Here's the News: Navalny’s Death Causes Outcry But What About Assange?!
The death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has stirred a global outcry from political leaders, and calls for further military funding to Ukraine. But don’t it opportunistic. It’s not as if Western leaders are complicit in the imprisonment and possible assassination of outspoken critics of their actions… (cough) Gonzalo Lira… (cough) Julian Assange. --💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleVisit 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.
Remember you can become a supporter of our content, get additional videos every week and join us for conversations with journalists and put your own questions to them in case you don't think I ask the right questions, which I know for a fact I do.
Now if you're watching this in France, don't for a second think it's possible and plausible to criticise or speak out against medications, and let's face it, it It means particularly and specifically recent gene
therapies or vaccines or whatever you want to call them in that country, although you probably
won't be able to call them anything soon, you certainly will not be able to criticise them.
So what does it mean for the world and for France when laws are passed that seem just
designed literally to prevent Pfizer's profit margin being negatively impacted?
It's being called Article Pfizer because it sort of seems to literally mean, Don't Criticise Pfizer.
Even though it's written in sort of vague language.
Don't anyone criticise any medical measures recommended by the state?
What, like people are going to say, Oh, don't take your chemotherapy, love.
Or people are going to say, don't get a pacemaker fitted.
Although ironically, heart disease and cancer are on the rise since around 2019, 2020 type time.
I wonder why these laws are being passed.
Let's get into it.
So firstly, this is a post by Dr. Kat Lindley on X. Today, a law was passed in France qualifying any opposition to mRNA LNP injections as a sectarian aberration.
It carries a penalty of up to three years imprisonment and €45,000.
It will not tolerate any criticism of the therapeutic treatments which will be recommended or made obligatory by the state.
Any person who dares to openly criticize these therapies will be liable to fines and imprisonment.
Seems like an astonishing piece of legislature.
So that's what's happening in France, but over in the UK, like Macron in France, we have a globalist leader in Rishi Sunak.
And even if in the next election we change leaders, guess what we're getting?
Another globalist leader!
So perhaps legislation like this will be passed in the UK and maybe it's coming to the US.
If Canada haven't done it yet, I don't know what they're playing at.
Let's have a look.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Can the current Prime Minister think of anything he has promoted?
This is Andrew Bridgen, who's been talking a lot about excess deaths and complex subjects.
You can see him on our show Stay Free.
Click the link in the description.
Here he is, as usual, in Parliament, advocating for more stringency and analysis around the pandemic period.
That's all he's asking for, and he's treated as a kind of lunatic as a result.
Can the current Prime Minister think of anything he has promoted in partnership with huge businesses as safe and effective, which has ultimately harmed the British economy?
You hear the murmur of globalism in the background whether it's in France, whether it's in Canada, whether it's in the UK.
There is an institutional opposition to open conversation around this subject and now legislation to prevent open conversation around this subject.
That's without even recourse to the censorship laws in Ireland, Canada, the UK.
Can you see what's happening?
Or are you just a conspiracy theorist?
And will he use this opportunity to correct that safe and effective statement, or will he choose the same line as Tony Blair?
Sit back, do nothing, and let the misery just continue to pile up.
Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, to what he was more broadly insinuating, let me be unequivocal from this dispatch box that Covid vaccines are safe.
And in France, you can't say anything other than that.
And here is Rishi Sunak on GB News being questioned by a man who says he suffered from vaccine injury, which he wouldn't be able to say in France.
My name is John Watt and I'm one of the Covid vaccine injured in this country.
I want you to look into my eyes whilst you're sitting back and I want you to look at the pain, the trauma, and the regret I have in my eyes.
That person, in case you're not in the British Isles, is a Scottish person behaving in a very Scottish fashion.
Which is to say, emotional and aggressive, full on, and in this instance, correct.
We have been left with no help at all.
Not only am I in here that's vaccine injured, there's another man over there whose life's been ruined by that COVID-19 vaccine.
I know people who have lost legs, amputations.
I know people with heart conditions like myself, Rishi Sunak.
He's so Scottish that this may not remain a verbal altercation for much longer.
And I say this as a man who is married to a Scottish person.
Why have I had to set up a support group in Scotland to look after the people that have been affected by that Covid-19 vaccine?
Why are the people who are in charge, who told us all to do the right thing, have left us all tear up?
And left me and the thousands and the tens of thousands in this country to rot.
We're actually going to extradite you to France right now.
We were thinking Rwanda, but I think you'd be happier in France.
In Scotland right now, according to the yellow card system, there are over 30,000 people that have had an adverse reaction to that vaccine and 200 deaths.
John, thank you very much indeed for your question.
John, that's enough!
Even for GB News!
You've made a really strong point, John.
Prime Minister.
John, I'm very sorry to hear about your personal circumstances and you said someone over here also seems to have suffered by a similar thing.
Now, obviously I don't know about the individual's situation.
Well, we just told you about it.
So you tiptoe through this little legal nightmare that you're in.
We're silenced, Russie.
We're silenced.
On social media and everything.
We are silenced.
We are the most silenced people in this country.
We're silenced in the press because my story in the press.
Uh-oh, there's another one.
I had to go to the government for comment and they made me take all this stuff out.
Forgive me, forgive me Bones.
Now look, we don't usually do this on GB News, and it's getting, he will not come back.
And the next one, who's just another version of him from the other party, he won't come here at all.
So please, don't ruin this for us!
I know I'm happy.
No, no, no one, no one except John, no one, no one is saying, no one is saying you are.
Right, OK, I'm going to have to physically come in now.
We've lost the floor.
In a way, that's what democracy in conversation looks like.
People being able to express themselves, being able to express their emotions, being able to confront leaders with difficult truths.
And look at what it's like.
It's unusual, isn't it?
It's unfamiliar.
Rishi Sunak certainly don't seem to like it very much.
And, sir, you raised some very valid points, I'm sure.
What I've got to say is, though, we haven't got you on microphone.
And as you know, we've got to get through this.
I'm sure we can raise your points with the Prime Minister at a later date.
When?
When he's not Prime Minister anymore?
But in the meantime, Prime Minister... Yeah, no, I'm very happy to.
Yeah, no, I like stuff like this.
I'm used to having difficult conversations.
Like sometimes me and the wife talk about how much tax we should pay in this country and how much money Infosys should get from government contracts.
And it can get quite heated sometimes because sometimes she thinks I should give a bit more.
So there is a vaccine compensation scheme that's in place as you alluded to in the NHS.
Obviously everyone individually will work through their cases.
It's difficult for me to comment on anyone's individual case.
I'm sure you'll appreciate that.
I'm very happy to go and look at the cases and I'm sure you'll get them to the team here.
Well there's 30,000 of them so you better crack on!
I'm very saddened and shocked to hear that you've been silenced by anybody.
That is surprising to me.
God, I'm saddened to hear that you've been silenced.
It's almost as if we've been using proxy organisations like Logically AI to shut down any dissenting voices to anyone that's critical of vaccines.
It's like we've spent loads of money cleansing social media of criticism.
I don't know how the hell this keeps happening.
Why are all these people getting silenced?
It's almost as if we're funding it from your tax money and then pretending to apologise to you on the television.
That's government.
So please do get your details to Stephen and the team and I will happily take that away.
Get to Stephen and the team and we'll deal with that sort of, we'll never.
Of course you should be able to speak about your experience, what's happened to you and as I said we have a compensation scheme in place for that and I'll make sure that we're working through that.
We've got a compensation scheme for these 100% safe vaccines.
Doesn't make sense really because 100% safe would mean you wouldn't need any compensation.
France!
Viva France!
Stop the questioning!
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that we are now part of the People's Republic of France.
So maybe zip it.
I think the last thing I'd say is, you know, we went through a pandemic, like everyone else.
Some of us made a lot of money during the pandemic, unlike everybody else.
At the points when it came to the vaccine, those decisions were always taken on the basis of medical advice from our medical experts.
Good, and I suppose you've got the WhatsApp messages too?
You deleted them in factory settings, was it?
To tell us as politicians, who are obviously not doctors.
Oh, and yet many doctors say that these decisions were made by politicians.
It's extraordinary.
You should do more of these forums.
You're good at them.
About how best to roll out the vaccine, what was in the public health interest, the priority order, how that should be done, who should be eligible.
And we got it basically wrong in every single one of those categories.
That was something that the doctors recommended on.
A lot of doctors were silenced and lobbied into silence and sometimes even struck off.
And that's something that we followed.
Now, obviously, if there are individual circumstances which haven't worked out... The phrase, haven't worked out, covers a multitude of sins there.
In particular, people who took that amputation stuff.
Sorry that hasn't worked out.
I HAVEN'T WORKED OUT!
I GOT ONE MORE SLIT THAN WHEN I FUCKING CAME HERE, YA FUCKING BANDSHORT!
That hasn't worked out.
That's deaths, blood clots, waste of money, corruption.
Yeah, that really hasn't worked out.
How much money you got in that compensation scheme of yours?
You're gonna need it!
Then that's why we have the compensation scheme in place, and I'll make sure that we follow up on your cases.
If it's not worked out, we've got a compensation scheme again for a 100% safe vaccine, which in itself doesn't really make sense.
But what does make sense these days?
OK, Prime Minister, thank you.
Gents, both of you, do give us your details.
We will get that to the Prime Minister.
And as he said, he will, I'm sure, look at that for you.
In the meantime, let's move on to another question, sir.
Okay, so having watched that, would you say there is room for some conversation or no conversation?
Because in France, you are getting no conversation.
And given that this is a globalist issue, no conversation is a problem that could be coming to a country that you live in too.
So here's Brett Weinstein on the topic of France's new legislation.
France has now criminalised objections to the MRNA platform, exposing those targeted to ruinous fines and imprisonment.
It's obvious lunacy and that it's happening in a Western nation should alarm us all.
This madness must be defeated in France, at the WHO, everywhere it arises.
So what exactly is going on in France?
And given there's an obvious requirement for conversation around vaccines, excess deaths, vaccine injuries, social policies during the pandemic, why are laws being passed that would prevent anybody from criticising a government-mandated In an unprecedented move that has sparked widespread debate across France and beyond, the French Parliament has recently passed a law that introduces severe penalties for those opposing mRNA LNP injections or other treatments recommended by the state based on current medical knowledge.
I have to say current medical knowledge, that's in case, oh well it was the current medical knowledge then!
Yeah, well guess what the current medical knowledge is?
Current medical knowledge is this guy's got one less leg than he had this morning.
I'm sick of it, pal!
As of today, criticism of such therapeutic treatments, when deemed obligatory or recommended by the state, could result in up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of €45,000.
This bold legislative step, quickly dubbed Article Pfizer by critics, represents a significant shift in the balance between public health policy and individual freedom of expression.
There's a lot of it about, isn't there?
How often are we seeing government policies leading to repression or suppression of free speech?
Have you noticed it in your country?
I certainly have noticed it.
By God, I've noticed it.
In particular, censorship specifically of content we've been making.
The core of the controversy lies in the creation of a new criminal offence targeting individuals who encourage others to withhold from medical treatments that are considered appropriate according to the prevailing medical standards.
They have to always have like an adjective or a caveat because they know that medicine evolves and changes.
That is the nature of science, even if there is nothing malfeasant at play.
The law specifically targets the resistance to mRNA treatment, positioning it as a cornerstone in the fight against future pandemics.
This move has been interpreted by many as an anti-democratic maneuver stifling any opposition or critique of the state-endorsed medical treatments under the heavy hand of legal penalties.
Remember, the WHO treaty would mean that your country would have to provide 5% of your health budget, that your nation would have to abide by WHO regulations, which just essentially makes it legislation, whether that's mandated medicines or lockdowns.
And it's not even just pandemics.
It could be climate related or terrorism.
Extraordinary bill that should be opposed.
The passing of the law came with minimal debate within the parliament, a fact that has only fuelled the outrage among its detractors.
Critics argue that the law not only undermines the democratic process by limiting the scope of public discourse on health policy, but also prejudges alternative medicine and potential whistleblowers who may have valid concerns about mRNA technology or other treatments.
I mean, certainly it seems, doesn't it?
But there are at least some valid concerns.
Or are there none?
Should there be a law that prevents those concerns being communicated?
Is that what you've learned in the pandemic period?
Do you know what I've learned in the pandemic period?
Dissent should continue to be shut down.
Expert opinion should continue to be censored.
Authority should be further centralised in the favour of governments and corporations.
Is that the message of the pandemic period?
Because that ain't the message that I received.
Labelled Article Pfizer, the law is seen as emblematic of a broader trend towards increasing state control over public health narratives and personal health choices.
The nickname itself, referencing one of the major pharmaceutical companies behind the development of mRNA vaccine technology, hints at the perceived alignment between government policy and the interests of Big Pharma.
What?
No, I never noticed.
Raising questions about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on health policy.
Furthermore, the timing and urgency of the law's enactment, with warnings of an imminent next pandemic and the positioning of mRNA technology as the sole solution, adds layers of complexity to the debate.
The law raises critical questions about where the line should be drawn between preventing harmful misinformation and preserving the right to free speech and open debate on medical treatments.
As France steps into uncharted territory with the enactment of this law, the international community watches closely.
The implications of such a legal framework extend beyond the borders of France, potentially setting a precedent for how governments around the world might seek to regulate public discourse on health and medical treatments in the future.
In conclusion, the recent enactment of the law penalising opposition to state-recommended mRNA treatment in France Marks a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about the role of government in regulating health policy and preserving public safety.
While intended to combat misinformation and protect public health, the law's critics see it as a concerning move towards limiting free speech and privileging certain medical treatments over others.
As the world continues to navigate the complexities of public health in an ever-evolving landscape, the debate over Article Pfizer Serves as a point and reminder of the tensions between collective safety and individual rights.
It also demonstrates that there can be no financial ties between political figures and organisations and corporations of that size and scale that you don't want when laws like this are being passed.
Any sense that it could be advantageous to Pfizer's bottom line or Pfizer's agenda You also don't want to feel the sense that there's a globalist agenda in which individual nations pilot particular pieces of legislation before they become immersive, ubiquitous and total, as seems to be the case with various censorship laws around the world, and now in this one, the further oppression of free speech.
In order to achieve what goal?
There's so much misinformation about chemotherapy or heart tablets or asthma inhalers that people just start abandoning them.
Has there ever been a medical emergency of this variety ever before?
Do you ever recall like a huge movement opposing successful medical treatments?
Of course there have always been people that are critical, cynical, sceptical and enquiring around vaccines, and if you look at some of the information available in those quarters, it certainly is interesting to review, shall we say.
But the idea that the state, given their relationship with global corporations, has only your interests in mind, In order to protect you, we're going to fine you and imprison you.
Oh, thank you very much, monsieur.
Doesn't make sense, does it?
And having seen that bit of footage of dear globalist Rishi Sunak pilloried by members of the British public, how do you imagine the globalists regard open conversation about these subjects?
If there are indeed 30,000 adverse events to discuss in the UK, is an open conversation what the establishment wants?
Or do they want total control of the narrative?
Why don't you look at the last couple of years and decide for yourself?
What do groups that censor online social media discourse really care about?
And to whose benefit is that being directed?
The censorship of important and significant voices like Jay Bhattacharya.
What is that about?
Protecting you?
Or is it about controlling a narrative?
What we've learned in particular in the ongoing discourse between Senator Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci about measures and suggestions and steps that were taken in the early pandemic period that might have been avoided and that were potentially not legitimate and certainly not successful.
Do you feel that what should happen now is a raft of law should be passed around the world to make it legal for people to question and criticise?
Or do you think that we should be heading in almost exactly the opposite direction?
Certainly there's a need for discussion, even as the possibility for discussion is being foreclosed.
But that's just what I think.
Remember, you can support our content where we make additional videos that are a bit more near the knuckle because they're just for you, as well as interviews with journalists where you can pose your questions to them.
Also, you'll be supporting a movement that faces incredible opposition from establishment powers.
