All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
28:29
Here’s the News: Vivek Ramaswamy Calls Out FBI & Claims Jan 6 Was An Inside Job?

As Vivek Ramaswamy calls Jan 6 an inside job, despite pushback from the legacy media, does the FBI have a history of creating criminals in order to arrest them, and does Ramaswamy need to be careful? --💙Support Me Directly HERE: https://rb.rumble.comWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleGet a free custom sticker pack by visiting https://stickermule.com/russell

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week, we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr., Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Maté, and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
No, here's the fucking news!
Hello there you Awakening Wanderers, thanks for joining us on our voyage to truth and freedom.
Now is the time to awaken.
We have no choice, you've sensed that.
Whether you stand at one extreme of this apparently polar argument or the other, this surely is a time where we have to alter our systems.
There's no question, there has to be a deep, deep awakening within us individually and the appetite to change the world together.
Vivek Ramaswamy has emerged as perhaps the first millennial presidential candidate well
familiar with the tropes of online spaces and able to nimbly navigate territories opened
up perhaps by Trump and certainly by independent media content creators.
Vivek Ramaswamy in the context of presidential primaries has talked about January 6th is
an inside job, 9/11 needs to be investigated, the FBI set up criminal dynamics in order
to make arrests.
Now that latter used to be a trope of the left, people used to continually say "oh
the FBI".
In fact Chris Morris' film recently covered that very subject that people are encouraged
to set up terrorist organisations then arrested for having terrorist organisations.
That kind of deep mistrust of the state which is now regarded as a kind of an alt-right
perspective is a 1960s leftist perspective actually or at least it was for a brief while.
So let's have a look at some of Vivek Ramaswamy's rhetoric and then let's look at the FBI and their history for establishing apparently criminal dynamics then making arrests.
And let's look at the nature of these organisations and their relationship with the public at large.
Why am I the only person on the stage at least who can say that January 6th now does look like it was an inside job?
That the government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9-11.
I would say looking at the facts of the video footage that have come out, Dana, it is shocking that you still haven't gotten a clear answer of how many federal agents were in the field that day.
Look at now the video footage of actually throwing explosives and rubber bullets into what was a peaceful crowd, then releasing to the public what came in response to that.
But now look at the video footage that was released, and I'm glad we're talking about it because viewers deserve to look at that footage.
Capitol Police literally letting people in, who were then now prosecuted, some of whom have gone on to commit suicide because of what the government's doing.
That is a case of entrapment.
And I think the government has not been transparent about this, which is why I then brought up another case where the government, now 20 years later, with declassified documents, tells us that they lied to us at the time.
So I do think we have a government that's consistently lied to its people.
An inside job suggests that everybody who attacked the Capitol was part of some...
I didn't say that, but I was saying that there is entrapment going on.
So interesting attempt to reframe the meaning of an inside job.
That means that the whole thing was entirely created, a complete construction.
As Vivek points out, that's not what he said, perhaps, but that the events wouldn't have unfolded in the way they did had it not been for the presence of state agents potentially provoking and exacerbating the conditions.
And increasingly, that seems likely, even perhaps evident.
There's entrapment going on and this looks like a case of entrapment and if you look at even over the last day... What do you mean by entrapment?
Entrapment means that the police go to people to do something otherwise that they otherwise wouldn't have done and then they arrest them for actually doing it.
So do the FBI frequently create conditions and situations or have they historically created conditions and situations that they then intervene in and claim that is the resolution of a case?
And if that proves to be true does that reveal to us Details about how the state functions, creating conditions and situations that are advantageous.
Could that apply to January the 6th?
Seems that it's possible.
Could that apply to 9-11?
Could every single conspiracy in American history somehow have tendrils in a deep state agency exploiting events to create opportunities to legitimize further authority or to amplify power?
Let's have a look at it.
The government's henchmen have become the embodiment of how power, once acquired, can be so easily corrupted and abused.
Indeed, far from being tough on crime, FBI agents are also among the nation's most notorious lawbreakers.
That shouldn't be true, should it?
That should be untrue.
It shouldn't be true that the Federal Bureau of Investigation contains criminals, or at least people that conduct criminal But we spoke to those FBI whistleblowers a little while ago.
they recounted how the investigations into January 6th and the investigation prior to
January 6th had left them with a lot of questions about partisan behaviours and even criminal
behaviour.
Whether the FBI's plan in undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques, issuing
fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans' phone records, using intimidation tactics
to silence Americans who are critical of government, or persuading impressionable individuals to
plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation's secret
police is that of a well-dressed thug flexing its muscles doing the boss's dirty work.
The FBI, I suppose, are like many institutions now.
Your impression of them might alter depending on where you stand in the cultural space.
It's extraordinary for me to see the media championing the CIA or the FBI.
Being cynical about claims of malfeasance from either of those agencies is an indication of where establishment power now is.
When we talk about conservatism, that word generally means a kind of Christian conservatism, a moral conservatism, even social conservatism.
I've always thought of it as the desire to conserve, restrain and control power.
And I feel that what's being conserved now is neoliberal democracy.
And it's no kind of democracy at all.
It's the type of democracy where you're not offered genuine alternatives, where your vote and opinion are ultimately irrelevant, and apparently where the deep state manipulate conditions in order to legitimise power and regulation.
And that's exactly what we're talking about in this story.
Clearly, this is not a government agency that appears to understand, let alone respect, the limits of the Constitution.
Indeed, this same government agency has a pattern and practice of entrapment that involves targeting vulnerable individuals, feeding them with the propaganda know-how and weapons intended to turn them into terrorists, and then arresting them as part of an elaborately orchestrated counter-terrorism sting.
We can't bring you this content that changes the world, changes our consciousness, and helps us to continue to awake without Sticker Mule!
These are our friends, Sticker Mule.
You know the drill by now, surely.
First of all, before there's even been a sticker, you get to do this.
Look at that satisfaction.
Within it, stickers.
More stickers than you will be able to believe.
Six stunning designs.
How much would you be willing to pay for this?
100 pounds?
500 pounds?
600 yen?
Look at all these beautiful stickers themed around our show.
They're made with Sticker Mule's magic touch and because things have been so successful, there is 10,000 of these packed.
Ready to deliver to your address for free.
Just go to stickermule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the form.
And you'll get all these stickers.
It's that simple.
Stickermule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the form.
Let's get back to this content.
Come on, we've got to change the world.
Basically it works like this.
In order to justify their crime-fighting superpowers, the FBI manufactures criminals by targeting vulnerable individuals and feeding them anti-government propaganda.
Then undercover agents and informants equip the targeted individuals with the training
and resources to challenge what they've been indoctrinated into believing is government
corruption.
And finally, the FBI arrests the targeted individuals for engaging in anti-government
terrorist activities.
This is what passes for the government's perverse idea of being tough on crime.
So beyond investigating actual crime objectively separately occurring, they are involved through
counter-terrorism measures and counter-criminal measures in instigating crimes.
There are a few famous examples of where that's happened.
But for a moment, hold in your mind the idea that deep state agencies that were definitely present, concealed within the crowd on January the 6th, have on previous occasions caused, to a significant degree, to the degree where the people that had been imprisoned were acquitted, the crimes that they claim to be resolving.
And then, bearing in mind that what we're generally reporting on is elitist establishment globalist tendencies, look for a moment what's happening in Ireland. That just by being suspected
of being in possession of hate speech, and hate in this context is not clearly
defined, that the police will be able to go into your house and arrest you if they suspect you of
having hateful material on your phone or your devices. What it seems is being created
is the potential for amorphous laws to be applied in various territories and for deep
state and law enforcement agencies to arrest you for vague and obtuse crimes. So whether you're
looking at January the 6th in the presence of deep state agencies, the many historic
examples of the FBI being involved in the arrest of terrorists that they had in fact
ultimately groomed.
Or this tendency around the world to criminalise forms of speech, to refer to speech as being weaponised, it shows how what's being created, or at least I believe what's being augured, is a kind of global police state where increasingly we can be arrested for crimes that we maybe didn't commit or would not have committed had it not been for the intervention of law enforcement agencies, which seems extraordinary.
For example, undercover FBI agents pretending to be associated with ISIS have been accused of seeking out online and befriending a 16-year-old with brain development issues, persuading him to secretly send them small cash donations in the form of gift cards, and then the moment Matteo Ventura turned 18, arresting him for providing financial support to an Islamic terrorist group.
If convicted, the teenager could spend up to 10 years in prison.
That seems like exploitation designed to meet charters for the number of arrests required in order to legitimise a budget.
But this is not a unique case.
And one of the things we've seen in this country, the UK, is deep state apparatus designed for counter-terrorism turned onto the domestic population.
In fact, it was Matt Taibbi who explained that many counter-terrorist and counter-insurgent agencies, organisations and funding was turned to counter-Covid control.
This has happened in the last three years and is part of a broader trend not to criminalise an entire population, but to criminalise a significant portion of the population so that authoritarianism is legitimised.
Yet, as The Intercept explains, the only terrorist he is accused of ever being in contact with was an undercover FBI agent who befriended him online as a 16-year-old.
This law enforcement tactic has been criticized by national security researchers who have scrutinized the FBI's role in manufacturing terrorism cases using vulnerable people who would have been unable to commit crimes without prolonged government assistance and encouragement.
The Ventura case may indicate that authorities are still open to conjuring terrorists where none existed.
I think we all respect a degree of ingenuity and clandestine manoeuvring and operations.
But when a crime would not have occurred without the intervention of deep state agents, then that almost by definition means that there is no crime because it wouldn't have happened without their engagement and involvement.
That's obvious.
In another incident, the FBI used an undercover agent informant to seek out and groom an impressionable young man, cultivating his friendship, gaining his sympathy, stoking his outrage over injustices perpetrated by the US government, then enlisting his help to blow up the Herald Square subway station.
Despite the fact that Shaharwar Matin Siraj ultimately refused to plant a bomb at the train station, he was arrested for conspiring to do so at the urging of his FBI informant and used to bolster the government's track record in foiling terrorist plots.
In a way we're living in an artificial reality where the perception of FBI success is so important that they are willing to engage in creating a kind of performance of terrorism.
Now, this information I imagine is accessible because the dynamic they're describing is no longer the pertinent and defining dynamic of our news cycle.
Ten years ago, Islamist terror was an absolute priority in the American news cycle and the American psyche more broadly.
Now American culture has altered to the point where the extremes are both domestic, that there's a kind of neoliberal establishment extreme, I'm using their language, and the kind of MAGA extremism.
Now, at least in terms of news and public conversation, people don't talk about, oh there's terrorists, people talk about the migration crisis down there at the southern border, and people talk about extremists needing to be debugged.
That's the conversation now.
With no more enemies to fight abroad, except for the numerous economic wars being currently engaged in, the ire has turned on the domestic population.
Terrorists are now simply people you disagree with, and in order to legitimise the measures and funding, it seems the FBI have frequently engaged in creating incidents that otherwise wouldn't have occurred, just to perpetuate a cycle.
Of course no mention was made of the part the government played in fabricating the plot, recruiting a would-be bomber and setting him up to take the fall.
That's a crime that simply wouldn't have happened without FBI engagement.
They didn't solve that crime, they caused it and then stopped it.
It's like setting fire to your house, putting it out and then sort of wanting a medal.
Which is almost like a Joe Biden anecdote.
I almost lost my wife, my 67 Corvette and my cat.
These are Machiavellian tactics with far-reaching consequences for every segment of the population, no matter what one's political leanings.
But it's especially dangerous for anyone whose views could in any way be characterised as anti-government.
As Rosina Ali writes for the New York Times Magazine, That's an interesting trend that I've noticed elsewhere.
by blurring the lines between speech and action, and by broadening the scope of who is classified as a
threat.
That's an interesting trend that I've noticed elsewhere.
The blurring of lines between speech and action, hate speech and free speech,
of demanding new categories of criminalisation where laws already protect you.
Like it's already illegal to incite violence, it's already illegal to participate in riots,
and yet there are new laws being introduced as if to mitigate threats that really aren't there.
I suppose if your interest is increasing authority, you have to increase the necessity for that authority by claiming that there are threats that only that authority can counter.
For instance, it was reported that the FBI had been secretly carrying out an entrapment scheme in which they used a front company, ANOM, to sell purportedly hack-proof phones to organise crime syndicates and then use those phones to spy on them as they planned illegal drug shipments, plotted robberies and put out contracts for killings using those booby-trapped phones.
All told, the FBI intercepted 27 million messages over the course of 18 months.
What this means is that the FBI was also illegally spying on individuals using those encrypted phones who may not have been involved in any criminal activity whatsoever.
So the FBI was spying on innocent people, just as a matter of course, but we also know that data is compiled and exchanged across the world between Five Eyes countries, bypassing legislation that prevents that.
simply to prevent some crime that you may commit in the future.
Or God forbid, the law or perception might alter in the future
and suddenly the necessary data is already available for your condemnation and maybe even conviction.
Even reading a newspaper article is now enough to get you flagged for surveillance by the FBI.
The agency served a subpoena on USA Today's Gannett to provide the internet addresses and mobile phone
information for everyone who read a news story online on a particular
day and time about the deadly shooting of FBI agents.
Whenever I learn stuff like this, I think, oh my God, if this is what we know, imagine what we don't know.
Imagine the kind of stories that might just be placed in media in order to sort of act as a kind of honey trap.
So, "Ha ha, look at the people that read all of that stuff, oh, look at the people that are following that."
I mean, one doesn't want to yield to paranoia and craziness.
But when you know that what is normalised as institutional practice within the FBI
sounds like criminality and sounds beyond normal practice, then it kind of fosters the possibility
that other nefarious activity may be taking place.
It's like when you hear that the Democrat Party invest in candidates that they wouldn't want to win because it biases the opinions of ordinary Republicans on the Republican Party as a whole or the Pied Piper strategy as it's known and commonly understood.
That, for me, suggests that there's a kind of a lack of fair play.
The FBI should be investigating crimes.
That's it.
And maybe having some undercover agents here or there.
I get it.
But when it gets to the point that they're creating criminality in order to solve those crimes, what you have is, that's actually just corruption, isn't it?
"This is the danger of allowing the government to carry out widespread surveillance, sting
and entrapment operations using dubious tactics that sidestep the rule of law. We the people
become suspects and potential criminals, while government agents, empowered to fight crime using
all means at their disposal, become indistinguishable from the corrupt forces they seek to vanquish."
I think this is a broad theme and phenomenon that we're living through now. As more and more people
become suspicious of the state, become suspicious of the media, our freedom and independent thought
becomes kind of criminal in so much as it's a threat to their hegemony. So they have to legitimise
ways of criminalising us because they know that they can't just say, "Well, it's criminal that
you're sceptical and cynical and oppositional." That's not a crime, but it would be a crime if
you were to, you know, hate the government and put a bomb on that subway.
Would you do that?
Oh, God, it'd be complicated.
Well, here's a bomb.
Well, how would you get in there?
I don't know.
You dress up.
Here's an outfit.
Would you do it?
No, actually, it seems wrong.
But you were going to do it, weren't you?
You're under arrest.
It seems like they're creating conditions to criminalise people.
This is, of course, a series of extreme examples.
But along with the other examples, I've noted a kind of bad faith mentality in many of our institutions.
It shows you that We're living in a very corrupt dynamic where your freedom is fundamentally a problem.
To go after terrorists, they become terrorists.
To go after drug smugglers, they become drug smugglers.
To go after thieves, they become thieves.
For instance, when the FBI raided a California business that was suspected of That's stealing, isn't it?
That's stealing.
I mean, I'd like to be able to do that.
I'd like to be able to go, we're taking all the stuff in those boxes.
On what basis?
Well, someone may have done a crime nearby.
forfeiture motions to keep the contents, which include millions of dollars worth of valuables
owned by individuals not accused of any crime whatsoever.
That's stealing, isn't it? That's stealing. I mean, I'd like to be able to do that. I'd like
to be able to go, "We're taking all the stuff in those boxes." On what basis? "Well,
someone may have done a crime nearby.
Also, deep down, I've always wanted more money." It's hard to say whether we're dealing with
a kleptocracy, a government ruled by thieves, a kakistocracy, a government run by unprincipled
career politicians, corporations and thieves that pander to the worst vices in our nature
and has little regard for the rights of American citizens, or we've gone straight to an idiocracy.
This certainly isn't a constitutional democracy, however.
Yes, it's amazing isn't it?
Once in a while you step back and look at what's happening because we've been so embroiled in it and it's become so normalised and it's so difficult to qualify information.
There's always a counter narrative.
I realise I participate in this world to a degree and people have accused me of being a conspiracy theorist and reactionary but the simple truth is that agencies that are trusted with health behave in ways that are odd, receiving royalties, repressing
information.
Agencies that are in charge of crime commit criminal acts.
Media that you're supposed to be able to trust have financial relationships
and state relationships and biases that mean that they're completely unreliable.
So these, I've heard of kleptocracy, but I'd never heard of kakistocracy.
I think we're quite close to kakistocracy, a government run by unprincipled career politicians,
corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature
and has little regard for the rights of American citizens.
I think we're in that one and moving towards idiocracy.
That's where I think we are.
We're at the worst bit of kakistocracy and no one would ever vote for that, would they?
Just on the basis of its name.
Would you be interested in cackistocracy?
It doesn't sound very good.
We're the cackistocratic party!
No thank you.
I'm afraid you've already voted for us because we lied.
We're actually called the Democrats.
Some days it feels like the FBI is running its own crime syndicate complete with mob rule and mafia-style justice.
This should start getting with the FBI and CIA, shouldn't it?
I'm sure there are good things that a Central Intelligence Agency or a Federal Bureau of Investigation could be doing, but at the moment, that's not what's happening.
So those kind of politicians, indeed, we began with the vague, somewhat incendiary in their rhetoric, and certainly populist in their approach, that say stuff, and I think it's Bobby Kennedy that said, I'd scrap the CIA.
You know, like, that's the kind of thing that appeals, because I think all of us deep down sense This isn't working anymore, is it?
There are things within democracies that are sort of wonderful,
but they're not actually happening.
If you went to the American Constitution and went, "Right, what is it that it says we're supposed to do?"
Yeah, that would work. Or the Magna Carta in our country, where it talks about the rights of the individual.
You'd go, "Yeah, actually, we've got ideas."
Where you land between libertarianism and anarcho-syndicalism and socialism and capitalism,
there's probably merits within all of these ideas.
But we're living in one of these new things, like kakistocracy now,
and no one's mentioning it, because they know that no one would vote for it.
In addition to creating certain crimes in order to solve them,
the FBI also gives certain informants permission to break the law,
including everything from buying and selling illegal drugs to bribing government officials and plotting robberies
in exchange for their cooperation on other fronts.
This is common practice, we all know about that from movies and stuff, and that in itself is already a massive line crossed.
USA Today estimates that agents have authorized criminals to engage in as many as 15 crimes a day, 5,600 crimes a year.
Some of these informants are getting paid astronomical sums.
One particularly unsavory fellow, later arrested for attempting to run over a police officer, was actually paid $85,000 for his help laying the trap for an entrapment scheme.
I was running over that police officer's part in one of my schemes.
Oh, okay, there's $20,000.
Don't do it again.
I will, but I'm going to need another $20,000.
This scheme's not working.
How the hell are we going to keep paying this guy?
Could we use those jewels in that safety deposit box?
Well, it seems immoral, and yet here I am doing it, and you're paying for it out of your taxpayer dollars.
God bless America.
In a stunning development reported by the Washington Post, a probe into misconduct by an FBI agent resulted in the release of at least a dozen convicted drug dealers from prison.
In addition to procedural misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, the FBI's laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, and harassment.
At that point, you've actually crossed the line now.
There is this kind of understood affinity between criminal classes and law enforcement.
They're both gangs.
They've both got code words and clandestine rules and a particular nomenclature and a mentality of, like, keeping quiet about stuff, code to silence, surreptitious violence.
But when it's actual list of surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation, now we're in the godfather of, like, I think I prefer the Corleone family.
At least they wear nice suits.
The FBI has been particularly criticised in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks for targeting vulnerable individuals and not only luring them into fake terror plots, but actually equipping them with the organisation, money, weapons and motivation to carry out the plot's entrapment, and then jailing them for their so-called terrorist plotting.
This is what the FBI characterises as forward-leaning, preventative prosecutions.
We led so far forward, we led into people that weren't even criminals but just were children, arrested them, and put them in jail for things they might have done one day.
We leaned over so far forward, we crashed their heads onto the concrete of absolute corruption.
That was so far leading, I think I deserve a gold watch.
We're not giving you any gold watches for that!
Well, I'll give myself one then, from that safety deposit box.
There!
Still ticking.
The FBI has also repeatedly sought to expand its invasive hacking powers to allow agents to hack into any computer anywhere in the world.
Could we hack into any computer anywhere in the world?
No!
Absolutely not!
Another gold watch?
Suffice to say that when and if a true history of the FBI is ever written, it will not only track the rise of the American police state, but it will also chart the decline of freedom in America.
How a nation that once abided by the rule of law, and held the government accountable for its actions, has steadily devolved into a police state where justice is one-sided, a corporate elite runs the show, representative government is a mockery, police are extensions of the military, surveillance is rampant, privacy is extinct, and the law is little more than a tool for the government to browbeat the people into compliance.
There's a point where it becomes, I think, trans-political, i.e.
wherever you are on the political spectrum, you would be able to agree that that's gone out of control.
And if you're turning a blind eye to it because temporarily the FBI are sort of anti-Trump or they're anti-Black Lives Matter or wherever you fall on that scale, this is where you have to sort of recognise, hold on, that's This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.
with everybody eventually, we need a massive reckoning and probably an agency that's gotten
that out of control. I think probably needs to, if not be radically re-evaluated, I'd say disbanded,
wouldn't you? This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.
The powers that be are not acting in our best interests. Almost every tyranny being...
You just probably have different crises that you nominated as the crises that they'd utilised depending on your political persuasion.
secure has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or
another by our own government. Again we're now totally in a territory that we
can all agree on. You just probably have different crises that you nominated as
the crisis that they'd utilised depending on your political persuasion.
What value does any anti-Trump rhetoric have when this is true? Like, he's a dictator!
He'll turn the country into the sort of dictatorship where a corporate elite runs the show, representative governments are mockery, police are extensions of the military, surveillance is rampant, privacy is extinct, and the law is little more than a tool for the government to browbeat people into compliance.
That's already happening!
Right, right.
So people are just, like, voting for someone because they're funny?
Yeah!
Think about it.
Cyber warfare, terrorism, biochemical attacks, the nuclear arms race, surveillance, the drug wars, domestic extremism, the COVID-19 pandemic.
There it is.
This is how it actually works.
So the FBI essentially are...
A significant part of manoeuvring deep state activity to respond to these apparent crises that are amplified by the media that benefit corporate elites.
And this lot are like sort of behind the scenes doing some shady stuff and then awarding themselves boxes of jewellery and gold watches every couple of months to celebrate.
In almost every instance, the US government, often spearheaded by the FBI, has, in its typical Machiavellian fashion, sown the seeds of terror domestically and internationally in order to expand its own totalitarian powers.
Consider that this very same government has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests, GPS devices, surveillance, non-lethal weapons, etc., and used it against us to track, control, and trap us.
Are you getting the picture yet?
The US government isn't protecting us from threats to our freedoms.
The US government is creating the threats to our freedoms.
It is the source of the threats to our freedoms.
And as that becomes increasingly exacerbated, just your ability to think freely and speak freely and communicate freely and move freely are increasingly being manoeuvred, I think, into criminal acts.
I think that what we've heard described here in this article, where vulnerable individuals and marginal individuals that are mentally ill or from a currently maligned or previously maligned cultural group, these are piloting cases which will become normal and standard for any kind of dissent.
The only way to be free in this culture is to do exactly as you're told.
That's it.
And that's not freedom, is it?
And there might be a point where you go, well, I don't want to do what I'm talking about.
And you'll sort of stray out of it.
And you will be criminalized.
And the legislation will exist.
And the deep state apparatus will exist.
And the prisons will have been built.
And the prisons will be profitable.
And the judiciary will have been collapsed and corrupted.
And the media won't report on it responsibly.
And the government is comprised of people that whichever side you vote for ultimately support the whole system.
I mean, however much you love Trump, and I'm increasingly seeing what it is you're into, he didn't go, I'm disbanding the FBI, did he?
He didn't go, the CIA, I'm getting rid of it now.
It's too mental.
This swamp that Trump claimed that he would drain is pretty deep, and in real need of draining, I would say, based on that.
So I'm not telling you who to vote for, who to like, or who not to like.
I'm saying that, as Trump often talks about in his rhetoric, and as Vivek did here, the system itself is so corrupt, it would require, I think, a sort of almost complete dismantling, and that no one that seeks power, unless they're saying, I'm going to use that power to give it back to you through all sorts of forms of assembly.
I don't want power.
It would drive me crazy.
I'm already mental.
No.
▲
Export Selection