All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:21:37
HOLY SH*T…Is Dystopia Already HERE?! - Stay Free #217
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, I'm going to go ahead and start the video.
So, I'm going to start the video.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you Awakening wonder.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
As you know, once the government demonetize you, your support becomes absolutely invaluable.
Thanks for joining us.
We've got a fantastic show for you today.
You are discerning and awakening member of a new community that can change the world from independent media.
We can create independent movements and I'm So happy to be here with you to have this opportunity to explore truth together.
We're going to be talking unbelievably about Joe Biden's escalatory speech at the UN, where he suggests that Russia and Russia alone caused the current conflict.
He denies historical facts just plainly and blatantly.
It's astonishing to observe the legacy media, as you know, simply amplify the messages of the mainstream, never discerning, never investigative or interrogating unless it's To shut down dissent and dissidents.
We have an amazing conversation with Scott Adams, the Dealbook creator who predicted Trump's wins, written a really brilliant book about Trump, actually, and a fascinating book about framing and persuasion that will help you understand consciousness.
The full conversation will be available on Locals.
That's when you press the red button and become an Awakened Wonder and support our content, which, as you know, is important once the government and the legacy media are against you.
It becomes actually imperative.
Well, you'll get the whole conversation there, and it's brilliant.
The first part of the show is available wherever you're watching this now, but the show in its entirety is only available on Rumble.
Click the red button to become an awakened wonder.
Let's have a look at what the legacy media are talking about.
Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker of the House, has been ousted.
This is the first time this has happened, and obviously it's a significant story.
Let's have a look at Kevin McCarthy and how the legacy media are reporting on this.
We have some breaking news just into the newsroom, some major news here.
This is news, we're doing news.
Look how many times she has to reiterate that it's some news.
Like, the show's called The News, but we know, you know and I know, that the news is just a TV show.
The function of the news is to normalise the agenda of the powerful.
When something actually happens, a new bit of information, they panic.
We've got some news here at the newsroom.
Have a look at it again, it's amazing.
We have some breaking news just into the newsroom.
Some major news here.
We have some news just into the newsroom.
It's major news.
I'm actually out of my depth.
In a minute, she has to start telling you the actual facts.
She sort of panics.
Listen.
The vote is in after a move to oust the Speaker of the House.
The House voted... What?
22?
Oh God, I don't know.
This bit's the actual news.
I'm panicking now.
...16 to 210 to remove Kevin McCarthy from his position.
Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz filed a motion last night which created a snap vote to remove fellow Republican Kevin McCarthy from the speaker job.
This is the first time in American history that this has ever happened.
Kevin McCarthy.
So it seems exciting and when you see that Matt Gaetz, that dude from Florida talking, you think, wow man, everything's gonna be okay.
Check him out.
And when it comes to how those raised money, I take no lecture on asking patriotic Americans to weigh in and contribute to this fight from those who would grovel and bend knee for the lobbyists and special interests who own our leadership, who have... Oh, boo all you want!
I like that.
He's so intimate, isn't he?
Like, isn't he saying stuff that you really want to hear people say in Congress?
Oh, no, me!
I'm not gonna stand!
No, boo all you want, you're own bio-lobbyists!
Boo!
We're not... We are own bio-lobbyists!
who have hollowed out this town and have borrowed against the future of our future generations.
I'll be happy to fund my political operation through the work of hardworking Americans, $10 and $20 and $30 at a time, and you all keep showing up at the lobbyist fundraisers and see how that goes for you.
I reserve.
Pretty cool, really like that.
The only thing that could make American politics more exciting is if Donald Trump were to become the Speaker of the House.
But he's not going to do that, is he?
Fox News says maybe.
Now, sources telling me at this hour some House Republicans have been in contact with and have started an effort to draft former President Donald Trump to be the next Speaker.
And I have been told that President Trump might be open to helping the Republican Party, at least in the short term if necessary, if it's needed.
Seems weird to say this but I can't imagine Trump doing a job that requires that much admin.
I know he's actually run massive businesses and...
The biggest country in the world.
But I feel like he does it in a kind of a flair way.
I can't imagine he's going to do a job that requires sort of muted, administrative and bureaucratic discipline because it just doesn't seem to be what he's about.
But let us know what you think.
Check out Fox News getting trolled.
Now, sadly, they are talking about a tragic and awful shooting, but the person they get on the line as a caller is plainly not there to contribute to their news story.
It's lovely to hear it unfold.
And we've got Tyrone on the phone with us now.
Tyrone, when you say poker game, what exactly happened?
What transpired?
Tyrone does a really good job here of dragging this out.
This is really good trolling.
It seems for a long while that he's actually about to contribute to the news agenda of Fox, but he just continues to promote Tucker Carlson.
Well, first we were watching, we all get together every Tuesday night, and we watch Dr. Carlson's show on X. We used to watch him on Fox News, obviously he's out there no more, and still being the most credible guy in the media.
We can't tell you why we fired him without compromising your trust in this whole operation.
We always get together to watch Tucker Carlson, and I think he's doing probably better now that he's not with Fox News, because the corporate media- Wait a minute.
This isn't- This guy's not talking about- Can you, sir, would you please start taking this massacre seriously?
He always controls what the teleprompter readers are able to say.
Wait a minute!
I read a teleprompter!
That's enough, right?
You made it personal.
Are you even called Tyler?
So there's the legacy media being trolled.
Meanwhile, the cyber sphere that seeks to control your reality with dubious information in judicious reporting is stepping things up again.
You remember when we told you a little while ago about, like, Meta will be introducing sunglasses so you can broadcast their version of reality directly into your consciousness and prevent, I don't know, nature or loved ones entering your field of vision?
Well, we're a little closer to that.
And the mainstream media, of course, does its job.
Not critiquing, not examining, not investigating, simply normalizing the agenda of the powerful in what amounts to a sort of advertisement.
They're saying that they can still afford propaganda even though they've probably cut human jobs.
by ChatGPT. Mark Zuckerberg showed Meta's recent cost cutting has not stopped them keeping up with
the integration of artificial intelligence into daily life.
They're saying that they can steal a full propaganda even though they've probably cut human
jobs. I think that's what that was.
We wanted to build something that would enable you to easily capture and share experiences from
your point of view.
Well, how about an open internet that's not censored and surveilled?
How about listening to the point of view of dissidents and people that dissent?
How about a fairer, democratic world where communities are able to control their own resources, where we don't have information piped directly into our eyes by sponsors, where Facebook don't essentially act like a surveillance organization, giving information
directly to the government and using an agenda set by the government and their deep state
operatives to bludgeon people into submission.
I'd never really thought about that.
If we're going to build best in class glasses, a great place to start is with the iconic
Ray-Ban frames that people already love.
Mark Zuckerberg and his team at Facebook are the latest tech company to try to make video
glasses go mainstream.
The social media giant Thursday unveiled what it calls Ray-Ban Stories.
It's first pair of smart glasses, which allows wearers to capture photos and short videos.
Amazing.
So what will happen now is like a bunch of famous people and celebrities will get given them and you'll see content.
And then just a couple of years from now, what you'll have is those things nailed to your head if you ever take them off.
You took off your Ray-Bans.
Why is that?
Oh, well, I was just going to the bathroom.
Why?
We can sell you a hemorrhoid cream.
You know, I don't have hemorrhoids.
Why?
Show me your ass.
Put your Ray-Ban up against your ass.
But my privacy.
Your privacy doesn't exist.
How come the government's able to keep everything private, but we, private citizens, are not allowed to be private?
When did you learn to put electricity through these?
We always had that.
You didn't tell us that in the commercial.
Now use the hemorrhoid cream.
Oh, that's hurting.
To see it was a trick.
We don't want to hand over total control of our eyes, minds and anuses to Mark Zuckerberg.
I don't think we can trust them.
Easily post on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
Users can also listen to music and podcasts, as well as take calls.
Oh, taping calls, listening to podcasts.
Why don't you just hand over your entire consciousness to Meta and the government?
Why don't you just... Why fly a kite?
Why look at a child?
Why wonder about freedom?
Why read the writings of Thomas Paine when you could just strap on your Ray-Bans and feel your mind full of meaningless sludge 24-7?
Why not set an alarm on it so it can wake you up every hour on the hour to tell you how free you are?
Zuckerberg touted his push toward virtual and augmented reality in a slickly produced Facebook video.
This is the news.
Why are they giving him props for the slick level of production?
And I'd have to say the lighting there was exceptional.
Just look at those glasses.
And at $59.99, for a limited period only, you'd have to say that there's something in meta for everyone.
Better get to the shops quickly and buy that!
I mean, like, what the hell is this?
That's not news!
To normalise the agenda of the powerful, to amplify the message of the powerful, to discredit dissenting voices.
Tick, tick, tick!
There's your legacy media.
That's a commercial!
That's not news!
Here's some news.
Okay, is it right that Facebook are able to be the only portal on phones in Malaysia and it allows them to control the news agenda?
What about Facebook's relationship with, or particularly Zuckerberg's relationship with Fauci during the pandemic, especially the correspondence that took place between them and Zuckerberg's admission that they censored true information?
How was Facebook funded in the first place?
Is it like Google, initially funded with CIA and government money.
What is their tax relationships with the United States?
That's news!
It sounds like that.
It sounds like a challenge to power.
It sounds like you're looking at it and thinking, hold on a minute, this isn't right.
This isn't right.
The whole system's corrupt.
Hold on a minute, let me put on my Ray-Bans.
Yeah, everything's fine.
Literally, that film, they live, they look around, the reality is acceptable now.
God help us.
I literally mean it.
God, help us.
Stories are an important step towards a future when phones are no longer a central part of our lives.
And you won't have to choose between- Kindness and human relationships are no longer a central part of my life, I mean our lives.
Between interacting with a device or interacting with the world around you.
Facebook has teamed up with- Remember the world around you, also known as everything, all reality.
Don't tell that!
We can filter that for you now, and put commercials in it, and then tell people what you're looking at.
And if one day ever, in the past or ever in the future, you look at something we don't want you looking at, like maybe some information about how Pfizer is funded, or the depth and length of their clinical trial prices, or how many mouses took that Moderna booster shot, that's eight, I can tell you that without the mouses, then you will be shut down, for no additional fee.
We can insert a small explosive device here at your temple, and we can Literally, if you ask too many questions, blow your mind!
Ray-Ban to make its model look less geeky and address pro- That's the issue, is it?
It's a bit geeky to have your consciousness controlled by an unprecedentedly large, corrupted, big tech organization.
It's actually happening.
They're branding the colonization of your mind.
They're branding it.
Brought to you by Ray-Ban.
Who doesn't like Ray-Ban?
I mean, I gotta admit, I like Ray-Ban.
I'm thinking, yeah, they're quite cool.
I suppose if I'm going to have my consciousness dominate, I might as well look cool.
Hey, you look cool.
What are you thinking about?
Whatever I'm told to think about.
And what are you looking at?
Whatever I'm told to look at.
It's not cool.
It's not cool to give up your freedom, the freedom of your attention, the last remaining gift, the last private piece of your divinity and sacredness sold to Ray-Ban and Facebook.
Privacy measures by including an LED light that appears when the glasses are recording.
Because, you know, we wouldn't record what you think we would record without telling you.
Oh, well, the old LED light, you know, that's how you'll know.
I mean, it's not like we can turn on microphones of your iPhone, or it's not like we would use WhatsApp to spy on you.
It's not like service providers use that data all the time already.
It's not like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange never happened.
Actually it is like that.
It's like it never happened.
It's like people never came to the forefront and went... They're spying on us!
They're spying on us and they're trading information!
They're going to control us!
They've got a plan to build this authoritarian dystopia where they say it's for convenience and safety and I guess they'll probably just, I don't know, make it look cool or something but you're going to have to be so careful because otherwise they're going to spy on you, they're going to surveil you, they're going to censor you, they're going to shut down dissent.
they're going to transcend the sovereign nation with a global movement that presents itself
to you as sort of like kind and friendly and yet is ultimately about centralised authoritarianism
and I suppose what they'll probably do is come up with like health crises and war crises
and energy and climate and water crises that legitimise their increasing authoritarianism.
That's all very interesting.
Who exactly is going to design those sunglasses?
I think they were talking about Tom Ford.
Cool.
Facebook, which has faced its own barrage of criticism.
That thumbs up is starting to seem pretty sarcastic at this point.
Stealing your consciousness?
Thanks.
Is there one for that?
We took that off.
It hurts people's feelings.
...over privacy and user data said it would not access the media used by its smart glasses customers without their consent.
Oh good!
I was worried that maybe we couldn't trust them but the news there, the news that a minute ago was telling you the production was great, it's just told us that they won't do that without our consent so obviously unless you like don't trust the media and don't trust the government there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
The $299 glasses would be an quote, ads free experience.
Because I was worried about that.
What I was worried about is that when you stole my consciousness, you might sneak an advertisement in there.
That is the very least of our worries.
Now, at least while our consciousness is being invaded by these big tech colonial forces, we're not being marched into a hot war with Russia as Tucker Carlson predicted a year ago.
Oh no, we are.
Joe Biden gave a speech at the UN where he explicitly said that Russia and Russia alone have caused this conflict and the UK are getting ready to deploy boots on the ground.
All this stuff, we're told it could never happen, but it's happening.
So, was Tucker Carlson right?
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Thanks for refusing Fox News.
The news.
No, here's the fucking news.
Biden told the UN that Russia and Russia alone are responsible for the current war.
Meanwhile, the UK have got boots on the ground in Ukraine, which it was said would never happen.
So we ask, was Tucker Carlson right when he said there'll be a hot war between the US and Russia within a year?
Biden has said that Russia and Russia alone are responsible for the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
That means, was there any US involvement in the 2014 coup?
Did NATO infringe on former Soviet territories?
What happened with the Nord Stream Pipeline?
What's going on with all those bio labs across Ukraine?
What is Black Rock's role going to be after the conflict ends?
There are a lot of questions.
Not in the legacy media though.
There are no questions at all.
Just propaganda.
Just the amplification of a state message that wants you dumb, distracted and incapable for discerning for yourself.
Let's have a look at how the legacy media reports on this story and introduces the significant amplification of actual UK troops In Ukraine.
Remember, when we're reporting on this, we're reporting in a nuanced way.
We're not saying that Ukraine oughtn't be saved and served.
We're not saying that the humanitarian issues and the unnecessary loss of life are not significant.
We're not saying that Ukraine don't have the right to their own agenda and own historical sovereign trajectory.
We're simply asking, are the legacy media telling you the truth?
How is this war going?
Whose benefits are being served?
Do you think that US involvement is for humanitarian reasons or are there military-industrial complex motivations behind it?
These are the questions we're asking you.
Are you being told the truth?
Let's have a look at the man himself, the President of the United States of America.
Get ready, because here he is.
Let me be clear.
Well, we don't generally come to you for clarity, Joe.
Whimsical anecdotes, bizarre half-truths about domestic fires, fudge facts, lies, concealment of information, endless wars.
You're our man.
Clarity.
Certain principles of our international system are sacrosanct.
Sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights.
These are the core tenets of the UN Charter.
The pillars Peaceful relations among nations.
Also, though, they are principles that are regularly transgressed, as revealed by WikiLeaks by Julian Assange.
That's why he's in prison right now.
There's not another reason, like, oh, do you remember he did all that shoplifting?
No, it was that he revealed a bunch of war crimes.
In fact, as you know, because we've told you, the International Criminal Court cannot be utilised to prosecute Russia for their criminal invasion.
It was a criminal invasion.
Because the US would have to tacitly acknowledge that so many of their previous invasions have also been criminal wars, like the Iraq war, which Joe Biden lobbied for and supported.
Without which we cannot achieve any of our goals.
That has not changed.
And that must not change.
You know like in museums where you see an animatronic model of a president?
In four score years and ten, like, the one of that of Joe Biden will be better.
Let's see if they wore underwear back then.
Yeah!
Yet, for the second year in a row, this gathering Dedicated to peaceful resolution of conflicts.
That's what we're dedicated to, the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
That's why the first thing I want to tell you is we're going to be looking for a diplomatic and peaceful solution.
Plainly, Russia have their own agenda, their own imperial agenda, and their invasion was criminal.
But like I just said, we need peace.
That's the reason we exist.
So this is what we're going to do.
We're definitely not going to mess with the Minsk Accord.
We're definitely not going to send Boris Johnson to Ukraine to shatter a peace deal that was on the table.
They did do all of that.
They don't exist for peace.
They require war.
You know that already.
He's darkened by the shadow of war.
The profitable shadow of war.
An illegal war of conquest brought without provocation by Russia against his neighbour Ukraine.
Just saying stuff, it's mad.
In a way, this rehearsed, revised and presumably scripted speech that he's, I imagine, reading from a teleprompter is just as mad as the stuff he spontaneously says to console victims of massive fires.
I was in my house.
It burned down.
There was lightning.
It struck the pod.
I got a Chevy.
I backed my cat caught fire.
We got the insurance money, though.
Honda is one of the best people I know.
Corn Pop was a bad dude.
Like, even his spontaneous sort of fever dream Joyce-ian prose makes as much sense as his carefully prepared remarks at the UN because none of it's true.
Like every nation in the world, the United States wants this war to end.
Whoa!
Hold on then.
Couldn't you dedicate your time, attention and significant resources to bringing that about?
Not all of you will love Donald Trump, but all of you will have heard him say, I'd end this war in 24 hours.
I will end that war in one day.
It'll take 24 hours.
That would be perfect phone call.
Perfect phone call.
You know, listen, I'm not claiming to be an expert in geopolitics.
What I'm claiming is it's visible, demonstrable, verifiable and evident that the United States is prolonging this war for its actions.
Like every nation in the world, the United States wants this war to end.
This guy just checking out his phone.
Old bloke in front of Sierra Leone.
Did Joe Biden really have a domestic fire?
What?
Hang on a minute.
That laptop.
Did that... Wait a minute!
Did he attend business...
No nation wants this war to end more than Ukraine.
And we strongly support Ukraine in its efforts to bring about a diplomatic resolution that delivers just and lasting peace.
I don't know that the best way to get just and lasting peace is through, like, I don't know, bombing Crimea.
I think there might at least be diplomatic solutions.
I recognise that sometimes when you're dealing with a historic geopolitical conflict with deep roots, like the conflict that is regionalised between Ukraine and Russia, and the historic conflict between the United States of America and Russia, there is a degree of complexity that's unlikely to be perfectly disseminated, broken down and understood in an online video.
But what we can say with some certainty is we're not being told the truth, the media aren't investigating it correctly, they are functioning as amplifying propagandists for a state message, that this is beneficial to certain state interests, there is a unipolar agenda that America have themselves explicitly spoken about.
Numerous times you've heard people say stuff like This is actually a cheap war.
For 3% of our budget, we're able to reduce the capacity of Russia to a significant extent.
We've just seen Chrystia Freeland and Hillary Clinton say, we're sending a clear message to China, you're next.
Democracy is fighting back.
But in advance of you fighting, so fighting forward, I suppose.
All those things are relevant.
So this is not a discussion about whether there's a conspiracy at play.
This is simply an invitation to look at a variety of questions that have You can't talk about the 2014 coup.
What's their version of why that happened?
You can't talk about NATO infringement on former Soviet territories.
You can't talk about Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.
and the military-industrial complex's ongoing profits.
You can't talk about the location of those biolabs and how they're funded.
There are so many actual just questions.
It's not conspiracy theories.
They're legitimate questions and the reason those questions don't get Well, that's just not how, like, history works, is it?
is because they are propagandists that normalise the agenda of the powerful
and shut down dissent in voices by any means necessary.
It's becoming clear to me.
Russia alone bears responsibility for this war.
Well, that's just not how, like, history works, is it?
Like, even something like the Nazis, like something plainly bad,
unless you're in Canada when it's rain, the Nazis.
Like, you have to go, oh, yeah, God, I suppose, yeah, the First World War, oh, the Treaty of Versailles.
Yeah, God, it was complicated.
Maybe there could have been a better resolution to the First World War, and there are two imperialist forces, or numerous imperialist interests and all that.
It's complicated!
And so this, plainly, with the stuff that I've just listed a bunch of times, just because I've listened to Jeffrey Sachs and a variety of other people, journalists and academics worthy of the names, rather than systems of amplification for propaganda, and academic institutions that are funded in ways that simply mean they're going to support imperialist notions and mainstream narratives.
No!
To say that Russia and Russia alone, it's not that.
Like didn't NATO, that Stoltenberg dude, the other day goes, oh well what happened was Putin said if you do this we're gonna do that and we just did it.
President Putin sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement.
That was a precondition for not invade Ukraine.
Of course we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened.
I mean, that in itself, that's a form of provocation.
Like, why are we not, in a democracy, able to say, what's the role of NATO?
Do we need NATO?
What's the function of NATO?
Are NATO behaving responsibly?
Do we have a shared agenda?
This is the truth behind all this.
Your agenda and my agenda is not their agenda.
That's it.
That's it, put simply.
The agenda of the government and the interests that they serve are so opposing to yours that the only way that this massive conflict can't be exposed that would lead to revolution is through a media that lies to you.
That's it.
If they went, your government's gone mental.
They're running a whole bunch of wars now that are none of your business.
Do you want that?
Let's have a vote on it.
That's not possible, is it?
If you're not voting on it, if you're not discussing it, it's because it's not in your interest.
That's why.
Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately.
And it's Russia alone that stands in the way of peace.
This is astonishing when you actually look at it.
This is propaganda live and we just carry on with our lives.
I mean, I suppose because in some ways it seems irrelevant and abstract and in a way is abstract and irrelevant because you can't really do anything about it.
Except, as I say, participate in a massive campaign of disobedience and join a movement that opposes this kind of thing.
Red button.
That's not a nuclear button, Joe.
Because the Russia's price for peace is Ukraine's capitulation Ukraine's territory and Ukraine's children.
They actually want the children?
That's actually, I'll tell you from personal experience, actually very difficult to bring them up.
What I would say is that they want the capitulation of Russia.
That's what they want.
So they've said that.
It's not me saying this.
They've said publicly the objective is to drain Russia.
Remember that thing?
Ukraine are getting casually adverse?
This is the problem.
This is why they want to censor these spaces because this is just from memory.
You can just go, hold on, but they said that, they said that.
The fact is, is through independent media like this, not exclusively us,
but I'm proud to say it includes us and we are here because of you.
We can just say, no, wait a minute.
It's not just Russia's fault because of these ten facts.
Boom.
And if you can't address those ten facts, what you've got yourself there
is a conversation, a debate, and they don't want to have a conversation
debate because they're lying.
Russia believes the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence.
Go on then, brutalise your crime without consequence.
Night, night.
I get a reductive simplification of a complex situation.
But I ask you this.
Old Sierra Leone still on his phone.
Does Hunter Biden have any qualifications to work for Burisma?
If we abandon the core principles of the United States to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected?
If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?
I'd respectfully suggest the answer is no.
Respectfully suggest.
There's a weird rhetoric involved in this stuff.
Of course, it's odd to hear the inversion of the facts.
Isn't it, if we can do this, if we can say that, if they can do this, if they can do that.
In a sense, the very thing that Biden suggests we ought be terrified of is already happening and he is its figurehead.
We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow.
Ah, there's another war coming.
Semiconductors in Taiwan.
Get ready.
Or, if you enjoyed Star Wars, you're going to love The Return of the Semiconductor.
That's why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom.
Couldn't even get to the end of the phrase territorial integrity because it was so lacking in integrity
Okay, so there's some propaganda that was eagerly lapped up except for by old Baldy in front of Sierra Leone
It was fact-checking what's happening Excuse me!
No, that didn't happen!
Let's have a look at an alternative version of reality that might not be so valuable to the elites.
The Biden administration used last week's meeting of the United Nations General Assembly as a platform to launch a full-throated tirade against Russia of the kind made by countries before they declare war.
Oh, so Tucker Carlson might have been right when he said there will be a hot war within a year.
Let's know.
In his speech to the UN Tuesday, Biden declared the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom.
Of course, this is the kind of rhetoric that, when you say it, sounds good, sounds normal, sounds like what should be happening.
But don't a lot of political speeches sound like when you sort of think, yeah, if that was actually what you were doing, everything would be OK.
But simply lies and propaganda.
Biden asserted that Russia alone bears responsibility for the war in Ukraine.
Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately, and it is Russia alone that stands in the way of peace, because Russia's price for peace is Ukraine's capitulation, Ukraine's territory, and Ukraine's children.
Extraordinary rhetoric.
I think when people say stuff like that, you kind of know that they're lying.
Another indicator might be if, for example, they lobbied all big tech platforms to deny Russia Today the ability to broadcast.
So, for example, YouTube won't broadcast Russia Today, because do you think that's because Russia Today's content is so brilliant If you saw it, you'd go, oh my god, let's go and support Russia and become Putin apologists.
No, it's just simply because it will provide a different perspective.
And if you had a different perspective, you wouldn't be so malleable.
And that's why you are members of this community.
That's why we exist in this community, because we care more about truth than this mad Gideon deception.
This was not just a speech.
It was an unrelenting attack on any notion that the United States is open to a negotiated settlement of this war.
Well, that's good to know.
It's the opposite of all of the language around peace and kindness and justice and standing together and freedom and posing tyranny.
It's the opposite of that.
The White House is demanding the unconditional surrender of Russia, accompanied by the overthrow of its government and its territorial breakup.
That's mental.
So they want to do what they're saying Russia want to do.
Have you noticed that?
Have you noticed this inversion of values?
Have you noticed the vilification of anyone that dissents?
Have you noticed that they claim to be telling the truth while lying, standing for peace, while going to war?
Literal Orwellian inversion of language.
Achieving this goal is impossible without direct U.S.
involvement, transforming a proxy war into a direct conflict between the United States and Russia.
The conflict in Ukraine is already America's war, for which the U.S.
and NATO are providing logistics, weapons, and intelligence.
But the failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive has led the Biden administration to conclude that achieving its objectives is impossible without turning the current proxy war into a full-scale conflict involving the deployment of U.S.
and NATO troops.
Escalation.
Escalation that was pledged at the commencement would not occur.
You can check that for yourself.
You can literally go and watch Joe Biden, the man there, saying, you know, it's all Russia's fault.
You can watch him saying, this will never lead to boots on the ground.
This will never lead to a war.
We're not at war.
We can't do that.
That would lead to World War III.
All you actually need is a memory.
That's all you need is a memory.
But they don't want you to have that.
That's why there's this state of fear.
That's why you're doing well staying with us.
We're going, hold on a minute, I'm not going to just respond to fear, hysteria, propaganda and lies.
I'm going to get deep, I'm going to stay true to myself, I'm going to discern.
And then you'll be able to go, wait, hold on, didn't actually, who was that that said that there could never be a war because it would lead to Armageddon?
Hold on, that was Joe Biden.
Wait a minute, didn't NATO say they spoke to Putin and he said that that escalation would lead to further war?
Wait a minute, wasn't there a story last week where they said that Elon Musk was talking to the Kremlin and actually we found out that all he was doing was not letting Ukraine use Starlink to bomb Crimea?
Hang on.
They're lying.
They're lying because they're liars.
And then you become free.
It's been widely asserted in the American media that Russian President Vladimir Putin believes a change in the American government would lead to a shift in policy.
This is a delusion.
Nevertheless, it is the aim of the Biden administration to preempt such a policy shift by escalating the conflict to a point where, well before the 2024 election, the war will have involved a commitment of US prestige and resources, including manpower, that makes a diplomatic and non-military solution impossible.
This is from a socialist organisation, so before you decide who it is you hate in this world, consider that you might have allies in places that surprise you.
Biden's remarks were followed by those of his attack dog, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose statements bordered on total insanity.
And that guy should know a thing or two about borders by now.
So let's be referred to Russia and Russians as evil and as terrorists and accuse them of carrying out genocide against Ukraine.
Again, when you use language like that, you deny the possibility of a peaceful solution.
Well, how can you have a negotiation?
How can you have a conversation?
How can you have peace?
How can you have treaties with terrorists and lunatics and genocidal maniacs?
Oh, I suppose you can't.
Zelensky condemned the United Nations for being overly afraid of nuclear war.
You can't be too scared of annihilation, can you?
Unless you've reached some sort of spiritual nirvana, recognised that consciousness undergirds all material reality, and then recognised that from that you could derive a new reality based on spiritual principles, but I don't think that's the point they're making.
Saying, in many cases, the fear of war, the final war, Oh, it's a good one though.
the war after which no one would gather in the General Assembly Hall again.
The effort to promote complete nuclear disarmament, he said, should not be the only strategy to protect the world from
this final war.
Oh, it's a good one, though. I mean, probably the only one that might work.
As Biden and Zelensky were making these chilling statements, General Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, spoke at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, a key logistics hub
for the American war effort.
Milley declared, The United States and its allied countries are rich,
powerful, with significant military resources that are capable of
sustaining this fight.
In President Biden's words, as long as it takes sustaining.
Remember Julian Assange.
Once you understand that the function of the Afghanistan war is not to win it, but to prolong it, then you recognize that the role of government is to take public money and to put it into private hands.
So it's another one of those paradigms.
Is the media amplifying the agenda of the powerful and normalizing it?
Yes.
Is the government taking money from public hands and putting in private hands?
Yes.
Right.
We're a bit closer to understanding what's actually going on there.
The statements by leading US officials are accompanied by equally reckless and provocative assertions in major newspapers.
You're joking?
In an editorial entitled, Biden has done a lot for Ukraine but not enough, the Washington Post wrote that Mr Biden should stop dawdling and provide Kiev with ATACMs, referring to the long-range missile system that would be used to strike deep within Russian territory.
I wonder who makes those?
I wonder who funds that news organization?
The US and NATO are already in an undeclared war, providing logistics, weapons and intelligence.
The only thing Ukraine is supplying is the bodies.
Have you ever considered that the United States of America might not march you into Armageddon and therefore you might need to live a little longer?
That is why I'm proud that we are partnered by Field of Greens.
Now the Mayo Clinic says if you want to help prevent heart disease, lower blood pressure and cholesterol, eat five servings of fruit and vegetables every day.
But who's got time for that when you're being surveilled, when you're being censored, when you're being shut down?
Each fruit and each vegetable in Field of Greens was medically selected by our Actual doctors, real doctors, not people in white coats that are trying to shut down free speech.
I'm saying actual doctors and they've medically selected each vegetable to support your vital organs like your heart, your lungs, your kidney and immune system.
Obviously flu season is upon us and you know what people will be suggesting?
Wooden field of greens be a much better solution.
It works fast, you'll feel better with more energy, who knows your skin, hair, nails all look healthier.
If you don't always eat right and exercise, join me and take Phil the Greens.
We can get you started with 15% off your first order.
You can do it right now.
It's easy.
Visit BrickHouseRussell.com and use the promo code brand.
That's BrickHouseRussell.com and use the promo code brand.
So if you're looking for something like this, use us because it totally helps us to have your support in this situation.
Thank you.
You're doing us a real favour.
That's promo code brand at BrickHouseRussell.com.
There's a link in the description.
Support us if you can.
Thanks a lot.
Right, let's get back To this global war we're being marched into by lunatics.
The next step is the direct involvement of U.S.
troops.
This will require the massive mobilization of American and European military forces, including the possibility of a draft.
The U.S.
military is making active preparations for just such a war.
The full 2023 edition of the U.S.
Army War College Quarterly included an article, A Call to Action, Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force.
It stated that The Russia-Ukraine war is exposing significant vulnerabilities in the Army's strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace casualties.
Army theatre medical planners may anticipate a sustained rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, with a 25% predicted replacement rate.
The personnel system will require 800 new personnel each day.
For context, the United States sustained about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience the same number of casualties in two weeks.
So you have advocacy for heavy recruitment of new personnel within defence and military circles.
Curiously, over at Lockheed Martin, they're making some interesting profit predictions for the coming quarters and the coming decade, in fact, similarly based on Escalate intentions and indeed conflict between Russia and the United States.
So it's not a matter of reading the runes and mystical predictions.
When military industrial complex companies and defense operatives are making the same claims, testimonies, then you recognize that oh well the reason they need more personnel is because there's going to be a war.
The reason Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are predicting more profits is Because there's going to be a war.
The reason Tucker Carlson said there's going to be a hot war between Russia and the United States is because there's going to be a war between Russia and the United States.
And to use a Kamala Harris-like anecdote, it's almost like slowly incrementally turning up the temperature, we the frogs in the boiling water will not notice that we're being boiled to death by the chefs of war.
Sorry, I said it was a Kamala Harris one.
According to several media reports, President Biden has agreed to arm Ukraine with Army Tactical Missile Systems, just like the Washington Post requested, honey!
Which would mark a significant escalation since the missiles have a range of up to 190 miles.
Brilliant!
I just hope they've got the internet to back it up!
Reports have said Biden plans to send a cluster bomb variant of ATACMs to Ukraine, making the escalation more significant.
The potential weapons transfer would give Ukraine the ability to target Russian territory with cluster bombs, which leave behind unexploded submunitions that can be found by civilians years or decades later after their use.
But I'm sure BlackRock will find a way to profit from that, so maybe it doesn't matter.
Another of the pledges that we were made, if you just use your memory and your mind and your own lying eyes, is that there would never be boots on the ground because that would demonstrate an actual war and that would lead to Armageddon and guess what?
Boots on the ground.
Meanwhile, UK troops may deploy into Ukraine for the first time to train soldiers as on-the-ground training efforts ramp up between the war-torn country and its international allies.
Grant Shapps, the UK's Secretary of State for Defence, said in an interview with The Telegraph he was discussing a plan to mobilise British troops with his military chiefs.
The media normalises the agenda of the powerful.
I was today talking about eventually getting the training brought closer and actually into Ukraine as well, Schaps
told the outlet, particularly in the west of the country.
I think the opportunity now is to bring more things in country.
What an opportunity!
The plan, as stated, marks a dramatic shift from the UK and other allies' previous avoidance of implementing a formal
military presence in the region to avoid direct conflict with Russia.
Hot war within a year?
In addition to offering training on the ground in Ukraine, Schaap said British defence companies like BAE Systems are moving manufacturing into the country.
It's something I hope to see more British companies do as well.
It really astonishes me when I hear it sort of spoken of in these glib statistical and financial terms.
This is a real opportunity for British businesses.
All of this actually amounts to death and horror, needless amplification of ideas and conflicts that perhaps could be moved beyond, evolved beyond.
That's why I suppose what we're suggesting is not that we consider politics to be which of these two bloody awful choices do we make between these two dreadful, despicable, privately funded facades that call themselves democratic parties.
We say, God, is it possible that we could do things differently altogether?
Is it possible that the world could be differently organised?
And in spite of everything, I believe it's possible.
I'm keen to see other British companies do their bit as well by doing the same thing, Schaps said per the Telegraph.
So I think there'll be a move to get more training and production in the country.
Escalation of a war just being described like it's a church fete or a country fair.
Schaps also floated the idea of the British Navy aiding Ukraine in the Black Sea.
At least it floats.
So there you go, you've witnessed Joe Biden give a speech that was full of deception, half-truths, out-and-out lies that amounted to propaganda.
The media continued to amplify a message that amounts to escalation of a war, which we've told you before, which you know already, you've told us in the chat, and continue to communicate in there, and remember followers, could lead to Armageddon.
How are they not Armageddon-averse in the same way that they noted Ukrainian people are becoming casually averse?
Why are bare heads not prevailing?
Why is nobody allowed to discuss peace?
Is there an agenda?
Are you witnessing, for example, dissent being shut down?
Are you noticing that it's impossible to speak about this rationally?
Are you seeing mainstream and legacy media outlets amplifying the message of the state?
Or are you seeing healthy debate, open conversations, critiques, peace being presented?
Or was the one time that a few Democrats went, could we have some peace please boss?
Well they shut down, even prevented from raising it as a possibility.
So what you have, clearly, is an agenda for war.
So when Tucker Carlson says, hot war within a year, it sounds kind of shocking, but seems, I would say, kind of inevitable.
But that's just what I think.
Why don't you let me know what you think in the comments in the chat and I'll see you in a second
Right you lot if you're watching this anywhere but rumble we're gonna have to leave you now
We've got a fantastic interview, an extended interview, in fact, with Scott Adams, who you might know from Dilbert, you might know from his recent controversy, you might know because of his excellent and interesting I'm going to be talking to him about all of that.
Click the link in the description.
And if it's within your means, press the red button.
Become a member of our AwakendWonders locals community.
His show, Real Coffee, is on locals.
He wrote the book, Reframe Your Brain.
You can see this conversation in its entirety on locals.
You can see it now.
There's an extra half an hour that you're going to just love.
But let me welcome now Scott Adams.
Scott, I'm actually very grateful and excited to meet you.
Well thank you.
I'm pretty excited myself.
Big fan.
I really enjoyed your... You know the Trump book on persuasion?
Obviously you do.
Wim Biggley.
Yeah, Wim Biggley.
Of course.
I really enjoyed that book.
I was fascinated by it.
Of course, I suppose leadership remains a fascinating subject, I suppose because leadership and persuasion are the ability to, through charisma perhaps, or through other means, and perhaps you'll explain them to me, create Realities that people will willingly or even unconsciously participate in.
Tell me what you think specifically Trump exemplifies.
In the book you talk about him being sort of some like indigenous or native or a natural genius when it comes to the art of persuasion.
What do you mean by that and what are examples of that?
Well, he seems to have the full toolbox of persuasion, which if you didn't study it as a field, as I do, I'm a trained hypnotist, you wouldn't recognize.
So, for example, the number one tool of persuasion is fear.
So he started out in 2015, the illegal people who may be criminals are streaming across the border and, you know, China's going to eat our lunch and basically scaring you.
The other thing he does is visual.
The second biggest thing you can do is create a picture in people's head, because we're visual creatures.
So when he says we need better border security, he doesn't talk about a concept.
He talks about a wall.
So you imagine the wall in your head, the wall that you want to see.
He says it's big and beautiful, doesn't over-specify it, which is also in the district.
If you over-specified it, people would not see it.
They'd say, oh, I'm not seeing that wall.
But if you say it's a big, beautiful wall, then people imagine the big, beautiful wall of their own preference.
That's pure technique.
He also says it's going to have a door in it.
Now, that's making you think past the sale, because you already have to accept there could be a wall for there also to be a door, and then he tops it off with, and Mexico's going to pay for it?
Now, that's the funniest, make-you-think-best sale I've ever seen.
Because if he can make you argue about how ridiculous it is that Mexico would pay for the wall, you've already uncritically accepted that there might be a wall.
It's a car salesman's trick.
The car salesman says, how do you think you'll use this car?
Or do you think you would feel better in the red one or the white one?
So if you're thinking about the details, they made you think past the sale.
He uses that all the time.
But his real magic is the nicknames.
And he comes up with nicknames that are not only visual, like Low Energy Jeb, It's a concept, but when you see him, it changes how you see him.
And I always say that when I first saw Jeb Bush, you know, come on the scene, I thought to myself, wow, he's got exactly that executive, calm, cool, you know, probably would be great in an emergency, because he wouldn't get too excited about it, you know?
And then the moment that Trump says he's low energy, That's all I could see, because he made a comparison between his own energy and Jeb, and from that moment on you could only see it.
But the other magic he does is he picks a nickname that will be almost certainly reinforced by future events.
So when he says low-energy gem, you know there's going to be a video where somebody says, there he is, he's looking low-energy.
You could probably find that for anybody.
But then when he says Crooked Hillary, you think to yourself, ah, there's no way she won't be at least accused of something that would fit into that frame.
So he's the master framer.
He creates the frame, and then you buy it.
My favorite one lately is the perfect phone call.
He's used it twice.
Where he talks about his call to Ukraine, where he was impeached, and his call to the, I guess, the Attorney General, was it, of Georgia?
And in both cases, he got in trouble for something he said on the call.
Well, he says, it's a perfect call.
Now, he said it so many times, and you laugh about it when you hear it, because it's a little bit extreme to say it's perfect.
But it's also in your head.
So every time one of those stories gets a headline, I look at the headline and in my head goes, perfect call.
Even though I don't believe it, you know, I mean, I'm not persuaded by just those words, that the words just pop up in your head.
And that's the secret behind a reframe and behind hypnosis and a lot of AI as well.
It seems like what you're saying, and I would say it's alluring and it's an attractive proposition, is that there are kind of universal principles in communication that don't alter Whether they're within the realm of hypnosis or neuro-linguistic programming, they are just certain indefatigable facts that if people use them, you know, I like to think, no, no, I'm very sophisticated.
I know how to discern information.
I'll know if someone's trying to dupe me or lead me up the garden path.
But this is sort of, in a sense, an inability to acknowledge my own hardware and my own unconscious biases and the way that the part of me that's beyond me is likely to behave.
Firstly, do you think that Trump is doing this instinctively, almost as a genius might, in the way a genius athlete, or like sort of the way that Marlon Brando might pick up a glove and on the waterfront and just sort of thumb it unconsciously, creating an organic naturalness, or the way that Willie Mays might strike a ball?
And I know nothing of baseball, so I would use football if it was left to me, but I know who the audience are.
Or do you think that this is something that he's learned through sales?
Because in a sense, these are sales techniques.
I often see how the culture has evolved, often around people that I admire, even mentors of mine, that at their point of origin would have been much more focused on the world of sales and pitching, that now have migrated into a more overtly spiritual space, I would say.
That in a way, some of the principles hold true.
Yeah, I know that thing of like two suggestions and then two verifiables and then a suggestion.
I recognize what you're saying about that stuff and it seems, you know, I'm like making these notes and thinking, you know, man this is how I should be communicating, this is how we should all be communicating if our job, and God is it not, become our job now more than ever to present a version of reality that's more appealing than our opponents.
And if Trump is a genius of it, say, if that is indeed what you believe and sort of become somehow a native genius of it, Is it stuff that everyone does badly, and like even his opponents do it badly?
And can you talk us through a few examples of their crap versions of it as well?
Well, the universals would include repetition.
The more you repeat something, the more people think it's true.
That's what he does with the perfect phone call.
He just keeps saying it until you can't not think it when it's paired with the topic.
So he's got that, but he has all the sales techniques of thinking past the sale, etc.
Those are not natural.
Those are learned behaviors, I'm pretty sure, because you wouldn't think to do it.
You would think to just describe why you should buy it.
If left to your own devices, you'd say, this car has many good features.
It's affordable.
But he goes to imagine it in your garage.
That's learned behavior.
I don't think you'd pick that up on your own.
His minister of the church he went to every Sunday when he was a kid, his family, was the author of the book, The Power of Positive Thinking.
whose name is escaping me for some reason.
I can never remember his name.
But he was the most influential, positive-thinking person of his time.
The book was an enormous bestseller.
Influenced me a great deal.
I was that age as well.
But imagine going to church and having somebody who was considered the most influential person in the country, so much so that the author was blamed Or accused of being a hypnotist, because he was so influential.
So I think that Trump probably got it from his father, who was probably selling real estate projects as well.
So some of it he picked up, and some of it I think he is a natural.
But he goes for fear somewhat automatically.
And association, he's good at associating something negative with something positive.
One of the reframes in my book uses this technique, the same one he uses, and the reframe is, alcohol is poison.
Now, that's not true, per se, because it's just a definition.
Could be a beverage, could be a form of entertainment, could be a liquid.
But if you just pair it with the word poison, it lets you more easily, you know, say no to a drink.
Doesn't work for alcoholics, it does work for people who just want to cut down.
So that reframe actually is the one that I hear the most from.
Probably twice a week, I hear from somebody, a stranger who says, I stopped drinking entirely with one sentence.
So that's how powerful this stuff can be, and Trump is a master of it.
In actuality, I am in recovery and this idea of compounding concepts is significant even
in the, I don't know if it's more sophisticated or simply different, but the idea of abstinence
is predicated of course on the notion that it is the first drink that's the problem,
not the ninth or the tenth or that you'll ever be able to drink safely.
In this instance, the compound is to equate even drinking at all with an annihilation of your life.
And in fact, any kind of behavioral adjunct pivot progression would have to be predicated upon a
vision of some description. And in the case of like a 12 step person like me, it's I now equate
the use of a recreational drug, even or, you know, street drugs, or even a sort of socially
acceptable and legal drug like alcohol with personal destruction. And that is a form of
conditioning has taken place and ultimately in this instance, a beneficial one.
I wonder if, you know, obviously comment on anything you want to mate, but like I wonder if you think that part of what Trump has been able to do in addition to his evident and obvious rhetorical skill and I've always thought it's a failing of his opponents not to sort of acknowledge and register and enjoy that even when opposing him because it sometimes looks like they don't inhabit the same sort of universe as everyone else when they just sort of say he's stupid or whatever.
I wonder if there's something, one, that he engages with people emotionally in a way that's sort of somehow, I want to say anomalous or at least rare in an age of sort of bureaucrats and managerial politicians that are somewhat visionless.
and this idea of vision, this idea of being able to give a authentic vision to an audience.
And given that we're living in a time of obvious conflict where the culture is, in a sense,
it feels to me, and again, tell me what you feel, and I know I'm throwing a lot at you
here, but I feel like you're tracking it, like the culture is trying to centralise and
control perception, the culture is aggressively saying, this is what reality is.
Don't allow that information in.
This is the information that you have to believe.
If you don't believe this information, you are the worst kind of nefarious individual.
Do you think, how do you believe we can penetrate, challenge, attack, control, overcome that?
Well, the tough part is you never know who your enemies are.
Because I feel like whoever's behind the shadow banning and maybe some cancellations that are more political than content related, you don't really ever know who's behind it.
So if you look at my situation, the Washington Post was sort of the flagship that got the other newspapers to cancel me.
But the Washington Post is well known as, let's say, well connected with the intelligence outfit in the United States.
So the question I ask is, is the fact that the Washington Post is so associated with Democrats and also the intelligence group, which are also associated with the Democrats, is it a coincidence that no Republicans canceled me?
So when we're talking about free speech and how do you penetrate the narrative, there's also some amount of dirty tricks and secret players that are really hard to know who your targets are.
So it's hard to fight back when you don't know who you're fighting against.
That's what I feel like all the time.
But to answer, the only way I can imagine there would be a difference is people like Trump who can break through because he's just too hard not to cover.
You can't ignore him.
RFK Jr.
is running for president, he says, in large part because it's the only way he could have free speech.
If he's not a presidential candidate, he could get kicked off the platforms for what they would say is telling untruths.
So, it's gonna be personalities who can take a hit.
RFK Jr.
is, you know, being hated by his own family.
He's in physical, you know, risk of assassination.
And you just made me do that.
That's how it works.
Damn it!
Vote for me!
Mayor of London!
By the way, that's one of the tricks they have to do is they try to get somebody to copy them in a meeting.
But anyway, I think it's going to take personalities who don't mind getting cancelled.
So they tried to take me out, but I'm still talking.
They tried to take Tucker out, but he's still talking.
So I think that some of it's going to be people who just We're willing to take the hit and could still get some attention.
You'll see people like... Shoot, I'm terrible at remembering names when I'm on video.
Tell us and we'll work it out together.
The first one was Norman Peel.
That was the preacher and the writer of that Positive Thinking book.
I didn't get that myself.
James, who's producing the show, put it up.
And this one we'll work out together as well.
Greenberg, Greenwald.
So he's one of the superstars of telling you what's really happening behind the scenes.
Yeah.
But is it a coincidence that he has to do it from outside the country?
Yeah.
Like, those are the kind of questions that I ask.
It's like, do I have to go to another country just to get freedom of speech?
And I saw today, you know, Mike Benz, he's another person on the Axe platform who talks about the intelligence agencies, you know, maneuverings behind the scenes, as if he's opening the hood so we can see.
And I think it was today he was tweeting that he's expecting, you know, just a massive personal attack and probably some form of lawfare against him.
And I think he's right.
So, I don't know where this stuff comes from.
I don't know who the personalities are behind it.
But something looks coordinated, even if it's not.
It has that appearance.
It appears, too, that what was once regarded as the, I would say, liberal left and the assumption that built into that were ideals that grew out of the civil rights movement that are pretty righteous and laudable.
Somehow this...
set of interests has become curiously authoritarian in the name of liberty, safety, convenience.
I'm seeing these odd pacts emerge between sort of big tech and the sort of neoliberalism
that are creating curiously in a way that I could never have imagined.
Alliances on what might once have been termed the other side of the aisle, but you've mentioned
Glenn Greenwald, and let's mention him once more, he says that in a way, personally, and
I wouldn't expect you to know this or even care, that I used to be regarded as a kind
of conventional lefty sort of Hollywood type person, but I was always actually anti-authoritarian
and sort of pro-individual freedom and pro-community freedom, also interested in community and
and care about society and have values and principles.
And then, like, as my content became more vocally anti-establishment, as I started to speak out against electoral democracy, its corruption, legacy media, how they simply amplify state and corporate state message at that, rather than interrogating it, how they spend no resources on investigating issues that really seriously affect people, and significant resources on bringing down dissent and controlling potential dissidents, I started to be called, like, right-wing and a right-wing conspiracy theorist, and, like, I've spoken to a bunch of people that Yes, conservative, and I find them absolutely delightful, I'd have to say.
But I still feel that what's emerging, potentially now, is something new.
And I cite often Martin Gurry's book, The Revolt of the Public, which is a sort of, in this way, a companion piece to that famous book, Here Comes Everyone.
That simply explores how the way that communication technology has altered has meant that the establishment can no longer keep up with the diversification and dissemination of information and has necessarily become authoritarian in order to countenance these new threats, these new information threats.
And in order to legitimise what they're doing, which is basically state censorship, they've
had to invent new categories, misinformation, disinformation, and create enemies that would
warrant this is why you see people being called Nazis and the most egregious and awful things
that you can accuse anybody of, racist, and the list we can all add to that list of course,
because they need to legitimise the end goal, shut down dissent, control dissent invoices,
because any dissent invoice now, anyone with a phone is a potential threat.
Martin Goury talked about that in the revolt of the public, that the old models are dying,
so they have to find ways of controlling the emergent new model.
And in a sense, Trump was, you know, one of the first people that effectively used these
new forms of communication technology, famously through Twitter as it then was.
And I wonder what you think about these likelihood of new alliances with people with a broad base of social philosophy and ideology.
I wonder what you think about the possibility, and again I suppose to your point about who are these people that are controlling it.
I guess I would say that it's the nexus of interests that exist between, like for example with this new online safety bill in the UK, demonstrates that the UK government and the EU and all of the Five Eyes countries are introducing legislation that enables their government in unprecedented ways to utilize big tech so that, and I guess it's like a deal they're doing really, of we're not going to shut you guys down and your ability to profit and advertise if you allow us to Yeah, you know, my take on this is that I see the world as a big old dopamine machine.
So people are chasing dopamine.
I used to say, follow the money and it explains everything.
But money is just a holding place for dopamine, right?
You can keep it in your money until you're ready to buy the jazz ski, and then you get your dopamine.
So when you're looking at why is it this weird connection of people who don't even seem to be on the side they used to be on?
I think it's because the philosophical layer, the why we do things, has always been fake for the people in power.
The people in power want to keep their job, keep their influence, keep their dopamine high, you know, have more babies than the other people, so basically win.
So, whatever it takes to win is what they're going to promote, and it doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be consistent with what they've ever done, it doesn't have to be ethical, it doesn't have to be moral, because they're just chasing dopamine.
So, once you see the world as a dopamine chase, everything makes sense.
It's just very unpleasant to think of it that way.
Yeah, it does seem pretty, obviously literally endocrinal and sort of therefore animal and unconscious and beyond individual freedom and beyond any kind of freedom you might conceive of.
Hey, you said that Trump would win in 2016, famously, when people were considering it to be a preposterous and implausible outcome.
So what do you think about 2024?
In 2024, almost anything could happen.
We're in a weird situation where I do worry about his physical security.
I do worry that 91, what look like to me, political charges, is not the end of it.
And it looks like there's no level of obviousness that they're trying.
Well, they're not trying to be less obvious anymore.
The latest charges in New York, Look to me like they're not even trying to be legitimate.
It looks to me like it's just purely political.
And I don't know if most of the country will either understand banking and insurance issues to know how blatantly, obviously political it is or not.
But they're not trying to hide anything.
I think complexity is the friend of the The power mongers, because they can hide anything in complexity, say, well, you don't understand legal tax accounting things, bad, orange man bad.
And then, you know, trust us, orange man bad accounting, you don't understand.
And they can take anybody down with that.
So I would expect that if Trump survives these charges, all the ones we know about, I think they'll just be new ones.
I think they'll just invent new ones until they can find some way to take him out.
They'll obviously go after all of his lawyers, anybody who would talk to him, anybody who would support him.
If you say anything nice about him, even though I'm endorsing Vivek Ramaswamy, I like somebody younger for the next era.
Even then, because I say positive things about Trump's skill set, they'll try to take me on as well.
Now, the thing about free speech is the people trying to suppress it are, of course, the people in power, because people in power are the ones who are most, let's say, threatened by free speech.
So they don't have to take everybody out.
They only have to take out the notables.
Because if they take out the people who are really good at communicating and have some chance of breaking through into their base that doesn't hear the other arguments, those are the dangerous ones.
They don't need to take out everybody who has a social media account and complains online.
They're not moving the needle.
They only have to take out the few that are making a difference.
And I think they've strategically picked pretty well so far.
Really?
Do you think that is what's happening?
Well, it's hard to look at the group of people who have been cancelled lately and not notice that they're the best communicators.
That's hard not to notice.
That is pretty interesting.
May I ask you a little bit about your own experience of cancellation?
Are you comfortable to talk about it?
Sure.
What is it that you sort of, like I saw you say that white people should stay away from black people because there was so much tension being generated and it wasn't safe.
What did you mean and how do you think it was misused especially?
Well, everything that public figures say gets taken out of context, because there's always a bigger context.
So the bigger context is that in the United States and other countries as well, we're suffering under these things called ESG and CRT and DEI.
Now, they all have in common the idea that there's an oppressor group and an oppressed group.
The oppressors are the rich old white guys, mostly, but white people in general.
And the oppressed are black people and people of color, but black people in particular, because of the legacy of slavery and ongoing systemic racism.
And so the idea is that if you're in the group that has been labeled the oppressor, and the other group has been told that you've oppressed them and you have their stuff, And they should get it back.
That's the worst place you should be.
So if you can escape from that situation, you should.
You should run away from it.
It has nothing to do with anybody's DNA.
It has nothing to do with anybody's culture.
So it has nothing to do with even the color.
It has to do with the fact that we've decided to organize our society in a way that we're trading people, not only in school, but all the way through their corporate life and through the media, that one group of people are the bad people, and they have your stuff.
That is a really dangerous situation.
Now, it's hyperbole to say, get away, because we live in a big World in which getting away isn't really a practical thing, so I was hoping people would see that as hyperbole, but if you take it seriously, it sounds like a whole different thing.
Yeah, I suppose in a sense it appears to me that elite interests have always been able to dominate.
I mean, what is power other than the ability to dominate and control reality, whether that's the perception of reality or the economics of reality themselves?
And yeah, there is a sort of a reductivism in many of the The dominant narratives around how we should sort of almost re-segregate society that don't seem to have a very, what do I want to say, congenial vision for our future, i.e.
there is not a very optimistic appraisal of our ability to live together beyond our demographic distinctions.
And that really, really worries me, because I think it is ultimately advantageous to the very same groups that benefit from prohibiting free speech.
When you said that thing before, that ultimately it is dopamine, that's the sort of, you know, like beneath even the level of the individual, the kind of element, the element that we're moving on.
I wonder if you feel that in using that type of framing and that type of analytic, we can look at What's happening when the more vilified Trump becomes, the more popular he becomes?
Superficially it would seem that people are so mistrustful of the legacy media and detest the state so deeply.
Glenn Greenwald and I spoke last week and he said that people hate the state and they actually hate the media now.
It's like there is a hatred that's at almost a tipping point.
And that, in a way, an anti-establishment figure, for whatever you think of Trump, whether you're pro-Trump or anti-Trump person, it's pretty plain the establishment don't want him there.
It's pretty plain they're going to considerable lengths to prevent him becoming a sort of an incumbent political force, at least.
I wonder, What type of ways might this undercurrent, this emotional undercurrent, be harnessed, corralled, motivated, activated for anti-establishment movements elsewhere?
And if you agree with the basic analysis that he's become an anti-establishment icon?
Well, that's a tough one.
So how could you harness the anti-establishment powers like Trump for other places?
Yeah.
Well, it's a singular character.
You'd have to find somebody who just, by luck, had similar characteristics and a billion dollars so they could weather the storms and didn't need to have a day job and all kinds of things.
And they'd have to be a certain age.
I mean, there's things I would say at my current age that I never would have said as a younger man, because right now I'm risking a few extra years of my remaining life.
So that's a smaller risk than 40 years of life.
So I'm in a lower risk situation, as is Trump, because he's a certain age.
So he can simply do and say things that other people are not free to do.
So that's the kind of freedom you could imagine other places would have, older people.
But I don't recommend people over, I don't know, 75 being in office.
It's not the greatest idea.
So that's not the greatest plan.
Here's what I think is happening.
The future is fully unpredictable.
And at the moment, everything looks bad.
Would you agree?
It just looks like the entire fabric of civilization is coming apart.
It's unraveling in every way, everywhere.
But here's the positive to that.
We had to break it.
The system that was going forward was not the system that we could have forever.
It has to be broken.
Everything was corrupt.
We just didn't know it as well as we know it now.
We didn't know that the news was as fake as Trump taught us.
Once we started looking for it, you could see it everywhere.
But until he alerted you to it, you thought, well, maybe a few stories are sketchy, but mostly they're playing it straight down the middle.
They're not.
Everything is rigged, everything is crooked, and we might be at a point where just breaking everything is the right move.
So when I hear things like Matt Gaetz might cause chaos in the Congress with his latest moves about the Speaker, I think to myself, ah, chaos.
That's exactly what you do before you build a house.
You destroy the house that's there, because you can't really just fix the one that's there.
You just gotta bulldoze it.
The first step of building is destruction.
So we may be entering a transparently beneficial destruction period.
But we're also nimble enough in 2023, and there are enough smart people and hardworking people, that we can actually adjust to incredible shocks.
I mean, we got through COVID.
That was quite a shock.
We've gotten through world wars.
We're very resilient.
We've also gotten through, you know, we're going to run out of food, but we didn't.
We're going to run out of oil, but we didn't.
The ozone hole is going to open up and fry us.
It didn't.
Year 2000 is going to end us all.
It didn't.
So we're really good at seeing problems way ahead of time and then adjusting appropriately.
So my most likely prediction for the United States is that there will be corrective forces because there always are.
Things don't go in one direction forever.
That's just not It's just not a feature of human experience.
Things do reach a point that's too far.
This week, for example, we're hearing it was a member of Congress who had a carjacking.
There was a journalist who got murdered in his home in Philadelphia.
So the stories of crime in the cities are certainly going to cause a change to the massive, you know, let's say, unmitigated immigration into the cities.
So we're reaching a breaking point, but not for the wrong reason.
We're probably reaching a breaking point because you have to use reality to fix people's brains if they're living in an illusion.
If the illusion is we can be kind to everybody and it'll all work out, well, the massive immigration into New York City is the physical disproof of that.
So you probably need a physical disproof to change people's minds.
And the minds are what needs to be changed right now.
So we might be heading toward a lot of destruction, but creative destruction.
I feel often that the amount of effort, bureaucracy, corruption, legislation, militarisation of the police forces, anti-protest laws, new censorship bills, increasing surveillance, cultural machinery that appears to be utilised to divide people from one another, All collectively to be taken as a scale of endeavor that must be matched by a kind of latent and unexpressed belief that real change is possible and burgeoning and that there will come a point where people are willing to overlook cultural differences if the right messages can reach them stroke us.
And recognize that ultimately we have more in common than one another than the small sets of institutions and interests that benefit from this ongoing state of crisis and decay that you describe.
Also I agree with your necessity of destruction being a precedent or a precursor to real change
in a kind of almost Vedic Shiva the destroyer creator way because I also feel sometimes
that whilst it appears to be an archetype that most cultures lean into, the idea of
a golden age, the idea of Eden, the idea of a time where we were more awake, it feels
to me that there is a heaviness in our materialism.
There is a heaviness in our individualism.
The rationalism has voided the space between us, has robbed us of the potential charge that can exist between individuals and create the kind of charismatic healing that great individuals can bring about and perhaps great social movements can.
So I sometimes take heart In how hard they work to prevent change from happening, that in a sense like, you know, I'm sure this is something that you're familiar with, it seems like your kind of wheelhouse, those miraculous moments where suddenly tulips are no longer prized, where sort of economic bubbles burst, where new realities just penetrate immediately and people sort of simultaneously awake as if there's some new perfume has reached something dormant within them.
So That's how I keep myself cheerful, Scott.
I wonder if you might tell us a little more.
I know that your Alcohol Is Poison is part of your Reframe Your Brain, at least some of the ideas that you cover within your new book, Reframe Your Brain.
What else is in there, mate?
Well, Reframe Your Brain has tricks for basically making yourself more successful and happier in a bunch of situations.
Let me tell you one that's really good if you're nervous.
Let's say you're real nervous about where things are going.
And let's say there's some things in your past that are really, really bothering you.
You know, your baggage, something you're guilty about, whatever.
Here's a good little mental trick.
Just imagine that you're in a video game, That your reality is actually just a video game and you're in it.
And you just respawned.
And you just came alive.
And you're in the life that you observe.
But you have to figure it out from here.
And you say to yourself, all right, I'm just born now.
So the time started today.
And if I do this exercise, I say, okay, what am I?
I'm a male.
I'm alive.
I seem to be perfectly healthy.
I look in the mirror, I go, I could be a lot uglier.
Not good.
I could be a lot worse.
And then I look around and I go, oh, check my bank account.
Looks pretty good.
Looks pretty good.
What's my job?
Not bad.
Not bad at all.
Do I have friends?
Do I have some family I love?
I do.
Do I love my dog?
And you can take, if you just forget the history, because history is imaginary anyway, you know, the future doesn't exist.
History doesn't exist at all.
You can't grab a handful of it.
You can't rub it on your face.
It's gone.
So if you just do the video game reframe, I just respond, would this be a good day or a bad day if I woke up into this life?
And suddenly, a lot of things that were bothering you, that were monstrously big problems, don't seem so much.
You're just sitting here in your life and saying, huh, I think I can make this work.
We're going to leave my conversation with Scott Adams, writer of Reframe Your Brain.
There's a link in the description connecting you to that.
And if you want to see the rest of it, and I'll tell you what, it's worth it.
It became a very organic and brilliant conversation.
If you want to see it in its entirety, click the red button right there and become an awakened wonder.
If you press that awaken button, you get access to all sorts of additional content and we're going to be providing even more.
We are building this movement around you.
Once the government step in and demonetize you, that's it now.
That's it.
That's it.
Boots on the ground.
Fully in.
That's us, baby.
The rest of the conversation is fantastic.
You really will love it.
It's really worth pressing that red button and becoming a member of our community like Matty Otter, Mark Lester and Limba Timber.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you for supporting us.
I value you.
I care about you.
I appreciate you.
So, join us tomorrow.
Not for more of the same.
We won't give you that, but for more of the different.
▲
Export Selection