Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 1, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:07:45

“Fauci Is GUILTY!” Rand Paul On Lab Leak Cover-Up, Vaccines & Fauci - Stay Free #316

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We've also got a fantastic investigation into the relationship between Tucker Carlson and Stuart, John Stuart.
	It's an interesting moment in our culture when John Stuart re-emerges when he's anti-establishment, anti-dem to a degree, but still anti-Republican and anti-right in the way that he always was.
	Is there something we can learn from the gaps between the two of them?
	Things they say, things they don't say, and how politics has changed and what these two figures represent.
	It's a good conversation.
	I think you'll enjoy it.
	Let me know in the chat who you side with more broadly politically.
	Is it Tucker or is it John Stewart.
	The first part of the show will be available on YouTube, then we'll be exclusively available on that sweet stream of freedom that we call Rumble.
	Remember, subscribe, then you can join us for these fantastic conversations with important political figures and journalists like Rand Paul or Vandana Shiva or Glenn Greenwald.
	We get great people.
	Bobby Kennedy's coming up soon.
	Now, before we get into our incredible content, the Rand Paul conversation, the brilliant John Stewart and Tucker Spatt and what that discourse reveals, is it Is the pendulum swinging too far back in Australia?
	Can you remember a nation more committed to the pandemic than Australia?
	Maybe Canada.
	I mean, they went for it, didn't they?
	With their emergency acts and their bank account freezing.
	But remember Australia?
	They did the internment camps.
	They'll always have that.
	And it turns out now that Queensland's Supreme Court has found that its COVID-19 vaccine mandates for police and ambulance workers were unlawful.
	And also now, Chief Health Officer, what's his name that guy?
	Chris Piat?
	Chris Piat?
	Chris Piat was on the thing a minute ago.
	We'll tell you in a second, I'm sure it's in the article.
	He has admitted his part in pushing vaccine mandates was dead wrong.
	So let me know in the chat right now, do you think that the whole narrative is unraveling?
	Now given that we're still on YouTube, I'm gonna tiptoe around this.
	I will be very elegant in my appraisal of these issues, but I want you to be very confident, particularly those of you in that rumble stream, not that I see you hold back when it comes to complex issues in the Middle East, religion, politics, culture.
	You go for it in there, you guys.
	Let's have a look at what's going on in Australia and has the pendulum swung too far in the other direction?
	Queensland Supreme Court has ruled that the COVID-19 vaccine mandate... First thing you'll notice is the Australian news!
	Hey man!
	Alright, it's Australia!
	Hey, let's have a bit of noose!
	Just because we're doing noose doesn't mean we can't also do some drugs and have some fun.
	Why don't we take our tops off while we do this?
	I mean, this isn't... I ain't taking the noose seriously.
	For emergency services, we're unlawful.
	Here to explain is today medical... Was unlawful?
	Oh yeah!
	Dr. Nick Coates, we're doctor... Who's Dr. Nick?
	He's gorgeous.
	I've seen him before, actually.
	He's good, this guy.
	Morning to you.
	This is pretty extraordinary, isn't it?
	Can you walk us through the ruling?
	Maybe sashay us through it or dance us through it.
	Express yourself through movement like we do on the Australian News.
	It is extraordinary, Carl.
	Before I do that, I can't do this segment without acknowledging my own role in the system that promoted vaccine mandates.
	Is that someone connected to the pandemic admitting that they made a mistake?
	I don't feel like I can take it.
	I'm going to cry.
	I'm having a literal Damascene moment here.
	Like, what?
	You're taking responsibility for your actions?
	Yeah, no, I mean, like I said, that you should take the vaccines and that we should all lock down.
	And in retrospect, looking at the data, that wasn't correct.
	Heretic!
	Apostate!
	Like, it's not a religion, is it?
	You'll see in our conversation with Ram Paul later that there was a line to follow all the way through this pandemic period in its integrity and science.
	The very words, in fact, or ideas, concepts that were being deployed against the vaccine-hesitant, as they called them.
	And the very concept, science itself, that has been most subverted, i.e.
	it became an orthodoxy and an ideology that was highly politicised, rather than just the neutral, objective analysis of information.
	We look now to Australia, to our new risen king, who admits for the first time in the political sphere that they made a mistake.
	We have a strong public view that those who choose not to get vaccinated need to He hasn't aged a lot at all.
	I mean he's obviously been taking them.
	So he hit him with a stick?
	Oh mate.
	But then was not saw the tax collector converted to saw so he's gone from like you know people don't want to take the vaccine hit him with a stick off from the carrot but even if it's a particularly hard carrot you could use that as a stick.
	I've been hit by a carrot before.
	It was quite painful.
	So he's gone from saying use physical coercion in order to get people vaccinated to a mea culpa, an acknowledgement that things are alright.
	Can you feel yourself beginning to heal?
	It's more healing than a lot of medications we were offered in the last few years, let me tell you.
	Including no jab, no pay.
	No jab, no pay.
	No jab, no job.
	No job, no pay.
	Simple as that.
	I mean, I suppose at least he didn't go for the alliteration, the leper's bell of poetry, but he did still say no jab, no pay.
	But look, he's come right out there and admitted it.
	Make that happen.
	I think as a general principle, we could all agree that mandates have a time limited role in a pandemic. The dispute and the question will be
	how long should that time be and what is a reasonable level of community
	vaccination to achieve before we we abandon mandates.
	Dr Nick Coatsworth, you're a hero to me.
	I look to you as an example, and I mean this in all sincerity.
	You make a mistake, you admit you made a mistake, you do your best to put it back.
	Not, you make a mistake, you lie about making a mistake, you make a bunch of laws about your mistake, you conceal your mistake, you conceal the information that people might give to reveal that a mistake was made.
	This is the sort of stuff that Rand Paul will eat this up with a spoon, as long as it's been well washed.
	In my view, not quite at the moment.
	I agree entirely that they're time limited.
	You rightly point out, Nick, that you're a government official promoting vaccines during the pandemic.
	You're a big boy.
	You can defend yourself.
	Did you get that?
	Australian news!
	It's not like you're a big boy.
	I mean, look at you.
	Do you mind actually standing up for a moment and seeing exactly what type of boy you are?
	Put the music back on.
	Put the music back on!
	Is that wrong?
	Well, I think certainly we didn't get it wrong promoting the vaccines, Carl, but... Oh, come on.
	There's a little further to go.
	The mandates?
	Yes, I think we did get that wrong.
	And I think you can say hindsight is 20-20, but Carl, hindsight gives us foresight.
	And if we... Well, where's he going now?
	Hindsight is just foresight plus time, if you think about it.
	Sorry, it's not only does he like vaccines, he likes DMT.
	We have another pandemic.
	We should think long and hard whether mandates for vaccines are justified.
	That was nice.
	What an astonishing admission.
	What a wonderful political moment.
	What a valuable addition to the ever-growing case against their hostility, confidence, propaganda.
	That's just for a moment, remember.
	You know, if you take this thing, it's over.
	Rachel Maddow.
	Don Lemon.
	I think we should shame them.
	Joe Biden.
	Just take the vaccine back.
	It's a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
	Where are we now?
	Astonishing, isn't it, to see how much the world's changed.
	Now one voice that's been consistent in this period is the author of the new book Deception.
	Over 500 pages.
	Fantastic book.
	Potential?
	Well, I mean, he's been a presidential candidate before.
	Will he be again?
	Rand Paul is an American politician serving as the United States Senator.
	He's also the author of the newly released book, Deception, the great COVID cover-up.
	There's a link to it in the description.
	I think you're going to enjoy this conversation between me and the Senator.
	We recorded it yesterday and those of you that are members of our Awakened Wonder community joined us for that live.
	That's why it's really worth joining our community.
	You know how hard the government work to demonetize us.
	You know that none of their political options are ever going to be viable for a human being like you.
	We demand your individual sovereignty.
	We demand your community freedom.
	I don't want to tell you what to do.
	We're not interested in telling anyone else what to do.
	We're interested in new politics.
	This is the kind of conversation we want to have.
	If you want to join us for these conversations, click the link in the description.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, we're only going to be available for a few more minutes before it being exclusively available on Rumble, but do consider, if it's within your means, supporting us and, of course, supporting our partners.
	You might Think that I'm saying the word Senator too much?
	Or saying the word Sir too much?
	But remember, I'm English.
	And Gareth's nodding.
	I'm English and he's from the South.
	So manners must come to the forefront.
	I hope I did a good job.
	Let me know.
	I know you will let me know in the Rumble chat.
	I know you Awake and Wondrous will let me know as well.
	Here's my conversation with Ram Paul.
	We're only going to be on YouTube for a moment.
	So get over onto Rumble.
	There's a link in the description and join us there.
	Here's Senator Ram Paul for our conversation.
	Thank you so much for joining me today on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	Glad to be with you.
	I hear it's a really big program to be on.
	So, you know, everybody wants to get on your show.
	It is a significant cultural artifact.
	We regularly have outspoken members of a worldwide resistance movement of which you have become a significant voice.
	And now with your Book Deception.
	In over 500 pages you have articulated what many people have felt, in fact due in no small part to your own investigations since the outset of the pandemic, that we have been subject to an unprecedented global deceit and that Anthony Fauci plays a central and key role in orchestrating this deceit.
	What primarily is it that you want us to understand from this book about Anthony Fauci's role in the pandemic and its cover-up?
	You know, I think we've never had a cover-up.
	Where the proof of the cover-up and the proof of the deceit, the proof of the lying, is so obvious in the words of the people committing the cover-up.
	So we had Anthony Fauci and all these virologists publicly saying, you're crazy if you think this came from the lab.
	It absolutely came from animals.
	But you have them in private explicitly saying the opposite.
	Not just hedging their bet, but absolutely saying, wow, this is no conspiracy theory.
	This looks like the most likely thing.
	Some of these scientists were saying, eh, I'm 60-40, it came from the lab, or I'm 80-20, or I'm 50-50.
	But in public they were saying, absolutely no way it came from the lab.
	So it was a dishonesty on a level that we've never ever been able to prove by actually seeing in their own words how diabolically dishonest they were.
	I'm going to pause the conversation with the Senator Rample.
	Senator, Senator, I love you!
	Because we've got to come off YouTube now, so click the link in the description and join us on Rumble.
	Remember, if you become a member of our community, you'll get all sorts of additional content, like, for example, the opportunity to join us for stuff like that, my analysis of the Amy Winehouse film and the way the media treated her in the period leading up to her death.
	Sometimes we do content on Terrence McKenna.
	Sometimes we go deep on conspiracy theories.
	How many people do the Clintons know that suddenly and without reason finish that sentence?
	If you want to see videos like that become a supporter, click the red button and join our locals AwakendWonder community.
	Right, we're off YouTube now.
	Yes, indeed.
	In fact, not only were they giving us a deception through omission, but also deception through commission and deception through direct contradiction and the management of information.
	It demonstrated a level of duplicity that we've seldom seen in public life.
	I'm speaking in particular of Antony Fauci's intervention at various agencies, including the CIA, the management in particular of what was known as the lab leak theory, but increasingly seems like a Undeniable truth.
	I wonder, for a moment, if we may take this broader, Senator, what do you think it does to the soul of a nation, to the spirit and morale of a nation, when a deception of this scale is practiced, when we almost see in real time ideas that were dismissed as conspiracy theories, i.e.
	that gain-of-function research was dangerous, that dual-purpose research was taking place, That potentially America was involved in the funding of the research in Wuhan through groups like EcoHealth Alliance and DARPA and perhaps the figure of Peter Daszak is an interesting one to comment on here.
	What do you think it does to America's spirit at a time where your country appears to be undergoing a great reckoning?
	What does an event like this do to the country's soul?
	What we saw for about three years as these public health officials came before committees was that they kept blaming the right wing and saying, you're responsible for vaccine hesitancy.
	You're responsible for people distrusting their government.
	And I pointed right back at them and said, absolutely not.
	You're responsible because you've lied to the public.
	You've lost your credibility.
	And I don't think they ever truly grasped that.
	But in the end, it's amazing to me how smart people actually are.
	Because the elitist point of view is that the common man is too stupid to take care of himself, too stupid to make his health care decisions.
	But interestingly with this, if you ask a poll of how many moms are vaccinating their six months old in the United States, it's like a handful.
	You know, they're from the Act Blue Coalition or something, but they're not normal people.
	But very few people are vaccinating their kids because they see no reason, it's not a deadly disease for kids, and they have read about that there's a possibility that my kid could have a side effect from the vaccine, but there's not much possibility that my kid could get very sick from the disease.
	So I think the people have gotten smarter on this, but vaccine distrust and distrust of government has grown exponentially because of their dishonesty.
	Indeed, we are seeing now what we commonly refer to as mainstream or legacy media.
	It seems to me at least an attempt to mitigate the unavoidable deluge of truth that they are now being confronted with.
	I know that now Pfizer and the CDC have participated in the funding of a broad study that at least begins to acknowledge pericarditis, myocarditis as well as other conditions and just how many yellow card and adverse injuries there have been as a result of this extraordinary product.
	At the beginning of your over 500-page book, you talk about Li Wenliang, who died under what sounded like suspicious circumstances in China around the outbreak of coronavirus.
	Could you tell me why you see Li Wenliang as a significant figure and what exactly their story encapsulates?
	You know, he was a 33-year-old ophthalmologist, so I was drawn to him because 30 years ago, I was a young ophthalmologist like him.
	He saw these people dying from an unknown virus of unknown origin or a pneumonia of unknown origin, and so he decided he'd do what he thought was the right thing.
	He would spread the word to fellow physicians that it looks like this is happening again.
	Most of these people remembered or knew about 2002, 2003.
	When SARS-1 came about, and so he was warning people, it's here again.
	But for that warning, the government arrested him.
	He was accused of spreading gossip.
	He was accused of spreading discord and ultimately of spreading misinformation.
	For that, he was made to sign a confession.
	He was released only when he signed a public humiliation confession that he had done wrong to the state and he was allowed to go.
	But then, mysteriously, he gets COVID.
	Maybe not mysterious that he got it.
	A lot of people were getting COVID.
	But the death rate for a healthy 33-year-old is about 4 out of 10,000.
	And it might have been higher in China.
	It's hard to know what to believe, because they said almost nobody died in China.
	And we do think millions of people died, even just in Wuhan.
	But it's extraordinary that he died, and I think there are always questions when people die in a totalitarian country because there's a lack of transparency all over Chinese Weibo, their email chat.
	All that night, people were going, we knew you'd do this.
	We knew this would happen in the middle of the night.
	And they're used to this.
	If you remember the guy trying to stare down the Chinese tanks At Tiananmen Square.
	Nobody knows what happened to him to this day.
	I think nobody really knows his name.
	So that's what happens in China.
	It seems like another extraordinary example of how we are being exposed to unexpected corollaries between anglophonic nations such as ours and this previously presumed communist dictatorship.
	I wonder if the new ways of categorising misinformation and malinformation, as well as the state's power to crush dissent through campaigns, as you've just described in the instance of Li Wenliang, are becoming increasingly common here, as well as the undue and evidently misguided compliance that was able to be induced in the populations of both your country and mine.
	What does this tell us about increasing authoritarianism and centralised power, Senator?
	See, I think that's the point of this book in some ways, is that we kind of expect a totalitarian country to crush dissent, we expect them to weld people into apartments, but we don't expect the West, the liberalized West, to applaud it.
	You know, Anthony Fauci was quite proud of the Chinese and many of the public health doctors in our country lamented the fact that we couldn't act like the Chinese because we had that, what's that terrible thing called?
	Oh yeah, the Bill of Rights.
	And so because of that, they couldn't do all the things they thought would be just great, you know, to shut down this disease.
	And I don't think any of those things work anyway.
	I don't think you can stop a virus.
	I think a virus is going to virus no matter what you do.
	It pretty much goes on until you get immunity.
	And you get immunity through a couple of ways, naturally or through a vaccine.
	But until the vast majority has immunity, the virus spreads despite all things to stop it.
	But I do think that the story is, is that we began to act like these totalitarian countries.
	So, the young ophthalmologist was arrested for spreading misinformation.
	That's exactly became the watchword of the left in our country and across Europe.
	They began shutting down speech that gave a contrary opinion.
	And this is very, very dangerous.
	It's more dangerous than COVID.
	The loss or the shutting down of speech in the free countries of the world is more dangerous than the virus itself.
	And that still goes on to this day.
	The left that once stood up for the First Amendment in our country, Some of them are the loudest saying, we're not doing enough.
	We have to get rid of this misinformation.
	And they have a lack of irony that it would be the responsibility of them to decide what is true.
	It's sort of like, oh, I'm a partisan Democrat, and I'm going to decide that what partisan Republicans are saying is not true.
	Who in their right mind would think that that is a way to have a full-throated debate?
	I would never, in my wildest dreams, think that I could shut a Democrat down or somebody I disagreed with.
	Because I believe in freedom of speech.
	But it's amazing that the opposite is not true.
	They are somehow so righteous and so sure of the truth, most of whom are not scientists and know nothing about science, are so certain of the science that they're willing to shut down anyone's opinion they disagree with.
	The politicization of this issue was, it seems, used to undergird a new orthodoxy that apparently
	always had as its aim the kind of authoritarianism that doesn't think twice about censoring and
	controlling information that is not advantageous to its previously concealed agenda.
	Within the figure of Anthony Fauci, who lived through a kind of live hagiography during
	this extraordinary period, we were able to see another curious aspect of American public
	life, the unelected bureaucrat consuming and demonstrating power at a level that is difficult
	to find a comparison for.
	He was given an extraordinary ride in the media, Anthony Fauci.
	I feel like I saw live song and dance numbers take place.
	People even, in fact, sexualizing Anthony Fauci at points, taking him to... Oh, please, please, stop.
	We've got to stop there.
	Stop!
	I have the footage, I have the footage!
	I wonder what you feel is the role of what has come to be termed the legacy media in creating this somewhat unaccountable hero, Anthony Fauci, who's now just admitted that the figure of a six-foot separation we just pulled out of the air that masks weren't effective, while previously having made the ludicrous claim that he, you know, I am science.
	How did the media contribute to the creation of this figure?
	So, just for fun, we will occasionally write op-eds that we submit to either the New York Times or the Washington Post, because they always reject them.
	Every time they reject them.
	We can't get anything published.
	So we sent over to them a comparison between J. Edgar Hoover and Anthony Fauci.
	Because there are similarities.
	They both were in power about the same period of time, 40 some odd years.
	They both accumulated power over that time and the power went to their head and they had their own personal fiefdoms.
	This can happen whether you're FBI director or head of infectious disease.
	Now you would have never thought the head of infectious disease would become so powerful.
	But, you know, Bobby Kennedy's been pretty good at writing about this.
	He writes, and I think has drawn more attention to this than many people, is that a lot of this happened after 9-11.
	So after 9-11, there was a great deal of fear.
	We passed the Patriot Act, taking away civil liberties in our country, but we also ramp up our arms trade.
	And in our arms, our armamentarian is bioweapons.
	And we say, well, gosh, the enemy is making this and the enemy is trying to take Ebola and spread it through the air.
	Well, we should do so we can learn how to counteract it.
	And so everything is, you know, an escalation, the same as there's a nuclear arms race.
	There's also a biological arms race that goes on.
	But what happened is Anthony Fauci was head of like one twenty seventh of all of NIH.
	His fiefdom grew in dollars to come to dominate all of NIH.
	And it's one of the reasons why, in the end, nobody knew Francis Collins' name, and still don't, but they all knew Anthony Fauci's name.
	One, he was a TV hog.
	He loved the camera.
	But two, his budget dwarfed all the other budgets.
	And he also became somebody who routinely was visiting with the spooks.
	And this is one of the things that I learned in the book is almost all these people granting scientific grants, you would think they're these just ivory-towered scientists who are like trying to cure disease for mankind.
	They're meeting with the CIA and the MI5 and the MI6 in England.
	Welcome Trust that was headed by Jeremy Farrar, who's a big player in all of this.
	He's talking to his boss at Welcome Trust.
	And oh, by the way, she's the former head of MI5.
	So it's like all these people who are involved with science are also involved with intelligence, which really tells you there's a lot more going on here than they're letting us see.
	Yes, but it was Bobby Kennedy's analysis that first helped me to understand that there'd been a historic teleology from declared international wars which are identifiable, like the Second World War, to the subsequent Cold War, to the War on Terror, To the war on germs and the war on ideas, all used to, I suppose, through a kind of diffuse subterfuge, legitimize more and more authoritarian measures, even though the enemy is becoming harder and harder to quantify.
	Bobby Kennedy also, just on a side note, says that you should succeed Mitch McConnell.
	He posted about that today.
	Is that something that you would consider?
	Uh, well, all I need is 25 votes.
	If someone can find me 25 reasonable Republicans.
	No, it's difficult.
	It's a, it's a club.
	You know, it's a very small club.
	And if we have about 50, you gotta have about 25.
	The reason McConnell has been able to stay in power is that he goes to the corporate heads, the CEO heads of all the big business.
	He gathers money, more money than you can put in a bag.
	It's like $300 million he gathers.
	A million, a couple million at a time.
	And then this money goes to support candidates that vote for him within the caucus.
	And many of them are unable to raise money very well for themselves, they're not very well known in their communities, and they're deathly afraid of the voters.
	This is something people don't quite understand or isn't reported as much as it should be.
	Most of these incumbent senators are deathly afraid of their voters, including their own party.
	They go home to their own conventions and they're booed at their conventions.
	So the hardcore people who work in the political world, in the conventions of their state, they know these people aren't representing them.
	So I routinely will put forward things that I know that no good person in this state supports, and then we'll try to let people know how their senator voted because they have no idea.
	This disjunct between the electorate and the institutions that nominally serve them has become increasingly exposed.
	One of the clear themes of the pandemic period was deep state intervention when it came to matters of media and the control of information.
	It was Mike Benz that recently coined the term, which I think is interesting when people say democracy now, as in we must go to war in order to defend democracy.
	They mean a set of institutions that are owned by elite interests as opposed to the process of elections via which the will of the people might have been expressed.
	Do you feel that fissures have opened up during the pandemic period that are going to be very difficult to close?
	You've already mentioned That trust in science and trust in vaccines has fallen radically and it seems to me that there's an attempt to try to address and redress that or create systems of authority that don't require public complicity.
	Do you feel that there is a great mistrust in American public officials in some part brought about by Anthony Fauci and I like your comparison to Hoover because you know Anthony Fauci liked dressing up in that mask that apparently did very little and we know that Hoover had some interesting clandestine habits in that area also.
	Yeah, I think that the thing I worry most about coming out of this is the idea that there's different standards of justice.
	You know, one of the things that almost tore America apart back in the 50s and 60s was the idea that if your skin were black, you wouldn't be treated with equal protection under the law, that you were going to be treated differently according to your skin color.
	We have gotten past that to a great degree over many decades, but now my fear is that people are being treated differently based on the shade of their ideology, whether what your beliefs are on vaccine or who you follow politically or whose podcast you listen to.
	Because Anthony Fauci is clearly guilty of lying to Congress about the gain of function, about funding gain of function research.
	He's guilty of lying in his own words, because we now have slack emails from February 1st, 2020, when he says explicitly they're doing gain-of-function research.
	He lists the research, which is the research he had funded, and he says he knew they were doing it from the very beginning.
	From the first email, this is the amazing thing of this cover-up.
	The first email we have a record of is January 27th, 2020.
	Fauci gets an email from his assistant.
	He says, wanted you to see this paper, this gain of function paper in Wuhan that we funded.
	That's the first email, January 27th.
	And then the rest of the time is Fauci publicly saying, nothing to see here.
	We never funded gain of function.
	But he never is prosecuted and won't be prosecuted.
	But people from the previous administration who either were accused of lying or may have lied to Congress are still being prosecuted.
	People who came to the Capitol on January 6th but never entered, that were milling around looking like this and didn't do anything, are still being pursued for jail.
	But if you came here to protest Kavanaugh's, you know, about a hundred women lay on the floor and wouldn't leave.
	They were trespassing in the Senate buildings and they were moved, but they were taken.
	I don't know if any of them ever got a ticket, but none of them went to jail.
	If they were booked, they were let go.
	That's what typically happened to protesters in our country if you didn't hurt somebody.
	But that's not what's happening with January 6th.
	So people are worried that there's two standards of justice now, and that will lead to further problems.
	It may lead to strife in our country.
	Certainly the judiciary has been weaponised in the manner that you've described and perhaps in particular against Donald Trump.
	I wonder if with the recent decision to defer to the Supreme Court it's likely now that the Democrats will ramp up the hysteria around this issue rather than, as many have suggested, undertaking a deep reckoning about the inability of their party to appeal at this point even to their Do you feel that there are crises now in American political life that are unprecedented?
	That regardless of the outcome of the next election, America may never again heal?
	That secession becomes a realistic possibility?
	That the assumption that the nation of the United States in its current form is permanent is starting to be exposed for the illusion that we know that all temporal conditions ultimately are?
	You know, I never used to think it would be possible that a state legislature could change the rules on the statute of limitations and a woman from 30 years ago could accuse him of something.
	He said, she said things are very difficult.
	Who do you believe?
	One side or the other, particularly the longer you are away from what may or may not have happened.
	But this was beyond the statute of limitations.
	There was no legal way for her to bring this forward.
	They changed the law.
	She brings it forward.
	She says she remembers it distinctly because she's wearing a certain jacket that was made 10 years after she says she was attacked.
	Nothing about what she says fits very well, and he denies it, and there is no proof.
	And you're going to give her $80 million?
	I mean, that's ridiculous.
	Then they sue him for, oh, maybe his estimates on his buildings weren't properly.
	But the banks didn't sue him, and he paid them all back, and there is no grieving party.
	This is a weaponization we have never, ever seen before.
	But it's going to destroy New York.
	New York's already got an exodus of wealthy people.
	You think anybody's going to want to do business with the chance that an old girlfriend could call from 30 years ago and get 80 million from them?
	And it's done because they hate Donald Trump.
	It's not going to be done if you are somehow a follower of Democrat politics.
	It's going to be done if they hate your politics.
	But that's a real problem.
	The only way it gets solved in a way that doesn't lead to further problems would be the Supreme Court Take all of these cases and simply say, we're not going to use our courts to go after politicians.
	We're not a banana republic.
	We're not going to act like it.
	And all of these are wash.
	I don't know legally where they can take them all up, but I would assume they're going to try to get to the Supreme Court If they all do and the Supreme Court does that, they could essentially wash the slate on this.
	But if he's forced out of business or forced into bankruptcy because of this, $300 billion is not chump change.
	He's got to come up with all of the interest.
	It adds up to $400 or $500 million by the time you get the interest going.
	And it's just patently unfair.
	But I think it's also getting the public more to his side.
	I mean, nobody could touch him in the primary after he was indicted.
	Now he looks like he's running ahead in battleground states, despite not always saying the appropriate thing or even the best thing.
	He's now running ahead in battleground states because people think he's being treated unfairly.
	I think it's oddly comparable to the point you made about vaccine uptakes in medicines that are not related to the pandemic, i.e.
	ordinary childhood vaccines.
	The trust in the establishment and its institutions is so low that a figure that epitomises anti-establishment sentiment, and perhaps even more deeply the emotions that undergird that, will increase in popularity the more he is attacked.
	By the establishment, given that it's unlikely that the Democrat Party have any other weapon to deploy other than this judicial artillery, because to address the problems, if you want to regard it from this perspective, that led to the rise of Trump, i.e.
	inequality, corruption, the donor class, corporatisation of America, the globalisation of US politics, The necessity for forever wars.
	Because these issues cannot be touched and cannot be dealt with, this ongoing judicial process, I suppose, is the only option.
	Given that I imagine, Senator, that you're a man who has some contretemps and distinctions even within your own party, do you see the rise of figures like Donald Trump, and perhaps yet more specifically, Robert Kennedy, as an appetite for more independent political movements?
	And do you see that there could be a future in which America was not the bipartisan or as some would say uniparty institution that it currently is.
	You're seeing the term more and more on the internet, but you're also seeing it used by many of us who are rebelling against the leadership of the Senate, calling it the Uni Party.
	I can remember even back to when I was a kid, I would come up here as a child, as an intern, and work in my dad's office, and he always commented that the top of the committee, Republican or Democrat, were the same.
	There was only differences as you worked your way down the committee to newer members.
	As they rose up the ranks, they became the same, and there really was not a dime's worth of difference between both parties.
	It's still to a large degree that way, particularly on foreign policy, on believing this old Cold War mentality that we have to, you know, if Ukraine falls, Poland falls, and the dominoes will fall, and Russia will be in England, and Russia will be on our shores, and nonsense, because Russia can't even Take over Ukraine.
	They don't seem to have the ability to even conquer a smaller country next to them.
	But the thing is, is that mentality is in both parties.
	They're the ones who want to send unlimited money to Ukraine.
	They're the Republicans who say, well, we're fiscally conservative, except for when it comes to military might and military intervention around the world, which means they're not really fiscally conservative.
	And I tried that line when I ran for president in 2016.
	I said, look, none of these guys are fiscally conservative.
	You can't be fiscally conservative unless you're willing to save money, both on the welfare front and the warfare front.
	It doesn't mean we eliminate either one of them, but you got to save money on both fronts.
	Instead, we do the opposite and the compromise.
	There's always a compromise.
	There'll be a compromise this week, today, and next week.
	We'll spend more money on warfare and welfare.
	And then we'll send some to Ukraine, some to Taiwan, it'll all go out the door, but it'll all be borrowed and we'll be another trillion and a half in debt, further in debt, in one year.
	In your excellent book, Deception, you quote the poet Parveen Shakir, who uses the image of fireflies being caught in daylight as the way in which the, what is currently called the censorship industrial complex, are able to manage information, to conceal truths, This incredible ability that the establishment, for want of a better term, has to control our spaces of reality surely needs to be interrupted.
	anachronistic historical analogy in order to reframe conflicts that bear no
	real comparison to the conflicts of the last century. This incredible ability
	that the establishment, for want of a better term, has to control our spaces of
	reality surely needs to be interrupted. Do you believe that we have a
	significant problem when it comes to censorship right now, in particular
	during the pandemic, it was acknowledged that true information was censored,
	legitimate science was controlled.
	The Barrington Declaration, is that the thing that Jay Bhattacharya did?
	I wonder what you consider to be the power of the state to use proxies to crush dissenting voices.
	What a problem that is.
	I've certainly experienced it myself as a matter of fact, and I wonder what your view of that matter is.
	I do worry about the government's involvement with big tech and with social media platforms.
	Throughout all of this, we've discovered that the FBI and Homeland Security are meeting weekly with all of the major tech platforms and coercing and pushing and cajoling them to take down information.
	That, I think, goes against our First Amendment, and I have a bill to make that illegal.
	I would prevent any government employee from meeting with anybody from the media to discuss removing constitutionally protected speech.
	The reason we write it that way is there are some speech they claim would be in danger
	or insightful.
	They'll still be allowed to talk about that.
	There are things that are criminal.
	They should be allowed to talk to media about things that are criminal on their platforms.
	But whether or not you think a mask works is an opinion, and it can be based on science,
	but it has something the government should have no viewpoint in that and should have
	no power in suppressing it.
	So I have a bill to do that, but I can't get a Democrat on board.
	I've tried talking to the couple of Democrats who I think are reasonable, and one of them said this to me.
	He said, well, we have to be able to police disinformation, and what if the Republicans tell everybody that the election's on Wednesday instead of on Tuesday?
	And I kind of thought this to myself.
	I didn't tell him.
	I said, well, gosh, if people are that stupid, maybe they shouldn't vote.
	But I didn't say that.
	But that's what their worry is.
	They think the government, that people are too stupid and that they would actually not vote or, oh, text in the name of your candidate and that'll be your vote.
	Nobody believes that.
	I mean, if anybody is that moronic, really, do they need to be voting?
	But I don't think it really works.
	But they're so alarmed that we need the government to prevent people from suppressing the vote by telling them dishonest nonsense on the internet.
	People are way too smart for that.
	People know how to vote.
	We got all kinds of mechanisms to tell people how the vote is.
	But no Democrat will sign on to this.
	They think it's okay for the FBI and Homeland Security.
	They didn't used to think that was right.
	I mean, in the 50s and 60s and maybe 70s, the left were the protectors of the First Amendment.
	The right wasn't very good.
	And now the left doesn't seem to care at all.
	They want more government.
	They want more censorship.
	They worry that there's too much disinformation out there.
	It's this assumption of our collective and indeed individual stupidity that I find most offensive.
	The idea of the government intervention between information and us as its recipients that I find most offensive.
	Sir, if I may pass on a question from our audience.
	We have a small audience watching us live now of our supporters.
	May I pass on one of their questions?
	Is that okay?
	May I pass that on?
	Oh yeah, sure.
	I didn't know you were asking me.
	I thought I was going to hear the question.
	I was asking politely.
	I detect from your accent that you're a gentleman of the South.
	I'm an Englishman.
	This is a forum where manners must come to the very forefront.
	The question is, from atkarina14, as more and more evidence emerges that health agencies on a global scale misled and most likely harmed many people, what kind of actual accountability can there be given the scale of the offence?
	He was talking about harm from the vaccine?
	Yes, sir.
	This has been a discussion for a long period of time, and we discussed this in the book.
	Congress gave liability protection so there is no harm to be held to these people.
	They can serve up whatever you want, and it'd be bad enough if it were voluntary, but it's being pushed on you.
	Many people lose their jobs if they're not vaccinated, but if they're harmed by the vaccine, they have no recourse.
	Now, they set up some big vaccine database and then an ability to get some money from the government.
	But it's not the same because it doesn't chasten at all the companies.
	And really, the insidious part of this is that it's mandatory.
	And then, you know, you got the former FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, is on the board of Pfizer, who is then calling Twitter to say, take down this article saying you might be harmed by vaccinating your children.
	That's how bad it is that the former FDA commissioner is now on the board of Pfizer, is now telling Twitter to take down information on this.
	So it's disturbing, but it's been going on since the 1970s.
	My dad fought against it, was one of the few people to vote against giving liability protection to the vaccine manufacturers.
	On the other side of it, they would argue, well, the government mandates these things.
	Why should people sue us?
	We're not mandating them.
	The government's mandating them.
	So the government should be responsible for it.
	But if they're not responsible for their own products, I don't think they're going to work as hard to try to do no harm, you know, to make sure that there's not a harmful aspect.
	And these things were pushed out so fast, if they had been voluntary in every aspect, you could at least say people who were frightened could take them, people at high risk could take them, but they were pushed out and then pushed on healthy people who didn't need the vaccines, and that really is a crime and somebody should be punished, particularly the government.
	The Anthony Fauci's of this world who pushed nonsense and bad science on us, that now he just throws up his hands and says, oh well, we didn't really know.
	We liked six feet, but we didn't really know why we said six feet of distance.
	There was no science.
	But on the children, I have gone directly at Anthony Fauci on the vaccine for children and said, does it reduce transmission?
	No.
	Does it reduce hospitalization or death?
	And he says, well, we don't know.
	And I said, well, the reason you don't know is that no child is going to the hospital or dying right now.
	No healthy child.
	There are exceptions to every rule, but no healthy child with no significant disease is going to the hospital and dying from COVID.
	It is not a deadly disease for healthy children.
	If your child has an illness, you talk to your doctor and you can make your own decision.
	But The vaccine isn't doing anything for healthy children.
	And it's all it's doing is doing to the bottom line of big pharma.
	So Anthony Fauci and his ilk have basically become salesmen for big pharma.
	And this is sort of the tragedy of crony capitalism.
	And I think we have to keep fighting it.
	Thank you very much.
	I think I'm getting the round up.
	I got I got to unfortunately go to the floor.
	Good luck out there.
	Thank you very much for representing.
	Thanks for being one of the few people I've asked significant and important questions to people that should be held accountable.
	I'm grateful to you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Rand Paul, for joining us on Stay Free.
	Remember, you can get that book, Deception, the great COVID cover up by clicking the link in your description right now.
	Hopefully, they'll be able to track how many he sold as a result of this appearance, and it will increase our prominence in the space.
	Now, listen, Tucker Carlson called Jon Stewart a tool of the regime in response to Jon Stewart's bit criticizing Tucker's Vladimir Putin interview.
	Is the media missing vital viewpoints from both men in its appetite to create its latest polarized battle in the culture war?
	Of course it is.
	I'm so sorry you had to hear that.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Thank you for choosing Fox News.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the fucking news.
	Tucker Carlson has called Jon Stewart a tool of the establishment,
	where Jon Stewart thinks that Tucker is just, well, a tool.
	But in this phony polarisation and culture war, are we missing the real message here that both these anti-establishment figures have more to teach us than anyone from the homogenised, uniparty, authoritarian centre?
	Surely this is an important moment where a figure like Tucker Carlson, despised and loathed on the left, but adored by many.
	And Tucker Carlson, let me say it outright out front, I consider him to be my friend.
	And the reason I like Tucker Carlson is because I see him as like an old school conservative, maybe, who is willing to just come out and say, I'm a free speech absolutist.
	I'm absolutely against war.
	He's come on our shows.
	He's been clear and open.
	And I would expect to disagree with anybody on a variety of political subjects.
	But with Tucker Carlson, I think he has good values and good principles.
	That is not what Jon Stewart thinks, though.
	He thinks that Tucker Carlson ought be a pariah.
	I've heard him say that Tucker Carlson is deliberately evil.
	And on his return to The Daily Show, he's made Tucker Carlson one of his targets.
	And that makes sense when you understand the old rubric of left versus right.
	But I think politics has changed since Jon Stewart has last on television.
	Let's be clear here.
	Jon Stewart is an excellent comedian.
	Excellent!
	He understands comedy, he understands delivery, he understands character.
	He's an exceptionally gifted comic and I think a vital, incredible voice in our cultural space.
	That's why I think it's fascinating to see the two of them at Loggerhead.
	But are we going to miss a real opportunity here?
	When Tucker Carlson is a figure of the right, let's say for simplicity's sake, who is virulently anti-establishment, John Stewart is a figure of the left who is very pro-ordinary working people, who is critical of the establishment and yet is confined to certain areas of topicality and we'll point them out as we go.
	But is there more to There's more to learn from both of these figures, their popularity and their ability than we could ever learn from the centralised, homogenised, authoritarian, centralist figures that dominate our cultural space these days.
	I.e.
	Jon Stewart is whip funny, fast, amusing and right on.
	Tucker Carlson understands how to reach a wide audience with ethics and morals that clearly resonate with vast, almost incomparable numbers of people.
	This is showbiz in a way, but politics and media have changed since Jon Stewart was last on TV.
	And if we were to find an energy and a charge between these two poles rather than repulsion in that magnetic power, we might find the source for new political movements that could be a genuine challenge to the American war machine and global corporatism.
	Let's get into it.
	Just out of curiosity, as a student, Firstly, how Jon Stewart did this was well funny.
	He sets up the bit that he's like learning from Tucker Carlson as a journalist, not a lie about what you do.
	He did this in a very, very amusing and brilliant way.
	As someone who does this kind of thing for a living, when I see Jon Stewart do it, I think, wow, that guy, he's really good at this.
	They turn these ideas around fast.
	They find the comedy in the ideas.
	But what I'm interested in is what Why Jon Stewart never points out that Tucker Carlson is consistently anti-war.
	Watching Jon Stewart deconstruct and attack Tucker Carlson on the basis of his interview with Putin is interesting but I also would argue this was a really important interview and that in attacking Tucker Carlson Even though he does it brilliantly and amusingly, he is, to a degree, doing the job of the establishment, because if the Democrat party could press a button and prevent that interview from happening, they would have pressed that button, because I think millions of people who never would have had access to it before saw Vladimir Putin clearly conveying a very particular perspective which could be called, easily, propaganda, but certainly includes things like, we are interested in a diplomatic solution, we always made it clear that if Ukraine joined NATO it would be a problem,
	And not only that, these are things that we were all aware of and discussing prior to the interview.
	The 2014 coup in Ukraine and the way that's played out.
	And subsequently, even newspapers like the New York Times have published that the CIA have bases inside Ukraine and have been agitating and provoking a war.
	So you can't call it an unprovoked war anymore.
	So what I'm saying is, I wonder, is it possible that you could feel, as Jon Stewart does, a kind of antipathy and even disdain for Tucker Carlson?
	And yet acknowledge Tucker Carlson's right, and therefore his audience's right, to share the views that they clearly do, and to oppose the opinions of Jon Stewart, but find common ground when it comes to a general agreement that you can't trust the American military-industrial complex, a subject upon which Tucker Carlson is very strong, and to which this interview is integrally related, because isn't the big establishment fear here that we'll hear Vladimir Putin say stuff that makes us not want to fund an ongoing Ukraine-Russia war?
	And haven't you already heard a bunch of stuff that makes you think that diplomacy might be better than continuing to allow Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc.
	all to profit from that ongoing war?
	When you're sitting there interviewing Putin and you don't plan to challenge his utter bullshit, but you don't want to really be that obvious, what do you do with your face?
	Oh, I see.
	Okay, so it's not really a straight face, as much as you try to convey a mixture of what appears to be shame, arousal, and... I'm gonna say irregularity.
	For instance, like you're constipated while jerking off to a Sears catalog.
	This, I suppose, shows you the power of comedy, because that's an entirely constructed idea designed to ridicule, and it's a successful one, and it's the kind of thing that comedians should be able to do, and clearly do rather well.
	And it's one of the things that's slowly getting extricated from our culture, the ability to be cruel in good faith.
	Although this is, of course, not a well-intended bit, this is a polarizing bit.
	I maintain Josh Stewart is an anti-establishment figure when it comes to being critical of corruption.
	Did you see his interview with that Pentagon official when it came to the subject of failing audits?
	An $850 billion budget to an organisation that can't pass an audit and tell you where that money went, I think most people would consider that somewhere in the realm of waste, fraud or abuse because they would wonder why that money isn't well accounted for.
	What I'm trying to drive us towards here is the possibility of a kind of acceptance that there's a space that's neither Democrat or Republican in the former sense, but is a more decentralized, autonomous, truly democratic, anti-establishment position.
	Could it ever emerge?
	Here we go.
	So I guess you put in 10 rubles here and you get it back.
	When you put the cart back.
	Now possibly with his well-intentioned and enthusiastic appraisal of Russian supermarkets, Taka may not have done himself any favors.
	So it's free, but there's an incentive to return it and not just bring it to your homeless encampment.
	I didn't realize America's homeless problem is caused entirely by easy access to grocery stores.
	But it's odd actually because what is causing America's homeless crisis?
	Lack of infrastructure?
	Lack of support?
	And where are those resources currently going?
	Evidently to the Pentagon, to the ongoing war So I suppose what I'm inviting is a spirit of conviviality, mutual acceptance, trust and even love.
	Even though I adore comedy, I adore ridicule, I adore the ability to poke fun and even attack in good spirits.
	And both of these men are, in the case of Tucker Carlson, a person I consider a friend.
	In the case of Jon Stewart, a person I admire.
	But in terms of how is this playing out in the media?
	How is this playing out in the culture?
	And isn't it Perhaps, if your handlers had allowed, you would have seen there is a hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets.
	acknowledge and move into new cultural spaces rather than let's just sink into
	the morass of the culture war as just tit-for-tat spat that don't really go
	anywhere. Perhaps if your handlers had allowed you would have seen there is a
	hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets. Ask Alexei Navalny or
	any of his supporters. In Vladimir Putin's Russia political repression is
	everywhere.
	And hundreds have been arrested for daring to honor Navalny so publicly.
	Right.
	This is a point where you have to question the legitimacy and editorialization that's happening literally in that moment.
	It would be a perfect opportunity one might say for Julian Assange's name to come to the forefront of this show's mind.
	Julian Assange who's in prison awaiting potential extradition to the United States for journalism.
	And now we of course are beginning to understand that it's likely that Navalny died of A blood clot.
	Because the difference between our urinal caked chaotic subways and your candelabraed beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom.
	But also the literal price of freedom is America's ongoing imperialist projects around the world.
	The escalating tensions in the Middle East.
	Some people are calling it a genocide in Gaza.
	increasing tensions in the South Pacific between China and the agitation of Russia that's been
	continually framed by the media that I'd love to see Jon Stewart hold to account in the
	same way, continually advocate for as an unprovoked attack that needed addressing when increasingly
	we now know from New York Times reporting that the CIA had bases in Ukraine for 10 years
	and were agitating for that war and we know that NATO also understood that if Ukraine
	were ever to be granted membership of that organisation it would lead to an escalation
	of tensions between Ukraine and Putin. So when it comes to imperialism, colonialism
	and the management of information, the establishment, the neoliberal left establishment, because
	in my view there is no left anymore, have a lot of questions to answer as well and I
	think that as long as you have Tucker Carlson, who I believe is much more critical of both
	parties than Jon Stewart, who's still in power, he's got a lot of questions to answer.
	I know I felt excited just by seeing Jon Stewart attack Joe Biden and attacking Donald Trump.
	in spite of being willing to criticise Biden, and there was a hell of a lot of blowback when he did,
	even on something as risible as his age. If Jon Stewart were to apply his comedic wit and
	incredible abilities to addressing the hypocrisy within the Democratic Party, I think it would
	relieve a great deal of tension. I know I felt excited just by seeing Jon Stewart attack Joe
	Biden and attacking Donald Trump. I felt like, yeah, this is what I want to hear.
	This is what I need to hear.
	Now my satisfaction scarcely needs to be prioritised, but I think that what is being revealed by these two cultural orators, two polemicists, two polarised figures, is that the uniparty space is becoming increasingly less relevant and movements and individuals from the periphery have a lot more in common with one another ultimately, even if there is a variety of cultural issues that may separate us.
	I figure that if you were to acknowledge that on the subject of war, the military-industrial complex, deep state involvement, the establishment of a censorship-industrial complex, all of which has been underwritten by both the Obama administration and the Biden administration, all of which Tucker has reported on extensively, if we were to see those issues discussed in these spaces, we would start to recognize, hang on a minute, there is an affinity here.
	But you don't tend to see those issues discussed.
	Why?
	Because It seems to me that the establishment's primary weapon now in maintaining control of political institutions is to continue to portray Trump as a terrifying tyrant and dictator-in-waiting hysterically rather than ever addressing the failures of their own organisation and their own party, particularly when it comes to economic inequality.
	Jon Stewart He's a figure of the left that I continue to admire precisely because he does reach out to what you might call ordinary Americans.
	His work with the first responders after 9-11 and his affinity with ordinary American people is one of the things, let me know how you feel in the chat, that makes me still feel affection for Jon Stewart and makes me still feel hope that out of this incendiary space and this type of cultural conflict new alliances may yet emerge.
	But the goal that Carlson and his ilk are pushing is that there's really Really no difference between our systems.
	In fact, theirs might be a little bit better.
	The question is, why?
	Why is Tucker doing this?
	Here's why.
	It's because the old civilizational battle was communism versus capitalism.
	That's what drove the world since World War II.
	Russia was the enemy then.
	But now they think the battle is woke versus un-woke.
	I think the emergence of woke owes a lot more to the fact that the Democrats now operate on behalf of metropolitan elite and have abandoned ordinary working people and therefore have to emphasize the cultural areas where they are more inverted commas progressive in order to distract us from the fact that now truckers are pro-Trump.
	To regard Trump as the source of the problem rather than a response to the failings of the American left is I think a similarly myopic perspective and also conveying a kind of go and live in Russia if you love it so much.
	That's exactly the sort of thing that you would have heard from And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right.
	Jon Stewart in his spats with Bill O'Reilly, there was a kind of conviviality and a sense of hope
	that somehow there was a shared vision of America that might lead to mutuality, respect and trust.
	That kind of conversation seems to be disappearing from the public discourse.
	And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He's their friend.
	Unfortunately, he is also a brutal and ruthless dictator.
	So now they have to make Americans a little more comfortable with that.
	I mean liberty is nice but have you seen Russia's shopping carts?
	I suppose at this point you'd have to estimate for yourself how much of the United States military-industrial complex and your tax dollar resources are being expended in the Ukraine-Russia conflict because of a humanitarian crisis and how much of it is being expended because as Julian Assange said the goal is to create long Unending wars rather than successful ones.
	You mentioned Jon Stewart the two of you have a bit of a history I don't know if you've seen it, but he kind of grilled your supermarket and subway Videos, but his other point was that I was somehow a partisan or a mindless partisan, which is definitely not true I mean it's true of him.
	He is a mindless partisan But I am NOT and I haven't been for I really haven't been since I got back from Baghdad at the beginning of the Iraq war and I realized that The Republican Party, which I'd voted for, you know, my whole life to that point and had supported in general, was like pushing this really horrible thing that was going to hurt the United States, which in time it really did.
	I am a figure that came out of what you might call the cultural left.
	I've got a lot of friends that feel much more affiliated with the politics and ideals of Jon Stewart than Tucker Carlson.
	One of the things they continually say about Tucker Carlson is he's interested in things like displacement theory.
	I've never heard him talk about Tucker Carlson's continuing opposition to war, from the Iraq war to contemporary wars, his willingness to interview people that are truly anti-establishment on a variety of subjects, and even a memorable piece where he spoke to Ben Shapiro, those were the days when them guys were communicating, on the subject of AI and whether or not he would pass laws to ensure that trucks Could never be driven, for example, automatically because of the impact that would have on that particular sector of American working people where he spoke in favour of government regulation of private corporations in a way that you would never hear anyone from inside the Biden administration talking in support of ordinary workers.
	Would you, Tucker Carlson, be in favor of restrictions on the ability of trucking companies to use this sort of technology specifically to, you know, sort of artificially maintain the number of jobs that are available in the trucking industry?
	Are you joking?
	In a second!
	In a second!
	In other words, if I were president when I say to DOT, Department of Transportation, we're not letting driverless trucks on the road.
	Period.
	Why?
	Really simple.
	Driving for a living is the single most common job for high school educated men in this country, in all 50 states.
	The problem, I suppose, is I generally find more affinity with people that say, this system is broken, these institutions are not worthy of our trust, we need new political models, you can't trust the government, you can't trust corporations, than people that appear to be advocating for one side of a broken political system.
	For me, by continually being hysterical about Trump and Trump's impact, you're failing to acknowledge that the Democrats in your country, or the Labour movement in our party, have failed ordinary people to the point where populism, nativism, are inevitable reactions But I would just say this, Jon Stewart's a defender of power.
	Jon Stewart is never criticized.
	agenda. There is a cartel of interests and institutions that are impervious to
	the democratic will of ordinary people and for me Tucker Carlson has been
	brilliant at attacking and addressing exactly those subjects. But I would just
	say this, Jon Stewart's a defender of power. Like Jon Stewart has never criticized.
	Like what's Jon Stewart's view on, you know, the aid we've sent to Ukraine, the
	hundred billion dollars or whatever. Like what happened to that money?
	What happened to the weapons that I bought?
	He doesn't care.
	He has the exact same priorities as the people permanently in charge in Washington.
	We can't make this content without the support of our fantastic partners.
	I'm particularly proud of these partners, Charlize.
	What a magnificent organisation they are, of radicals who care about looking after your skin without toxins.
	Have a look, stay for it.
	Look at this glorious apple.
	Why, it's like the fruit of Eden.
	Indeed, it is the fruit of Eden.
	You can see why Snow White would be tempted by this glorious piece of fruit.
	On the other hand, the lowly banana decaying slowly, rotting before our eyes, The reason for that is Apple Stem Cells, a technology that was utilized by Swiss scientists in a glorious experiment that showed that Apple Stem Cells are effective in improving human beauty.
	Now our sponsor today, Charlize, uses a toner that deploys Apple Stem Cells to rejuvenate your skin.
	In much the same... I mean, that's just actually glorious.
	I feel better already.
	Not only does it make your skin feel better, it's boosting me with serotonin.
	If I was a little less responsible, I'd be drinking this because you could drink it.
	You shouldn't drink it, but you could drink it because it's completely toxic-free.
	It fights the signs of aging using these apple stem cells.
	Just one spray, it blasts your whole face.
	You'll look and feel magnificent.
	Me and my wife are using this together.
	Our marriage is improving.
	Yes, our skin's looking great.
	I hope you'll agree.
	And the serotonin is sending us through the roof.
	Many of Charlize's products smell beautiful.
	They're all natural.
	They're completely toxic free.
	The orange citrus essence perfume is fantastic.
	There's a link in the description that will allow you to get 25% off by going to charlize.beauty and using the promo code brand.
	It's a simple choice really.
	This glorious apple or this droopy old soppy banana.
	That's charlize.beauty promo code brand.
	Me and the family are using it.
	And we've nary felt better.
	Let's get back to the story.
	If you're going to pretend to be the guy who's giving the finger to entrench power, you should do it once in a while.
	And he never has.
	There's not one time when he said something that would be deeply unpopular on Morning Joe.
	That's all I'm saying.
	And so don't call yourself a truth teller.
	You're a court comedian or a flatterer of power.
	OK, that's fine.
	There's a rule for that.
	But don't pretend to be something else.
	What I'm struck by when watching these two figures communicating, presumably primarily to their own audiences rather than each other's, is surely at this point there is a growing constituency that quite like Jon Stewart, quite like Tucker Carlson, and hate the establishment, hate the Uni Party.
	That's what I think is being exposed by this era and by the great Stars of this era is that the establishment and its institutions are failing.
	In fact, they're over.
	And what we're living through now is their frantic attempt to reassert control that used to be possible and plausible when you had centralised media.
	Welcome to NBC.
	Welcome to CNN.
	Now you don't have that.
	You have me.
	You have Tucker Carlson.
	You have Joe Rogan.
	You have all sorts of people.
	And back into that space you have one of these, not Old Guard, I don't mean this in a dismissive way, Very, very brilliant comic who could succeed in any environment because of his skill adapting to what has changed since then.
	Because I feel, and I hope in a way, that there are more of us that think, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, something else, please.
	than are just like thirstily and happily backing up our chosen opponent in a culture war that does all of us a
	great disservice.
	Because guess what? While we're culture warring and clapping and applauding our preferred pugilist in this phony
	battle, the establishment is business as usual. And business as
	usual is ongoing war.
	And it's this subject beyond all others that led me to understand that what Tucker Carlson is doing is significant
	and important.
	The measure to me is, are you taking positions that are unpopular with the most powerful people in the world?
	And how often are you doing it?
	It's super simple.
	Not for its own sake, but do you feel free enough to say, you know, to the consensus, I disagree.
	And if you don't, then you're just another toady.
	That's my view.
	Well, I think he probably feels free enough to do it, but you're saying he doesn't do it.
	On the big things.
	Look, The big things, this is my estimation of it, others may disagree, the big things are the economy and war, okay?
	The big things government does can be... I mean, a lot of things government does, government does everything at this point, but where we kill people and how, and for what purpose, and how we organize the economic engine that keeps the country afloat, those are the two big questions.
	And I hear almost no debate about either one of them in the media.
	And I have dissenting views on both of them.
	I mean, I'm mad about the tax code, which I think is unfair.
	And the fact that we're creating chaos around the world, like, is the saddest thing that's happening right now.
	And nobody feels free to say that.
	So that's not good.
	These are valuable questions to ask about the establishment media.
	Are they willing to interrogate war expenditure?
	Are they willing to interrogate and provide the reckoning that the pandemic period surely demands the The disease is the same name as the lab.
	There's been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania.
	a significant mainstream figure who said there's been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness in Pennsylvania
	with regard to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the ridiculous coincidence of the emergence of coronavirus from
	that period.
	The disease is the same name as the lab.
	There's been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania.
	What do you think happened?
	Like, oh, I don't know, maybe a steam shovel made it with a cocoa bean.
	Or it's the **** chocolate factory!
	So what I'm saying is our culture needs both of these figures.
	It represents the end of these systems.
	Is it possible that we have in the figures of Tucker Carlson and Jon Stewart, even while they're in the middle of a highly publicised spat, the kind of fusion that's required for solution 3?
	Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
	Is this conversation and this polemic an indication that our old institutions are dying, new institutions are required, new conversations will have to take place in order for that to be achieved, and perhaps a conversation between Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson could certainly contribute to that solution.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	Here's the fucking news!
	Hope you enjoyed that conversation and thank you so much for joining us.
	Guess who we got on the show next week?
	You're gonna love this.
	Mike Benz is with us.
	If you want to participate and ask questions directly to Mike Benz, become an Awakened Wonder.
	Mike Benz is the person that said, when they say they're protecting democracy, they mean now a set of institutions, not the process of electoral democracy.
	We know that Google can manipulate elections.
	We know that Ukraine don't hold elections and yet your tax dollars are being spent perpetuating what could be an unwinnable war.
	Mike Benz has quickly become an extremely valuable voice in this space.
	To join us for our conversation, become a member of our community.
	Additionally, you get all sorts of stuff like, you know, being part of the movement.
	Guess what people are doing now?
	They're sending us links to properties and like we're going, this would be a good place to start a community.
	We are growing this movement.
	We are moving forward.
	We demand freedom from debt.
	We demand freedom from tax.
	We demand freedom, full stop.
	Joining us are Rusty Meatwagon, Disgusting, Patricky, JBreed57, SignMeUpPlease, and RedCaliCat.
	They are all aboard with us.
	Join us, guys, next week, not for more of the same, ugh, to that stuff, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.
	Many Switching, Switch on, Switch off. Many Switching, Switch on, Switch off. Many Switching.
	Switch on, switch on.
	Man, he's switching.

▲