On today’s show, I have a fascinating conversation with comedian and political commentator Greg Gutfeld. You can watch him on “The Five” at 5 pm ET on weekdays and “Gutfeld!” at 10 PM ET weeknights on Fox News.We spoke about how the media space has changed, wokeism, Tucker Carlson, and advertising in media. Plus, to see the whole uncut interview, go to our locals community! --💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
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 Mate 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.
Greg, hey, thanks for joining us.
Yes.
My pleasure.
I'm very excited to be here.
I love you, Russell.
Even though we've had a checkered past, I've always loved you.
It's interesting, isn't it?
We are, in a sense, I would say, very much the Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor of the world of punditry, shall we say.
I remember the first time I was aware of you, you were saying, I knew this guy when I lived in the UK.
I liked him then, and now he's become...
An asshole, I think.
Or an ass, at least.
And like, I was like, oh, what's going on?
But actually, do you think, what does this indicate?
Has the culture changed?
Because I suppose you would have once been, given that I first saw you on Fox News, associated with, you know, we all know what we associate Fox News with.
Is it libertarianism?
Is it populism?
Is it conservatism?
Is it sort of like right-wing Christianity?
There's sort of a whole That's a good question.
Fox News and then like, and I was a sort of exiled from Hollywood, brattish show-off,
you know, online.
So and yet somehow we found ourselves agreeing about a lot of issues.
What do you think's changed in the culture, Greg, for us to have found this alliance?
That's a good question.
I mean, I feel like I was always an oddball in any employment I was in.
I mean, I was the editor of Men's Health and I was smoking and drinking.
When I was at Maxim, I was engaging in mostly homoerotic humor to subvert the audience.
And at Fox, I wasn't like the other anchors.
And I was, I, I was always interested in you.
I always found you interesting.
And I knew there was something there that I identified with.
And I think that's why I was so frustrated when I don't even I can't even remember why I was shitting on you.
I can't remember why.
But this is the flaw of doing 24 hour cable news.
I probably saw a clip and I needed to fill a bucket.
And so I used that clip and then I go, this guy, who knows what you were talking about?
You probably don't even remember.
I don't remember.
But that's what we did.
And then you see it, you go, wow, why is this guy doing it?
And then you came back and then you, you said I had a face like an anus and which I, in some ways is realistic.
We, you know, there's an orifice.
That's everyone's face Greg.
That's not unique to you.
You don't look like an anus and I'd like to take this opportunity to unreservedly apologize to you for being rude and I think what the videos were it was when Bill O'Reilly was the most prominent Fox News voice and I used to I think do little videos commenting on Bill O'Reilly's content but Also, the same way that I've always done with, let's call them Fox-style pundits, over time and while watching them, developing a kind of affection, because I'm old enough to recall that when a family would contain people that were of the left and of the right, and that wouldn't be cause for actual hatred and condemnation.
You wouldn't refer to people who had different political views as a basket of deplorables.
You wouldn't say that half of the population shouldn't be allowed to vote or should be debugged.
You wouldn't escalate a kind of a populist demagogue to the sort of heights of a 20th century military dictator.
Everything has become more incendiary, more conflagratory, I would say.
So it's like then, even 10 years ago, when we were first communicating, albeit through aggressive hit pieces on one another, the world was Less filled with invective and something has become concentrated and amplified, Greg, hasn't it?
Yeah, you know what it is?
I mean you could trace it back to the phrase political correctness because that used to be a positive attribute in the sense that I'm morally superior to you and you have to reach this point but then I keep getting higher and then that turned into Well, the political became so personal, and you were supposed to keep it separate.
Like when you talk about family gatherings, you could have Bill O'Reilly as your uncle, and I could be your nephew, and it didn't really matter, and you would sit at the table, and your Uncle Bill would spout about immigrants, and you would be whatever, and then you would move on to sports.
But in this case, now everything is a moral judgment I can't sit at the same table with that person.
And then that escalated to, this person is evil and I have to cut that person out of my life.
And I think that's kind of what we're seeing now, especially in this hyper-woke thing.
It's like, we cannot have a discussion, period.
And in fact, the discussion lends itself to oppression.
Just merely questioning something is an attack.
But the response, I think there's a really positive thing going on.
The response of mockery and humor is taking that away because even Bill Maher noticed it.
They're no longer funny because of this moral hysteria.
And so all of their targets now, it's flipped.
It's now like the radicals are, I wouldn't say on the right, but libertarian, free thinking, Yeah.
Illiberal.
Maybe that's it.
I don't know.
Well, there's a few phrases that I think are useful around here.
I heard the brilliant comedian Duncan Trussell say once, people have gone from woo to cue.
Like people that were previously kind of into meditation and psychedelics have become very anti-establishment now.
There's this entirely new demographic.
And the other aspect of this is this I would say it's a media construct and potentially a movement with academia, certainly that would be the analysis of people who know more than me like Jordan Peterson or Weinstein or whatever.
It seems that At least when it comes to the political and media class of this sort of neo-liberal, let's call it woke again just for simplicity's sake, it doesn't seem that authentic.
What I question is how much they actually do care about the rights of people with different types of sexual identity or how much they actually do care about different races, cultural groups, It doesn't make sense because ultimately I think we all know that these kind of apparently neoliberal but self-regarding leftist thinkers and orators are ultimately undergirded by the same financial and corporate interests
As everybody else.
It's still the military-industrial complex.
It's still big pharma.
So whenever you see... That's why it becomes deeply hypocritical in times of war and health crisis.
Because ultimately they will advocate for the interests of the pharmaceutical companies when in a health crisis, notably and obviously the pandemic.
In a war, all of the peace and love language sort of melts away and is replaced by the kind of patriotic language that totally would have belonged to the Republicans of the, you know, in the Iraq war period.
your Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld language of like, you know, it's not patriotic to talk like that.
You're going to allow Putin, Putin will be marching on NATO countries. Like you say,
Greg, everything has flipped. And the part of the reason it's flipped is because there was no
moral, certain moral values there in the bloody first place.
Yeah, you know, it's interesting to see, like, Ukraine's the best example, I think of this,
is to see people that were so anti-war accuse you of not being a patriot.
it.
If you aren't supporting Ukraine and it's like it's not even our country.
I always look over there and see that it's a fight among relatives.
These are these are countries very and we're and we somehow I think the United States is almost like a next door neighbor or a relative that's egging it on and and for our own reasons for the for to like.
I can't remember who it was, the Secretary of State saying, like, the good news is we're getting billions of dollars into our country.
And he was talking about the upside of war is that we make profits off war.
No one really has ever said that out loud.
Yeah.
I don't even know if he even, Anthony, what's his, Blinken.
Blinken, yeah.
Yeah, I don't even know if he knew that he said it at the time, but he says, hey, we're doing great off this.
Why are you guys complaining?
Well, there's 500,000 people dead.
But I want to touch on something you said, and this is going to be a generalization, but I don't care.
I do think the reason why it's to me it's inauthentic is I do think and maybe this is like a Jordan Peterson-y thing, kind of, but there's an empty hole.
When you see a lot of The really strident voices.
There is something missing in their lives, and they fill that bucket up with this kind of purpose, which really isn't a purpose.
It's just where they place their emotional meaning for attention, so they get the attention For whatever screaming they're doing, and I think at the end of the day, they're not really happy people.
They haven't found peace in their lives, in their family life, and it might not even be their fault.
It could be our society has created a weird environment where some people can't find meaning anymore and are lost.
And so they put it in these, well, the false idols of politics.
I mean, politics becomes their religion, but the only problem with their religion is that there's no forgiveness.
So that's like the woke-ism.
Is a religion without forgiveness.
If you violate the original sin of oppression, your ancestors are guilty.
Whether it's Jews or it's whites in the United States, there's no forgiveness.
So you constantly have to take on the role of oppressor.
It is a religion without confession or without forgiveness.
But I think people treat it as a religion Until maybe, I hope that, like, there's so many young people that are into this kind of phase, and I can't help but think it's filling up something in their lives that isn't being filled by other things.
And I think it's relationships.
I think a lot of these people do not have relationships in their lives, people they can talk to.
Because, like, a friend would tell you, You know, Greg, you shouldn't be sticking, you shouldn't be gluing your hands to a painting, or you shouldn't, why are you blocking traffic of people who are trying to get to work?
Friends would actually say that to you, but it seems like that's missing in people's lives.
You need somebody to tell you you're being an idiot, even though they say, I admire the cause, but you know that in Gaza, they don't care if you're blocking traffic.
Yes it does and I have some thoughts on that as you might imagine Greg.
Just because I don't know anything about a subject that doesn't mean I won't have an opinion on it.
I think it's a kind of natural end point to obsessive individualism.
The kind of culturally immersive narcissism that of course by its nature we must all fall to a degree prey to and I would say that part of my own journey is my own wrestling with That kind of locked-in solipsism as if you're wearing an Oculus or some VR helmet where you're just obsessed continually with self.
If a culture stripped of God, stripped of community, stripped of patriotism, stripped of failure, of a family, offers you only as the only sort of the optimal experience is self-fulfillment, You fulfill your own sexual identity, your own gender identity, your own cultural or racial identity.
These are all beautiful and noble ideas.
People's sexuality is beautiful.
People's culture is beautiful.
I always take recourse to, like, you know, like to ethnographics and anthropology and think, well, how did we live for tens of thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of years?
Small groups of a hundred or two hundred people that You know, would have interacted with other tribal groups, perhaps through trade, perhaps sometimes through warfare.
But there's nothing in our evolution that has prepared us to be confronted with a variety of cultures and being told that that culture is adverse to us.
This is something that was written about extensively, notably by Edward Said, who, like, in his book, what was that called?
Orientalism, sort of pointed out how the West was condemnatory of, like, Eastern culture, and the post-Ottoman empire, Islamic culture,
that we assumed that our cultural trajectory was better and he, as a sort of a Muslim living in the West, said,
"Well, there's different perspectives.
We're not allowing people to have a different perspective on reality."
We've reached the point now where people are happy to say there's no such thing as God.
The ration to sort of mangle CS...
Lewis, the rationalism that we use to posit that there can be no God is itself evolved from a godless set of meaningless processes.
A set of random processes led to a consciousness that is able to ascertain that there is no meaning and no purpose in the world.
And I think that when you live in a world where all that matters is the fulfilment of your own desires, the avoidance of your own fears, you end up with these odd cultural movements and artefacts which, as you say, take on the practices, aesthetics and appearance of a religion.
Zeal, evangelism, certainty, but without the important valves and checks that are embedded in religions to ensure that we don't regard one's individual identity as the summit and apex of all potential experience.
All of us are temporal expressions of something greater, and that can be used to mobilize people to fight for a nation.
That can be used to turn people into racists.
That can be used for a whole variety of things.
But what it could be better utilised for is our life should be dedicated to service and when inevitably, because of biology and because of cultural conditioning, we start thinking the only thing that matters is what Russell wants, this is a time to start employing some principles to get myself out of that illusion.
But no one will do that now because galvanised Evangelical, awakened people are a threat to the globalist establishment elites that are able to implement their goals and agenda because of this disparate and atomised population.
That's my theory, Greg Gutfield.
I agree.
I would say that I would, younger, when I was younger, I was guilty of this same thinking Two points.
One, when I was like 15 or 16, my identity was like a band.
I would sit and I would just write The Clash on everything that I owned.
I was a Clash fan.
I needed an identity because I didn't feel I had one.
And then I became a punk rocker.
I clinged on to things That as almost like as identity markers.
And you can kind of see that now because you can see it as a contagion, at least in the United States, where young women and like they were doing studies where they now identify as non-binary as though it's like doubling every year.
And it becomes like a costume because they are rejecting whatever was there before.
And I there's a this there's a theory from G.K.
Chesterton.
It's called I think it's called the fence.
It's like, don't tear down a fence until you know why it was there in the first place.
And I think what we're seeing with this kind of regressive progressivism is we're tearing down all these fences without ever understanding why they were necessary.
So it was easy as a 17 year old to make fun of religion.
To make fun of your relatives or any kind of traditional stuff was a joke.
What was I replacing it with?
I was too young.
I didn't have any wisdom, but I had the ability to denigrate things that were there before.
And of course, everything before was imperfect.
We know that the United States was a melting pot, but it also had racist elements to it.
Obviously, a legacy of slavery.
But the melting pot is way superior to this potpourri of identities.
The melting pot was about people who were different coming together and cooperating and communicating.
Now we have this thing where, no, you can't have a melting pot.
We have to be separate.
And the idea of cooperation and assimilation means that you're giving in to the oppressor, even being Like, even trusting somebody who's trying to help you is seen as oppression.
I mean, that is a new thing that I'm seeing.
Like, you know, you can't trust a white person because they're white.
And it's like, you do realize that, you know, white people, like anybody else, are here to help.
Generally, they're like, it's hard to find anybody.
I mean, most people just want to help.
But we're saying that that's not That's there's an underlying oppression going on.
That's and that's dividing us.
And then I think the melting pot idea is under threat.
And it kind of scares me because that's the only thing that really holds us together is the idea of communication, cooperation, the idea of helping others.
You know, and in what you're talking about, too, is kind of like The most dangerous thing is one's ego, feeding that ego.
And I mean, I was one of those people.
And the moment you let go of that, it's probably the most freeing thing anybody can do in their lives, is to let go of that ego and look outward.
And all of a sudden, these identity markers kind of float away.
And you suddenly see that everybody is basically in the same boat.
And that's a good thing.
And then the next step is service, being able to help people.
I sound very new agey, but it's kind of like, it's not new agey.
It's the, it's just kind of what we had before, but I don't know.
Yes, Greg.
I suppose that only a maniac would deny that there was not a vast project of colonialism and imperialism that exploited, killed, enslaved hundreds of thousands, millions, millions of people.
But similarly, only a lunatic or a fool would believe that the best way to navigate and placate the legacy of that would be through globalist conglomerates and global organisations and corporations.
So the utilization of these kind of ideas through massive corporations and global NGOs
suggests to me that the agenda is not about individual freedom,
but in fact, the opposite of it.
Now, Greg, to pivot slightly, one of the sort of great cultural moments
of the last few years, which I think has shown us how legacy media and independent media are rubbing
against one another and affecting one another has been Tucker Carlson's departure from the Fox network
and his establishment of his...
He's got his own news network or his own channel, certainly, and his own relationship with X and social media.
As a person that works within Fox, I saw and we talked about the bit, and that's when I called you in fact, Greg, when you said about, I have two words for you, Tucker Carlson.
Corporate interests will censor voices that are anti-war or anti-pharma or antithetical to their interests.
Tell me now what you think Tucker Carlson's time at Fox exemplifies and what his departure from Fox means without getting yourself in trouble because I realize you've got a job.
Yeah, what I was referring to and it's common knowledge and he's talked about it is that galvanizing advertisers against you over time is meant to destroy you.
It's meant to censor you and I think that there was This was building and building and it was, you know, Media Matters and other groups had targeted him.
And that's where I said, like, you know, I think when I was talking about two words, I was talking about that's what happened to Tucker over time.
You know, they just wore it down and for him to survive and everybody who is, I would say, interesting.
Has a an original point of view for them to survive.
It has to be untethered from advertising.
It has to be because advertisers are now the sensors and they're not they're not they're not brave.
I think this goes back to what we were talking about, this kind of the woke-ism.
They embraced the woke-ism kind of as a Trojan horse to protect themselves from their profit-making, their rent-seeking.
They can point to the fact that, look, we have DEI, we have equity hires, we're good, we have these special days in our company.
But meanwhile, they're doing exactly what a corporation does, which is the bottom line, to grow Their influence and their power.
And I think Tucker has said this, so it's not just my opinion.
It wasn't about Fox.
Fox never told him what he couldn't say.
But you could tell from the advertising and the pressure on him that that was, in my opinion, The leading pressure on his exit.
But I don't have proof that there was a meeting.
He, to this day, still doesn't know.
But I do think that Fox never told him he couldn't say anything.
No one's ever told me I can't say anything.
For example, when I said his name, people thought, oh my god, oh my god.
They were like, whatever, that's what you can do.
That's that's why we have you here.
And I think I made it clear that it was it was more about this pressure from advertisers.
And I knew this in magazines, you know, that that, you know, advertisers hate.
The customer, which is so strange.
They really hate the customer.
They think you're stupid.
They don't want to be near the editorial that the customer likes because somehow we're Neanderthals.
And that was true when I was at Maxim.
It was true when I was at Men's Health.
The stuff that sold the magazine Advertisers hated.
So you ended up with magazines like GQ or Esquire, which nobody read, but were this thick, filled with advertising, because that's what it was.
And I think you see that in broadcasting, that those with the most advertising tend to have the emptiest editorial.
There's no perspective.
There's nothing that, like, interests you.
And once you get interesting, or you dare to get outside this circle, then it flips on you, and then they come after you.
And I think that's why, so Russell, Tucker going and creating his own network, what you are doing on Rumble, what Dave Rubin is doing, what Joe Rogan is doing, what the Weinsteins are doing, that's like creating this whole new world where people can go and create their own thing.
Get their own subscriber base and make a living in a career without having to think about upsetting a soap company, you know, or a shoe company.
Meanwhile, the shoe company is having shoes made by, you know, 12 year olds, but they're lecturing you on diversity and equity.
But who's making their their shoes?
You know?
Or drug companies.
You know, the drug companies, you know, why are they advertising?
They're advertising to exert some kind of pressure.
Sometimes it's weird.
I don't know if you see these drug companies.
It's focusing on, like, one drug that, like, nobody has ever heard of or used, but they're still advertising.
Do you ever notice that?
Like, some of these drugs, you're like, are there really a lot of schizophrenics Like, you know, I mean, they'll do a drug for like a very specific kind.
I'm going, are they, is a schizophrenic watching this show and going, ah, I don't know if that's the case.
I just think it's there as a presence to say, hey, we're here.
We're here just a reminder, you know?
Yeah, it's extraordinary the way those models must function for there to be a constant ambient presence.
I understand the cable news is, and I'll check the figure at some point, is 70% funded by Pfizer, not even Big Pharma.
Pfizer specifically funds, I believe, 70% of cable news and we're all familiar with that package where it's sponsored by Yes, you're right.
Their pressure can't be the bespoke amplification of a certain product.
It's not telling a marketplace, hey, if your skin is schizophrenic, this is available for you.
It's no longer about utility.
It's become somehow more immersive than that.
We were just doing a piece on Google buying up real estate and creating company towns now, like a project that's You know, I've been tried before with Disney and, curiously, chocolate companies.
But the power of the corporation is becoming deeply immersive.
And Greg, within that, you touched upon something while talking about Tucker and talking about the relationship between advertisers and broadcasters, which is fundamentally the dynamic that is shifting with the emergence of independent media.
That I think is significant that both the marketing class and the professional journalist class, I might say, hate ordinary people.
They hate their audience.
And I feel this antipathy, and I spoke to Greenwald about it, that other great GG in the public space, Glenn Greenwald, and he said that You know, that the establishment now is no longer sort of masking its disdain for ordinary people.
That they sense that through media control, through censorship laws, through increasing authoritarianism justified by crisis, they don't need to be like a Rockefeller tossing dollar bills out of a passing limo to maintain some plutocrat mystique and affability with ordinary people.
Now they're just like we are going to have so much power you know after the next set of wars or the next pandemic or whatever the next thing's going to be that legitimizes more authoritarianism that there's no need for to maintain good public relations.
I think too that You know, as a person that's been like with what's happened to me recently and sort of over the past few years, as you sort of gently migrate out of like, oh, you know, like, you know, like there comes a point where I feel, oh, I ain't going on those talk shows no more.
I'm not going to be doing movies anymore.
And I gained in confidence and started to criticize war, started to criticize pharma,
started to attack more and more, recognizing I have direct access to an audience.
And one of the things I've noticed having been the subject to incredible attacks
and what seemed to me to be a coordinated media attack where separate media companies explicitly work together
over several years to generate anonymized complaints and allegations, and then there was a sort of
a global two week period where like it was very, very concentrated and it seemed to me at least
very deliberate to be able to observe, oh wow, there's a point where they will just attack you
and shut you down.
That there is an attempt to do that.
And one of the things I also have noticed is that the media is not the public.
That's one of the things they're terrified of is that they can create this sort of layer of hate
and bombast and attack, and then you go out and everyone's, "Hey, how's it going?"
Woo! - Yes.
Like people, like that's not, yeah, it's not, they don't have the control that they once had.
And I think that's what's terrifying them.
You could be in a news cycle for 48 hours and in your brain think, I can't go outside.
Yeah.
And then you go outside and maybe you might casually mention it to somebody and they have no idea what you're talking about.
Like, don't, I will say something on the five and it will explode.
And then I, and, uh, and then, you know, my people at work will be like, oh my God, you see what's, and then, but if you go anywhere, nobody knows what you're talking about.
Think about what happened to you, but think about, I hate to use the word weaponization because it's overused, but the weaponization of wokeism.
Has become journalism.
So it's like, so-and-so said this, so-and-so did this in the past, becomes investigative journalism.
Whereas before, like you had the Woodwards and the Bernsteins.
There are a few people now, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Michael Schellenberger.
These are guys that are actually doing real journalism, but they're being ignored by the conventional mainstream media, which has decided That the weaponized woke angle, so-and-so, said this about immigration, ergo racist, or any, pick any, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and that, and it's such an easy story to write.
It's like, you can, you can take a dartboard, or actually you can take a grid, and on one side you can go climate, economics, politics, fashion, Food, comedy, and then on this other grid you could have race, racism, homophobia, feminism, and then you could throw a dart.
And this is what journalists do, and they find a cross-section clothing, is transphobic.
And they had that story for that day.
And then they'll go, they'll do a little search, they'll find some stuff, and then they write it.
They don't have to call anybody.
They don't have to do any like, they don't have to be like a reporter and go out and actually talk to somebody with a notebook.
This is now what journalism has become.
And so what happens is, how does that end up being Dangerous.
They focus it not on just like people like you, but just regular people, the people they hate.
So if somebody on Twitter, some nobody, a plumber decides he's pro-Trump, Then somebody will pick up that tweet, go, does American Plumbing Supply realize that Joe Stevens actually said, make America great again, and they CC the company.
And then that guy gets swarmed, or this bakery had a, you know, a menorah.
I don't know.
They were like, they like focus on these things.
And then they, what they do is they amplify it.
And so, The regular people that they despise learns never to touch that stove again.
And that's the self-censorship.
And I'm just going to go back to my life.
Why did I go online?
Why did I say that?
I'm just going to shut up.
So the media has become an engine of censorship on behalf of whoever they're working for.
And also it becomes their work too.
They feel like when they get a scalp, it's actually enriching to them.
There are like the daily beast.
Like these are companies where they, that's all they do all day is they watch TV
or they watch podcasts and then they clip And they put it out there and the act is of that is
journalism.
And media analysis is a form of journalism, but at least you should do the work.
It's not just clipping, but it's weaponized wokeism to shut people up.
And it's disguised, however, as journalism when it's not.
I heard the phrase vendetta journalism recently applied to I think it might have been the case between the the royal family and the tabloids of 10 years ago or so in my country here and it's also clear that You know, you sort of talked about Bernstein and Woodward, that there's very little journalism where, for example, you can watch the reporting in the pandemic, the propaganda that accompanied the advent and release of the vaccines, the censorship around legitimate questions, the shaming of people
From whatever community.
Because there are no values at the core of it, you have to watch them adjust as they go.
Oh, people aren't taking vaccines.
Those people are not participating.
Those people don't care about society.
Then the information comes out.
It's a high incidence of African Americans that won't take it.
Oh, shit.
Okay.
Oh, no.
How are we going to pivot?
This doesn't make sense.
You know, like, you know, various conflicts around the world that don't align entirely
with this sort of odd, sort of ultra-anti-nature.
This sort of, I guess what part of it is, part of this kind of curious death cult that's
a, that's built, which is not a new thing.
Apocalyptic, you know, in a, you know, what is an apocalyptic, like apocalyptic preaching?
The end is nigh.
The world is coming to an end.
The end is nigh.
That is a sort of a pretty common trope, certainly in the last couple of thousand years.
Indeed, one could argue that even within, you know, Christianity has the apocalypse, the rapture, or many religions appear to have this sort of end time as part of their, you know, part of the paradigm.
But when there is, like, all of those things tend to point A journey of self-evaluation, a recognition that the pursuit of animalism and animal desires cannot of itself form your way of life.
And I would say that that is precisely at the core of modern neoliberalism.
The fulfillment of your desires, the avoidance of your fears and the potential to be threatened is your raison d'etre.
That is what it is.
You are worth it if you want to Be this type of person, you should be that type of person.
And these are things that I can easily agree to with a wave of a hand.
Of course, I agree with individual liberty, whether it's the issues that define the right or the issues that define the left, because I agree with individual liberty.
But I don't think that that is the apex of the human experience, because I've tried it.
That's why, because I've tried it.
I've tried.
Drink as much as you can, take as many drugs as you can, sleep with as many people who want to sleep with you as possible.
I've tried these things.
And indeed, when part of the message becomes, these things won't work for you, find a higher purpose, knowing that you will never be able to live it perfectly because you are still subject to the same kind of shackles that any human being is, that's when you start to become a threat.
Yeah, and not to get too... Well, I've noticed when people go through that journey and come out of it, they're much less judgmental politically, and they're more resistant to getting involved in this prison of two ideas, whether it's about climate or Any kind of issue where you think there are two sides, and you have to get into one pocket or this one, and that's it.
It's kind of a superpower.
I noticed this with Tucker.
I noticed it with you.
And there are other people, it's kind of like the floating above this or to the outside of it and can see what this actually is, which is a diversion from actually solving the bigger problem.
And I mean, I was in that prison of two ideas.
A good example would be, you're talking about the apocalyptic ideologies.
Climate change, because of the apocalyptic warnings, created the prison of two ideas.
I was on the other side, that this was all bogus and a hoax.
But that's not necessarily the best place to be, because you should care about the environment.
You should worry about these things.
There is evidence that there are changes going on.
But I got into my prison because the other prison was so apocalyptic.
I couldn't buy into these people telling me that I can no longer use this or that because we're all going to die in 12 years, in 15 years.
So those apocalyptic visions create, or predictions, create this kind of opposite side.
It's like the death of progress.
That's why I kind of like RFK has said some things that sounded apocalyptic, but I think he's changed.
I think that when I listen to him, he's a true environmentalist without being reliant on climate, on like Inaccurate climate models.
He just talks about the stuff that he knows, that he's been through, you know, he's been, you know, from the beginning in environment, he's somebody I can listen to.
And he listens to me.
I'm like, he listens to people like me.
He doesn't brand me.
Like there were people that used to say that if you were skeptic, if you were a climate skeptic, remember that you would use that phrase, a climate skeptic.
You should be imprisoned.
Or a climate denier, which would put you in the same realm as a Holocaust denier.
Those were the phrases they used, and that would just create a complete negative reaction.
But I think now we're getting to a place where I mean, there's a healthy meeting of the minds, where on the right, people are talking about the environment seriously, and on the left, there are people, hopefully, saying, you're right.
These climate models have been wrong, but there's still something going on here.
But I think that that's that, you know, that has always been the problem.
But the superpower is stepping out of that.
And I think that's what you were getting at.
It's like you somehow got out of that and you can look down at it or look, I don't want to say down at it, but look at it from a side and see how wasteful this prison is, this prison of two ideas is.
Yes, and there's a lot of things I'd love to respond to.
One is like where you said that there was sort of an attempt to criminalise climate denying and there was an attempt to criminalise not taking the vaccine.
There are ongoing attempts to criminalise Uh, speech, you know, through the ideas of hate speech.
In some territories, these are extremely amorphous and oddly util laws.
Like in Ireland, if they suspect you have hate speech material on your phone, the police will be able to come into your house and take your devices.
That's authoritarianism.
Now, whether it's, you know, vaccines, in the event that vaccines were stopping transmission and were effective, of course, the strong advocacy for those medications would be legitimate.
But what one starts to see is the reason behind the reason they're giving you.
They might be giving you, we have to do something to protect the planet.
And as you say, that is not a partisanal issue, whether or not we love the earth that we live on.
If you are the most MAGA cap wearing, let's shoot some deer and some ducks and some, like,
let's go crazy hunting, you love the planet.
Or if you are a vegan Birkenstock wearing individual, you'd still love the planet.
The idea of this being politicized and partisan is extraordinary.
And what's happening, because I think of the quick response time and rapid reaction of
independent media.
In real time, you're starting to see people say, hold on a minute, this Ukrainian war, it doesn't make sense because in 2014 there was a coup and NATO did renege on certainly verbal deals between the Soviet Union and US or in climate change.
How come all of these laws are penalising ordinary people And seem designed to create 15-minute cities and restrictions on people's movement?
How come these vaccines seem to be tied to ID cards and being able to normalise the idea that unvaccinated should be shamed, they shouldn't be allowed into hospitals, they shouldn't be in prison, they shouldn't get treatment?
They're starting to normalise the criminalisation of sections of the population.
You marry that to the idea That the MAGA movement, which at the last election was pretty near 50% one side or the other of the entire electorate, was like a criminalized class or a demonized class.
You're starting to use the kind of language that we all like, you know, which was reprehensible in my view around like, you know, all these people are all terrorists when talking about like entire nations of people.
You're seeing it applied to domestic classes.
Now, that's not a coincidence, because we now know that agencies that were dedicated to legitimising the pursuit of certain foreign interests that didn't go well, for example, in Iraq, are now turned in on domestic populations.
That's not just in your country, but in mine.
There are units, like Counter-Terror became Counter-Covid.
This is stuff we've done content on.
It's observable.
So if you can criminalise an entire population, of course you have to, you have to increase authoritarianism.
And that's the goal.
So I guess one of my questions, as well as whatever responses you want to have, is what kind of tyranny and dictatorship do you most fear?
The populism of Trump, which, you know, legacy media are spending a lot of time, we called it Dictator Month, like it was Shark Week.
Every CNN or MSNBC show is Trump's good like Mussolini, Trump's like Mao.
Or is it a kind of more Technical, technological dictatorship.
A kind of technocratic cadre of an aristocratic class that are telling you this is the reason we have to control you.
This is the reason you have to take these medications.
This is the reason you have to stay in your house.
What form of dictatorship is most likely?
I know you've got a lot to respond to there, Greg.
That's a lot.
Obviously, for me, it would be the latter, because when you see the media going after Trump, there's not a shred of evidence, because they have four years to look back on.
He was, in my opinion, the most transparent politician.
You knew everything about him.
He never had an unspoken thought.
Everything that was going through his head, he would say something and then the media would pick it apart.
They would also distort it.
But, you know, it's like I had Greenwald on my show in which I apologized to him for what you were getting at, which was he was warning That the kind of focusing on the entire groups of people being terrorists was going to one day be turned on Americans themselves.
And I remember laughing at that.
And I was obviously wrong.
And I had to go like, Jesus Christ, this just came true in my lifetime.
I'm watching it.
The criminalization of people for supporting a politician, for not getting a vaccine.
People like rooting for the death of people, or when they die, they say, ha, ha, ha, he didn't get the Vax, you know?
However, if anybody had done that about a different behavior that caused their death, oh, you'd be, like, if you happened to be a criminal who died, that, and you said, well, you know, you lived a life, you would be attacked, but, but if you didn't get the Vax, you know, and also the, you talked about speech.
I've noticed the description of hate speech got so big and then it kind of changed into misinformation.
Now it's misinformation and I love how they say misinformation and disinformation and then they like to go on what the difference is and it's just like basically what they're saying is if you disagree with us, That's misinformation.
If your counterpoint is disinformation, so that's actually now the same as hate speech.
You can be criminalized.
You should be banned or blocked from social media.
This is why I like what Tucker, what Elon did with X, With the community notes is exactly what you're talking about.
When the independent media comes back and says, wait, hold on a second.
Now we have that almost in real time.
You'll have somebody like Biden come on and say something that's completely false or whoever's posting for him.
And then within minutes, Community Notes comes up and just says, nope, you're wrong.
And it took that, it took the power away from their misinformation.
I'm fine with their misinformation.
I'm fine with their disinformation.
I don't want to ban it, but Don't call us out on the same thing when we call you out.
And to your point, everything is now political.
Your health is political.
They politicized the environment.
These are all things that we should agree with.
They politicized crime.
It should be, if you're a victim of crime, that should be basically the primary focus.
But when you talk about a victim of crime, and it could be a woman, it could be an Asian woman.
They go, well, yeah, but you look at the criminal, look at society.
We have to deal with this.
The prisons are oppressive.
Bail.
The guy, you know, well, the guy was out on bail when he pushed the woman in front of the subway.
And they go, well, that suddenly that becomes a political thing.
And now when you have crime going up in specific cities, that suddenly becomes a political issue.
And you have to defy your own common sense.
You have politicians that know it's unsafe in D.C.
But they can't talk about it because now it's a political issue.
To have a kind of set of clear and reliable values, and it seems so obvious that it's ridiculous that it has to be stated, you should be able to cross out the word Trump or Biden and just say, this thing happened.
Primaries were cancelled in Florida.
Is that good or bad?
And that's actually bad because it's not democratic.
won't participate in debates, or created tax cuts for the richest sector of society
while in office.
You should be able to say it without, you know, didn't deal with the pharmaceutical industry,
like continued with a bit of legislation.
It shouldn't matter because what's happened is, is we've allowed our perspective to be magnetized.
Polarity, I've heard, is a requirement for energy.
Without polarity, you cannot have energy.
And it's as if we've been sort of trapped in an odd field that makes it impossible for us to progress.
The word I keep returning to and the idea I keep returning to, Greg, It's decentralization because it's the only way, and the people I've spoken to on the right, it seems, are more amenable to this than elsewhere.
It's the only way to defuse this is if you say, look, why don't we put aside what your feelings are on, gosh, guns, abortion, the environment, immigration, whatever it is, gender identity, religious identity.
And just say, would you stand on a platform, an anti-establishment platform, that's ultimately about bringing control as close to your community and your individual life as possible?
That should be perhaps, that is perhaps one way of diffusing this.
There are some areas where a degree of centralised authority is useful.
National defence, law and order, the building of roads, hospitals, there are all sorts of areas, but There have been experiments where people have democratised, for example, the distribution of budgets, and it seems to me that what's being resisted here is, like you said when talking about the new economics that have emerged in media, what's being resisted is, hold on, look at what happened in Napster, look at what happened with the Arab Spring,
Look how we're having Brexit, Trump, Syriza, Podemos, left, right, the Occupy movement.
The technology means now that people can form consensus, people can form communities and bypass the old centralised elites, whether it's media or state or corporate.
technology exists that facilitates localism, that facilitates communities that are like,
"Oh, you might be Amish, you might be LGBTQ+, you might want to live in a racially determined
community of any hue."
And I suppose that's possible if that's your vision for your community.
What it seems to me that's impossible is marshalling communities of 100 million or 300 million
or 60 million around one idea that requires the demonization of the other 50% of the population.
How can you ever have freedom with that dynamic?
Yeah.
You know, while you were talking, I was just thinking about this.
Right now, what you're seeing is the decentralization of, I would say, of media, obviously.
And through the internet and social media, you're seeing people, it's like the democratization of voices, literally.
People have their own voice.
And so what you're talking about is probably this terrified reaction You can't have that.
You cannot have that.
And so that's when you marshal the forces of demonization using wokeism as kind of an engine or the weapon to go after these individual voices because they're outside the 100 million that they're trying to keep together.
And so what happens is they also create these little wars between identity blocks.
Maybe that will keep the democratization of voices from spreading.
One point, though, that you talked about polarity, that's the way Things like had morphed in cable news where, you know, you had Fox News and MSNBC.
MSNBC wasn't always left wing.
I mean, Tucker was on it.
And then you had CNN.
CNN kind of like Deflated because it didn't know where it was, and then it just went far left.
But what was interesting, who's the most successful cable host probably in modern history was Tucker, the most anti-polarity person.
What was interesting about his show, and you, I don't know if you were, I think you were on it, but he led the charge of breaking out of that polarity.
Like he would take, Like, he would take positions that other anchors at Fox wouldn't, or he would find himself on the other side of a lot of things, or just on no side, and just asking the questions.
He was proof that you could be anti-polarity.
And the audience would crave it.
And all of a sudden it was like, oh, I love Tucker.
And it's like, but you, and a right winger would say that.
And then a left winger would say that.
It was, it was proof that it worked for a time anyway, until the advertisers started to scare themselves.
Like they would, they would like if one advertiser dropped, then another one would drop.
They all got terrified and they ran.
But he, he proved that You could get energy.
He broke out of it.
Like you said, you get energy in this and you make money off this.
But he somehow decided, or he knew, or he always was that way, got out of it and showed that it could work, which was pretty amazing.
What is clear in Cable News in particular, and a lot of these ideas I first saw articulated well in the book The Revolt of the Public by Martin Goury, which it seems most people are kind of aware of now, was that Cable News, of course, they no longer had to... I even remember when I first worked in Hollywood, that there were famous movie stars that were Republican, and they would just keep quiet about that shit.
Like you know and they'll be sort of all cool and it'll be okay like and then sort of something happened where late night tv say they just went we're not even gonna cater to the idea that people might be watching this that anything other than what we know the entertainment industry is which is the kind of democrat Where it's sort of a vocal concern for social justice as long as it doesn't have any kind of impact.
I mean, it's clear to me that what globalism is predicated upon is, in particular through
organizations like the WEF, is like, how do we talk the talk without ever having to pay
the tax, without ever having to make the compromise?
How do we have it that you have an environmental conference to stop climate change where everyone
arrives in private jets and no one gives a shit about that or sees that as any kind of
problem?
How we never address the idea that it's the top 1% that creates over 60% of carbon emissions
and if carbon emissions are the problem, then we're the problem and you wouldn't showcase
solutions that are about impeding individual freedom of ordinary people across the world.
You would showcase solutions that are about changing institutional energy crises and various crises in the very top tiers of society.
It's just a coup.
And because of independent media, I think, Greg, and because of this new sort of this breakout voices that can appeal to people across the spectrum, It's become clear that you don't need to just limit yourself to what would once, you know, it would have been Noam Chomsky saying, you know, where both sides agree you have no choice at all.
It would have been Naomi Klein of the left saying, oh crises are induced so to legitimize authority.
All that discourse now, that's, you know, that's on the right now.
It's so odd to me as opposed to just see that, you know, the left won't touch any of that.
They'll just vote along with more war, more regulation, more authority, more establishment.
It's weird.
It has been a complete flip, you know, and I was just thinking about the no impact on themselves in terms of embracing social justice.
Seeing politicians say they're going to ban gas stoves and then they send out pictures of themselves cooking their holiday meal on a gas stove.
And they don't even see it because the assumption is they're somehow immune to the very thing that they're telling people.
You have to do this.
I don't have to do it.
Obviously, everybody's talked enough about Gavin Newsom going to the French Laundry.
But that's I mean, it's because it's true.
People were locked down.
You know, my sister couldn't see her husband in the hospital while that was going on.
And, you know, it's like they somehow they promote these social justice issues in a way to keep themselves immune from One day being under the thumb of that, they want the activists at bay so they can do it.
One thing I noticed, and this may be politically incorrect, but even in Hollywood movies, so I've watched a couple of movies this weekend, And to justify the action and violence in movies, they now have female characters who can beat up men, like women half the size, just taking out dudes, and they go like, that's just not possible.
But I understand why it's there.
It's like we We have to do this.
And it's like, well, now we can do these, you know, incredibly, the same, the same hyper violent movies.
But at least we have diversity.
We have a woman who weighs 110 pounds, tossing a 210 pound guy against the wall doing all this stuff.
And it's like, I don't buy it.
I don't buy it.
Just watch any real fight, but that's what they have to do.
Celebrities, like you were saying, in Hollywood, will reach out to me, tell me that they love my show, but will never do it.
They are surrounded by the worst type of people.
Publicists and PR folks in Hollywood are there to protect themselves from being original.
Just keep your head down, I don't care if you have an opinion, but look what happened to this person.
If you go on Gutfeld's show, you're fucked.
And it's like, I have people that will be scheduled to do my show and then cancel.
And by the way, I get it.
I mean, in general, you don't need to be doing me a favor.
I really don't care.
I just said, it might be fun to talk to you.
But then there are some that are brave.
And then the moment they come on my show, The phrases from Hollywood would be, oh, he used to be funny.
Oh, he's, you know, he's has been he's now like he's now moving towards the shortest line, which is right wing comedian.
Or, you know, they like they they will they will strip you of your of your successful career if you do my show.
That's the punishment.
It's implied.
And it's all done by journalists.
It's all done by, you know, entertainment media will make sure you get punished if you, if you veer off the, you know, the Kimmel Colbert plantation, you know, or whatever you want to call it.
It's interesting because in the end, I wonder when the economics will be impacted, that when people will go, hold on, there's an audience, there's a market.
Now, what I suppose previously existed was the presumed lack of choice and the control.
This is what you're going to watch because this is all you can watch.
Now you can watch Joe Rogan having like, you know, say for example in the pandemic period he's got Robert Malone, there's Peter McCulloch, there's a Jay Bhattacharya, there's all these legitimate voices from academia and science that are not toeing the line on a subject like the pandemic and suddenly what they sense is, oh no, we've lost control of that space.
They can continue to control what you might call sort of the institutional media complex, but it's kind of losing its relevance.
That's the trajectory at least, and unless there are sort of the successful ability to cancel, the successful implementation of censorship laws, then you can see which way it's going.
Like things like whether it's Antony Oliver or Sound of Freedom, these are sort of death knell cultural moments of like, oh shit, people can bypass it. It can be bypassed. You can have,
like you said, the trajectory and tendency would of course be towards like, you know, if you take
something that's less controversial like sport, you know, if you're a fan of the West Ham United or the 49ers
or whatever, you can like watch just that content.
You can watch that content.
There's a channel for you.
You can watch things that no one else would dream of watching.
Niche content available.
This ability to sort of become really who you are and to potentially systemize it is a massive threat to homogenous blobs of corporately funded, donor class, financially allied, military industrial complex sponsored political organizations.
If people start to Not only in recreational activities, but in their cultural identity.
Be able to form communities that are untethered from these kind of complexes.
It's the end.
It's the end of it.
And you can only maintain that, I think, through massive fear and massive control.
And I think what happened in the pandemic period is it was Like, as the great George Carlin always says, no conspiracy is required where interests converge.
We saw, oh look, media interests, state interests, big pharma interests converge.
In particular, when it comes to controlling a population, when it comes to crushing opposition, these interests all come together.
Yeah, and you know, what you're describing is true diversity.
So if there's true diversity of thought, you will have communities.
So you have to create, if you're in power, an artificial diversity to group people by identity and ascribe that idea.
They have to have a specific ideology to keep themselves together.
So they don't.
Venture into the true diversity of thought.
So to keep you from being into these these this kind of like florid, truly like thoughtful, amazing world, you have to you have to create a parallel But COVID especially saw the contamination, saw people of different races and different religions, all of a sudden you have a black NBA athlete and a white farmer on the same side.
That can't be.
You can't have that.
That's not supposed to work, you know?
And also, just watching how Fauci was so befuddled.
He was like a great symbol of this kind of morass, this blob, that like, where is this animosity coming from?
Why are people upset with me?
I'm shocked at this.
And it's like, well, you're missing out on everything, right?
You are missing out.
Those people have every right to be pissed off at you.
But he just did.
He was so removed from everything and that he found comfort in mainstream media.
He would go there and the anchors would go, Oh, you're having a rough time, you know, Dr. Fauci, all these people just don't understand the great work you're doing.
And he's like, the threats I'm getting, it's like, everybody gets threats.
Everybody gets threats.
You haven't lived until somebody said they're going to kill you.
That's just the way it is.
But for him like to go, to be there and just go like, oh my God, you know, my life is so hard.
And he goes, well, you have to understand that they don't trust you.
And they have a right not to trust you.
And they have a right to be angry.
There are people that couldn't see their dying relatives because of what you proposed.
And I know them.
I mean, there were people who had to hold their hands of dying relatives in the last hour because they weren't allowed to see them.
This was something.
And meanwhile, you expect me to believe that, like, that would have been Enforced upon somebody like a Gavin Newsom or or any congressman.
No, it was just the rest of us.
Yeah, there's a like you touched on that earlier that all of this is predicated on the like much of this authoritarianism is predicated on the principle of exemption.
Like this isn't this is for you with that's why we can censor speech because we know what ideas you should be exposed to and what ideas you should what's wrong with People are hearing some information that isn't true and going well I don't know man maybe I believe that maybe I don't.
Is it that they're trying to protect us from that information or is it that they're trying to prevent us having that information precisely because it is bloody true and is likely to generate a type of Insurgency.
You will enjoy a bit of content we did about Fauci.
He did an interview with the BBC over here in this country.
And the interview, Greg, it was beyond the puff piece and somewhere towards fellatio.
They had the guy for over an hour.
They didn't once say, is it true that the Wuhan Institute of Virology received funding from the NIH and from DARPA?
Is it true that you suppressed the lab leak theory even though you yourself suspected that it might be true and were certainly at least discussing it?
Is it true that you understood that there had been no clinical trials of the vaccine for transmission?
Is there a distinction between the various batches?
Is it true that lockdown was based on computer modelling, not empirical studies of epidemiology and how viruses behave?
Is it true that you shut down the Balfour Declaration even knowing that where it was discussed that lockdowns would not be effective and you shouldn't vaccinate during a pandemic?
None of these questions, just like, do you power walk now?
Do you work out?
Oh my god, you're great!
It was incredible to watch it take place and people are starting to sense it.
I want to add to something you said a little earlier that the other thing the pandemic revealed was a kind of unity that crossed the lines that are supposed to be in place and therefore you have to mischaracterize, for example, anti-vaxxers.
Anti-vaxxers has to become a synonym for MAGA Trump and then you have to deal with the anomaly that whole, hang on a minute, There's an unusual amount of vaccine hesitancy among African-American people.
Maybe because they've got a reason for not trusting the state?
Let's have a little look at history.
Ah yeah, this is starting to make sense now.
We did a piece like earlier on sort of a kind of FBI malfeasance and misuse of surveillance powers and in it was revealed that they had infiltrated and spied upon BLM and January 6th protesters.
So it doesn't matter, you might think you're all over that spectrum, but as far as the
deep state and the globalists, the true power is concerned, you just, some people that are
making some noise, this noise is convenient right now, we'll allow it.
This noise is convenient, we'll amplify it.
This noise is, you know, they're just using faders.
They don't care about individual freedom, they care about dominion and centralizing
authority and legitimizing that process so you can bypass national sovereignty, let alone
individual freedom.
So you've got centralized authority at a global level.
Forget like your individual community, they're taking it in the opposite direction than it's
trying to travel in, i.e. the trajectory of technology is trying to take you towards true
diversity, true community, real freedom.
Oh, you're a whole Muslim community, oh, you're a gay community, you're like, that is what
could happen.
Oh, you like to own guns, oh, you've banned guns, oh, you, abortion at this time, abortion
at, like, you know, this is, this could happen politically if people are willing to let go
of judging other people and willing to bind and oppose true power.
Yeah, I don't know if you've been following out here, there was a mayor of Boston who,
[BLANK_AUDIO]
She had to defend her non-white Christmas party.
She only had to defend it because she got caught.
They sent the email out to white people by accident, so she got in trouble.
It was a perfect encapsulation of how far we have come from The melting pot, you know, certain groups need to have their own Christmas party.
And that's how we're going to be.
The COVID lab leak, we have to remember, this is another example of how they weaponize wokeism, that if you brought up This is the in Greenwald brought mentioned this a long time ago.
If you brought up that it was lab leak, that would then be tied to bigotry, because it was the Chinese virus or whatever you would be accused.
of being racist. However, then they would blame it on the wet market, which is culturally
something that China is known for. And somehow that wasn't racist. So you could say no, no,
like in the beginning, oh no, it's the wet market. It's the wet market. That's not racist.
But if you say it's the lab, that's racist. It didn't make no sense.
No, even further because there is no true principle behind it, just an agenda.
Yeah.
Greg, ah man, thanks for coming on here.
I guess you got up kind of early to do this.
Not really.
I mean, it's, what time is it?
It's 11, 11.18 out here.
I did get up, did a little exercise and I'm going to go back and exercise after this.
What kind of exercise?
What are you going to do?
Some Fauci power walking?
Exactly.
I'm going to go to the indoor mall and just walk around with some little ankle weights.
I do Peloton because it's easy.
I hope you watch The Instructor and not your own shows when you're doing that, Greg.
Actually, you know what I do?
I do listen to podcasts when I'm sitting there, because that passes the time.
Well, I hope that you occasionally listen to ours in the same way that we always listen and observe your content.
Greg, thanks for coming on here.
Thanks for starting the new year so fantastically with us.
Thank you very much for your support and being open-hearted to me.
I really appreciate it.
Well, I'm always here for you whenever you want, whenever you're in town.
