Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 9, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:26:03

Hang On, Did The CDC Cover Up COVID Vaccine Myocarditis Risks? - Stay Free #219

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, I'm going to go ahead and start the video. So, I'm going to go ahead and start the video.
	So, I'm going to go ahead and start the video.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	We've got a live shot there.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wonders wherever you are.
	Thank you for joining us.
	It's so important that you follow us and support us now because the government tried to shut down our means for making a living in an extraordinary move.
	So now your support is absolutely vital.
	You are part of a movement now.
	There's no avoiding it.
	There's no evading it.
	Look around you.
	People are getting arrested for extraordinary stuff.
	Outrageous claims are being made.
	We have an incredible story for you today about the CDC and Myocarditis.
	Dave DeCamp coming on the show as well.
	He'll be talking to us about corruption in Ukraine and how the US are essentially pushing a liberal world order while claiming that China are a threat to that.
	Now, the first part of our show we make available everywhere because we need you to join us.
	We need you to support independent media.
	If we didn't have independent media, you still wouldn't have the facility to question the efficacy of vaccines openly and safely.
	You wouldn't be able to question the conditions that led to the war.
	You wouldn't have any hope of becoming part of a political and social movement that will challenge the establishment, the legacy media, And they're continuing attempts to shut down dissent through legislation and a variety of other techniques of which you must surely be aware.
	If you can afford to support us, press the red button, become an Awakened Wonder.
	You get all sorts of access to additional content.
	I do live Q&As, we do book readings, we do meditations, we do all sorts of stuff.
	We start to actually cultivate and examine together what our future could be like together.
	I'm not suggesting we all move into a commune.
	Not yet.
	I tried that and that actually caused quite a lot of trouble.
	So, hey, let's get into what's been going on in legacy media world and note how much, like, theatre ordinary politics has become.
	How oddly abstracted from reason.
	Like, we were talking about Canada last week because it's become some sort of Curious dystopian pilot scheme with admittedly lovely hair lately.
	You know, what's happening with Jordan Peterson and the evocation of his license, the shutting down of bank accounts, throwing religious folks in jail for attending protests, calling people Nazis that aren't Nazis, calling people heroes that are Nazis.
	And now look at Justin Trudeau and the leader of the so-called opposition Taking the new Speaker of the House to his position, this is like part of their politics.
	It's really weird.
	The irony is, if he refused to get vaccinated, they'd actually do that to him.
	Isn't it so sort of odd, the theatre?
	Of course, Parliament and politics has always had a degree of theatre to it.
	Oratory, it's rhetoric, there are sort of teams and dramas and revelations, but now it's become almost pure theatre.
	That's how you can get a Nazi applauded, because they don't sort of know what they're doing.
	And this is yet another example of that apparent jacundity.
	Another one of those shows of Even though he's the opposition and I'm the leader, look at how we're united in our mutual respect and love of democracy.
	But it's not a love of democracy as we understand it.
	Democracy as in, we are the stewards of the will of the people that pay their taxes and who really, and in truth, this country belongs to.
	No, it's sort of, we pretend to come together in weird little spectacles and displays in order to service the interests of the powerful.
	And apparent displays of humanity, like just seeing three guys hanging out being mates together, it's actually just a Bullshit.
	And also the fellow himself, Greg Fergus.
	I'm someone who really applauds the diversity and the advances of people in colour in formerly more homogenous cultures.
	But actually, listen to what that guy was saying during the Trucker protest.
	He's got some pretty out-there views.
	This past weekend, a small minority thought it acceptable to bring swastikas... Firstly, that's not how you say it.
	...and Confederate flags to Parliament Hill.
	Let's not mince words.
	Well you did mince the word swastika.
	The confederate flag is a symbol for slavery.
	I will assume that the confederate flag was tolerated this weekend out of respect for the individual's freedom of expression.
	Many people say that those swastikas, not swastikas, those swastikas, I'm sure it's swastikas, were there as a sort of ironic comment on the slide into dystopia that Canada is
	demonstrating lately and it sort of seems like they are with the shutting down of the
	bank accounts with the new legislation.
	I mean have you even seen the new legislation? We'll get to that in a second but like just
	have a look at how Justin Trudeau greets his new mate the Speaker in the House who of course
	in the theatre of conventional politics which I know that you know is absolutely meaningless
	now he's meant to be a neutral figure and representative of the kind of neutral symbolic
	space that exists in this house of discourse where democracy is created and conducted.
	But look at this weird set of facial expressions.
	It makes me very uneasy.
	The Red Honourable Prime Minister.
	The wink, I didn't like, but it was alright.
	But the tongue poke bite, I'm not at all at ease with that.
	I don't know even what that means.
	Will you let me know in the chat?
	It scared me a bit.
	And also, what's less cheeky and winky and aren't we all pals mucking around in democracy together, is this new mental law that they're introducing in Canada that's eerily similar to the online safety law that's being introduced, that's just been introduced in this country, that essentially amounts to, in order to protect you, we're gonna protect you from knowing the truth that only independent media can give you, and you will bear this in mind in the story in a minute about the CDC.
	This story wouldn't be able to bring you if it were not for other independent media outlets whose reporting we are using and the very fact that they use the Freedom of Information Act to get information that's relevant to your health and your survival and your very heart.
	So while that information is only reaching you because of independent media, governments in Canada, America, Australia, the UK, Ireland are introducing laws that will literally I predict prevent that from happening.
	As well as dissident figures everywhere, not all of whom I agree with, are being like arrested and harassed and you're well aware of what we're going through.
	It's an extraordinary time.
	Glenn Greenwald tweeted, the Canadian government armed with one of the world's most repressive online censorship schemes announces that all online streaming services that offer podcasts must formally register with the government to permit regulatory controls.
	What they've recognized is Dissidents, opposition, will come from online spaces.
	They're going to regulate it.
	In order to permit that level of regulation, they have to make you think that this space is full of murder and crime and racism and hatred and that it requires regulation.
	Were you guys okay in there in the internet?
	Do you need us to come in and regulate?
	Oh, look at that one.
	That one was racist.
	That one's a criminal.
	Oh, that one's... What was that one?
	Oh, I don't know.
	They were saying something about myocarditis.
	You don't need to worry about that.
	They don't care about you.
	Do you understand that now?
	Let me know in the chat.
	I know they don't care.
	I know it's a blag.
	I know it's a total lie.
	So, uh, this is the Online Streaming Act, which, as usual, they try to present you with some sort of friendly, cuddly, old bit of patriotism, but, as usual, it's totalitarianism in disguise.
	After three ministers, five years, and dozens of amendments, the Liberal government's controversial Online Streaming Act has finally become law, and there are some big changes coming for streamers.
	The law will require platforms to promote Canadian content.
	That's good.
	require streaming services like Netflix to pay to support Canadian media content like music and TV shows.
	That's good.
	Who would argue with that?
	Give the CRTC broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the Act.
	Let's spend a minute on that one, shall we?
	Because it sounds like what you've done is pretended that you're getting those big tech behemoths to support Canadian art.
	Meanwhile, on the sly, you're introducing the ability to censor, surveil, and shut down dissident content.
	Did you see how they did that?
	Using literal hypnotism techniques, which we've discussed many times on our channel.
	Two verifiables, then a suggestion.
	We'll be helping Canada.
	We'll be nice to little old ladies.
	We're gonna censor you!
	You're already going, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.
	What was the last one?
	This is censorship, surveillance, centralized control, all under the auspices of somehow being patriotic and friendly, protecting you and helping you.
	Remember, they can rely on the legacy media to amplify their message, to normalize their agenda.
	You see it every day and we will never, ever tire of pointing it out to you.
	Because it happens in your country, Canada.
	It happens in your country, the United States of America.
	Happening in our country.
	Now, Rishi Sunak, if you've heard of him at all, he's our Prime Minister.
	Before he was our Prime Minister, he was our Chancellor.
	Before he was our Chancellor, that's the guy that's in charge of the money, he had this hedge fund that invested $500 million in what was the name of that company again?
	Moderna.
	And then during the pandemic, he wouldn't hand over, or he won't at least hand over now, his WhatsApp messages pertaining to his conversations, activities during the pandemic period.
	Now that could just be because he was attending some of the numerous social events and parties that went on during that period, while the rest of us couldn't do that, because remember, they're concerned about your safety.
	You know that, right?
	Your safety.
	So, is it possible that any of those WhatsApp messages contain stuff about his dealings with Moderna, or his potential profits from Moderna?
	Because he certainly won't discuss any of those things, and you might think if you're English, oh well, you know, there'll be a general election soon and we can vote for Keir Starmer, who increasingly appears to be some sort of MI6 asset.
	So there's no answer within this system.
	The only answers are to oppose this system.
	You know that already.
	The Tory party, that's our sort of Republican right-wing party, are having a conference.
	And my God, there was a speech by a minister called Penny Mordaunt, which I think she wants to be remembered as the stand up and fight speech.
	There's nothing quite like watching someone who's poor at oratory thinking that they're good at oratory.
	And let's have a look at that happening right now.
	Stand up and fight for the freedoms we have won.
	Stand up and fight for those freedoms we've won.
	Yeah, all those freedoms.
	Like, wow, during lockdown we were all so free.
	I mean, while you lot were going to parties, we were free to stay in our houses and cough inside of a mask.
	Against socialism, whether it is made of velvet or iron.
	Have courage and conviction because when you do, you move our countrymen, our communities and capital of all kinds to our cause.
	stand up and fight are on their way, let me tell you.
	Have courage and conviction because when you do, you move our countrymen, our communities and capital of all kinds to
	our cause.
	Stand up and fight because when you stand up and fight...
	It's interesting because it's like she's forgotten the meaning of what she's saying
	and has just remembered the mood she was in when she's done it some previous time in front of the mirror at home with
	her airbrush.
	Like, because she's sort of...
	Being rousing.
	I'm supposed to be being rousing.
	You will stand up and fight.
	And also our country has this great history of political rhetoric, notably and almost definingly, of course, Winston Churchill.
	Fight them on the beaches.
	We will never surrender.
	Victory at all costs.
	It's sort of in our collective cultural memory, but it's not this.
	The person beside you stands up and fights.
	And when our party stands up and fights, the nation stands up and fights.
	You're saying stand up and fight too much now.
	I don't even, I can't even think what those words mean.
	When you stand up and fight, you've got to fight for your right to our party.
	Just fight itself on the fight night.
	You better be alright on the night, mate.
	And when our nation stands up and fights, other nations stand up and fight.
	That's also not a good scenario.
	Everyone's standing up and fighting.
	That's not the solution.
	You're trying to sort of render and engender a particular mood and atmosphere.
	That sort of doesn't make sense.
	Everyone's standing up and fighting.
	That's hell.
	And they stand up and fight for the things upon which... Yeah, these things upon which... The entire progress of humanity depends Freedom!
	Oh yeah, freedom, no, that was good.
	Like during the pandemic when he locked us in our houses and it turns out it didn't really work and he's mandated medicines and stay tuned, they didn't seem to work and possibly were counterproductive.
	That is what conservatives do.
	What?
	That is what this nation does.
	Have courage.
	Bring hope.
	Stand up and fight!
	Stand up and fight!
	Well I feel like it's at that point she's expecting that people will be going yeah and then not and she's thinking come on I can maybe by saying stand up and fight enough I can make them stand up and clap.
	Thank you conference.
	Then of course there's the the moment where it's very difficult to resist a kind of
	chill going through your whole body there this all back possibly is enlightenment. While we're awash
	in all this freedom that Penny Mordant has brought us through her passionate evocation of standing
	up and fightingness, Lawrence Fox, an online UK commentator, has released a video of the
	police in his home searching it because he mentioned that he was against certain local government
	measures.
	Look how many coppers there are in my house. Coming to steal everything, take everything out of my house.
	That, ladies and gentlemen, is the country that we live in.
	The need for independent media is obvious.
	We need your support.
	Press that red button if you can support us further.
	Thank you for being part of this movement.
	Stay tuned.
	We got all sorts of things planned.
	If you are a member of our Awakened Wonder Locals community, press that red button there.
	That's what I'm indicating now.
	You get access to all sorts of other content, live questions and answers every week.
	They're exclusively available to you, as well as meditations and all sorts of other stuff.
	Please support us.
	It's vital that you do that.
	You'll see the value of independent media in this reporting where, after a Freedom of Information Act was filed and only after that, revelations about the damage that myocarditis is doing to particular demographics was revealed by the CDC, something they consistently denied.
	You won't believe this.
	This is astonishing.
	The pandemic is recent history.
	It is defining.
	It was a pivotal moment when trust between the population and our institutions really began to break down.
	How can we trust the government that lied to us?
	How can we trust the legacy media that amplified their message?
	We simply can't.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Thanks for refusing Fox News' videos.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Did the CDC cover up COVID vaccine myocarditis risk?
	New emails show that they did.
	How about a booster shot everyone?
	Remember when it was denied that COVID vaccines potentially could increase risks of myocarditis?
	Well, it did happen.
	Check in with Dr. Mandy Cohen.
	How about a pack of lies?
	Oh, no thanks.
	Hi, everyone.
	Dr. Mandy Cohen from the CDC.
	I wanted to talk today about the COVID-19 vaccine and kids.
	Well, good.
	That should be a short conversation.
	While we know kids are less impacted than adults from COVID, the unfortunate news is that kids can still get sick, and sometimes really sick from COVID-19, just like adults.
	You're a scientist.
	How sick do you mean?
	Really sick?
	My God, that is scientific.
	Well, thanks for the update.
	And as long as there are no risks.
	In fact, half of the very young kids who ended up in the intensive care unit with COVID had no underlying medical reason to make us think they would get sick.
	They didn't have asthma or another underlying condition.
	The COVID virus just made them really sick.
	Second, the vaccine is safe for all kids over six months.
	Millions of doses have been given to children and their safety has been closely tracked.
	The benefits to children and teens outweigh the risks.
	They just said there were no risks!
	The vaccine is safe for all kids over six months.
	Shouldn't be hard to outweigh with no risk.
	Well, there's no risks.
	Oh, it's outweighed.
	I mean, that doesn't weigh anything.
	I mean, I'm not a scientist, though.
	Especially the risks to kids if they get COVID-19.
	For example, teen boys have been up to five times as likely to have heart inflammation after having a COVID infection than after getting vaccinated.
	Listen to that smiling fact and note the peculiar facial expression afterwards.
	The eyes closed, the lips closed, perhaps because something is being concealed.
	We'll get into that a little later.
	And exactly who that group of teens that had heart disease were.
	Now, I have two daughters ages 9 and 11, and we plan to get them both the updated COVID vaccine.
	Well, that's good, because that's your choice as their mother.
	And I agree that all parents should be able to make those kind of choices for their children, rather than mandating it at the level of the state.
	Talk to your child's pediatrician or nurse practitioner about the updated COVID vaccine today.
	They're certainly going to tell you what we tell them to tell you, because it's illegal for them not to.
	And they can get their flu vaccine at the same time.
	Ah, lovely little check-in there with Dr. Cohen.
	And now, here's a check-in with some terrifying facts that you won't get from the government.
	This is from Public.
	The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, is encouraging everyone six months and older to get the newest
	COVID-19 booster.
	It's funny because it's like encouraging a six-month-old.
	Come on, come on, take a shot!
	I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
	The benefits for children and young people far outweigh the risks, argues CDC director Mandy Cohen.
	Teen boys have been up to five times as likely to have heart inflammation after having a COVID infection than after getting vaccinated, Cohen said.
	Hmm, interesting.
	But the best available evidence does not back up Cohen's claims.
	The CDC director is relying on a highly flawed study published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly.
	I read it every week.
	It's a bit depressing some weeks.
	Oh, these people died.
	These people died.
	Well, better tune in next week.
	It's true that this study found teen boys ages from 12 to 17 had two to six times greater risk of heart complications after COVID infection compared to after vaccination.
	But the study only looked at electronic health records which were limited to teenagers who had been admitted to the hospital or who visited a doctor.
	This means the subjects of the study were not representative of the total number of boys who got Covid, the vast majority of whom never went to the doctor.
	So it's a subset.
	There's everyone who got COVID and didn't go to a doctor.
	They're not in the study.
	They're fine.
	Then there's people who got COVID and went to the doctor, presumably because something was wrong.
	I would say that's quite a biased subset.
	And other papers show vastly different results.
	A study from the American Heart Association on myocarditis, which means inflammation of the heart muscle, found that in men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher After a second dose of mRNA-1273 and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
	So the opposite of what you've just had a gentle, lovely video explaining to you.
	A Nordic study of 23 million people found that for young men ages 16 to 24, post-vaccination myocarditis rates Well, 6 to 28 times higher than myocarditis rates after COVID infection.
	Seems like a pretty sizable study.
	Seems like the information is less favorable if, for example, you had some ancillary benefit like selling a product or establishing dominion.
	And yet that information doesn't seem to have its own friendly video, does it?
	Except for this one.
	Be very careful about the information that you're given because there may be, in fact always will be, an intention behind it and an agenda.
	For example, right now what I'm trying to get you to do is question the information you're given by the legacy media and the state and question ways that they operate with one another.
	I'm going to be telling my two daughters and my very young son Never to trust anyone in authority unless it's proven that
	they have spiritual principles and values that go beyond self-interest.
	You little scamps.
	The study also found there were zero myocarditis cases after COVID infection in males 12 to 15.
	Zero?
	That's an impressive figure.
	But let me weigh that up against the risk.
	Oh yeah, it doesn't weigh anything because it's zero.
	The consequences of vaccine-caused myocarditis can be serious.
	A review of clinical records found that 96% of people under 30 diagnosed with post-vaccination myocarditis were hospitalized.
	Did you hear all those noughts?
	That's a lot of noughts.
	from the US military, 7 out of 23 myocarditis patients continue to have chest discomfort
	weeks after vaccination. Although Cohen insists that children are at high risk of serious illness,
	the mean infection fatality rate of COVID for people under 20 years old is 0.0003%.
	Did you hear all those noughts? That's a lot of noughts.
	You can't make much money from noughts.
	And hospitals have grossly inflated the reported number of children with severe COVID.
	One paper found that hospital records overcounted the number of pediatric COVID hospitalizations by at least 40%.
	Do you remember when they used actual Sesame Street to try and get you to take vaccinations?
	You were super duper today, getting your COVID vaccine, Elmo!
	Yeah!
	It's extraordinary the level of propaganda that they will deploy in order to pursue an agenda and manage the information space.
	What's more, a mounting body of evidence shows that the CDC and the White House chose to ignore and cover up evidence of a significant myocarditis safety signal in early 2021, putting young people at risk of serious adverse events.
	How did this happen?
	On the 27th of April 2021, then Director of the CDC Rochelle Walensky stated, But this was a false statement at the time.
	Journalist Zachary Stiber of the Epoch Times obtained internal CDC emails for a Freedom of Information Act request, As usual, information that's only given over under incredible scrutiny and pressure and the use of the actual Freedom of Information Act, a Nordic study of 23 million people ignored, a biased study of a subset that already plainly have medical conditions or challenges at least, because they made an inquiry to a doctor, they were under medical care, is used as information that's verifiable.
	What does that tell you?
	I'll tell you, you know already, let me know in the chat.
	Just, they get information that suits what they want to happen anyway, then they bombard you with that information, and if there's information that's like, hang on a minute, that might not be true actually, they ignore it.
	They diminish it.
	They de-platform it.
	They shut it down.
	That's how this works.
	We know that now.
	In fact, you can apply this to almost any news story.
	Who benefits from that?
	Is there some reason why they would be saying these things?
	It's extraordinary how consistent it is.
	When Walensky claimed not to have seen any reports, there were dozens of reports in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
	Wow, you'd think you'd look in there, like, Are there any adverse reactions?
	Do we have some sort of U.S.
	adverse event reporting system?
	Yeah, well, let's not look in there.
	Tell me how those sick kids are getting on.
	They're still sick.
	Is it with COVID?
	Yeah, with.
	Not from, but with.
	Right, well, just make sure you keep that distinction opaque and confusing.
	Listen, I get all my information from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly.
	Not only is the information very reliable and convenient, it always cheers me up to read about those deaths.
	Plus, a very handy TV guide!
	Although we can't know for sure if Walensky had seen reports of post-vaccine myocarditis, a US government memorandum from March 2021, also obtained by Stieber, stated there were 27 cases of myocarditis, myoopericarditis, and pericarditis, inflammation of lining around the heart, on VAERS.
	The US government conducted its VAERS search on February 23, 2021.
	It's not clear who wrote the memo, and CDC refused to answer any questions on the matter.
	But Walensky was copied on multiple threads discussing myocarditis, Stieber writes.
	She responded to one of the threads saying the information was super helpful.
	This is super helpful.
	Not when I've got all morbidity and mortality to read my way through.
	What about the VARs?
	Stop showing me that!
	I'll just put those adverse reaction reports in my special filing cabinet under the desk there and keep it nice and warm.
	The CDC, notes Stieber, was warned by Israel on February the 28th, 2021 about a large number of myocarditis cases after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination documents obtained by the Epoch Times show.
	Internally, the warning was designated as high importance and set off a review of US data.
	The Israeli Ministry of Health requested a joint meeting with the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and the CDC to respond to this trend.
	The Israeli national focal point is noticing a large number of reports of myocarditis, particularly in young people, following the administration of the Pfizer vaccines, the email stated.
	At this point, Pfizer had only made about $50 billion in profit.
	Israel was reporting post-vaccination myocarditis already in January 2021, noted Dr. Tracy Beth Herg, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
	They reported two deaths associated with it in April 2021.
	So it seems they were pretty stringently ignoring information that might not be helpful to the continuation of their agenda.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know in the chat what you think.
	I think this was a case of Dr. Walensky stating what she was told she should say, Herg said.
	I'm not sure how she would have been unaware of the Israeli Department of Defense cases.
	And if she was aware, she should easily have been able to see
	that the rate of cases reported was well above the baseline expected rate
	in a short couple of week post-vaccination timeframe.
	Emails obtained by Daily Clout suggest that the White House
	may have asked about cardiac events in 2021, but the CDC reassured White House staff
	that it was not a concern.
	In one April 19, 2021 email, a CDC staff member wrote,
	Anne S is on the deputy's call with the White House right now
	and is asking if there's been any signal with pericarditis and mRNA vaccines.
	They knew that, they were discussing that, continued and still yet continue to deny that association
	and continue to right now, literally recently, present information as if that's not a problem,
	lying in the most glib and extraordinary ways about their health and risks for your children.
	This is an ongoing scandal that doesn't get investigated or reported on.
	People don't spend years looking into this, do they?
	Except for like the kind of journalists that we're using here from public.
	Why is that?
	What is the agenda?
	What on earth is happening?
	Answered Tom Shibakuro, Director of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, Department of Defense and Israeli MOH think they have a signal for myocarditis with mRNA vaccines, but there is potentially a lot of ascertainment bias in the DoD data.
	We don't have any evidence to suggest a signal or safety problem for myocarditis or pericarditis with mRNA vaccines.
	Some may argue that the CDC was right to keep concerns about myocarditis from the public because the agency had not detected the safety signal itself and had reasons to suspect that the reports from Israel and the Defense Department were flawed.
	But such an argument would require the CDC to conduct thorough safety surveillance.
	If they had concerns that that information was flawed, they should conduct their own studies, surely.
	Yeah, as Stieber discovered through his exchanges with the agency, the CDC did not begin its proportional reporting ratio statistical analysis until 2022.
	Stieber also found that the CDC's v-safe self-reporting system did not include a category for myocarditis reports.
	How the hell are we going to keep down these myocarditis reports?
	Well, like, what if we just didn't have a category for that?
	Right, the same way as we don't have a category for being hit in the face with an onion?
	That's right.
	Are people being hit in the face with onions?
	Not yet.
	Are they getting myocarditis?
	All these things could be happening.
	I can't have categories for everything.
	Now, let's get your kids vaccinated.
	Against onions?
	Yeah, why not?
	This means that V-safe was not able to collect survey reports of myocarditis.
	There are no problems with myocarditis.
	Have you got the facility to collect them?
	Next question, anyone?
	By May 28, 2021, email suggests Walensky had briefed the White House on myocarditis.
	Dr. Walensky had mentioned a couple of updates on TTS, myocarditis, etc.
	on this morning's call.
	An advisor to the deputy coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response wrote, Any chance you know where we can find these papers stroke briefings?
	She asked CDC staff.
	In June 2021, after most people who were planning to get vaccinated had received at least one dose, the CDC began publicly investigating myocarditis and speaking to the news media about it.
	It seems that it was a greater priority to ensure that people got vaccinated than to ensure that vaccinating was safe.
	Herc submitted a study to the CDC's journal, oh not this, Morbility and Mortality Weekly Review, that depressing little rag, that stratified the myocarditis risk by health, removed incidental hospitalizations, and provided a more accurate estimate of the incidence of post-vaccination myocarditis in teenage boys, even though that video is still referring to the obsolete one.
	Yet the CDC's journal rejected these significant results in August 2021.
	An editor told Herg, I ran this by the MMWR lead editorial staff members, they felt that while the report was interesting, they did not feel there was anything that was not already relayed.
	The study was eventually published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.
	We're not making odd, arbitrary decisions about what's interesting or what's... We're not putting that in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review!
	We've got to have a bigger fish to fry!
	We're doing a Sudoku on Wednesday!
	MMWR tends to publish studies that back the CDC's preferred policy,
	Herg told Public.
	Bloody hell!
	That's not very helpful.
	Don't even bother having it then.
	Just broadcast what they're telling you.
	Even when their findings do not align with the international data and publications.
	So the MMWR is bloody useless.
	They just put anything in there.
	I bet it doesn't even have morbidity and mortality in there.
	Walensky let mumps go by after receiving a warning from the Israeli Ministry of Health, and even when more information about myocarditis became public, her agency continued to downplay the risks.
	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 free.
	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.
	In November 2021, the Biden administration announced sweeping mandates for working age people, many of whom were in the group, men under 30, who would be most at risk.
	Oh my God, they mandated without telling people Even I, after everything we've been through, can't really hold it together that when they were saying if you want to be a key worker in New York or if you want to do these jobs or you should be vaccinated or you should be shamed, they had understood that there were risks and they were not conveying those risks to the public.
	This shows you, I think to a new degree, the lack of regard they have for your life, your Safety?
	Your dignity?
	Your ability to make choices for yourself?
	This is actually, I think, in time we will come to regard this as a great stain on the character of our government and their agencies.
	And we'll see it, I think, as a pivotal moment when trust was lost forever by almost all but the most ardent of supporters of what has come to be known as the message.
	It may be that Walensky chose to disregard the safety signals from Israel and the military because she did not want to interrupt the vaccination campaign, which would be a terrible decision because the vaccination campaign isn't more important than the truth.
	We've got a perfectly good vaccination campaign.
	Why?
	These guys on a talk show have dressed up as little syringes.
	Guys, take the costume off.
	Oh, it took ages to get this bit.
	Velcro!
	After a few reports of blood clots following Johnson & Johnson shots, the CDC placed a temporary pause on the company's vaccine.
	How keen were they that we take these vaccines, that they're blood clots?
	Okay, pause.
	Just don't tell anyone about that.
	Get the vaccine costume on!
	Doing something similar for Pfizer or Moderna might have brought the whole vaccine rollout to a halt.
	Those of you that during that period thought, something unusual is happening, this doesn't seem right.
	Well, if they had responded to the available evidence, they would have had to have paused.
	Because it seems the most obvious alternative to that is a kind of group psychopathy.
	If their version of the truth isn't true, and now we know that it isn't, then the kind of speculative available possibilities are terrifying, aren't they?
	CDC is making these false claims either because they truly do not know how to evaluate the scientific methodology, or because they are trying to encourage people to get vaccinated, or both, said Herg.
	CDC director Cohen insists on boosting young people because to do otherwise would be an admission that there is a serious safety risk for this age group, something our agency has consistently denied.
	So ideology is actually usurping pragmatism and even safety.
	That's where we are now.
	Their rhetoric was always follow the science, but in practice they were following an ideology and actually ignoring significant science.
	To this day, the CDC has not released complete updated data on myocarditis.
	What?
	I've been scanning the pages of Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review and there's nothing in there.
	Why is that not in there?
	After the Defense Department did the responsible thing and reported cases of myocarditis to the CDC in 2021, It ended up considering the CDC's guidance to be definitive anyway and defaulted to that guidance.
	Oh my god, they got it once, they ignored it, they got it again, they ignored it again!
	The department went on to mandate these vaccines for healthy young adults.
	We're now in a really interesting territory.
	They've twice been warned that there was a risk and then they mandated vaccines for young adults.
	So what does that tell you?
	What's the legacy media doing that they're not investigating this?
	This is like Watergate, this is Iran-Contra, this is a deep deep scandal that's just a few years ago and you wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for independent media.
	Independent media is the only chance we have of gaining access to this.
	If there wasn't independent media I wouldn't know this.
	I wouldn't know this now.
	I'd sort of think, that was weird what went on then and I don't trust the government anyway.
	I've never trusted them.
	I don't trust the legacy media because I've worked in media and I know what they're like and I know what they do.
	But now, because of independent media, we have access to actual facts.
	Good job that there aren't a raft of legislature being passed around the world to prevent independent media from being able to communicate, isn't it?
	Oh, wow.
	This was absolute madness, Herg said, given a complete lack of data to support this and the fact we were knowingly asking young people, particularly males, to take risks with their heart.
	Bloody hell.
	The booster has not undergone thorough clinical trials in humans and the US is, so far, the only country that's recommending it for infants as young as six months old.
	And we only know this because of, like, freedom of information demands made by independent media organisations.
	So there's limits.
	And there's gonna be more revealed.
	Unless, of course, independent media is attacked and undermined and dissenting voices everywhere are, like, literally arrested and shut down.
	I don't know.
	Just keep your eyes peeled.
	Most members of the public believed that the CDC and the FDA would conduct sufficient safety monitoring.
	We did, didn't we?
	But you know when sometimes, like, someone like Vivek Ramaswamy or RFK say that if I were president, I would get rid of the FBI, I'd get rid of the CIA.
	Well, you've got to look at, like, the FDA, you've got to look at the CDC.
	Basically, all of these government agencies have plainly become co-opted by something, it seems to me.
	I don't think they're evil people, actually.
	When I look at that Mandy Cohen, I think she seems sort of lovely, actually.
	So something must be going on.
	Something weird must be happening.
	Some level of deep systemic corruption that bypasses individual humans' inherent sense of moral goodness, which I actually believe we all have.
	Still.
	These institutions are faced with a massive backlash.
	As a result, fewer and fewer people get vaccinated with each new booster.
	But outrage is not enough.
	Congress should hold hearings on this to get to the bottom of what happened and consider subpoenaing.
	The emails between the CDC and White House which have only been released in heavily redacted form to Daily Clout.
	Of course they're heavily redacted because the information in there is terrifying.
	That redacted information concerned a party that we were holding for your birthday and you ruined it!
	You're just like mortality and morbidity weekly review.
	Until our public health agencies and regulators are massively reformed, we will continue to see the same irresponsible behaviour from officials.
	Change may come from Europe.
	Don't hold your breath.
	Due to the high risk of myocarditis after Moderna, several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany and France, suspended the use of the Moderna vaccine for people under
	32 years ago.
	I didn't even really know that.
	And the UK has moved to make boosters only freely available to people over 65 and those
	in high-risk groups.
	Many European countries have made the decision to prioritise the wellbeing of young people
	over vaccine mania.
	It's time for the US to do the same.
	It was a kind of mania.
	It is a kind of mania.
	In spite of all of the rhetoric and language around science, in spite of the mandates, the reassurances, the ridicule that people that were sceptical faced, it turns out that on two significant occasions, vital information was ignored in order to simply advance the vaccine campaign.
	That's how it seems, doesn't it?
	Looking at this information that was only obtained using a Freedom of Information Act, otherwise you wouldn't have it.
	Without independent media you won't get access to that type of information because the legacy media will not report it.
	The legacy media will amplify the message of the CDC and the appropriate agencies because they've been gutted and they have a convergent set of interests with those agencies.
	So what I can take from this is remain deeply skeptical about what you're told in the mainstream media, deeply suspicious of it, don't trust authority, but recognize this is a significant time of change.
	The world is changing and it's changing fast.
	We can't have one foot in each camp anymore.
	We're fully in this.
	This is a time where radical change is required and we need to organize immediately against what seems to me unimaginable corruption.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	Without that freedom of information request we wouldn't know the truth about myocarditis and its links to vaccine and vaccine injury which given that we're still on YouTube but we're demonetized by the government and big tech We can talk about it openly, I think.
	And while we're celebrating journalism, independence, truth-telling, I'm excited to introduce Dave DeCamp, the news editor at Antiwar.com and host of Antiwar News, whose content we continually use because of his intrepid personal principles.
	Because remember, when journalism used to mean investigating the actions of the powerful, that we can attack the establishment, that we can build new systems together.
	Dave, thank you so much for joining us.
	Thanks for having me, Russell.
	I'll just let you know that if you're watching this anywhere other than Rumble, we're going to be exclusively available on Rumble now.
	You want to know how you can support us?
	You can support us by joining us on Rumble.
	Download the app.
	Get Rumble.
	That's how you can support us.
	They're committed to free speech.
	We're committed to free speech.
	And if you want to support us further, press the red button and you can support us directly.
	But your attention, your consciousness and your time is so much more important than your money.
	Mate, one of the things that you've been reporting on is this sort of curious story that in spite of propaganda, there's been little shift in territorial control in Ukraine.
	There's been incredible loss of life and it seems incredible opportunity for profit.
	So what are these new revelations about there being very little in the way of territorial shift reveal?
	Yeah, so Ukraine launched its big counter offensive back in June and you know there's been a lot of kind of media report with a bit of a slant trying to portray that Ukraine is gaining territory and that they are you know that they do have a chance of winning this thing and they have been gaining some very you know incremental areas but a recent report from the New York Times that looked over at all the territory that's changed hands This year in 2023, it showed that Russia has actually gained more territory this year.
	But overall, it's a very small amount of territory.
	Only 500 square miles has changed hands.
	Russia gained about 300 and the Ukrainian side about 183.
	So those small little areas, I mean, if you look at the map, it really shows, you know, the front lines have barely changed.
	And in that time, you know, hundreds of thousands of people have likely been killed.
	We don't know the casualties for sure on either side because it's kind of a strange thing that we don't know how many people are actually being killed because both sides are hiding their casualty figures.
	But it's pretty clear, and from people that I trust, they believe hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have been killed this year alone.
	And lots of Russians are being killed as well.
	And this is a war that the U.S.
	and NATO have chosen to continue.
	The really infuriating thing about this is that before the Ukrainian counteroffensive, the Discord leaks came out.
	And one of those leaks revealed that the U.S.
	did not believe Ukraine could regain much territory.
	And there was other signs, you know, officials speaking to the New York Times anonymously, really kind of buried in their reports.
	We're saying, yeah, we don't think that they have what it takes.
	They don't have enough weapons.
	Russia has really dug in.
	Russia spent the last winter really strengthening their defenses.
	So they knew it wouldn't be successful, and they pushed for it anyway.
	Right before the counter-offensive started, Secretary of State Antony Blinken came out and gave this big speech against a ceasefire.
	And he actually, he didn't just say he opposed the ceasefire, he opposed the pause in fighting.
	He disparaged other countries that were calling for peace.
	So this is what we're dealing with and now months later that the lines have barely moved and so many people are dead, they're determined to keep this thing going.
	That's what's really, you know, they just want an open-ended conflict.
	They want to turn Ukraine into this huge NATO bulwark on Russia's border.
	Even in his recent address to the UN, Biden said that Russia and Russia alone can end this war.
	Russia solitarily and solely are the cause of this war.
	And as you point out, even to talk of peace is regarded as a kind of militaristic heresy.
	I wonder what you think the significance is of Lockheed Martin, for example, announcing profit opportunities for up to $10 billion and what the likely motivations of this war are if we're not seeing significant territorial shift and it isn't the counter offensive didn't succeed.
	What does this tell us about the motivations?
	Well, yeah, there's certainly a profit motive here.
	I mean, the U.S.
	and the U.K.
	actually recently, according to a report from the Telegraph, the British are apparently out of weapons to send to Ukraine.
	But by dumping all of these weapons in there, you know, this gives the arms makers like Lockheed Martin, like Raytheon, you know, they're replenishing all these stockpiles.
	You have all the Eastern European countries, especially Poland,
	really increasing their military budget.
	I mean, it's a total boon for them.
	And sometimes, you know, they're very candid about it.
	If you remember Alexey Reznikov, who was Zelensky's defense minister who was recently fired, he said, you know,
	I invite all the Western defense contractors to test their weapons in Ukraine.
	You know, he opened his country as a testing ground for weapons.
	There was recently a report in the Wall Street Journal that said Ukraine is one giant arms fair.
	And it was talking about how specifically Lockheed Martin, you know, when it comes to the weapons makers in the U.S.
	and the U.K., the heavy hitters is always Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
	Of course, there's others, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman.
	But Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, or they call them RTX now, they're really making money.
	And the HIMARS rocket systems that the US has given Ukraine, they're in hot demand now.
	They were made by Lockheed Martin.
	The Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, those are the ones that could fire off their shoulder.
	They were obsolete.
	They stopped making them in the 90s.
	And now all of a sudden, there's a hot demand for them.
	And they're starting to make them again.
	They're calling in engineers who worked in like the 80s, like old guys that are retired to help get the, Production going.
	So it's very clear.
	And who's running this thing is Biden's defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, who came from the board of Raytheon.
	Literally his job before running the Pentagon was at Raytheon.
	So it's very obvious that this is a big part of this whole thing is the money to be made on these weapons and it's complete corruption and cronyism.
	I'm astonished to see that sort of the nostalgia craze for the 80s and 90s has reached actual
	militarism, that it's like sort of speak and spell and Simon Says war weaponry from Tomy
	and MB Games, like the kind of nostalgia craze that you see in our sort of love of serials
	like Lucky Charms is extended to bazookas.
	What a terrifying and extraordinary situation.
	When you said that the Ukraine is like an arms fair, I was reminded of the Spanish Civil
	Wars potential function as a kind of trial for the subsequent global war, i.e. in particular
	that the fascists were supported by Nazi weaponry, particularly from the air and stuff.
	And it seems to me that these kind of practices have always been available.
	military technology is piloted in potentially lesser conflicts prior to,
	it's staggering to consider given that Russia are one of the combatant nations,
	even bigger conflicts, even involving China potentially when you talk about
	what's going on with Taiwan and perhaps we'll touch on that in a minute but for
	a moment, this is intended in no way to disparage the people of Ukraine
	whose suffering should be paramount in all of our thoughts and in particular
	without advocacy for and even demands for peace.
	But Ukraine is understood to be a pretty corrupt country when it comes to politics, which country isn't?
	So, when the United States acknowledge that they're aware of corruption in Ukraine, why are they so willing to afford a corrupt government the potential for corruption on this scale?
	Yeah, I mean, it's a big question because Ukraine was always notorious for its corruption, you know, in the years leading up to Russia's invasion when they used to ask Biden, you know, when is Ukraine going to be brought into NATO?
	And he said, well, like they got to work on corruption, which is something to hear coming from Biden, considering after the coup in 2014, that his son Hunter got a job on the state, on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company.
	So I always have to point that out.
	You know, Biden shouldn't really be talking about corruption.
	But anyway, it was well known.
	And when this thing first started, when Russia first invaded and they started
	pouring these billions of dollars in weapons into Ukraine, and it's not just weapons,
	they also give them what they call direct budgetary aid, which is money, billions of dollars
	that they give to the government to pay government salaries, to pay for government services.
	They're actually subsidizing small businesses as well.
	There was a recent report on 60 Minutes and they talked to a lady who ran a knitwear company.
	She was showing off her sweaters that were subsidized by the American taxpayer.
	So there's all sorts of other ways that they're spending in this notoriously corrupt country.
	And they kind of downplayed that for a while in the beginning of this war
	and the media went along with it, but it kind of became impossible to keep hiding this.
	Recently, Zelensky sacked six of deputy defense ministers.
	That's all the deputy defense ministers.
	He fired them over these Reports that they were, you know buying things at inflated prices and then obviously the implication there is that they were skimming off the top So all six of them just they just got fired in September and this war has been going on for a year and a half You know, how much have they been skimming this whole time?
	And you know just the fact that they are doing this with all this corruption I think it goes to show that they're just determined to keep this proxy war It doesn't really matter.
	And there was recently a leaked document, strategy document, from the State Department and it was kind of their long-term plans for Ukraine and it was all about how they got to root out corruption, how corruption is this huge problem.
	So they are much more concerned about it than they're letting on.
	And it said that they're willing to maybe leverage some of the economic aid, but not the military aid.
	That doesn't matter.
	Even though, of course, there's the risk of these rockets being sold to all sorts of people.
	You know, they could end up all over the world, but it just doesn't matter.
	They just want to keep this thing going.
	Yeah, it's extraordinary.
	Isn't it possible that the recent changes with the House Speaker will mean a delay for this additional $24 billion of funding?
	Is that possible?
	Is that good?
	Is it valuable in any way?
	Yeah, so it's really kind of interesting what's going on here.
	So Biden wants another $24 billion to spend on this war.
	And it has the majority of support in Congress still, but over in the House, there is a decent amount of Republicans who are opposed.
	They don't want to give more money to Ukraine.
	And because of that, Kevin McCarthy was forced to strip Ukraine aid from this short-term funding bill that they just passed to keep the government funded.
	And Matt Gaetz, who is a Republican from Florida who launched the effort against McCarthy, he's been very good on Ukraine.
	He has opposed it from the beginning.
	And he launched the effort to oust McCarthy after accusing him of making a secret deal to bring the Ukraine aid to the floor for a vote.
	So now there's going to be a new House Speaker election that's expected to be next week.
	And in that time, they can't do any legislative action or at least From what I understand, a lot of this stuff is very confusing and there's a lot of procedural stuff they can do, but it's definitely disrupting things.
	And one of the House Speakers, one of the Republicans who has announced that he will be running for House Speaker is Jim Jordan, and he's voted against all the Ukraine stuff the whole time.
	So this is significant.
	I was kind of more pessimistic for a while saying, you know, they're all going to support it, they're going to keep this thing going.
	But what's happening here is not insignificant.
	If the house speaker, the third person, the third, the house speaker is the third highest level official in the U.S.
	government.
	They're second in line to the presidency, if the, you know, behind the vice president, if something happens to the president, if the president dies or something.
	So having a house speaker that's opposed to this proxy war would be very significant.
	Now Biden gave a speech the other day and at the end he said something, well he didn't give a speech, he was talking to some reporters, but at the end he said something like, there's other ways we could get the money, but I'm not going to talk about that right now.
	So unfortunately, there probably is other ways that they could keep this thing going.
	I wonder if you ever have time to inquire why reporting that is this specific and oppositional isn't found within the legacy media?
	What do you think is the importance of independent media when it comes to proposing counter-narratives?
	How dangerous do you think it is to present these kind of stories?
	I know people in our sphere that say that this is the subject that will get you cancelled,
	this is the subject that will get you shut down.
	Other people think it's Big Pharma.
	But certainly there are interests that seem martial to assure that the legacy media maintains
	simply a position of simple amplification of the message of, let's call it the establishment,
	or normalising the agenda of the establishment, whether that's the advance of authoritarianism,
	the advance of potentially unnecessary wars.
	How is it that you get your information?
	Why is it that this information is kept out of the Mainstream.
	And how do you feel about it morally and personally?
	Yeah, so what's interesting is that the truth is out there.
	The truth, you know, you can read between the lines of the mainstream media.
	You know, it's what they're saying is factual, but not truthful necessarily.
	And a lot of times, and you know, what a big part of my job is, is reading these reports from the New York Times, Washington Post, the Times over in London, and You know, a lot of times buried in those reports are the kernels of truth, like the fact that they didn't think the counteroffensive would succeed.
	They would have a story about something completely unrelated, related to Ukraine, and then buried in there you see a Ukrainian official say, we don't have the weapons to do this counteroffensive.
	We can't do this.
	And the media goes along with the narrative, even though they might be reporting on factual things, it's about narrative control.
	And you see that with the unprovoked invasion claim, which is one of the, you know, they're trying to change language.
	They're trying to say it's unprovoked, even though everything's provoked.
	I mean, murder's provoked generally, unless somebody's a sociopath, but it's always provoked.
	And recently, Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO, he said, He basically said Putin invaded because he didn't want NATO in Ukraine.
	And that's the head of NATO.
	And they accuse us, the accusation that we always get, is that we're on Putin's payroll or that we're, you know, working for Russia or working for China is the new big one now.
	And it's just complete nonsense.
	You know, we're, us at Antiwar.com, you know, we're Americans who care about our country and our people and don't want our government out there, you know, causing more destruction around the world.
	That's our priority.
	And we talk about these things long before it happens.
	You know, I haven't been doing it very long.
	I started working full-time in 2019, but the website antiwar.com has been around since 1995.
	They were writing about warning against meddling in Ukraine in the early 2000s.
	So we're, we're ahead of, you know, we're on top of this stuff.
	And then when a big thing happens like the invasion, you know, continuing what we do, we get accused of being Russian stooges or whatever, just because the narrative has completely shifted, you know, COVID kind of ended.
	It didn't end, but you know, the Ukraine war became the big thing as soon as Russia invaded and anybody speaking out against it got hit with this label.
	And thankfully things have changed just because of the reality of what's going on in the U S.
	And this war is dragging on and what are the results that we're seeing?
	It's just a stalemate and death and destruction and it's just horrific.
	So more people are questioning and polls are showing that the opposition is growing, thankfully.
	It's odd, because that's such a predictable outcome, and indeed, as you said, the reporting on antiwar.com, which I recommend all of you use and follow if you want to be well informed on this issue, has been saying, well, Ukrainian war, hold on, that could be complicated.
	What about the 2014 coup?
	What about the infringement of NATO on former Soviet Union territories?
	And when you report on that stuff, when you don't comply, when you don't follow their preferred line, you're right, they do reach for extraordinary slurs, and this one that Like, he could be a Putin apologist or a Chinese stooge.
	I don't even know that that actually is how things work.
	Like, the Chinese government would, like, approach... I mean, I have no idea what they had to say.
	If the Chinese government or Putin, especially what I've been through, said, listen, we're prepared to give you some support, I'd go, well, let's talk terms.
	What are you saying?
	You know, like, I don't think that the world works like that.
	I think that what's far more common is that the sort of there's a set of converging interests between legacy media and the state that are ideological but certainly financial the way that they are funded the pundits that they use it's such a sort of collaborative porous immersive and
	That's outrageous.
	I watched, for example, recently Hillary Clinton talking to Jen Psaki on something called Inside with Jen Psaki and I thought, well, that is what it is.
	It is inside.
	It's inside the system amplifying its message.
	And they talked about like, you know, as we know, Putin meddles in elections.
	As we know, Putin is an authoritarian dictator, this is an unprovoked war.
	And all there are in terms of interlocution and communication is just the nodding along.
	That is the function of the media.
	You don't see questions asked like, you won't ever get you interviewing Antony Blinken,
	you won't get you interviewing Hillary Clinton or any figure in power because they avoid
	those questions.
	I mean, beyond avoiding them, they delegitimize that line of inquiry.
	They smear any form of dissent, presumably because when this war started, a lot of people
	would have gone, oh, what, Ukraine, Russia, that's going to go on for ages and ages, isn't
	it?
	You can't beat Russia in wars, they're a nuclear superpower, isn't it?
	It's going to just drain resources and won't it endlessly escalate?
	I mean, one of the pledges that Biden offered was that you wouldn't see troops, like, you
	like you know he said US troops and as far as I know that's not necessarily happened yet.
	But I know that you referred to that telegraph article and I feel like the UK are putting troops into Ukraine for training purposes and there's a suggestion that BAE systems might start operating out of there.
	So you do see this incremental escalation that's completely at odds with even the narrative they offer you at the beginning of the Conflict!
	And what do you think about that aspect of it?
	The way that the narrative alters and shifts and amplifies?
	Yeah, I always think about Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor.
	In, you know, the early days of the war, when they were trying to get Germany to send planes and tanks, he said, no, no, no, we're not doing it.
	I'm trying to prevent World War III, is what he would say.
	I'm trying to prevent nuclear war.
	Well, now he's allowed the transfer of planes.
	He's allowed, they're sent the German-made Leopard tanks.
	So, you know, is he taking his country toward World War III?
	By his previous logic, he is.
	And you mentioned the troops.
	So, recently, your new defense secretary, Schaps, I'm kind of blanking on his name.
	Grant Schaps.
	Grant Schaps.
	He suggested that the British troops that have been training Ukrainians inside the UK, maybe we should start doing that training inside Ukraine.
	And then Rishi Sunak came out the day after and he said, no, that's down, you know, that's down the line.
	Don't worry about it.
	You know, it's not going to happen anytime soon.
	British troops have been in Ukraine.
	The Times reported in April 2022 that British SAS soldiers were inside Ukraine training Ukrainian soldiers on anti-tank weapons outside of Kiev.
	A few months later, the New York Times reported that some NATO countries had special operations forces in Ukraine, and the UK was listed on there.
	And the U.S.
	also has a handful of special operations forces, and you know, that was revealed by the Discord leaks.
	They have about 14 according to this leak, this leaked Pentagon document, and the British had 50, which is a significant presence.
	That's not just embassy security.
	So they're there doing things, and there's also CIA on the ground, of course, and we don't know what they're doing.
	That's part of the Transparency issue, um, you know, they could be doing who knows how close they are to the front lines.
	We don't know.
	But if the UK started sending troops openly, that would be another very big escalation.
	So it's something to keep an eye out for, but it's worth pointing out that they've actually been there.
	Now, we don't know if they're still there, but based on these reports from these certain time periods, there were, you know, there's enough evidence that I believe it's safe to say there were British troops on the ground in Ukraine.
	Tucker Carlson, God love him, said that it's likely that there will be a hot war between the United States and Russia within a year.
	What do you think about that?
	I really hope that he's wrong because You know that can't happen and that used to be the attitude was we can't go to war with Russia with you know can't go to war with the Soviet Union can't go to war with Russia they have thousands of nukes it can't happen but obviously that attitude has shifted now that things keep escalating I mean we're doing the US
	And NATO are doing everything short of having troops there fighting Russia.
	They're giving them all the weapons, they're giving them all the intelligence, and Russia knows this.
	You know, there's been all these drone attacks inside Russia, in Crimea, and they're using Western intelligence for that.
	Russia knows it.
	Russia has, if they want to go to war with NATO, they have the pretext to bomb a NATO base in Poland.
	Right now, we are relying on the restraint of this madman, Vladimir Putin that they keep, you know, that's what we hear about him is that he's some sort of madman.
	But then they also say, oh, he's just bluffing when he's talking about nuclear weapons.
	So, you know, I try not to be too alarmist, but we're at the point now where if you wake up tomorrow morning and the US and Russia, NATO and Russia are at war.
	You know, don't be surprised.
	It's not going to be a shock.
	And, you know, I really hope that this opposition in DC and other places in Europe and Slovakia, they just elected a government that wants to end military aid to Ukraine.
	I hope that keeps growing because we really need to end this thing.
	We're at that point now where Something could spark it.
	You know, there's all these planes, NATO and Russian planes are always having these close encounters.
	There was that Ukrainian air defense missile that hit Poland last year and they said it was Russia.
	You know, it's just where we're at.
	Again, just if we wake up and the headline is NATO at war with Russia, you know, we tried to warn you.
	I prefer it to some of the headlines I've seen recently.
	Now, the reliance on Russian restraint is... it seems extraordinary that that would be sort of part of a strategy.
	And the confusing messaging also around... the confusing messaging around, yeah, he's bluffing, he's mad, he's ill, all of this sort of almost antiquated 20th century propaganda.
	Seems extraordinarily misguided and while I'm listening to you I'm thinking so why is this important?
	Of course it's important because of the potential to provoke a superpower into Armageddon which is being addressed and identified as you said by the German Chancellor even Biden himself a few years ago said you know that would be the end of the world and The very point of a cold war was because a hot war was inconceivable.
	A proxy war is even an acknowledgement that America's imperialist interests can be better met.
	And these are not the interests of the American people, of course.
	To clarify, of the military-industrial complex and the establishment elites that masquerade behind the veil of democracy.
	You've seen the show before, right?
	This is what we talk about.
	What I wanted to say is that the reason that it's important to continually interrogate this is because we've foreclosed on the possibility of a different world, where the population of any country, yours, mine, might say, is that what I want to happen with my taxpayer dollars?
	If indeed, as claimed, the role of the United States is to act as emissaries and peacekeepers and referees in global conflicts that purportedly have no benefit to them, Then it ought to be at the directive of the population.
	Certainly, for example, the concomitant Hawaiian fires demonstrated a sort of clear public opinion preference for support on domestic issues rather than foreign wars.
	And the idea that that kind of conversation is equated with, you know, Putin apologism or A lack of regard for the plight of Ukrainian people is reductive and simplistic and untrue because of the sheer number of conflicts around the world that America continue to inspire, fund and enact.
	And I suppose when I think of what we're doing, when we're dealing with someone like you who has a particular expertise and a background and history dealing with the subject that you're dealing with, I feel like it's important to acknowledge that what we're saying is we're being misinformed and lied to and there are different ways of organizing reality.
	It's not like there's just some invisible trajectory that sweeps your taxpayer dollars into
	the sort of profitable war machine.
	And it is something that should be discussed. And in order to discuss it, you have to be well
	informed. And in order to do that, you have to have a media that's not just amplifying the agenda
	of the powerful. Do you think it is conceivable that people could reject the ongoing support of
	this of this conflict and therefore demand a peaceful resolution? Yeah, like I said, you know,
	I think that the opposition is growing and we are in kind of this new media age, especially,
	you know, with this show, you know, being on rumble being, you know, they want to shut you
	down, but you have your outlets that, you know, they can't control. And
	And Antiwar.com is a very unique thing because, again, this website was founded in 1995 and they kind of cut their teeth opposing the NATO bombing of Kosovo.
	And they had sources on the ground finding out NATO, you know, was bombing civilian targets and it was kind of the first thing of its kind online.
	And now, since then, because of that, you know, they were targeted by the FBI, they were under FBI surveillance.
	Um, but now there's kind of, there's so much of this now, there's a lot available that, uh, you know, ordinary people that might not necessarily really pay attention or, or try to look for the truth, um, in these, when it comes to conflicts like this, you know, they could find it a lot easier now.
	Um, you could kind of stumble across it.
	So I think that's kind of, that's, you know, what I try to do.
	And the reason why I am a news editor, why I just talk about the news all day, it's my, you know, it's my focus is because if you just follow the news, if you just have the context of the events that have happened, again, it's all out there for us.
	you know, if you just follow along, you know, they, they lie by omission.
	Of course, this is what, you know, Chomsky wrote about is that, you know,
	one example I always think of re recently Iran seized, uh, two oil tankers in the
	Persian Gulf.
	If back in, I believe it was around April or May.
	And the context that was missing from that story was that a couple of weeks
	before that the U. S.
	stole a shipment of Iranian oil.
	They forced an oil tanker to sail to the U.S.
	and they stole the oil.
	So they seized the tanker and Iran responded.
	And you don't hear about what caused it, what provoked it.
	They never want to include that.
	So it's just a matter of knowing, like, it's kind of, you don't need to be super informed, just kind of be aware of what's happening.
	And when it comes to Ukraine, and I think it just has to be clear to more people that considering what the U.S.
	has done to the Middle East and North Africa for the past 20 years, you know, how can they think that they really care about Ukrainians?
	How can you believe that that's what this is about?
	So I think it's kind of just opening more people up to that reality.
	Yeah, and now there seems to be an appetite to... Antony Blinken said that China want to become a dominant world power and want to become sort of a hegemonic unipolar force and replace the United States.
	I feel like, is that true?
	Is that how China are behaving?
	I'm sure they have their own imperialism, colonialism, tyranny, corruption, of course, I'm sure.
	But do you think that there is an agenda?
	I mean, if I imagine for a minute that it was the US that was surrounded by Chinese military bases
	rather than the opposite, or if US or if China were agitating in some sort of off-coast
	former territory to meddle with the economic affairs as is happening with Taiwan and the
	semiconductors and stuff, I feel that would be regarded as extreme hostility.
	What do you think about this attempt to portray China as an aggressor?
	Is it unfair?
	Am I being naive?
	Optimistic?
	What's going on?
	If you look at what U.S.
	policy is right now towards China, when we're speaking militarily, they're not trying to prevent China from taking over the world.
	They're trying to prevent China from being the hegemon in Southeast Asia, a few hundred miles off their coast.
	That's what the U.S.
	is focused on is Taiwan and the South China Sea.
	And, you know, it's very clear that China, what China has been doing in a lot of instances is a reaction to what the U.S.
	is doing, especially in Taiwan.
	I mean, Taiwan, it's an issue that's tough to talk about briefly because it's kind of complicated, but when the U.S.
	and China normalized relations in 1979, the deal was the U.S.
	would pull their troops out of Taiwan.
	They would not recognize Taiwan as a country.
	And they would not flirt with Taiwan's independence.
	They would, you know, it's an issue for Chinese people in China and mainland China and Taiwan to work out.
	But in recent years, we've seen, especially when Nancy Pelosi went over there, the U.S.
	is increasing military aid.
	The U.S., in 1982, they released the third joint communique And that was these things they released when the US and
	China were normalizing relations to work out certain issues.
	And in this one, the US said basically that they would eventually stop selling weapons to Taiwan.
	Now that's open for interpretation. It's intentionally vague, the language.
	But this was essentially the deal that the US made.
	And now in recent years, arms sales have increased.
	And this year, President Biden, for the first time, started giving Taiwan military aid the same way he's arming Ukraine by sending weapons directly from Pentagon stockpiles.
	This is unprecedented in the era of U.S.-China normalized relations.
	And they're doing all this in the name of deterrence.
	They say they need to deter China from invading Taiwan, from blockading Taiwan.
	But if you look at the past few years, since the U.S.
	policy toward Taiwan sort of changed, which really happened in the Trump administration, they started loosening restrictions for official government contacts.
	That's another thing that really irks China, is U.S.
	and Taiwanese officials talking.
	In that time, as the U.S.
	has increased that military and diplomatic support, we've seen a lot more Chinese military activity around Taiwan.
	China held their largest ever military drills around Taiwan when Nancy Pelosi went over there.
	Nancy Pelosi's visit provoked that.
	So this is the pattern.
	And it doesn't matter really how you feel about Taiwan, if they should be independent or not, if you're in the U.S.
	It's just the reality.
	The more the U.S.
	does this, the more military pressure Taiwan's going to come under and the more likely a war is going to be.
	Same thing in the South China Sea.
	There's this maritime dispute.
	China makes very sweeping claims to the South China Sea.
	There's little encounters between Chinese and Philippine vessels.
	The U.S.
	has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines.
	Whenever a Chinese coast guard boat cuts off a Philippine boat, The U.S.
	comes out and says the U.S.
	Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines applies to attacks on vessels in the South China Sea.
	So that means the U.S.
	is saying if this maritime dispute over rocks and reefs turns hot, we're going to go to war.
	So how is China, with respect to the U.S., not talking about its own backyard, but how is China, you know, the aggressor in this situation when the U.S.
	is right up to their nose there and doing all these things?
	And again, it's not going to deter China.
	If you know anything about China, you know, the century of humiliation from the opium wars to the time that Mao won the Chinese Civil War, that period where they were subjugated by the West and Japan, they call the century of humiliation.
	So it's a very sensitive thing.
	It's their nationalistic identity is all this stuff.
	So they're not going to just give it up.
	They're not going to say, oh, the Americans are here.
	All right, we'll back off.
	Back to the old century of humiliation that we loved so well.
	It is extraordinary as well to consider that something as, as you say, geographically abstract as the liberty of Taiwan, whilst it may be a righteous cause, Or be a de facto trajectory for American expenditure and endeavor rather than the subject of rigorous political and social discourse in the same way that you might imagine that participation in political matters within Ukraine would be.
	Similarly, once you add, as you already have, the actions of the United States in the Middle East and North Africa, it's difficult to hold together the notion But what America's role in here, a role in these potential conflicts and ongoing conflicts, is a kind of neutral, benign force, rather than a provocateur and exploiter.
	And so once you say the domestic population either don't understand it, don't care, or have to be propagandized into compliance with these issues, and the goal and aims of the United States are not what they claim they are, what you have there is a sort of a set of Unnecessary and unsupported lies, which leaves, I suppose, and I guess this is my final question to you, the only possibility is the kind of almost what I call the network argument, the argument from the scene in the latter third of the movie Network, when someone explains to the idealistic former news pundit, listen you idiot, do you really think
	Do you think you understand what the world is?
	This is what there is.
	There's not nations anymore.
	There is money.
	There is power.
	And if we do not continue to assert our control over potentially malevolent forces like Russia or China, our whole way of life will be threatened.
	Now, I don't sort of believe they're motivated by anything so altruistic as a way of life of a nation of people or a continent of people.
	I think that it is total self-interest, total corruption, and leads to more conflict.
	But do you think there is a sort of argument for some geopolitical tectonic plates that we're almost, like the fleas on the back of the dog, unable to observe?
	And if we did understand it, we'd go, bloody hell, well, better the devil you know, for want of a better phrase.
	Yeah, well, you know, there's this problem that Americans have.
	We kind of have this mindset, like kind of an empire mindset, that some trouble over in Southeast Asia is, you know, our concern and for some reason our government should go over there and, you know, liberate everybody.
	You know, we've seen how that's worked out, you know, pretty much since the end of World War II and Vietnam and, you know, there's endless examples of all the coups in South and Central America.
	So I think what people just need to try to understand this issue more and when it comes to Taiwan, the thing that people always say is, you know, they point to these polls that say Taiwan does not want to join China.
	Everybody's against what they call, you know, unification.
	But what they always miss out is that the vast majority of Taiwanese, around 80% based on polls in recent years, favor the status quo.
	And the status quo means Taiwan not declaring that it's an independent nation, keeping things the way they are.
	And this policy of You know, the one China policy, it's a strange policy, but there are people in Taiwan, the main opposition party, the Kuomintang, they still consider Taiwan to be the Republic of China, not this independent country of Taiwan.
	So it's a confusing issue.
	And that's why I've been trying to focus on China.
	And because I'm, you know, this is where I get very pessimistic because a lot of these Republicans, Pretty much all of them that are good on Ukraine are all in on China.
	They want to send weapons to Taiwan instead of Ukraine.
	So that's kind of the sad reality because it does look like if a Republican wins in 2024, They're probably going to shift the focus.
	You know, they might wind down the proxy war in Ukraine, but they're probably going to go pretty hard when it comes to China and Taiwan.
	So it's something I think people really should be talking about more and trying to understand.
	You know, I think that's really the only hope that we have.
	Yeah, we need a new way, mate, because that's pretty astonishing, because you would feel that any ideals that led you to oppose the ongoing funding of the Ukraine-Russia conflict might similarly be applied to amplification of the conflict between the US and China.
	And the fact that it isn't just suggests that there's probably a slightly different set of financial and political interests being represented.
	Yeah, and one thing that's really concerning about all this is that they're preparing for war with China.
	They've increased bases in the Philippines, in the Pacific, Japan, you know, they're beefing up their military presence.
	And when they talk about it, they're not talking about a proxy war.
	They're talking about fighting a naval battle with China over Taiwan.
	a direct conflict with a nuclear power that could potentially end the world and they never talk about the risk of nuclear escalation there's been war games that show in the first just in the first few weeks tens of thousands of american sailors could be killed in this thing and and those are casualties that the u.s our country hasn't dealt with since world war ii You know, that quickly this and you know, that should be enough to say, Hey, maybe we should think of a different approach, but now they're just going full steam ahead on this thing and it's really not good.
	Seems a bit weird that in 2024, with the potential for human awakening and evolution, for the potential to reorganise all of our systems that now exist thanks to the miraculous technology that we're currently utilising, and the ongoing potential for individual and community change, that in a country so vast and as powerful as America, there isn't one party that hasn't got sort of as a mainstay of its focus, a potential Armageddon-inducing
	war. The Democrats, we'd like to provoke Russia to the point of nuclear annihilation.
	And the Republicans, we'd like to provoke China. You'd think that there would be room for
	a political movement that's like, well, we're just like gonna do whatever we need to do to
	ensure that there's peace between Russia and Ukraine. But our priority is going to be looking
	after the people of America when there's an energy crisis, a food crisis, an
	ideological and spiritual crisis across the nation. And as for China and Taiwan, we'll do whatever
	we can diplomatically, but we're not going to wade in and we'll do what we also will protect
	American borders and maintain a healthy military. But it seems this might be a time to
	reprioritize.
	I don't know what kind of entrenchment mentality can't be challenged that would lead to some plasticity and mobility there.
	Yeah, I mean, you know with this election coming up, I know I've a lot of friends in the Libertarian Party But realistically, you know that we are in this two-party system The Libertarians are very good now on foreign policy and they don't want to provoke war with Russia or China You also have Cornel West now running for the Green Party.
	I know he's good on Russia I'm sure he doesn't want to go to war over Taiwan as well and so It's, you know, looking at the 2024 election, it's just impossible to predict what's going to happen, but it looks like RFK Jr is going to go independent and he's been good on Russia and China.
	And I mean, if he goes independent, I think that could really change things because there's also this no labels party, which is like what I call the radical centrists.
	They would run somebody like Joe Manchin.
	You know, they, they disagree on maybe some cultural issues, but they can all get behind.
	But I also don't think people should hope for a federal change.
	they might run some, but like there might actually be kind of a election with more
	than two serious options and that could really change American politics.
	Um, but I also don't think people should hope for a federal change.
	I think, you know, for Americans and, and wherever you're living, you know, you
	gotta work out, try to be happy and free in your own life.
	And it's important to oppose these things and care about these things.
	But, you know, we can't just sit around hoping that the federal government's going to all of a sudden change.
	But I think there is reason to be optimistic when it comes to that.
	Yes, I think personal awakening is significant.
	People often forget that actually the part of reality you are in control of, yourself, your own perception, the way you treat your consciousness, the way you treat other people, has a potentially Earth-altering, paradigm-shifting effect and that's obviously what we're interested in and thank you for educating us with regard to this matter and for the incredible work you've done to be able to like when you start saying the opponent party in Taiwan and I'm like bloody hell and the centrist history and politics lesson Dave thanks so much mate
	Yeah, thanks so much for having me, Russell.
	I really appreciate it and keep doing what you're doing.
	Yes, sir.
	You can read and support Dave's work by going to www.antiwar.com and why wouldn't you be anti-war?
	Guess who's coming on tomorrow?
	Michael Shelley Schellenberger, the so-called journalist, friend of ours, truth teller, truth seeker.
	You should follow him on Substack also.
	It's becoming increasingly clear that you have to support independent thought, independent journalism, and new independent political movements, which you can do by pressing the red button.
	If it's within your means, support us directly.
	If it isn't, we need your consciousness and your attention far more than we need your resources, but we'll take whatever we can get from you because we're trying to build something here.
	You can see so much stuff.
	I do meditations, that full Scott Adams Conversations up there.
	I'm doing live Q&As from tomorrow.
	And I'd like to welcome all of our new supporters, Samuel Winkler, Calvin Weatherwax, Melly23, Erin82, Dream Awake, and a whole host of others.
	Thank you for joining us.
	Join us tomorrow again, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.

▲