Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 13, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

02:03:30

BOMBSHELL REVELATION W.H.O Gets Immunity From Committing WHAT?! - Stay Free #244

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm not sure if it's a good idea to do this, but I'm going to try to get as much of the
	video as possible.
	I'm going to try to get as much of the video as possible.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wanderers.
	Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand, where we've got so much information that's likely to awaken you and arm you with the necessary tools to cope with a world that seems to sway between various crises, that wants you dumb, that wants you distracted, that wants you numb.
	I got distracted because my dog just sort of coiled out of the room, the peculiar guy.
	Thanks all of you that join us on rumble like authoritative conclusions like Gabrielle like luaram
	I'm watching all of you guys if you want you can join our locals community
	There's loads of you there like sensitive hearts 25 jumping Jeff sue biz 22 primal Colin 2 because you get more
	Access to the kind of tools we're going to need to reorganize reality as we approach some kind of apex experience
	I don't know what tradition you're into.
	I don't know what scripture you're reading.
	I don't know what monotheistic or pantheistic or pagan faith you're leaning into in these end times where the material world is clearly cracking and crumbling.
	But you're going to need some divine light to get you through this.
	I know I do.
	And that's why later today we're going to be speaking to Dave Martin.
	Surely you saw Dave Martin address the EU where he hit on his home truths right at the beginning of this pandemic, where he first posed, and we're still on YouTube right now, so I'll be disciplined in the manner in which I convey this information, but he confronted them with some truth around lockdown measures, medical measures, things that you've
	known about for a long time.
	You were ahead of the curve. You've known for a long while something wasn't right. You sensed it.
	Your intuition was correct. You researched it. And now we're a little further along the path.
	Well, Dave Martin, he's got information that is going to, I would say, well, a lot of it's
	Some of the things he says about the WHO, the way that it was founded, you can back this up with incredible research, it's gonna astonish you, I think, but I'm gonna wait for Dave to convey it.
	We've got an incredible article about the AstraZeneca vaccine's defective status.
	Once we're off YouTube, we're gonna be a lot more free.
	Now, I want to talk to you today about the spectacle of contemporary politics.
	I want to talk to you today about the spectacle of legacy media.
	Where do you think this fits into the spectacular?
	You've already surely seen Trump attending UFC with Tucker like it's sort of like a supergroup, like it's cream.
	There's Trump.
	There's Tucker.
	There's Dana White.
	There's Kid Rock, it's Gideon, but there are more than one type of spectacle.
	Observe this.
	Let me know how it makes you feel.
	Let me know how it makes you feel about democracy.
	Press 1 if it makes you feel optimistic for the future of America or 2 if it makes you feel concerned.
	And then we're going to show you how the other side conveyed their propaganda.
	Jen Psaki in particular on MSNBC.
	Let's have a look at Trump Tucker et al.
	Way into the building.
	One of the bigger Mixed Martial Arts fans I know, President Donald Trump, taking his Octagon side seat for UFC 295.
	We got two title fights coming up at UFC 295 here in a matter of moments.
	Live from Madison Square Garden, and president trump will be here to witness all of it four
	of the very best fighters in the world set to take their cracks and light heavyweight and interim
	heavyweight gold respectively we move over to pay per view shortly thank y'all for being
	here for the pre-run coverage but as you know uh it's extraordinary
	There's a lot of intensity unfolding there.
	How do you feel about that?
	A lot of you pressing one, a lot of you pressing two.
	Yeah, it's astonishing, right?
	And I feel like the detractors of Trump and those that see this new emergent form of populism that's taking form in a pejorative way will say, well, look at this.
	It's sort of outrageous.
	It's bread and circuses.
	But when you look at the... Which member of the Justice League would you be?
	I don't know.
	I mean, I find Batman alluring.
	Always have.
	I feel like, look at the way that propaganda works within the metropolitan establishment elite.
	This is Jen Psaki.
	You know Jen Psaki.
	She was formerly a White House press secretary and spokesperson, but then she made a massive career distraction and change.
	You okay there?
	You okay, Ashela, in the chat?
	You all right, you lot?
	I'm watching you.
	We're so sick of Biden destroying our country, says Big Mama Time, USA Now.
	I'm watching you guys.
	Have a look at the way that they convey propaganda, the things that they say and the questions that they don't ask.
	This is fascinating.
	And yet, the hand-wringing and cocktail-party speculation about an alternative to Joe Biden is continuing.
	Will continue.
	Guess what?
	Joe Biden isn't perfect.
	No candidate.
	Not perfect.
	That's the concession.
	After the mad anecdotes, the fist bumps with Saudi Arabian leaders that were going to be condemned as pariahs, the building, the wall that was condemned, the mitigated and mealy-mouthed big pharma deal.
	Not perfect.
	It is, by the way.
	But we have to understand what the alternative is here.
	If elected to a second term, Donald Trump would prosecute anyone he deems an enemy.
	Unleash troops.
	Is there some sort of prosecution of Trump going on right now?
	Of course, Trump's perspective of what's happening with his ongoing, not indictments, but his ongoing, uh, like a, like, yeah, indictments is that that is politically motivated.
	A lot of you feel that that's politically motivated.
	So, I suppose that what Jen Psaki is advocating for is not easy because it doesn't seem like we live in a particularly valid and transparent and open state.
	There is so much corruption.
	There is so much despair.
	And when I don't see people Honor it, or even own it, or be open about it.
	I think, oh no, how can we trust these people?
	How can we trust them at all?
	Look at the two types of spectacle.
	One, loud and extraordinary and vivid.
	The other, kind of intellectual, somewhat, uh, what do I want to say?
	Kind of offered to you in bespoke media terms.
	It's on protesters, and essentially unravel the rule of law as we know it.
	And this time, he plans to align his administration with people who will actually help him do it.
	Why wouldn't you have done that in the first place?
	But sure, Joe Biden is three years older and occasionally trips over things.
	Look, there's a lot to be concerned about right now when it comes to a second Trump term.
	The speeches are getting much more disturbing and much more unhinged and we should all hear it that way.
	Right.
	OK, now this is where it starts to advance and the kind of Putin comparisons begin to increase, where Trump in particular is conveyed as a dictator and as a tyrant.
	But you have to look at the last couple of years and the extraordinary misleading and contradictory policies that played out.
	When he said this week, if they're beating me, go down and indict them, and some of the pronouncements he's made over the weekend, I've heard that as kind of his authoritarian impulses getting worse.
	How do you hear them?
	Well, the role of the government, in his view, is to advance his political fortunes and destroy his political enemies.
	That's odd.
	That's a very sweeping and powerful statement.
	What does second term look like?
	It would look a lot like Vladimir Putin in Russia.
	It would look a lot like Viktor Orban in Hungary.
	Illiberal democracy, meaning democracy without rights or liberties or respect for the due process system, the rule of law.
	And in fact, there's not much democracy left to it because their position is that They don't accept the integrity of any election where they lose.
	But that also seems to be true of both sides.
	It's a hallmark of an authoritarian party.
	They don't accept elections that don't go their ways.
	They refuse to disavow political violence.
	They embrace political violence as an instrument for obtaining power.
	And then everything flows from the will of a charismatic politician, and that is Donald Trump.
	in their book. So we're clearly headed into a completely different form of government
	than any of us would recognize as continuous with the past.
	Right-wing authoritarian government in league with Putin, Xi, Orban, Bolsonaro, you name it.
	This spectacle is presented to you as verifiable truth, as academic, as considered
	But what you're witnessing, I would offer you, is every bit as hyperbolic and bombastic as seeing Donald Trump and Tucker rolling out of the UFC.
	That might engender feelings of excitement and power.
	This might engender feelings of condescension.
	But in either case, there's a kind of reductivism that Prevent you, I think, from looking at the full fact.
	But this is where this gets extraordinary.
	Have a look.
	Also Nara, she and Orban, and those are some serious authoritarian dictators out there,
	but they're people.
	It sounds like you're saying people should look at if they're wondering what a second
	term term would look like.
	Those are the people that Donald Trump and his family do business with.
	Remember, his son-in-law brought back $2 billion from Saudi Arabia from.
	This was an investigative interview.
	If Jen Psaki now was asking this, this congressman legit question, she would say, yeah, but what
	What about the Biden family and Hunter Biden?
	The fact that that question is not asked shows you that even though this might Seamless like propaganda on the surface.
	It's complete propaganda.
	The information that's presented to you, the information that's excluded.
	Extraordinary.
	You guys on locals, is the stream sorted out now?
	You're still struggling and we're watching you.
	I see that you're having a little trouble with that stream.
	Mohammed bin Salman, he pocketed that after four years of rendering favours to Saudi Arabia, including covering up the assassination, dismemberment, drawing and quartering of a Saudi American journalist.
	Of course, like Biden, subsequently went on to do massive deals with Saudi Arabia.
	So there's a complete lack of consistency.
	There are no reliable principles.
	I suppose much of my despair about our current political system is derived from the observation that there seems to be a lack of consistent principles everywhere.
	If you believe in free speech, it's got to be the free speech of the people you oppose.
	Have you noticed that Well, in the last couple of years, we've had a lot of censorship around Covid, a lot of censorship around Ukraine.
	I would say that's broadly coming from the left.
	Now we're beginning to see calls for censorship when it comes to the Middle Eastern conflict.
	If you believe in free speech, isn't that an absolute principle?
	Tell me, is free speech an absolute principle?
	One, or are there some instances where you shouldn't have free speech?
	Say two for that.
	One, if you believe in absolute free speech.
	Two, if you think there are some situations where free speech should be banned.
	Now look, in on locals there, in our AwakendWonder community, that you can become a member of and you can see early conversations like our chat with Alex Jones, which is... I'm still putting me back together after that conversation.
	That's up already in our locals community. You can join us live
	for a lot of conversations there and ones all over Rumble as well. We seem to believe in
	free speech 100% and absolutely.
	And I guess that's how principles work. A little shout out for Bad Graphics Jack. Oh god, I'm gonna
	miss that guy. Let's see the end of this clip though. The Washington Post and rendering all
	kinds of favors to Saudi Arabia.
	Well, multiply that times every authoritarian despot on earth and that's what we're getting with Donald Trump because they've made relationships with every autocratic, plutocratic, kleptocratic regime on earth.
	Biden sells weapons to 57% of the world's dubbed autocratic nations.
	It's extraordinary to watch this kind of discourse.
	Now, I've not watched it, but I can imagine a legacy media outlet seeing Trump appearing at the UFC with Tucker and saying, oh my God, look at this sort of bombast.
	It's like Nuremberg.
	It's ridiculous.
	But look at their propaganda.
	Look at how particular, how abstract, how much denial there is here.
	Don't put that on the screen over there, darlings.
	That's a very distracting thing.
	You're trying to boot up locals again, are you?
	Yeah, we're back on locals.
	That's fantastic.
	Thank you very much.
	This idea, this motif, this modality of presenting a reality
	that is distracting, untrue, and illegitimate, and I'm so encouraged by the way that all of you
	basically pressed one, is like you see it throughout legacy media,
	and you see it throughout political life.
	President Xi was visiting San Francisco.
	Did you know that?
	And they just got rid of the homeless.
	They cleansed San Francisco.
	Anyone who's been to San Francisco knows there's a pretty serious homelessness problem.
	Have a look at this before and after shot.
	Okay so look that's like an area where there's like a homeless encampment and you know maybe we need to have a little conversation about that that's sort of about American infrastructure and American resources and American expenditure on foreign wars when it seems that domestically there are some pretty Serious problems.
	I wonder how many of the people in those tents are former veterans.
	I wonder how many of the people in those tents have mental health issues and addiction issues that can't be addressed because of a lack of infrastructure that's being filtered through the military-industrial complex, which requires forever wars to legitimize them.
	Now, let me know how you feel about that.
	Would you rather see American infrastructure improved or would you rather see the perpetuation of these forever wars?
	One, for spend it in America.
	Two, for spend it abroad.
	Let's have a while you're doing that, while you're letting me know, let's have a look at how the legacy media report on this homelessness issue and the extraordinary phenomena of cleansing homeless folk from the streets just for a state visit rather than, you know, doing it more deliberately and permanently.
	While San Francisco is in the spotlight for the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference, city leaders are making sure the city shines.
	Tourism is our business here in San Francisco and we need to focus on making sure that the... I'm doing my part.
	I got this feather in my hat that's gonna draw in a few tourists and maybe one or two homeless guys could shelter under the brim.
	Tourist dollars still come back.
	Caltrans repaving major roadways like the Harrison Street off-ramp from the I-80.
	BART doubling down by deep cleaning their stations overnight more often.
	The city had gotten a little bit dingy.
	Even the idea that tourism actually is how a city or a location generates its revenue is yielding to the idea that spectacle precedes reality.
	It's a place that you visit, it's not a place that you live in.
	I understand the necessary economics of the tourist industry, I know that, but doesn't it sort of tell you that primarily a place is to be observed and no one cares in reality?
	Scrubbing and power washing is happening all over the city.
	Yeah, the bottom of my shoes look clean.
	the political spectrum all of you would rather see money, your tax dollars spent in the United States
	rather than you know perpetuating forever wars and I guess there should be some sort of referendum
	on that. Over time scrubbing and power washing is happening all over the city. Yeah the bottom of my
	shoes look clean. It's noticeable how clear the streets look and how few homeless encampments
	there are on major thoroughfares. Having been a long-time resident in the Bay Area you just
	naturally start to wonder of like houseless folks being displaced.
	Public Works is installing decorative crosswalks in North Beach and Chinatown.
	And the Webster Street pedestrian bridge... It's odd, isn't it?
	You sort of decorate in the surface of something, while deep down it is being eroded and falling apart.
	They're just sort of slightly further out.
	They've just pushed them right.
	This is where the visit will be.
	This is where the presidential motorcade will go for President Xi.
	Put them over there!
	Put a homeless person, paint that homeless person so they look like a crosswalk.
	The gardens at the Moscone Center are decked out with new colorful landscaping and murals
	paid for by the Clean California Grant. Just in time for the 20,000 high-profile CEOs and
	heads of state coming. For a moment, occasionally, do you glimpse a world where it's not about murals?
	Do you see a world where people that have lost their ability to support themselves are retrained, reintroduced to dignity, able to contribute to community?
	Are you able to imagine a world where democracy becomes localised, accessible, where your individuality is regarded and respected as divine?
	Therefore, diffusing all of the numerous, ongoing, endless cultural arguments about how you want to identify, how you want to be seen, that whether you've got a traditional or progressive identity, it's your business and it's up to you that you have local democracy.
	Do you see how the more that we centralise power, the more that we censor and surveil, the more that power coalesces in unelected organisations that straddle the globe like Goliaths?
	I'm talking about your WHO.
	New treaty coming.
	WEF.
	How's that thing funded?
	IMF.
	All of these things are taking your power and in many cases your tax dollars and certainly they are funneling down to you through their fellows, through their friends, through their affiliates.
	You know, are you astonished by how many political figures have ties with the WF?
	Do you know how many it is?
	It's just like all of them more or less.
	Like David Cameron, he used to be Prime Minister in our country.
	Rishi Sunak, he's Prime Minister now.
	Your man Justin Trudeau.
	Who I know you guys love and don't question who his father might be.
	I know you love him.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, we're only going to be on YouTube for a few more minutes.
	Then our Dave Martin interview, which is too explosive to broadcast on that platform, will be on as well as our reporting on the recent AstraZeneca court case, which I think is the first time we're getting real close to admitting that vaccines cause Serious, possibly even lethal injuries is something we're going to be looking at, not on YouTube, for obvious reasons.
	So if you're watching us on YouTube, get ready to, as Michael Jackson would have said, make that change.
	We've just bought back one of them WEF Stooges that we used to have as Prime Minister for a little while, but we didn't.
	Mike, when he was our Prime Minister, you won't be that excited about him, but God, the news, the propagandists, legacy media, news in our country, they're double excited to see this guy come tumbling out of a car.
	I don't know if you have Into the Nightgarden in your country, but who is the guy out of Into the Nightgarden?
	Iggle-wiggle-wiggle-piggle?
	Iggle-piggle?
	Iggle-piggle.
	Well, just, you know, watch this space.
	Coming up, number 10.
	Downing Street, I should say.
	Not quite sure who this might be.
	If somebody's sat then, of course...
	I'm going to teach you the word synecdoche now.
	Do you know that word synecdoche?
	It means like a sort of a phrase that's used to represent something.
	Number 10.
	When they say number 10, we know they mean the location of power.
	White House.
	We know they're referring to the location of power.
	It's an image symbol.
	Synecdoche.
	They don't come up Downing Street.
	That's dumb.
	In private, that's the security.
	We sack him out the back, we invite him in the front.
	Every single one of us is bloody bleeding.
	You can finish that in your own consciousness.
	Like, did you hear what they just said?
	When we sack him, we kick him out the back.
	We sack him.
	Listen, you're fired.
	Out you go.
	Nice.
	You finished it for me in the rumble chat.
	Of course you did.
	Detail just opening the door for...
	David Cameron!
	Look how excited they are!
	I was not expecting that!
	So excited, aren't they?
	It's like the Beatlemania.
	What?
	It's Harry Styles!
	Harry Styles is going to run the country now!
	This is going to be fantastic!
	Get them lads from Korea!
	Get them in to do it!
	Okay, so there have been stories in the last few days that David Cameron, who had never really found his feet
	after leaving the job of Prime Minister, did jobs that were controversial.
	Yeah, like, you know, guess what kind of jobs he did? Jobs you may think,
	you wouldn't have got that job if you hadn't been Prime Minister.
	Did you make decisions as Prime Minister that advanced those interests? The same way, you don't know this about
	our country, maybe, that Rishi Sunak, our Prime Minister, was a member,
	he started a hedge fund, invested 500 million dollars in Moderna, and then,
	weirdly, when they were Chancellor, a bunch of money got invested in, what was it called again? Moderna!
	Almost like, ha ha ha, Pig Effa says Be Free Liberty. Yeah, you can, uh, you can research that for yourselves.
	I'm not getting involved in that, but, um, Pig Effa, yeah, that'll, that'll yield some interesting results if you
	start looking at that. Yeah, Klaus Schwalb, he infiltrated so
	many cabinets, isn't he? He's been inside more cabinets than Chippendale.
	And, uh, Cameron, here he is. Just in case you wonder where these people come from and where they train, this is where
	they train.
	Well, thank you, Philip, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for that, uh, welcome.
	welcome.
	It's very good to be back in Davos.
	It's good to be back.
	Good to be back.
	It's good to be back.
	So, uh, yeah, like the WAF, they're talking to us now about CBDCs.
	You've seen that, have you?
	You're aware that CBDCs are being normalized?
	Did you see that Dutch politician?
	What's he called?
	Rob Roos.
	Rob Roos, going, it's too late!
	They're gonna go for the CBDCs!
	Like, the World Economic Forum, as you know, is one of those organizations that sort of soft-sells greenwashes, like, those kind of ideas before we get them hoisted and foisted upon us.
	You're looking now, right now, aren't you, at those three bifurcated O's and that 666?
	Ooh, that's 666.
	Let's have a look at this guy.
	I don't know where he is.
	Somewhere in your country, America.
	He's in a sort of a Chase Manhattan bank, I think.
	And like, he can't get any money out.
	I really like it.
	It's just one of those sort of...
	I can't pay in. Check this out, they're going like, oh yeah, the bank, yeah, yeah,
	be free, Lib Eda 666 in the logo, I see you in the rumble chat, hey, a dollar from CrystalWW,
	thank you very much, nice one guys, we'll give that to, I don't know, I don't know where we'll
	spend it, maybe buy myself some sort of fancy sweater, we'll invest it, we'll invest it wisely.
	Yeah, you're probably...
	Did you think it would be in your lifetime?
	what people are chatting about in the locals chat over there, the Awakened Wonders.
	Let's have a look at this guy, unable to pay money into a bank.
	Did you think it would be in your lifetime?
	Have we shown the video yet about the normalisation of the chips under the skin?
	You're going to love it.
	You're going to love that.
	We're doing that later this week.
	Tomorrow, I think, we're talking about CBDCs.
	We're talking about how digital currencies will go global, and we're talking about how they're, in a sense, normalizing under-the-skin technology.
	It's extraordinary, because those are the kind of things that only Alex Jones would talk about once.
	And you'll love the chat with Alex, because I try to sort of go, Alex, come on, mate.
	Let's try and be calm.
	You see every bit of Alex that you want to see.
	You're going to get all of it.
	If you want to become an Awaken Wonder, become one of our supporters, you can watch it immediately.
	Otherwise, it's on at the end of this week.
	Over two episodes, and believe me, it's worth it.
	Let's have a look at this guy wandering into a bank, freaking out, unable to pay in a bit of money.
	He's not taking it well.
	Customer service when somebody who is 130 miles away.
	I know!
	I tell you, when I walk out of this damn bank, I'm gonna get on Twitter, I'm gonna blast the hell out of JP Morgan for not taking cash out of the bank.
	That's the most stupidest thing I've ever heard.
	Do you ever feel like that sometimes?
	You feel like the system's sort of falling apart, like that you can't just be in the world anymore.
	You can't pay money into a bank, can't do what you want to do, you don't want to hurt anyone, you just want to be free.
	Do you feel that your freedom is being eroded?
	Do you feel that your freedom is contingent on just not moving your chains?
	Is that what passes for freedom these days?
	Accepting that you're in a cell?
	Do I feel that way?
	That's crazy!
	It's crazy!
	Somebody walks on the coast where it gets cash and you won't take it!
	And you won't make an exception!
	Like it used to be.
	Call the police!
	There's someone trying to take money out of the bank!
	Call the police!
	Someone is trying to put money in the bank!
	Where are we going now?
	Who do the police even work for?
	I don't care who the f*** you call.
	This is ridiculous not to take cash.
	It is changed. It's not me personally. I don't appreciate it.
	He left and got angry again and came back.
	Yeah, but you have the ability to do customer service.
	Why did you not take a $50 bill?
	I feel like this guy filming it with, like, an Addams Family thing at the very front of the set, and he's also just acting like he's trying to act normal, but he's the auteur behind this masterpiece.
	So if my mom walks in with a $50 bill, you're not going to take the cash from her?
	Amazing.
	Great movie.
	One of my favourites.
	See, I guess we should just... We've got Trump taking shots at Ron DeSantis.
	Oh, that's a good... There's a brilliant post in the locals chat there of Klaus Schwab with cracked reptilian skin licking flies off his head.
	USA now.
	That's a nice post.
	I see the kind of boards you live on, baby.
	Alright, listen.
	We've got loads to tell you about.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, we're gonna...
	We're gonna just speak freely now on Rumble, so if you're watching this over on YouTube, click the link in the description, get over on Rumble and watch my conversation with Dave Martin.
	If you haven't seen his viral video yet where he talked about, where he confronted the EU with what he believes is the kind of twisted legacy of the pandemic and the twisted origins.
	He talks about times that things got patented, like Things were patented.
	He can show the receipts back in 2002.
	You're going to love this stuff.
	This is an important conversation.
	You'll love it.
	Also, we're going to be talking about the AstraZeneca vaccine and some terrifying new revelations.
	And tomorrow, we've got Dave Rubin coming on the show.
	I love Dave.
	He'll be on with us as well.
	And of course, towards the end of the week, unless you're an awakened wonder, press the red button right now.
	Alex Jones is up already there, but that'll be on at the end of the week.
	We'll be streaming that on Rumble.
	Do you want to have a little look at that?
	Shall we watch it now?
	Have a look at a little bit of me and Alex Jones and tell me if you like this little trailer that we've made.
	We've put a lot of effort into it.
	It's bad graphics.
	Jack was nowhere near it.
	it, check it.
	The Six will commence again if you try to take our firearms!
	Gah!
	Gah!
	Aaaaaah!
	I wonder if you ever feel fracture and crisis within yourself.
	I wonder if you've ever felt hopeless and desperate.
	God touched me and said, you really want to be evil?
	And I had a lot of really intense nightmares and just a feeling of being alone.
	But this and that is going to happen and you're going to go through a lot of pain to do it.
	But you're going to help trigger the Great Awakening.
	Piles of manipulative, lying crap!
	You're cowards!
	Excuse me.
	What do we do about the people that hear the name Alex Jones and then just think, oh, you know, Sandy Hook.
	I can't imagine it's very easy to be you.
	I didn't say that the name Sandy Hook for over two years before I was sued.
	Do you feel that you arm your detractors by your mystical conjecture?
	Or is that something you're deliberately doing in spite of the fact that it obviously enables people to attack you?
	They were all obsessed with mysticism.
	They were all obsessed with the occult, the CIA, MI6.
	But this is why the CIA and the Justice Department used me as the first domino.
	We're gonna get Assange and Jones.
	Once we get them, all the other dominoes will fall.
	That was six months before I got deplatformed five years ago.
	What are we gonna do?
	There is so much power that can be asserted through legacy media.
	There is so much power of censorship.
	There is such a strong will to shut down dissent.
	You see it because we have nothing to hide.
	Move your angle, relax your perspective, pull back, open your mind.
	I wonder if you've ever been concerned that you are mentally ill.
	If you want to watch that, you can watch that conversation right now on Locals.
	Press the red button and you can join us probably live for our friend Dave Rubin as well.
	Hey, I want to thank some of you new Awaken Wonders, Mary Rose, Calpham 4, Barking Moon, Pajama Time, Dennis Ochka, Thanks for being awakened, Wanders.
	It's an exciting conversation, but another informative and brilliant conversation coming up in just a few minutes is my conversation with Dave Martin, where his revelations about the WHO, his revelations about... He basically says the WHO was like a criminal organization from the beginning.
	There's weird legislature in it.
	It's amazing.
	You'll love it.
	And those of you asking in the local chat, yes, we did sort out the microphone crackle and yes, Subhi is there.
	Here, she's here with us.
	All right, so listen, this item about AstraZeneca, it's some interesting stuff and some interesting connotations.
	Is this the floodgates?
	AstraZeneca vaccine has been branded defective in a multi-million pound landmark legal action in our country.
	Could this mean that the floodgates will open for thousands of more claims?
	Does this mean that the truth That you have long known is finally out.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	See you in a second with Dave Martin.
	Does that mean we're going to have many more legal cases now and that perhaps these medical products were rushed to market without sufficient investigation and clinical trialing?
	Truth of a few years ago is just falling apart, has fallen away.
	The scales have been lifted.
	Remember, hey, if you don't take this vaccine, hey, you better take this medication.
	People that don't, they should be ashamed.
	The people who are not getting vaccines, who are believing the lies on the internet instead of science, it's time to start shaming them.
	What else?
	Or leave them behind.
	Well, the legal cases have started now.
	AstraZeneca, oh no, we made critical errors in introducing and in fact in many cases mandating medications.
	Now a lot of people just will close their ears and their eyes to this because the delirium is too sweet to release.
	But!
	The truth is coming out.
	Let's get into it.
	The first thing we'll look at is a piece of propaganda from the British establishment, the BBC, revealing for the first time that there were problems, that there was clotting being caused by AstraZeneca.
	This is way back in 2021.
	Remember those days?
	Let's have a look at that now.
	And the WHO, curiously, still maintaining that there's no problem with it.
	Very odd.
	The biggest member states of the European Union have now joined the list of nations questioning the performance of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine.
	Germany, France, Spain and Italy are all taking the precautionary measure of suspending use of the vaccine because of fears about possible side effects, including blood clots.
	There's no precaution.
	We're just going to withdraw this.
	Look at how the language has altered and has been altering.
	This Covid inquiry that's happening in the UK would not be happening if independent media voices, and I mean yours actually, had not at the beginning gone, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on here?
	We're all Jay Bhattacharya, Robert Malone, Peter McCulloch, Dave Martin, Judy Miskin, all these people that were just, you crackpots, shut up!
	That is misinformation!
	Okay, well now people are getting paid out because of this stuff.
	Is it misinformation?
	Or was it something that should always, always have been looked at critically, openly?
	Is this ever a subject that should have been subject to censure and control?
	Shouldn't this have been openly discussed from the beginning?
	Isn't that obvious common sense?
	That with something of this scale, granting that much power to potential exploitative forces, whether they're governmental or private, is ridiculous and dangerous?
	Well, now we have a verdict.
	It is.
	The AstraZeneca vaccine has already been suspended in the Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, Bulgaria, Denmark and Norway.
	Oh, those guys.
	Let's make sure we pay close attention to what they say.
	Now, the World Health Organisation, along with the EU's very own medicines regulator, say that there is no justification for this temporary ban.
	They would say that, wouldn't they?
	Because they've got a weird set of agenda, those guys.
	It's very unusual the way that they think.
	It's very unusual the way that they're funded.
	Given that the word health is pretty prominent in their title, you would think that their conduct would be a little different.
	And leading British scientists insist that the vaccine is safe.
	Okay, so that's 2021.
	Now let's have a look at some of the legacy media reporting on this subject from today.
	There isn't any!
	You can't find a single legacy media outlet telling you, oh by the way there's been a payout.
	I wonder why that would be?
	Isn't it interesting the stories they really focus a lot of resources on and And the stories they just kind of ignore.
	Is there any corollary?
	Is there any theme?
	Is there any trajectory?
	The only way we can bring you an update on this story is with the often banned, derided and YouTube strike receiving online commentator friend of the show, John Campbell.
	Take it away, John.
	It is a landmark legal case.
	Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab was defective.
	is the contention.
	8th of November 2023, quite a few outlets.
	Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine has been branded as defective.
	Claims of efficacy were vastly Vastly overstated and as we'll see.
	They vastly overstated its efficacy and the media vastly overstated it with them.
	And even when it was revealed there were problems, they tried to mitigate it.
	The World Health Organization still say it's okay.
	Isn't it curious?
	This is in fact the case.
	You could argue it was very vastly overstated.
	In other words, it didn't quite have in the vial what it said on the tin is what this is arguing.
	Defective.
	This is the way they're trying to get round the indemnity that the government gave them.
	But the government's going to probably end up paying for this.
	It's going to cost you and me a fortune.
	Oh, well, no problem.
	It's gonna be the taxpayers that will end up footing the bill for this travesty.
	Same way that we paid for the development and release of most of the products themselves, even though the profits found their way to, oh yeah, Moderna and Pfizer.
	I wonder who invests in those products?
	Let's get into this, guys.
	The AstraZeneca vaccine caused a small group of individuals to suffer catastrophic injury and bereavement.
	To make this statement is not to dabble in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, which, I mean, what do you mean by anti-vaccine conspiracy theory at this point?
	You have to describe what you mean is an anti-vaccine conspiracy theory.
	You're against it because of a conspiracy.
	This is a fact evidenced by the reports of clinicians, medical experts, and coroners across the UK.
	Clinicians, medical experts, and coroners.
	Not crackpots, nutjobs, and conspiracy theorists.
	For those who want to maintain a narrative that vaccines do no harm, the experience of the vaccine-injured and bereaved constitutes an inconvenient truth.
	No, they should be shamed.
	I was told.
	The legacy media told me what to do with the anti-vaxxers.
	Shame them.
	Why don't we shame these bereaved people?
	We can maybe shame them into silence and anyone who tries to propagate these ideas will just find some reason they shouldn't be able to speak either.
	I'm sure we can come up with something!
	This is a truth that to date has been easier for the government and much of the media to ignore.
	By beginning a legal battle against AstraZeneca, the vaccine injured and bereaved can no longer be silenced.
	Damn!
	The Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine has been branded defective in a multi-million pound landmark legal action that will suggest claims over its efficacy were vastly overstated.
	Not only were they vastly overstated, those claims were amplified by the media and people that tried to challenge these vastly overstated claims were shamed and silenced and still to this day there are consequences for speaking out in this way.
	The pharmaceutical giant is being sued in the High Court in a test case by Jamie Scott, a father of two, who suffered a significant permanent brain injury that's left him unable to work as a result of a blood clot after receiving the jab in April 2021.
	A second claim is being brought by the widower and two young children of 35-year-old Alpa Taylor, who died after having the jab made by AstraZeneca, the UK-based pharmaceutical giant.
	It's interesting this man received the jab in April 2021 when it had been revealed that the AstraZeneca vaccine caused blood clots, but the WHO was still saying it was okay.
	If they want to introduce a global treaty that means they'll be able to mandate vaccines across the world and censor opposition to those measures, we should definitely all sign up to that right now and definitely not sign this petition in the link below that would prevent that mad treaty.
	The test cases could pave the way for as many as 80 damages claims worth an estimated $80 million over a new condition known as vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia.
	It's catchy!
	And thrombosis, VITT.
	That was identified by specialists in the wake of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
	The vaccine, which was heralded at its launch by Boris Johnson as a triumph for British science, is no longer used in the UK.
	The government recommends three other vaccines for its autumn booster program.
	Let's not ask any questions about those then.
	And the idea that it's like just Boris Johnson rather than a coordinated global event to which every political party signed up is ridiculous and convenient.
	What this is trying to suggest is, well if you just get rid of Boris Johnson and AstraZeneca, there, there's the problem solved.
	It's not as if there was a global campaign to prevent you from thinking or saying or daring to believe anything else.
	In the months following the rollout, the potential serious side effect of the AstraZeneca jab was identified by scientists.
	Following this, it was recommended it no longer be given to the under 40s in the UK because the risk of receiving the jab outweighed the harm posed by COVID.
	AstraZeneca last night told The Telegraph that patient safety was its highest priority.
	Is it though?
	Or is profit the highest priority?
	And is patient safety a sort of by-product, an inadvertent consequence of the pursuit of this profit?
	Official figures from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, show at least 81 deaths in the UK are suspected to have been linked to the adverse reaction that caused clotting in people who also had low blood platelets.
	Oh, comorbidities is okay now!
	In total, almost one in five people who suffered from the condition died as a result, according to the MHRA's own figures.
	That's their figures!
	Official figures obtained under a Freedom of Information request show that out of 148 payouts made by the government under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, which provides compensation to those injured by vaccines or to bereaved necks of kin, at least 144 went to recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
	Fewer than five people under the scheme received vaccines other than AstraZeneca.
	Is it me, or does the future feel more insecure and uncertain?
	Wars, pandemics, lies, trickery.
	My cats keep having kittens.
	The last one's personal.
	For those who are in the United States, there is a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg.
	American Heart for Gold make it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.
	With one phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door Or inside a qualifying retirement account like your IRA or 401k.
	American Hartford Gold is the highest-rated firm in the U.S.
	with an A-plus rating from the BBB and thousands of satisfied clients.
	Right now, they will give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
	This offer is only for U.S.
	customers.
	Call 866-505-8315.
	That's 866-505-8315.
	Or simply text BRAND to 99-88-99.
	505 8315. That's 866 505 8315. Or simply text brand to 99 88 99. Get up to $5,000 of silver
	and protect your future in this crazy, crazy world with some solid precious metals literally
	made in stars. The claim is being brought by Mr Scott under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
	and argues that AstraZeneca's vaccine was defective in that it was not as safe as individuals were
	entitled to expect.
	The case will raise questions about what the UK authorities knew about concerns over the vaccine and how they were handled.
	An examination of WhatsApp messages sent by or to Matt Hancock, the then Health Secretary obtained by The Telegraph as part of the lockdown files and which have been passed to the COVID public inquiry, suggests concerns were aired by US authorities.
	AstraZeneca never in the end applied for a license in the US.
	At the time, a number of European countries were pausing the vaccine rollout over fears it caused clotting in some people.
	I suppose what will take place now is an attempt to minimise and mitigate the impact of this
	information and make it like this is an anomalous outlier, this is not some institutional thing
	that went on.
	The Covid inquiry in our country, which would not be happening without the actions, I would
	say, of independent media and people that were brave enough to speak out during the
	propaganda campaign that was fully immersive, pressurising and shaming of people that dared
	to have another view.
	What will happen now is, oh, there was a few bad actors, this vaccine didn't work and this
	politician was a bit inept.
	This was systemic.
	This was coordinated. This was a global event.
	We're all going to have to collectively forget that there was an advertising campaign, that there was public shaming, that there were shows where vaccines danced about on the TV, where almost everyone you know anecdotally would say, yeah, this happened to me and I know this person that had this happen, and morticians contributing.
	Why would you need to censor and control the conversation unless there was something to suppress and control?
	Let me know in the chat and the comments.
	Well, you can.
	Political action will also examine the role of the government in reassuring the public after Matt Hancock authorised an indemnity for AstraZeneca in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
	But we better give them indemnity anyway.
	If their measures have been so robust, what's the requirement for the indemnity?
	So while AstraZeneca didn't apply for a license in the US, European nations were stopping using it.
	Britain was granting indemnity even though there was plainly some fear that it caused blood clotting.
	This is a international travesty and I think it's just the beginning.
	Lawyers point out in the legal claim that Mr. Hancock, in an accompanying departmental minute, said the data so far on this vaccine suggests there will be no adverse reactions and so no liability.
	Writing for The Telegraph, Sarah Moore, partner at Housefield, the law firm bringing the claim, says the group of individuals whom we represent have always been clear they do not dabble in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.
	However, it is plainly factually inaccurate to claim that vaccines do no harm given the experience of our client group, the vaccine injured and bereaved.
	They still have to sort of distance themselves from vaccine conspiracy, but what does that constitute at this time?
	That term was invented to prevent people from asking questions and having a legitimate conversation about a
	pretty unique and evidently dangerous event.
	There's no conspiracy theory beyond that.
	There are, of course, like in any subject, people that have views that are on a spectrum of extremity.
	But you can't use that to delegitimize the skepticism that accompanied a unique global event that was, let me say it
	again, exploited to introduce regulations and legislation that would never have been accepted otherwise,
	normalized the idea of censorship, normalized the idea of mass compliance, creating credible profits for Pfizer and
	Moderna and other companies with some pretty interesting ties to very powerful figures in the US government and UK
	government, as well as creating a general climate of compliance and
	normalizing the control of a population.
	Now, I suppose it gets into conspiracy theory when you start to contemplate how that might be used or misused in the future, but it's no longer a conspiracy theory in the same sense that some unfounded and absurd proposition could be put forward without any evidence at all.
	That's not conspiracy theory.
	The idea of anti-vax rhetoric now has to be paused and parked, like the AstraZeneca vaccine should have been, and if it had been, there'd be some people that are dead now that would be alive.
	Sir Jeremy Wright Casey, the former Attorney General, urged the government to step in and settle the legal claims before they came to court, given that ministers had indemnified AstraZeneca.
	So Jeremy, who has raised the case of Mr Scott, who is one of his constituents with Rishi
	Sunak said, It's very, very strange the government has not come up with
	a way to settle these cases where the cause is clear.
	I don't get it from a professional point of view or from the political point of view because
	of the damage done if these cases are not settled quickly.
	And the damage is of course that people begin to recognise that there were some appalling
	decisions made in the last couple of years.
	People rode roughshod over democracy, over human rights, over enshrined principles.
	And that, again, being normalised everywhere now.
	We don't have due procedure.
	We don't have those ideas anymore.
	What we do is we have a centralised authoritarian message that's amplified by the legacy media.
	And if a few people get blood clots along the way, that's just a necessary by-product of this agenda.
	Sir Jeremy added, How can it be?
	There's no sense of urgency on this.
	There's no realisation in the government that this is an impending problem.
	The PM told me he would find out more about it and come back to me.
	None of us can be confident we won't have to go through all of this again one day, and if we do,
	the confidence in mass vaccination needs to be in place.
	How can it be?
	How can it possibly be after this?
	That almost sort of sounds like a threat, doesn't it?
	Like, you know, we're going to definitely need mass vaccination and how can we have confidence in mass vaccination?
	Well, we can't have confidence in mass vaccination because of everything we've learned.
	This is in the mainstream now because it's going through legal and official channels and there's a COVID inquiry.
	But if you're aware of the broader narrative around vaccines and around the measures taken around vaccines, the way they were introduced, the undemocratic nature of them, you're aware that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
	This is just a small part of an enormous an extraordinary story that requires a reckoning that
	ultimately leaves us in a situation where we cannot trust the government, cannot trust the legacy
	media, cannot trust Big Pharma, cannot trust the bodies that are supposed to regulate them,
	can't trust the individuals within parliament, can't trust parliament itself, can't
	trust the individuals in congress, can't trust the system of congress.
	It leads you to not a bleak appraisal but a necessary scepticism to systemic power.
	The Covid pandemic was in one way unique, but what it revealed was not unique.
	What it revealed was the convergence of interests in media, big tech, big pharma, and government, and how those things operate if a crisis affords You don't need to believe in conspiracies.
	You just need to now look at the last few years, see what happened, and this is merely one piece of evidence that allows you to reassess the entire last three years with a degree of clarity that the mainstream media still wouldn't afford you.
	They're still not reporting on this, for example.
	During an attempt to mandate jabs on NHS staff, some health and social care workers, with a principled objection to being told what to do with their bodies by the government, would be forced out of their jobs.
	All the while, individuals and organisations with genuine concerns about aspects of vaccination policy were smeared and silenced in a disgraceful state-sponsored campaign to suppress vaccine safety and efficacy-related debate.
	Have they acknowledged that yet?
	Or have they simply continued with it?
	Tried to prevaricate?
	Tried to pretend this is just a minor issue?
	And tried to control dissent wherever possible using some of the most unspeakable means?
	The victims had the vaccination out of a sense of duty.
	It felt the right thing to do to help Britain out of the pandemic and to prevent more vulnerable people being made ill by stopping transmission of the virus.
	But the result for them and their families has been catastrophic.
	And it doesn't stop transmission either.
	The entire thing has been a fiasco, a fallacy, and an almost unprecedented global lie.
	Many have been left wondering why they bothered those that are still alive.
	Because this doesn't get into excess deaths.
	This story doesn't get into the phenomena of excess deaths, because that's still on the side of the line that this used to be.
	That's still there.
	When the WHO, you saw it on the BBC, went, it's actually fine, excess death still lives in that territory.
	Soon, one day, unless for some reason independent media was really attacked and independent voices were dissented and shut down in silence, and I don't see any evidence of that happening, do you see any evidence of that happening anywhere?
	Then excess deaths will That's not normal.
	That will have to come into the fray for contemplation and consideration.
	They'll resist it for as long as possible.
	They'll try and control it.
	That's not normal that this healthy athlete dropped dead from a heart attack. That's not
	normal that these young people died. 60,000 excess deaths in the United States in 2021 and 2022.
	That's not normal. That will have to come into the fray for contemplation and consideration.
	Sometimes they'll resist it for as long as possible. They'll try and control it. But
	as with the AstraZeneca case, in the end, it will have to come out. A World Health Organization
	report in June 2022 was unclear about whether the vaccine stopped transmission of the virus.
	No substantive data are available related to the impact of vaccine on transmission or viral shedding, states the report in relation to AstraZeneca.
	So in June 2022, they knew there was no substantive data.
	Of course, now we know a lot more about it.
	The World Health Organization seems to have an agenda beyond world health.
	They are quite well organized, though.
	So at least one word in their name is sort of true.
	Lawyers claim that the vaccine was less safe than the public was led to expect.
	Let me know in the comments if you agree with that.
	Should the courts agree, the damages in compensation are likely to be huge.
	One lesson to be learned is that young healthy people should not have been forced through restrictions on their movements to be vaccinated against a disease that hardly affected them.
	Do you think so?
	Well, there you are.
	In a sense, the entire narrative is beginning to crack.
	Would this narrative have cracked were it not for voices like John Campbell and other voices contributing to this conversation?
	Remember at the height of this pandemic, when Joe Rogan dared to take ivermectin, that there was a global attack on him that seemed to coordinate The media appears to be able to behave like one unit, like a swarm of insects or like geese flying in formation when it comes to amplifying the message of the powerful.
	Similarly, they have a power to shut down dissenting voices.
	Now, these court cases have begun.
	It's likely there'll be a small portion of justice, just as much as they can manage.
	Still excess deaths have to be dealt with, still the consequences of lockdown, the people whose cancers were exacerbated, heart diseases were exacerbated, myocarditis, pericarditis, the impact on young people and children, the economy, businesses, all so much to be considered.
	A reckoning that is unlikely to take place unless independent media voices are But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	Here are the number of ways that's likely to be stopped.
	The WHO have got a treaty that has a censorship proposal in it.
	Legislation's being passed all over the world to stop independent media being able to speak on big tech platforms
	because the big tech platforms themselves will be controlled and censored.
	And of course, dissenting voices are regularly, routinely attacked to a staggering degree.
	We have to unite. We have to stand up against this.
	We have to realize that the truth is coming out.
	But that's just what I think. Let me know what you think in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News Live.
	Here's the fucking news!
	I'm being joined by Dr. David Martin, scientist and inventor, who's been a beyond outspoken voice, who's been an evangelical voice of reason during the COVID and vaccine era, holding Big Pharma and even the WHO to account.
	He's spoken before the EU on two occasions, even though the audience radically diminished at the point of his arrival because they're not there to assemble and listen to truth.
	David Martin, thank you so much for joining us.
	Russell, it is an honor.
	It's a delight to be here.
	I see that you have adorned your set with great figures of the movement, whether it's that truth teller and science personified himself, Dr. Anthony Fauci, or various other figures from the pharmaceutical industrial complex.
	Do you agree, David, that the last three years revealed to us Institutional hypocrisy and corruption that must have been long present, but didn't become evident until this unique event brought many things together.
	And I must remind you, we're still on YouTube, so can you tiptoe through this information nimbly until we step off?
	Yeah, we need to do this.
	Listen, it's no mistake that I put behind me on my image the three co-conspirators, which actually were the architects of what we refer to in the modern era as this most recent campaign of terror.
	But it's important to realize that their collaboration began in 2002, not in 2020.
	Right numbers, wrong order.
	And we also have to understand that their collaboration was not one that was about a health concern or a public health interest.
	Their collaboration was, at its earliest days, a racketeering and antitrust collusive activity which was meant to establish, once and for all, a universal injection which would be the stuff of the dreams of Gavi and others who wanted to have a single injection that would be put into every arm of every child at birth and get them permanently addicted to the injectable complex called the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex.
	So, these guys got their start in 2002 in their official, proprietary, patent-controlled way and have been at it ever since.
	I recognize, of course, Anthony Fauci.
	The other two figures, can you just give me a brief resume of the other two members of the Triumvirate?
	Yeah, well, the parrot on my shoulder is none other than Ralph Baric.
	He, the ultimate pirate, he was the one who came up not only with the deadly biowarfare-enabling technology in 2005 called synthetic coronavirus, the model of biowarfare-enabling technologies for DARPA and for the MITRE Corporation, and put the same on his CV.
	So the good news is you can go and pull it right off his CV.
	The man slightly lower under Ralph was the most famous quote of all of the lead up to the pandemic when in 2015 he said, until an infectious disease crisis is real and present, it is often largely ignored.
	To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding for the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus and then the V.
	A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype.
	We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues.
	Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.
	None other than our very own Peter Daszak, who was the one who the World Health Organization was kind enough to put in charge of the investigation of where all this nonsense came from as the guy who actually invented the nonsense.
	So it's kind of like a bank robber being asked to investigate a heist.
	If it was a very honest bank robber, he would be the perfect person to conduct that investigation, because the whole riddle... You know how you feel that way, don't you?
	Yeah.
	Within a couple of minutes, wait a minute, it was me, I did those things.
	It's extraordinary that not only of these three figures, this trident of malfeasance being culpable in the manner that you describe, allegedly at least, but Anthony Fauci has been celebrated as a kind of hero, as a warm, avuncular, cuddly patriarch, the embodiment and epitomization of science.
	Peter Daszak there, in spite of his name turning up in conjunction with DARPA, for those of us that were occupying the kind of spaces in which you are an expert and guide, it's one of those names that you became most familiar with.
	and your man Ralph there, the parrot on your shoulder, it seems that he's deeply embedded
	in these systems even prior to the outbreak. So in a sense the narrative that you're offering us,
	Dave, is that these are not events that began in 2019, they simply began to unfold in the
	public consciousness in that era. I was very interested in what you said, that Dasik said,
	that the public has to be educated as to the necessity the investment will follow.
	Is this, this is just a publicly available quote, this isn't something that you've made up or invented?
	Oh, no, and all of these things, Russell, it's really tough.
	I mean, you have to read these very complex, very esoteric, you know, runes that are hidden underneath the pyramids.
	But no, it's in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
	So, yeah, no, not a hard one to find.
	And neither is Ralph Baric's patent on the first version of the wonderful thing now known as coronavirus, where he patented in 2002, and you'll recall the date here, 2002, one year before SARS 1.0, he patented and I quote, an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus, which was the first time in human history we were able to
	Turn a simple gastrointestinal virus and a simple allegedly cold-associated virus into something that targeted human heart tissue and human lung tissue a year before SARS 1.0.
	And that infectious replication defective clone, that line, and the entire nonsense around his virus that he created, was in a patent that is filed in the United States Patent Office.
	So yeah, I've really had to dive deep into the deciphering of hieroglyphs and runes to figure this one out.
	At the Patent Office, and in their own documentation, and in their own words, the footprints that have led us to this recent travesty are observable.
	Now, bearing in mind that we're still on YouTube, and I can't imagine that you're very popular on that platform, given that they use the WHO's guidelines in order to formulate their own community guidelines, you're aware that we've been penalised there, but of course we have 6.7 million followers on that platform, so we feel a real obligation to continue to communicate openly with all of you while we can.
	I would like to say, before we leave YouTube to speak about this specifically and openly in all of its galling and terrifying detail, can you just sketch out for us, Dave, that your general sense that humanity is Oh, wonderful.
	from a kind of centralized technological tyranny.
	It's a very broad statement to make.
	It's something that I sort of sense is happening.
	Could you give us a sort of a broad understanding of that, bearing in mind that you're walking across cracked eggshells
	on a tightrope over an alligator infested swamp?
	Oh, oh, oh, wonderful.
	And yes, as a matter of fact, I mean, I've spent the last, as you know, three and a half years on that tightrope.
	Kim and I have had the butterfly of the week, which has been, with the exception of only two episodes, uncensored on YouTube.
	So we've tiptoed through this tulip patch quite a few times.
	But if we really examine the question, Russell, one of the things that Kim and I do is we teach a course called the 12 Senses course, and it is the reactivation of all the 12 cranial nerves that people have inside of their neural anatomy.
	The cranial nerves are the nerves that are wired directly into the brain, which give us the 12 senses that we were born with.
	And I've pointed out many times that if we had a very clear picture of reality, what we would understand is that this assault was not an assault that started in December of 2019.
	This assault goes back thousands of years and has been well orchestrated and specifically goes after targeted senses of the human system which actually disrupt the ability for the person or the brain or the soul to process information in an orderly fashion.
	You will recall that with this particular injection we took Direct shot at a couple very important senses.
	We took direct shot at the sense of smell.
	And most people haven't studied neural anatomy.
	They don't know that the sense of smell is one of the very first senses that you actually have formed in utero.
	And the homing mechanism of that sense is to actually have you be able to identify your biological mother.
	It's the reason why calves can run across a meadow past tons and tons of udders and they find the udder of their mother rather than any other, you know, milk-laden udder somewhere else in the field.
	If you go back and ask yourself, why is it that we would put an injection together, which we would encourage children to take, that would in fact directly assault the sense of smell.
	That is not an accident any more than the accidents of the clerical collar when Pope Innocent III in the 13th century put the clerical collar on to cover the ninth cranial nerve, which is the hypoglossal nerve.
	It's the nerve that sits up in your neck.
	And he invented the clerical collar so that he would be able to mask your ability to detect the truth.
	Because the ninth cranial nerve is actually the cranial nerve that gives you the ability to detect whether you're being told the truth or whether they're being lied to.
	And that's because the vascularity around your neck changes.
	And the reason I point this out is because in every single instance, it's not just this accidental, oops, we didn't see that coming.
	It's an intentional part of a much larger plan.
	So we create this thing, which turns into A sensory deprivation around smell.
	You heard about it all the time.
	The media couldn't understand why the sense of smell was going.
	Why was the sense of smell going?
	And lo and behold, a year and a half later, we have in California parents being removed from their children and vice versa.
	And we don't see that these things are absolutely directly related to each other.
	And so this is an ongoing program that's been around thousands of years and We're just seeing the latest iteration in that program.
	Wow, Dave.
	There's a lot of esoteric information in there that obviously relates to deep biological truths and perhaps things that even are ulterior to that, as well as what sounds to me like data that might intersect with deep occultism.
	So, given that you've said it's taking place over millennia, We are going to leave YouTube now because Dave doesn't seem to me to be the kind of person that I can keep shepherded into the paddocks of ordinary discourse.
	Coming up, we are going to be asking about the inception of the WHO.
	Do you know which single individual provides 88% of the funding?
	Click the link in the description, come over onto Rumble and answer that question and maybe we'll work out some sort of deal for people to come and do your course, Dave, if they can answer that question correctly.
	Hey, you bet.
	There you go.
	We could definitely do a deal.
	The Russell Brand promo code, you bet.
	See that?
	Right.
	So if you cannot, who do you think who provided 88% of all donor funding to the WHO?
	If you're watching this now on YouTube, if you want to have a 6.7 million Awaken Wonders that we love so well, you're going to have to click the link in the description.
	Join us over on Rumble.
	I'm going to be talking Today more about that sensory deprivation technology that began clerically and is being carried out now chemically, as well as a whole host of questions about the way that the last three year period has conducted and been and has visibly unfolded in order to inhibit, prohibit and constrict freedom.
	Freedom that is our birthright.
	Join us over there.
	Become part of this movement.
	Remain free while you can.
	See you in a few seconds.
	If you're watching us on Rumble, you glorious Awakened wonder, thank you for being part of this.
	And if it's within your means, please click the red button and support us.
	Become a member of our Locals community.
	We provide all sorts of extra content.
	And remember, answer the question I just asked you.
	Who was it that provided 88% of the funding?
	You know who it is.
	It's your friend and mine.
	It's the old BG without the F in the middle.
	It's the big, friendly Bill Gates himself.
	We'll pick a few people and we'll give you, I don't know what, a 10%, a 20%.
	What do you think discount we can give?
	I've figured out.
	I'd be more than happy to give people a 10% discount.
	If they got that one right, we can bring them over to Boulder, Colorado and rewire their 12 senses.
	I want my 12 senses!
	Heck yeah, buddy!
	I mean, I've got my sense of humor.
	That's been working very well.
	My sense of injustice.
	There's a few more senses, though, that I would like to get attuned.
	So can you tell me a little more about that?
	Can you tell us firstly about these 12 senses?
	And then we'll jump into the WHO and its unique and particular funding.
	Well, I know it's going to come as a giant shock, but the Catholic Church decided to authorize the Aristotelian model of five senses actually quite a long time ago.
	So the fact is that people can be forgiven for not knowing that when you were born, wired into your brain, there were 12 what we call cranial nerves.
	These are the nerves that go from various parts of your body up to your brain or from your brain out to give you the ability to sense your surroundings.
	And you've been taught that you have the sense of smell, the sense of sight, the sense of temperature or pain, the sense of taste and hearing, which are the five authorized senses.
	But what you haven't been taught is that you have a sense of memory, a sense of light.
	And light is not the same as sight, the ability to actually detect the presence and absence of light, a variety of wavelengths.
	You have the sense of attention.
	You have the sense of esteem.
	You have the sense of outward visions and dreams.
	The actual ability, it's actually wired into your brain.
	We now really diminish it by calling it REM sleep.
	And we call it rapid eye movement and all those kinds of things.
	But that's the sixth cranial nerve.
	And that actually gives you the ability to navigate your sleeping space and your outward dreaming and outward vision space.
	We have the sense of expression, the sense of balance, the sense of truth, the sense of intuition and calm, the sense of tension, and finally, the 12th cranial nerve, my all-time favorite, the sense of enunciation, the ability to say I am, the essence of what allows you to be the human being that you are, uniquely wired, uniquely presented to make a contribution to the world.
	These 12 senses have been hijacked very specifically over a period, and we go into this quite in detail, in over 8,000 years.
	And those senses, if you think for a simple expression like, you know, what happened with The corporal punishment of the United Kingdom in the 1700s and 1800s when it became routine to do whacking children on the back of the head as a way to discipline them.
	People don't understand that while we talk about that in the NFL as micro-brain traumas or CETs, what we don't understand is the fourth cranial nerve Which is very, very sensitive is the sense that gives you the sense of esteem, the ability to meet someone's gaze, the ability to look up and engage someone face-to-face.
	It turns out that if you have people engaging face-to-face, they are actually harder to control.
	So what you do...
	As you institutionalize micro-brain traumas at a childhood age where the fourth cranial nerve gets damaged and lo and behold you get a compliant population walking around with their head down.
	Whoa!
	These are not accidental.
	These are intentional.
	I get it Dave.
	So you're saying that this is a sort of an 8,000 year journey, sort of in a sense precedes our ordinary understanding of civilized history, that is a kind of a project I suppose you're going to perhaps say by occultist elite interests that have managed to remain somewhat undiscerned throughout the Periods of history that we're discussing and even now are still present and making decisions Such as the ones we've experienced in the last couple of years your course sounds amazing I'd really like to get into it, but it seems that these days these power structures hide behind bureaucracies behind financial interests behind National governments and just us now that we're on rumble.
	Can you tell us what your take is on?
	And what's fascinating when you talk about stuff that's very esoteric and like, you know, gets into interesting areas, and I love it.
	I'm extremely open to it, and I believe you're telling the truth.
	But like, I think you must understand, always important to show our receipts and our working out.
	Absolutely.
	You say, Dave, that the WHO is like a criminal cartel.
	Now, we stand on the brink of granting them the power to change national law, to impose lockdown, to mandate vaccines through the WHO treaty.
	Anyone can see that.
	Of course, we all know now, thanks to the question earlier, that 88% of their donation funding comes from Bill Gates.
	Much of their funding is also opaque and obscured.
	We were discussing that earlier.
	Can you tell us why you claim that the WHO is a criminal cartel and how The events of the last few years somehow demonstrate or at least utilize that.
	Well, so your point is spot on.
	And the receipts, unfortunately, and all of this stuff are part of the history of what my organization has done.
	I mean, we maintain the chain of custody documentation that has been used by governments around the world, including intelligence, law enforcement, everybody else.
	We maintain the data that is the receipts for the things that we say.
	And what's really important with respect to The question about the World Health Organization is that in its founding document, and by the way, I encourage people to make sure that they take time, look into these things and actually read them.
	But in the founding document of the World Health Organization, they gave themselves the right to be exempt from all criminal prosecution of any kind whatsoever.
	Now, if you ask the question, why would an organization need to give itself exemption from criminal prosecution?
	This is not civil prosecution.
	This is criminal prosecution, including investigations into misdeeds and misbehavior.
	Why on earth would it be so important for in a founding charter of a document to make sure that anybody who is operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization is absolutely exempt from all criminal proceedings.
	And the reason why they wrote that into their founding charter is because they knew they were already breaking the law.
	Remember that in the 1940s, when all of this nonsense got started, What we had was an organization that the Rockefeller Foundation funded, and funded the first Director General of the World Health Organization, who happened to be, are you ready for this?
	A prisoner from Dachau, who was emancipated and brought in to run what became the Biologics Lab of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust at the time.
	And those two organizations selected a Dachau physician to be the first director general of the World Health Organization.
	And in less than five years, the World Health Organization's official documentation was actually once again to put in motion the eugenics mandate saying that the role of the World Health Organization was population control.
	Like someone that worked at Dachau?
	An inmate from Dachau?
	If you go back and read the wonderful story of the contorted pathway that led the Rockefeller Foundation to hire Dr. Sand from what was allegedly this kind of really bizarre location.
	So at Dachau, let's be clear, he was actually in the welcome embrace of the Nazis during that period of time.
	He was actually in some sort of In some sort of bizarre location, where as a physician slash prisoner slash indentured servant, he was actually working at Dachau.
	There are questions, if you go back and read the actual record of how he was found.
	whether he was officially a prisoner, or whether what he was was kind of this
	aid to get the camp at the Dachau concentration camp itself.
	There are disputed records of whether he was actually in the camp,
	or whether he was at a facility next to the camp.
	But it is without question that he was at Dachau, and the Rockefeller Foundation sought him out
	as the first director general, and appointed him as first director general
	at the formation of the World Health Organization in the late 1940s.
	So what can be inferred from that?
	I mean, obviously, if it's someone that was held a prisoner at Dachau, then it's like, well, this is a hell of a success story.
	But if it's not, if it's someone that was implicit in the crimes of the Holocaust, then it's a very different story.
	Well, and here, that's exactly the reason why the point is so fascinating, because if you go back and you read the official, you know, Clinic Cliffs notes that World Health Organization likes to put up, it implies that he is somehow a prisoner there.
	But if you go back and try to find the records of it, it appears that he was actually working there, not necessarily against his will.
	I mean, and once again, the records are what records are, Russell.
	We can only use what's available to us.
	What is particularly ironic in my estimation, however, and this is actually just a fact of reality, there is a particular problem with the fact that the Rockefeller Foundation finds this guy and puts him up as the head of the World Health Organization, and then in a very short period of time immediately commences vaccination clinical trials, which is the very first thing that the World Health Organization put in place.
	Cholera, malaria, and other vaccine clinical trials.
	And this was done because the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust at the time specifically stated that that was the intention for which they put these processes in motion.
	I mean, obviously that's astonishing.
	With the previous, we've previously discussed the 88% funding that Gates provides, the WHO, is it true that WHO is in violation of competition laws in the US and in Europe?
	Absolutely.
	And it's an open and shut case.
	By the way, in the United States, 15 U.S.
	Code Sections 1 through 3 outlaw every single bit of the actions that the World Health Organization has taken over the last three years.
	And more problematically, 15 U.S.
	Code Section 19, which is a part of the section of the code that very few people pay attention to, actually makes one of their institutions absolutely illegal.
	Section 19 sets forth what's called the Interlocking Directorate's prohibition, which means you cannot have entities who are otherwise commercial competitors sharing a common board.
	But the Global Preparedness Moderning Board is the interlocking directorate of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the World Health Organization.
	And then, giant surprise, Anthony Fauci sits on that board from NIAID.
	Dr. Gao from the Chinese CDC sits on that board.
	Dr. Bill Elias sits on that board from the Gates Foundation.
	These are actually clear, unequivocal violations of Section 19 of 15 U.S.
	Code.
	And it is without question illegal that every act that they have taken, including the run-up to and all of the actions of the pandemic, are absolute violations of antitrust laws and racketeering laws in the United States and competitiveness laws in Europe.
	So this is of course important for a number of reasons because it does seem to be a significant pillar in what many people would probably argue is a cadre of globalist organizations that are not democratically elected, that are transcendent of all national law, that have the ability to raise revenue, your tax revenue, can be accrued by the WHO and they sit among other
	comparable organisations as one of the component parts of a system of
	globalism which I think negates any even imagined power of national democracy or even individual
	freedom. Is it true that... a few questions I've got here, because we've been talking a lot
	about the FDA lately and this is much more parochial,
	observable and down to earth, the kind of revolving door between
	Moderna and for example the FDA, a couple of executives have recently taken
	positions.
	Is it true also that...
	Pfizer knew that coronavirus vaccines would not be effective since 1990, that the whole sort of narrative of, oh no, there's this pandemic, oh look, Operation Warp Speed, wow, a solution, Fauci celebrated on talk shows, people dressed up as syringes on entertainment programs, Albert Baller interviewed as if he were a young Elvis Presley, never asked Just a taxing question.
	Once in all the TV appearances that we saw him make, never asked about adverse events or any of that stuff.
	Is it true then that I guess a lot of your data comes from looking at when things were patented, which I guess is an indicator that if something's patented, it exists or was perhaps about to exist.
	So is it true that there was evidence that the coronavirus vaccines could fail even in 1990 or would fail?
	We knew they failed in 1990.
	Pfizer knew they failed.
	Pfizer patented them and knew that it was a total train wreck.
	They knew that when they injected it into animals, the animals died.
	Ralph Baric knew that in the late 1990s, as he was working on the modification of what he called coronavirus, so that he could inject it into other things and infect other tissues.
	He knew that it targeted the heart and created a condition called cardiomyopathy.
	And for the last, I don't know, what is that?
	The last 24 years, we've known that cardiomyopathy is a direct result of the thing he engineered.
	So is there any data out there, possibly hundreds and thousands of pieces of literature, including patents and scientific publications that actually show That they knew that the heart was the target?
	Is it possible that we could figure that out if we knew that and we put it into patent documents in 1999 and 2002?
	Is there any way we could have deciphered that maybe cardiovascular problems were going to happen?
	Is there any data that shows that by 2011, 2012, and then again in 2014, publications showed that the pseudouridine that was being used in the mRNA shots was a pro-oncologic, pro-tumor generator technology?
	Did we know that it was going to kill people with rapid cancers?
	Of course we did, because we knew that it was published just like we knew in 2018.
	That Ralph Baric's remdesivir had a 53% lethality in clinical trials done in, if you want to call them clinical trials, I call them biological torture trials, done in Africa.
	53% mortality if you got remdesivir and yet that was chosen by the FDA as the drug of choice to use when people were hospitalized with COVID.
	These things, Russell, a 53% mortality exceeds any lethal agent we know in nature.
	There is no such thing as a 53% lethality of anything nature does.
	But we were able to inject that into people with impunity and the publication on that, let's get really clear on that, the publication of that data, the 53% mortality data, That publication was the World Health Organization's own clinical trials where they, in their own discretion, determined that it was unethical to inject Africans with this stuff because 53% of them were dying.
	And in the paper, It's important to point out, it said, regardless of viral load.
	Russell, let's unpack for the common listener what the heck that means.
	That means we were killing people who didn't even have Ebola, who didn't even have another disease.
	Regardless of viral load means we were killing people because we were injecting them with an agent we knew was toxic.
	And that's what we chose to use in COVID.
	Anybody who wants to pretend like this was the unknowable, how could we possibly have ever seen this coming?
	Every single agent, every single side effect was known.
	And in 2018, the coup de grace was they changed the definition of adverse event so that an adverse event can only exist if, and are you ready for this?
	The adverse event has been proven to be causal in previous scientific data.
	Guess what?
	They changed the definition so there could be no adverse events.
	So these guys could get up and lie to the public and go, nope, sorry, we don't have any adverse events.
	Why?
	Because there was no data published around these injections and it won't be published for another four and a half years because that's how long it takes to finish the clinical trial.
	So great news!
	There can be no risk, it's all upside.
	Well, Dave, that's pretty heavy.
	It sounds like many of the viruses that have caught the public imagination, as well as being very powerful and terrifying diseases, whether it's SARS or Ebola, have had some kind of Secondary parallel history.
	Do you think that that's why the idea is being cultivated that natural origin viruses will continue to reach the public perhaps because of a depletion of forests or various other reasons?
	People going into bat caves hither and thon.
	Why is it that many of these stories of which I'm sort of aware of appear to have this peculiar connection to this organization and this extraordinary story that you're telling us?
	Yeah, isn't it fascinating that I have in front of me this beautiful article, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, where, and let's just make sure we're clear on this, the date on that is March the 15th, 2016, where Ralph Baric was kind enough to say the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 was, and I quote, poised for human emergence.
	Does that sound like a random event in a wet market somewhere in Wuhan?
	Does it sound like somewhere along a bat and a pangolin went to a bar and got it on one night and lo and behold, poof, out came a little baby coronavirus?
	Is that what it sounds like?
	Or does it sound like poised for human emergence?
	And it's not any old virus.
	It's the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 that was uploaded and reproduced at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
	In 2016, during the gain-of-function moratorium, that's the one that's ready to be poised for human emergence.
	And we're supposed to believe that in December 2019, a wet market accident is how a pandemic got started, despite the fact that the guy who invented the thing and patented it told us that it was ready to be released In 2016.
	And then in September of 2019, three months before the alleged outbreak, said there was going to be, and I quote, an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen.
	Does that sound like nature just oopsing it out of the melting of the ice caps?
	Where does it say that there will be an accidental or intentional release, Dave?
	Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if I was just making that shit up?
	But it isn't.
	It's the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board World at Risk document and it was published on September 18th, 2019, signed by none other than Anthony Fauci and Dr. Elias from the Gates Foundation and Dr. Gao from the Chinese CDC and all of the other wonderful actors from the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, all of whom were more than happy to say we're going to have an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen.
	And I'm quoting from their own document, so that by September 2020, the public is willing to accept a universal vaccine.
	What were them trials that were carried out that Fauci knew about and I bet our man from DARPA was involved in 2016 in the US.
	What was that collaboration between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and something that Fauci was sponsoring that took place in your country there like a few years back?
	Well, we've been doing it, by the way, since 2005.
	The P3 program has been in place since 2005, officially funded after Ralph Baric's presentation at the DARPA MITRE conference in 2005, where he said he was going to do, quote, biohacking.
	Using coronavirus as a biological warfare enabling technology.
	That conference is what put in motion what was then called the P3 program.
	In 2007, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals was the first one to file and get issued a patent on the vaccine for SARS.
	And that patent in 2007 was then transferred to a group of companies in 2008 And after that, over 1,700 patents were filed and ultimately clinical trials done in the United States on coronavirus vaccines.
	And if you go back and you look at the historical record of them, they are notoriously lethal.
	Things died of heart failure, things died of cancers, things died of acute respiratory distress.
	And lo and behold, when this particular clinical trial, Russell, was put in motion, It's important to point out that according to the head of the Institutional Review Board at the University of California Systems, this protocol was, and I quote, a straight-to-humans experiment protocol.
	They did not have any data to evaluate safety.
	They actually did, and I'm quoting from their own statement, a straight-to-humans protocol.
	Bloody hell, mate.
	How did you find yourself in a position to speak before the EU, and I feel you're scheduled to speak before the British Parliament?
	I know there have been Senate inquiries, I know there's a Covid inquiry in our country right now, but my sense is that these inquiries will be quite limited in their scope and will be designed to sort of mitigate fear rather than genuinely excavate some of the Deeply troubling truths.
	In fact, we've said before on our channel that if you were to have the reckoning required, and this is before I spoke to you and gained a deeper and fuller understanding of this issue, that if there was to be a full reckoning, you would have to dismantle the FDA, the WHO, the United States of America would have to undergo some pretty significant restructuring.
	And plainly, when you start talking about things in the scope of history being like 8,000 years deep, it's going to be like a significant shift.
	So, when you speak to the EU, what are you able to convey?
	Do you modulate what you're saying?
	Do you only offer a certain amount of information and that which is most demonstrably true?
	How do you handle that as well as what was the result when you did speak before the EU?
	Yeah, well, I began my public appearances on these types of topics back in the 1980s with what became then known as the Iran-Contra scandal.
	So my first testimony in Congress was in 1983.
	So I've been at this game for a very, very, very long time, and I've been unambiguously pointing out corruption and Um, clear violations of our own laws and laws that we, as a civilized society, say that we live up to.
	In the early 2000s and late 90s, I was actually involved in a lot of the early observational work around biological and chemical weapons proliferations.
	That's the reason why in 2002, three and four, I was all over the world looking at this technology readiness level of biological weapons programs.
	And I briefed governments on both sides of the Atlantic about what was coming as emerging threats.
	And what I found out in 2003 was unfortunately, um, I was being asked to look into things and I was encouraged not to find the things that we actually found.
	My first briefing that included the coronavirus as a biological weapon was published in 2003.
	It was briefed in 2002, but the first publication was in 2003.
	Since then, I was in places like Tehran and Slovenia and India and all across the world trying to bring this kind of information to the public's knowledge because I felt that it was important, given the fact that the public thinks that after the Second World War, We had prohibitions on biological and chemical weapons, and we actually thought that that meant that prohibition meant we weren't going to do anything.
	And the public did not know that we had a very active program going on in the United States and around the world.
	And what I have done is I have never softened the message once.
	I try every way I can to make sure that every word that comes out of my mouth, I can actually go back and provide the source reference for absolutely every statement I make.
	And the reason why I am still able to do what I'm doing, including the two appearances at the European Union Parliament, is every single statement I made was cited with the original source documentation.
	And the thing that blew people's minds when I was in Brussels is I pointed out that the coronavirus model actually was derived only a few years after DNA was first characterized by Watson and Crick, ultimately gaining them the Nobel Prize.
	But ironically, I pointed out that it was in the 1960s that the United States and the United Kingdom began collaboration on cross-Atlantic transmission of coronavirus to see if we could infect populations on either side of the Atlantic, starting with the U.S.
	transferring coronavirus samples, allegedly, into the United Kingdom to infect, quote, healthy volunteers.
	That was done in the 1960s.
	By the 1970s, we had a full program of taking various pathogens on both sides of the Atlantic, and the United States and the United Kingdom were collaborating in infecting each other's populations with each other's pathogens to see how well these things could transmit.
	And that information, which I shared in the European Union Parliament in Brussels, is the reason why that video reportedly wound up going to several billion viewers.
	Because it turns out a lot of people were quite disturbed by that information when it came out.
	And that's why I got invited back to Strasbourg.
	So the story of coronavirus is quite a long and important one that only really penetrates the consciousness of most people in 2019 but is even visibly and documented and I know that coronavirus is a piece of sort of nomenclature ultimately just a piece of vocabulary but it's been used in extraordinary ways.
	There's documentation that it's that its origin is as a weapon. It features as a patent, it's
	sort of part of a patent, it seems extraordinary that viruses are part of a patent.
	So specifically with the outbreaks of 2019 to recent times, what is the function, what is the
	agenda and has it been successful?
	Was it? Was the agenda...
	I guess from talking to you, I get the idea that it goes beyond making a lot of money for Pfizer and Moderna.
	It goes perhaps way beyond national governments being able to regulate, introduce ID, lock people in their homes, radically alter the expectations of what can be achieved without democracy or recourse to public discourse.
	even beyond what is the agenda and were they successful?
	Where were they not successful?
	If the people that have done this are still in positions of power and obviously there are
	because there has been no reckoning except for kind of kangaroo courts theatrics that will play
	out and be interesting to a lot of people but aren't likely in the same way you know that the
	2008 financial crisis doesn't lead to the people behind it being indicted or condemned or imprisoned
	or whatever. What?
	What was their agenda?
	What did they achieve?
	And what was left undone?
	And therefore, what should we look out for next?
	Well, I think we need to reiterate the criminal's own words because the criminal's own words say that this was to create the public understanding of a need for a medical countermeasure.
	But that is the prima facie argument.
	The real reason was because we wanted economics, the media and the hype to work together to influence behavior.
	If you go back and you look at the behavior of the United States, certainly, and its allies, certainly
	the Five Eyes in the last, call it 70 years, what you see is that we have a habitual
	response that says we will create distracting events, we will then create a sense of panic
	and fear in the population, and we will use that panic and fear to then introduce
	things which are assaults to liberty that would otherwise never be tolerated.
	You remember, Russell, that when we were kids, we were told that we would hide under our school desks in case there was a nuclear strike.
	And so somehow or another, these feeble little desks were going to solve a nuclear fallout, right?
	How ludicrous was that?
	But what was that?
	That was conditioning a population to accept That a giant scary thing, produced by the way, by the people who are wielding it, is going to actually potentially cause harm and you are going to be protected by following their orders.
	And so it's not a surprise that we, whether it is the world falling apart with the Cold War and everybody was going to have a nuclear fallout shelter, Whether it was the we're going to be afraid of terrorists, which once upon a time back in the good old days was Northern Ireland was a terrorist and suddenly we freaking relabeled that and all of the terrorists moved south.
	Every time we actually have a government instituting a mechanistic approach to instilling fear in a population, it is for coercive behaviors to adjust the population's response and ultimately get that population to call on the very perpetrators to save them from the thing that they were just told to be afraid of.
	The great news is that in the COVID craziness, about a third of the population in the world fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
	And about a third of it had to be coerced into it.
	You had to lose your job.
	You couldn't see your nan.
	You couldn't do this.
	You couldn't do that.
	You couldn't travel.
	And so about a third of the population was coerced into playing the game.
	But the greatest thing of all, which was not expected by the powers that be, was about a third of the people said, stuff it.
	We're not playing the game.
	We're not going to go along with this again.
	And that's why I say that they failed in their mission, because their mission was to test how much coercion, how much manipulation, how much abuse could the population take before they finally broke.
	And that, I would submit to you, is the large driving force behind the central bank digital currency move now, which is we didn't fall for the terrifying alleged bug that was going to kill us, and we didn't fall for the alleged, you know, we were going to sneeze on somebody and they were going to catch their death.
	Since that didn't work, we're now going to go after a number of other things to see if we can destabilize the population.
	And what I have found encouraging is that the public largely has said, you know what?
	We're not going to play the game.
	And more and more people are coming alongside.
	The tragedy is that unfortunately, conversations like this one, and let's face it, I've been doing this same presentation since April of 2020, and we are now sitting in the fall of 2023, near winter, and we are having our first conversation.
	And tragically, what has been the downfall of the, what I would call the movement towards freedom and liberty, is that we have been very ineffective at committing to keeping a very simple standard.
	And the standard is, we have been subject to an assault on our intelligence and on our intellects so egregiously.
	We have the guy sitting behind me who says he is science, right?
	How ridiculous.
	These are people who took advantage of the willful ignorance of a population.
	But unfortunately, as the other side, it is taking platforms like Rumble, platforms like Twitter now under its new configuration, You know, Tucker Carlson now coming out from under the umbrella of Fox and being on Twitter.
	It's taking these alternative medias and attempt to open up a dialogue channel wide enough that allows the public to actually hear information.
	But the problem we still have is that we're still missing a fundamental commitment to stating that if we are going to take the mantle of liberty and carry it forward, we have to commit to the integrity of saying that the words that come out of our mouths have to be verified.
	The facts that we recite as facts have to be things that we can actually verify.
	And unfortunately, we're allowing innuendo to crossbreed with facts, and that is diminishing the entire public conversation.
	So while I would say the incumbency lost, Because they didn't get everybody shot, and they didn't get everybody coerced, and they didn't get everybody to take the knee.
	I think in another way, we still have to take pause and recognize that as a populace, we still are doing a woefully inadequate job of informing ourselves and holding ourselves to a standard that says we are committed to the truth as deeply as we can access it, and the facts as clearly as we can articulate them.
	And I think we're still a long way away from winning that one.
	That's why I suppose there's a necessary commitment at the level of the individual to a kind of spiritual awakening and deep connection.
	Because without that, you lack the resources.
	If you're trying to resource yourself from the culture, and it seems increasingly obvious that the culture is malign, is a kind of toxicity in itself, you're gonna struggle.
	You have to have a relationship with your spirit, or with God, or however you formulate it.
	access to a power that is greater than yourself and enables you to cooperate with other people
	and perhaps even overlook significant cultural differences in order to align and fight for
	what seems to be an extremely significant, necessary and precipitous war. Let's call
	it a war. I wonder Dave, if you are concerned then about the concomitant attacks on independent
	I figure that if you imagine zero independent media during the past five years, I don't think there would even be a Covid inquiry in the UK.
	I don't think you'd have the hearings in the Senate.
	I don't think you'd have been invited to the EU.
	Certainly you wouldn't have a video that reached potentially billions of people.
	So What do you think's happening with the same Five Eyes countries you referenced earlier, introducing near-simultaneous legislature to prohibit free speech, to punish platforms if they house messaging, the government or various bureaucratic bodies, because it won't be the government ultimately, because there are powers transcendent of national government, quite plainly, quite plainly we're seeing that.
	How do you feel about this new raft of legislation, as well as this sort of overt crushing of dissent?
	Well, so I think you're raising a very important point.
	And what I would say is twofold.
	Number one is that I recently gave a speech in Germany on the Nuremberg fallacy.
	And it was very important to deliver that speech.
	It was very important to do it in Germany.
	And I was warned by people that I could be treading on some sensitive new German legislation by doing what I said.
	But once again, committing to the facts, what I did was I reviewed the 16,000 pages of the Nuremberg transcripts.
	And committed to everything I said had to be derived directly from the record of the prosecution at Nuremberg, which is what I did.
	And it turns out that that was an amazingly effective speech in spite of the crazy new rules that are put in place in Germany.
	I know around the world, people are passing all kinds of legislation, which is part of the reason why Kim and I have been committed throughout our entire life together.
	And certainly I've been committed to this throughout my absolutely entire life.
	I like to sit down with people in analog.
	I like to sit with people in assemblies, whether that's in a coffee shop, whether that's in a stadium.
	I don't care where it is.
	I love to sit with people in the analog because it is impossible to control what happens in those environments.
	The reason why we have been so committed lately to making ourselves available around the world, and I've traveled extensively over the last couple of years now.
	The reason why we've done that is I want to show that no matter how much they try to control platforms, they cannot control people.
	And the freedom of assembly is something which may be impaired, and there may be all kinds of impediments that are put up to try to block that from happening.
	But the fact of the matter is, in the white hot core of the pandemic, we were still gathering people left, right, and center.
	We were still meeting with people.
	We were still traveling.
	We were still doing the things that put human connection together.
	And I think That that analog human to human connection is in fact what will keep us going.
	And I'd encourage you to think about your own career.
	Nothing like being on stage at a comedy show.
	Nothing like being on stage at a major venue where you actually have the will and the power and the enthusiasm and the audience feeding you and you're feeding it back and so forth.
	That dynamic of what it means to be human and have that analog connection with people is what is fueling the future and the digital Dependency of the incumbency is going to be its downfall.
	We the people can still stand together.
	We can still assemble.
	We can still hang out each other's houses.
	We can still go to each other's giant parks and open spaces.
	We can still do those things and we can still connect.
	And I think that we need to redouble our efforts for analog connection because as long as we hand it over to the digital, unfortunately, because of the way the laws were written all the way back to the National Telecommunications Acts in the 1950s and 60s, Every signal can be blocked.
	Every signal can be hijacked.
	Every signal can be disrupted.
	But they can't do that when you're sitting at my dining room table.
	So in a sense...
	Obviously I don't need to paraphrase what you said, I just heard what you said, but it appears that in conjunction with real connections conducted via the human senses, and I imagine based on what you told me earlier on about the sort of cranial neural connections and the additional senses, I mean additional to the sort of ordinary discussion of such matters, that that people having connections that go beyond these digital
	interfaces, it's going to be absolutely vital. What I myself have spent a lot of time
	thinking about is how our systems of power are abstract, inflated and gargantuan, and do not
	replicate any kind of system that we might animalistically relate to as tribal creatures, as
	blessed primates with a connection to the sublime.
	How are we ever supposed to coordinate a mentality within a nation of 300 million people or 60 million people or even in cities of 8, 10, 12 million people?
	In the end, you feel like you're living a wash in a kind of sea of futility that leads to nihilism in a sort of a post-enlightenment rationalist mindset that tells you that unless you can measure it, unless you can eat it, unless you can sell it, It isn't there.
	The intuitive, the divine, all obfuscated and relegated from the field of our discussion.
	Again, makes me return to the point that yes, we need an awakening at the level of the individual and we need to recognize as sacred that which takes place within us.
	Each of us is a portal to something divine and unknowable within the limitations of the rational mind and we have to somehow instantiate systems that are reflective not only of our origins, the way we might have lived for Who knows?
	Hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions of years.
	I just don't have the access to the right books or even the right history, perhaps.
	But it would be lovely to think that we might live differently.
	And the foreclosure on the possibility of different systems is one of the great masterpieces of an apparently progressive civilization.
	The Egyptians may have done this and whatever happened down there in Atlantis, this is the best it's been and the best it ever yet could be.
	We are at the apex and soon the machines will do our, certainly not your, Bidding!
	You can live as a tyrannised blob, staring at a screen, imbibing sugar, being injected every one or two months, depending on what's decreed.
	Unless there's an alternative spiritual vision conveyed, and you're right, I don't see how that can happen without face-to-face, in-real-life meetings, without radical movements that radically propose the idea that we can be unified but decentralised.
	Without this movement being advanced immediately, Dave, then I don't see that there's a lot of hope.
	Russell, let me make an observation.
	A couple of weeks ago, I was walking down Bond Street in London and I was, you know, just minding my own business, going to a meeting with one of my companies.
	And I was accosted by a group of young men who were on the opposite side of the street, came running across in front of traffic.
	I was wearing my bow tie and they ran up to me and they said, you're David Martin.
	I said, well, yes, I am.
	And they said, well, keep doing what you're doing because of you.
	You know, it was our football club that didn't get the shot.
	I will tell you that my digital presence is the reason why they heard me.
	So I'll be very clear.
	I'm celebrating the fact that we can have this conversation and I can be sitting in my studio in the United States.
	You can be sitting in your studio in the UK and we can have this conversation, but I can guarantee you that the fuel that not only fueled their behavior, But the fuel that actually led them to run across Bond Street in London, to actually share their analog human experience with me, was the stuff that the incumbency cannot, nor does it even understand.
	And it cannot understand because it believes that the loudest voice is the one in the room that will control the day.
	But what they fail to understand is it is the human connection, the ability to actually say, your life matters.
	Which is something that unfortunately, as you said before, without some sort of spiritual connection to a meaning statement, without the presence of a reality that says, hold on a second, I think that this thing called human is pretty freaking amazing.
	And it's not just a meat puppet to be in service to somebody's incumbent will and whim.
	This is actually an amazing sacred vessel.
	And once we actually allow that connection to exist, even if it's nothing more than running across Bond Street to say, Oh my God, you're the bow tie wearing American.
	That saved my football club.
	No matter what it is, those human-to-human connections are the fuel that will keep me going, keep you going, keep us all going, regardless of the tyranny that we face.
	And we have to look across the whole of human history and recognize that it is until we embrace the fact that the incumbency only has the power we're willing to cede to it.
	The minute we actually stop ceding that power, we wind up reclaiming our sovereignty as humans, and we start connecting with each other as humans, and the outcome is brilliant and unstoppable.
	Whoa, Dave Martin!
	That's a beautiful rallying cry for our kind and a great opportunity for us to form independent selves across the world that can diversely unify against what appears to be a pretty immersive and plain and transparent attempt to control us.
	I can just see the background of your studio.
	Make it, type it, hijack liberty with it.
	We have a hell of a job on our hands.
	Dave, thank you so much for your incredible contribution to this movement, for conveying such complex information so, not gently, but plainly and accessibly.
	I really value that.
	Thank you so much for your time.
	We'll get to speak again and meet in real life, I hope.
	As soon as possible.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you, Dave Martin.

▲

**BOMBSHELL REVELATION** W.H.O Gets Immunity From Committing WHAT?! - Stay Free #244

BOMBSHELL REVELATION W.H.O Gets Immunity From Committing WHAT?! - Stay Free #244