Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 6, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:27:44

“THEY’LL SHUT YOU DOWN!” - Dr John Campbell On Vaccines, Big Pharma & WHO Treaty - Stay Free #218

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is a video of the game.
	I'm not sure if you can see it.
	You're going to see the future.
	Hello there you awakened wonder wherever you are.
	Well done for transcending the fear.
	Well done for not allowing the machine to reduce you to the status of an automaton.
	Well done for remaining connected to your essence.
	Well done for questioning and interrogating mainstream narratives that will mean one day we will have alternatives.
	The alternative has already been born.
	We are it.
	We are the movement that's going to change the world together.
	How?
	By questioning, for example, a memorial for the war on terror.
	You know the War on Terror?
	That great scar on the West?
	That great exemplifier of transgressions and lies and treachery and deceit?
	Yeah, I remember that already, and it's still happening, so I don't need to remember something that's happening now.
	Well, why don't we build a statue to it?
	This helps us.
	This story you're going to see in a minute, and here's the news.
	It helps us to understand the way that the media simply amplifies propaganda of the state and normalises the message of the state.
	Something we've recently begun to understand as state-free media.
	They normalise an idea through repetition and immersion.
	Now I've got to ask you, follow us!
	Subscribe, like our content, and if it's within your means, press the red button and become a supporter of our movement.
	You know now that the government, the actual government, demanded that we be demonetised.
	Well, they didn't demand, they asked, but the fact is that it was treated as a demand and we were demonetised.
	So we need your support now.
	More than ever.
	Your support is what undergirds, legitimises and powers this movement.
	Without you, we are nothing.
	But hey, if you can't afford it, don't worry about that.
	Your attention and your presence is so much more important than your money.
	We need you more than we need your money.
	But we do need your money.
	The first part of the show is available everywhere.
	Then we're going to be on Rumble.
	We need you to click the link on the description and join us there.
	Let's see what the legacy media are telling you.
	During the Liberal Convention in Ottawa, Chrystia Freeland, Nazi granddaughter, and Hillary Clinton need No explanation have been telling us that Ukrainians are dying right now, not for humanitarian reasons or can't remember what they told us last week, but it's so that NATO can send a message to China.
	This is astonishing.
	They're admitting publicly that this is a sort of, well, a PR exercise.
	It's a resource exploitation exercise.
	It's an opportunity to pilot tech dystopias.
	We've already told you about that.
	BlackRock are already involved.
	This is extraordinary.
	Watch the way that this is presented.
	This is propaganda live.
	It's essentially like watching the Emperor and Darth Vader's PR people go, this is why we've got to kill those Ewoks.
	It'll send a message to other cute, fluffy, bear-like forest dwellers.
	Now, I agree with you, Madam Secretary, that... No shit.
	You wouldn't be here if you didn't.
	Message of deterrence?
	Can you see how much is packed into that little statement?
	Do China need to be deterred?
	Where is the empirical evidence that China are expansionist beyond their geographical region and their own History and trajectory and rights to have their own attitudes that maybe isn't the rest of the world's business and do you imagine that that's what America is doing right now?
	Do they need to be deterred?
	Deterred from what?
	Are China circling America now with military bases or are America circling China right now with military bases?
	Just check the answer to that question and then you perhaps will be in a better position to see whether or not there's any legitimacy to what Chrystia Freeland, Nazi granddaughter, is saying there to Hillary Clinton.
	You've done your research.
	I know already in the chat what you think Hillary Clinton's doing for a hobby and where her husband goes on holiday.
	Notice no one's investigating that.
	So let me know in the chat in the comments your views.
	And just look at, again, the media normalizes the agenda of the powerful.
	The media normalizes the agenda of the powerful.
	Yeah, send a message!
	We're sending a message to you, China.
	That's like, if this was a movie about the mob, they're just saying, let's go smash up, like, China's shop.
	That's what they're saying, isn't it?
	That's what they're literally saying.
	Smash up their shops to let them know what's coming.
	And Christian Freeland, Nazi granddaughter, should know a thing or two about sending messages by smashing stuff up.
	That is the message that says to all the world's dictators, you know what?
	Democracy is prepared to fight back.
	It's not fighting back.
	It's actually fighting preemptively.
	It's beyond fighting back.
	It's not like bloody China when they sent that hot air balloon over the country.
	Well, do you know what we'll do?
	We'll kill the Chinese.
	That's what we'll do.
	We'll start taking over Taiwan right now.
	That's not what's happening.
	Sending a message that democracy is willing to fight back.
	Democracy is not a religion.
	It's meant to be just a municipal bureaucratic system of engaging the will of the people.
	Do you know what would be democratic?
	Do you want a war with China?
	Yes or no?
	Tick yes, we'll go bomb China.
	Tick no, we won't.
	Do you want us to fund welfare in Hawaii?
	Tick yes or no.
	Do you want us to perpetuate?
	Well, that's what would happen in a democracy.
	That would be democracy.
	Then you could legitimize what you're saying.
	Not once every four years you're gonna have this son of a... or this total arse.
	You know, that's not democracy.
	That is a contained system of hegemony where your views are meaningless.
	And if that were not sufficient evidence that you're sliding into dystopia, how about a delicious ice cream made out of waste plastic?
	You're alright.
	No, no, we're spending money evolving this project.
	Of course you know the saying, I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream.
	Oh, I'm screaming.
	I'm screaming because you're normalizing dystopia.
	First it was eat bugs, lab-grown meat, and now ice cream made out of plastic.
	Also may I say, Ice cream's a luxury.
	You don't even need ice cream anyway.
	Even if it's like grass-fed cattle or some sort of pure bean grown somewhere without lopping down a bit of the Amazon.
	It's a re-harvest plastic just to give people ice cream.
	Stop eating ice cream, actually.
	Stop it.
	It's not very good for you.
	We're not idiots.
	Let's start eating things that grows where we are, when we are.
	And if you're a person that eats meat, and even though I don't, I don't judge you because it's your life.
	That's called your life.
	Try and eat meat.
	There's somewhere around where you are.
	Not shuttled around the world, in a factory, bolted in the brain.
	Let's try and get out of this hell, shall we?
	Not work out.
	We found a new corner of hell to occupy.
	You're gonna eat shit now.
	I'd like it.
	It's vanilla flavoured.
	Can't you at least make it chocolate?
	This is plastic ice cream.
	Scientists from the UK have reportedly made the world's first food made from plastic waste.
	Why is this news?
	It's not even edible yet.
	This is like they've made food made out of plastic.
	Well done.
	Well done you.
	Can we do something about the forever wars?
	Can we do something about the incremental increasing surveillance Can we do something about these censorship laws that are being normalized and introduced?
	Can we do something about the culture wars?
	Can we let people have some hope, meaning, and God in their lives?
	Sorry, did you say you want a plastic ice cream or not?
	It's chocolate flavored now!
	Why isn't chocolate?
	Researchers from the University of Edinburgh figured out a way to harness bacteria.
	Also, part of the problem with processed food, like, isn't food already too processed?
	Given it's diabetes, heart disease, cancer, full of phthalates from plastics that's getting in there by accident.
	Do you know what?
	We need more processed food, go on, with more plastic!
	That isn't the answer!
	Why are you going that way?
	Why are you running in the wrong direction?
	Why are you dragging us to hell?
	It's delicious, you know!
	Delicious hell!
	As well as enzymes to behave as eco-friendly factories that break down plastic into digestible material.
	Hang on that rotating thing like it's a car on a game show.
	Look at what you could have won!
	Some disgusting plastic ice cream!
	However, the scientists involved made sure to emphasize that the ice cream is still a research project and not yet ready for human consumption.
	We will see.
	Not news!
	Propaganda!
	Shh!
	Propaganda!
	Just because something's digestible doesn't mean you should eat it.
	The news is digestible, but you shouldn't be consuming it.
	Next on the Dystopia cavalcade, WorldCoin.
	We told you about WorldCoin, how they've found some country poor enough to tolerate the introduction of chrome spheres, sucking data out of your eyes, stealing all your biometrics under the auspices of helping you, as usual.
	Safety and convenience, safety and convenience, all the way to the cell and to the boneyard.
	Here, the claim is made that this technology could be used for social welfare.
	Let's see how the legacy media are going to normalise this piece of propaganda.
	In cities around the world, big metallic orbs are scanning people's eyeballs and handing out a new cryptocurrency as a reward.
	Well, actually, I'm not happy about that.
	I'm still getting used to the idea that you don't have like a milkman come to your house and deliver milk every day, that you don't have a paperboy There you go, sir!
	There's your newspaper!
	I'm adjusting to that.
	I'm adjusting to the dehumanization, turning everything into data and information, stripping away community and connection.
	I'm not ready yet for the Chrome Orb, sucking information out of my eyes, spying on me, and introducing a currency that could be switched off if I'm not an obedient little prisoner of the state.
	Notice how the news, the news, which is Never forget, just the TV show Amplifying the Agenda of the Powerful tells you now that this is somehow going to help you.
	From New York to Tokyo, these scanning stations look like a scene out of a sci-fi movie.
	One where... That's not good!
	Sci-fi movies may be enjoyable as entertainment.
	You don't want to live there, do you?
	You don't want to actually live in Blade Runner.
	You're like, oh, I like that.
	Blade Runner really makes you think about the possibility of, like, AI and the amount of control that could be exerted by a government.
	Yeah.
	And what does it make you think about it?
	That you would like it to actually happen?
	No, actually, it's a warning.
	A horrific Warning about the hubris of humankind and what happens if we detach absolutely from simple, easy-to-understand values like kindness, service, justice, unity, love, tolerance, which to these people are just words and ways of sucking information out of your eye with a chrome bull.
	Did you hear that?
	The right to participate.
	That means they can switch off your money.
	That's where it's going.
	You won't be able to travel.
	You won't be able to spend.
	Do you really think, after what you've been through in the last few years, they'd never do that?
	I'd like to see them implement the laws they introduced in China.
	To Americans or to British people as a matter of fact.
	Yeah, or Australians, mate.
	And what about Canadians?
	Well, we're going to do a double quick over there.
	We've already got the perfect regime in place.
	This is just the normalisation of immersive surveillance, censorship, and now the ability to shut off your money.
	has a lot of big name backers. In May, WorldCoin raised $115 million in a series C funding
	round led by Blockchain Capital. Other members of its cap table and what was attractive about
	blockchain if I understand you guys right and let me know in the chat and the comments
	because you guys are much more advanced on this than me plainly is that it allows anonymity.
	It allows commerce and trade outside of the auspicious reach of the government, the state
	and the corporate partners in big tech. Well, what they're doing is what if we took blockchain
	and cryptocurrency but instead of it being private, anonymous and untraceable, we made
	it the opposite of that.
	Maximum privacy for government, maximum invasion into your privacy.
	It should be the reverse.
	The government should be 100% transparent and you should have access to total privacy, unless you're proven to have done something wrong.
	What's being normalized is the inverse of that.
	Before your very eyes.
	And while you've got your eyes, how about sucking some information out of those guys?
	Just look into the chrome sphere.
	Completely normal.
	Nothing to worry about.
	...include VCs like Andreessen Horowitz and Coinbase.
	Worldcoin, now valued at 3 billion dollars.
	According to the information, a user signs up through the app and they are then tasked with visiting a Worldcoin location.
	Find a nearby orb, just like, you know, like it's a sort of a mailbox, a postbox, a friendly policeman that you're strolling by.
	Where is the pastoral life?
	Madness.
	In one of the more than 20 countries where the orbs are currently operational.
	We told you last time they pilot it in a poor country, they'll bring it to rich countries.
	It turns out we, stroke you, stroke we, were right about that.
	Let's have a look at some other facts.
	According to Reuters, WorldCoin has said it will allow companies and governments to use its ID system.
	Oh, so part of the convenience and safety will be that your information will be given to companies for advertising and governments for control.
	Yeah, I suppose you could do that.
	One of the envisaged applications of WorldCoin is to create a public infrastructure that will serve as proof of personhood.
	Who doesn't want to prove that they're a person?
	That's the only thing that's happening.
	It's not that it's going to create a vast database of facts about you.
	Without citing sources or methodology allowing it to arrive at this conclusion, a post on WorldCoin's website claims that India managed to save more than half a billion dollars worth of social welfare and subsidies by using a biometric data-based anti-fraud system.
	Social welfare, I feel, is the lubrication that will ultimately become social
	credit scores. But let me know in the chat and the comments what you think. And remember, if it's
	within your means, press the red button, join us, become part of this movement. We need you if we're
	going to oppose all this stuff.
	Hey, you know we believe in free speech, you know we believe in freedom of speech,
	and where freedom meets speech, you get free speech, and where free speech means you get freech.
	This is from V-BEC.
	The problem arising for creators of independent journalism is that you stand alone.
	You should seriously consider creating a collective of some sort so you can stay free and bring us news that leaves space for free thinking, reasoning, and deduction.
	Yeah, we would love your help.
	That's why it's important that you join us.
	Press the red button.
	Support us, man.
	Blessed Old Bird, how lovely.
	Hello, how lovely to say your name.
	I hope you're all right out there.
	Lawlessness equals where evil is good and good is evil.
	We're well on our way, aren't we?
	Astrotooch.
	Free speech.
	You're both well informed and misinformed.
	Without it, only misinformed.
	At Sandwater, thank you for standing up to tyranny and waving the freedom flag.
	Thank you for supporting us.
	Cheryl Parker.
	As an independent news junkie, I finally found your platform.
	It's the best remedy for maintaining one's sanity.
	I can't recall laughing this much in months.
	Thank you, Russell.
	You are the best.
	You've got to keep laughing.
	Humour, the ability to discern, the ability to stay awake are absolutely vital.
	Press the red button.
	Become an AwakendWonder supporter so we can continue with this movement.
	Remember the War on Terror?
	What do you mean remember it?
	It's still happening?
	Oh yeah, well you don't need to remember it.
	But can we build a memorial anyway?
	I don't think you should build a memorial.
	It seems bad taste with all those millions of people that died.
	We're gonna build a memorial.
	We're gonna build a memorial to the War on Terror.
	Let's have a look at the War on Terror.
	What it means, what it meant, why it happened, why a memorial is being built and why the legacy media simply amplifies the propaganda of the corporate state rather than interrogating it and questioning it.
	Here's the news.
	No. Here's the effing news.
	Thanks for watching Fox News.
	Good day.
	No. Here's the fucking news.
	Remember the war on terror?
	Yeah, it was awful.
	Let's put it behind us.
	Or commemorate it with a new memorial.
	Luckily the mainstream media will interrogate the veracity of this endeavor and ensure that this isn't used to facilitate ongoing wars.
	Or will they just make it seem normal and kind of cute?
	There is a new memorial being planned to celebrate, commemorate the war on terror.
	Those of you old enough to actually remember it will not want a memorial because you will remember it as a travesty and a tragedy that caused the deaths of millions of people all over the world.
	4.5 million is a rough estimate, created problems that we're still living with, geopolitical
	disasters across the Middle East and in a sense facilitated the new military-industrial
	complex that continues to perpetuate its agenda to this day.
	It's also the issue that defines our time. When people tell the truth about war, the motives
	for war, the fiasco that is war, whether it's in Afghanistan, Iraq or the current
	conflict between Ukraine and Russia, those people are silenced and shut down.
	This is a time where war is perhaps more important than ever because there is a war against the individual, the war against domestic population and numerous planned wars against other superpowers, presumably to facilitate a unipolar global dystopia where none of us have any individual freedom and it seems that they're doing surprisingly well.
	Let's have a look at this memorial To dread, death, tragedy, travesty and dishonour.
	Alright?
	Yeah, here's the news, we are your friends!
	The news is a television program.
	The news is not here's some information.
	Newspapers, mainstream legacy media, they are agenda-led.
	It is absolute propaganda.
	Some of it is vicious, overt propaganda.
	Sponsored by Pfizer.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	Moderna shot of the tournament.
	Some of it is more insidious propaganda.
	Hello, I'm just a neutral expert and yes, we should escalate this war.
	Did you get any money from Raytheon?
	Well, some.
	You know, like, there's different degrees of propaganda, but it's all propaganda, and this propaganda is fantastic.
	It's the cozy familiarity of news media that those of us that are around my kind of age lean into for comfort, as if we're watching Cheers or the Golden Girls, a time when television was your kind of friend, or at least you felt that it was.
	There was a kind of a warmth and a reaching out in good faith.
	Not the just ongoing, agenda-led, propagandizing, disempowering, lying filth presented to you over a hot steaming mug of Morning Joe.
	Doesn't smell like Joe.
	Smells like bullshit.
	Welcome back to CBS Mornings.
	As we celebrate the holidays, we're also remembering those who served our nation, including service members who fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
	We're not gonna remember them too hard, though.
	Otherwise, we'll be forced to remember that their lives were squandered and wasted in an attempt to steal resources in a conflict that was not at all connected to the war on terror that it was claimed they were fighting.
	They may as well have just bombed Finland, except there's no oil in Finland.
	So it's presented to you as if it's like part of Christmas or something, wasn't it?
	Like it's time for the holidays.
	And of course I'm not blaming the individual newscaster.
	This is just an individual node within a vast network of deception.
	You know that.
	Let me know in the chat if you agree.
	But it's the manner of this presentation.
	Isn't the legacy media supposed to interrogate and investigate?
	In the instances when they do do that, you might surmise that there's an agenda behind it.
	And if you look, you will find one.
	Oh, it's really interesting.
	Why are they investigating that issue?
	Oh, I see, it benefits the powerful.
	What the news could be saying is, let's have a serious look at the war on terror because millions of people died.
	Did it benefit anybody?
	Why were we told that we were having this war?
	We were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, for example, and there just weren't.
	What's the true legacy of the war on terror?
	How has it affected our attitude towards militarism and how has it affected US foreign policy?
	Is this a time It's time for us to radically re-evaluate America's role in the world.
	Do you want America going around getting engaged in foreign wars that's funded by you?
	Your funding is.
	Make no bones about it.
	And, by the way, that funding isn't reaching those troops that are putting their lives on the line.
	Significant sums, at least half, maybe as much as 70%, ends up in the hands of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
	That's not hard to do, that.
	Actually, it is quite hard.
	We've worked extremely hard and we've been dedicated to it.
	But it's possible to do it.
	We do it with you.
	We do it because we believe that it's necessary.
	These guys don't.
	What is their job then?
	What are they actually doing?
	They're essentially saying their role is to normalise the agenda of the powerful.
	Just notice that.
	Next time you're looking at mainstream news, I don't reckon you should do it.
	Notice, are they normalising the agenda of the powerful now?
	This is essentially an advert for big tech.
	Is this introducing a piece of authoritarian surveillance technology that is gonna next time I say oh yeah yeah I saw that on the news like you're just seeing the Kellogg's Rooster and just put it in your mouth about thinking hang on a minute would it be just as nutritious to eat the goddamn box?
	There's now a bipartisan push on Capitol Hill to build a memorial on the National Mall to honor their sacrifice.
	You know that illegal war?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, we're just gonna honour your sacrifice.
	You mean when a beloved family member died for no reason?
	Yeah.
	We're gonna honour that.
	Thanks.
	But the effort has run into some political obstacles in Congress.
	The effort to build a national global war on terrorism memorial was authorized by Congress in 2017.
	The war on terror is always a stupid idea.
	It's stupid!
	It's a stupid idea.
	You can't have a war on terror.
	You've made it worse already by doing a war on it.
	It's abstract.
	It's diffuse.
	It has complex undergirdings.
	It doesn't take place sponsored by nation-states.
	And if it did, there was one in particular that really stood out.
	They're a prominent ally of America to this day with old Joe Biden going over there, not making them a pariah, but making them a friend.
	It's complicated.
	So the idea that you're going to somehow solidify it as a monolith or an object just shows you the propagandizing mentality of the state to
	this day.
	It's just to give you a reality that sort of engulfs your consciousness and stops you thinking straight.
	The mainstream media supports it, propagates it, benefits from it, is part of it.
	But it didn't specify when or where construction would begin.
	It will be built with private donations.
	Hmm.
	Well, that's good.
	Private donations.
	From whom?
	Where'd they get the money?
	What's their agenda?
	Answer those questions.
	Be surprised by the outcome.
	And three sites on the National Mall have been proposed, allowing the remembrance of our longest war to share hallowed ground with memorials to our founding fathers, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.
	It's not the tit parade, is it?
	It's not like the charts.
	It's not the billboard top ten.
	Some of our best wars.
	This war, that was a good one.
	That one, sorry about that.
	This one, that was illegal.
	This one, this is the longest one.
	Like, it's still happening.
	I mean, it's been normalized to the point where I don't even really think about it anymore, except with a heavy heart.
	I don't think, should we build a statue to that?
	I think, should we stop doing it?
	This has been our nation's longest war.
	Here you go, yet more propaganda.
	Do you know what would make this look great?
	If we had two female people from Congress, one from each party, to show that we are united in propagandizing the population.
	That would look nice.
	How about actually having some integrity?
	Some authenticity?
	Some values?
	Some principles?
	We could never do that.
	Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican, and New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan are leading a bipartisan effort to mandate the Global War on Terror memorial be built on the Mall.
	It's amazing that what we're presented is a full argument between two parties who are funded in the exact same way, who have basically the same agenda.
	They're occasionally brought together either to fund a war or to build a monolith to an unnecessary and illegal war.
	Well, what united you two?
	I suppose just our love of war.
	At least 54 other senators are also on board.
	Getting agreement across the aisle shouldn't be hard.
	This is not news, is it?
	This is the amplification of an existing message.
	Why is that person not going, what the hell are you doing?
	What do you mean a memorial for a war?
	This is appalling.
	Why are you still doing this stuff?
	Do you have stocks and shares in anything that's connected to this?
	What's your relationship with Raytheon and LockheedMine?
	Just tell us again how much money they spend on donations to your party every year.
	Get out!
	Get out!
	That's what the media is supposed to be doing.
	But when people actually do stuff like that, do you know what the media do?
	they destroy them. Exactly when you think about our veterans men and women who serve
	don't ask each other what political party they're in as they go into danger. The fact that this
	apocryphal service person doesn't ask which party is leading them to war is presented here as a sort
	of a cozy maxim around loyalty somehow.
	But it wouldn't matter if they did ask because the answer would be both of them.
	All the time.
	Always.
	Because you cannot oppose war anymore because the interests that drive war are transcendent of democracy.
	regardless of who's in this position or the position of administration, you will still be getting wars as exemplified
	by the two of us apparent opponents sat here together cozily discussing a memorial to an
	imaginary war that somehow caused actual deaths.
	So it's not like, oh, isn't it great that people don't ask questions?
	The fact is it doesn't matter if you ask questions because the answer is these interests are beyond party politics.
	Party politics is irrelevant and really all these people are at this point are actors.
	This is a production. These two congresspeople are actors.
	You have a spectacle.
	It's a spectacle.
	It's an illusion.
	matter what they say, what they do or what they want. The news media just amplifies of
	that message. Congress people are not going, we're here to represent the American people,
	what do the American people want, how do we ensure that their will is enacted through
	us? They're not doing that, are they? Plainly, you can see that. The media aren't going,
	is what you're saying true? Why are you doing that? Hey, wait a minute, I've got some questions.
	So what do you have? You have a spectacle. It's a spectacle.
	It's an illusion. It is almost actually, I suppose, the Matrix. Don't ask each
	other what political party they're in as they go into danger on behalf of their...
	On behalf of their who?
	You're about to say fellow Americans?
	Is that what it was?
	Did anyone believe at this point that if the war on terror had not happened, actual Americans in America would be any worse off than they are today?
	That the world would be any worse off than it is today?
	I've not heard any convincing arguments.
	Most people say it caused ISIS.
	The fractures and disputes in the Middle Eastern region are the direct legacy of that.
	Millions of children died.
	Millions of service people, the people indeed that this congressperson is talking about, died as a result of it.
	What was gained?
	What can we go, well there you go, Halliburton did well out of it and Dick Cheney's looking good.
	Remember that's when the Republican Party were the party of war.
	Now the Democrat Party are the party of war.
	Almost as if really there's an agenda and they're just like the fleas on the back of the dog of war.
	We know that it is the right thing to do to place a Global War on Terror memorial on the National Mall.
	We all know that.
	Oh my god, reality is broken.
	It's actually broken.
	They've broken it.
	They've broken actual reality now.
	We're gonna have to amend it.
	We're gonna have to put reality back together.
	Nothing less than a total revolution beginning with your individual consciousness but ending with the replacement of all of our existing systems will be sufficient to amend the horror that they have wreaked upon our planet.
	Thanks for joining us!
	We want to make sure that we're able to honour those that have participated in our nation's most recent war while they are still with us.
	They're presenting this as honouring and commemorating brave dead service people, but what they're actually doing is normalising a corporate, commercial, colonial, imperialist endeavour that was based on a lie and remains a lie.
	Do you see how the trick happens?
	See, even in criticising it, you could get people to go, oh, you don't care about those dead service people.
	Yeah, I do actually.
	I do care about them.
	That's why I think this whole endeavour is pretty disgusting.
	Many of them are questioning, does my country understand the sacrifice that I gave?
	And we want to tell them that yes, we honor you.
	So what is this?
	A sort of a play?
	A puppet show?
	They may say, does my country recognize the sacrifice of my life?
	They're dead now.
	This is a ghost.
	And we're saying, yes, cause of statue.
	Now the bill actually unanimously passed a Senate committee chaired by Joe Manchin.
	The senators are now hoping to attach it to the national defense spending bill that the Senate will take up next week.
	What?
	What?
	Nationals?
	What?
	Sorry, more expenditure for... Are there wars going on now?
	How about this as a memorial to those dead people?
	Stop involving America in unnecessary, unwinnable wars.
	Are there any unnecessary, unwinnable wars happening right now?
	Yeah, loads.
	The one we're building this statue to and a great big new one that some people think will become an actual hot boots on the ground war any day now.
	And there is some indication that troops are being sent to Ukraine in spite the president saying that would never happen.
	It's happening.
	The foundation intends to not only break ground, but complete construction and open the memorial to the public, perhaps right back there.
	There might be a statue there one day beyond that duck.
	Here's the news.
	Thanks for tuning in.
	If you need to know anything else that might happen beyond a duck, you can rely on us for other near-duck related information.
	If, however, you require integrity, insight, transparency, and potentially holding the powerful to account, which I don't think that is related to ducks, you probably should watch something Right back there, by the end of the decade.
	And I said decade, not decade.
	Chris, a generation of men and women in their service and as so many said in that piece, you don't want that slap in the face at this point.
	Thank you.
	What?
	What?
	No one likes the metaphorical slap in the face of not building an unnecessary statue but I bet they like even less the actual physical bullets in the guts of an unnecessary war where a foreign territory was invaded under false pretenses.
	Also don't you think that what the statue should actually just be the face of an American service person being slapped by a handful of money held by Jules W Bush or Joe Biden, don't matter, they both agreed that it should happen.
	This is from The Intercept.
	You may not know that there's a memorial planned for the global war on terror.
	President Donald Trump signed legislation approving the memorial back in 2017.
	The bill created an exception to the commemorative works act of 1986 which requires the passage of at least 10 years after the official end of a war before a memorial to it can be constructed in Washington DC.
	That was obviously unworkable regarding the global war on terror because it's still happening.
	I think I need to remember something that's still happening.
	And now a statue for the increasing centralization of power, surveillance, and ongoing lies.
	Why do we need to remember that?
	It's happening now.
	Well, can't hurt.
	It's a nice statue.
	It's you being slapped around the face with some money.
	Do it then.
	We're gonna put it by that duck.
	There's no design yet, but the foundation funding the memorial is conducting a public survey for ideas through October 17th.
	Here's the survey.
	When someone stands before the GWOT memorial, what do you hope they feel?
	Oh my god, what the hell's going on in the world?
	Feel?
	That's emotions now!
	We're into the realm of psychic archetypes.
	Here's some of the things that you might want the statue to make you feel.
	Honour, healing, empowerment, unity, understanding, patriotism, peace.
	That's not a statue.
	That's fentanyl.
	You can't induce that with a statue.
	You have to get the Sackler family to drug you so that your consciousness is below reality now.
	Because if you're awake, you'll look at the statue and go, Hang on a minute, what I feel is hypocrisy, anger, rage, disgust.
	That there needs to be an entirely new system.
	That we need to form our own militias and oppose the people behind this statue and the war on terror and ensure that we are able to run our own communities.
	We demand democracy.
	Give them some Fentanyl!
	Give them some Fentanyl!
	You'll note that none of the options are emotions such as rage-fueled sorrow or the urge to prosecute war criminals.
	Given this, you may not be surprised to learn that the honorary chair of the foundation is George W. Bush, who happens to be the president who birthed the global war on terror with the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.
	The foundation's funders include 7-Eleven, Oh my god.
	7-11?
	There's a war on terror with 7-11.
	No matter whether it's 7 or 11 or the hours between them, you can commemorate an unnecessary war and have a slushie.
	Amazon and Baker Bots, a powerhouse Texas law firm named after James Baker, Secretary of State for the first George Bush.
	He's one of the people that came up with the war and now he's funding the statue for his own mad war.
	God.
	A recent estimate by the Costs of War Project at Brown University found that over 4.5 million people have died thanks to the direct and indirect effects of conflict in post-911 war zones.
	Of these, about 10,000 are Americans, including those who died on September 11, 2001, or during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
	The Costs of War Project has also calculated that the price of the global war on terror has been about $6 trillion so far, And we'll have to spend another $2 trillion on care for veterans in the future for an eventual total cost of $8 trillion.
	Some of this money was essentially set on fire and has disappeared.
	But a lot of it is still here in the US, in particular in the lovely suburbs surrounding the Defense Department in Northern Virginia.
	Since the Global War and Terror Memorial is going to be right by Arlington Memorial Bridge, there could be complimentary bus trips across the Potomac, allowing visitors to gape at all the mansions, $108,000 Range Rovers and more recently luxury Pickleball Courts they purchased for defence contractors.
	The mainstream media simply amplifies the propaganda of the state and the military-industrial complex, whereas we want to interrogate and investigate the facts so that we can bring you truth, so that we can mutually awaken together, which frankly is impossible for us to do without our commercial partners and sponsors, and by God are they loyal.
	Sticker meal!
	These guys are bringing you a set of new stickers.
	I mean, I don't actually even understand how their business model works.
	But there are six fantastic designs that you can have for nothing.
	Look, I'm one of them.
	Check it out.
	There are six stunning designs, including that one, that are only available in this pack.
	And they're all made with Sticker Mule's Magic Touch.
	And by God, are they sticky!
	Sticker Mule has 10,000 of these packs.
	That's right.
	10,000.
	10,000.
	Ready to deliver to your address absolutely It seems to me that there's literally nothing to lose.
	Just go to stickermule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the form.
	That's all you gotta do.
	Go to stickermule.com forward slash Russell.
	Get sent these things.
	They're supporting us.
	You're supporting us.
	Let's get some stickers out of this thing.
	Let's go back to the egregious, awful propaganda of the mainstream media that like to pretend that what they're doing is actual news, when what they're doing is the amplification of propaganda without inquiry and question.
	Remember when George W Bush CIA briefers gave him a presentation on August 6th 2001 titled Bin Laden determined to strike in the US?
	And part of it warned that the FBI had information that indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings.
	And other warnings his administration received were titled Bin Laden attacks may be imminent and Bin Laden planning high-profile attacks.
	And how Vice President Dick Cheney asked the CIA whether Al Qaeda might be pretending to be about to attack America just to fool us into expending resources in response.
	This is just the tip of a 9-11 iceberg that I know many of you are familiar with when it comes to the potential for deep state involvement that you can investigate for yourself, although we have discussed it elsewhere in some depth.
	Back in 2004, at the White House Correspondents Association dinner, Bush joshed about looking for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the Oval Office, since they hadn't turned up anywhere else.
	Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere.
	Nope, no weapons over there.
	It's unbelievable, isn't it?
	4.5 million people died and it's like, oh, those weapons of mass destruction, where were they, huh?
	Wink wink.
	Maybe under here.
	At the same event six years later in 2010, President Barack Obama kidded about killing the Jonas Brothers with a Predator drone.
	The Jonas Brothers are here.
	Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys don't get any ideas.
	I have two words for you.
	Predator drones.
	You will never see it coming.
	Again, the joke here is that Obama murdered American citizens with drones and according to a 2013 book told aides that I'm really good at killing people.
	It's not really the legacy of Barack Obama that we're encouraged to consider, is it?
	That, you know, he participated in murder and was good at murder.
	Maybe these two videos could play continuously at the Global War and Terror Memorial so everyone will realize there's no reason we can't have some fun with this whole thing.
	So what we'd like to draw your attention to is the way that the mainstream media doesn't investigate this story at all, just amplifies an existing message, the way it's presented as a bipartisan endeavor of unity, the brushing over of the true causes of the war on terror and the true consequences of the war on terror, and an attempt to make any anti-war sentiment unpatriotic or adversarial to the people who gave their lives, when it is in fact That is how narrativization works.
	You associate someone with a legitimate sense of inquiry and investigation with something negative.
	Oh, if you don't like this memorial and therefore the war on terror, which was illegal and based on lies, then you are not supportive of the troops.
	No, no, no, no.
	I am supportive of the troops, so much so that I'd like them not to pointlessly die in order to create opportunities for profit for the military-industrial complex.
	And to create further oppositions for unipolar exploitation of the planet and the needless perpetuation of war that continues to this day.
	You don't need a memorial to the war on terror.
	The war on terror is still happening.
	So our other wars and the wars that we are in are increasing in their tenacity, if not their efficacy.
	What's required here is a news media that asks valid questions.
	What's required is a Congress where people do not unite for photo ops and propaganda, but interrogate the politics of America, both domestically and internationally.
	A suitable memorial for the war on terror is your awakening, your investigation of facts, your rejection of legacy media, your rejection of systemic corrupt politics that's funded by a donor class and sets of interests that are transcendent of democracy.
	That's the memorial they deserve.
	That's the memorial that we are suggesting.
	Well that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	Go on, let me know.
	No, see you in a second.
	Thanks for watching Fox News.
	No, here's the fucking news.
	So there you are, commemorating a war that's still happening.
	The war on terror, a stain on our culture, an example how the media normalizes and amplifies the messages of the powerful instead of interrogating and investigating.
	Unless, of course, they are investigations that are designed to bring down dissent and dissidents and stop open conversation.
	We are moving now.
	If you're watching us anywhere else, you're going to have to click the link in the description and support us.
	And to support independent media, Yet further, you can click the red button and become a member of our Awakened Wonder community and you are going to want to because Dr. John Campbell, great denizen and cenotaph, living memorial of truth on YouTube, but I feel perhaps may end up elsewhere one day, is joining us.
	So click the link and join us for this conversation.
	Dr. John, thanks for joining us today.
	If only all those things were true, Russell.
	Thank you for having me.
	There is certainly a degree of truth in the fact that I believe that you are a man who believes in transparency, openness, communication and genuine science and throughout the pandemic period you were certainly one of the voices that I leant into.
	Thank you.
	Mate, so let's just start off broadly.
	We've got a lot of subjects to cover in our conversation and I'm reminded continually now that the point of what we do is to ensure that the agenda of the establishment and the legacy media does not go unchallenged.
	That is the function of what we're doing.
	Of course, you came to prominence during the pandemic period and during that time the public trust in various government institutions, in particular in the United States, you might say that the CDC, FDA, but in our country too and across the world, trust in media and trust in government institutions is failing and falling apart.
	I wonder what you think about the latest round of COVID vaccines in the US, and I wonder what you think about the management and manipulation of that myocarditis information between males, the sort of use of those studies.
	So perhaps you can start with a couple of examples there.
	The new monetization and charges for the Pfizer and Moderna shots.
	So I wonder what you feel about that, Doc.
	Yeah, so I think the new shots are going to be, I think it's $120 each, Russell, per shot or slightly more.
	And yet the advice in the United States is still to vaccinate with the updated vaccines everyone that's over the age of six months.
	And that's really concerning because, you know, the risk-benefit analyses that are often quoted are those from really early on in the pandemic when Covid was.
	You know, still a dangerous disease to some people, but now the situation's really changed quite dramatically.
	You know, vaccines can have some effect, did have some effect early in the pandemic.
	Now, everyone's been exposed to COVID multiple times, and we have this wonderful thing called the immune system, and it learns to recognize these infections.
	It learns to fight these infections.
	And for the vast majority of people now, the vast majority, Covid is a very mild irritation.
	I guess pretty well everyone watching who's bothered to test will have had Covid in the last year or two or have a partner or a child or someone who's had Covid in the last year or two, and they found it to be a somewhat irritating but pretty mild disease, which is for the vast majority of people.
	So quite why there's this discrepancy between the vaccination protocols in the United States, everyone over six months of age, and the United Kingdom, where it's just I think it's over 65 and people with high risk.
	I mean, you know, this is like a 64 and a half year difference in the recommendations.
	And, you know, if both of these authorizing bodies are working on the same data, why are they coming to such different conclusions?
	It really is quite hard to explain where the evidence is coming from.
	Yeah, it is, and it makes you wonder if the evidence can be interpreted so differently.
	What type of evidence is it, and what kind of agenda is ultimately driving it?
	Increasingly as well, many of the And again, one needn't be conspiratorial to inquire about these things, nor assume mendacity where ineptitude will do.
	But it seems that social distancing, surface cleaning, face covering, there wasn't a great deal of evidence for much of that.
	It makes me obviously wonder what on earth was motivating all of that conduct.
	Those things, it doesn't cost too much to wash your hands when you come in the house, and if that didn't do any good, it's not such a big deal.
	But this includes the non-pharmaceutical interventions.
	And of course, that includes lockdowns.
	That includes quarantine hotels, isolation.
	That includes the, remember this term we had, the pingdemic, when people were pinged on their phones and couldn't couldn't do things.
	It includes all of these things, but particularly the lockdown strategies.
	And we've actually had data just published a week or so ago by the UK Health Security Agency.
	And to be fair here, the UK Health Security Agency are going through what they did really quite systematically.
	And what they're doing is they're looking at thousands of pieces of literature to try and work out what the evidence base is for what they did.
	But this latest publication from the UK Health Security Agency had 151 studies.
	So they narrowed it down to that, looking at studies where there was only one thing being studied at a time.
	And they reviewed 151 studies, and they plotted what they call an evidence gap map.
	And you can download this as a spreadsheet, and there's loads of places where the evidence is limited.
	Highly limited.
	So only 19 of the 151 studies reported effective measures to reduce infection at the individual level.
	And most of those were to do with mask wearing.
	And two-thirds of the evidence was based on modeling studies.
	So 100 out of 151 of these studies were based on modeling.
	And my recollection of this, when the first lockdown started, is the government were hoping to get away with it.
	But then we had these modeling predictions that showed tremendous amounts of death and everything from COVID.
	But it turns out these were based on models which have been, well, I think the least we can say is they've been disputed since then.
	So, so much of the evidence was based on modeling rather than based on what we would call empiricism, real world collecting data.
	And that's what science is.
	Science is not someone sitting on a computer thinking, oh, I wonder what would happen if.
	You know, science is what happens in the real world.
	And to their credit, I just want to give you a couple of quotes actually, Russell, here.
	To the credit, the UK Health Security Agency have said, the evidence available for this category is therefore likely to be weak.
	This is evidence to reduce infections, both in terms of study design and potential bias.
	Studies reporting on travel and border restrictions, they say, a weak evidence base in terms of study design.
	Overall, they say, the body of evidence available on effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions in the UK provides weak evidence in terms of study design.
	So they have acknowledged this, which is good to see, because if you acknowledge the mistakes, the public are pretty forgiven.
	OK, it was a pandemic.
	We didn't know quite what was going on for a while.
	But they now acknowledge that it was weak and they do say if there is a future pandemic, which there will be, I won't go into that one at the moment, but they say that there should be a method for collecting feedback empirically as we go along, which is certainly true.
	But looking back, you know, were these huge lockdowns, this massive financial cost, this social cost, this psychiatric cost, Looking back, it was based primarily on mathematical models.
	And people understand those better than me, but they're not the best way to conduct national policy.
	In addition to this, if not pseudoscience, then modelling that you have explained is flawed, plainly is flawed, based on the emergent evidence.
	And you're right, it is to the credit of that agency that they're at least willing to communicate that.
	Plainly there was a degree of hysteria and it's sort of harder to speculate on the impact of something as abstract as fear and the use of fear and the use of hysteria and certainly it's encouraging to hear that in the event of a let's call it inevitable future pandemic the data would be compiled as the event unfolded.
	What my concern is, and this is again sort of rather more difficult to talk about, particularly with someone as committed to using evidence as you are, which is perhaps one of the most laudable aspects of the work that you do, is the potential that in a way we were, and I'm not suggesting this was deliberate, primed for authoritarian measures that prior to the pandemic would have been unacceptable.
	The idea that you could shut down the economy.
	I remember when I first heard that football was being cancelled, thinking, what?
	No, no, no, that can't happen.
	And the normalisation of individual incarceration, the normalisation of massive medical programmes that are mandated or near mandated, and we've touched already on the questions that that's left in its wake.
	Suggest to me that with forthcoming potential issues of scale, you know, and you can pick your issue really, whether it's climate change, food shortages, water shortages, necessity to regulate agriculture as a result of fertilizers, the need to shut down individual farming practices, there are so many issues and ideas that appear to be Being defined by a top-down ideology, i.e.
	you hear from the WEF or the WHO or some sort of unelected but somehow publicly funded, as well as privately funded in the case of the WHO entity, coming up with some ideas that sort of find their way into government.
	Increasingly this seems common and like an event of the scale of the pandemic, doesn't it leave us open to the possibility that a kind of If not social engineering, a sort of piloting may have taken place.
	I don't mean that from a conspiracy theory perspective per se, Doctor.
	I just mean a convergence of interest that led to those measures that evidently were not scientifically undergirded could be repeated in other circumstances.
	I mean, there was certainly a lot of fear going on, wasn't there?
	And I think the reason that people were compliant because there was fear, and to be fair, there was genuine unknowns, although I think Facts became available much earlier than they were often shared with the hoi polloi like you and me.
	And I think we can rest assured, Russell, that people that are interested in organizing, interested in administration, interested in controlling populations, will have taken a fairly thick set of notes from the pandemic.
	They will have noticed what works, what doesn't work.
	And I think they'll have learned a lot of control.
	Control of social media being one example.
	That started on pretty early in the pandemic.
	Control of news.
	The influence of regulatory bodies and the way that they interact with political bodies.
	Vested interest that would like to control populations in a more detailed way, I think, will have learned one heck of a lot from what worked and what didn't work in the pandemic.
	Now, the UK Health Security Agency are rightly trying to take that knowledge to apply it to improving health in the future, which of course everyone would applaud.
	But, you know, have people who have slightly questionable motives and throughout history people with questionable motives have arisen in the past?
	I think we can assume that they've learned quite a lot from this as well.
	Yes, and perhaps again less tangentially, the recent, relatively recent, or proposed WHO pandemic treaty that could grant legislative powers to a non-sovereign transnational body.
	I see that it's been, you know, I don't know, in Canada there's some opposition to it, but it feels like the sort of thing that Could happen and it certainly seems like there's an like during the pandemic period the WHO were granted incredible authority.
	The platform that we've been recently demonetized, I'll speak for myself, like you know YouTube still uses WHO guidelines to govern its own community or to form its own community for guidelines.
	I wonder what your views are or if you have concerns about a potential WHO pandemic treaty and how that could become biased or exploited?
	Yeah, so this is based on the amendment of the, I'm pretty sure it was 2005, International Health Regulations.
	So health regulations were put in in 2005, updating previous regulations.
	And they were fairly reasonable.
	They said things like, I'm not giving direct quotes here, but quite often they said this will not be mandatory in nation states, it will be advisory.
	But if you read these international health regulations amendments, very often in a sentence all they've done is taken out one word like not.
	So if you go from, these will not be mandatory, and you take out the word not, what are you left with?
	These become mandatory.
	And there's a whole load of these.
	I have read through them all and they really are quite concerning.
	My interpretation of it is, is that the World Health Organization can define in the future when these are probably going to be adopted, and we haven't got much time to reject these.
	Because what seems to be happening is that these are going to be accepted unless the head of state of a country, unless Mr. Sunak actually writes to the WHO invoking a particular section and saying, no, this won't apply to the UK.
	So if Mr. Sunak's watching, I would ask him to do that or to certainly consider that.
	But it's almost that these are just going to click into place.
	And my understanding is that the World Health Organization can define a public health emergency, which could be a pandemic, or it could be a nuclear leak, or it could be a food shortage.
	Or it could be, basically, however they want to define it.
	They can then make rules passing these down to the member states.
	But my concern is that these would then have the power of law in the member states.
	So I have made videos about these IHRs in the past and people say, well, I'm not going to do that.
	I won't be complying with that.
	Well, actually, you're flipping well-willed if the police are forcing you to.
	This is the whole point.
	You know, the state has powers to enforce things.
	You have no choice.
	So fortunately, you're right, in Canada there's opposition, and we have interviewed people opposing that in Canada.
	But in the United Kingdom, as you know, we have this idea where you can get 100,000 signatures.
	for a particular topic.
	And Tess Lorry, God bless her, Dr. Tess Lorry, she opened this petition quite a few months ago now.
	It closed, I think, a couple of days ago, but it was well over the 100,000, I think 115,000.
	So we should have a debate in Parliament now on whether these should be accepted or rejected.
	So at least it's got to that stage.
	But why did it necessitate a public petition for that?
	You know, you would hope that the Civil servants and things will be saying to the Prime Minister, oh by the way Prime Minister, you know you've only got so long if you want to reject this.
	It seemed like this process was just sort of carrying on inevitably, which was concerning.
	So we should be getting that debate.
	And as well as that, another slightly encouraging thing on debates is Andrew Bridgen has been awarded a adjournment debate on the 20th of October to debate excess deaths.
	Now, when we say debate, I would imagine there's probably going to be as many people in the chamber as there were for this last statement on vaccine dangers, which was, I think, about two MPs stayed, I think.
	But the Minister has to give a response.
	But the point is, once you've got the debate, once it's an official government debate, whether it's on the international health regulations, which we'll get, or whether it's on excess deaths, that means it's in Hansard.
	It's official.
	And once it's officially documented, maybe that will encourage others to take more action on this, because people won't be able to say, well, we didn't know about that.
	Well, yeah, you do kind of, because it's in Hansard.
	It's actually possible to see the ghost of democracy inhabiting its institutions.
	The momentum inertia, as you suggest, of power is continually carrying us towards centralised, unelected, globalised power, often supported by billionaires under the guise of philanthropy.
	But in our echoey, dusty old chambers of democracy, like a mouse fart, you can almost just detect Oh, you have to have a debate on that, you know, that a couple of people might go to or attend.
	Oh, if you get 100,000 signatures on a petition, they will have to consider that.
	It's almost like the institutions themselves and the principles themselves already exist.
	And I suppose for you, someone who's like dedicated their life to public service prior
	to this incarnation as an online truth teller, you must have a great connection to when something
	like the National Health Service, how publicly funded, formally at least, a health service
	in the country of the UK was sort of a proud monument to unity and togetherness.
	And God, it went through the various slurs and slams of, oh, it's a waste of money and
	everything should be privatised and slowly sort of vampired from the outside to sort
	of piece by piece, it's ultimately privatised.
	I wonder sometimes, John, how you feel about the potential of meeting these poly-crises, like that, you know, like one minute it's like the WHO are just about to pass this bill, we've only got a minute, this new online legislation has just been passed that means that platforms that host people that dissent will be able to be, have their, you know, their owners arrested, you know, like I've been talking to, you know, Rumble, about this.
	Rumble is something that could become illegalized, and of course they'll say hate speech is the problem, but when it comes, it's sort of comparable to the claim that Ukraine is a humanitarian war.
	What about the US imperialist projects in North Africa and the Middle East have led you to believe that when they get involved in a conflict it's with a humanitarian motivation?
	It's very difficult to maintain that.
	How do you feel, John, about the small victories, like a debate being held in front of a couple of people or some signatories, when there are these poly-crises of legislature simultaneously passing all around the world, and what appears to be a mass centralising of power and the introduction of new means and measures, whether they are legislative or technological, that appear to be about, as you said earlier, the induction of control?
	It does all seem to be in one direction, doesn't it?
	It does seem to be more towards centralised control.
	One of the things that just really grieves me is all the things that we're missing out on.
	We could talk about the administrative things and the political things, but if you just take some things as simple as, you know, talking about pharmacy, talking about therapeutic molecules, You know, things that actually do you good.
	So if you go to your doctor, he can prescribe something as long as it's in this book.
	Well, the electronic version of it now, the British National Formula.
	And it seems to me that this only represents a very small subset of the therapeutic molecules that are potentially available.
	I want to give you just a couple of examples, if you don't mind.
	There's a fungus called lion's mane.
	It's called Lion's Mane because it looks like a lion's mane, it's all straggly.
	I hasten to add this is 100% legal, 100% not hallucinogenic.
	I've talked to a couple of people, one guy who had quite bad post-concussive disorder, the brain fibres in his brain were affected.
	And he took this lion's mane for about a week and he started to feel better.
	And he took it for a month and he felt a lot better.
	Now, of course, we're not prescribing on this channel.
	We're not telling people to go out and take lion's mane.
	But the point is, that's interesting.
	That's interesting.
	There's almost certainly molecules in there which can promote the healing of nerve cells to some extent.
	And that's like a holy grail.
	You know, for 40 years I taught nerve cells do not regenerate.
	Well, it appears they may be stimulated to be generating, but of course that's a natural molecule, so it'd probably be different to patent.
	Difficult to patent that.
	So are we missing out on this whole class of potentially useful drugs?
	So many things in nature.
	So if you look at two of the most successful drugs in history, we've got antibiotics.
	Everyone knows they come from mould.
	Moulds make them to protect themselves against bacterial infection.
	And ivermectin, even ignoring the most recent debate, has just revolutionized the treatment of parasitic diseases around the world.
	Pretty well eradicated river blindness and elephantiasis in Africa.
	And that comes, the bacteria actually make that to protect themselves against other things in the environment.
	So how many of these molecules are we missing out on?
	And isn't that just so sad that people could be dying of things, that molecules are selected for their ability to go through a trial process to make money rather than go through some form of evidence-gathering process in order to help people.
	It just seems so sad to me that this is happening.
	And this is because it's facilitated because we have this centralised authorities and you can understand that doctors uh... nurse practitioners whatever are afraid to go against
	the guidelines because
	if they do when something goes wrong you know the first question the judge is going to ask is
	what did you follow the guidelines did you follow the national guidelines
	that people are trying to go outside the guidelines and then this is a whole
	other issue that could be a revolution in psychiatry about the uh... the mushrooms that we can't use because
	they are illegal the psilocybin type mushrooms
	But trials going on those now, for example with micro-dosing, is remarkably promising for various forms of mental distress, such as anxiety and depression.
	And for those of us that have had anxiety and depression, it's awful!
	You know, we're missing out on alleviations of this.
	It's just very, very sad that all these molecules have been provided.
	We're only allowed a very small subset of these molecules.
	Sad situation.
	Yes, and it seems that it's carefully curated what is permissive and it appears, as you've said, that profitability and control continue to be important criteria in which avenues of research are conducted and which are left unignored.
	I suppose there's an optimism in that that I often find in the kind of jaws of this deadly apocalypse that Even when talking about recently the likelihood that were a Republican candidate to win in 2024 they would immediately shift their focus from exacerbating conditions and tensions between Russia to provoking China and I'm just struck that there isn't a presidential candidate or a political movement that says we won't have a war
	With anybody.
	I mean, of course, there is Bobby Kennedy and Cornel West and there are, you know, sort of blessedly great independents.
	But when you talk about institutional thinking, whether it's in the field of medicine, whether it's in the field of administration of medicine and the sort of terrifying WHO treaty that we just mentioned, geopolitics, there's always a kind of a systemic unconsciousness.
	And I suppose systems have to be unconscious by their nature, because they require sets of decisions that are Not going to be able to respond to plasticity and mutability.
	What it makes me continue to think, John, is that decentralization is an absolute necessity and I know that some areas of concerns that you and I share are around ecology and agriculture and the potential that these areas are being mishandled and that even something like climate change, which one might imagine is a significant conversation for all of us, is being utilised to generate systems of control.
	What do you feel about that?
	Yeah, I've been thinking about this quite a lot recently.
	It was actually as a result of something that RFK, Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	said a few weeks ago.
	I started looking at it and I'm actually concerned.
	I mean, we've talked about the problems with control and vested interest in pharmacy and drugs, which is tragic, but I'm actually quite concerned about agriculture and food supply.
	And quite a few things come into this.
	So we hear a lot of emphasis at the moment about fossil fuel burning, global warming, and you know that there is good science behind that.
	But what people just seem to ignore, that I've just checked out recently, is the amount of carbon in the soil now, on the surface of the Earth, is greater than all of the carbon in the atmosphere.
	and greater than all the carbon in all the organisms.
	That's all the trees and the bushes and the cabbages and the human beings on the surface of the planet.
	And yet we hear nothing about this.
	We hear nothing about this.
	And as well as that, when you add nitrogen-based fertilizers to the soil, if there's too much nitrogen-based fertilizer in the soil, that produces a substance called nitrous oxide.
	Now, if you've ever been to Glastonbury in the past ten years, you may have heard of nitrous oxide.
	It's laughing gas.
	It's produced if there's too much nitrogen.
	And by the way, we think that's a really bad idea to take recreational substances of any form, that goes without saying.
	Nitrous oxide, of course, is a wonder drug.
	In A&E, you can give someone a few whiffs of nitrous oxide and the pain goes away.
	It's a wonderful, wonderful drug.
	But if you put in huge amounts of expensive nitrogen-based fertilizers on the soil, Then you're not putting enough organic matter in.
	Now, if you put in plenty of organic matter, the bugs, the bacteria, will feed on the organic matter and you'll greatly improve the quality of the microbiome of the soil.
	This is the way it's supposed to be.
	You'll get good quality soil storing huge amounts of organic matter and we can change agricultural techniques really quite quickly.
	It's called conservation tilling.
	to keep more of that in the soil.
	But we hear nothing about this.
	So instead of using the organic matter, we put on nitrogen-based fertilizers.
	When you put on too much of those, we get the production of nitrous oxide.
	Now, nitrous oxide can go into the atmosphere.
	And the amounts of this have been increasing year on year for some time now.
	And it hangs around in the atmosphere for over a hundred years.
	And it is three times stronger, a greenhouse gas, than carbon dioxide.
	Three times stronger.
	But you don't hear anything about this and it just makes you wonder if, you know, because fertilizers are purchased, they have to be bought, they're paid for, you know, often made by pretty big scale companies that people just don't want to talk about this, this greenhouse gas.
	And the nitric oxide also reduces high up stratospheric ozone as well.
	It's really not a good idea.
	So why don't we put in more carbon into the soil, reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, reducing the greenhouse gases, preventing... we've got more carbon in the soil so it needs less nitrogen-based fertilizers, that means less nitric oxide.
	And again, herbicides and pesticides, huge amounts of these are used.
	And again, these are all marketed products.
	You know, let's control things that are for the good of the ecology and the future of the human race rather than people making money in a relatively short-term period of time.
	Again, it just seems so sad that these common-sense ecological things that are well-known aren't adequately practiced or talked about.
	It seems like a curious anomaly of our time that during war, military industrial complex benefit from that type of crisis.
	During an energy crisis, energy companies benefit from that type of crisis.
	During a health pandemic, Pharmacological company benefit from that crisis.
	That if you have a strata of society that benefit from crisis,
	it's likely that you find yourself in a state of perpetual crisis because
	for what is crisis for people that are not powerful is opportunity for the most powerful interests in the world.
	And when you mention and describe the problem with carbon and nitrous oxide in the soil, what comes to mind is that even something as immersive, prominent and well-publicized as climate change and anthropomorphic climate change, etc.
	It seems that the information that we're given is selective.
	And this total lack of institutions is something that I think exploded during the pandemic because there was this new capacity for control.
	There was this new imposition of control and it seems that many of the claims that were made were not legitimate and this was exposed due to independent media in particular.
	This is where that conversation moved forward.
	There were people, as you are well aware because you were one of them, The very advent of the pandemic had one perspective and we're watching the information as it changed and we're able with a degree of objectivity and certainly in good faith to chart what was happening.
	There were people like Robert Malone right at the beginning saying well I don't think you should be vaccinating at the height of a pandemic.
	All sorts of information that was available was shut down and I feel that we have now A total crisis of trust.
	I don't think that many people actually, and thank God they don't, trust the legacy media.
	A significant number of people do not trust the media.
	A significant number of people think that whoever they vote for they're going to end up with a political party that ultimately works for a set of financial interests that Preclude meaningful democratic change.
	I think that extends to the judiciary in some course, medicine, doctors, I mean the name what you know any sort of instance the institutions of our planet are rightly regarded with considerable mistrust and when you were earlier on talking about oh the you know the possibility that they could somehow be mobilized again Into utility, into service, into principles that are actually sort of rather old-fashioned than quite so simple I blush to mention them.
	It appears to me, John, and I think about it a lot, that independent media has to become politicized.
	It can no longer just be, oh here we go, have you noticed this?
	In the end, even if you didn't have an intention to be political, you are politicized.
	You'll get strikes, you'll get bans, you'll get attacks, The more traction you get, the more likely those attacks are to come.
	And the extent of those attacks, as far as I can see, has the capacity to be almost limitless.
	There's plainly an appetite.
	Governments getting involved in demonetizing channels that they are opposed to.
	It makes me wonder, John, how you feel this may unfold for you personally and what you see your role as a communicator like, how you see that evolving and whether you feel like it will become politicised or if indeed it already has been.
	Yeah, I think we have to distinguish between party politics and politics.
	I would like to steer clear from from party politics, but inevitably, if you're talking about things like land use, if you're talking about things like reducing food miles, if you're talking about things like reducing pollution, reducing nitrates, reducing greenhouse gases, then I think inevitably it does become political.
	I mean, I've got a friend who's been campaigning against incineration.
	And one of the things he's pointed out is that, incinerating plastics particularly, you get release of a certain amount of dioxins.
	Now, you're far too young to remember, Russell, and I can just about remember the substance in Vietnam called Agent Orange that a certain world government sprayed on another country.
	And I've actually worked in Cambodia and seen birth defects related to that after all those decades.
	It had dioxins in it.
	And the dioxins hang around.
	They stay in the soil for long periods of time.
	So if we have legitimate concerns that we want to stop incineration to reduce dioxins, we can put forward the science of that.
	But to actually get these decisions changed and to actually influence these decisions, I guess that does become political.
	So, you know, I would like to provide evidence as much as I can.
	And what I do more and more these days, because I'm increasingly out of my depth in a lot of these fields, for some strange reason, leading experts, absolutely leading experts from around the world have come on my channel And they've shared their expertise in ways that people can understand, which we're very grateful for.
	So the expertise is there, we can put it together, we can put this into forms that people can understand.
	But it is difficult, and I've only mentioned this once or twice, but I've had personal threats that are really quite significant.
	I've had the police round twice with threats to my life, basically, that are incredible.
	These were kicked up to an intelligence unit who couldn't work out where they came from.
	They probably didn't have to look very far.
	Was that your desk?
	Apparently it went up to, I won't mention which intelligence agency it was, but it went quite high up and they couldn't work out where the threat came from.
	In other words, it was done quite a sophisticated way.
	So it's quite difficult, but there are genuine threats.
	I'm not saying I'm in the same category as someone like RFK, but he says he gets up in the morning and thinks, well, how can I behave ethically today?
	If we do see the threat, there's an Old Testament account of the watchman.
	It's in the 33rd chapter of Ezekiel.
	And it says if the watchman sees the sword coming against the city, and cries the alarm, and the people get out the way, then that's fine.
	But if the watchman says the sword is coming against the city, and the people do nothing, if they ignore the watchman, then their blood is on their own heads.
	So it's the role of the watchman to say, look, this danger is coming.
	This danger is coming.
	And we could talk about heroes, great heroes from the 1920s and 1930s.
	Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example.
	And, you know, he warned about the danger that was coming.
	Many did.
	But many didn't listen.
	And likewise now, Not saying it's the same situation, but I'm not comparing it in any way, but we have leading scientists from around the world who are telling me things that concern them.
	Leading analysts, people that do really significant analysis around the world, telling me they have concerns.
	And if we've got these world-leading analysts, often professors, often doctors, People that do this really quite seriously.
	If we don't at least say, well, just a minute, you've raised the question there.
	Let's think about that.
	Then I think that that's tantamount to ignoring the watchman.
	We have to think about it.
	Because there are threats coming and I really think we have to take these threats seriously or they could overwhelm us.
	Yeah, it's pretty heavy.
	I mean, I also think you're right, and even with my personal situation, which I can't go into too much depth about for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who understands such matters, it's apparent to me that I've just found myself in a position, not entirely inadvertently, because I've been very deliberate about sort of attacking what I believe to be establishment interests, and I've been deliberately provocative. But what I have seen in
	terms of the coordination and ability of power, you know, we had a conversation with a
	guy called Dr. Robert Epstein, who you'd enjoy actually, John, he's, he does, he uses
	monitoring systems to observe the way that Google behaves and relays information,
	particularly news media, and by his reckoning are able to create almost impenetrable spheres of data.
	And when it's pointed out to them, they alter it.
	That's the nature of their work.
	They go, hey, hang on a minute.
	In Georgia, all of your news stories are going this direction.
	All of your news stories, look at the biases.
	They're able to measure bias in reporting, for example.
	Political bias is one obvious way.
	Yeah.
	And when you talk about, you know, the impending crises, whether they're of an ecological, ideological, military, pharmacological, I mean, like, there's so many ways now that it seems that what AI, my God, you know, technologization, it's very difficult to envisage a world where I'm at what this is what I sort of feel broadly this
	conversation I wouldn't say this to everybody I feel like that is a type of, because of what you were alluding
	to, I suppose is fascism and I feel like our template of fascism, our manner of
	recognizing it, our swatch of the livery pageantry and paraphernalia of fascism is based on
	the militarism of a century ago.
	That's a sort of a late industrial early modern version of fascism.
	Now what we have is a much more Huxleyan, sanitized, rational, logical, oriented towards
	safety and convenience, managerial version of foreclosure of all other possibilities.
	And when you look at every time I read about these new protest laws mean you won't be able
	to do this and this new suggestion means that everyone will have to register in this way
	and we will all carry this ID.
	This new currency means that everyone will have a centralized currency.
	I can sort of just...
	I feel the formulation of it.
	I feel it like a kind of binary fog enclosing.
	And as you say, I mean, yeah, are we watchmen or do we have to become avenging angels, John, with swords of fire?
	No, I think I'll stick with the watchmen for now.
	We'll leave the...
	We'll leave that to someone else.
	But you're right, fascism to me is about controlling other people.
	It is me imposing my will on you.
	To me a fascist says, you will think as I think, you will do as I do, or I will punish you.
	That to me is what fascism is, it's control.
	Now, does it make too much difference whether that's on the point of a bayonet Or at the risk of losing your livelihood, losing your occupation.
	The end result is that the person doing the controlling has people controlled as he wants them controlled.
	And the modality of that probably doesn't matter too much.
	If you'd said to previous fascists, maybe Genghis Khan for example, are you happy to rule the world and have absolute authority and absolute power everywhere just by using persuasion.
	I'm sure if that was quick enough, he'd say, well, yeah, that's okay.
	You know, it's just the warfare was quicker.
	The modality through which the control is achieved is perhaps less important.
	It's the control itself that matters.
	Yes.
	And you mentioned AI there, Russell.
	I didn't take this seriously until about a year ago.
	I had people warning me about it 10 years ago and I thought, oh no, I don't really get that.
	But now, I think we can rest assured that the bad guys, whoever they are, are working on AI.
	Because it is a way to control and understand and that's another modality that will be used to facilitate people's power.
	Because unfortunately you get a small subset of the population of the earth that are interested in money and control and power.
	Most people aren't.
	Most people just maybe want to go to work and come home and have the tea and have a nice family life, or go to the football on a Saturday, or go walking on the hills on a Sunday afternoon.
	But you do get some people, for some strange reason that I don't understand, and yet I do witness that this is true, are interested in controlling other people.
	I used to be a psychiatric nurse.
	You see it in psychiatric hospitals where you get People with particular conditions, particular personality disorders, and they just want to control other people because that's the way that they are wired up.
	I don't understand it because it doesn't affect me, but it is a problem.
	And when these people get into power, they have to be seen for what they are and hopefully identified at an earlier stage, as early a stage as is possible.
	Because once power becomes entrenched, it often becomes self-perpetuating.
	I mean, I just can't believe that the North Korean situation is still going on since I was a child.
	You know, that self-perpetuating, evil, idolatrous country.
	The power is somehow perpetuated down through the generations.
	Let's just take that as a warning for how badly wrong things can go, that a people can be so oppressed in that way for so long is possible.
	We've been raised in a pretty good time.
	Let's not take that for granted.
	You're right.
	The aesthetics can't distract us, or the modality, to use your words.
	If the endgame is controlled... The way it's done.
	The way it's done.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Thanks, John.
	It's always fantastic to talk to you.
	It always makes me feel...
	More optimistic, then terrified, then a bit more optimistic, then charmed.
	So it's a giddy roller coaster ride, much like the famous image of the country wall roaming off across a pastoral and bucolic wonder.
	The conversations with you provide a boundary across a still yet lush space that might provide freedoms for us all, John.
	It could go either way, Russell.
	I know that!
	I know that, John.
	I know that, man.
	But we're in it now.
	We're in it now, Dr. John.
	Thank you so much for joining me today.
	It's a pleasure always to just be in the radiance of your sweet kindness.
	Thanks for having me, Russell.
	Let's get the message out.
	Let's get it out there!
	Is that a cat or a dog that's by you there that you just stroked?
	Oh, that's my son's dog.
	What's that doing there?
	Oh, he's, uh...
	Cos my son's at work.
	You seem to have gone all carmaginally about the dog.
	Well, he's my grand dog.
	So I have two grandchildren and one grand dog that I'll get to look after.
	Pretty lovely.
	Thank you, you wonderful man.
	You can watch Dr John Campbell over on his YouTube channel for now.
	If he can earn a single penny out of it, the mad old fleece-wearing radical, please support Dr John and his Necessary and important voice and his fleet of grand dogs.
	We've got a fantastic week next week.
	We've got Dave DeCamp coming on the show talking about potential ubiquitous Armageddon.
	Each party has its own superpower war lined up.
	Michael Schellenberg, a friend of the show, friend of truth, will be on here talking about freedom of speech and legacy media and its ridiculous power.
	Kim Iverson, fellow Rumble host, truth teller and charming human being, will be on the show as well.
	And I'd like to thank those of you that have supported us, thank you. It's more important now
	than ever. When the government asks Big Tech to shut you down and Big Tech comply, you
	know you need a movement, you know you need a collective awakening and I'm so grateful to you
	for being part of it. People like Kevin Eich and Paul McMurray, Sarah Penelope, Lagbag Brian Fennell,
	thank you for awakening with us.
	And if you want to awaken with us, press the red button.
	You get access to all sorts of extra content, live Q&As with me, guided meditations, readings, and more important than any of that, we get to cultivate this new space together.
	There is optimism.
	There is hope.
	You must become a part of this movement.
	I mean you!
	It's you that will change the world.
	Join us next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.

▲