All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:27:03
Hundreds ARRESTED At The Capitol - Next Insurrection?! - Stay Free #227
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I've heard they give you nice reviews, but not guidance when it comes to approaching
these cheats.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
fun.
I've heard they're not as good as the other cheats, but they're still a good amount of
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Whilst we may be in the midst of a global omni-crisis, perhaps we can see this as an opportunity to form new discourse around, well, awakening, peace, unity.
Perhaps we can form a vision of a better mind together, first individually and then ultimately in a shared imagination.
For surely each vision, each iteration of civilization and society has been before its realization and instantiation a dream in the minds of people just like us.
At least that is my prayer.
Thank you for having the courage to join us.
Thank you for having hope in your hearts and if you don't have hope in your heart then let me be a conduit for that possibility right now for I believe that we can Together, improve our individual and collective condition through that most hokey, folky and almost cliched of commodities, love itself, the felt experience of the deep unity that underlies all apparent separateness.
Not that you would know it if you were to look at American political conversation in particular at the moment because there's a lot of hawkish crying for war in Iran.
Now we're pretty determined here on our channel Not to comment on the positions taken by people directly affected by this conflict across its entire spectrum because surely after those attacks you can understand why people would want vengeance, why people would be lost in delirious rage.
Surely you can see why people have a variety of perspectives on this subject.
And isn't one of the most important principles that we, those of us that are not personally involved, stick to,
is open-heartedness and a willingness to look for solutions together,
to almost in some way be present for everyone that's personally affected.
And I bet loads of you feel like I do, like just bewildered and delirious.
Loads of people in the space we operate in have taken really,
really strong positions, but it's like it hurts me too much to imagine
that I would meet someone from any side of this conflict and not be able to say,
we're here for you in your suffering.
I pray for you.
I pray for you.
I wish I had the confidence.
I wish I had the certainty to say, This is what we must do.
This is what they must do.
But all I can feel is a kind of a sorrow and a longing and a yearning and a hope for something beyond this.
Some kind of unity that might come from all of this separateness and from all of this pain and suffering.
And I want my life to become a prayer for the people that are suffering in this.
We have conversations on this show, as you know, that are pretty complex, and I think you're going to love the one that we're having in today's show with a man called Ted Walter.
I'd not heard of him before, but he's an expert on 9-11, what you'd have to call counter-narratives.
These are the kind of things that, and let me know in the chat if you're aware of this world, that a little while ago you'd have had to have gone into the Darker reaches of the online spaces to access.
He talks about what would once have been called 9-11 conspiracy theories.
He raises some fascinating questions and he conveys some information that's pretty difficult to listen to.
It's a contentious subject.
It's a fascinating subject.
If you want to gain access to all of that conversation, press the awaken button that's on your screen now.
As always, the first part of our show will be streamed on YouTube and it will... YouTube?
YouTube.
That's what happened to us lately.
You've been YouTubed, mate.
You've been YouTubed where the sun don't shine.
YouTubed you right up the monetization, mate.
It'll be on YouTube for the first 15 minutes.
There's a link in the description.
You can join us over on Rumble.
Now, with Rumble, the best thing to do is download the app and watch it there, right?
And turn on notifications.
Because if you do, every time we make content, you'll be told about that.
Do you know, though, that if you've got a Samsung phone, they won't even let you get it?
And if you're in France, they won't even let you get it.
So we must be doing something right.
The first story I want to talk to you lot about today is, in a sense, perhaps, let me know if you agree in the chat with just a yes or a no, where the solution might lie.
Hundreds of Jewish Americans were arrested in the U.S.
Capitol on Wednesday protesting for Congress to push for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Marjorie Taylor Greene accused them, of course, of being insurrectionists.
Let me know how you feel about Marjorie Taylor Greene either way as well.
God, I'm just trying to offer you the idea of some kind of transcendence here.
And let me know if you think that these Jewish American protesters
are heading in the right direction, because certainly they're making a protest that
I wouldn't be able to make without feeling that I was wounding those directly affected by the agony of this
conflict.
And yet their position perhaps could be part of a solution for all of us.
Certainly that's my prayer.
Let's have a look at that protest and let's know who'd like because you know recently there was a protest on Capitol, I believe it was on January the 5th, 6th, 7th around that kind of time and it was immediately called an insurrection and then we found out that there was a peculiar amount of deep state control, four warnings were ignored, peculiar information and it became over time another of those examples of the polemicism and ...tendency for polarity that the world is experiencing in such an extreme way right now and now into this this incredibly fractious conflagratory space has come the mother and father of all divisive issues the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict
Here, perhaps, are some tender shoots of potential solution.
People willing to protest outside of their demographic and cultural group.
Let me know what you think about these ideas, guys, and let's have a look at that protest now.
We have breaking news from Capitol Hill.
Take a look at these pictures.
A group of protesters staging a demonstration, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
They are inside the Cannon House office building.
I want to go to NBC's Julie Serkin.
Julie, what more can you tell us?
Yeah, hey Chris, I mean you literally see some of them behind me right now.
There are about a thousand of them. Hundreds of them have been able to actually get into the cannon office.
I'm going to let them off the hook before I'm standing.
Right now they are up from a post. You know that post voice is for peace.
These are American Jews and allies who are of course not Jewish as well.
They are demanding a ceasefire on both sides.
I will tell you also, Chris, there's a lot of people behind me right now.
They're all over this rotunda. They're all over the bottom as you see on your screens right now.
There have been some arrests made as I was even walking to this camera.
I saw a number of Capitol Police take...
A demand for peace from Jewish Americans would seem to me to be a positive thing.
Let me know if you agree with that in the chat, because again, let me reiterate this, because I would hate to be misunderstood at such a sensitive time.
Who's qualified to say to the people of Israel that their feelings are not valid after the horrors of those attacks?
Who is in a position to condemn people that are advocating for support if indeed hospitals and vital infrastructure are being lost?
Who outside of that conflict is in a position to confidently claim that they have a monopoly on truth and a monopoly on righteousness?
Indeed, Isn't this situation born from the polarity and the conflict that is born when distinct and potentially and evidently opposing views both believe that they're right and that there's no possibility for a way out of it?
There's US Capitol Police there, at least that's what it says on his jacket.
Most likely FBI, CIA.
I mean, who is that?
Who is that guy in that high-vis vest?
So...
Where you will not get complex analysis, I would say, is from Joe Biden, the President of the United States, who's always kind of willing to move between, let me know if you agree with this, between bombast and doddering.
What is your message to Hezbollah and its backer, Iran?
mostly. Like he's either being very very bombastic or very very doddery. This is
more bombastic Biden I would say. He's sort of found a rhetorical trick that he
can rely on. It's the word, it's the word don't. Now it's clearly working for him
because he can't stop using it. You're gonna love this.
What is your message to Hezbollah and its backer Iran? Don't. Don't. Don't. Don't.
He's so confident in don't that he's decided to take it on the road.
That's him just working it out, workshopping the don't model and the don't motif.
He's going, I know he's going to take it.
He's going to take it live.
My message to any state or any other hostile actor, thinking about attacking Israel remains the same as it was a week ago.
Don't, don't, don't.
Just don't.
Now, a little while ago, Joe Biden made a pretty outrageous claim.
Russia has already lost the Russia-Ukraine war.
Now, this is another one of those stories where what we've been told publicly is distinct from what is said privately.
I had a great conversation recently, actually, where it was proposed that all government information
should be transparent.
Imagine if you had total transparency in government and total privacy for the individual.
What's being, what the aim appears to be is total transparency and lack of privacy for the
individual and maximum, maximum privacy for the government.
So whether it was the COVID pandemic or the Ukraine-Russia war, in public, they're saying,
Putin don't stand a chance, we're annihilating him.
And then in the background, they're like, this counter offensive is not going well, we're losing.
But the thing is, there is another side to this argument, and that side of the argument is represented by one Vladimir Putin.
Have a look at what Joe Biden says in public, and in a minute we'll show you Putin's response.
What agreement is ultimately reached depends upon Putin and what he decides to do, but there is no possibility of him winning the war in Ukraine.
He's already lost that war.
Imagine if even if, anyway, he's already lost that war.
See that, uh, he's making a claim there that I would not want to make it to someone as someone as so pugnacious and confident as Vladimir Putin.
This is a nightmare response.
Like, Vladimir Putin, it's like if you've sort of said at school that you're willing to have a fight with someone.
Like, yeah, I'll have a fight with him.
Tell him about me after school.
Like, and there's someone that actually really, really enjoys fighting.
Look at Vladimir Putin's, uh, look at Putin's response to this.
Why supply ATAKOMS to Russia?
Let them take back ATAKOMS, all other weapons, land for pancakes, come to us for a cup of tea.
Is there a lost war?
What are we talking about?
Why ATAKOMS?
Ask him this question.
Well, it's funny.
That's a pretty leery stance.
You come for a pancake with me.
I assure you.
I assure you.
We've already lost the war.
Putin's operating on another level.
Do you think we're in the middle of some massive global spiritual conflict that goes even beyond what's revealed?
Are we in?
And I don't mean from a geopolitical perspective, because there is of course escalating tensions
between the US and China, escalating tensions in the proxy war
between Russia and the United States.
All of these wars are being bundled in with, certainly financially,
with the escalating tensions in the Middle East.
But as long as I think it goes deeper than that, that there is something taking place
in the heart of each of us, that we're at a time of true fracture and crisis,
where all of us are gonna have to make some decision about what is it that we want.
I mean, do you not sometimes think that this is starting to appear like
many of the apocalyptic scriptural texts?
The Rapture, Apocalypse, Armageddon.
How long can we sustain the idea that these quaking, shaking, broken systems can service the problems that we're experiencing now?
The military-industrial complex, the legacy media as it currently stands, an American political system that clearly Moves to the tune of a donor class.
Increasing globalism to the point where your national sovereignty and your national democracy is redundant.
Stay tuned to the WHO treaty.
I think that drops in like a week.
I've got like one more week to go.
I'm not sure I want WHO being able to bypass democracy in my country and impose lockdowns.
This is a really crucial time and vast, terrible and inconceivably horrific, although current
global events might be, I still consider the possibility that they are symptomatic of something
deeper and in fact, of course they are, because all material phenomena is a manifestation
of something subtler, even if you think the entire cosmos emerged from a sub-molecular
explosion.
What was this subtler, pre-precedent quality prior to the Big Bang?
What is the a priori material from which reality is formed?
Now if pancakes with Putin is the answer, I offer you this.
Putin offering up pancakes is something that he sort of does.
Even though to me it sounds pretty off-key, apparently for Putin it's normal.
He had pancakes with Xi, you know, and he's in China right now.
That's where Vladimir Putin is right now.
He's in China.
Ooh, that ain't good, because if Vladimir Putin and President Xi are having pancakes right now, I would say that world events could be taking a turn for the worse any day, because this is not some sort of totally localised proxy-oriented conflict anymore.
There are serious participants coming together in opposition.
I don't know, man, I'm confused.
Now anyway, do you want to have a look at Xi and Putin having pancakes in the past, or do you want to see...
A driverless car taking you straight into the arms of dystopia.
If you want to see Xi and Putin having pancakes, press 1.
If you want to see a driverless taxi, press 2.
And while you're deciding, I'll keep an eye on the chat and then someone will tell me as well.
I'll read some of the comments you sent.
What if you just sat in a meeting at work, said Penela71, and just answered the questions with, don't, don't.
Yeah, you can't do that in normal life.
They live in another world, don't they?
True Nature's Child says, if you watch Biden's interviews from the past, he was still dodgy, but so much sharper.
You watch him in the 70s and 80s, he's sort of like someone from Anchorman, like in a brown suit, sort of balding, but with some sort of priapism about him.
Arlene Calgary, I'm so tired of the mainstream media.
Who knows what to believe in anymore?
Firegirl20, just simply posting hope.
Sarah G, very smart and ethical.
Words are like seeds.
Prayers is all I feel I can offer.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
What do we do, man?
All right, and Katie Beth simply, the Bible is unfolding before us.
Right, let me just think about the last bit of the Bible, chapter of revelations, beast come out of the sea, prophecies, trumpet blasts, seventh seal, seventh seal.
Oh yeah, that went well, that was quite nice, but surely, isn't there a bit I think at the very end of the Bible, I'm going to go and check where it says, then everything's okay, and it's going to be alright, and we're going to awaken to the love of God within us, that God manifested God's self on earth through the figure of Christ, to show us a kind of a portal to divinity.
Are we going to start taking God seriously?
As is commonly said, the world don't need more people who believe in God, just those of us that do, to start acting like it.
OK, so I believe... What is it?
Let me have a look at the old ones and twos.
Pancakes by a landslide.
I'm seeing a lot of twos.
I'm seeing a lot of twos.
But let's start with those.
This is Putin and Xi having pancakes.
Now try and study this and let me know if you think this is good or bad for escalating global tension.
Do these men seem like they're about to bring about Armageddon?
And also, do they have good camaraderie around the pancake stand significantly?
I don't think they look very good at pancakes actually.
Putin, he's scattered the batter.
He's a batter scatterer.
You don't scatter batter like that.
I put the batter in the center and let sweet lady gravity take her course.
Let it form a natural circular pull.
Putin, scatter batter.
I scatter batter, I scatter Biden.
Let's see how Xi scatters the batter.
There's another bar scatterer!
They're scattering bars together!
That's going to be nuclear warheads raining down all over Europe and North America any day now.
This is wheat flour.
This is wheat.
The pancakes have turned out okay.
They're not interacting much, are they?
They're not like... It's like they're sort of in a lab, and they're each in separate cages.
You know, have you ever seen that thing where they give, like, they have monkeys in the cage, and they give one monkey, like, some grapes, and the other monkey they give, like, some dodgy old cracker, and the one that's gone giving the cracker's like, They're in distinct universes, Xi and Putin.
If these guys team up, this is more than a sort of a Marvel cinematic universe.
This is a not-that-marvellous apocalyptic cosmos, I would say, wouldn't you?
Hey, if you're watching us on YouTube right now, click the link in the description and become part of our community on Rumble.
Download the app, and if it's within your means, become an Awakened Wonder, support our content, do meditations with us, start formulating the solutions to the problems we're evidently facing.
We need you, we all need one another.
Seems to be the case.
Let's just see if these guys are going to make eye contact before they finish their
batter scatter.
Do you think that they have inconceivable...
Savory pancakes over there in Russia, that seems to be the case, huh?
Like, what's that?
That looks like they're having a meat pancake there.
I'm not sure about that.
What do you have on it?
A bit of lemon and a bit of sugar?
You don't sort of go hard with chilli con carne on a pancake, do you?
Like these guys are going...
Do you think they're actually they do represent the power of entire nations or do you feel that global politicians are essentially sort of puppets marionettes behind whom there are deeper ulterior forces that operate beyond the kind of national divisions that we mere grunts operate within?
Essentially I'm saying like in the same way that you would question The power of a president or a politician in any one of our sort of, the nations we're more familiar with, Anglophonic, Western Europe, whatever.
Do you think that Putin's got someone above him going, Vladimir, I did not like the way you made those pancakes.
You make Russia look weak!
And the same with Xi.
Like, do you think that Xi's actually calling the shots over there?
Or do they have a deeper state deal?
WF says Mars is going straight in there.
Straight in.
Well, you guys are gonna, you guys, they can't be Klaus Schwab.
Well, I could make those pancakes.
I've got pancake batter in the pouches of my cheek.
If I just push my... If I push my cheek, that's... It runs down my chin there.
I make pancakes with my saliva every morning.
Too much?
Too much?
Klaus Schwab's cheek pancakes.
Is that the answer?
To the world we're living in?
I can't believe it is.
I can't believe it is.
All right, so they're at the top of their own food chain, says Sean's Bass.
No one really commenting on Klaus Schwab's cheeks being filled with pancake batter, which I'm disappointed in.
Listen, you're going to love this show, because in a minute we're talking to Walter, Ted Walter, about 9-11.
It's not the kind of thing we can put on YouTube, let me tell you that.
It's pretty intense.
In the old times, when I sort of transitioned from being a person who was like a mainstream legacy media celebrity into becoming a kind of ardent advocate for global revolution, one of the moments that got hot was I sort of said, there's no point voting, right?
I mean, there's no point voting.
No one I grew up with votes because we all just recognize whatever party you vote for, you end up being governed by the same deep state.
It's night!
Here's some news!
It's nighty news!
of the charade that we call democracy.
Well, people didn't like me saying that, and things started to get a bit on top
from that moment on, to tell you the truth.
Anyway, I went on some news show, it's like the equivalent of 60 Minutes in your country.
I think it's called News Night.
It's night, here's some news, it's nighty news, news up your nighty!
And I was on there, and what happened was, is that they were asking questions
to try and get me to mess up.
And it's not hard to get me to mess up, because I'm a bit of a shoot-from-the-hip type of transparent, what-you-see-is-what-you-get person, right?
So he goes, well, what about the Twin Towers?
Let's leave YouTube.
Let's leave YouTube.
Join us!
Click the link in the description.
Click the link in the description to hear the end of this anecdote.
You're going to love it, baby.
So we're off.
We're off YouTube.
We're just on Rumble now.
All right, if you're rumbled, become a sport.
Anyway, he goes to me, what do you think about this?
I go, I don't trust the American government.
That's all I said.
I don't trust the American government.
That's it.
That's all I said.
Now, because in the past I've been a bit insensitive around that subject, and I sort of regret that now.
Obviously, specifically, I dressed as Osama bin Laden on September the 12th, but I was on drugs then.
So, you know, it was crazy days.
Anyway, this guy, Water, I give him, I really give him some serious pushback.
I'm like, because if you're saying that 9-11 was anything other than some al-Qaeda trained terrorists flew those planes, if it's anything other than that, if there is CIA involvement, if there are anomalies, if there are inconsistencies, what trial could be appropriate?
What, what would be sufficient for that?
You know anyway that particular question is only available for you guys on locals actually because You know for reasons that are obvious.
It's pretty radical stuff So anyway join our community if you haven't already it's really worth it We meditate together we build and we grow together and we will look for solutions together and yes, stay tuned because it's a great conversation, but before that We're still talking, obviously, about this unfolding crisis in the Middle East, and in particular, about who's exploiting it.
Who's exploiting a situation that's so sensitive and painful?
Well, one person, it could be argued, is potentially, and let me know what you think about this in the chat, Lindsey Graham, the Trump advocate, He's saying that there should be attacks on Iran.
Now we can perfectly understand why people that are affected by those terror attacks are advocating for an escalation.
Who knows?
I can only assume you feel unbearable grief.
Obviously.
Obviously.
But Lindsey Graham is calling for attacks on Iran, in particular attacks on Iranian oil refineries.
So we're looking at people in Congress investing, in weapons manufacturers, and we're looking at the fact that attacking Iran has been on the American neocon military industrial complex agenda for a long while now.
Even, in fact, and did you guys forget this?
That when Trump had all them boxes of confidential documents, one of them was, PLAN TO ATTACK IRAN!
Like, and he was like, well, you know, I revealed it because they were saying it was his idea.
It's not my idea.
So, like, check it out.
Anyway, like, we go into this subject in some depth and I pray with sensitivity for everyone involved in this conflict.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
No, here's the fucking news!
US political figures are calling for attacks on Iran, but were there plans to attack Iran long before the terrorist attacks on Israel?
And is this situation being further exploited by economically driven interests?
We've been talking a lot about the exploitation of escalating tensions in the Middle East, how people in Congress are purchasing stocks and shares in weapons companies that are set to benefit from this increasing conflagration.
Of course, we are mindful to stand well away from those of you that are personally affected, either ideologically or religiously, by this horrific situation.
And focus instead on those that may be seeking to exploit this conflict in exactly the same way that they've exploited other conflicts in recent years and even contemporaneously exploited the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.
In fact in some cases these conflicts are being bound together as a kind of one size fits all military opportunity.
Calls for attacking Iran remain interesting as it's been a long-standing policy within
US military-industrial complex and neocon circles to increase, escalate and ignite tensions
and even war with Iran.
First it was discussed as part of the new American century.
Countries like Syria, Iraq and Iran significantly were nominated as potential opponents for
America for forthcoming wars.
We'll be talking about that.
And I'd almost forgotten, had you, that when Donald Trump had those confidential documents
when he left office, significantly some of the documentation in those boxes was planned
for an attack or war with Iran.
So we're asking, is this situation tragic and inconceivable, though it might seem, to rational and awakening people like you?
Being used to create opportunities to attack enemies for reasons beyond this current crisis.
Firstly, let's have a look at Lindsey Graham, who, as you know, is an ardent advocate for ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia.
Always suggesting further military packages that would ultimately benefit Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
Let's see how he is binding together the Ukraine-Russia conflict and this conflict and advocating openly for attacks, interestingly, on Iranian oil refineries.
Just let me know if you think that this rhetoric is about humanitarian support for a country that's recently experienced an egregious terrorist attack.
Or could there be other motivation Well, for every Israeli or American hostage executed by Hamas, we should take down an Iranian oil refinery.
We're going to blow up your oil refineries and put you out of business.
Have you noticed that Lindsey Graham's nomenclature, his linguistic set, is all about economics and business.
Put them out of business.
Plainly, the language around attacking Iran was economically undergirded.
When he speaks about Ukraine-Russia, it's very much couched in business terms.
He is very pro the perpetuation of this conflict.
Here's what we've gotten for our investment.
We haven't lost one soldier.
We reduced the combat power of the Russian army by 50 percent and not one of us has died in that
endeavor. This is a great deal for America. Doesn't that seem to be an unusual type of
language to deploy when discussing an event that, however you perceive it, leads to death and
destruction and sadness, has already caused immeasurable, almost unimaginable, except for
those of you that are forced to be confronted by it because of proximity or because it's something
that involves you, suffering and sadness.
To see it spoken of in economic terms, doesn't that seem odd to you and worthy of further consideration?
You've previously said that it's the best money we've ever spent.
That's still true?
Since we helped Churchill stand up to the Nazis.
Let's have a look at Vivek Ramaswamy advocating for restraint on Stephen Crowder's Rumble Show.
If I'm talking to BB, I would say, listen up, we got your back.
Don't let anybody stand in your way from defending yourself, and we've got your back on that.
But my advice to you would be that we've made some of our poorest decisions in the wake of real disaster.
That was your 9-11, we had our 9-11 here.
And we entered disastrous multi-decade commitments in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and 20 years later, it did not do us an iota of good.
The understandable grief of anger of people directly affected is not what we are commenting on here.
What we are talking about is, is this situation being exploited?
And was there a pre-existing agenda when it comes to Iran as part of America's military-industrial-complex-oriented foreign policy?
Let's have a look at what Tucker Carlson had to say about neocons advocating for war and indeed his potential suspicion that there are motivations beyond support and solidarity.
What exactly would happen to the United States if we declared war on Iran and started blowing up their infrastructure?
Lindsey Graham has no clue what would happen.
He hasn't thought it through.
He's almost 70 years old and he has no children.
He doesn't care.
But neither amazingly do most of his colleagues in Washington.
They're as reckless as he is.
Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw took to social media to call for what he described as a war to end all wars.
As if there is such a thing.
We're not talking about this conflict and the understandable anger and rage that people that are directly involved must feel at this time.
We are asking, is this situation being exploited and has there been a long-standing agenda to engage Iran in conflict?
For example, Trump's confidential documents are said to have contained plans to attack Iran.
Let's revisit that.
The issue stemmed from Trump's apparent frustration with what he claimed was a false narrative being pushed by the press that after losing the 2020 election, under the advice of the coterie of Iran hawks he'd surrounded himself with, Trump was dangerously close to ordering strikes on Iran that could have triggered full-scale war and had to be talked down from it by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley.
But the former president maintained the reality of the situation was the exact opposite.
That it was Milley and the Pentagon who were pushing for an attack on Iran, on a reluctant Trump, and that the classified documents he had kept were proof of this.
It's interesting to reflect on that story about a potential agenda, we're speaking again about the United States of America, not Israel, when it comes to Iran and foreign policy.
Very curious.
And indeed, how old are these ideas?
And what is the history of agitation in particular between the United States and their military industrial complex partners and Iran?
Of course, I'm talking about the project for the new American century.
Let me know in the chat and the comments if you're familiar with that phrase.
Years ago, there was a plan, a clean break, Project for the New American Century.
P-N-A-C.
To wreck the Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the Palestinians, and to remould the Middle East.
It first involved destroying Iraq, or in the discredited words of Paul Wolfowitz, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.
Destroying Syria was to be next.
and then Iran. In 2006, columnist Taki Theodorakoupoulos warned in the American Conservative of the
Clean Break Plan to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine,
Lebanon, Syria and Iran. So when there are so many complex aspects of this war, it's
worth tracking the observable trend towards potential profiteering and other agenda. People
in Congress purchasing stocks and shares in weapons manufacturers.
Have a look at this on X from Unusual Wales.
And this ongoing narrative around attacking Iran.
Curious.
So what are the potential consequences for any US involvement in a potential war with Iran?
And escalating a regionalised conflagration, tragic, awful, though that is in itself, into something that has potential global connotations.
And fits into the narrative of forever wars that we've been discussing since the conflict between Ukraine and Russia escalated and the potential even for a war with China around the issue of Taiwan.
Is this potentially a component of that?
Let me know in the chat in the comments what you think.
These calls for attacking Iran risk an escalation that could entrench the US in another forever war.
Nearly 20 years after the invasion of Iraq, it is commonly understood as a historic mistake of US foreign policy.
The push for another disastrous war in the Middle East appears to be the real intention of hawkish voices.
That's what we're asking.
What is the real intention?
Is it support and solidarity, or is it exploitation?
Witnessing the death and devastation in Ukraine and concerns over nuclear escalation with Russia, it is all the more crucial to weigh the consequences of war.
This is sensitive content at a difficult time and you know we cannot make it without your ongoing support and we thank you for that support.
We also need our commercial partners who have been fantastic during this time.
This, I think, is a product you're going to be interested in.
Cell phones can go down for hundreds of reasons, you know that, but satellite phones, they're always going to work because you're carrying your own personal cell tower with you everywhere you go.
You can prepare for the unexpected with one of these little guys.
Anyone with a satellite phone, for example, in the midst of that Burning Man thing, you know, they were cut off, they were lost in a desert.
They would have had a way to communicate with friends, family and emergency services.
Are you a prepper?
Are you prepping right now?
You better get prepping.
This would be the prepper's friend because you can't be tracked.
No one can listen to your calls.
If you have a satellite phone and the person you're chatting to has got a satellite phone, that's the most secure form of communication there is.
The US military uses sat phones.
For Secured Communication.
It's not double encrypted, but as Edward Snowden's told us, there's a thousand ways they can ignore it.
So if you care about communicating privately and having the ability to communicate, particularly in a fast changing world, visit sat123.com or call 866...
643 0609 and use the promo code brand50 to waive the $50 activation fee.
You can get rid of that by using the code brand50.
This service is only applicable sadly to those of you in the USA so whilst there may be corruption all over your country you do have the advantage of being able to get one of these phones and bypass at least some of the surveillance.
So please visit sat123.com or call 866-643-0609 using the code BRAND50 to waive the $50 activation fee.
I've never wanted to be in your sweet nation more.
Hello!
Well no, it's still okay.
Very durable as well.
So, let's get back to this complex piece of content in the midst of the Omnicrisis in a difficult time.
This is not to mention the global impact of such conflicts as can be seen in rising food and energy costs, a looming global food crisis that will starve many already facing food insecurity around the world, and inflation in the United States that is heavily impacting the lives of American workers.
It's difficult to make such arguments from the perspective of people directly affected by this terrible conflict, but when it comes to US involvement and the potential motivation behind the advocacy of many of these plainly hawkish figures, it's something that is worth keeping an eye on, would you agree?
A war with Iran will likely worsen these conditions.
Especially the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf.
In fact, American public opinion is against more wars, which is why both the Biden and Trump administrations promised to end endless war, in what has become a popular catchphrase in US political discourse.
It's curious to watch Biden claiming that he advocates for global peace and will do anything he can and the reason he should run as president in 2024 is because imagine, imagine we could bring about world peace, bring a peaceful conclusion to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and bring about peace in the Middle East.
It doesn't seem that the actions, policy and funding, broadly speaking, are heading in the direction of peace or ending endless wars, does it?
And I suppose such promises have to be taken in light of the fact that America is the largest military supplier in the world, providing weaponry for over 50% of the world's autocratic nations.
Weapons that could, and some argue have, ended up in the hands of terror organisations and drug cartels.
Even in a war effort that Americans support, like Ukraine, the majority do not want the US to risk war with Russia.
And it appears that opinion is changing on that issue.
Is that why, do you imagine, that the current conflict in the Middle East is being bundled together with that less popular conflict, which is less popular not because of humanitarian reasons, not because of a lack of compassion, but the observable evidence that the approach is not working, that the counter-offensive failed.
That many people are beginning to question what the motivations for funding that war are, and many people are also questioning how that war began.
This is not surprising, given the failures of US militarism.
Most notably, the swift takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban after 20 years of war, and the enormous cost of these conflicts to American taxpayers as many struggle at home.
Julian Assange famously said that you understand why the Afghanistan war went on for so long when you recognize that it wasn't a war that they wanted to end, it was a war that they wanted to sustain and that the function of such wars is to take money from public hands and to put them into the hands of private companies.
And we can see that trillions has subsequently gone from American taxpayers pockets into the military-industrial complex.
This is not about supporting the troops or ensuring that the American military are well supported as they conduct selfless, dangerous, potentially lethal work on the behalf of patriotism, but ultimately ends up being profitable to military-industrial complex partners of the Pentagon who notably cannot pass an audit.
That means it's not possible for them to account for their expenditure or their profiting.
And as you know, some people have contested that up to 70% of weaponry intended for Ukraine End it up elsewhere.
A war with Iran, a country with a larger population than Iraq and Afghanistan combined and a stronger position in the region in the wake of US wars would be another historic blunder with far worse outcomes than we have already seen.
No sensible person would comment on Israel's position and potential appetite for ongoing conflict after these horrific attacks.
It would seem insensitive to do so.
But US involvement in a war with Iran and escalation of these tensions has to be scrutinized.
And in particular, the motivations would have to be understood.
You'd have to be certain that the motivation was humanitarianism, solidarity, righteousness.
And if there were questions about those motivations, it would certainly be prudent, I would think, to ask them.
Any such war would be a calamity, further destabilising oil prices and adding to the economic havoc from the war in Ukraine that's already caused much secondary human suffering, while potentially creating the conditions for a much bigger and more dangerous confrontation.
Iran's deepening alliance with with Russia, after all, could draw Moscow into the war,
turning the country into the second front of a global proxy battle between two nuclear
superpowers, the United States and Russia. These certainly seem like considerations that
are worth discussing and understanding.
That's why I think the rhetoric of politicians like Lindsey Graham and Nikki Haley has to
be scrutinised. As I understand, these are not people that are personally affected by
a horrific conflict, they are people that potentially have motivations beyond the deep
grief and suffering that that region is defined by.
We're not nearly there yet, but it's incumbent on all peace-loving people in the United States to work now proactively to stop this scenario coming to pass.
Not just to ensure the past year's rhetoric about illegal wars, imperialism, human rights and international law isn't mere hollow cynical posturing, but to prevent even more needless death and suffering.
Knowing what we know about the agenda of many people in Congress right now, their investment in stocks and shares that will benefit from escalating wars.
Acknowledge that war with Iran appears to have been part of an agenda in the United States neocon circles for some time.
It seems to me that circumspection and awareness for those of us that are not directly involved in this horrific conflict is a necessity.
There is a real distinction between what people of Israel are having to confront and face right now and the potential decisions made by people Who appear to talk about this in purely economic terms.
And whilst economy continues to be a consideration when geopolitical resource-based wars continue to escalate, potentially on numerous fronts, for many of us it would seem that other considerations ought be brought to the forefront.
In short, can we trust the rhetoric of many of these US politicians whose motivations may not be entirely clear?
What is the best way for us as a global community to support the people most directly affected by this escalating conflict?
Certainly, the ongoing attempt to put the Russia-Ukraine war, the China-US conflict and current Middle Eastern matters into one economic bundle when it comes to military aid and foreign policy decisions appears to be irresponsible when there are so many distinct, discreet and difficult considerations to be undertaken.
But that's just what I think.
Why don't you let me know what you think in the chat?
See you in a second.
Thanks for using Fox News.
Here's the deal.
No, here's the fucking deal.
Thanks for your contributions in the chat and it remains an incredibly complex issue to discuss.
We're going to leave YouTube now and continue our discussions exclusively on Rumble.
I suppose one of the reasons this escalating conflict has to be considered very carefully is because of the events learned in recent history and in particular the post 9-11 period.
Ted Walter is going to join me now.
He's the director of the International Centre for 9-11 Justice and the documentary maker behind Peace, War and 9-11, which is available actually on Rumble now.
So if you're watching this on YouTube, click the link in the description and join us over there.
Ted, thank you so Thanks so much for joining me for this conversation today.
Sorry for keeping you waiting.
Well, thanks so much for having me, Russell.
It's wonderful to be with you, and I don't mind the wait.
Oh, you're lovely to say that.
Thank you.
Mate, 9-11, like by any reckoning, any epochal and defining event, from a philosophical perspective, it almost created a new form of globalism, a new sense that the world was indeed one place.
It's an event of near biblical significance.
And even from the outset, it was one of those relatively unique events that became Taboo that created new categories of heresy that immediately seemed like there was something
Let's call it the legacy media narrative, although that's not a term any of us would have used then.
It seemed from the beginning that certain aspects of it didn't make sense, and perhaps that's a phenomena that will always occur when something ahistorical and unique takes place.
Or perhaps it's because events like this are often exploited, and sometimes In particular, with regard to 9-11, we're not told the absolute truth.
Certainly there seems to be a lot of conspiracy theories, but I would love to hear from you.
What aspects of this event do you feel confident in discussing that are not the kind of more Ah, extravagant, or flamboyant, or sometimes oddly insensitive stories that you sometimes hear around this event, but seem to you to be somewhat verifiable.
One of the moments, when I first got involved in, let's say, anti-establishment rhetoric, like a few years ago, ten years, I don't know, I went on like a British news show after I'd said publicly, there's no point voting, both parties are the same, they're ultimately funded in the same way, and in fact the system is designed to prevent anything like democracy taking place, said it a few years ago, Okay, no one that I grew up with votes.
Everybody sees it as kind of pointless and as a charade and it's almost a class thing, I indicated.
On one of these shows when the BBC just went out of their way to destroy and annihilate
me because of this modern day heresy, the one area where I really fell into one of the
traps that clearly exist in these kind of legacy media spaces was when I was asked about
9-11.
Someone says, so do you believe that 9-11 was a conspiracy theory?
And I feel I said something like, I don't trust the American government.
And that became like for a long time an avenue of attack.
Russell Brand, the conspiracy theorist, believes 9-11.
So can you tell us what people who don't trust the government but don't want to be labelled
conspiracy theorists can most point out as verifiable, reliable evidence that we were
not told the truth when it comes to 9-11?
And I know that perhaps building 7 might be a good place to start, even though I'm still
myself not sure if, you know, in hindsight whether all that stuff really happened.
Yeah, so Building 7 is a good place to start, Russell.
Partly, most people haven't seen it, most people don't know anything about it or can name it, so people don't have as sort of preconceived ideas about what may have happened to it.
It was a 47-story high-rise that collapsed in the afternoon of 9-11, 5-20 p.m., about seven hours after the Twin Towers came down.
And you can look at footage of it.
It's all over the internet.
It's on our website, ic911.org.
It comes straight down into its footprint.
at free fall acceleration symmetrically, and it begins to fall suddenly.
There's no transition.
It's just stationary, and then it drops like a bowling ball, right?
So, and it's immediately in free fall.
If that were a natural building collapse, it would start to tip over a little bit.
You would start to see some deformation on the outside of the building
of some of the columns on the inside were starting to fail.
But no, the building is completely motionless and then just drops at free fall.
And free fall means that there's zero resistance being provided by the lower structure, right?
If there were any resistance at all, it would slow down.
But for about two and a half seconds or about 100 feet, it's an absolute free fall
from the very beginning of its collapse.
So that's just the visual evidence.
And right there, it's kind of overwhelming that it was a controlled demolition.
It's overwhelmingly clear.
And most people who see it suspect that, that it is a demolition.
We've done studies on this.
We've done polls using YouGov, this online polling firm, where we've shown respondents to collapse from four different angles.
And we say, do you suspect that this was a controlled demolition, or do you suspect it was fires?
And we tell them that it happened on 9-11.
And majorities of, say, three to one Four to one.
Say, yeah, that looks like a controlled demolition.
I think that's a controlled demolition.
So really, you need overwhelming evidence that it's not a controlled demolition to conclude that it's not a controlled demolition.
And there's no evidence at all that it's not a controlled demolition.
All of the evidence points to the fact that it was a controlled demolition.
I can go on and on about it, but I think people should look out for themselves.
I've got loads of questions already. One is, what's the official explanation for what happened
to building seven? Why is there a BBC report that is collapsed when it's still visible in
the background? Even I've seen that. But also, from a skeptic's perspective, are we not able
to look at footage of controlled demolition and footage of buildings that have fallen down as a
result of fire or trauma or whatever, and therefore able to say, make visual comparisons?
Because I know that controlled definition is like, you know, with COVID, from COVID.
It's one of those phrases that The detractors will say, see?
See what they're talking about?
They're crackpots.
They're talking about the controlled demolition.
It's one of those phrases that's baggaged by detractors and let's call it mainstream thinkers.
That's what's utilized to make this kind of rhetoric look like crack pottery.
So there's a few things.
What's that BBC report?
What does it look like when a building goes down in trauma and is there sort of visual evidence for it
versus controlled demolition?
Even though to me, it makes sense that, yeah, all right, there's no resistance from beneath,
but I know for a, you know, but that belongs in that kind of rhetoric
that we're all familiar with.
Jet fuel wouldn't burn down a building, and what about those steel girders and all that stuff?
And, you know, and what about those war games?
And everything, all of us are sort of like kind of familiar with those things now,
but it's why, you know, God, once you start entertaining it,
you have to go into such mad territory that you almost have to do each step somewhat diligently.
Wouldn't you agree, Ted?
you Yes, absolutely.
So, as far as the BBC announcing that the building had collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did, that was sort of the tip of the iceberg of the foreknowledge that the building would come down.
Starting at around 11 in the morning, 11, 11.30, Officials with the New York City Office of Emergency Management and the FDNY started saying, started predicting that this building was going to come down.
And they were very certain about it.
They were issuing these warnings.
It wasn't like it might come down.
Maybe, like there was a lot of certainty to it.
And so from 1130 onwards, They suspended emergency operations and started pushing people back, and it just got more and more certain as the day went on.
It's impossible that anybody could look at a building and say, we know that that building is going to come down for sure, right?
There were other buildings in the area that were closer, that were much more damaged.
Building 7 did have some damage caused by the collapse of the North Tower, debris impacting it.
Some fires maybe started an hour later, but to hone in on Building 7 and say, we know that building's gonna collapse is very, very suspicious.
There's no reason to jump to that conclusion.
And then as the day goes on, they get more and more certain, they get pushing people back more and more, and the media starts reporting it.
So it wasn't just BBC.
CNN reported about an hour before the collapse, the building is collapsing or may collapse soon.
The local CBS affiliate, 30 seconds before the building comes down, on live television says we're getting word that the building may have just collapsed and then like you fast forward 30 seconds and they watch it happen live on on television right so that's all because the media is being told by officials at the scene that it's going to come down uh and then it actually comes down uh in the in you know the manner of a you know perfect controlled demolition
So it's just not... and then what really shows that that makes no sense is that you fast forward to later, a month later, you know, years later, New York Times is reporting that engineers are baffled by the collapse.
They can't explain it.
How did this 47-story high-rise that was not hit by a plane just collapse straight into its footprint?
You know, so, and, you know, fast forward to a year later, the first investigation that was done, they basically say, by FEMA, they say, we don't know, you know, the reason for the cause of this collapse remains unknown at this time.
You can even fast forward six years later, NIST, that was the main investigation, they said, this was in March of 2006, they said, we've had trouble getting a handle on Building 7.
We still have no idea why it came down.
And yet, on the day of 9-11, people were warning for hours that it was going to come down.
So that doesn't make any sense.
So the BBC is really a symptom, the BBC reporting it.
In my view, some people say, oh, they're just reading from a script.
Somebody's giving them a script and they read it too early.
To me, it's a symptom of that the officials at the scene knew that it was going to come down.
And the reason that they knew was because somebody knew that it was going to be brought down.
And they were, you know, they were putting out that message.
We got to get people away.
This building is going to come down because of fire or damage or whatever.
Now the official story that you asked about, what is the official explanation for the collapse?
It's actually changed over the years.
The initial theory was that it was diesel fuel, that there's diesel fuel tanks in the building that powered the emergency operations center on the 23rd floor for the city of New York.
And that fuel somehow pumped out of the tanks and big fires and brought the building down.
FEMA, that report I mentioned, the first report in the first year after 9-11, said this theory is a very low probability occurrence.
So, you know, we don't know, right?
They then moved on to structural damage.
from the collapse of the North Tower.
Maybe structural damage is the main reason it came down.
Finally, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, settled on just normal office fires.
That debris from the North Tower hit the building, started fires, and then those fires sort of traveled through the building throughout the course of the day, and eventually it came down.
So the debris, the structural damage didn't directly contribute, but it caused these fires, and it was just normal office fires, no diesel fuel whatsoever.
There's a lot of problems with that story.
One of the biggest problems is that the fire that was in the area where NIST says the collapse sequence initiated actually burnt out an hour and a half before the collapse occurred.
And so for this sequence of structural failures to actually have even a chance of taking place, The fires need to be burning actively and causing the structural members in that part of the building to expand, which is what NIST's theory is, is that it was thermal expansion of beams that are being heated, pushing this.
It's a very convoluted story.
For it to actually work, the fires need to be burning.
And there's photographic and video evidence that the fires were out in that area of the building an hour and a half before the collapse.
So that's one.
If you actually study step by step this very elaborate theory of NIST's theory.
Each step of the way, it's physically impossible.
Engineers and scientists have looked at each of these things and said, that failure can't happen, that thing can't happen, this can't happen.
So it's a very far-fetched story that every step of the way doesn't work.
And, you know, this is just one theory.
There's actually multiple.
There's four different fire-based theories for how the building came down.
NIST's theory, the official government theory, is just one of them.
There's a firm called Weidlinger that has their theory about how it came down.
There's a theory.
Arup and Guy Nordenson Associates has another theory.
And there's even a fourth theory that goes back to that idea that it was the diesel fuel.
So all of these people that all purport to agree that fire brought down the building,
they can't even settle on a theory that shows you that there's not actually any positive
evidence for any of these theories.
Otherwise they would have probably settled on a theory, but there's no actual evidence for NIST's theory.
There's no physical evidence, all the physical evidence was destroyed.
And so their theory, there's first trying to prove that it's even possible,
And then there's trying to prove that it happened.
They don't even get out of trying to prove that it's possible.
Because each step of the way, the chain reaction of structural failures that they allege can't have taken place.
And then I want to perhaps the most important thing to highlight is, you know, they say that ultimately this local structural failure has caused this one column to fail, right?
And that brought down the penthouse on the east side of the building, which Your viewers can look at it on our website.
The collapse, before the actual collapse, about 8 seconds before, the east penthouse on the top of the building drops into the building.
That was definitely caused by columns below the penthouse failing.
The question is, did they fail because of some sort of structural failure, or did they fail because they were taken out high up in the building?
NIST alleges that once that column failed, it created this chain reaction of column failures across the width of the building.
But if that was actually happening, if you had one column failing and then all the rest of the 81 columns in the building fail, you're going to start to see a massive amount of deformation.
Like all the columns on the inside, as they're failing, they're going to start pulling on the outside and you're going to see this deforming building.
And that's what their model shows.
Okay, okay.
Now, mate, we went deep there.
But, you know, this is what I would say, is when it comes to the sort of architectural, engineering aspects of the way buildings collapse under certain circumstances, there's no doubt that there are Legitimate questions, but it doesn't seem to be the thing that's going to move the needle on whether or not this is an event that was undertaken outside of the official narrative.
So let's go from something where we got sort of into some minutiae there into quite a macro argument.
I presume that what people who believe that 9-11 inverted commas was an inside job mean is 9-11 was conducted or at least permitted to happen as a result of a deep state agenda to legitimize foreign wars.
The question that always occurs to me, and I'm thinking about that, you know, when I sort of like, sort of think, like, I'm going to fully commit to just not, you know, listen, I'm on, but I don't trust the media.
I don't trust the state.
I don't trust the government.
Any bit of information they give me, my starting point, and this has served me well, as you can imagine, in the last few years is, this is probably a lie.
until there's evidence that it's not a lie, I will not comply with what's being proposed.
And that can be a very good guard against, for example, myocarditis.
Now, what I would say in this instance is, if the objective was to legitimize a bunch of foreign wars,
wouldn't it be pretty easy to sort of come up with a sort of footage of like,
and we, and just on the outskirts of Baghdad, we found these nuclear missiles that have plainly
been acquired from Chechenian rebels.
Like, there's so many ways without inflicting.
And I know there is documentation that said, you know, we need a Pearl Harbor to legitimize
the new American century and these wars against Syria and Afghanistan and, you know, Iraq and ultimately Iran,
countries that was on that list. But what, like, don't you feel that if the agenda
was to legitimize, like, wars against unfavorable nations, that there's a would
be a way of doing that that doesn't require so much complexity, so much risk,
so many questions, not to mention their loss of American life and their loss of
those buildings. Like, what, you need pretty robust evidence to get people over
that hurdle. Because, like, you know, if I was doing it, I'd go, why don't we just
create a bunch of footage that, like, here, look, here's these rebels outside
Baghdad. They've got all these guns and stuff.
They're planning this thing, but luckily we got ahead of it I mean that so much easier Yeah, so I think that in my mind, the goal was much bigger than just say, let's try to figure out how to start one war or another war.
You know, the Cold War had ended basically 10 years before that.
And for 50 years or so, you had this sort of carte blanche of You know, the U.S.
military-industrial complex, the war machine, the U.S.
empire, to go wherever it wanted, do whatever it wanted, right?
And that basically went away when the Cold War ended.
Yeah, there were certain wars that the U.S.
fought, limited, smaller wars in the Balkans, etc., but by and large, that was gone.
And the, you know, you mentioned it, the Project for a New American Century document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, said, In order to get the kind of change that we need, the military expansionism, technological innovation that we need, you know, short of a new Pearl Harbor, this is going to take a very long time, right?
So, and I think that's what they were looking for.
And so they were looking for, the people who did this, were looking for a new global conflict framework, right?
That would really just reorganize everything.
The way that, you know, international relations, you know, It worked, and that's what we saw happen.
You spoke to it at the beginning of this interview.
It was a turning point in our history, and it started a new era that not only enabled the invasion of Afghanistan, not only enabled the invasion of Iraq, but numerous countries.
Today, and I believe it's by the Cost of War Project at the Brown Institute, they talk about how 22 different military action And 22 different countries since 9-11 have been justified using the authorization for use of military force that was passed just three days after 9-11, right?
So they were looking to create a new paradigm, you know, which I think that they succeeded, you know, wildly at doing.
And I think I've asked myself why, you know, What about just planes hitting the buildings?
Wouldn't that have been enough, right?
That's pretty shocking, right?
I can't get inside the minds of the people who planned this, but somewhere along the line they apparently calculated that they wanted a bigger shock and awe effect than just that.
And indeed, the buildings coming down and killing thousands of people and the horror of that really brought it to a new level.
I think it really, if you imagine kind of what would have happened in 9-11 if that hadn't happened, the shock of it probably isn't as deep, probably isn't as traumatizing, and probably isn't as long-lasting.
You might have other interests that are converging as well.
You know, the Port Authority, and then Larry Silverstein, who, you know, entered into a 99-year lease, Silverstein Properties, you know, a few months before 9-11, you know, they were going to have to spend billions of dollars dealing with asbestos abatement in the building.
Uh, and so maybe you have a real estate motive and insurance motive to bring down the building as well, but that's really probably secondary to the the shock and awe.
I can see why you believe that and it's obviously commendable your integrity and the level of endeavor.
I suppose my personal challenge is if this is true it's... I heard this analysis once from the black academic Kehinde Andrews who's a professor of black studies in a university over here in the UK.
And it's a common analysis, really, of the problems of, say, slavery and colonialism.
He says, if you were to evaluate the problems and the grief and the suffering caused by slavery, and in addition, the economic power accrued as a direct result of it, you would not be able to have financial retribution Without actually dismantling the United States and the United Kingdom.
And if you sort of think about it a little bit, even a country like ours, which has a different history, shameful, but distinct from, you know, America plainly, but you think, oh my God, yeah, Bristol, Liverpool, the docking colonialism, the subsequent industries around it.
If you start to think, and, you know, of course, I know there are a lot of arguments about where would the, who are you giving this money to?
There's all sorts of counter arguments.
And I'm, you know, it's not an issue I claim to be an expert in.
I mentioned this analysis only in this context.
If that is true, if 9-11 is basically really anything other than these nutty guys from Saudi Arabia or wherever they're from got hold of some planes as a result of a plan engineered by Osama Bin Laden and a bunch of other al-Qaeda guys trained by the CIA, we're naming them Mujahideen, and then, you know, it's all gone awry and it's terrible and it's basically the mainstream version of events, is it anything other than that?
It's like, what justice could be meted out to whom and by whom?
Because it's an indication of such systemic failure and of such potential conspiracy at depth that you in the end Have to dismantle this entirety.
It's beyond military-industrial complex.
It's media.
It becomes like, oh no, the whole system's... And now a lot of people, and I guess I'm probably among them, believe that sort of is the case anyway.
Like, you know, regardless of what the analysis of this particular issue is, I am at the point where I'm like, oh, democracy's not really real.
The media just amplifies the message of the powerful, the military-industrial complex, and big pharma.
Dictate American health and foreign policy, respectively.
You know, that's sort of where I am, but in a sort of, I suppose, a much more modest and muted way, based on, like, in a way, the reporting of credible and great people like Michael Schellenberger over here, Barry Weiss over there, Glenn Greenwald over here, Matt Tybee over there, bit of Noam Chomsky.
They're all sort of like, oh yeah, I don't know, it's plainly, totally correct.
You know, and then in this new emergent landscape, we were able to have these conversations.
But this one, I suppose, yeah, it's like, what comes down with those towers is the idea that you can ever trust again.
And the reckoning that would have to follow such a revelation were it one reliably able to be made and demonstrated to be true.
Is the kind of revolution that I somewhat glibly talk about, Ted.
And I suppose what it makes me think about is, like, when I say all this stuff, like, you can't trust establishment, you can't trust the media, you can't trust government, where do you go in the end?
In the end, you have to start saying, oh, no, we can't live in this world.
We're all in really grave and serious danger.
And it's, you know, getting worse.
So my cynicism is not like a sort of a disrespectful cynicism.
It's just a Listen, if you're going to start saying stuff like this, man, what are the consequences?
Where does this end?
Because it's not just, and now in court, these few people, it's like, where do you go with that?
It's inconceivable almost.
Yeah, I mean, I guess I would say, in my view, I think that you are absolutely right.
But it leads to exactly the revolution that I think you talk about, that you hope for.
You talk about wanting the dismantling of The current media infrastructure, the dismantling of institutions that nobody trusts anymore, and the dismantling of governments and reforming them that are actually responsive to the people and that work in the best interests of the people and not the elites and not these mass corporations.
So 9-11 just exposes, I guess on a deeper level, the existence of that.
I think it's really not that different.
It's just 9-11 sort of raises the urgency of it, if indeed it was a false flag.
And I think it's possible.
That's why I do it.
I'm incredibly optimistic, very forward-looking.
And I believe that it is possible.
I truly believe that it is possible to fundamentally reshape the world that we live in.
For me, 9-11 is sort of the most direct path to doing that.
To me, people that sort of jump, take the leap of faith and dedicate their lives to exposing the truth about 9-11, I have deep, obviously I'm talking about myself, but all the people out there, a deep respect for it.
Respect for me?
But all the people out there, despite the marginalization, despite the stigmatization, who've dedicated themselves to this, they did it because they had hope.
At least at some point, maybe they've lost their hope.
They did it because they had hope.
They did it because they believed that it was possible to create a better world, right?
Where the machinery that brought us 9-11 would no longer exist.
And so I believe that's possible.
And I would love to see the journalists, the amazing journalists that you just referenced, For them to move beyond the taboo, remove the blinders.
They do a lot of good work, but many of them do have blinders on when it comes to 9-11.
And I think that we're in this current era with this new generation of independent media that we have.
I really believe that it's possible.
Um, so and I thank you for entertaining this discussion and and for being honest about your, your sort of your doubts or your your reluctance.
Um, but the evidence is right there in front of in front of you in front of all of us of what really happened to those buildings.
In a way, the reluctance is a kind of sort of as well as like I would like evidence where someone go look at that.
Now, look, shut up.
You know, that's, you know, that's what I basically want rather than so like you say, it's very easy to obfuscate with expertise.
And Dissembling some like the architectural and engineering arguments is he it's easy to you know I've not seen anyone go no absolutely this is what happens look at this time a plane hit a bill you know it's very difficult thing because it's sort of comparatively unique to demonstrate
either in an absolute way, either way.
My reluctance in a sense is not because I'm not open-minded, because of course I am open-minded,
hopefully not so open-minded my mind falls out altogether, as some people say.
But it's just that I find this in a variety of subjects that you get so like, you get so clut,
you reach a point where you think, oh my God, this is actually all true.
This isn't just a job I do where I'm on Rumble talking about conspiracy theories and establishment narratives, legacy, corruption, all of the, you know, the endless list that our viewers, our community.
are familiar with, it's in the end takes you to a place where like individual despair across
the world, geopolitical disasters, escalating war, global corruption, spiritual despair,
cultural breakdown and nihilism, it's actually real.
It's not like just like commentating on soccer or ice skating.
It's that you're having to at some point go, well, then we have to do something like what are we going to do?
have to step outside of this system and organise some kind of global resistance movement, which
to some degree appears to be organically happening anyway, and not entirely organically, because
as you say, there are people like you that have dedicated your life to trying to research
and understand an extremely complex and, as you've said yourself, taboo area.
So yeah, the reluctance is the right word, because in the end, if this is true, then
now where are we? It's like that, isn't it? It's like, where do you go to once you've
got this? Because this is, in a sense, how deep is it in our psyche, the idea of nation?
When people talk about patriarchy in a contemporary context in a pejorative fashion, they perhaps
forget that even when railing against the system, we sort of see ourselves as embedded
within it, because what other self-conception could we have?
You're not sort of discussing this from in a crystal pyramid with your head shaved, you know, with a serpent in each hand.
You look like a pretty regular guy, but what you're talking about is you cannot trust anything.
It's that, you know, it's that significant really.
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
I want to be able to trust things.
I believe it's possible to have institutions that we can trust, that act in the best interest of the population.
As I just said, you speak to these things about tearing it all down, about having a revolution, that we have to completely dismantle the media, infrastructure that exists around us now.
And it couldn't be truer.
9-11 exposes that, in my view.
9-11 exposes that more than anything else.
I want to point to one thing that we're working on, the International Center for 9-11 Justice, which is supporting a family in the UK, the family of Jeff Campbell, who died on 9-11.
He was in the North Tower when it was demolished.
His family, his remains were repatriated to the UK over several years, and finally an inquest was held in 2013.
An inquest, you're probably familiar with inquests because you live there, but they're held anytime there's an unnatural death, to establish the cause of death.
And so there's, back in 2013 an inquest was held for 10 British 9-11 victims.
Whose remains have been repatriated.
And now the Campbell family, led by Jeff's brother Matt, is trying to open a new inquest into how Jeff died.
Because the official conclusion from 2013 is that the airplane caused the building to collapse.
And so they're challenging that.
And they're bringing forth an enormous amount of evidence, 2,500 pages of evidence, that was submitted to the Attorney General for England and Wales two years ago.
Uh, showing that it was a controlled demolition.
And so we have expert witness statements.
We have witness statements from five eyewitnesses who were there, four of them first responders, who witnessed explosions, you know, who were inside or near the towers, who are standing by ready to testify at the new inquest.
The Attorney General finally, after almost two years, in June of this year, responded denying the family's application.
And then the family was going to seek judicial review of that denial because it was unlawful and irrational.
And they wrote the Attorney General two weeks before the deadline to seek judicial review.
And the Attorney General came back and withdrew her decision to deny the application because of the arguments that we put forth showing that her decision was unlawful and irrational.
And so now we're awaiting a new decision in the Attorney General.
Basically, there's one more hoop to jump through, which is at the high court, but we're waiting for a decision from the Attorney General, which will basically green light a new inquest into the death of Jeff Campbell, where the family of Jeff Campbell will show in their barrister, Nick Standage, will And our organization will present evidence that the North Tower was in fact demolished with explosives and incendiaries.
And hopefully that's one strategy among many, but that could be quite a catalyst if that goes the way that it should.
Their case for opening the new inquest is overwhelmingly a slam dunk.
They easily meet the threshold for the new inquest to be reopened.
That sounds fascinating, and the testimony of the first responders, that's pretty moving.
Bring that higher up on your list next time you're confronted with a cynic.
But also though, what, Ted, in the event of OK controlled demolition, when are these explosives being placed in the building?
Yeah, in the weeks and months before 9-11.
First of all, there's a couple of companies that were involved in the security of the World Trade Center that are very suspicious.
One of them was called Stratasec.
George W. Bush's brother sat on the board of Stratasec, and there were two very interesting individuals that ran the company, Wirt Walker and Barry McDaniel.
um and uh who basically came from a intelligence background um and um you know another one called Kroll Associates uh and then you know there's there was an elevator modernization project that was going on I don't know in the year or so before before 9-11 uh by a company called Ace Elevator which very not long after 9-11 became defunct um and so that You know, that very likely, in my view, or very possibly, at least, something that we should investigate was the means to place the explosives in the towers.
In Building 7, you had multiple U.S.
intelligence agencies or law enforcement agencies, the FBI, the CIA, Secret Service, You had the Emergency Operations Center for the Office of Emergency Management of New York City on the 23rd floor of Building 7.
You also had the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is possibly a motive for bringing down Building 7.
Although, in my view, the motive is not clear.
Nobody has sort of a definitive answer on why Building 7, the most logical explanation for why Building 7 was brought down.
So you had agencies in Building 7 who probably could have facilitated the placement of explosives and incendiaries in that building.
And you had many companies as well that were in the towers that could have, you know, particularly in the impact floors where companies with executives that have long-standing connections to intelligence agencies that are really a part of the deep state, when we talk about the deep state.
So yeah, in the weeks and months leading up to 9-11 would be my best guess.
Mate, Ted, thank you.
Thank you.
It's one of those conversations where I think, oh no, I've got to go home now, talk to my children.
It's going to be insane.
I have a three-year-old daughter.
I have a three-year-old daughter and I managed to do it.
I think we can all face this very dark issue and actually start to see it in a very positive light of the potential that it offers To completely reshape our world.
I want to make one plug for the film that you mentioned at the beginning, Peace War 9-11.
It's an interview with one of the foremost researchers, scholars in the 9-11 truth movement named Graham McQueen, who passed away In April of this year, he was a professor of religious studies and peace studies in Canada, and I interviewed him last fall when we knew that he was going to die soon.
Incredibly powerful documentary, and really lays out, it's as much an anti-war documentary, an anti-war film, as it is a 9-11 film.
And that really lays out kind of what 9-11 was all about, how it was intended to launch the war on terror, And it also goes into the anthrax attacks, which followed very shortly after 9-11, and shows how the anthrax attacks were clearly the second part of that operation by the U.S.
Deep State Intelligence Apparatus, etc.
But those pathogens that were sent in the envelopes to the anthrax were clearly manufactured in U.S.
laboratories, which is acknowledged, but it Again, they used the Lone Wolf story.
One guy, Bruce Ivins, who actually we know now could not have produced that anthrax, those anthrax spores.
So check out that film, 2.9.11.
It's on Redacted, on Rumble.
It's very moving.
And I think initiatives like that film, and you talking about it, really have the potential to bring this issue into the spotlight where it needs to be.
Brilliant, Ted.
I'm going to watch it.
Thanks for coming on.
We'll post the link to that film right now in the chat.
And thank you, Ted.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for your expertise.
And I hope we get to talk again.
I hope so as well.
Thank you, Russell.
Lots of love.
Thank you, Ted.
Well, there you are.
Let me know what you thought about that conversation and what else you would like to learn and where it's left you emotionally, what it means even to contemplate such an extraordinary and enormous issue.
How do you reshape even your understanding of America, of history, of war?
It's just a baffling thing to allow into your heart, isn't it?
We're talking to Will Harris tomorrow, a farmer who we've had on here before.
He's called White Oaks Farm.
I mean, this guy is amazing.
He's so fantastic.
We first saw him on Fox News dazzling people with his kind of... he's kind of a philosopher of the South.
He's talking about food decentralization.
This dude ain't vegan, let me tell you that.
But he's fascinating and he's an important voice when it comes to agriculture, I would say.
If you want to get access to more of our content and support us, and you've seen what's going on here, you need to press the red button.
Yes, we talk about deep stuff and the deep state with Ted Walter, for example, but we do meditations, we do readings, we talk about ways to change the world, successful off-grid communities, and we're going to talk about solutions to many of the problems we face now and what you can do.
To improve your life in the face of sometimes seemingly insurmountable challenges.
I'd like to welcome new members of our Awaken Wonder community like LostInArt, Mikey, Dotus1, Cozen11, RealRealPete.
Thanks for joining us.
You should join us too.
Join us tomorrow not for more of the same but for more of the different.
Until then, if you can, stay free.
Switch on.
▲
Export Selection