erupted in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election.
	Just three weeks before the 2020 election, a bombshell story alleging that Joe Biden was involved in a corruption scandal was censored by big tech platforms.
	51 former intelligence officials subsequently signed a letter suggesting the story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign and the Biden campaign used this talking point to downplay the story despite the laptop being real.
	It's the same way they do everything.
	Do you remember when Joe Rogan was having the stuff around like what medications he took to deal with his private personal health matters?
	Like 300 doctors signed a petition, many of whom subsequently were proven to not even actually be doctors.
	It's a sort of a playbook of like, this is an annoying voice, what should we do?
	Should we just say something that would mean it would be legitimate to shut that voice down?
	Yeah, let's do that.
	The FBI also warned Facebook about a dump of Russian disinfo just before the Hunter Biden laptop story broke.
	79% of Americans believe truthful coverage of Hunter Biden's laptop would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election.
	Wow.
	Nearly everyone thinks that!
	But it's not just misinformation that Musk is being attacked for, because that is difficult to prove.
	Because truth is complex.
	Because there's a complexity about perspective and opinion and what's true and what's not true.
	Because obviously we could sit here now and in the comments talk about all the ways that Alexei Media have lied throughout the pandemic, throughout the war, throughout history, that that's the function of them, that they censor information that's true, that they amplify and plant information that's not true.
	We all know that already.
	I know I'm not telling you anything new.
	So they have to attack Musk On multiple fronts.
	And what is one of the other current things that they like to attack people on?
	Why?
	It's the war, of course, the humanitarian yet somehow curiously profitable war between Ukraine and Russia.
	Of course, Elon Musk's Starlink technology, which, you know, I feel like it's his, and isn't he giving Ukraine like a super good deal or something?
	Well, anyway, he's apparently not doing enough, even though he's doing more than everyone else, and apparently he's prohibiting as many bombings as they'd like to have.
	So let's have a look at that, because that's another reason they're attacking him.
	So I just mentioned Elon Musk, one of the tech executives in this space.
	He's also involved in quite a lot of other things, and there have been some reports recently about his involvement in the war in Ukraine and the way that his control of this Starlink, basically internet technology there, plays a huge role in that war.
	Does Elon Musk have veto power, basically, in the Ukraine conflict right now?
	Well, look, no one is supposed to make foreign policy for the United States other than the United States government.
	And Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, to a certain extent, and possibly NATO, and the people involved in the 2014 coup, and a set of interests that ultimately control us through the deep state.
	But I don't think Elon Musk's one... Let me just...
	No, he's not on there.
	It is not up to one billionaire to go off in secret.
	We need several billionaires that have been supporting us for generations now.
	All come together with a common goal of a unipolar world and depleting our enemies' resources while using Ukraine's legitimate grievances against a historic foe to deplete their own population and set up a BlackRock-sponsored dystopian tech superstate afterwards.
	And unless Elon Musk's on board with that, he can just F off.
	and change our foreign policy. I think we need an investigation, both from the Department
	of Defense and from Congress, to look into the arrangement with Elon Musk and his company.
	You need an investigation alright, but you're going to have to prohibit where it goes, because
	if you actually spend some time investigating the activity of power, the machinations of
	power, the deals between corporate interests, I think the revelations might necessitate
	the dismantling of the entire military industrial complex and the whole of the deep state.
	That would give him the ability to, in effect, turn off or restrict in any way access For Ukraine or anyone else.
	This is brilliant because Elizabeth Warren is one of those sort of moral politicians, isn't she?
	She's one of those ones of like, you know, I'm here helping people but let's deal with these hardships and we need a fairer society.
	But literally what she's saying now is we only want deals with tech billionaires.
	millionaires that will follow the whims of the military-industrial complex. Unless you
	still believe that the role of the United States military-industrial complex is a humanitarian
	project. If you think that at Lockheed Martin's quarterly business dealings when they're saying
	it's looking like a good few years coming up, what they mean is because we're going
	to help so many children in Kiev. If you think that's what's running Lockheed Martin and
	Raytheon, then I don't know that this is the channel for you. I'm surprised you've stayed
	with us this long. If you have grave doubts about even apparently principled and moral
	politicians like Elizabeth Warren essentially wanting to censor and control Elon Musk,
	Because he's not quick enough to bomb Russia, potentially leading to a third world war, leading to absolute Armageddon.
	I mean, when Musk commented on this, he was like, oh, I was a bit dubious about it, because didn't Putin publicly state that if that happens, they're going to retaliate with nuclear arms?
	I mean, wouldn't that?
	This is the news!
	Why are CNN going, are you not a bit concerned that actually what you're asking Elon Musk to do is use his technology to facilitate an amplification of a conflict that will lead to a war?
	Did we ever vote on this?
	I mean, did the American population want this?
	Do the American population want their tax dollars spent on the Hawaii disaster, their own infrastructure, schools, legal system, education and health?
	Or do they want to continue to fund this war?
	And do you think that there's a crisis of trust in institutions like the media and like the government?
	Now they can't have that conversation because that conversation leads to these conclusions.
	No, you can't trust the media.
	No, you can't trust the government.
	This war is not a humanitarian war.
	This is a money laundering operation, obviously, because that's what they do.
	And Elon Musk is bloody inconvenient because he's operating on a different pathway.
	He's on a different pathway.
	He's not like, OK, whatever you need.
	Whereas many of the other billionaires that exist within that Strata are utterly compliant. So the problem with Elon Musk
	is not, Elon why don't you bomb Crimea when we ask? The problem with Elon Musk is that he
	will not obey. And contravention of specific policies of the United States of America. How can
	the news be, here's two people that don't like Elon Musk saying they don't like Elon Musk for a
	variety of reasons. The legacy media don't like Elon Musk because he represents a free speech platform
	X that will house counter narratives to the mainstream media who are losing ground radically and
	rapidly and necessarily. That's why Joe Biden is there saying oh we need to shut down
	misinformation because people trust online platforms more than they trust legacy media, quite rightly
	in my opinion. And Elizabeth Warren recognizes that in Elon Musk they have a person that's not
	being corralled into the mentality of neoliberalist bullshit.
	So, you can't just say that's the news.
	Hello, here's the news.
	Now some people who don't like Elon Musk saying they don't like Elon Musk.
	Firstly, a guy that went to school with Elon Musk.
	What do you think?
	Well, I never liked Elon Musk at school.
	He spilled a slushie over my legs, that son of a bitch, and now he won't bomb Crimea.
	Over here now is another person with a grudge against Elon Musk.
	I invented that car, and then Elon Musk got all the money.
	Anyone else got a grudge against Elon Musk?
	Here's the weather presented to you by someone who doesn't like Elon Musk.
	It's gonna be raining all over Elon Musk today, at least I fucking hope so.
	Those foreign policy decisions are not subcontracted off to one billionaire.
	They belong to the federal government and the federal government that represents all of the American people.
	That's right, because that's what the government is, as we all know.
	It represents the American people.
	Like when you, the American taxpayer, you were doing your job, weren't you?
	Whatever it is, you were doing your job, and then you went, what I want for half of this money is to make sure it goes to causing World War 3.
	Remember when you voted for that and when you decided it?
	That's what she just said.
	She just said that.
	You watched her say it on the news.
	And of course, the person doing the news don't go, no one's ever said they wanted this war.
	There's been a massive campaign, a complete immersive campaign to present you with a reality.
	And then whenever anyone goes, whoa, whoa, whoa, how did we What about that coup in 2014?
	What about NATO infringement on former Soviet terrorists?
	YOU!
	ARGH!
	MISINFORMATION!
	MISINFORMATION!
	And when one billionaire has the pluck, moxie and guts to not bomb Crimea in case it causes Armageddon, he's the problem.
	Senator Jack Reed is leading an aggressive probe into Elon Musk and SpaceX's role in the American war industry.
	Probes already, huh?
	You don't have to do it aggressively.
	What's going on in there?
	The investigation stems from an incident where SpaceX declined a request from the Ukrainian government to extend the range of Starlink for an attack on Russia.
	That incident has been widely misreported as Musk ordering SpaceX to deactivate Starlink to thwart the Ukrainian attack.
	When the news don't suit them, they change the news to make it more convenient.
	Well, he didn't do that, actually.
	What he did was he said that he's not going to extend it.
	Well, that doesn't sound that bad.
	What if we said he sort of switched it off to thwart Ukrainians?
	Maybe we could say that he On Thursday, Senator Reid said his committee had launched an aggressive probe of Musk.
	I don't like hearing aggressive probe of Musk to give it to you because it makes me think of a gland that's going to go... Stop Musk!
	Keep probing.
	Stop Musk!
	The committee is aggressively probing this issue from every angle.
	Grow up.
	Neither Elon Musk nor any private citizen can have the last word when it comes to US national security.
	What?
	U.S.
	national security?
	I thought it was a humanitarian war in order to aid Ukrainian people who are under a criminal invasion from Russia.
	When did it become an issue of U.S.
	national security?
	It's not the last word, actually.
	It's an opportunity to have some more words.
	I think what would more likely be the last word would be this.
	Yes, you can bomb Crimea.
	That!
	The word Crimea!
	Oh no, we said don't do that, look, now we use all the buttons.
	It's not the last word, it's a word, it's a conversation.
	So do you see how the censorship issue that Joe Biden's talking about, misinformation and X, and the controlling of the facilities that evidently belong to Elon Musk, and he has the right to say you can use it in this way or you can use it in that way, and I'll, you know, let me go on a limb here.
	I personally think it's a good idea not to provoke Russia into a nuclear war because, you know, we'll all die.
	So, In a sense, why is that being presented as the issue and the problem?
	And look at this, like, perfectly reasonable people on CNN.
	Kind, good-natured, care about people, like one of them soup kitchen politicians, like Elizabeth Warren.
	It's Christmas Day and Elizabeth Warren is in the soup kitchen.
	What's she got to say?
	We better be able to bomb Russia when the hell we like!
	Oh, okay.
	Keep the bread roll.
	Starlink is a product offered by SpaceX that allows users to connect to the internet by connecting to satellites in low orbit.
	The system was designed to provide internet for civilian uses.
	However, SpaceX does allow Kiev to use the system to allow for communication with the Ukrainian military.
	After the Russian invasion of Kiev, Musk provided Starlink to Ukraine free of charge.
	So he's actually, like, who else is doing that?
	I mean, he's doing more than anyone.
	And you can use Starlink free of charge.
	Boo!
	Boo!
	I said we want to bomb Crimea, you bastards!
	You goddamn Grinch!
	You're a goddamn Grinch is what you are!
	You're the Grinch who stole Armageddon, you goddamn Grinch!
	Boo!
	I said they could have freedom.
	Boo!
	No, they're saying... Boo earns!
	Boo earns!
	In fact, I'm going to use that incident to troll you on... Wait there a minute.
	On X. Elon Musk.
	X. Boo!
	You bastard!
	You don't get the last word on me, you son of a gun!
	Still, the media and politicians have used this incident to attack Musk.
	You can't trust the government.
	You can't trust the media.
	Can you trust the IRS?
	Do you know that the IRS October 15th tax deadline, well it's right around the corner, you know how numbers work, well maybe you don't, that's why you need help.
	So if you're scrambling, thinking about those estimated payments, oh no what are they?
	Expense write-offs and messy deductions, I've got a recommendation for you.
	The attorneys at Tax Network USA, they've been absolute lifesavers for many and their team has successfully saved clients over 1 billion in tax debts.
	So whether you're in the hole for $10,000 or staring at a $10,000,000 debt, I hope you're not, they're ready to help you now.
	And hey, no judgement, even if you haven't filed in one year, five years, or a whole decade, they're equipped to secure the best settlement for you.
	They literally, they don't mind.
	They're gonna help you.
	Judging you!
	So before the tax law runs out give taxnetworkusa.com forward slash brand a shout.
	That's taxnetworkusa.com forward slash brand.
	Link is in the description.
	Now let's get back to seeing whether we trust the state and the legacy media more than good old Elon Musk.
	A letter issued by Senators Jean Shaheen, Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Duckworth suggests Musk deactivated Starlink at the behest of the Kremlin.
	There's no evidence from his account that SpaceX's decision was due to the Kremlin's urging.
	It's not like the Democrats have ever accused their opponents of being involved with the Kremlin.
	Oh no, they do that whenever they disagree with anybody.
	Ah, Russia!
	So remember at the beginning of this video we had Joe Biden saying about X and how X and the internet, you know, it's bad, a lot of disinformation.
	Then there's people just saying, you know why Elon Musk did that?
	Not because, you know, he never offered that service in the first place and maybe didn't want to facilitate Armageddon.
	He did it because of Putin, because of the Kremlin.
	How long before they produced pee tapes?
	Ah!
	They'll just say whatever they have to say to achieve whatever they want to achieve.
	That is misinformation.
	There's no evidence at all.
	Why don't we just say Russia made them do it?
	Oh, but it's not... Oh, yeah, of course.
	Yeah, we're not bothered about truth, are we?
	We're bothered about achieving the ends we want to achieve.
	SpaceX's terms of service explain that due to US law, Stalin cannot be used to carry out military attacks.
	You know another word they use for senators and congresspeople?
	Lawmakers.
	You'd think that a lawmaker would know the law.
	They go, well obviously it was against the law to ask him to do that.
	Not jump straight to, the Kremlin made him do that!
	It was against the law!
	Don't you know that?
	Don't you know that it's actually against the law?
	Why are you even asking Elon Musk to break the law?
	You're supposed to actually be the people that create the law and then observe it and preserve it.
	Yeah, but we don't actually do that, do we?
	Additionally, Musk said that his concern was that Russia would escalate to nuclear war, not that he did not want Russian ships destroyed.
	The law doesn't want to lead to Armageddon.
	I mean, who's side are you on?
	Remember, at the beginning, we asked you.
	The state?
	Well, look at the state, and then Elon Musk.
	It seems like what Elon Musk is saying is, it's against the law, it's not in our terms of services, we never said we were going to do it in the first place, and I'm concerned that it will lead to Armageddon.
	And what's the counter-argument against, I'm concerned it will lead to Armageddon?
	It might not lead to Armageddon!
	Oh yeah, I've not thought about that.
	By the way, all four senators have suggested reviewing SpaceX's contract with the government as a result of the incident.
	Let me look at that contract.
	I can't believe we would do a deal that stopped us starting Armageddon.
	Let me see the small... Oh no, it does say that.
	Rewrite that.
	Rewrite Read said the committee would look at the broader satellite market government contracting and the outsized role Mr. Musk and his company have taken.
	They want to financially penalize him of course because he won't immediately bomb who they want him to when they say he should.
	Amazing.
	Meanwhile, elsewhere, misinformation.
	Twitter.
	Do you see how completely untrue realities can be presented to you as entirely truthful just by creating, curating, generating information And then shutting down alternatives.
	Whoa whoa whoa, that's not true, excuse me, that's not true.
	Senators Warren, Duckworth and Shaheen suggest SpaceX holding defence contracts pose a threat to national security.
	It poses grave national security risk if DoD contractors are able to independently act to abrogate their provision of services, the letter says.
	That would be a reasonable argument, if the roles were flipped.
	Imagine if Elon Musk was facilitating a bombing that the United States government was saying should not happen because it might escalate a conflict and Elon Musk went I'm doing it anyway.
	You'd go oh my god this is out of control.
	Now on this channel we've numerous times let you know about our concerns about the relationship between the state and big tech and these new online security bills are obviously a great apex of this moment where the state are now finally able to use big tech in a way that means that they are going to be able to increase their ability to observe and control You.
	But this situation here, oddly, is an example of where a big tech billionaire and magnate is making a more sensible, moral, strategic decision for the safety of the world, I would say.
	I mean, I don't know.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Maybe you've got a counter argument.
	No, no, no, you're out of line there, Russell.
	Because, of course, if you were able to freely bomb Crimea at will, then that would what?
	I don't want to be facetious here, but I don't see a reality where Russia are not a nuclear superpower that have a long history of fighting to the bitter end of conflicts.
	I just don't see that version, but maybe Elizabeth Warren and CNN can explain that, or at least distract me from it for long enough for us all to just be picking our children's bones out of nuclear ash.
	We are deeply concerned with the ability and willingness of SpaceX to interrupt their service at Mr. Musk's whim.
	It's not whimsy to prevent Armageddon.
	And for the purpose of handcuffing a sovereign country's self-defense, effectively defending Russian interest.
	I'm astonished by their use of language.
	A nation's interest.
	Everything that you can learn from this story unravels the truth of all that has preceded it.
	Remember, we've been told that all that America is doing is providing aid to an ally, that America don't benefit from this situation, that America aren't trying to deplete Russian resources or create a unipolar world or facilitate profit of the military-industrial complex, or indeed don't have We have relationships with tech or military industrial complex companies that could influence their decisions and abilities.
	We're only noticing this extraordinarily because they've been countenanced with a view that prevents them from pursuing the trajectory they would like to, i.e.
	an escalation of conflict, as people have said elsewhere, like Tucker, to a hot war with Russia.
	It shows you that plainly relationships exist where there is collaboration between deep state, visible government and corporations.
	We're only talking about this because someone prevented them from doing what they wanted to do.
	That's why we're having a big disinformation, misinformation debate.
	That's why independent media channels are being attacked and shut down.
	Because what they want is complete control over the public sphere so they can just lie and say stuff like, oh, the Kremlin told Elon Musk to do that.
	And if no one else is able to go, well, is there any evidence of that?
	And look at what Elon Musk is saying on X or look at what people are saying on Rumble.
	If you don't have those options, And pretty soon, unless you're careful, unless we're careful, unless we stay awake, that is what they're trying to generate.
	They're trying to generate a state where dissent is impossible.
	You saw what's been going on for the last couple of years.
	Dissent, conversation even, is becoming delegitimized.
	This is where it takes place.
	Elon Musk is not being attacked because of misinformation, malinformation, etc.
	Elon Musk is being attacked because they cannot control him.
	And if they don't control him, he is a threat.
	And they have to shut that threat down.
	So, who do you believe?
	The state, or Elon Musk?
	Who, curiously, do you think has your best interests at heart?
	I mean, I can't even believe I'm actually saying this!
	The government, or a private billionaire?
	A privately, independently wealthy billionaire?
	You're gonna have to decide for yourself, but due to my recent experiences, I've got to tell you, I do not trust the legacy media, I do not trust the state, I know you don't either, and you're right not to trust them because they're liars.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	see you in a second! So there we have it.
	Who do you trust more?
	Your taxpayer dollar funded government or an eccentric billionaire who appears not to want to induce an apocalypse?
	Let us know in the chat.
	Let us know in the comments.
	And if it's within your means, press the red button, become a part of this movement.
	This is the time where we have to gather together in strength, power and unity against the serious threats that are being opposed to our freedom.
	All of our freedom.
	And what a perfect time it is to be introducing Richard Hananya.
	He's been on the show before.
	He's a writer, researcher, president of the Centre of the Study in Partisanship and Ideology.
	If you want to see him, you're going to have to join us over on Rumble.
	Click the link in the description.
	I'm going to be asking a lot of questions about the culture war, the actual war, censorship, surveillance, and the funding of the policies that shape the world, geopolitically, ideologically, all of it.
	Thanks again, Richard.
	It's lovely to see you.
	Great to be here.
	Good to see you too, Russell.
	You've got a new book.
	This is that book.
	It's called The Origins of Woke, Civil Rights, Law, Corporate America and the Triumph of Identity Politics.
	I'm actually interested in this subject because of the, I have to say at this point, superficial connection between woke politics And compassion and kindness and values that I'm actually, broadly speaking, sympathetic towards.
	One might think at a glance that the woke movement is about permitting people to be who they are, being respectful of people's individual freedom and ability to identify how they want to, and therefore decentralizing power, allowing people more freedom of expression, which would include, of course, Free speech, the ability to openly communicate and openly disagree.
	So tell me, mate, what is it that, you know, in particular about the origins of woke, and what is your take on how I superficially described what wokeness probably believes itself to be?
	Yeah, you get at something important, Russell.
	And one of the things I stress in the book is, first of all, a lot of what we call wokeness today did come from the law.
	A lot of this stuff was requirements from government that said classify people by race, count the number of men and women you have, even down to what jokes you can tell in the workplace.
	They could be potentially subject to to lawsuits, how men and women can flirt, you know, what words you can use, how you'd have to walk on eggshells on racial issues.
	The HR industry in the 1960s and 70s really takes off in response to civil rights law because you needed a full-time cadre of managers just to comply with the law, just to know what you were allowed and not allowed to do.
	And so, yeah, I mean, you know, if Wokeness sees itself as sort of letting individuality and different communities sort of flourish, it's quite the opposite.
	I mean, there are there are decrees coming from Washington, D.C.
	and from, you know, lawyers and courts that are telling people how to behave.
	This is sort of just a new role for the American government, something that really didn't exist before the 1960s.
	And the book argues that it's that a lot of the problems we see today culturally are sort of downstream of these laws that are decades old.
	So in a sense, broadly and certainly personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was
	important, significant, necessary, powerful.
	It was for people of color, for people that are gay.
	It was, in a sense, a real high point, a potential turning point culturally that could have led
	to more individual and more cultural freedom.
	I think you need the hardest of hearts not to be somewhat inspired by the anti-war movement
	around Vietnam, the anti-draft movement, the inspiring figures that emerged, the Kennedys,
	the Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, powerful advocates for freedom, people that were willing
	to stand up and, in the cases of those that I just itinerated, die because of their anti-establishment
	positions and views.
	How did something that was plainly anti-authoritarian, because it believed authority to be fundamentally
	corrupt, become pro-authoritarian?
	you.
	Yeah, I mean, it's definitely true that we shouldn't see the civil rights movement as all bad.
	I mean, the Civil Rights Act was a big law that had a major impact on American society.
	And, you know, first of all, it did some very good things.
	It ended state-enforced racial discrimination.
	So the Jim Crow laws in the South that said whites can only go here, blacks can only go there.
	You know, there was laws on the books in many states where women just couldn't do certain jobs.
	It got rid of that.
	So in many ways, it did expand freedom.
	Unfortunately, it didn't just stop there.
	I mean, there was always within the civil rights movement, there was a sort of pro-liberty forces, but there were also communists involved in the civil rights movement.
	There were also authoritarians.
	And they adopted sort of a language of colorblindness, the language of freedom as a PR tactic.
	They went over the country with that.
	And there was overwhelming support for the Civil Rights Act when it was passed.
	But most, you know, most Americans looked at that and said, OK, you know, we had a problem.
	We took care of it.
	But then, you know, the activists kept going.
	And there were people basically overnight, just within the next few years, who wanted racial quotas,
	who wanted to go to private industry and say, you have to hire this many people.
	We need evidence of statistical discrimination.
	So yeah, I mean, I don't say the Civil Rights Act was the root of all problems,
	or civil rights themselves were the root of our problems.
	I specifically say civil rights law, because there are a series of legal interpretations,
	executive orders, judicial decisions, that set us on this path to now where basically
	government is running people's day-to-day lives.
	In a sense, it's excessive bureaucratic overreach that denies the possibility of individual
	and communal freedom that's curiously antithetical to the stated and explicit aims
	of that civil rights movement, certainly before it was formulated and legislated
	for where one might assume just by glancing at the, Ephemera and culture created at that time that it was about a kind of flowing acceptance of humankind's broad optimism.
	And in a sense, I suppose, old hippie that I am, that what I still find alluring is that it was a movement predicated on love.
	Why are we, why ought we regard one another openly?
	Because of love.
	Because that the ultimate power in the universe ought be a unity What I suppose is curious is that these ideas of bureaucracy that ostensibly benefits definitely historically and potentially continually persecuted groups or individuals is being used to the advantage of curiously powerful institutions
	And I sense, and this would be my point, that they don't actually care about the issues that they claim to, that it's in fact a type of smokescreen that allows new legislation, that allows new division, that allows people to be extracted from cultural discourse, that there's no actual legitimacy.
	In short, I don't think they care about the environment, I don't think they care about gender politics.
	I don't think they care about identity.
	I think they care about power.
	And I think that this is simply a vehicle for views, not views, for legislation and regulation that would otherwise be rejected as overtly authoritarian.
	Yeah, I mean, there's, you know, a couple of ways to look at it.
	I do believe that businesses and, you know, venture capital and all these so powerful forces in society do act in their own interests.
	I guess, you know, you could either classify that as they're doing something to gain power or they're sort of just doing something to avoid, you know, problems with the government.
	A lot of this stuff was sort of adopted reluctantly.
	the government came to institutions, for example, the Ivy League universities, and said,
	we want racial quotas, basically, we want to know if you're hiring enough women and minorities.
	And a lot of these institutions like Columbia University, the story I tell in my book,
	says that we don't even collect that data. We're a university. We're not going to go out and start
	counting people by race and sex. And eventually, they're threatened, they're browbeaten by the
	government, and then they give in, and then they give into it. So you can't generalize about
	motives behind everyone who is involved with sort of pushing wilderness.
	There's some people who certainly are true believers.
	There's some people who are just doing what they think is in the best interest of their business.
	I think that, like, one thing I emphasize in the book is the extent to which sort of, you know, our minds have been twisted by this stuff.
	So, for example, just even the ways we classify race in the United States.
	There's, you know, like corporations really, really care about how many Hispanics they have, right?
	But this category of Hispanics really didn't exist before the 1960s, before the mid to late 1960s or 1970s really.
	You can see that in sort of like use in the English language.
	The word Hispanic, Latino almost didn't exist, right?
	They don't care about, you know, number of Catholics versus number of Protestants versus number of Jews versus number of atheists because they don't collect the religious data.
	You could have imagined, you know, an alternative universe civil rights regime, which was obsessed with religion rather than race.
	Some countries are, you know, a lot more obsessed with religion and public policy than we are.
	But just we became obsessed with race and the way, even the ways we classify race and even the ways we think about race, it becomes real.
	I mean, some people like develop identities based on what government, how government classified them.
	But the thing to stress here is people have all kinds of mixed motivations at the same time.
	They're not even realizing the degree to which even their idealism is shaped by decisions made long ago by far-off government officials.
	Because I feel that, even in the example you gave, that there is an advantage to looking at demographics, and are there economic, historical and social reasons why people from certain communities aren't getting opportunities?
	It's pretty difficult to argue against that fact.
	Pretty plain.
	You look at prison populations, you look at economic considerations.
	But I suppose one of the things that I query is the goal, the objective and vision that's being served.
	Is there a vision that is about uniting people?
	Is there a vision that's about looking for ways that we might form better nations, better communities, overcome differences, live In happy acceptance of one another's distinctions and freedom or does the goal appear to be to exacerbate existing tensions and in a way create opportunity for increased division and therefore the ability, I would say, of certain sectors and institutions to continue to accrue power and influence?
	Yeah, I think it's I think it's more the latter.
	I mean, there's no there is no sense in sort of people who are into wokeness, who are into pushing the frontiers of civil rights law, that there is like some steady state we're evolving to.
	There's no one regulation.
	Okay, like men, you know, can say this to women, or like, you need this percentage of blacks, and then like, we're done.
	Right, there's there's just sort of no end point.
	So it's always that's why there's always innovation based on top of innovation.
	So first, it's you can't discriminate and so you can't hire blacks, you can't refuse to hire blacks, then it becomes statistical discrimination.
	Okay, you know, if you, you know, if you give a test, and one group does better than the other, that's also a problem.
	First, you want parity.
	Even if you do achieve parity, like for example, women are more likely to graduate from college
	in the United States, and I think in the UK too, than men are.
	Women are still oppressed on college campuses.
	We still need all these laws against, these regulations against flirting,
	the broad definition of sexual assault.
	These, you know, campus tribunals, women are treated as oppressed because they, you know, they don't play as many sports because they're not interested in sports.
	So, like, civil rights law, like, really tries to get women, you know, more women playing sports or, you know, leading to the cancellation of certain men's sports.
	The fact that women do better and more likely to graduate than men or, you know, they're actually overrepresented in things like student government and, like, music and other areas of life.
	It doesn't matter.
	There is a narrative being pushed by law, which is that whites, men, are the advantaged ones.
	And basically, they're going to keep going and expanding the definition of discrimination.
	And you can't even ask them for a vision.
	What does it look like when it's all over?
	When are we done with this thing?
	So yeah, it's a very bleak outlook.
	It divides the country, and that's why I wrote the book.
	I want people to sort of see the roots of this stuff in law, and that's the way potentially to push back on it too.
	I wonder if it's possible to derive from a materialistic and rationalist perspective that is guided by principles of bureaucracy and top-down control.
	I wonder if this is a paradigm that can deliver a better society because it seems to be devoided of actual moral principle.
	Whilst there is this sort of rhetorical inference of fairness and equality and redressing historic wrongs, all things that appear and seem to me, these are the aspects of wokeness that I feel like, oh yeah, that's beneficial, there should be, yeah, God, absolutely, of course the world should be as fair and as just and as open as possible.
	What I sense is that there aren't Spiritual principles at the core of perhaps either wokeness or anti-wokeness.
	What concerns me is that there isn't a... What's the prognosis?
	And I recognize that this is what your book is in part about, Richard.
	In a way, what is it in human evolution that tells us that we should be living in centrally organized communities of 300 million people trying to Bustle along according to a set of ideals that are plainly now no longer applicable.
	Let me take it to a sort of very obvious and macro argument that, you know, in 2024, will it be Trump versus Biden?
	Will it be Gavin Newsom versus Vivek Ramaswamy?
	Who knows?
	But it's very difficult to envisage an election where, on the day after, there is a happy and mutual celebration Of a democracy's job well done, it's likely to be, you stole the election, it was Russian interference.
	No, you stole the election, it was because of 40-vote emissions.
	So, in a way, do you not feel that, in a sense, what we are observing are the symptoms of a model that no longer can function?
	What is the advantage for the ordinary American The ordinary French person, Senegalese person, English person, Finnish person of living in a centralised state where you are heavily taxed, heavily controlled by sets of institutions that plainly now no longer represent your interests.
	Yeah, I mean there's a lot there.
	I think, you know, you'd like the last chapter of my book where I talk really about, you know, sort of the decentralization of social policy.
	Look, you know, I wouldn't go so as far to say sort of the nation-state, you know, is too big and it's failed.
	I think it has many advantages that you really, you know, don't notice until it's gone.
	Like, you know, the fact that, you know, we can You know, we can trade with, you know, all these people, you know, there's wealth advantages, there's economies of scale.
	But there is a sense where we don't need and, you know, it's sort of becoming dysfunctional to have a centralized government to this extent.
	And that is, you know, like in social engineering.
	I mean, I think it's clear that you ask any conservative or any liberal, anybody on either side of the culture war, Like, do you believe there is coming one day where you can just defeat your enemies?
	Like, one day, you know, liberals will have, you know, trans, you know, you know, complete trans acceptance, or the conservatives believe they're going to set up, like, a Christian theocracy or anything like that.
	I think both sides know that, like, things are getting just more bitter and more divided.
	And, like, even if one side wins the next election, gets 51% of the vote, The other side's going to be in control of other states and other locales, and they're going to push back, and we're going to fight these things out in the courts, and we're going to fight these things out in the media.
	It's just sort of a pessimistic vision if you assume that we have to have a national culture where basically social policy and all these other things come from Washington.
	It's sort of a winner-take-all system.
	And what pushing back against civil rights law is about is, you know, I'm not giving people like, you know, a theology or telling them, you know, this is the way you live.
	You know, I say very explicitly, like, I don't like what civil rights law does.
	It says, you know, this is how you date.
	This is how you flirt.
	This is the kinds of tests you can use for employment.
	These are the kinds of tests you can't use.
	This is the kind of work environment you can have.
	Maybe some of them you can, you know, you can have this sort of like club, like festive atmosphere.
	Maybe some of them could be buttoned down.
	You know, people can make these choices.
	That's all I want.
	Right.
	And, you know, I think we, I think, you know, we get there.
	I think that will take just a lot of the sort of the anger and the hatred out of public life.
	It's curious because metropolitanism and cosmopolitanism include the idea, I think even in their most general understanding, of actually different cultures living harmoniously in acceptance of those differences.
	And when you think of the broad archetypes that might be presented through fantasy fiction, like Tolkien or sci-fi, The idea that there are different, distinct communities with entirely different foods and values and these people believe this very strongly and these people believe this.
	We find it kind of delightful.
	In a sense, this is, I believe, a problem of globalism.
	suddenly the requirements of globalism, which might ultimately be argued to be economic
	considerations and considerations of dominion, demand a kind of hegemonic space in order
	to function. So suddenly if you have a World Cup in Qatar, where it's economically apocyte
	to hold it there, I'm talking about the soccer World Cup, you know, hold it in the winter,
	we're going to hold it there. Now we have to look at Qatar's human rights record and
	the number of people that died constructing the stadia and indeed this tolerated, this
	fated tolerance and this idea of actual diversity. If at some point you don't, as you have said,
	say whether it's a nation or a workplace, say, well, it appears that these people eat
	this food and don't eat this food and believe in these values and worship this God or don't
	worship God, unless you arrive at that point, what is what's going to happen?
	War?
	Yeah, right.
	I mean, I love the sci-fi point.
	I mean, these sort of fantasy worlds, they get at something deep in human nature.
	And the way multiculturalism is sold is also sort of, you know, harkens to that, right?
	It's like, you know, we have these people wear these costumes and they have these different foods.
	But then civil rights law comes along and says sort of, OK, on relations between like fundamental stuff, relations between the sexes, like whether you can prefer your own ethnic group or whatever, we're going to say all these things.
	These are rules that everyone has to apply the same way.
	You know, it's an interesting question, because, you know, the decentralization, and you bring up the example of Qatar, you know, I would differentiate, because what Qatar, I think, or what some of these countries do in the developing world, or in Qatar's case in the rich world, is that they sort of, you know, they're doing sort of their version of civil rights law, but they're imposing it on their own society, right?
	So, you know, I'm not the kind of person, I'm not a complete cultural relativist, right?
	I don't think, like, if you stone women to death or something, you know, that's just your culture.
	That's fine.
	Doesn't mean we should go to war with these people.
	But, you know, I am comfortable saying that, you know, there is, we can criticize that.
	But when it comes to, like, yeah, I think the right to exit is very important to me.
	Right, living in our own society, right?
	If you have this Amish community, and they want to have, you know, very, very traditional gender roles, and you know, people can theoretically, and it's not like society has to go out of its way, okay, we're going to give you if you leave, you know, you have to sort of, it has to be sort of on your own, we can't just have like, you know, we leave, we, you know, we pay for everything, we take care of you.
	But as long as you know, as long as you have sort of some degree of choice, and you're not bothering anyone else, and you're not forcing people into it, Yeah, I mean, this is what we should be aiming for because, you know what, we are different.
	I mean, I think that's what we've learned.
	I think that's what the culture war teaches us.
	We have deeply, deeply different instincts and just beating someone over the head and saying, you know, you're a bigot and we're going to censor your views and, you know, you're not allowed to speak these things or, you know, talk like that.
	It doesn't work.
	That's the lesson of the last, you know, 20 years, 20 years or more of the culture war.
	And yeah, we just need creative thinking into how to move to something better.
	In a way, it suggests to me, and this sort of helps us conveniently, almost like I know what I'm doing for a living, segue into another aspect of your writing and your purview, seems to me that what is required is something that I was discussing when I was recently in the United States and I went on shows like Ben Shapiro's, who's obviously orthodox in his religious perspective and conservative in
	his social views and Tucker Carlson who again seems to me just to be sort of an ultra
	kind of liberal man with a spiritual perspective of anything on social issues. What I said to
	them both was are you would you be and do you advocate for social systems with the condition
	that you just outlined Richard of like no one should be held in a community they don't want to be
	in obviously where if you take the views that you most organize around and say an obvious one
	being their position on pro-life and pro-choice in the you know in particular with Ben Shapiro.
	I said, like, would you be willing to advocate for decentralized power, community democracy, and almost be on a platform with people that were pro-choice, even though he's sort of avowedly pro-life?
	If you recognize that what you ultimately would have is when it comes to sort of cultural social issues is democracy the ability to determine locally as locally as possible what the policies would be.
	I recognize there are sort of points where that might get become an issue because gosh,
	I guess any of us would want some sort of intervention in the advent of a child being
	at risk or in danger or anyone being at risk or in danger.
	But I suppose we have laws for child abuse and violence.
	Those laws are already in place.
	And I guess in a sense, we've already tackled that.
	But what I feel like I'm trying to say, mate, is that you have to maximize democracy and
	let go of the idea that there's going to be some sort of central ideology that's going
	to be imposed on people.
	Otherwise, you're in some forever war.
	And it seems that forever wars, whether they're military or cultural, are advantageous to
	elites.
	So that's something I'm going to leave on the table.
	But are you willing, for example, with your most cherished beliefs, to say, I fully accept that elsewhere people may oppose them and choose to vote against them?
	Yeah, I mean, I, you know, understand that my preferences are not everyone's preferences.
	And I understand that there's going to be different communities that adopt different things.
	You know, I also believe, you know, one of the one of the things about this is that I believe my ideas are right.
	So I believe that like, when you have freedom, like you can sort of learn from history, right?
	Like, you know, I'm not a communist, I think markets are good.
	So if you want to have a local, you know, area that, you know, has some kind of, you know, socialist system, I think that people are going to see that that doesn't work and that people are going to want to either move to something else or move to other areas, or they're going to want to change their system.
	This happens all the time.
	This is, you know, cultural evolution.
	I saw the story that Chicago was thinking about, they don't have, because they won't take care
	of their crime problem.
	Walmart and all these stores are closing down, so there are no grocery stores.
	So the city's going and saying, well, let's open our own city-run grocery stores.
	And I'm like, OK, this experiment has been tried before.
	Maybe we need reminders.
	Maybe it's been too long since the Soviet Union collapsed.
	And who knows?
	Maybe they'll prove me wrong.
	Maybe state-run grocery stores will be better than Walmart, and people will see that, and then other cities
	I doubt it.
	You know, I have confidence that, you know, the market system is better at delivering groceries.
	But no, it's not a, you know, it's not a, you know, it's not a great crime against humanity or a great problem if they try it because, like always, we just learn from these things.
	I suppose in the Walmart and State Run store example is kind of one of the points I imagine in Wokeness that say woke folk would say that The culture is built on all sorts of unquestioned assumptions around whiteness and maleness that have not been investigated or interrogated and have inbuilt in them prejudices and biases that are never properly evaluated and therefore having those those values interrogated
	is important and valuable and if you take the example there of sort of walmart and the sort of inbuilt advantages that walmart have because of their sort of purchasing power their ability to pay relatively low wages and sort of i'm assuming opposed to sort of meaningful union movements and sort of sort of the built-in obsolescence models and the kind of my these are not investigated ideas but my assumption is that walmart in order to keep prices low engage in some practices that are probably ultimately not that beneficial if you look at your role, if
	your relationship with Walmart as one beyond a consumer of their products. And in a way,
	why would you want anything else from Walmart except Walmart do not exist in a vacuum and their
	practices have an impact. And I suppose that I will not a sort of super pro regulation person, but
	what I feel like is there already is regulation and that regulation where it's tax breaks,
	the abilities of corporations to transcend national borders to evade sort of paying for the
	way that the true cost of their businesses means that there is already regulation, even if it's
	regulation, that's the lack of regulation to give you slightly paradoxical
	perspective.
	Yeah, I think we've come sort of full circle.
	I think this goes back to what I was saying at the beginning, in that, like, there are advantages of the nation state.
	We might disagree on the specifics of, like, what regulation, Walmart, you know, what are the good tax rates, you know, what are the good regulations to deal with externalities, which any big, you know, business will inflict on society.
	Yeah, you know, we can discuss these things.
	This is why I think we can't just be completely, you know, anarcho-capitalist, utopian, you know, abolish the state.
	We're going to need the state for some things.
	We're going to need something even as big as the United States of America.
	We'll even need a global system.
	We'll need international treaties and organizations.
	But the stuff, you know, by God, the stuff that really doesn't affect other people, you know, the flirting, the friendships, the, you know, like who you associate with, what kind of environment you have at work.
	Just leave people alone.
	And, you know, our world will be a lot more peaceful.
	Certainly, I feel like that.
	Most people want to be left alone.
	Most people want to be left alone.
	There's a kind of weariness, I sense, like having zeal and evangelism in secular spaces when there are no deep principles that undergird the zeal that you might expect to find in a religious environment is odd.
	It's like it's unbalanced and certainly it's something that, you know, I'm sort of aware of.
	Mate, what's your point with the populism there?
	Do you feel like sort of, because I was reading one of your Substack articles
	and enjoying it, and it seemed that sort of what you're saying is that many people have kind of
	almost frivolously downloaded perspectives that they've acquired from the sort of
	the dispenser of political perspectives, like whether that's a legacy media outlet
	or some online outlet, and they've just sort of acquired, oh, this is what I believe in,
	and it's not being investigated correctly, and what is your point about populism?
	because I've sort of seen advantages myself in populism.
	And I was thinking about when I saw Steve Bannon some years ago say, you know, the future is going to be populist.
	All we're discussing now is whether it's left or right wing populism that succeeds.
	Is it going to be a kind of Sanders or, you know, whatever the next iteration of that type of leftism, if it can be even called that?
	Or is it going to be sort of like a Brexit Trump type, you know, right wing progressivism?
	What's your thoughts on that then?
	Yeah, unquestionably what you're getting at.
	There are healthy aspects of populism.
	I think populism is unavoidable in a sort of mass democracy with communications technology and, you know, we're not, you know, we're not going to a dictatorship or, you know, a monarchy or anything anytime soon.
	It's going to be there.
	It's going to be part of our world.
	It should be channeled in the right direction.
	I think during COVID, I mean, I think we, you know, I'm sure you agree, a lot of the experts just went crazy.
	And a lot of the populist backlash was just like, you know, people didn't have the most sophisticated ideas about epidemiology or the disease.
	But, you know, they saw that, like, people were, you know, the government was really, really interfering with their lives.
	And they pushed back and they said, no, less of this.
	And, you know, you don't have that.
	I think you have something like China, where they did zero COVID for years and years.
	And they finally, you know, when protests came years later, they stopped locking people in their houses whenever there was, you know, even a small outbreak.
	So, you know, I'm glad we have a democracy.
	I'm glad we have some degree of populism that people push back on that and, you know, at least limited how long it was.
	But my point about populism making people's worse is I think that what a lot of populists do, and this is for the right and the left, there's a sort of elite thing where you can have this elitist perspective where people shouldn't have any opinions or any information and they're better to just sort of run their lives.
	There is sort of like another end of the spectrum where you go to the masses and you say, you should become super politicized and like your politics should be part of your identity.
	And both sides will, you know, and it's actually divisive, but both sides will pretend like, you know, they speak for the people.
	So like you have, you know, the right-wing populists who think everyone agrees with them on, you know, transgender issues and critical race theory, which is not true.
	Like they want to ban this stuff.
	It's going to have like a huge, you know, impact.
	You have the left-wing populists who think everyone wants sort of, you know, socialist
	economics and to fight the elites, which is also not true.
	A lot of people are horrified by these things.
	And that's fine.
	People have different opinions.
	I think that when you sort of, when you take these sort of narrow positions and then you
	claim that, like, you know, you are speaking for the people and like, you know, and it
	doesn't, and often doesn't leave room for like, okay, let's compartmentalize our politics.
	You think this or you think I think that on the economics.
	But, you know, my politics is not the main thing of who I am.
	It sort of is for me because, you know, I do this for a living.
	But for ninety nine point something percent of people, their politics is a very small part of their life.
	And, you know, and they can they can deal with other people who have different values as long as they're not talking about, you know, whether the 2020 election was stolen or the vaccine or something like that.
	They can just get along and they can have happy, healthy relationships.
	I don't think it's a coincidence that, you know, you've probably seen the charts where like the, you know, number of people getting married, the number of people like young people, you know, hanging out with friends, seeing people in person, you know, even drinking, getting into fights, like anything that involves a human to human contact has been going down in the last 30 years, um, at least for young people.
	And then the, uh, you know, like interest in politics has sort of become more intense over the, over that time period.
	And I don't think that's a coincidence.
	I think it's become sort of a substitute for life, for relationships, for work, for accomplishing things in your life, for starting families, for having kids, to having meaningful friendships.
	And maybe I'm generalizing too much to put that under the umbrella of populism, but I do see it as related.
	I do see it as making politics central to who people are, and that's what I'm arguing against.
	I feel like a lot of the populism you were describing, a lot of the anti-lockdown populism and everyone suddenly needing to become an expert in epidemiology or whatever, it was a kind of a response, as you've indicated, to government overreach.
	And I was thinking the problem is, in his mind, perspective on this Richard is not necessarily an over-politicization
	of a population but this curious polarity that exists between very atomized and
	individualized lives where actually your role really is to fulfill some economic obligations
	generally speaking in a job that you wouldn't do if you didn't have to and then sort of being an online
	commentator or a conversational pundit participant in cultural issues rather than what
	might be a meaningful type of political engagement for an average person and I'll include myself in
	this is how am I involved in the organization of my community and my family
	What's my role and what's my purpose?
	And I sometimes take recourse to, for hundreds of thousands of years, from For the pre-agricultural incarnation of our kind, we lived necessarily harmoniously in groups of 30 to 100 people, where it was explicit to the point where it needn't be stated that our survival was tethered to cooperation with one another, that our relationship to our environment was evident and necessary for our survival, whether that's through hunting or gathering or small-scale agriculture.
	And I feel that, of course, what I am... I'm not proposing some arcane Rousseauian bounce back to some Neolithic version of life.
	I am so grateful for technology and for medicine and for all of the advances we have.
	But when it's like looking at this kind of hardware of a human being and the kind of cultural groups that we might form, I feel like, are we not neglecting millennia of evidence of like people ought be involved in the
	organization of their lives and when people are totally disenfranchised just sloshing about in some nihilistic
	oh this week we really care about Ukraine that's over now we care about this this week
	right now you've got to have an opinion on this now this is what we're doing like what the fuck's
	it got to do with me I don't even live in this world I don't know
	It's abstract.
	We live in this community.
	These are the 75 relationships that I can fucking handle.
	These are the resources.
	And everything's become so, again, needlessly translocated elsewhere that you're irrelevant.
	And increasingly likely to be irrelevant as culture becomes more and more technologized.
	Technologized to the point where we're just redundant little pods that get shit food pumped in one end and then pharma pumped in at the other end of your life.
	Fuck off to the graveyard.
	You know, there's no actual... Who are you in your life?
	How are you participating in your life?
	What is your value?
	Not some impersonation of a life, but a life that has meaning, you know?
	Yeah, I mean, you know, the outdated hardware problem, you know, that you point to is real.
	You know, it's a sort of consequence, you know, a natural consequence of sort of technological advancement.
	I mean, and, you know, it's, you know, like you can't, you know, you have to Is this the temptation to say, you know, we can only go back just because it's not possible?
	I mean, it's clear people want the modern science, the modern medicine, you know, modern technology, you know, the small groups where, you know, you know, 60 people your whole lives that can be, you can imagine that could be very suffocating.
	Some people like to move to the big city, you know, where they, you know, they can sort of start over, they can have new relationships, they're not, you know, limited by their reputation or what's happened in the past.
	And so, yeah, I mean, there, you know, there is like, there has to be a way to sort of I wonder.
	these things and there has to be a way to sort of, you know, not, you know, some
	groups do reject technology, I mean you have the Amish and stuff, I mean, but
	they're, you know, a small minority and it'll be a very small number of people
	who will ever do that. The rest of us have to sort of, you know, hopefully use
	the tools of technology to maybe create something more consistent.
	But what I consider it, Richard, is that technology is a subset of an economic ideology that biases its trajectory
	continually and And perhaps we needn't look any further than diet for an example of what happens if you have exaggerated access to sugar and fat and seed oils.
	Oh, you're not evolved for that.
	It's ruined you.
	So it's not like that you ban sugar and fat.
	You just tell people you're not evolved for that.
	And if you want to live in a metropolis or live entirely a life online, you are out of step with what your hardware is
	and you're likely to suffer severe psychological consequences.
	And we are going to create models that are without like suddenly pretending that, you know, Alexander Graham Bell
	and Logie Baird were never born.
	We're going to build communities that use technology, but we are not used by that technology.
	The technology is a tool for furthering our culture.
	And when we look at some of the unqueried myths of our time, i.e.
	progressivism, which I believe, because of the false markers of technology and medicine, we consider that we are continually, oh look, we're off into space, oh my god, there's a vaccine for that and a tablet for that.
	Well actually, elsewhere, we are atrophying and perhaps receding, you know, that this is perhaps a kind of dark age, that we're not In connection with subtler ideas that are not so easy to materialistically appreciate and I think that to sort of just like you know your example of a metropolis is a good one I think because I think that you could say of course who hasn't been drunk on life in New Orleans or Manhattan or Gideon Berlin and the sort of what can be offered the entertainment the sort of mad and pleasurable cataclysm of a city is a joy of course but
	I feel that the carnival is something that human beings have always tended towards.
	Temporary stepping out of being in step and harmony with what we are evolved for.
	Again, actually mate, to refer to some earlier parts of our conversation, it's not something that I would imagine being imposed from the top down.
	You lot, buttons are banned and you're going to wear this wide brimmed hat.
	It's more like, One of the reasons you might be suffering the same way that people like we if you eat sugar the whole time now you know that it's likely to be detrimental and I wonder if there are behavioral components that might be similar to that?
	Yeah I think you're right and I think we see a little bit of that like with social media you know there's been a lot of talk of social media and you know it's a new thing and you know causing mental damage to young people particularly young girls But now, I've noticed a lot more, like you'll go to an
	event and they'll say, just no phones, just absolutely keep your phone off.
	There does seem to be sort of an adjustment where people aren't just not naively buying,
	okay, it feels good to check the iPad right now, just do it.
	I think there's more of a sense of like, okay, this technology is good, but you need to limit
	it in certain ways.
	I think we see that with others.
	When you talk about the food example, I mean, it's just so hard.
	I don't think you've ever struggled with your weight, but I've been fat at different periods
	my life and it just tastes good.
	It is tasty.
	Without the hard bands or without these other things, I don't know.
	I think I might be a little bit more open to technology than you.
	We have fat pills now, right?
	We have these pills that you take and you probably think, well, that's just pharma coming in and trying to solve our problems.
	I'm pessimistic that you're just going to tell people, well, you know, put down those Doritos, put down that cake, man.
	You go to an American supermarket.
	I can see, you know, I just don't think human nature is meant to deal with that.
	And, you know, maybe, maybe pharma is, you know, the least bad outcome.
	Yeah.
	Mate, we could talk for a long time.
	I find you really easy to talk to and enjoyable to communicate with.
	Thank you, Richard.
	It's brilliant to talk to you again.
	This is Richard's book.
	Thank you, Russell.
	Thank you, man.
	The Origins of Woke.
	It's available now.
	We'll post a link to that in the description.
	Also, you can follow Richard's writing on Substack as well.
	I was referencing some of those articles in our conversation just then.
	Thanks for joining us, Richard.
	I'll see you again soon, I hope.
	Yeah, it's been a pleasure, Russell.
	Thank you.
	Take it easy my friend.
	Thank you.
	Well, what a fantastic show it's been today.
	Thank you so much for joining us and supporting us.
	If you want to support us further, press the red button, become an Awakened Wonder.
	We need your support more than ever, particularly if we are going to create these kind of independent
	communities that Richard and I were continually discussing.
	Elsewise we may be lost in yet another deluge.
	A second flood is upon the earth.
	A flood of ignorance and annihilation.
	But we can build rafts together.
	We can awaken in true unity together.
	Hey, guess who we've got on the show tomorrow?
	We've got Scott Adams, the fellow that created Dilbert.
	He's got himself in awe.
	Sorts of controversy, I believe.
	He talks a lot about Trump and the impact of Trump and Trump's abilities as a master persuader.
	It will be a fantastic conversation.
	Join us for that tomorrow.
	We've also got guests like Tim Pool coming up soon.
	Join us for that conversation.
	And remember, we need you now more than ever.
	We need you to support our voice.
	I love you.
	See you tomorrow.
	Not for more of the same.
	I'd never insult you with that, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.

▲