Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 23, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:20:31

Jon Stewart CANCELLED - Apple CENSORS Host On China & AI - Stay Free #229

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	so so
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	We've got a live shot there.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
	Thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	This is another opportunity for us to awaken together.
	What a magnificent day it is.
	And while the world may seem to be beset with Omnicrisis, we here now at least are free right now.
	I'm watching you in the chat, Bad Poet, Ministry of Common Sense, Sephardine Squibb.
	I'm watching you all, Dynamic Shifts, and you better believe I ain't no Fabian.
	If you are even considering that I could be controlled opposition at this point after what I've been through, you lot are crazy.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, be ready to click the link in the description and join us on Rumble after 15 minutes because we're going to be discussing some matters that simply cannot be discussed on a platform that accepts WHO guidelines when it comes to controlling what can be freely communicated.
	That's why you've got to join us on Rumble like Godzilla the Hun.
	Little Willie Gates.
	That's right, he does invest heavenly.
	Heavily.
	If you want to join our locals community and become an Awakened Wonder, press the red button on your screen now.
	It's a beautiful conversation there.
	There are Awakened Wonders everywhere you look and you're going to need them because we're talking today about Biden's aid bundling.
	When you've got complex conflicts across the globe, Is it prudent, wise, apposite and germane to combine them together into a cluster like it's one of those cluster bombs?
	Or these various conflicts be looked at separately and discreetly?
	Let me know what you think about that.
	And also, Is there a risk when you bundle these conflicts together economically and financially that you potentially bundle them together in the minds of the electorate, in the minds of the population, that it's seen as one all-pervasive global conflict?
	And is that beneficial to a potential unipolar agenda?
	Is the ultimate agenda to form one globalist state dominated by corporate interests, Unable, unwilling to respond to the democratic people of the world.
	We surely must decentralize power wherever possible.
	We're going to be discussing that with Rav Arora, a brilliant young journalist who's worked with Jay Bhattacharya of the Barrington Declaration to oppose many of the anti-free speech regulation being passed right now in Trudeau and Freeland's Canadian dystopia.
	If you're watching us in Canada, Welcome, guys!
	Welcome!
	Because, you know, it's not going to be for long, because they are regulating your ability to access independent media at an astonishing and extraordinary rate.
	But you are welcome with us.
	Hey, have you seen about Chappelle?
	One of my comedy heroes, one of the greats, Dave Chappelle, has apparently inspired a walkout.
	Let's have a look at that story.
	Apparently, Dave Chappelle sparked a walkout during a show in Boston last week after slamming Israel for its war crimes against Palestinians.
	The comedian made the comments after telling the audience he didn't think students who were protesting in support of Palestine should lose job offers.
	A furious audience member shouted, shut up, according to the Wall Street Journal.
	Do you Dear community, dear AwakendWonders, believe in Dave Chappelle's right for free speech.
	Is that a yes or a no?
	Can you just post Y or N in the rumble chat, guys?
	And indeed in the AwakendWonder chat, just so I know where you stand on the free speech of Dave Chappelle.
	Remember, here we believe that the people that are involved in this conflict are in such a unique, agonizing, painful situation that the rest of us, and I know that people will be directly Effective that are watching this right now have a kind of duty to be responsible in the way that we communicate But do I believe in Dave Chappelle's rights of free speech after everything that man's given us in the world of comedy?
	I'd certainly have to agree that I do Now on this ongoing theme of censorship and legitimization of controlling speech Trump has been fined $5,000 for a social media post that violates his gag order I'm gonna ask you this Is a gag order ever a good thing?
	Like, do you believe that Trump is being gagged to protect you, to protect justice, or to ultimately take him out of the candidacy for 2024?
	Of course, one of the claims is that he could intimidate witnesses, but there's already laws to prevent witness intimidation.
	So, as is often the case when surveillance laws and censorship laws are introduced, it doesn't provide you with additional legislative protection.
	It just facilitates further state intervention.
	Let's have a look at the mainstream reporting on this story.
	The judge in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial in New York is fining the former president $5,000 for violating his order not to threaten anyone tied to the case.
	And the judge warned future offenses could land Trump in jail.
	The judge imposed the limited restrictions.
	He's a truth teller, he's a man who asks questions, and ultimately, if you believe in free speech, you've got to believe in the free speech of those that you oppose.
	That's a pretty basic, simple, I reckon, isn't it?
	And what is going on with this weaponisation of the justice system?
	Is it simply that there's an agenda to take Trump out of the race?
	And I want to know as well, how do you feel about the The former legal aides of Trump now saying that they will testify against him as a result of their own guilty pleas.
	Does this change your opinion about Donald Trump?
	Or does this, to you, just seem like further evidence that the state are out to get him?
	It was earlier this month when Trump posted a message about a court clerk on Truth Social.
	Trump removed the post immediately, but Trump's campaign website appeared to still show the post as recently until last night.
	A former president's lawyer says the post was an inadvertent mistake and blamed it on Trump's campaign operation.
	Liz Cheney says, or said on CNN at least, that Donald Trump is the single biggest threat to the US.
	Is he?
	Is Trump the most, the biggest danger that the United States faces right now?
	Just post a Y or an N in the rumble chat, let me know.
	Or, you know, could there be another threat?
	Could there be like an omni-crisis?
	Could there be It seems an appetite for an endless global war.
	What about Biden?
	I mean, there seems that there are so many threats.
	Let's have a look at Liz Cheney saying that.
	If it came down to it, even though you disagree with Joe Biden on almost every issue under the sun, other than maybe Ukraine and Israel, would you vote for him over Donald Trump?
	We're going to see what happens.
	We're going to see how things unfold.
	I think Donald Trump is the single most dangerous threat we face.
	I don't know about that.
	Is that true?
	Could that possibly be true?
	I'll tell you who was a threat to American sovereignty, who certainly did not approve the standing of the United States of America in the world, who did not improve peace in the Middle East, dear Liz's father, Dick Cheney, who similarly thinks that Donald Trump is the biggest threat to democracy.
	But is it really that Trump is the biggest threat to In our nation's 246 year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic.
	Dick Cheney looked like a man who is trying to hold back evil, even as he speaks.
	You know, entire history of American democracy.
	Can you almost see a reptilian flicker just... Oh, he's snarling!
	He's got a snarling face on.
	Are you looking at that right now?
	Look at the curled lip.
	It's sort of like J.R.
	Ewing meets Godzilla.
	And Donald Trump, he tried to steal the last election using lies and violence.
	Do you know that, of course, Cheney is famous for propagating the weapons of mass destruction lie under Bush, which led to the Iraq war, which led to 1.2 million deaths, including 4,500 US service members.
	sweet justice and Halliburton.
	Let me know.
	T for Donald Trump, C for Cheney.
	He also cost US taxpayers $2 trillion with a couple of conflicts in that region around that time.
	Cheney himself earned $44 million as CEO of Halliburton, $39.5 Billion in federal contracts were related to the Iraq war.
	Let's see him snarl his way through this piece of advocacy.
	This is not a person that should be on camera supporting anybody.
	Keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him.
	He's a coward.
	A real man wouldn't lie to his supporters.
	He lost his election and he lost big.
	I know it, he knows it, and deep down I think most Republicans know it.
	Liz, I'm going to read you a bedtime story tonight.
	I'm going to want you to sleep peacefully.
	Once upon a time, there was a guy called Rumpelstiltskin.
	Please, please, can I just listen to an audio book?
	Now listen, we're going to have to leave YouTube in a minute.
	Not yet, in a minute.
	Before we leave YouTube, I want to ask you this question.
	Do you want us to cover a story about Pfizer's plans to massively overcharge for its COVID drug?
	If you do, press one.
	Or do you You crazy North American sons and daughters of glory want to see a story about British MP Andrew Bridgen giving a speech to a near-empty parliament about excess deaths.
	So one for Pfizer, two for excess deaths.
	And God, these are not concepts that, broadly speaking, I'm supportive of.
	And I asked you a minute ago, who's the greater threat to world peace?
	You came back resoundingly with Cheney all over that chat, baby.
	And we're going to talk to you about Jon Stewart, and then we will let you know which of those two stories we're doing based on your votes, because this show belongs to you.
	My voice belongs to you.
	We are in communion with you.
	This is independent media and independent media has a set of values derived from spirituality and democracy.
	We have to find a new voice together.
	We have to look for new alliances and new ways of constructing content that is valuable for you and valuable for our shared agenda to create better communities, better individual lives and Maybe even a better world, dammit.
	One person who will not be contributing to that conversation is Jon Stewart, because it seems that Jon Stewart has been cancelled by Apple, potentially as a result of some of the content of his forthcoming show, where he planned to talk about, for example, many say, China and AI.
	Why would Apple want to censor on those subjects?
	Let's have a look at it on the mainstream.
	John Stewart's Apple TV show, The Problem with John Stewart, is done after two seasons.
	Staff members say Stewart told them last night he and Apple executives agreed to pull the plug.
	The former Daily Show host had creative control over the show, but again, according to staff members, Stewart told them the company had concerns about the subject matter for the upcoming season.
	The planned topics included China, Israel, and AI.
	Over 95% of iPhones, AirPods, Macs and iPads are still made in China.
	So if Jon Stewart, who is, wherever you stand politically, a critical thinker, an outspoken voice, an advocate for 9-11, first responders, one of the voices within the mainstream that was willing to attack, and now he's not going to have that same kind of platform certainly, Also, could Apple's agenda in censoring Jon Stewart, or at least cancelling his show, be connected to their huge sales of iPhones in China?
	24% of their products are sold there.
	That's compared to 21% in your country, the United States.
	19% of Apple's total revenue came from China.
	That amounts to about $74 billion, and it's a brief window into the world of real power now.
	I wonder how Apple will be affected by escalating tensions between the United States and China.
	I wonder where they will stand in that complex potential conflagration that's being advocated for somewhat irresponsibly even now.
	Later this week I'm going to be speaking to Vivek Ramaswamy and talking to him about the potential for this current conflict, this set of conflicts, to become a global Conflagration.
	A global war.
	A World War Three.
	Particularly when you see that the way that it's being financed, it includes conflating these conflicts which are, in my view, very discreet and distinct when it comes to their financing.
	I want to ask you now though, when it comes to this matter of Jon Stewart being cancelled from Apple, do you think Jon Stewart's been fired because he's a danger to the establishment?
	Or because he's a threat to Apple's business model.
	What do you think motivates that?
	If you think it's a threat to the establishment, press 1 for us.
	And 2 if you think it's a threat to Apple's business model.
	Now you've come back resoundingly in favour of something that surprises me about you people.
	You awakened wonders.
	You pursuers of glorious truth.
	is you want to see Andrew Bridgen, a British MP, talking to Parliament about excess deaths.
	You'll be familiar with it.
	Now I can't talk about excess deaths on YouTube.
	YouTube, as you know, takes its community guidelines with medical matters from the WHO.
	You may be aware that the WHO are proposing a treaty Right now, that they would be able to take 5% of the health budget of any member nation.
	That they would be able to impose lockdown and maybe even mandatory medicines if that treaty is passed.
	If you're a UK citizen, there's a petition right now to ensure that this matter is debated before it's passed.
	I don't know what's going on in your country, the US, if they're going to sign up to that kind of regulation.
	Terrifying to contemplate after the last couple of years and the way that we know it's funded, I'm talking about Bill Gates, that the WHO could have yet more power.
	But the fact is that they've got power within Google, they've got power within Alphabet, they've got power on YouTube, and don't I know it, so we won't be able to discuss these stories there.
	So if you're watching this on YouTube, I want you to click the link in the description right now.
	Join us over on Rumble where we will be talking about Hey, let's have a look.
	You guys have said that Jon Stewart is a threat to Apple and maybe being a threat to Apple when it comes to most most nations on Earth is a bigger consideration.
	This time it takes about five seconds before we leave.
	So for this five seconds, I'm in a purgatorial space where I don't actually yet have the full confidence
	to express myself.
	Hey, let's have a look.
	You guys have said that Jon Stewart is a threat to Apple and maybe being a threat to Apple
	when it comes to most nations on earth is a bigger consideration.
	Apple at this point are more powerful, I would say, and more influential than many nations.
	Okay, so let's have a look at Andrew Bridgen.
	Are we safe?
	Are we off YouTube?
	Am I safe to talk about excess deaths?
	Can we get confirmation of that here?
	Because if we, we're off.
	Thank you.
	As always, get one of them clear.
	Maybe you can even post it up somewhere.
	All right, we're on Rumble now.
	We can relax.
	Hello, all of you.
	There's 10,000 of us watching live.
	I need more of you to come and join us for this movement to succeed.
	If you're watching us on Rumble, do consider becoming an Awakened Wonder.
	You get additional content.
	For example, when we talk to Jordan Peterson in a couple of days, we'll post it first on Local.
	Can you imagine the conversation that me and Jordan Peterson are going to have right now?
	The vast array of topics that there are to explore and discuss.
	So become an awakened one.
	We do all sorts of stuff there that I know that you'll love.
	Now you voted to see the Andrew Bridgen story.
	Let's have a look at that right now.
	Andrew Bridgen wanted to debate excess deaths in Parliament.
	You'll be familiar with excess deaths.
	They're another one of those subjects that you simply couldn't discuss.
	Athletes dropping dead.
	Famous young folks dropping dead all over the world.
	Apparently healthy people dropping dead left and right and we all had to just hold our noses, take a deep breath and pretend that it was normal and ordinary.
	Has anything unusual happened in the last couple of years that could cause people to be dropping dead all over the show, seemingly for no reason?
	Well, finally it's entered the political sphere.
	You've got Rand Paul willing to discuss it in your country, Andrew Bridges discussing it in the UK.
	Let's have a look.
	It's discouraging to see that just so many members of the British political system have
	turned up to debate that.
	Look at that, there's eight people!
	That's democracy!
	That's your taxpayer pounds in our country.
	That's what democracy looks like.
	What are we debating today?
	Oh, excess deaths.
	Yeah, I think I might stay at home and water the garden.
	What are we talking about tomorrow?
	We're going to talk about whether or not we should have pay rises.
	You want to see how crammed that place gets.
	Let's see what Andrew Bridgen says.
	We've had a year of 2021 in the whole of 2020.
	Unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old.
	In other words, the excessive deaths are striking down people in the prime of life.
	But no-one seems to care.
	I fear history will not judge this House kindly.
	Worse still, in a country supposedly committed to free and frank exchange of views, it appears that no-one cares that no-one cares.
	Well, I care, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I credit those Members here in attendance today who also care.
	60,000 excess deaths between 2021 and 2022 in the US.
	That means in the United States, you experienced a Vietnam War of casualties among young people.
	And of course, that was a 12 year long war.
	As you know, you don't need me to tell you that in just a two year period.
	What happened?
	What took out all those young people?
	And why did they want indemnity from prosecution before they even agreed to manufacture those things?
	How extraordinary.
	You notice that Andrew Bridgen there was speaking to a near-empty parliament.
	That's our equivalent of Congress, near as dammit.
	Look at how jammed that place is when those guys are discussing pay rises.
	At the top, that's them when they're discussing pay rises, that's when they're discussing excess debt.
	So, what do you imagine is their priorities?
	Themselves and their self-interests, or the people that they purportedly govern?
	It's a comparable question that we ask when we talk about the ongoing global wars and the nature of their funding.
	When you know how many members of your Congress bought stocks and shares in weapons manufacturing In the days leading up to both the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the Israel war, it gives you a sort of sense of what their priorities might be.
	Now when you bundle together in a very complex and diverse set of conflicts, don't you take real risks?
	Ruby C. Kinglet over on one of our Awaken Wonders says, The WHO has to be stopped.
	Does anyone in the US know how we push back?
	You've got to debate it, you've got to oppose it.
	BreeJam79, I knew they'd come for Jon Stewart eventually.
	He's pretty, truthy, fantastic.
	A lot of you in Rumble are wondering whether or not these are sort of peculiar symbols.
	Some of you like to know about the old 33.
	Because I love Jesus Christ.
	I'm certainly not in the Freemasons.
	You guys cannot possibly believe I'm controlled opposition.
	I'll tell you how they're controlling me.
	Terror!
	Absolute terror, if indeed that is what's happening.
	Trump can't be controlled, says Ellen Knox.
	That's why he's a threat to them.
	And the global stronghold is, and always has been, in Europe.
	That's over on Rumble, 48 says there.
	We need a peasant's revolt, says Catherine the Curious on Rumble.
	Indeed we do.
	A global revolution, unified but decentralised.
	Some genuine new ideas, a new vision, personal empowerment and awakening, an ability to control your own community, to have your own culture, Without the impediment of the state, without an endless bleaching deluge coming down from on high from a corporate culture that wants only to centralize and authorize.
	And when you have global wars escalating, funding coming from your government, from your taxpayer dollars, when you see them being bundled together somewhat irresponsibly, as with the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the ongoing escalating tensions in Israel, and even Even additional support for Taiwan.
	You have to question, is Joe Biden the right man to be leading the free world right now?
	Will the rambling and incoherent speech he gave the other night in the White House propel America towards a global war?
	Is that what you want?
	Here's the news?
	No.
	Here's the FN news.
	Thanks for focusing Fox News.
	Good news.
	No, here's the FN news.
	Good news!
	Joe Biden is bundling together a series of really complex global conflicts in order to get loads and loads of money for potential escalating wars with China, Russia, and across the Middle East.
	Bundling all these things together to get new aid in a rambling, incoherent speech is surely a great thing for all of us that are looking forward to Armageddon.
	I'm of course referring to the numerous conflicts across the world that don't seem to have resolution anywhere in mind.
	Ukraine and Russia is prolonged, Israel and their Middle Eastern conflicts are so complicated and agonizing even to reflect upon, and potential wars could be beginning as a result of the relationship between China, Taiwan and American financial interests.
	Joe Biden just yesterday, in an extraordinary and rare speech, has requested more aid that puts these complex, distinct, nuanced nuanced, difficult conflicts into one bundle.
	When is it ever a good idea to bundle different things together?
	When was the last time we heard bundling in the news?
	Wasn't it when they were bundling together subprime mortgages?
	Aren't these very difficult, very distinct matters that require discrete reflection and
	contemplation?
	I don't know.
	Let's work that out together.
	Remember, download the Rumble app.
	You can see us there every day.
	Turn on the notification bell so you're informed every time that we make content.
	Not like on other platforms where they don't inform you at all.
	We stream at these times and we want you to join us there.
	Let's get into Joe Biden's peculiar speech and think together how should we be approaching this rather unique moment in human history together.
	President Biden's national address tonight was designed to convince Congress the U.S.
	and the world will be safer if we help fund not just Israel, but Ukraine too.
	Did you notice that prior to the escalation of the crises in the Middle East, there was a general sense that support for continual financial aid for the Ukraine-Russia conflict was starting to wane?
	Not because people don't love Ukrainian folk or want to support them in their humanitarian disaster, but because of the failure of the counter-offensive, a different type of understanding around the conditions that led to this war, in part because NATO themselves said, Putin told us that he would escalate this war if we did these things and we did those things anyway.
	So bundling together The very, very complex situation in the Middle East where people are still reeling and grieving and it's very difficult to see a clear pathway through it.
	Bundling that together with Ukraine and Russia seems to me to be politically exploitative.
	Let me know in the chat if you agree that those issues should be regarded separately when it comes to financial and military aid.
	The president defending his expected Friday request to Congress, an unprecedented estimated $105 billion in security funding for Israel and Ukraine.
	$60 billion is said to be slated for the fight against Russia.
	So more than half of the aid for an ongoing conflict, which we've been told for a long time, isn't a proxy war that has been steadily escalating.
	Are you beginning to become concerned that we could be months Or at most years away from a situation where there is a war, a hot war, as Tucker Carlson predicted, between the US and Russia.
	A conflict which is scaling up in Southeast Asia between China and America.
	You know, the military bases that are already there and the semiconductor matter in Taiwan.
	And involvement in a conflict including multiple nations potentially in the Middle East.
	What would that be like?
	You're already seeing news reports where people are saying, yeah, America can have that level of conflict.
	Joe Biden saying, in my view, somewhat glibly, we're the United States for Christ God damn sake.
	We could have as many global wars as we want.
	We could have another war on other planets.
	We don't even get me a telescope.
	What about one over there?
	Isn't this difficult enough without you reaching for a telescope to find some far flung planet that we can start profiting from?
	I mean, having a war with?
	I mean, what is it we're doing?
	Good evening, my fellow Americans.
	We're facing an inflection point in history.
	Yeah, it is an inflection point.
	And here's the inflection.
	One of those moments where the decisions we make today are going to determine the future for decades to come.
	I know these conflicts can seem far away.
	No, actually, they're starting to seem increasingly local because there's one escalating in China, there's one in Europe, and there's one in what we call the Middle East.
	So wherever you are, you're quite near to it.
	That's the thing about World War Three.
	There's no escaping it.
	It's natural to ask, why does this matter to America?
	You don't have to explain to me why it matters, but we might all die in an escalating crisis.
	Now, I'm well aware, and I will say again, if you're a person that's emotionally and personally affected, religiously, ideologically, or because of national ties to the conflict in the Middle East, or any of these conflicts, I would not seek to lecture you about something you know a lot more about than I do, and you feel a lot more strongly about than I do.
	We're offering you a critique of the way the legacy media is amplifying the agenda of the powerful which might not be about humanitarian issues and could be about economic issues based on all wars previously ever.
	So let me share with you why making sure Israel and Ukraine succeed is vital for America's national security.
	You know, history has taught us.
	It's taught us a few lessons, history.
	Here's one.
	When you look back at wars that America got involved in because of what they said were humanitarian reasons, it looks like that wasn't it at all.
	Sometimes they say, for example, there are weapons of mass destruction, and there aren't weapons of mass destruction.
	Sometimes they attack Iraq straight after 9-11 even though most of the people involved appeared to be from Saudi Arabia.
	So history teaches a lot of lessons and I would say perhaps the strongest lesson is do not trust authority.
	Don't seek to judge the feelings of people that are involved in a conflict in ways that, blessedly, I can't personally imagine.
	Remain open-hearted and loving to the possibility of peace.
	See how you can be of service and value and stop starting wars all the time just because it's convenient for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
	When dictators don't pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death,
	and more destruction.
	They didn't like that swallow.
	They keep going, and the cost and the threats to America and the world keep rising.
	For 75 years, NATO has kept peace in Europe.
	Hmm.
	I don't know about that, really, and the efficacy of NATO, or the function of NATO.
	I mean, they're not keeping peace particularly well at the moment.
	They've provoked Putin till he's in a blind fury.
	Essentially, it seems that there's a unipolar agenda.
	It seems to me there might even be an agenda to bring about this kind of cataclysm in order to legitimise further authoritarianism, surveillance, censorship, and establish the kind of control we I don't know and I'm just riffing here.
	Establishment elites are able to enjoy a particular kind of life and ordinary people are controlled in ways that are unprecedented and until recently were unimaginable.
	But it's not like I can think of a period in recent history where most people were locked in their homes and powerful people carried on having parties and... Yes I can!
	And it's been the cornerstone of American security.
	And if Putin attacks a NATO ally, we will defend every inch of NATO which a treaty requires and calls for.
	Well, it's going to be difficult because people are joining up to NATO like it's going out of fashion.
	It's like the new TikTok.
	Although TikTok's banned for misinformation.
	We'll have something that we do not seek.
	Make it clear, we do not seek.
	We do not seek to have American troops fighting in Russia.
	Uh-oh!
	We're getting a little bit closer!
	We do not seek it.
	I'm not seeking it like hide-and-go-seek, like an easter egg hunt where we're seeking it, like your dog's lost in the woods and you're seeking it, but oh no, look what's happened anyway!
	American troops are in Russia.
	That, I would say, is priming.
	We're fighting against Russia.
	Beyond Europe, we know that our allies and maybe most importantly our adversaries and competitors are watching.
	It's a little weird to jump from allies to adversaries and competitors.
	Competing for what?
	That's very telling.
	Because competitors, that's the language of economics, commerce and business.
	And actually, that's probably the most truthful, yet inadvertent thing that's been said in that speech.
	We're competing with them for resources.
	We're competing with them for power.
	We're competing with them for control over the semiconductor market.
	I still don't really know what a semiconductor is, but I do believe that economic interests and interests of dominion usually prevail over humanitarianism.
	Just looking back at previous conflicts, let me know in the chat if you agree.
	You're watching our response in Ukraine as well.
	And if we walk away and let Putin erase Ukraine's independence, would-be aggressors around the world would be emboldened to try the same.
	It's not school, is it?
	The world's not school.
	Well, those gangs of bullies around the world, you gotta stand up to bullies like I did.
	Remember Corn Pop?
	Remember that story?
	No, don't do the Corn Pop.
	Don't do the Corn Pop.
	There are not other countries that are like Russia that can pose that same kind of threat.
	Hey, if Russia's getting away with it, why don't we try this in San Marino?
	The risk of conflict and chaos could spread in other parts of the world.
	In the Indo-Pacific, in the Middle East, especially in the Middle East.
	This is being described as if organically there's this sort of cluster of global events that are taking place that aren't somehow affected to the efforts and actions of American imperialism.
	Not seeking to blame the United States of America, but when you learn that 57% of the world's autocracies have been sold weaponry by the United States and military-industrial complex corporations within The United States, with the United States, sometimes delivering those weapons, being brokers for those kind of weapons deals.
	Just take the example of Saudi Arabia.
	It's just one obvious example.
	I've got no strong views on Saudi Arabia.
	What do I know?
	But I do remember Joe Biden had strong views.
	Make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.
	Saudi Arabia, hey, we can just do a deal selling them more weapons than Donald Trump did.
	So what's actually going on?
	What's the agenda?
	Is this what's getting said in this conversation here true or not?
	The United States and our partners across the region are working to build a better future for the Middle East.
	One where the Middle East is more stable, better connected to its neighbours, and through innovative projects like the Indian-Middle East-Europe Rail Corridor.
	Firstly, some of the things in that sentence weren't words.
	More predictable markets, more employment.
	Business, business, corporate interests.
	It's really interesting.
	Now, of course, we all have commercial imperatives.
	I'm not free from economic requirements myself, and I know that you aren't either.
	But ultimately, how will you be affected by these decisions that are being made?
	Just look at recent crises that are not military.
	The energy crisis.
	Do you know that this presented opportunity for record profits for some energy companies?
	What about that health crisis that we recently all went through relatively together?
	Do you know that Big Pharma made record profits during that period?
	So is it possible that what we regard as crisis, and indeed a told crisis, and for the people directly involved, are unquestionably crises of an almost unimaginable scale, to the kind of corporate interests that are in positions of leadership and power that transcend the ordinary institutions of democracy as we understand them because we've been coached and trained to believe in, oh I'm going to vote for that guy, I like the thing you said about that, that's more like my beliefs, actually benefit From situations that the rest of us would look at and say, how the hell do we resolve this as quickly as possible?
	Or, oh God, we can't even say stuff like that yet because it's too painful for the people involved and you risk sounding like you're partisan or not understanding the depth of their pain and suffering.
	What you shouldn't, I don't think, be doing is making it worse.
	Or even if making it worse is too much of a contentious thing to say, given the scale, scope and nuance of these conflicts, profit in from it.
	It benefits the people who would benefit the people of the Middle East and would benefit us.
	Like, I trust a president a lot more that said, firstly and foremostly, all of those people that profited by investing in weapons companies that are members of Congress, we've actually said you can't be in Congress anymore because your priorities are clearly off.
	I mean, you're supposed to be here helping us reach a consensus based on what we imagine is the will of the people of America, and I can't imagine the will of the American people is Who wants to profit from this?
	Guys, you should invest right now!
	Is that a good representation of your feelings, of your values, of your morals?
	This isn't being addressed right now, that's just business as usual.
	And business as usual is what I'm worried is what's happening.
	American leadership is what holds the world together.
	I don't know about that.
	When you look at the weapons sales, when you look at the Cold War, when you look at the proxy wars between now and the Cold War, when you look at the lack of intervention in the 2008 crisis, when the banks that collapsed the global economy and caused so much suffering in America were bailed out by Barack Obama.
	Is American leadership what causes and creates and generates peace around the world, or is it somehow absolutely dependent on conflict and crisis because of the nature of the industries that run it?
	American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with.
	To put all that at risk, if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it's just not worth it.
	I think what's happened here, and let me know if this sounds too cynical for you to even imagine, people have said, the war in Ukraine is becoming very unpopular because it's not going the way we said it would.
	But there is a lot of support for Israel because of the horrific nature of those terrorist attacks, and in the moment when people feel as heated up and as horrified by that, they're not able even to look at the complexity.
	So, shall we start combining Ukraine and Israel in order to facilitate ongoing aid because we love people so much and we've just got to help people with weapons?
	Or do you think there might be another agenda?
	Just, can you see that there might be?
	Can there be?
	Just remember those people in Congress.
	Just remember the arms that are being sold all around the world.
	57% of them to autocracies.
	If you hold those things together in your mind and you listen to those words, where did it take you?
	That's why tomorrow I'm going to send to Congress an urgent budget request.
	To fund America's national security needs, to support our critical partners including Israel and Ukraine is a smart investment that's going to pay dividends for American security for generations.
	Help us keep American troops out of harm's way.
	Oh, that's so mad.
	This is mad.
	To help us keep American troops out of harm's way.
	Obviously what this speech is designed to do is just make you go, oh, all right, just do that.
	Or be so confused that you can't make sense because these conflicts are distinct and separate.
	They are separate ideas.
	The causes and roots of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the complexity of what's happening in the Middle East and the economic interest that might benefit from that.
	And again, as I always say, that is not offering an opinion on the emotions of people involved in this conflict.
	I would consider that rude and unacceptable.
	Is there an attempt here to bundle these conflicts together in order to generate financial opportunity
	and opportunity of unipolar hegemonic dominion by the United States?
	Help us build a world that is safer, more peaceful, more prosperous for our children
	When you consider your children and grandchildren, that's when a stark new perspective becomes available, isn't it?
	Like, hold on a minute.
	These wars all the time.
	One route is we have to slay all of our enemies irreversibly somehow, and the other one is some kind of alternative has to be considered.
	I mean, that's when, when you look beyond yourself and your own emotions and your own feelings and your own allegiances and your own alliances, anybody could perhaps have a different perspective.
	But it certainly exposes that the current purview is undergirded by economic interests.
	I mean, isn't that obvious?
	On Ukraine, I'm asking Congress to make sure we can continue to send Ukraine the weapons they need to defend themselves and their country without interruption.
	So Ukraine can stop Putin's brutality in Ukraine.
	They are succeeding.
	Even that sentiment, that seems acceptable enough, has to be paired with discourse elsewhere, where it's like, this is a bang for your buck.
	Ukrainians seem a bit casualty resistant.
	This is a very economic war.
	You've heard all that other stuff.
	You have to pretend that a load of reality doesn't exist in order to make this reality palatable.
	Let me be clear about something.
	We send Ukrainian equipment sitting in our stockpiles.
	And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores, our own stockpiles, with new equipment.
	Equipment that defends America and is made in America.
	Patron missiles for air defence batteries.
	Made in Arizona.
	Don't brush your lip like that, it makes it look like you're lying.
	Made in Arizona.
	And what was the rationale when you were making the previous weapons that went into that stockpile?
	Artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas.
	Do you see how he tried to make it sound like this is a sort of a job scheme for people in Arizona?
	You're going to have good jobs, making missiles out there in Arizona, it's going to be beautiful.
	If the intention was to improve the lives of people in Arizona, there are other ways of doing that.
	It's unbelievable to just try to make this positive for domestic America.
	You know, just as in World War II, today patriotic American workers are building the arsenal of democracy.
	And serving the cause of freedom.
	Wow.
	This is propaganda live.
	Simplification, reductivism, combining distinct and discrete issues, sometimes very complex issues, together.
	This is, in a sense, a very good exercise in understanding how power operates.
	Beyond that, though, it's pretty terrifying.
	In moments like these, we have to remember who we are.
	You can talk.
	We're the United States of America.
	The United States of America.
	Oh my god.
	Think of the way that Trump is condemned for jingoism and sort of a kind of ease with what you might call blue-collar Americans.
	They're only complaining because he's better at it.
	What's that an attempt to do?
	We're the United States of America.
	America.
	America.
	That's not politics.
	And there is nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.
	My fellow Americans, thank you for your time.
	May God bless you all.
	Well, I think we're going to need him because he'll make some pretty terrible decisions.
	But let's get into some alternative facts around this issue.
	US President Joe Biden's speech Thursday night on national television was a demand for vast new military spending to expand the ongoing US-NATO proxy war against Russia and Ukraine.
	Biden's speech was not a serious attempt to convince anyone or rationally explain US foreign policy.
	It consisted of a series of non-sequiturs strung one after the other with no coherent argument binding them together.
	Biden drew a parallel between Hamas and Russian President Vladimir Putin that objectively did not make the slightest sense.
	But as he spoke it became clear that the main aim of the speech was to utilise the war in Gaza to procure a massive spending bill for the Ukraine war to prop up the Zelensky government following the failure of its summer offensive.
	So however you feel about the conflict, And I mean that there are a variety of opinions obviously available.
	That's, I suppose, what a war is.
	Opposing views expressed through violence.
	What that tells you is they don't really care other than utilising it, using it to perpetuate the war between Russia and Ukraine and prolonging the war.
	I've heard some analysis that even has a vision of a post-war Ukraine as a kind of proxy state
	that BlackRock are already agreeing to invest in, where they're going to pilot new digital
	technology. This is not stuff I'm making up, we did a video about it, it's information that's
	available. It feels to me like there is another agenda entirely that's piggybacking on all this
	talk of age and America's unique role in the world. Indeed, the New York Times has reported
	that $60 billion of the $100 billion spending bill Biden proposed in the speech will go to fight the
	war in Ukraine against Russia.
	This figure is more than twice Biden's initial request of $24 billion in August.
	Despite its rambling and incoherent nature, the main import of the speech is clear.
	America is hurling towards global war and the President of the United States, the so-called Commander-in-Chief, is demanding $100 billion in additional funds on top of the $1 trillion already proposed for all military spending to finance this explosion of That does appear to be the agenda wrapped up in a confectionary of patriotic and moralistic language that I am ill at ease accepting when these figures are available.
	Unmentioned in the speech, but widely reported in advance of Friday's formal request to Congress, is the fact that Biden will also seek billions more in U.S.
	military aid to Taiwan, an effort to provoke further conflict with China and militarize the U.S.-Mexico border and intensify U.S.
	intervention throughout Latin America.
	I use the phrase omni-crisis these days to, in a sense, present to you the idea that crisis is all places, all of the time.
	That is what's sort of being generated now, geographically and temporally.
	No end to crisis, just a suspended state of crisis, a suspended state of fear, and the vision of like, what's the end point of this?
	What would a solution look like?
	Why do you never see the legacy media say, but what about that Iraq war?
	Remember the incentives for that.
	How are we deploying different ideas and a different mentality?
	Or is it, hold on a minute, this is the same, isn't it?
	These wars, hold on.
	Now again, I have to keep saying that I'm not talking about Israel's right to be outraged by terrorist attacks.
	It's not something I feel like I qualify to do as a human being.
	But this, I feel pretty qualified to comment on.
	Do you?
	Aware of the deepening opposition to the US war in Ukraine, now ending its 80-month and apparently mired in an endless, costly and bloody stalemate, Biden sought to bootstrap the conflicts in Israel to justify further spending in Ukraine, which will get the lion's share of whatever military aid bill ultimately emerges from Congress just on that basis alone.
	All of this talk ultimately leads to disproportionate expenditure on an
	increasingly unpopular conflict. But it's unpopular not for moral or ethical reasons but because of
	the observable failure of a plan that we were offered just a few months ago. While Biden declared
	that the world was at an inflection point, this is not because war is something new for the
	United States. On the contrary, America has been at war for more than 30 years and the
	countries which it's invaded, occupied, or bombed amount to a significant portion of the world's
	population. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, most of North Africa, Bosnia, Kosovo,
	Serbia.
	Sudan.
	What is new is the transformation of these wars into a more general conflict, or as Leon Trotsky described it on the eve of World War II, when separate clashes and bloody local disturbances must inevitably coalesce into a conflagration of world dimensions.
	Now don't be upset because Leon Trotsky has been mentioned.
	The analysis is the analysis.
	The contours of this new world war can be inferred from Biden's $100 billion bill.
	It is aimed at expanding the war against Russia, using the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to trigger a new war against Iran, and preparing for an imminent war against China.
	The US administration is shaping the battlefield of what amounts to one continuous front in a global conflict whose goal is US dominance of the Eurasian landmass from Eastern Europe through the Middle East, Central Asia, and ultimately China.
	This is combined with efforts to safeguard its western hemisphere backyard by militarizing the US-Mexico border and disposing of political inconveniences and potential obstacles like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.
	If this appears like a megalomaniac program for global conquest, It is not that it is not relevant to the megalomaniacs in Wall Street and the Pentagon for whom Biden speaks when he delivers his pay-ins to the ability of America to do anything as long as it mobilises its full resources.
	Biden even used the language of Wall Street in making his argument for the next enormous payout to the Pentagon and the US arms industry.
	It's a smart investment that's going to pay dividends for American security for generations.
	It's like dog whistle economics.
	American workers will pay with their living standards and social benefits and the lives of their sons and daughters, but war will certainly pay for Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, and for the big banks and hedge funds that control them.
	I suppose we have to consider that the economic implications and the economic language are telling as this might in part be an economically motivated set of decisions.
	Certainly the bundling together of a variety of conflicts on a variety of fronts that seem to each require their own complex analysis and a broad consensus from any population that might be funding them either financially or at the cost of their own lives or be afforded ultimately What's required, I suppose, is a state of awareness, a state of discernment, an ability to recognize that this language is the language of imperialism, the language of exploitation, rather than the language of patriotism and the language of a good deal for American people and supporting our partners overseas.
	It seems that embedded in this aid, which is being sold to us as helping partners across the world worthy of support because they're our fellow human beings, And it's difficult, isn't it?
	Knowing, as we do, that people in Congress went out and invested in stocks and shares during those days.
	Knowing the amount of money that's spent on lobbying and donations.
	Knowing that whoever you have in the White House, you're going to have a pro-war president with a few notable exceptions that don't, let's face it, do well at the hands of the establishment.
	It's pretty clear that the driving factor behind this is not a moral and ethical one.
	It's an Economic one.
	It's a hegemonic, almost demonic one of exploitation and opportunity.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	Thanks for watching ZigFox's videos.
	Good day.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news.
	Given the complexity of these various conflicts, does it seem wise to economically bundle them together?
	Thanks for commenting in the chat.
	Thanks for being with us.
	Thanks for having an inquiring mind and an awakening heart.
	Now to discuss Matters cardiovascular and also matters of plain veracity is Canadian journalist, and they're in short supply, let me tell you, Rav Arora, an independent journalist from Vancouver, co-writer of The Illusion of Consensus on Substack with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who we just adore.
	and love on this show, the kind of scientist that we should prize.
	I believe and I'm hopeful that Rav is the kind of journalist
	that we should prize because it's not all bad news. It's not just the Omnicrisis.
	There is dissent and resistance across the world. People are awakening
	everywhere. Rav Arora is an awakening wonder and a journalist who seems pretty determined to convey the
	truth. Thank you so much for joining us, Rav.
	Russell, it's a great honor to talk to you and great honor to meet the millions
	of awakening wonders, which I proudly consider myself to be one of those.
	So, great to be here.
	Thank you.
	Thank you so much for saying.
	Now, you're in Canada right now.
	You seem relatively free So far, but Canada does have new federal broadcast regulatory powers.
	A new mandate recently has been introduced that means that online streaming services, including podcast platforms, have to register with the government by November 28th, which is sort of astonishing what's being normalized and what's becoming acceptable.
	Rav, can you give us your perspective on that as both a journalist and as a Canadian?
	Yeah, so under the new regulations, the CRTC wants to regulate podcasting, just like in the past.
	And now it regulates radio and television.
	And so in the past, the idea has been that there's a finite limited amount of bandwidth in terms of what gets put out there in terms of TV, and radio.
	And it's really bizarre, honestly.
	It's like they want to apply these old archaic standards for a limited space on TV and radio
	to the internet, which is infinite.
	There's no finite number of podcasts or number of websites.
	It's an infinite realm.
	But they want to regulate this area, just like they've regulated TV and radio.
	And there's just problem after problem with this fundamentally.
	Their purported premise and their motivation, as they say, is to promote Canadian content creators and uplift and amplify Indigenous and minority creators.
	But the problem with that is that Many of these places, like Spotify, when they were asked to give feedback on this specific law in July, they said, we're already doing a lot to promote Canadian creators and minority creators.
	They said, like, if you go into our playlist, you'll find dozens of playlists for LGBTQ artists and for indigenous artists and for Indian Punjabi artists, which I reckon, Russell, you might be into some Indian panga music, although I don't know, you seem more like a Hindu.
	A Hindu enthusiast, I don't know.
	My heart is open to all forms of expression of the great oneness that we call God, or Allah, or Christ Consciousness, or Buddha Consciousness, or the Supreme Personality of the Godhead.
	So you're right about that.
	It's almost listening to you there, Rav.
	It feels like, first of all, they come up with the objective and then work out how to legitimize it, i.e.
	The objective is to censor, control and monitor content to gain direct access to even the
	audience of the podcast, not just the content creators themselves.
	And then they go, how would we legitimise that?
	And I think this kind of reverse engineering is becoming more and more prevalent in policy
	formation, particularly that kind of policy formation that we see within globalism.
	Does that seem right to you?
	That it's not really about promoting Canadian content or promoting voices that might otherwise not be heard, but it's about the ability to censor.
	And if that is your belief, Rav, can you help us to understand it?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, you know, there's so many layers to this, but it's like, why do we need to promote Canadian content?
	I mean, the reality is, in fact, that Canadian media is dying.
	People don't really listen to the CBC and the Globe and Mail, Global News, etc.
	Like, you ask the average 25-year-old guy or gal, like, name, you know, two anchors on CBC or name one journalist writing for the Globe and Mail, and they'll just look at you like deer in the headlights, like, No, I don't fucking know.
	You ask those people, you know, name the last 15 episodes on Joe Rogan's podcast or name, you know, talk about what Russell Brand was saying last week and they'll be able to tell you.
	And it's like this crisis here in Canada where Canadian legacy media is dying.
	The Trudeau government wants to come in and they want to help Canadian media as well as artists.
	But it's like, you know, why do we need help in the first place?
	It's like, maybe we should look in the mirror and see why Canadian journalism is just absolutely failing compared to like, if you go on Substack, there's some individual authors like Alex Berenson, making like $2 million a year on their individual newsletter.
	And here in Canada, you have legacy media outlet after legacy media outlet that's failing.
	And I think in part because they haven't been honestly and accurately covering a lot of important controversial subjects and actually fighting power with truth and actually engaging in the kind of journalism that, you know, I always thought was real journalism, but increasingly so, they've failed to hold the powerful accountable.
	And they're kind of focusing on niche, elite issues, you know, identity politics, like the gender ideology stuff.
	And that's another concern too, by the way, with this bill is like the CRTC, this federal regulator, who is going to be in power now to regulate podcasts, it has a history of catering to sort of social justice ideas and censoring in the name of diversity and inclusion and love.
	Like in the past, the CRTC, a few years ago, They forced the CBC, which hosts this one podcast, or this one radio program rather, where the hosts, this was in French, they talked about this one case in Montreal of a professor who was under fire for saying the n-word in his class when naming the title of this historical Canadian book, and he was not saying it in a racist way, neither were the hosts of this radio program, but the CRTC said, hey,
	We know you're not being racist, but we think that this may adversely impact minority communities.
	So we would like to see you like, we need you, the CBC who platforms a radio program
	to force this particular program to apologize and to show that they're gonna, you know,
	reform the way that they do things.
	And it's like, whatever your view on this particular issue with the N word, it doesn't
	it doesn't matter at all.
	But in the future, if this is what they're doing, what are they going to do next?
	Are they going to say, you know, this podcast, Rav Arora, this Canadian guy who does this
	podcast with Jay Bhattacharya, what they're saying is actually, actually medically misinformed,
	and it's misinformation, and it's dangerous.
	It goes against the guidelines on vaccines and masks.
	Therefore, we force you, Spotify, to censor Ravarora because this goes against the CRTC guidelines.
	What I've noticed again and again, Rav, is the utilisation of moral and ethical positions that seem to me to be pretty sensible, i.e.
	we shouldn't use hateful speech, we shouldn't hurt or undermine one another, there shouldn't be exploitative or violent language used.
	But we have laws for those matters.
	Those things are illegal socially and legally already.
	What I know is that there is an attempt to utilise principles that any sensitive person
	would be open to discussing and consensually achieving within a culture and a society to
	enforce further censorship.
	I like that you said inclusion, love and diversity was the mantra but it seems more like centralisation
	and authoritarianism is the actual goal.
	And even the conflation of Canadian, it doesn't mean Canadian as in, you know, in a sense there's a big paradox they're going to come clunking up against there, because what is it to be Canadian?
	Is it the indigenous people of Canada that were there prior to imperialism and colonization?
	Is it French Canadians?
	Is it Canadians from a variety of states and backgrounds and races and cultures?
	Or is it Centralised Canadian broadcast authorities that will amplify the message of the establishment and ignore the message of independent creators such as yourself.
	And another N-word, and certainly it's not a word that I would ever use in any context, but an N-word that should be on the lips of any Canadian politician is the word Nazi.
	Where they've been somewhat indiscreet in recent months, applauding a Nazi right in the heart of Parliament.
	So it seems that there's a common pattern within apparently liberal, but more correctly described as neoliberal governments across the world, to use language of sensitivity and kindness to legitimise authority.
	You have to give us this authority so that we can protect these people.
	I don't see enough evidence that they're concerned in protecting anyone, and I see plenty of evidence they're interested in the assertion of control.
	Does that seem fair to you, Raz?
	Yes.
	Yes, yeah, the other technical and institutional point I'll make is that the CRTC, they follow the Broadcasting Act here in Canada, which now if it's going to include podcasts, that means the CRTC is going to impose the Broadcasting Act guidelines, which explicitly say, as I pointed out in my article on Substack, The Broadcasting Act says all your content and your programming has to reflect and amplify the sexual, gender, racial, ethnic diversity of Canada.
	And for me, if you had said that 10 years ago or 5 years ago, I would have been like, oh great!
	Brown people like myself, we're going to be promoted and amplified, that's great, that's amazing.
	It's like, we know what that looks like.
	We've seen this in the past.
	We know that, you know, certain minority voices are uplifted and others are ignored.
	You have to be a certain kind of minority voice and follow a certain kind of perspective.
	And, you know, with this, with these podcast regulations, The question is, are they actually going to then amplify diversity of views?
	Or are they just going to centralize and just kind of stifle free speech and not actually account for just the vast pluralism here in Canada?
	Like we just had protests across Canada, groups of parents protesting gender ideology
	being taught to their elementary school kids and middle school kids about you can change your gender,
	you can be non-binary, you experiment with their sexuality, et cetera, et cetera.
	And a lot of these protests, by the way, were led by Muslim parents.
	And it's like, you know, these people are of a diversity of a minority background.
	They have their own perspective from their own Eastern values rooted in Islam.
	It's like, is the CRTC going to amplify Muslim podcasters voicing their opposition to this, you know, LGBTQ ideology, which they themselves, by the way, This is super interesting.
	They themselves, these Canadian Muslim protesters, say this LGBTQ ideology is actually Islamophobic.
	And it's like, we're in this weird place here in Canada where, like, Justin Trudeau, a few years ago, he was opening the doors, like, open doors to immigration.
	We can bring in all the refugees from the Islamic world.
	And some people were, you know, rightly, you know, saying like, okay, can we have an honest conversation about which kind of values matter to us and if we should vet immigration and allow people that, you know, believe in gay rights, women rights, etc.
	And Trudeau was like, no, no, those people are racist, they're Islamophobic, you know, we got to let in everyone and that conversation was not had.
	But now, a lot of people here in Canada, including some of those Muslim, you know, immigrants and refugees that he brought in, now are actually critical of Justin Trudeau's You know, public pronouncements and supports for 2SLGBTQ.
	He tripped up on this recently, the acronym, and forgot how many letters there are in the acronym.
	But it's like, there's this identity politics divide, and increasingly, as they gain more and more power, Canadians like myself are worried what they're going to do with this, because in the past, they've shown their record for abiding by certain social justice pieties and not actually respecting and valuing a diversity of opinion.
	And so, this particular law, I think, is This kind of hubristic regulatory nationalism with these kind of undertones of socialism of like, we have to engineer these perfect outcomes and we have to amplify and spotlight Canadian content creators as if that's at all needed.
	Like, the best idea should win.
	People should listen to Russell Brand's podcast if they want.
	They should listen to the CBC if they want.
	And if the CBC and Canadian media is dying, then maybe they should look in the mirror and figure out why they're dying and why so many people are listening to Joe Rogan and Russell Brand instead.
	Thank you.
	That's a wonderful answer that had some good promo for me in it, which we can, I think, use worldwide.
	Potentially not in Canada, though.
	Hey, mate, so yeah, I wanted to say that you'll always end up in kind of paradoxical places if you lack real values and principles.
	And in a sense, it points to the dilemma that you just outlined, the necessity for decentralization.
	It shows that, in effect, the flow, the general natural flow, and given what we discussed before our interview about your beliefs and interests, at least, in Hinduism and Buddhism, That if indeed there is a sort of flow in the general direction, as if there is a will that's being expressed beyond the will of the political class, that is towards, I believe, increasing diversity, increasing decentralization.
	And if you don't honour and respect that through the models of power and systems that you appoint, you'll end up in the ludicrous situation where people that have perfectly legitimate views based on Islam, with which they would like to regulate their community, or perfectly legitimate views based on more modern ideas around gender, which they would like to use to regulate their community, have to find a way of being governed together.
	In a sense, it's obvious.
	But what the new technology allows us to replicate is the actual kind of organic diversity that our species evidently lived with for a long, long, long time, historically and prehistorically.
	The idea of homogenizing, creating a universal and oppressive set of values that mean that people with religious and cultural beliefs that are at odds with one another have to either live in tension, which by the way is conveniently Very beneficial for centralised power.
	We'll either be at loggerheads, or one side will have to oppress or repress the other side, instead of accepting, oh look, why don't this community do what they want to do, and this community do what they want to do, and this community listen to media that's useful for them, and this community listen to media that's useful for them.
	That only becomes a problem if you have a goal to centralise authority even beyond the nation.
	Even if when you start thinking you want unelected bodies to be able to take revenue for taxation essentially from individual nations and impose policy.
	I'm referring to the WHO's pandemic treaty that will provide exactly those kind of powers to the WHO for any member nation.
	I wonder if you're Familiar with that and the advance of that, and if you think this is a good time in the conversation to fold that in, Rav, because we can still talk about censorship while folding in where do these ideas come from.
	For example, on YouTube, many of their censorship policies, and I love the platform and I love how it elevated many of our ideas, but their policies, as you know, when it comes to community guidelines for all medical matters, are now derived from the WHO, which has, let's say, a complex funding model.
	Yes, yeah, yeah.
	I totally agree with you.
	I think the WH... There's a lot of what you just said there.
	I mean, there's the point about the cultural values, which I know we're not going to focus on.
	We could spend hours on that conversation.
	I think we need to have our own individual communities and have some sort of universal values and kind of, you know, come together with a certain kind of respect for, you know, women's rights, gay rights, liberalism, free speech, Diversity of opinion, religious diversity, and I think far too common in the past certain progressives and liberals have just not wanted to have a conversation about universal values.
	And now across Canada, you know, you saw certain kind of protests, you know, Right in the aftermath of what happened with Israel and Palestine, you saw a lot of pro-Palestinian protests, which I actually defended, by the way, because there was a conservative politician in Canada that was coming down and saying these protests should be illegal and telling the RCMP, the police organizations in Canada, that there are pro-Palestinian protests that are coming in and they should be stopped at all costs because this is illegal.
	And I pointed out in one of my recent articles that that should not happen.
	We should have people um have their own views even if you disagree with them and particularly when you disagree with them because a lot of these protests that was organized by this one particular organization the pro-Palestinian youth movement they were sort of glorifying and celebrating Hamas as these resistance fighters and nowhere in their advertisement for these protests right a day two days right after what happened in Israel was there any condemnation of Hamas and for me it was like
	Okay, these ideas I totally disagree with, and these people, regardless of your views on how the war should go on and what our policy should be, these people are unable to condemn Hamas, and we've seen this time and time again on the progressive left, but their free speech should not be taken, and any politicians that are coming down and saying, you're wrong, we disagree with you, Your protest should be illegal.
	That to me is a step way too far and down the spiral of tyrannical power and authoritarianism that has been way too way too common and just alarmingly salient over the past few years with what's what's what happened with COVID with the truckers convoy where bank accounts were frozen where You know, you had the wrong opinion on COVID and suddenly we're using emergency powers for the first time in our history over people celebrating and having a good time in opposition to vaccine mandates, which, by the way, that's how I got into writing a lot about the COVID issues, was about suddenly people like myself who immigrated from India
	Suddenly we couldn't leave the country.
	I couldn't exercise at a gym or attend large gatherings or weddings because I chose not to get this experimental vaccine that was associated with a certain kind of side effect profile.
	And I think, you know, it's but it's that same idea, Russell, that we talked about is like diversity, inclusion and safety and keeping people safe and You know, caring about their lives and their health.
	It's like all these things, this vaccine mandates and mask mandates and lockdowns and now regulation of social media and internet has been in the guise of helping people and really caring for them.
	And this is where this is so interesting and kind of misleading and people that are just Kind of doing the surface level analysis, which, you know, if I was working, you know, a daily job nine to five and had kids and was reading the CBC, I might be one of those people too and be like, okay, masks help people, vaccines help people.
	Of course, let's mandate them.
	Like, yeah, like we want to save lives.
	Of course, let's regulate the internet and stop misinformation and uplift minority creators and creators of indigenous and ethnic minority backgrounds, of course.
	But underneath that, you know, it's that kind of mentality that we saw, we've seen in so many socialist and communist countries like in North Korea, the tyrannical leaders at the time coming in, you know, decades ago and saying, we'll take over your land, and we'll make sure to feed you, we'll make sure you're protected and safe and well fed.
	And you know, farmers give up their land.
	And now we're in North Korea, where there's mass starvation, censorship, centralization of authority.
	It's like all these things, as much as I don't want to sound apocalyptic or hyperbolic in any way at all, and you know, be this guy who's like, the government's going to come down and, you know, come to your door with guns and vaccinate you.
	Like, I do not want to paint this dystopian picture at all.
	But increasingly, no matter what I want to think, I've been forced to just be deeply pessimistic and critical of how my government here in Canada and across the West has increasingly moved towards censorship and just violating our core rights of bodily autonomy, which medicines we take, which perspectives we have, and, you know, how we educate our children and kind of, again, those universal values of how we come together and not forcing down, you know, gender ideology and, you know,
	other views on vaccines or big pharma that all of us can can come together and actually have a shared understanding of okay you know you don't want to take the vaccine that's fine you want to take the vaccine that's great but we don't want to mandate and you know coercively implement these these measures from a in a top-down way where suddenly people are losing jobs over medical decisions that they're making with their own bodies i mean it's it's completely insane Yes, it's insidious to pretend that it is safety and security that motivates these measures.
	And similarly, I was reflecting then, Rav, when you were speaking, on a broader scale, the phenomena of nationalism.
	An affinity with a patriotic connection to the nation that you're from would have been cultivated, in fact inculcated, over generations.
	It's not a natural phenomena to affiliate your personality and your personhood with, in some cases, an arbitrary piece of landmass.
	At least I'm from an island, for God's sake.
	So, that had to be taught.
	People, of course, have tribal connections to one another, and totemic connections to the land that sustains them.
	Hopefully, and ideally, a sacred connection.
	Over time, this was mapped onto a broader idea of, you're from this country.
	And then, what we are currently calling a Schmittian dialectic, based on, I think, Carl Schmitt's Enforcement of the idea that in order to bring people together and unify them, it's helpful to have a group of that is othered, regarded as the outsider group.
	Over time, we're taught to be patriotic towards the England or Scotland or France or the USA or Canada or Sri Lanka or wherever without reminding ourselves often enough That these are conceptual entities that don't actually exist other than as a set of legislature, a flag, a landmass, and the faith and belief of the people themselves.
	Then, when it's convenient to suggest, oh, these countries actually only exist in this way, and these countries mean this, and You should be open.
	You should open your borders now, or this country that was once regarded as an enemy very strongly, now you must regard as a friend, or this country that you regarded as a friend you must now regard as an enemy.
	some interesting concepts are churning around and the only consistency is, as far as I can
	see, is that across history these ideas are exploited by people that are in an advanced
	position or at least an advantageous position within the establishment and then they just
	utilise these feelings of either alliance or disharmony according to whatever the agenda
	is at that particular time. There are no actual principles like democracy, self-governance,
	ability to control your own life, to participate in your own community.
	Your government exists as an entity of service not an entity of dominion.
	When you're dealing with your government, you should be talking to a transparent entity
	that exists only in your service, whether it's law enforcement, and when it comes to
	media, well, your media should be accountable, investigative, investigate in matters that
	are meaningful when it comes to power.
	What you have is a media that amplifies the agenda of the powerful and normalises the
	agenda of the powerful.
	We're all going to be locked in our homes now.
	We're all taking this medication now.
	These robots are doing these jobs now.
	We're militarizing the police now.
	This type of protest is illegal now.
	They don't ever question or oppose.
	They just echo the messaging of the powerful.
	So independent media finds itself right at the nexus of some pretty important conversations because in a way it's unavoidable if you're working in independent media either as a print journalist like yourself, and I know you do other media as well, notably with Jay, Or, whether you're a broadcast or streaming media person like myself and our organisation here, you recognise that in the end what you're doing is political because there's a set of interests that are trying to maintain the centralised model of a century ago, or at least 50 years ago, that's becoming obsolete.
	The technology actually exists now that you don't need to argue with someone about whether or not you believe in this type of gender ideology or this type of
	religious ideology or whether to take a medicine or not take a medicine
	is unnecessary except in so much as it affords the ability to control and shut down dissent
	and essentially assert control that would otherwise be unthinkable.
	Yeah, I'm so glad you said that because this light bulb just went off for me.
	It's like, here in Canada, you know, exactly what you just said, the fact that there's independent media, there's podcasters, there's sub stack newsletters, there's people just becoming, you know, journalists on the spot and giving their hot takes.
	I mean, there's problems with that too.
	And people like Sam Harris are particularly worried about that problem of misinformation and people, you know, saying the vaccines are killing everyone and there's 5g and Get in there, Rav.
	not trusting anything coming out of media ever and they're skeptical of you know there's all sorts
	of problems with conspiracy theory and people not believing anything and never taking any other
	vaccine ever again like sure but this is seen as a threat to the people in power is that there is
	independent media that there are people like rav rora and russell brand if i can fancy a comparison
	with myself to you get in there rav we're all in this together now mate am i allowed yes
	Yes, for sure.
	Yeah, perfect.
	But it's like, this is seen as so dangerous to these people that otherwise it makes no sense.
	It's like, it's like in the US, like suddenly Biden says, okay, I got, let's pay the New York Times.
	Let's, you know, figure out ways to further fund and, you know, impose these bills.
	Like we had Bill C-11 here in Canada, or rather Bill C-18, where the government tried to force Social media companies to pay this essentially 4% tax fee to media outlets here in Canada for airing their, you know, their articles and their coverage.
	And Instagram and Meta said, no, we're already giving you this free service.
	You know, the Globe and Mail, the CBC, Global News here in Canada.
	They're already getting millions and millions of views and generating so much revenue from our services.
	We're not going to, you know, pay them back for using our own And as a result of that, which is totally predictable, Canadians can no longer access any media source, American or Canadian, on Instagram and Facebook.
	Like, literally, if you go on Instagram or Meta right now, if you go on CBC or New York Times, it'll say, unable to be viewed by Canadian users.
	And it's a complete disaster.
	But this has happened because this free reign, this diversity of opinion, really, of people questioning the government, questioning these pharmaceutical and biomedical spurious measures and being critical of the censorship regime, that
	poses a real risk to those in power and they want to clamp down and they want to regulate
	it.
	And that's why I feel like underlying all these ideas and measures is this view of,
	yeah, let's go back to the 1960s and try to regulate podcasts as if this is something
	that we can regulate like we did several decades ago.
	It's like, no, no, you just be honest and transparent and your ideas will win, right?
	Rav Arora, you know, I was never An anti-vaxxer.
	I never cared about vaccines.
	I took all the vaccines before.
	I remember in like grade 12 high school, the flu shot was available.
	I called my mom, said, oh, the flu shot's here.
	Can I go get it?
	She's like, yeah, OK, great.
	Got the flu shot.
	But suddenly, I'm now critical of the Trudeau government and skeptical of these measures being forced down our throats without transparency, without an honest conversation about side effects and risks.
	And the solution to that isn't that you regulate or censor me here in Canada.
	And by the way, I'll just say, like, I'm genuinely actually kind of worried for what's going to happen because my podcast with Jay, The Illusion of Consensus, I'm the sole proprietor of that.
	So the podcast is Canada-based, even though, you know, Jay collaborates with me and he's in Stanford in the US.
	And so, you know, what's going to happen in the future is my podcast is going to be De-amplified or de-boosted because it promotes medical misinformation because we talk a lot about big pharma and about some of the concerns around mRNA vaccines and kind of what the state has recommended in terms of public health but it's like this is kind of where we're going is that people who have these free opinions who are able to voice these expressions and be critical of the government this is seen as a dangerous threat and rather than actually you know taking a look and
	Engaging in self-reflection of like, okay, what did we do wrong?
	We promised a vaccine that would stop transmission and it actually didn't.
	We forced Canadians to stay at home and they couldn't leave their countries.
	Maybe we shouldn't do that anymore.
	And then maybe the journalists should actually do the job of actually covering those issues honestly, so that you don't need people like myself.
	I can pat myself on the back all day long for being, you know, reasonable, interesting and, you know, whatever, good writer, compelling journalist or whatever.
	But it's like, the reason why I've been successful at this young age and why I've carved out my own kind of niche here in Canadian media is because there isn't enough Honest coverage in the CBC and the Globe and Mail.
	There aren't enough people like myself writing about vaccine side effects and just the absurdity of mandating vaccines and forcing people out of their jobs, right?
	If we had a reliable, honest media, there isn't a job for someone like me to come talk to you and have my own publication that people read.
	There's no point of that, right?
	But because there's such broad, sweeping, systemic failure across government, pharma, public health, media, And just the way we are organizing our society and approaching information, that's why I think we're seeing this distrust in government and this, on the other hand, rise in independent media platforms like yours.
	Well done, Rav.
	It's the natural flow of history.
	It's the natural flow of revolution.
	And I think that you're a wonderful part of it and you're such a brilliant Thanks for all of your kind words.
	Will you join us for another five minutes in our locals community with our awakened wonders there, where we can ask a little bit about their trucker protest and how we're going to bind together, unified but truly diverse, centralised but together, to oppose this apparent attempt to create centralised authoritarian forces.
	Will you join us for a few minutes?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Nice one.
	Thanks, Rav.
	OK, so listen, if you're watching this now on Rumble, you can read Rav's work by going to the Illusion of Consensus on Substack.
	I recommend it very, very strongly.
	On tomorrow's show, we've got Dr. Bob Gill talking about a corporate power grab in health care.
	I love talking to Dr. Bob Gill.
	He's an old school family doctor that has awoken to the problems of corporatism and institutional healthcare based on profiteering.
	You're going to love that conversation.
	You're not going to want to miss it.
	Click the red button to join me now for a little bit more chat with our friend Rav.
	Also, meditations, readings, discussions on how to change the world together off Good to go!

▲